Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Can we win with only three productive players?
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Can we win with only three productive players?
Since our pre-conference schedule included a decent number of cupcakes, Queta was out, and two players who performed well pre-conference - Brito and Anderson - have struggled or been uneven in conference games, this discussion is intended to focus ONLY on conference play.
In conference play, we have had only three (fairly) consistently productive players: Bean, Merrill, and Queta. No one else who has gotten any meaningful playing time (10+ MPG) has really helped the Aggies win basketball games. Is it possible to win ball games with so many holes? Outside the big three, the numbers tell a pretty bleak story:
Big three:
Player.....MPG......PPG......RPG......APG.....TOPG......PER.........TS%.......ORtg.......DRtg......NetRtg.......WS/40
Merrill.....35.8.......18.2......3.4.......3.8.......1.6.........22.3..... .597.......122.6.....102.1.....+20.5....... .198
Bean.......30.6.......11.2.......9.6......1.5.......1.1.........25.1..... .587.......125.0.......91.2.....+33.2....... .216.
Queta......26.1.......13.0.......6.5......1.9.......2.5.........26.3..... .680.......115.1......95.3.....+28.8....... .193
Others:
Player..........MPG.......PPG......RPG......APG.....TOPG......PER......TS%.......ORtg.......DRtg......NetRtg......WS/40
Miller............28.1.......7.7.......2.5.......0.9.......1.4.........6.2..... .446.......88.2.....104.5.....-16.3....... .035
Brito.............26.6.......7.7.......4.8.......2.3.......1.6.......12.5..... .445.......92.0.......95.2.......-3.2....... .085
Porter...........26.5.......5.2.......2.8.......3.0.......1.7.........8.0..... .472.......94.7.....101.9.......-7.2....... .065
Anderson.....14.8.......5.1.......2.6.......0.5.......0.8.......10.6..... .445.......91.2.....101.1.......-9.9....... .061
Bairstow......11.8.......2.5.......1.5.......0.8.......1.1.........3.4..... .473.......77.8.....103.3......-25.5...... .007
Looking at the advanced stats, the big three are all above average on the key advanced metrics; every other player receiving 10+ MPG has been below average to horrendous in every key advanced metric. Not a recipe for winning ball games. Unlike some sports, it is very difficult to win games with so many holes on your team -- particularly when the three positive players account for only 46% of the total minutes played, while the rest of the players who have been more negative than positive account for 54% of the minutes played.
These numbers suggest that at least two players on the current roster receiving significant playing time should have been/should be recruited over. I leave it to you to figure out which two players I mean.
By way of reminder:
* Player Efficiency Rating (PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance - 15.0 is average; below 10 is awful)
* True Shooting Percentage (TS% shows which players are scoring efficiently - college average is around .550)
* Offensive Rating (ORtg estimates the number of points produced by the player per 100 possessions due to all of his individual contributions)
* Defensive Rating (DRtg estimates the number of points allowed by the player per 100 possessions due to all of his individual contributions)
* Net Rating (NetRtg estimates how many net points per 100 possessions a team outscores an opponent by or is outscored by an opponent due to an individual player's contributions on both the offensive and defensive ends of the court - a positive number is good; a negative number is bad)
* Win/Shares per 40 (WS/40 estimates the level of contribution each player makes to a team win going beyond points, rebounds and other traditional stats, painting a more complete picture of that player’s contributions - average is approximately .100, meaning that a team full of players with WS/40 of .100 probably wins about 50% of their games -- and a team with a majority of players below .100 will tend to struggle)
In conference play, we have had only three (fairly) consistently productive players: Bean, Merrill, and Queta. No one else who has gotten any meaningful playing time (10+ MPG) has really helped the Aggies win basketball games. Is it possible to win ball games with so many holes? Outside the big three, the numbers tell a pretty bleak story:
Big three:
Player.....MPG......PPG......RPG......APG.....TOPG......PER.........TS%.......ORtg.......DRtg......NetRtg.......WS/40
Merrill.....35.8.......18.2......3.4.......3.8.......1.6.........22.3..... .597.......122.6.....102.1.....+20.5....... .198
Bean.......30.6.......11.2.......9.6......1.5.......1.1.........25.1..... .587.......125.0.......91.2.....+33.2....... .216.
