Select "print" from your browser's "File" menu.

Back to Post
Username Post: State of the team?
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-07-18 04:57 PM - Post#246802    

Sitting at 4-15 with no league wins, I'm curious about the state of our guys. Hopefully we'll get a W this weekend. Losing your former coach, losing your best player, and another losing season has got to take a toll on the players and coaches alike.
"...no excuses - only results!”

Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-11-18 01:37 PM - Post#247447    


Seems to me that the state of the team is fine.

Hopefully they get a few more wins by the end of the season!
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-17-18 11:25 AM - Post#248202    

Hopefully we get this one against Brown before we head back in the road.
"...no excuses - only results!”

hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-17-18 01:26 PM - Post#248224    

Let's face it: The team is poorly coached. We don't have the athletes to compete. That's on McLaughlin. Every sports team, HS, College, or Pro, has to have backup athletes to step up and play if players leave or get hurt. We've had glimmers of freshman hope, but zero consistency game to game. It's McLAUGHlin's job to prepare his team. The results show he hasn't done that. Harry Sheehy has to go. In this article, he said he's happy where the team is right now. Really? You're happy losing? You're happy with no bench strength? You're happy with poor recruiting and poor player development? You're saying McLAUGHlin is doing a great job coaching? Well, what is Sheehy going to say? He has to say that, as he picked him two years ago over much more qualified candidates. McLAUGHlin has proven in fact that he is a poor game coach with his offensive and defensive schemes, his transition game is generally poor, and his substitution patterns (taking hot guys out when they're hot) and not starting Knight regularly is awful. Boudreaux leaving isn't the reason we're losing if McLAUGHlin does his job. Smith getting hurt is not why we are losing. McLAUGHlin has not prepared guys to step up and fill the voids. That's 100% on him. And if Sheehy endorses that poor performance, he should do us all a favor and find another job for him and McLAUGHlin...Link:

http://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-men-s-baske tball-vs...
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-17-18 06:18 PM - Post#248288    

Yes. Hoping we see a win against Brown tonight. Last night was tough to watch.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3255
02-17-18 06:31 PM - Post#248290    

Whether or not McLaughlin is a deficient coach is still unclear. Last night notwithstanding, I think his team is starting to come together. We'll see if things look better next season. However, totally agree re: Sheedy. Firing Cormier really was a dumb move. I know he was a crusty old bastard, but he clearly knew what he was doing.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-17-18 06:36 PM - Post#248292    

I think that the situation was right for the change. Coach M is a very hard working coach. He needs time to turn around a very difficult situation. I believe he will do that.
hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-17-18 07:20 PM - Post#248296    

McLAUGHlin has already proven that that his sloganeering "work hard, work smart, and work together" is not a thing on this team. Its not happening. He acts like he's on to some "revolutionary" idea (WORK) that no one else has figured out in the history of college basketball. "we work hard"....Big Deal. So does every other team in college basketball. Slogans do not win games....
hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-17-18 09:59 PM - Post#248397    

Nice win tonight. Chris Knight was the reason we won. No one on Brown could stop him. Best thing I've seen out of McLAUGHlin all year was in the last 3 mins, they threw ball to Knight every time and he either scored or was fouled. Think he had 17 in second half. GBG
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-17-18 10:22 PM - Post#248408    

Great win tonight for a hard working coach and a team that never gives up. Tyler with some nice reverse layups and Barry with some great plays. Emory is looking better due to great coaching. Wish the fans could be louder. Go Big Green!
hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-18-18 01:02 AM - Post#248433    

Can't have it both ways Quaker. If you believe this nearly non-existent, very occasional "great play" in a couple of games is because of "great coaching", then you are basically endorsing my position. Correspondingly, their poor play (most of the season) must therefore also be due to "poor coaching". 2-8 in the Ivy League (6 wins and 17 losses overall with a D3 win in there) is clearly a direct result of poor coaching. If this team was a business and McLAUGHlin was the "team CEO" and his job is to win games, after two years at the helm, he is not doing that. He is failing at the "winning games" part. In business, people who don't do their jobs get fired. In sports too most of the time. So how long should we say CEO/Head Coach McLAUGHlin should be allowed to have losing seasons? If you were a shareholder of a company where the CEO was failing and you were losing money as a result of the CEO/company performance, would you be blindly cheering him/her on via social media? Don't think so. I want the Dartmouth program to be successful. I have participated/supported it for many, many years. WE ARE HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. I hope I'm wrong...Yet....GBG
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-18-18 10:27 AM - Post#248451    

Who were the more qualified candidates?

My take on this all along was that firing Cormier hurt Dartmouth reputationally in the coaching community and made it harder for them to then find a head coach who had realistic prospects for other head coaching jobs. They then compounded the lack in experience at the head spot by bringing in a staff with no division one experience. Nothing wrong with hiring the right experienced head coach, but you want to pair them with an old hand or two among the assistants.

All that said, once you go the route Dartmouth has gone, you have to play it out. You can’t put a guy in an impossible situation and then fire him before he has a chance to address it. McLaughlin is playing with what is essentially his first recruiting class. The lack of depth isn’t his fault — it takes more than one class to build it up.

The team is better this year than last. The improvement is fairly incremental, but it is there. Of course, they are well behind where they were the prior 3 years with Cormier, but I don’t see how that can be a surprise— it is basically what Dartmouth signed up for when they made the coaching change.
hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-18-18 11:51 AM - Post#248468    

I agree with much of your post Someguy. Tough situation. The issue is his in game coaching is poor, and our record has been poor since he got here. Not convinced McLAUGHlin personally has improved since last year/grown as a coach. The record is worse than last year. His assistants, save one very good one, are very inexperienced. The question is, how long does he get to "practice" head coaching if his record continues to be poor? Sheehy, a D3 athletic director masquerading as a D1 AD, should be given his walking papers, but if not, I imagine knowing his exceptionally large ego that he will not do anything with McLAUGHlin for several years. If he did, the poor hire reflects on him directly. Therefore sadly, even if McLAUGHlin's/Dartmouth losing continues, I think we're stuck with him for a while. My friend in the athletic dept told me that of the final 5, McLAUGHlin had the least amount of D1 experience. I've seen the list. AD of Northeastern Peter Roby (former Dartmouth basketball player) told Sheehy to hire McLAUGHlin. He did. And he was the most "affordable" (remember Dartmouth AD "says" he values winning but, only so much.....). GBG
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-18-18 12:13 PM - Post#248475    

The previous coach was an excellent coach. But in his first two years at Dartmouth (2nd time) he had a record of 5-23 and 5-25 respectively. Both years IVY record was 1-13. It's not an easy job!

