In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 501
Online now 1464 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Hate to hijack but I can't help it. Jud on an upcoming season: "Well, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that we return three starters from last year and the bad news is that we return three starters from last year."
Would that be warranted? Look at their stats:
3P% 0.0% (0.1 attempts per game)
Player B is a more efficient scorer, scores nearly as many points, has as many rebounds, has more blocks and more steals per game and nearly as many assists; in THIRTEEN FEWER minutes. OH, and he's played a tougher schedule... Only thing Player A does better is shoot 3's and in FT %. You tell me who deserves to be honored.
"ever since Ervin, every 6'8" kid I would recruit said they wanted to play point guard. After a while I'd tell them, sure you can. When they'd get to campus I told them we played our point guards right underneath the basket. "
I don't think that's his argument; at least, I hope not. Of course Novak has a place on this team; he'd be a great hustle guy, and could provide spot 3-point shooting for about 5-10 minutes a game. There is no evidence, though, to suggest that he would develop into anything remotely resembling his current self had he been at MSU from day one. And that, at least for me, is the major argumetn against all these slurpers who are trying their darndest to be good, objective MSU bball fans. The guy has played THIRTY MINUTES A GAME since his freshman year; you give Thornton, or anyone with even medicore basketball talent that much experience, and they'll carve SOME SORT of positive niche for themselves. Novak's just happens to be that he scraps, hustles, hits open 3's and plays borderline dirty. That's all there is to it.
Well since your referencing irrelevant players, who cares? Would he fit in? Yeah. Thornton comes to mind. Doesn't he count? He was a walkon.
UM, Green Bay and Chicago teams all have one thing in common: They all suck
LOL-- Ebling's next book should be a collection of Jud stories. The guy was almost a better comedian than coach, and I thought he was an excellent coach.
Jud on Polec: " Larry is probably our best shooter and frankly that is kind of disturbing."
Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke. That was the point a page ago. End of story.
But your context is polar opposite of mine. I would prefer a better player . He would 'fit in' with the space at the end of the bench.....
If you value that set of stats, in a vacuum, yes Player B. That's your statistical backing for your argument. I have my own statistical backing for my argument (that MSU has, until the past 2 games, done worse with Dawson than without Dawson, and that scUM has done desperately bad without Novak).
You can call me whatever shit all you want, i don't really give a crap about Novak. But when the announcements come out and Novak is 3rd team (and Dawson isn't), you'll know that the league's coaches and writers agree with my "stupid point". Novak does more to make his team win, at this point, as a senior, than Dawson does.
I wish we had the whole scUM team, coaching staff, and writing core here so we could poll them on the matter. Then, after they agree on how important Novak is (best player, or at the very least 2nd best player), we could all laugh at them for beating them today and just go away and drop this stupid topic.
Sweet Jeebus...what the hell is wrong with some of you cats? That was a completely complimenary article on Day Day and the team as a whole. There probably won't be another one written by this source in at least a decade. Can't you just enjoy it?
You seem to be spinning this into a whole different topic. And you seemed to be turning the corner with reasonable posts...........
I think Matt Ishbia was voted best practice player. This was a big enough impact to garner him zero votes for all big ten.
I'll just let everyone read what was said. You can keep whistling. Fool yourself all you need to.
"I would be better off putting in the bench, than the guys on it"......Jud
This post was edited by WBill19542 2 years ago
Now we're not talking about Burke or Green ?
Marriage is like flying with kids, if the flight had 500 connections, never ended, Ted Striker were your pilot and you ate the fish.
You slurp Novak; I don't. Sorry I am not a fan .
Yawn. You can't look past your +/- stats and that's okay. You can live in a world where you measure a player's productivity based on +/- stats, and the rest of us will use our eyes and more indicative statistics to judge players.