Queta......26.1.......13.0.......6.5......1.9.......2.5.........26.3..... .680.......115.1......95.3.....+28.8....... .193
Others:
Player..........MPG.......PPG......RPG......APG.....TOPG......PER......TS%.......ORtg.......DRtg......NetRtg......WS/40
Miller............28.1.......7.7.......2.5.......0.9.......1.4.........6.2..... .446.......88.2.....104.5.....-16.3....... .035
Brito.............26.6.......7.7.......4.8.......2.3.......1.6.......12.5..... .445.......92.0.......95.2.......-3.2....... .085
Porter...........26.5.......5.2.......2.8.......3.0.......1.7.........8.0..... .472.......94.7.....101.9.......-7.2....... .065
Anderson.....14.8.......5.1.......2.6.......0.5.......0.8.......10.6..... .445.......91.2.....101.1.......-9.9....... .061
Bairstow......11.8.......2.5.......1.5.......0.8.......1.1.........3.4..... .473.......77.8.....103.3......-25.5...... .007
Looking at the advanced stats, the big three are all above average on the key advanced metrics; every other player receiving 10+ MPG has been below average to horrendous in every key advanced metric. Not a recipe for winning ball games. Unlike some sports, it is very difficult to win games with so many holes on your team -- particularly when the three positive players account for only 46% of the total minutes played, while the rest of the players who have been more negative than positive account for 54% of the minutes played.
These numbers suggest that at least two players on the current roster receiving significant playing time should have been/should be recruited over. I leave it to you to figure out which two players I mean.
By way of reminder:
* Player Efficiency Rating (PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance - 15.0 is average; below 10 is awful)
* True Shooting Percentage (TS% shows which players are scoring efficiently - college average is around .550)
* Offensive Rating (ORtg estimates the number of points produced by the player per 100 possessions due to all of his individual contributions)
* Defensive Rating (DRtg estimates the number of points allowed by the player per 100 possessions due to all of his individual contributions)
* Net Rating (NetRtg estimates how many net points per 100 possessions a team outscores an opponent by or is outscored by an opponent due to an individual player's contributions on both the offensive and defensive ends of the court - a positive number is good; a negative number is bad)
* Win/Shares per 40 (WS/40 estimates the level of contribution each player makes to a team win going beyond points, rebounds and other traditional stats, painting a more complete picture of that player’s contributions - average is approximately .100, meaning that a team full of players with WS/40 of .100 probably wins about 50% of their games -- and a team with a majority of players below .100 will tend to struggle)
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Depends on the meaning of win.
We can win a lot of games, but not a championship
We can win a lot of games, but not a championship
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12418
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 791 times
- Been thanked: 1598 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
No we can’t.ChicAggie wrote:Since our pre-conference schedule included a decent number of cupcakes, Queta was out, and two players who performed well pre-conference - Brito and Anderson - have struggled or been uneven in conference games, this discussion is intended to focus ONLY on conference play.
In conference play, we have had only three (fairly) consistently productive players: Bean, Merrill, and Queta. No one else who has gotten any meaningful playing time (10+ MPG) has really helped the Aggies win basketball games. Is it possible to win ball games with so many holes? Outside the big three, the numbers tell a pretty bleak story:
Big three:
Player.....MPG......PPG......RPG......APG.....TOPG......PER.........TS%.......ORtg.......DRtg......NetRtg.......WS/40
Merrill.....35.8.......18.2......3.4.......3.8.......1.6.........22.3..... .597.......122.6.....102.1.....+20.5....... .198
Bean.......30.6.......11.2.......9.6......1.5.......1.1.........25.1..... .587.......125.0.......91.2.....+33.2....... .216.
Queta......26.1.......13.0.......6.5......1.9.......2.5.........26.3..... .680.......115.1......95.3.....+28.8....... .193
Others:
Player..........MPG.......PPG......RPG......APG.....TOPG......PER......TS%.......ORtg.......DRtg......NetRtg......WS/40
Miller............28.1.......7.7.......2.5.......0.9.......1.4.........6.2..... .446.......88.2.....104.5.....-16.3....... .035
Brito.............26.6.......7.7.......4.8.......2.3.......1.6.......12.5..... .445.......92.0.......95.2.......-3.2....... .085
Porter...........26.5.......5.2.......2.8.......3.0.......1.7.........8.0..... .472.......94.7.....101.9.......-7.2....... .065
Anderson.....14.8.......5.1.......2.6.......0.5.......0.8.......10.6..... .445.......91.2.....101.1.......-9.9....... .061
Bairstow......11.8.......2.5.......1.5.......0.8.......1.1.........3.4..... .473.......77.8.....103.3......-25.5...... .007
Looking at the advanced stats, the big three are all above average on the key advanced metrics; every other player receiving 10+ MPG has been below average to horrendous in every key advanced metric. Not a recipe for winning ball games. Unlike some sports, it is very difficult to win games with so many holes on your team -- particularly when the three positive players account for only 46% of the total minutes played, while the rest of the players who have been more negative than positive account for 54% of the minutes played.
These numbers suggest that at least two players on the current roster receiving significant playing time should have been/should be recruited over. I leave it to you to figure out which two players I mean.
By way of reminder:
* Player Efficiency Rating (PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance - 15.0 is average; below 10 is awful)
* True Shooting Percentage (TS% shows which players are scoring efficiently - college average is around .550)
* Offensive Rating (ORtg estimates the number of points produced by the player per 100 possessions due to all of his individual contributions)
* Defensive Rating (DRtg estimates the number of points allowed by the player per 100 possessions due to all of his individual contributions)
* Net Rating (NetRtg estimates how many net points per 100 possessions a team outscores an opponent by or is outscored by an opponent due to an individual player's contributions on both the offensive and defensive ends of the court - a positive number is good; a negative number is bad)
* Win/Shares per 40 (WS/40 estimates the level of contribution each player makes to a team win going beyond points, rebounds and other traditional stats, painting a more complete picture of that player’s contributions - average is approximately .100, meaning that a team full of players with WS/40 of .100 probably wins about 50% of their games -- and a team with a majority of players below .100 will tend to struggle)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: January 20th, 2011, 7:35 pm
- Location: North Salt Lake
- Has thanked: 766 times
- Been thanked: 864 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Miller's advanced stats are just brutal. Bairstow bad too but he is playing fewer minutes so his usage is probably much lower.
I know he has become a bit of a punching bag on here so I don't want to pile on but he is objectively a very bad basketball player and should not play substantial minutes.
I think it has been a mistake to redshirt McChesney. He is supposedly the best shooter on the team. I am sure he needs time to add good weight and learn the defense but Miller is terrible on that end. Brito has also been bad but nothing close to Miller.
I know he has become a bit of a punching bag on here so I don't want to pile on but he is objectively a very bad basketball player and should not play substantial minutes.
I think it has been a mistake to redshirt McChesney. He is supposedly the best shooter on the team. I am sure he needs time to add good weight and learn the defense but Miller is terrible on that end. Brito has also been bad but nothing close to Miller.
-
- Posts: 9448
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 2:01 pm
- Has thanked: 2922 times
- Been thanked: 4355 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
It is tough, but a little perspective never hurts. 2 years ago under Duryea if you could foresee to now and be 19-7 overall and coming off a MW championship would you take it? I am not downplaying that we have several players that are struggling. With that being said we are still by most standards a successful season. We are on track to have our 2nd highest finish since joining the MW. This season surely has not turned out I had hoped and expected, but if I could have foreseen this 2-3 years ago I would have for surely taken it.
- These users thanked the author Aggie84025 for the post (total 4):
- aggies22 • Bill_George • Real Life Aggie • AggieFBObsession
-
- Posts: 3072
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
- Has thanked: 398 times
- Been thanked: 753 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Solid brownjeans...solid....brownjeans wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 7:26 pmDepends on the meaning of win.
We can win a lot of games, but not a championship
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23353 times
- Been thanked: 15459 times
- Contact:
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Think how awesome it's going to be when Queta stays and we add Nigel John.
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post:
- AggieFBObsession
-
- Posts: 23314
- Joined: August 22nd, 2011, 2:18 pm
- Has thanked: 7718 times
- Been thanked: 2802 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Other than the elite teams in all of college basketball, typically most teams are relying on three very productive offensive players while the rest of the team fills in the gaps each night scrambling for rebounds and loose balls and few contributions on offense. As long as the supporting cast isn't a huge negative - lots of turnovers, inability to play D', or flat out can't shoot, that is the mix.
The biggest weakness right now is we can't find a wing who can shoot consistently enough to take pressure off of Merrill and Queta and play wing defense.
The biggest weakness right now is we can't find a wing who can shoot consistently enough to take pressure off of Merrill and Queta and play wing defense.
- treesap32
- Moderator
- Posts: 16791
- Joined: July 28th, 2005, 1:00 am
- Location: Washington D.C.
- Has thanked: 1135 times
- Been thanked: 2676 times
- Contact:
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Check. Check. Check.FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 8:28 amOther than the elite teams in all of college basketball, typically most teams are relying on three very productive offensive players while the rest of the team fills in the gaps each night scrambling for rebounds and loose balls and few contributions on offense. As long as the supporting cast isn't a huge negative - lots of turnovers, inability to play D', or flat out can't shoot, that is the mix.
The biggest weakness right now is we can't find a wing who can shoot consistently enough to take pressure off of Merrill and Queta and play wing defense.
Hopefully we'll see some improvement. We're going to need it tomorrow night, for sure.
- These users thanked the author treesap32 for the post:
- FloridaAggie13
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: March 31st, 2015, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Our 2 elite players and 1 very good player make us tough to beat. If the other rotation guys play to their (poor) average, we will beat most teams, as evidenced by our 19-7 record. And if one or two of other guys play out of their minds, like Anderson and Brito against LSU, then we can beat almost anyone in the country. Think about how either San Diego game would have gone with 2 guys outside of our top 3 playing well. I think Miller played well once this season In a win, but it don’t remember when. And then we have nights when most outside of our top 3 play really badly, and then it is really hard to win.
This is really all just piggy backing off of Brown Jeans, but pointing out that we’ve had guys step up at times. And if they do that again, we can absolutely win a league championship. However, it doesn’t seem too likely.based on more recent performance.
This is really all just piggy backing off of Brown Jeans, but pointing out that we’ve had guys step up at times. And if they do that again, we can absolutely win a league championship. However, it doesn’t seem too likely.based on more recent performance.
- These users thanked the author Murkymerk for the post (total 2):
- ThunderAggie • aggies22
- ThunderAggie
- Posts: 1817
- Joined: November 20th, 2017, 7:52 pm
- Location: Logan
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 780 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Spot on! We are a very scary team when our non top 3 guys step up! Especially if they are hitting the 3 ball.Murkymerk wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 10:56 amOur 2 elite players and 1 very good player make us tough to beat. If the other rotation guys play to their (poor) average, we will beat most teams, as evidenced by our 19-7 record. And if one or two of other guys play out of their minds, like Anderson and Brito against LSU, then we can beat almost anyone in the country. Think about how either San Diego game would have gone with 2 guys outside of our top 3 playing well. I think Miller played well once this season In a win, but it don’t remember when. And then we have nights when most outside of our top 3 play really badly, and then it is really hard to win.
This is really all just piggy backing off of Brown Jeans, but pointing out that we’ve had guys step up at times. And if they do that again, we can absolutely win a league championship. However, it doesn’t seem too likely.based on more recent performance.
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
I totally agree with your sentiment 84025, but see my signature: Good is the enemy of great. If we're satisfied to settle for what we have, the Aggies will never be "great" (though, for Aggie standards, they were pretty close to "great" last season). To become "great," we simply cannot have so many holes. I suspect Smith was reluctant to recruit over Porter given that he played fairly well in conference play last season, and there seemed to be a great team chemistry that Smith didn't want to mess with. Chemistry may also explain why Smith didn't recruit over Miller, but perhaps he has also been impressed with what I understand is great shooting in practice that for some reason that doesn't translate to games (see, e.g., Nick Hammer). But whatever the reason, 2020 hindsight seems to suggest both players should have been recruited over.Aggie84025 wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 8:17 pmIt is tough, but a little perspective never hurts. 2 years ago under Duryea if you could foresee to now and be 19-7 overall and coming off a MW championship would you take it? I am not downplaying that we have several players that are struggling. With that being said we are still by most standards a successful season. We are on track to have our 2nd highest finish since joining the MW. This season surely has not turned out I had hoped and expected, but if I could have foreseen this 2-3 years ago I would have for surely taken it.
- These users thanked the author ChicAggie for the post:
- Real Life Aggie
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Most GOOD teams that are vying for conference championships have at least five players who could be starters on other teams without so many glaring holes. Unfortunately, the Aggies seem to have only three of those players (with Brito and Anderson also showing occasional flashes of being in that category). Porter and Miller have not played at a starting level for a winning team and would be at the far end of the bench on most winning teams.FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 8:28 ammost teams are relying on three very productive offensive players while the rest of the team fills in the gaps each night scrambling for rebounds and loose balls and few contributions on offense
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Interesting that you single out one player as not being on the same level as the other two. I assume you mean Bean -- though the advanced stats (both NetRtg and WS/40) suggest he has actually contributed more to wins than Merrill and Queta.
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: March 31st, 2015, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
You’re right, I was referring to Bean as not elite. And you’re right that the advanced stats show that he contributes more to our winning ways than Queta or Merrill. I love Justin Bean, he’s actually my favorite player on this team. I guess the eye test and outside perceptions are what make me put him a tier below the other two. Merrill is returning conference player of the year, and is probably a top 3 candidate for it again. Queta is returning defensive player of the year, and if not for injuries, would likely have repeated. And he is being projected as a potential first round draft pick. Bean gets mocked on national TV because he doesn’t look like a great athlete. I would assume Bean is in contention for a second team all conference bid, but I don’t think anyone would be shocked if he didn’t get any kind of conference accolades.
- Real Life Aggie
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: April 10th, 2019, 4:28 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Has thanked: 5168 times
- Been thanked: 1816 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
I think you're taking that a little personally. They were very complimentary and raved over how great Bean was. He just mentioned with the mask, the headband, and the knee thing made him look goofy, but not to underestimate how much of an incredible player he is. Seems like you're getting a little butthurt over something silly.Murkymerk wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 8:30 amYou’re right, I was referring to Bean as not elite. And you’re right that the advanced stats show that he contributes more to our winning ways than Queta or Merrill. I love Justin Bean, he’s actually my favorite player on this team. I guess the eye test and outside perceptions are what make me put him a tier below the other two. Merrill is returning conference player of the year, and is probably a top 3 candidate for it again. Queta is returning defensive player of the year, and if not for injuries, would likely have repeated. And he is being projected as a potential first round draft pick. Bean gets mocked on national TV because he doesn’t look like a great athlete. I would assume Bean is in contention for a second team all conference bid, but I don’t think anyone would be shocked if he didn’t get any kind of conference accolades.
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: March 31st, 2015, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 46 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
You got me. I’m butthurt by what Some dude said about another person’s appearance like 2 month ago . Or maybe I was using it as an example of how differently people view Bean compared to Queta or Merrill.Real Life Aggie wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 9:55 amI think you're taking that a little personally. They were very complimentary and raved over how great Bean was. He just mentioned with the mask, the headband, and the knee thing made him look goofy, but not to underestimate how much of an incredible player he is. Seems like you're getting a little butthurt over something silly.Murkymerk wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 8:30 amYou’re right, I was referring to Bean as not elite. And you’re right that the advanced stats show that he contributes more to our winning ways than Queta or Merrill. I love Justin Bean, he’s actually my favorite player on this team. I guess the eye test and outside perceptions are what make me put him a tier below the other two. Merrill is returning conference player of the year, and is probably a top 3 candidate for it again. Queta is returning defensive player of the year, and if not for injuries, would likely have repeated. And he is being projected as a potential first round draft pick. Bean gets mocked on national TV because he doesn’t look like a great athlete. I would assume Bean is in contention for a second team all conference bid, but I don’t think anyone would be shocked if he didn’t get any kind of conference accolades.
-
- Posts: 2674
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 102 times
- Been thanked: 719 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Simple fact is Bean has not been nearly as good in conference a he was out of conference. Some off that is with Queta back he has fewer opportunities for rebounds and fewer shots, however he seems to be missing more inside/ layups that he was in OOC. OOC he was our MVP, in conference he is solid but definitely behind Merrill and Queta by a large margin, IMO.
- These users thanked the author Coloraggie for the post:
- NVAggie
- Real Life Aggie
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: April 10th, 2019, 4:28 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Has thanked: 5168 times
- Been thanked: 1816 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Earlier this week, I went back and watched some of the early games we had against lesser teams... The difference is more than just the level of competition we're playing against now. I didn't notice too much of a difference with Bean, but Porter and Brito were much different. They looked great in those games. Either Porter's back is really messing him up or he's got some confidence issues, but he barely seems the same person.Coloraggie wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 10:54 pmSimple fact is Bean has not been nearly as good in conference a he was out of conference. Some off that is with Queta back he has fewer opportunities for rebounds and fewer shots, however he seems to be missing more inside/ layups that he was in OOC. OOC he was our MVP, in conference he is solid but definitely behind Merrill and Queta by a large margin, IMO.
- lcrasmus
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:40 am
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 65 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
We've lost one more game this year compared to the same date in last season. Some losses this year have been worse (UNLV, AFA this year vs. ASU and Fresno last) but some wins have been better (LSU and Florida vs St Mary's and UC Irvine, to this point.)
I think the "can we even win" downplays the fact that, even with our losses this year, we're having a better season than 8 out of the past 9 years. Expectations were sky high, major injuries and setbacks happened, and we're still in the drivers seat for 2nd place in the conference behind the only undefeated team in the nation.
Might be worth considering?
I think the "can we even win" downplays the fact that, even with our losses this year, we're having a better season than 8 out of the past 9 years. Expectations were sky high, major injuries and setbacks happened, and we're still in the drivers seat for 2nd place in the conference behind the only undefeated team in the nation.
Might be worth considering?
- These users thanked the author lcrasmus for the post (total 3):
- Bank Shot • Real Life Aggie • MrBiggle
-
- Posts: 998
- Joined: August 26th, 2011, 11:54 pm
- Has thanked: 276 times
- Been thanked: 590 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
I like this perspective, and will try to adopt it more. It's just that exceeding expectations is more fun than coming short of them.lcrasmus wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 11:54 amWe've lost one more game this year compared to the same date in last season. Some losses this year have been worse (UNLV, AFA this year vs. ASU and Fresno last) but some wins have been better (LSU and Florida vs St Mary's and UC Irvine, to this point.)
I think the "can we even win" downplays the fact that, even with our losses this year, we're having a better season than 8 out of the past 9 years. Expectations were sky high, major injuries and setbacks happened, and we're still in the drivers seat for 2nd place in the conference behind the only undefeated team in the nation.
Might be worth considering?
Aggies All the Way!
-
- Posts: 9448
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 2:01 pm
- Has thanked: 2922 times
- Been thanked: 4355 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
This is a great perspective. Considering where we were at the last few years of Stew and then the Duryea years this is fantastic. Expectations were sky high this year, but even after those super frustrating losses I feel the team is really turning the corner. Most other years we would be in the running for the conference regular season championship.lcrasmus wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 11:54 amWe've lost one more game this year compared to the same date in last season. Some losses this year have been worse (UNLV, AFA this year vs. ASU and Fresno last) but some wins have been better (LSU and Florida vs St Mary's and UC Irvine, to this point.)
I think the "can we even win" downplays the fact that, even with our losses this year, we're having a better season than 8 out of the past 9 years. Expectations were sky high, major injuries and setbacks happened, and we're still in the drivers seat for 2nd place in the conference behind the only undefeated team in the nation.
Might be worth considering?
- Real Life Aggie
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: April 10th, 2019, 4:28 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Has thanked: 5168 times
- Been thanked: 1816 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Agreed! I just posted something similar, though less well-said, in another thread. I should have come here instead. The point being... we're in a good place. Let's enjoy it.lcrasmus wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 11:54 amWe've lost one more game this year compared to the same date in last season. Some losses this year have been worse (UNLV, AFA this year vs. ASU and Fresno last) but some wins have been better (LSU and Florida vs St Mary's and UC Irvine, to this point.)
I think the "can we even win" downplays the fact that, even with our losses this year, we're having a better season than 8 out of the past 9 years. Expectations were sky high, major injuries and setbacks happened, and we're still in the drivers seat for 2nd place in the conference behind the only undefeated team in the nation.
Might be worth considering?
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
I should have been more clear about the question posted in the OP: "can we win" was not intended to imply "can we win a single game," it was intended to imply "can we win enough to make the NCAA tournament and perhaps win a game or two there?" I came into this season suggesting I would be highly disappointed if we didn't win at least one NCAA tournament game this season, but now I am not even expecting to make the tournament. I think we CAN make the tournament; I'm just no longer expecting it given the complete lack of consistent production from anyone not named Merrill, Queta, and Bean.
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
It's a "simple fact" that Bean "has not been nearly as good in conference as he was out of conference?" If Bean was better OOC, it was only slightly better. The numbers across the board suggest Bean has been arguably the team MVP in conference games. Your eye test may be failing you.Coloraggie wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 10:54 pmSimple fact is Bean has not been nearly as good in conference a he was out of conference. Some off that is with Queta back he has fewer opportunities for rebounds and fewer shots, however he seems to be missing more inside/ layups that he was in OOC. OOC he was our MVP, in conference he is solid but definitely behind Merrill and Queta by a large margin, IMO.
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins
- brownjeans
- Flatulent
- Posts: 18612
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 am
- Has thanked: 951 times
- Been thanked: 1739 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
If this is the question, then my answer is I don't think so. Like you, I expected this team to be as good or better than last year. We're not. This is a typical good, not great, USU team. Like comparable USU teams, we're a bubble team and if we make it to the NCAA or NIT, we're likely to play one game and lose it.ChicAggie wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 8:46 amI should have been more clear about the question posted in the OP: "can we win" was not intended to imply "can we win a single game," it was intended to imply "can we win enough to make the NCAA tournament and perhaps win a game or two there?" I came into this season suggesting I would be highly disappointed if we didn't win at least one NCAA tournament game this season, but now I am not even expecting to make the tournament. I think we CAN make the tournament; I'm just no longer expecting it given the complete lack of consistent production from anyone not named Merrill, Queta, and Bean.
That hurts me to say that, but we just don't have guys that can consistently make shots. We have to rely on someone playing an outlier, better-than-normal game to win at a high level. That's unlikely (and why they call them outliers).
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23353 times
- Been thanked: 15459 times
- Contact:
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Ajay Salvesen tweeted out an interesting stat. The Aggies are 27-0 over the last two years when Diogo Brito scores in double figures.
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post (total 2):
- ThunderAggie • Real Life Aggie
- scotlandog
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: February 16th, 2011, 7:18 pm
- Has thanked: 103 times
- Been thanked: 808 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
I think that kind of goes to the point of the OP, we need more than Merrill, Queta and Bean to consistently win games. Diogo seems to be an x-factor this season and gives us both outside shooting and driving capabilities when he is playing well. When he is off, he is just as bad as Miller from 3 and a potential turnover machine(see Boise).aggies22 wrote:Ajay Salvesen tweeted out an interesting stat. The Aggies are 27-0 over the last two years when Diogo Brito scores in double figures.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23353 times
- Been thanked: 15459 times
- Contact:
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Precisely. I just thought it would be an interesting point to hammer home the original post.scotlandog wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 12:04 pmI think that kind of goes to the point of the OP, we need more than Merrill, Queta and Bean to consistently win games. Diogo seems to be an x-factor this season and gives us both outside shooting and driving capabilities when he is playing well. When he is off, he is just as bad as Miller from 3 and a potential turnover machine(see Boise).aggies22 wrote:Ajay Salvesen tweeted out an interesting stat. The Aggies are 27-0 over the last two years when Diogo Brito scores in double figures.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post:
- scotlandog
- Real Life Aggie
- Posts: 3959
- Joined: April 10th, 2019, 4:28 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Has thanked: 5168 times
- Been thanked: 1816 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
- These users thanked the author Real Life Aggie for the post (total 2):
- aggies22 • aggieguy13
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19379
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23353 times
- Been thanked: 15459 times
- Contact:
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Literally made me laugh out loud at my desk!
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post:
- Real Life Aggie
- ChicAggie
- Posts: 2816
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Has thanked: 357 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Can we win with only three productive players?
Brito and Anderson are the X-Factors. Really interesting stat, and Brito's regression since the first 10 games of the season has certainly been a big factor in our losses since then (combined with Miller averaging 1.4 makes on 5.6 attempts from beyond the arc in conference play and sub-par play from Porter).
"Good is the enemy of great.” ~ Jim Collins