As an aside how much of the frustration (which I completely understand) should really be aimed at Ivy League approach to athletics in general. We have kids "graduating early" and going to other programs and playing significant minutes. Just watched one from Cornell play well a few weeks ago. One advantage of the Ivy League was having kids who stayed 4 years. And the Ivy response to this and other issues is to have a tournament. At least it's in the Palestra. But really a tournament??? So we can have the best team Harvard or Penn get beaten by a less qualified team. Are we shooting for the play in game to get an NCAA win?

There are some really great coaches in the Ivy League who are trying to succeed with some real obstacles. Let's support them.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3255
02-18-18 12:21 PM - Post#248476    

I would personally be in favor of allowing players to play for one year of grad school.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-18-18 12:32 PM - Post#248478    

I think that's a great suggestion.

My point is that we need to look at the bigger picture. I don't think the Ivy League's approach is good. I think we put the athletes and the coaches in a tough position. Why shouldn't we be able to compete with Duke or Stanford? Why does Duke get to beat us up (Penn, Yale, Harvard) at their home and not return to our gyms?

I don't ever expect the Ivy's to change so in the meantime I will go to the games and support the teams. My son and I saw a great lacrosse game against Canisius and then saw the men's basketball game against Brown.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3255
02-18-18 02:00 PM - Post#248490    

Well, let’s not get too excited here. In order for us to compete with Duke and Stanford, we would have to make a lot of the same compromises that those institutions have. I don’t think very many of us would be in favor of that.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-18-18 08:52 PM - Post#248540    

What compromises? Stanford is the best undergraduate program in the country. In terms of academics and research, the Big Ten may be the best academic athletic conference in the country. The northeastern bias towards small elite liberal arts schools is a skewed view of higher education
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-18-18 11:00 PM - Post#248551    

There is a commitment to basketball that Princeton, Penn, Harvard, and Harvard have that I haven't seen in Dartmouth. From facilities to social media presence it's very evident we're not on par with the rest of the Ivy forget other conferences. That's ok. We should not expect to be uber competitive. Mitola under Cormier or Boudreaux under McLaughlin top talent that truly wants to play at the highest level will get the Ivy education and go to places like Xavier. There is an issue that goes deeper than who's coaching the team. There is an institutional lack of commitment. The decision makers could have kept Cormier or hired a coach with a bigger D1 resume for more money, but that didn't happen. That's ok, it is what it is. It's best to adjust expectations accordingly. Silver Maple made a great point. How much are Alums willing to compromise to compete at a Stanford Level. Stanford offers scholarships. Ivy doesn't. The Pac 12 spends almost $8 Million per team that almost 8 times what the Ivy spends. All Ivy combined = Stanford budget.
"...no excuses - only results!”

GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-18-18 11:30 PM - Post#248558    

I agree that the Ivy's will never change and I accept that. I would love to see the Ivys be more competitive. I don't believe that it would be at a great cost (for basketball) or would hurt academics. For now I go to the games with friends and family and have a great time. Not expecting any change.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-19-18 11:17 AM - Post#248570    

Despite the lack of comparable funding the Ivy league is the epitome of Mid-Major. It's usually ranked in the middle of all leagues in basketball. A lot of the better players on each team could have gone to better athletic schools (Xavier) but chose Ivy for academics. I say that to say that there is no lack of competitiveness among our players and the other conferences. They just have an equal level of focus on academic excellence. I honestly believe that the conference could raise the level of commitment to the sport and not lose anything on the quality of academically minded student it recruits. Playing a D1 sport is demanding. The amount of time and energy these kids put in in high school while maintaining the level of academic excellence is quite astounding. I think (in terms of basketball) that the adults grossly underestimate what these kids go through to play at this level.

The result of this is kids who work twice as hard to graduate early (from an Ivy), while playing, so they can play at a high major school. There is no reason the people who lead the league can't raise the level to attract and keep these kids all four years.
"...no excuses - only results!”

GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-19-18 11:29 AM - Post#248572    

I agree with all of your points. I don't think anyone disagrees with the point that many of the Ivy players are on par with other good DI programs' athletes. I think that a major difference with scholarship schools can be the depth of the talent. If you look at some teams this year in the Ivy's, injuries have hurt them. I think that if the Ivy's want to compete, scholarships are needed. I don't ever expect that to happen. I will say however that I think that lack of support puts a lot of pressure on the coaches and players currently in the Ivy's.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-19-18 09:17 PM - Post#248670    


Just two points here-

1) I think everyone agrees that if Bourdreaux was still on the team, Dartmouth makes the Ivy tournament.

2) This year's performance is hardly great... but could have been worse.

I've long said that unless you have a historically bad run (think Mangurian at Columbia football), fairness dictates that a coach be give four years to prove his mettle. While nobody is claiming that Dartmouth's performance this season has been "good," it isn't historically bad either.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-19-18 10:42 PM - Post#248672    

I think your 2 points are spot on. To your first point, I think Evan is missed more this year because the team has more talent and he could have stayed in his role. I felt that he tried to do too much last year. Shooting 3's was not his thing. Scoring inside and getting to FT line was. I am hoping for 2 more wins this year. We'll see...
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-20-18 12:31 AM - Post#248678    

Obviously we’ll never know for sure, but I don’t agree with (1), or at least I think it is debatable.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-20-18 03:09 AM - Post#248681    

I definitely don't agree with point 1.
"...no excuses - only results!”

Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3255
02-20-18 11:13 AM - Post#248693    

I think if Boudreaux were still there, Dartmouth would have a good shot at making the tournament, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-20-18 11:34 AM - Post#248699    


True enough, we will never know.

But come on guys...

Dartmouth lost to Harvard in OT
Dartmouth lost to Cornell by 1
Dartmouth lost to Brown by 2
Dartmouth lost to Columbia by 3
Dartmouth lost to Penn by 3

You really don't think that Boudreaux moves the needle in those games?

SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-20-18 12:58 PM - Post#248703    

He moves the needle in a sense, but he moves it so much that you can’t just say that Dartmouth would have gotten one more basket to win the game — the game would play out completely differently with him there.

Boudreaux’s usage rate was over 30% last year. Without him, Dartmouth plays like a team, with everybody hovering within a similar usage range.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-20-18 07:44 PM - Post#248725    

I was at 2 of those games and yes we would have won the Harvard game for sure.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-20-18 07:45 PM - Post#248726    

I think Evan was a great go to guy. Last year he was by himself and teams double teamed him and took him out. This year there are more options and I think his presence would have made a difference. The defense need to guard Knight, Barry etc
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5240
02-20-18 08:01 PM - Post#248728    

A couple reasons I disagree with this general premise:

1) Dartmouth is better offensively this year than it was in either season with Boudreaux. It also improved defensively over last year. Two years ago, Dartmouth was better defensively, but that was basically all driven by turnover rate and Malik Gill being a spark plug for steals.

2) The game script for the Harvard game was -6.8. While all “what would have happened if” games are tenuous to start, it’s even more tenuous to start by locking in a highly improbable comeback (according to win odds models, Harvard was more highly probable to win up 41-24 than Dartmouth was at any point in the game) and building from there. It’s entirely possible that Boudreaux’s garbage defense would have allowed Harvard to salt the game away offensively. Or that he would have knocked out many of the minutes of a guy like Chris Knight, who was instrumental to the comeback.
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-20-18 08:24 PM - Post#248729    

I was there and I think we would have won if we had another go to guy like Evan who was effective at getting to the free throw.

I am curious about the model that you're referring to. I know this is a potentially complicated question but how do you know that the model is accurate? How do you validate it? I see references to models at this site and I wonder how these models are developed and validated?
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-20-18 09:03 PM - Post#248730    

Note that Barry isn’t much different this year from last. I guess the additional minutes make him an option more of the time, but he’s really a very similar high ORAT, low usage rate player.

As for Knight, he has the same problem as Boudreaux — he eats up too many possessions at too low an efficiency rate. He’s Dartmouth’s least efficient player among the starters, yet he uses the most possessions (which is why he puts up good counting numbers).

So I am not sure that Dartmouth has really suffered at all without Boudreaux in the sense that, with Boudreaux playing as he did last year, Dartmouth might not have been as close in those games as they ended up, because he would have taken shots away from guys who were more likely to make them. The reason this is all hypothetical, of course, is that Boudreaux was obviously the most talented player on the team, so it is quite possible he would have learned to be more efficient and help his teammates more. The silver lining is that they couldn’t use him as a crutch anymore — the team was forced to be more balanced without him.

hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-20-18 10:03 PM - Post#248736    

Pretty funny "analysis" coming from a guy who works a calculator but never played the game. You're welcome to your opinion. Here's mine. Boudreaux is a genius and made a perfect decision leaving Dartmouth. He gets his Ivy degree and 2 years of eligibility playing basketball at a high level. SO, assuming anything you say is "correct" James, my sources in the Athletic Department confirmed that he had roughly 20+ high major teams contact the athletic department looking for his release paperwork. You know, scrubby teams like Kansas, and oh yeah, Chris Mack came after him from Xavier. Heard nearly every Big Ten school called...Have you heard of Synergy? The game film database that all coaches use? Every coach surely watched all of his college game film. You think they would offer him without thoroughly investigating his 2 year Dartmouth performance? No way. You think they didn't know his efficiency stats, his ORAT, etc?? Of course they did. You think they cared? Nope. If they listened to you, they wouldn't have called. But they did. And I assure you, they all called coaches he played for and coaches he played against. You don't think they know he was double and triple teamed every night, and he still averaged a double/double in league play? You think they know that the coaches, in both years, told him not to foul because they couldn't afford to play without him? I'm sure they do. Did you happen to notice that the teams around him were pretty awful in both years? I'm sure the coaches recruiting him did. So at the end of the day, we need Boudreaux in the worst way. We should never have let him get away (thanks McLAUGHlin and Sheehy). Our teams, especially future recruiting will suffer for years. They will all ask "why did Boudreaux leave?" And McLAUGHlin better have a good answer. Boudreaux held down the middle and was the backbone of the team for the two years we had him, and most teams could not stop him even with double and triple teams. (he had 950 points and 511 rebounds in 2 years (avg 17.5ppg and 9.5 r/g for those 2 years) and everyone made a big deal when Miles Wright got 1000 in four years!) And you know what, I (and surely Boudreaux) will take the fact that the 4th ranked team in the country (along with the other 20+ that apparently recruited him) wanted him badly enough to offer him a scholarship. I think Chris Mack and his staff know a ton more about basketball than some geeky stat based keyboard warrior who calls himself "Mr. James". If Xavier and all those other schools that recruited him think they'll be better with Boudreaux on their team than not, then Dartmouth would clearly be better off with him than without him. Your stats do not measure heart, work ethic, basketball IQ, intensity, toughness, desire, and all the intangibles that people who understand the game look for. Your stat based opinion is therefore worthless to me and falls to the bottom of the pile. Please go back and haunt the Harvard board and tell them how great they are ad nauseum. And when Boudreaux is hopefully playing in the NCAA tournament (I,at least, wish him well), you will still be typing up Ivy League stats and chirping to the ten old timers that make up the core of this board. Stats and a twitter account don't make you the least bit knowledgeable about the game of basketball. It just gives you something to hide behind.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-20-18 10:47 PM - Post#248740    

SomeGuy You hit it right on the mark. You wouldn’t see emery, knight, or Jackson play much. This the offense went through EB. They play more team ball this year.
"...no excuses - only results!”

hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-20-18 11:36 PM - Post#248746    

And I agree. The game plan EVERY GAME over the last two years was to have the offense go through Boudreaux. They had variations at times based on match-ups, double teams, etc. But the offense was designed for EB. Without him everyone has to step up and fill the void. Generally speaking, the team has not filled the void. There have been moments. Someguy is 100% correct that playing time would have been unevenly distributed with Boudreaux in the lineup, and since he's gone, that is obviously a good thing that others get more experience/playing time. It's how we'll get better going forward. And coaching. But I've covered that in other posts...GBG.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-20-18 11:49 PM - Post#248748    

I think in a sense you are both right — Boudreaux is absolutely talented enough to play high major basketball. I don’t think anyone questions that. I certainly think that Dartmouth could be better with him than without him. But there are some things that the team is doing much better now without him. He could have fit into that, but there is some evidence he didn’t want to.

The question at Xavier will be similar to Penn’s Tony Hicks at Louisville. Can Boudreaux handle going somewhere where he isn’t the alpha dog? Some guys fit beautifully at the next level, like Shonn Miller at UCONN. But he was a pretty self-less player all along. Like Hicks, I think Boudreaux will need to be a much lower volume player at Xavier, or he may find playing time hard to come by. If I remember correctly, while they lose a couple of frontcourt guys, they also return three. He’ll need to move ahead of guys who are already pretty good players. Not sure what his intension is — he obviously aimed low and went for a situation where he could be a big fish for his first two years. He may just want to be a contributor at the highest level now.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1825
02-21-18 01:25 AM - Post#248754    

  • hoops123 Said:
Pretty funny "analysis" coming from a guy who works a calculator but never played the game. You're welcome to your opinion. Here's mine. Boudreaux is a genius and made a perfect decision leaving Dartmouth. He gets his Ivy degree and 2 years of eligibility playing basketball at a high level. SO, assuming anything you say is "correct" James, my sources in the Athletic Department confirmed that he had roughly 20+ high major teams contact the athletic department looking for his release paperwork. You know, scrubby teams like Kansas, and oh yeah, Chris Mack came after him from Xavier. Heard nearly every Big Ten school called...Have you heard of Synergy? The game film database that all coaches use? Every coach surely watched all of his college game film. You think they would offer him without thoroughly investigating his 2 year Dartmouth performance? No way. You think they didn't know his efficiency stats, his ORAT, etc?? Of course they did. You think they cared? Nope. If they listened to you, they wouldn't have called. But they did. And I assure you, they all called coaches he played for and coaches he played against. You don't think they know he was double and triple teamed every night, and he still averaged a double/double in league play? You think they know that the coaches, in both years, told him not to foul because they couldn't afford to play without him? I'm sure they do. Did you happen to notice that the teams around him were pretty awful in both years? I'm sure the coaches recruiting him did. So at the end of the day, we need Boudreaux in the worst way. We should never have let him get away (thanks McLAUGHlin and Sheehy). Our teams, especially future recruiting will suffer for years. They will all ask "why did Boudreaux leave?" And McLAUGHlin better have a good answer. Boudreaux held down the middle and was the backbone of the team for the two years we had him, and most teams could not stop him even with double and triple teams. (he had 950 points and 511 rebounds in 2 years (avg 17.5ppg and 9.5 r/g for those 2 years) and everyone made a big deal when Miles Wright got 1000 in four years!) And you know what, I (and surely Boudreaux) will take the fact that the 4th ranked team in the country (along with the other 20+ that apparently recruited him) wanted him badly enough to offer him a scholarship. I think Chris Mack and his staff know a ton more about basketball than some geeky stat based keyboard warrior who calls himself "Mr. James". If Xavier and all those other schools that recruited him think they'll be better with Boudreaux on their team than not, then Dartmouth would clearly be better off with him than without him. Your stats do not measure heart, work ethic, basketball IQ, intensity, toughness, desire, and all the intangibles that people who understand the game look for. Your stat based opinion is therefore worthless to me and falls to the bottom of the pile. Please go back and haunt the Harvard board and tell them how great they are ad nauseum. And when Boudreaux is hopefully playing in the NCAA tournament (I,at least, wish him well), you will still be typing up Ivy League stats and chirping to the ten old timers that make up the core of this board. Stats and a twitter account don't make you the least bit knowledgeable about the game of basketball. It just gives you something to hide behind.



This is ridiculous. Do you ever do anything but rip people? I am not a Mike James apologist but I am pretty sure all he did was put some facts behind some premises here. Those numbers aren't opinion, they are fact. And stating them in hindsight is also simply bringing up the historical record. It's fine to disagree with someones opinion or even focus on a different set of facts. You go too far here by attacking someone because they present facts you don't like.

hoops123
Freshman
Posts 95
02-21-18 11:53 AM - Post#248788    

Mike James calling Boudreaux's defense "garbage" is not a fact it is his opinion. And I have a very different one. Tough apples if you don't like my opinion. I played/coached the game. Did you? If you did, then you'd understand. I've watched every minute of every game (not all live due to work schedule) for the last 3 1/2 years. Have you? You obviously didn't notice that I have never disputed Boudreaux's actual stats. They are what they are. But some players are way more complete than what their pure stats show. Oh and PS, some of his stats weren't nearly as bad as James thinks because of some underlying reasons. Like playing help defense and leaving his man because the opposing team beat our guards off the dribble EVERY time they drove the lane. Tough to guard your man when you have to guard somebody else's all the time. Not included in James' stats. Xavier and other big time schools falling all over themselves to get Boudreaux shows me we had a superstar in our midst and we let him go. And Dartmouth wouldn't be better if he stayed? C'mon. I'll take 5 Boudreaux's all day. We'd kill the league. James thinks otherwise. Good for him. James hides behind stats as if they are the end all determinant of who and what a player is. Wrong. James also pumps up Harvard by choosing stats that fit his narrative. Go to the Voy board and read what people write about James. I'm a pussycat compared to some of those posts. But point is, I'm not alone. Free speech? Message board? Opinions. You get the idea. Don't read my posts if you don't like them. Unfortunately for you, I do have opinions when Dartmouth is involved, and I'm still irritated as hell that our incompetent coaching staff/AD let a player like Boudreaux slip though their fingers. Probably take many years of losing before I get over that one.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1825
02-21-18 01:46 PM - Post#248794    

Don't worry, your posts are pretty far down my priority list at this point. My point is you don't have to attack someone because you don't like what they say.

By the way, Mark Few (among many others-Tom Crean, Bruce Weber, Roy Williams) didn't play the game in college and he seems to be doing alright. I don't believe playing/coaching necessarily gives anyone a superior perspective. As far as me, I am pretty comfortable with my own experience and resume to give my opinion.

EB was a great player (and will do just fine at Xavier) and he is gone in part because he threw his rattle out of the crib after he wasn't respected by his teammates enough to be voted captain. I am sure he was also feeling disrespected after not being voted to the 1st team last year (which was a huge joke most of us agree). Kudos for Mclaughlin to stick to his guns and not over rule it.
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-21-18 03:16 PM - Post#248799    

Apparently I have missed a ton since forgetting my password and these boards have gone insane. There is more to unpack than I could ever imagine, but I'll do my best.

I figured I'd try and ride this out, buy my opinion is that everyone here is wrong, or at least partially wrong. I think the state of the team is mediocre- we are losing a lot, and not getting a ton of leadership from our seniors. Close games are great, but lets be quite honest- the league sucks this year.

This brings me to my second point- somehow over the course of 12 months we've jumped on the team is better without Boudreaux bandwagon. Evidently, the Dartmouth fan base (all 5 of us) has become delusional. One. I am sick of talking about Boudreaux, he was a fantastic player but hes not on the team anymore. We would have unequivocally won more games this year with him around, especially when the league looks this bad. Now i will proceed to launch in my rebuttals and hopefully this will be the last post where I have to type his name. I wish him all the best, but on to the next one.

I'll start with MikeJames' post since that was the first one I read that drove me to recreate my account. Right off the bat, calling Boudreaux's defense garbage is suspect and uncalled for. His freshman year defensive rating was solid, and only slightly dipped last year. Aside from that, to suggest that he would have eaten minutes from contributors is asinine. Boudreaux played the 3,4 or 5, I see no reason why the players that have been mentioned (Knight, Emery, Jackson) wouldnt be playing. We were, and still are, starved for talent and if Mclaughlin is a good coach he would put the best players on the floor. As far as playing team ball, do you think Boudreaux's usage percentage would be that high if he had even a modicum of talent around him? I don't. Thank god we had some freshman show up with talent and have had some development with our sophomores. The last two years we didn't even have a second option, so to suggest the improvement is anything but maturation and development is crazy.

Now we can move on to SomeGuy and PennFan. I had a long post on efficiency ratings last year, where Boudreaux was the the most efficient player on the roster even with his high usage (even if that didnt stack up to regular efficiency, it shows how bad we were). End of story. Now we have improved with our younger classes, but have still taken a step back (even if its not as far as we had thought.) As far as contributions at X, he has two years there and has shown he can score against top level competition. Defense might be a question in the Big East, but I have no doubt that coaching staff can fix stuff like that. It wouldnt suprise me in the slightest to see him as a 6th man, or starting player by the time he wraps up at X.

Finally, I'd love to address the conjecture from PennFan. I've worked with the team throughout my on/off tenure at Dartmouth. I graduate this year and have seen the ins and outs of the program. Boudreaux had the respect of his team. I'm fairly certain the coaches just went with the senior leadership (who up to this point seemingly dont contribute.) I can't speak for what happened after the fact, but I do know that Boudreaux was close with many of the guys and it was a tough decision.

Wrapping it up- it's good to see activity on here. I would hope that at the end of the day, everyone respects the opinions stated and thats that. As much as Hoops123 has stated he is a coach, there is no one on here that knows so much about basketball that they are always right. Everyone like to talk about what-ifs and what could have been. I'm happy to lay it out as it is.

TLDR; 1. Stop talking about Boudreaux, that Saga is done with. Lets all wish him luck and leave it at that. 2. We suck. I don't care how many close games we have, or awful teams we beat. We do not look good in any of our games. 3. The league as a whole looks terrible this year, so please use that to weigh your expectations of the future. 4. The future is brighter than it may seem. We will be done with the senior/junior class shortly enough and hopefully the young guys continue to develop. That i can be optimistic about.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-21-18 04:56 PM - Post#248805    

The league stinks at the top. The bottom of the league is stronger though. Right now, Dartmouth is touch and go for being the best worst Ivy team in Pomeroy history, if that makes sense.

I’ll try to leave the Boudreaux thing alone after your thoughtful post, which I think made some very good points. Team dynamics are complex, and you can see that in posts from people allegedly in the know who have diametrically opposed takes on his relationship with his teammates. Truth is probably somewhere in between.

Not sure i’d want hoops123 on my team, but i’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want a stats nerd playing with him anyway. And I play garbage defense.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5240
02-21-18 05:37 PM - Post#248810    

I know we've been through this before, but when I was doing my All-Ivy sweep to get a sense of where the different staffs were leaning, it became clear that Boudreaux wasn't a lock for the 1st team as many expected because of his defense and the fact that he couldn't make his team better. Those were real concerns. It's the same reason that when Evan left the team shortly before the season started, the sentiment I heard was that Dartmouth might be better for it.

Objectively, Dartmouth has been better this year. And objectively, many of the same players for Dartmouth, year over year, have been better this season. Whether or not those players improved in spite of losing Boudreaux or because of the departure is open for debate. That being said, normally when teams in this league suddenly lose All-Ivy first team talents, they get worse (usually a lot worse). Dartmouth got better.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-21-18 06:30 PM - Post#248821    

  • mrjames Said:
Dartmouth got better.



I don't know what metric you're using for this judgment.

But it ain't our W-L record.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5240
02-21-18 06:36 PM - Post#248822    

I've got Dartmouth at 275 in KenPom and 263rd at Bart Torvik's site versus 305 and 304, respectively, last season. At both sites, as well, the improvement has been balanced on both the offensive and defensive sides.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1825
02-21-18 07:05 PM - Post#248826    

But Mike that’s just your stupid opinion right?
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-21-18 07:10 PM - Post#248827    

I don't necessarily think you understand the point I'm making. The last two years there hasn't been much to make better. I honestly dont think there is a player in the ivy league that you could put on the Dartmouth team over the last two years that could have made them better in the absence of the player that left.

Regardless of my opinion of he who shall not be named not making 1st team (he should be in) you fail to account for improvement among returning players and a recruiting class that ended up being Mclaughlins first.

It's like beating a dead horse, but Dartmouth isnt better because he left. The take that Dartmouth is in a better position because players have improved and the freshman are more talented than past classes is way more feasible (it certainly isn't upper class-men leadership) You cant tell me that if this player had stayed, with an improvement of talent around him, Dartmouth would not be making the Ivy League tournament. In fact, I remember a post in the not to distant future that if we added a solid interior player and perhaps a guard we would be contending for a top 3 spot. Looks like we've managed half of that, and I believe if that player was here we would be in a tremendously better spot.

Let's wait until the season is over, but its a moot point. If Dartmouth loses out, (and lets hope they wont) I imagine they will have a ranking near or below where they were last year. At the end of the day success is success and we aren't heading to the Palestra anytime soon other than to give Penn a nice scrimmage .
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-21-18 07:15 PM - Post#248829    

Lets not play around here. I have all the respect in the world for MikeJames, but stats and their interpretations are very different things.

I think it is valid to question someones interpretation of a metric, stat, or methodology.

Condemning those tools as not useful, however, is counterproductive.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1825
02-21-18 08:07 PM - Post#248834    

I do think there is some confusion when mike says on the one hand that all ivy awards are largely based on offensive production and then to say EB didn’t get it because he wasn’t any good on defense. I don’t see how it can be both.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-21-18 08:17 PM - Post#248836    

Well, not provable, obviously, but I don’t think it’s true that no one player could improve Dartmouth as much as Boudreaux. I don’t think Dartmouth’s talent level is any worse than Cornell, for example. If you put Matt Morgan on Dartmouth, I think he would have an immediate impact that would be greater than Boudreaux. Morgan has been a high ORAT, high usage guy no matter what — even with nothing at all around him. And his box score metrics have been positive every year. In other words, when he is on the floor, Cornell has a chance, and when he isn’t, they lose horrifically. Boudreaux ‘s boxscore metrics were negative both years. It may not be Boudreaux’s fault, but there are other guys in the league who elevate their teams even with nothing around them.

Morgan is an easy example because he plays on a similar team in terms of talent. AJ Brodeur and Chris Lewis are harder to argue because they play with more talent, but I would argue that Dartmouth would immediately be a top 200 team with either guy. Penn was pretty much where Dartmouth is in pomeroy before Brodeur walked in the door.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-21-18 08:21 PM - Post#248837    

Also, why the lack of love for the seniors? Wright and Johnson are a big reason why the team is a little better this year. I don’t know if it is true that they are better because Boudreaux isn’t around (in a sense that would seem strange, but it sometimes has looked to me like Boudreaux and Wright weren’t a stylistic fit for whatever reason). Particularly since both played better as sophs than they did as juniors. But unquestionably both have played much, much better this year than last.
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-21-18 09:38 PM - Post#248847    

I think we are going to have to disagree and call it that at that. The player we aren't supposed to be talking about, IMO was the best player in the league averaged out over his first two years. I think Matt Morgan would fail miserably on Dartmouths team, as I believe he has a better supporting cast and coaching staff. There are no teams quite as bad as Dartmouth so that argument doesnt exactly work.

I respect the opinion, but the guy who left dominated AJ and Chris Lewis when he played them . But like you said not provable. I just vehemently disagree.

Now for the seniors. I like them as people. They are high character guys. They are not basketball players. For four years they have been pretty awful, and I don't know what resurgence you are talking about, but you clearly haven't been watching the same games, or practices, that I have. Wright plays no defense, gambles on steals, and ghosts in and out of an offense that he should be the focal point of. Johnson is a turnover machine, hot headed, and doesnt have the greatest basketball IQ. I wish Cam Smith would get in more as he really competes in practices and I thought he would contribute quite a bit this year.


SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-21-18 10:02 PM - Post#248849    

But why do you think no teams are as bad as Dartmouth? We can see, statistically, how Dartmouth plays without Boudreaux, and how Cornell plays without Morgan. Cornell is actually net positive with Morgan on the floor every year. They are about the same as Dartmouth without him. Dartmouth was actually more net negative last year with Boudreaux than any other player in the top 7 in minutes. If you look at Penn last year, everyone was net negative except Brodeur, Betley, and Howard. And when Brodeur was in, they were WAY positive. Speith for Brown and Petrasek for Columbia were the same — guys whose teams looked like Dartmouth without them on the floor, but were something more just with them. Take any of these guys away, and the teams all looked like Dartmouth last year.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-21-18 10:15 PM - Post#248852    

On the seniors, again, Dartmouth plays close to even when either of them is on the floor. Both have ORATs above 105. Only Barry has a higher ORAT (well, Jackson too in a ancillary role). Everyone else, Dartmouth is significantly negative when they play. Yes, Johnson turns it over too much. Yes, the defense isn’t good enough, but i’m not sure either guy is any more at fault than anyone else there.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-21-18 10:39 PM - Post#248856    

Finally, on the domination thing, I respectfully disagree. Hard for me to see how Lewis was dominated when his team won both games going away, in one of the games he shot 7 of 8 and scored 14 to Boudreaux’s 15 while playing 12 fewer minutes, and in the other Dartmouth couldn’t score when Lewis was in.

Against Penn, Dartmouth did manage to win both games, but if I remember correctly AJ wasn’t guarding Boudreaux (don’t recall how Dartmouth guarded AJ). Boudreaux had better offensive numbers than AJ, if that is what you mean by dominating, but he didn’t really go off in either game.

This is kind of beside the point, but as we’ve seen in stretches this year, i think Brodeur could average 17-20 points per game if the goal was just to get him his points. Penn could sit Rothschild, give AJ more room to operate inside (or drag a big to the perimeter), and make AJ look like Boudreaux did last year. However, Penn would give it all back and more on the defensive end without Rothschild, and would be more predictable on offense and in a sense easier to defend overall. But AJ would look even better.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-21-18 11:15 PM - Post#248857    

  • mrjames Said:
I've got Dartmouth at 275 in KenPom and 263rd at Bart Torvik's site versus 305 and 304, respectively, last season. At both sites, as well, the improvement has been balanced on both the offensive and defensive sides.



Ah yes! Nothing better than putting your arms around your teammates and singing the alma mater and then headed to the frat parties to celebrate a hard fought rise in the KenPom and Bart Torik's rankings!


somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-22-18 12:16 AM - Post#248865    

I think we will just chalk this one up to a little bias and call it a day. Aj was guarded by the guy who left in both occasions, but who cares.

We use different stats, I place more value on PER and the guy who left spent his whole career in the top 5. Best rebounder in the league by a large margin. Irreplaceable all around.

We will just have to agree to disagree. The kid was highly recruited for a reason, is going to Xavier for a reason. He balls out- and better than the rest of the conference (usually).

Side note. Don't we all play for the KenPom ranking?
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-22-18 07:43 AM - Post#248869    

Yes, and I know I use “efficiency” in referencing ORAT, which is imprecise and suggests PER, which I don’t really focus on.

On Boudreaux’s rebounding, as with the scoring, it’s a team game. What matters is how many rebounds the team gets. The raw difference without him has been slightly more than a rebound per game — instead of barely out rebounding opponents (last year) Dartmouth barely gets outrebounded (this year). That suggests that Boudreaux was essentially battling his teammates for rebounds rather than getting ones that the other team was going to get. Now a bunch of guys get 3-5 per game, instead of one guy getting 9.

SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-22-18 08:54 AM - Post#248874    

Also, in regard to PER, was the guy who left ever actually top five? Looks to me like he was 8th as a freshman and 10th as a sophomore. And behind Matt Morgan both years, and behind AJ Brodeur last year (as well as Speith and Petrasek).

Also, returning to rebounding for a moment, in conference this year Dartmouth has the best margin in the league and is nexk and neck with Harvard. Last year they were middle of the pack with the guy who left.
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-22-18 02:59 PM - Post#248902    

I am fairly confident he was 4 as a freshman and 8 as a sophomore. I found some receipts where I posted the PER but I can't get back to my source material right now. So I'm certainly at least half wrong on that one.


I think the issue here might be the fact that you equate our rebounding improvement to the fact he left. He had two consecutive league leading (or top 2) rebounding seasons on a team where he was the tallest guy. This year we have added 2 guys (and more minutes for emery) that are able to actually rebound.

I've been reading back through a lot of posts to make sure I've been consistent. Unfortunately that has also allowed me to notice some inconsistencies and consistencies across the board.

SomeGuy- I'm not exactly sure what you have against the player who left but it seems like you have been leading a crusade against him for the last two years. If it is purely in the name of metrics above all, so be it, but present it that way. I think its probably time to end this conversation since it seems to be becoming a little cyclical.

MrJames- I think PennFan called you out on it. But the below quote stands in stark contrast to everything you said about 1st team and POY the last two years.

  • mrjames Said:
In the past, it seems that three things have held true: 1) Ivy play matters more than non-conference; 2) offense is considered more than defense and 3) how your team does (and how you help make your team better) matters.



You as well don't seem to like the player who left as I have found a number of other posts where you refer to his defense as garbage or something similar (when it was in fact average, or slightly above average.)


I think this is a lesson that all parties (even me as a Dartmouth fan believe it or not) allow bias to shade how they approach presenting and defending metrics. I say we get back to rooting for our teams, and not talking about this player and call it a day. I have certainly spent more time writing these posts than my psychology paper.


somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-22-18 03:01 PM - Post#248903    

Also side note- who knew a state of the team post would create such a lengthy discussion.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-22-18 03:25 PM - Post#248910    

Good post. Funny that at a couple of points as we’ve had this debate, I’ve wondered what you have against Johnson and Wright. Unfortunately, these types of discussions sometimes end up sounding a lot more negative about certain players (or coaches) than we intend.

I have nothing against the player at issue, and I certainly do not intend to lead any crusade against him. Sometimes, arguing that I would choose someone else for first team, or that I think Dartmouth has improved this year, unfortunately becomes a negative discussion of what a player doesn’t do rather than a positive discussion of what other players do.

I’ll say it one last time to try to emphasize the positives. I would have put this player on my 2nd team All-Ivy last year. I presume he would have been a first teamer if he stuck around (both the real thing and on my imaginary list). I am not surprised at the big time transfer interest, nor do I think (or hope) he will fail at the next level. I wish him the best.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1825
02-22-18 03:54 PM - Post#248919    

And I am not a pro "guy who left" by any means. I am simply pointing out an inconsistency.
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-22-18 08:26 PM - Post#248952    

All fair. I certainly appreciate the dialogue and if anything, best of luck to the player and whoever you guys root for this year!
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-22-18 09:40 PM - Post#248960    


Anyone who cares, the he who shall not be named discussion is continuing on the Penn Board.

I'll let you guess the thread...
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-22-18 11:30 PM - Post#248968    

  • somedartmouthstudent2 Said:
I think we are going to have to disagree and call it that at that. The player we aren't supposed to be talking about, IMO was the best player in the league averaged out over his first two years. I think Matt Morgan would fail miserably on Dartmouths team, as I believe he has a better supporting cast and coaching staff. There are no teams quite as bad as Dartmouth so that argument doesnt exactly work.

I respect the opinion, but the guy who left dominated AJ and Chris Lewis when he played them . But like you said not provable. I just vehemently disagree.

Now for the seniors. I like them as people. They are high character guys. They are not basketball players. For four years they have been pretty awful, and I don't know what resurgence you are talking about, but you clearly haven't been watching the same games, or practices, that I have. Wright plays no defense, gambles on steals, and ghosts in and out of an offense that he should be the focal point of. Johnson is a turnover machine, hot headed, and doesnt have the greatest basketball IQ. I wish Cam Smith would get in more as he really competes in practices and I thought he would contribute quite a bit this year.





Why doesn't Cam play more, if he competes in practice? His energy is as close to Gill's as anyone I've seen since. shouldn't guys who compete hard in practice earn more mins?
"...no excuses - only results!”

somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-23-18 03:28 AM - Post#248974    

Probably need to go to Mclaughlin for that answer- I certainly couldn't tell you.
Stuart Suss
Masters Student
Posts 959
02-23-18 11:30 AM - Post#249004    

Evan Boudreaux ranked 4th last year and 5th in the league in 2016 in the individual efficiency statistics that I post at the end of each season.

These statistics do not disprove any attacks on his defense. They tend to show that he was a first team talent based on box score metrics which are predominantly reflective of offensive performance.

GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-24-18 12:32 PM - Post#249189    

Cam got a little run yesterday and played hard despite the score. 💪
"...no excuses - only results!”

SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-24-18 01:12 PM - Post#249198    

Ok, I’ll jump in with another annoying outsider post just to address something besides Boudreaux. Statistically, at least, playing Cam Smith more would seem to make sense. There is a big statistical drop off for Dartmouth after the starting guards. Smith hasn’t played enough for there to be a definitive record that he is a better option, but he is an untried option at a spot where Dartmouth has not gotten production. Could be that the coaches just know more from practice, could be that Cam isn’t a system fit somehow, and it could be that the future is the sophs and they need the run.
EasyGreen1
Freshman
Posts 22
02-24-18 02:50 PM - Post#249212    

Cam Smith is actually not untried, he is an experience PG and just not utilized by McLaughlin. Cam went from starting 17 games and playing in all but one as a sophomore to basically falling off the radar under the new coach. Close observers of the program will tell you he has only gotten stronger and better. While lack of fit with McLaughlin's system may have made sense as a reason early on, it makes no sense now given the lack of production offensively (and the dreadful defense) at the PG position off the bench. Kudos to Cam for remaining strong through it all and being a dedicated student athlete, teammate, and senior captain!
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-24-18 03:47 PM - Post#249217    

By untried, I just mean that he hasn’t played enough minutes for his stats to be surely indicative. That includes soph year, when he started a lot, but didn’t play enough total minutes for me to feel confident his numbers mean anything.
EasyGreen1
Freshman
Posts 22
02-24-18 04:29 PM - Post#249222    

Ok, but only if it is logical/reasonable to argue averaging 14 minutes per game over 27 games, with 3.9 ppg, and finishing top 10 Ivy in assist to TO ratio as a sophomore (not to mention defensive prowess) is statistically insignificant or valueless in assessing D1 level talent.
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 4684
Chip Bayers
02-24-18 07:15 PM - Post#249244    

He was a 15% usage guy who couldn’t shoot: eFG at 36%. Among limited role players, as KenPom bracketed him that year, that’s extremely limited. None of his defensive stats were really standout either, so hard to judge him there.

somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-24-18 09:21 PM - Post#249320    

I came back looking for the we are better this year crowd...
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-24-18 10:55 PM - Post#249409    

Still ahead of last year in pomeroy. But got closer this weekend (not in a good way).
GIQUAKER
Junior
Posts 208
02-25-18 09:47 AM - Post#249441    

Can you be more specific? I think we'd all like to be winning. Losing 2 at Penn and Princeton away with a long trip is not a surprise unfortunately. I am hoping to see some better play this weekend and be supportive. What do you think we should be doing/saying?
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-25-18 12:04 PM - Post#249466    

  • somedartmouthstudent2 Said:
I came back looking for the we are better this year crowd...



It's a darn good thing we don't have Bordreaux anymore. We would have REALLY gotten embarrassed over the weekend if he was still on the team.


SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-25-18 02:26 PM - Post#249489    

Well, you did come 20 points closer to Princeton on the trip without him this year.

I guess the Penn game didn’t go quite as well comparatively.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-26-18 05:53 PM - Post#249649    

Since you’re in the practices, outside of the player who shall not be named, who are the team’s best players ranked? Guilien Smith has been hurt, but we get him back for one more year. Will we be better next year?
"...no excuses - only results!”

Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
02-26-18 06:48 PM - Post#249661    

  • GoBigGreenBasketball Said:
Will we be better next year?



If we can get good play at the point guard position (a freshman, a transfer), and assuming everyone returns....

... we should indeed be better.
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-26-18 06:58 PM - Post#249663    

Honestly I have taken more of a step back this year as the crunch to graduate takes place, and thus don't see nearly as much as I once did.

I wont rank the whole team, but from what I've seen here is a top 5.

!. Chris Knight
2. Barry
3. Jackson
4. Emery
5.Sistare

I don't want to include Guillien as I don't want to extrapolate on how this injury may or may not affect his play.

The good news is that most of our skill is young. The bad news is that we lack a lot of leadership now and someone will need to step up big time. We also need a pure point.

I'd say we are slightly better next year, but I wouldnt bet on us competing for a top 5 spot.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5240
02-26-18 07:27 PM - Post#249670    

Taurus Samuels is a Top 5 player in the 2018 Ivy class, IMO.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3525
02-26-18 09:21 PM - Post#249697    

Against Princeton, Jackson looked like the best player on the team, both games. I presume he's performed worse in other games, because otherwise I can't fathom how short his minutes were.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
02-26-18 09:48 PM - Post#249698    

That's good to know. Plus Slajchert is a solid 3 star recruit on ESPN.
"...no excuses - only results!”

SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4616
02-27-18 12:25 AM - Post#249708    

My annoying outsider take is that Barry probably should be #1, and Rai should be on the list instead of Sistare. Knight has some of the same efficiency issues I pointed out with Boudreaux. However, with the high usage rate and obvious talent (and an efficiency rate that is solid for a freshman with high usage — just not good enough to justify the usage), he is a good bet to jump as a soph. On Sistare, he has spent his first two years with an ORAT below the line where players usually develop into starters. It’s not impossible, but Rai has been better as a freshman than Sistare has been as a soph. So I’d make him my #5 on the roster.
somedartmouthstudent2
Freshman
Posts 19
02-27-18 02:46 AM - Post#249714    

I'd agree except for the fact that Rai is incredibly slow and an atrocious defender IMO. At best, he is a sit out on the three point line and fire away kinda guy, but he hasn't even been that this year.

Still- some more quickness/agility work and better bball IQ and id replace him over Sistare, certainly his ceiling is higher.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
03-03-18 01:16 PM - Post#250423    

I'm not going to lie. It stings everytime Xavier comes on TV. No matter how you feel about him we lost a high major talent.
"...no excuses - only results!”

SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3525
03-03-18 02:55 PM - Post#250440    

Thanks for beating Columbia.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 506
03-03-18 10:15 PM - Post#250632    

That's a wrap!
"...no excuses - only results!”

Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 433
03-04-18 11:27 AM - Post#250729    

  • GoBigGreenBasketball Said:
That's a wrap!



As I said, while nobody is happy with finishing last... our season could have been worse.





Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.194 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 05:23 PM
Top