This argument is completely stupid; every coach will sing the praises of their senior player, especially one that will probably post some of the highest minutes totals in UM history. If he gets a 3rd team award, it will primarily be based on his "reputation" (gritty, tough, senior leader) and less on his talent level. You can take Novak on your team and I'll take Dawson 10 times out of 10.
I hate Novak, but at the same time he's the scrappy 6'3" shooter I wish I could be at the D1 level.
"Spartan Girls: Pure Michigan."
If you're trying to make me roll my eyes, congrats. This neanderthal logic about +/- gets me every time.
You can use your eyes and whatever stats you want. I'll take the players who help their team win. If a guy goes out there, doesn't score, looks like a buffoon, yet his team always does great when he plays, that to me is a great player. That's not being a slave to a statistic. That's all about winning, which is the point of the game. You can take your Fraziers and Marburys and Carters all you want. Those guys will always fill up the stat sheets and look good to the eyes. And lose.
I remember the very first game of the season going on and on to anybody who'd listen about how amazing Dawson is going to be. It's obvious. But it's also obvious that he isn't there yet, or at least he wasn't before the past 10 days. Before the past 10 days, he absolutely struggled. He knew it, Izzo talked about it openly, and in any close game he was on the bench for the last 10 minutes. You're trying to compare that player to the exact opposite type of guy for Michigan, with a limited ceiling, a ton of experience, and who is one of the two guys Michigan HAS to have out there in crunch times. It's ludicrous.
Anyway, i'm glad Dawson is coming around so well now. I was assuming it would take him until next year, but he's figuring stuff out on the fly.
The problem is, is that +/- is based on people around you and rotations and the way you are used by the coach or not.
However, Dawson was huge for MSU-- YESTERDAY, they don't win without him-- yesterday.
No one with common sense puts much stock in those +/- stats.
Lets see, "A guy who looks like a buffoon, yet his team does great is a great player"
Come on mark, what that really means is if they can find the right fit with another player they would be greater. Because--- how can you be a buffoon and still help your team?
Dr Opti, providing wisdom;one message at a time.
Look you said Novak would fit in. Quit talking in circles and out your ass. You know people read what you've written right?
This isn't true either, the last three games he has shot 55.5% from the floor, but the previous ten games to that he also shot 55.5 %. The only difference now is that his minutes have gone up from 19.8 minutes in the previous ten games to 25.3 minutes in the last three.
Feb, 5th--UM 4-6 FG
Jan. 31st---ILL, 4-11 FG
15 out of 27= 55.5%
You know what he shot in the previous 10-games before that? 55.5%
Jan. 21st--Purdue, 6-7 FG
Jan. 17th--UM, 2-4 FG
Jan. 14th--NU, 3-3 FG
Jan.10th---Iowa, 3-7 FG
Jan 3rd---Wis, 2-2 FG
Dec.31st---Neb, 2-5 FG
Dec.28th ---Ind, 2-5 FG
Dec. 22nd-Lehigh, 6-11 FG
Dec.19th---Miss-KC, 8-20 FG
Dec.17th---BG, 5-6 FG
39 out of 70= 55.5%
This post was edited by Optiking 2 years ago
This is still going on? People really believe Austin Thornton is a better player?
This post was edited by Spartan Dawgs20 2 years ago
Again, more straw-man arguments. This isn't about flash vs. production. This is about you having a hard-on for a player, who is barely above average, for some unknown reason, simply based on his +/-.
The only point I've been trying to make is that Novak is a marginal talent who, had he walked-on to MSU, would be in the same position as Austin is now. Earning 10-15 minutes per game, chipping in with some open shots, getting hustle rebounds and playing hard. That's it. You give ANY player with marginal talent 30 minutes a game since his freshman year, and he is bound to develop into SOMETHING that a coach will love; Novak has happened to develop into a player who relies on others for looks (which he is decent at burying), fights hard and sometimes unfairly for rebounds, and tries to play tough defense. If you can refute any of this, please come up with an argument relevant to my points. If not, back to your +/- you go.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports