W/L record predictions

[slufan13]

I'll say this...If we're bad enough to lose more than 5 games non conference, we won't be going 9-9 or something like that in conference play. We'll be having a 4-14 type season. Yes we'll improve as conference season rolls around, but if we lose a ton of games non conference, we'll just be improving from horrible to bad.

Also, why do I get the feeling that if people had heard nothing or bad things about the guys this summer, that people would be using that to justify a bad record. For some reason, people just want to ignore any optimism especially from proven posters like DoctorB.

[Scoop]

19-13. I'm counting RockU bc it's on the schedule.

[Clock_Tower]

"I heard from someone close to the program that "-------" is looking great." Balderdash.

That is bs, wrong most of the time, we hear that every year, from some of the same posters.

Some loose pickup games at the gym and posters are telling us who is improving, looking much much improved. .

Last year GG lost that bulk, made him quicker, many thought that would be a big upside, but that actually backfired, hurt his game, he occupies space, is a banger, and the lost bulk didn't help, it hurt. Like Richie Incognito losing weight to get quicker.

No one has a clue, admit it and wait.

Come on, we hope Reggie will emerge as a great inside scorer, Lancona will pop three's a la Cody Ellis, and Manning will be a solid physical role player, play stout D and get 8-10 rebounds a game up front, and so on.

But no one has a clue, we'll have to wait until January to see how they ALL look. It will be a tryout for 2-3 months, good thing we play a weak early schedule.

Most all of the returners could go either way: improve, or not. Freshmen, who knows?

MB. Your argument about GG assumes that he was player, or even a factor, when he had the bulk -- he wasn't. GG added energy and a few layups 2 years ago when he had more bulk. JC started him each half but then he sat the bench. He still offered these qualities last year. Bulk or no bulk, GG is just not very good.

[Box and Won]

I recall a few years back in the Brad era how great Vashon Newbourne looked in practice and how he was a real leader type. Years later, Vashon who?

He's the reason why I always take these reports with a grain of salt.

[ACE]

This history is helpful but I think this year may be unique in terms of the absolute uncertainty which faces us in this pre season set of discussions. We are coming off three of our greatest seasons individually and collectively-- we have never had this much success three years in a row-and few teams nationally have had such success three years running. The key players in that three year run were seniors who graduated either last year or the year before so we literally had to replace an entire team of some of the most accomplished players in the history of the program.

We now have what I would call the "Untested 9"--referring to the sophs and frosh. For the reasons previously stated our sophs played limited minutes last year so they are untested. Our 6 frosh are new and completely untested. If we had to rely on McBroom, Ash, Grandy and John M to carry this team I think many of us would be very worried because on top of the Untested 9 you have four upperclassmen who have never proven they can handle a major role at any time--and I think that is the reason you see the pundits give us so little support for success this coming season. So we have a team which is untested or inexperienced in prime time roles and we will need to have many step up if we want to win 20 games, even against a somewhat lesser schedule. For any of us to pick actual results for this coming season on a game by game basis suggests we know a lot more than any of us really do about the team.

Some things I have heard through the grapevine:

Coach Crews and staff are fired up about this season and they look forward to working with all of these young players.

Our sophs have all excelled in summer workouts and we should expect them to be much better this coming year. Crawford is shooting well and playing hard and smart---Lacona is much improved and playing like a vet rather than a soph and Reggie is regaining his strength and mobility.

Manning is stronger and more effective, Jolly is going to be a very good big man who has a nice shooting touch--but how much he will play this year will be up in the air--and Gillman has great hands and a very nice touch (of course, he needs to put on some serious muscle).

Bartley has great court vision and quickness (of course, he needs to put on some serious muscle),Reynolds is smart and a gamer but he will need to learn a whole new system--just like Mike McCall--Roby is a tough athletic guy and may be an even better defender as a frosh than Jordair. Milik is a really good offensive player who may be better than Evans as a frosh-and he has a lot of growth potential in his game.

The entire team is in good spirits and everyone is hitting the weights hard to get stronger.

I, for one, cannot wait to see all of these guys on the floor!

I am very intrigued by this comment because DE was pretty darn good as a freshman.

[slufan13]

Yarbrough will be a stud on offense. He has the physical tools to be a solid defender too, but he's going to have to dedicate a lot more time and effort on that end.

I hope that Crews lets the guys play this year and doesn't pull you immediately for defensive mistakes because with a young and inexperienced team, there's gonna be a lot of mistakes on both ends.

[RUBillsFan]

Normally, it can be said that if a kid did not produce all that much his Frosh at SLU year that he probably won't produce much the rest of his years at SLU either.

This is revisionist history and grossly oversimplifying things. You are correct on KM & CE. Although it should be noted that CE's soph year was pretty dreadful (6.5 ppg) and he improved after that. WR only averaged 7.7 ppg as a freshman. He improved greatly his soph year. Perry only averaged 6.0 ppg his freshman year and greatly improved after that. Baniak was good, but Tatum wasn't (1.7 ppg). Clags and especially Highmark were both very good their freshman years. Even players that were very good their freshman year mostly all improved as they aged.

There are many of examples of guys who had mediocre freshman years improving to be much better later. Brian Conklin, Ian Voyoukas, Jeff Harris, Josh Fisher, Mo Jeffers (yr 1 vs yr 2), both Ryan & Jeff Luechtefeld, Luke Meyer, Chris Sloan, etc.

The fact is that all players develop differently and a large amount of production is based on playing time. A few peak early (such as Baniak or even Mike McCall to some degree) some peak later (such as Conklin or Harris). Most develop gradually and improve year over year. Some stagnate and never really improve. Because the sophomores got so few minutes because of a senior dominated team it is almost impossible to tell what kind of production we should expect from them.

The thing that separates teams like the Lisch & Liddell teams from the past few years is depth. Guys like Grady Glaze and John Manning are probably better than anyone on the L&L teams except those 2 and Vouyoukas. How much depth this year's freshmen provide remains to be seen.

[MB73]

MB. Your argument about GG assumes that he was player, or even a factor, when he had the bulk -- he wasn't. GG added energy and a few layups 2 years ago when he had more bulk. JC started him each half but then he sat the bench. He still offered these qualities last year. Bulk or no bulk, GG is just not very good.

I do not disagree with you overall but when he had the bulk he shook things up for the minutes he played, played a much more physical style -- some call it energy, I call it intimidation --, was a positive factor for us, most of the other teams feared him. Now....

[Clock_Tower]

This is revisionist history and grossly oversimplifying things. You are correct on KM & CE. Although it should be noted that CE's soph year was pretty dreadful (6.5 ppg) and he improved after that. WR only averaged 7.7 ppg as a freshman. He improved greatly his soph year. Perry only averaged 6.0 ppg his freshman year and greatly improved after that. Baniak was good, but Tatum wasn't (1.7 ppg). Clags and especially Highmark were both very good their freshman years. Even players that were very good their freshman year mostly all improved as they aged.

There are many of examples of guys who had mediocre freshman years improving to be much better later. Brian Conklin, Ian Voyoukas, Jeff Harris, Josh Fisher, Mo Jeffers (yr 1 vs yr 2), both Ryan & Jeff Luechtefeld, Luke Meyer, Chris Sloan, etc.

The fact is that all players develop differently and a large amount of production is based on playing time. A few peak early (such as Baniak or even Mike McCall to some degree) some peak later (such as Conklin or Harris). Most develop gradually and improve year over year. Some stagnate and never really improve. Because the sophomores got so few minutes because of a senior dominated team it is almost impossible to tell what kind of production we should expect from them.

The thing that separates teams like the Lisch & Liddell teams from the past few years is depth. Guys like Grady Glaze and John Manning are probably better than anyone on the L&L teams except those 2 and Vouyoukas. How much depth this year's freshmen provide remains to be seen.

Strong words especially when the facts don't back up your statements. First, I said produce - not lead the team, be a go-to guy, etc. Second, ppg is not the only stat to focus on. For instance, Sloan started his first game and nearly all games his Freshman year (24 of 31 games) due to his rebounding and defense, played 20 minutes per game and scored just under 4 ppg -- therefore he did produce. WR produced as well his Freshman year --started 22 of 32 games, played 21 minutes per game, scored 7.7 ppg, while blocking shots, rebounding, etc. Same with Conklin who started 29 of 32 games, played 22 minutes per game and scored 6.1 ppg - he also produced.

Ian Voyoukas was a big project, and possibly there have been some other examples here and there, but still, my point stands.. But our Sophs really have poor stats comparatively. ppg: RA with 1.6, TL with 2. and MC with 2.0; games started: RA with 2 and TL and MC with none; Minutes per game: TL with 8, MC with 7 and RA with 5. Each have real potential IMO but none really produced last year.

[slu72]

I'd be feeling a whole lot more comfortable about this year if either one or two of these scenarios played out last season:

1.) MC took a chunk out of JB's minutes. Say they split that role 50-50. You wonder what JC saw, or didn't see, in MC to take more of Jake's playing time.

2.) TL had earned the nod at the 4 and DE got moved back to the 3. Towards the end TL was getting more time, just wish it had happened earlier in the season. Had he proved effective we might have avoided that late season swoon and had a more well rounded bigger lineup going into the dance.

Our slide at the end of last year was fatigue related. The starting 5 were just getting too many minutes and dealing with little dings here and there. I don't know if JC is the type of coach that just doesn't trust FR, or did he think he'd be sacrificing some Ws in those games during the middle of the conference schedule if he played TL and MC more. Can't put RA in the mix since he was hurt. But what's of concern here is he did he just think MC or TL weren't good enough to grab those valuable minutes from a very mediocre Jake Barnett?

[kshoe]

Strong words especially when the facts don't back up your statements. First, I said produce - not lead the team, be a go-to guy, etc. Second, ppg is not the only stat to focus on. For instance, Sloan started his first game and nearly all games his Freshman year (24 of 31 games) due to his rebounding and defense, played 20 minutes per game and scored just under 4 ppg -- therefore he did produce. WR produced as well his Freshman year --started 22 of 32 games, played 21 minutes per game, scored 7.7 ppg, while blocking shots, rebounding, etc. Same with Conklin who started 29 of 32 games, played 22 minutes per game and scored 6.1 ppg - he also produced.

Ian Voyoukas was a big project, and possibly there have been some other examples here and there, but still, my point stands.. But our Sophs really have poor stats comparatively. ppg: RA with 1.6, TL with 2. and MC with 2.0; games started: RA with 2 and TL and MC with none; Minutes per game: TL with 8, MC with 7 and RA with 5. Each have real potential IMO but none really produced last year.

Clock, I'm not sure how you can say Sloan as a freshman at 20 minutes per game and 4 PPG was a "producer" but say that TL and MC with 8 and 7 MPG and 2 PPG didn't produce. On a per minute basis, those two players did more than Sloan his freshman year. It just happens to be that they played on a really good NCAA caliber team and thus minutes weren't quite as available as Sloan who didn't play on such a good team.

It seems logical to me to believe that if 20 minutes per game had been available to the freshmen they all would have exceeded Sloan's freshman year contributions.

[slu72 fan]

I'd be feeling a whole lot more comfortable about this year if either one or two of these scenarios played out last season:

1.) MC took a chunk out of JB's minutes. Say they split that role 50-50. You wonder what JC saw, or didn't see, in MC to take more of Jake's playing time.

2.) TL had earned the nod at the 4 and DE got moved back to the 3. Towards the end TL was getting more time, just wish it had happened earlier in the season. Had he proved effective we might have avoided that late season swoon and had a more well rounded bigger lineup going into the dance.

Our slide at the end of last year was fatigue related. The starting 5 were just getting too many minutes and dealing with little dings here and there. I don't know if JC is the type of coach that just doesn't trust FR, or did he think he'd be sacrificing some Ws in those games during the middle of the conference schedule if he played TL and MC more. Can't put RA in the mix since he was hurt. But what's of concern here is he did he just think MC or TL weren't good enough to grab those valuable minutes from a very mediocre Jake Barnett?

Lancona was also hurt and that put him behind. Crawford had a huge adjustment to make and earned more minutes, like Lancona, as the season progressed.

Jake was a disappointing, inconsistent scorer, but he defended and grabbed a few boards. That's what we're built on.

All of the returning players have made good use of their time since the season ended. But, this season is going to be very inconsistent. We'll win some that we don't expect and we'll lose some that will disappoint us. The freshmen are still learning the vocabulary and the need to defend. This is foreign to all of them. From my observations, this is a very talented group of players. They each bring something special to the team. Piecing it together is going to take some time. In the end, SLU is defense first!! The players that get that are going to get the PT.

I saw one practice a month or so ago and the competition for PT is going to be intense. The frosh have a LONG way to go, and I'd play down your expectations for them out of the gate. They will each show you flashes, but they each have large learning curves. Again, they are still learning the vocabulary, so they are light years behind the teams the last 2 or 3 years.

McBroom is our main ball handler and that scares me more than anything on the returning players. He's so sped up, that we seem to be out of control.

[slu72]

McBroom is our main ball handler and that scares me more than anything on the returning players. He's so sped up, that we seem to be out of control.

Forgot about TL's injury. My bad. I thought he did well toward the end. He's one I'm expecting to do something this year. He also showed some flashes on D, especially w/some nice steals. As for MC, as I recall, he lost minutes toward the end of the season. Couldn't figure that out since JB's shooting was so god awful. Think we were all questioning that in the later game day threads. Probably a defensive issue.

As to your comment on McB, that sounds a lot like the way a FR PG plays, ie Randy Pulley comes to mind right off the bat. Let's hope that gets fixed and quick. Thanks for the insights,

[MusicCityBilliken]

I am looking at 18-12.

Weak OOC gives me optimism for 18 wins. Most important to me is how we look in February and March. Like to see our conference record at 8-8. Also like to see a strong showing in Brooklyn.

[slufan13]

Crews would've played Barnett 30 mins a game even if he had Jordan on the bench last year.

Somewhat joking.

[RUBillsFan]

Strong words especially when the facts don't back up your statements. First, I said produce - not lead the team, be a go-to guy, etc. Second, ppg is not the only stat to focus on. For instance, Sloan started his first game and nearly all games his Freshman year (24 of 31 games) due to his rebounding and defense, played 20 minutes per game and scored just under 4 ppg -- therefore he did produce. WR produced as well his Freshman year --started 22 of 32 games, played 21 minutes per game, scored 7.7 ppg, while blocking shots, rebounding, etc. Same with Conklin who started 29 of 32 games, played 22 minutes per game and scored 6.1 ppg - he also produced.

Ian Voyoukas was a big project, and possibly there have been some other examples here and there, but still, my point stands.. But our Sophs really have poor stats comparatively. ppg: RA with 1.6, TL with 2. and MC with 2.0; games started: RA with 2 and TL and MC with none; Minutes per game: TL with 8, MC with 7 and RA with 5. Each have real potential IMO but none really produced last year.

Didn't mean to come off that strong. I read your post as saying that if a guy doesn't "produce" (which seems to be a very vague definition) his freshman year, then you can pretty much write him off because former Bills who haven't done so haven't "produced" later.

Given your vague definition of production and the fact that we are trying to compare these players across different eras with extremely different levels of playing time and competition in terms of depth, it is impossible to make any kind of comparison. See kshoe's post re: our current sophomores vs Sloan.

My main point was that all players develop differently, so making sweeping generalizations about "production" as freshman vs how they will "produce" going forward is foolish. I also wanted to point out the many counter examples which you seem to either be writing off as anomalies or claiming as "production" based on mediocre stats because they started on crappy teams.

[billslasttermdropout]

In other news: I'm hoping to see another return of these guys to Midtown. There last show at the Fetz was hype I hear.

[kcbill]

I am looking at 18-12.

Weak OOC gives me optimism for 18 wins. Most important to me is how we look in February and March. Like to see our conference record at 8-8. Also like to see a strong showing in Brooklyn.

I feel the same way about the season. I think we have more conference games so let's make it 9-9.

[Clock_Tower]

Clock, I'm not sure how you can say Sloan as a freshman at 20 minutes per game and 4 PPG was a "producer" but say that TL and MC with 8 and 7 MPG and 2 PPG didn't produce. On a per minute basis, those two players did more than Sloan his freshman year. It just happens to be that they played on a really good NCAA caliber team and thus minutes weren't quite as available as Sloan who didn't play on such a good team.

It seems logical to me to believe that if 20 minutes per game had been available to the freshmen they all would have exceeded Sloan's freshman year contributions.

Shoe. What do you not understand? Sloan started nearly all his games and yet TL and MC did not. Sloan was used by Romar for his defense and rebounding skills starting from day 1 and yet TL and MC. Even if he only scored 4 ppg, he still was a productive player for us his Freshman year because he filled a needed role for us as a starter. Later on, his offensive skills matched his defensive skills he turned into a really nice player for us. In contrast, TL and MC never started, often did not even play in games and played only sparingly - often getting their minutes and points at the end of games when the outcome of the game was not in doubt. Points per minute for kids averaging 1 basket per game? really?

Second, other than you, no one is comparing Sloan to either TL or MC. Instead, my point had been that SLU has never had real depth (except these past few years) allowing good players to sit the bench. Instead, and for the most part, if players didn't step in and produce their freshman year, they never produced. Skepticism exists about how good our Sophs really are due to their limited roles/successes last year. History suggests that SLU Frosh who played only sparingly and who only averaged 1 basket per game have not turned out to be very good.

[Clock_Tower]

Didn't mean to come off that strong. I read your post as saying that if a guy doesn't "produce" (which seems to be a very vague definition) his freshman year, then you can pretty much write him off because former Bills who haven't done so haven't "produced" later.

Given your vague definition of production and the fact that we are trying to compare these players across different eras with extremely different levels of playing time and competition in terms of depth, it is impossible to make any kind of comparison. See kshoe's post re: our current sophomores vs Sloan.

My main point was that all players develop differently, so making sweeping generalizations about "production" as freshman vs how they will "produce" going forward is foolish. I also wanted to point out the many counter examples which you seem to either be writing off as anomalies or claiming as "production" based on mediocre stats because they started on crappy teams.

Not trying to be secretive about the word "produce". Instead, just came up with a word which suggests that kids made a real impact for their teams their Freshman year. Points per game don't always tell the full story.

Also, not trying to cut you off with all your examples, but other than Voyoukas, I don't recall to many others.

[kshoe]

Shoe. What do you not understand? Sloan started nearly all his games and yet TL and MC did not. Sloan was used by Romar for his defense and rebounding skills starting from day 1 and yet TL and MC. Even if he only scored 4 ppg, he still was a productive player for us his Freshman year because he filled a needed role for us as a starter. Later on, his offensive skills matched his defensive skills he turned into a really nice player for us. In contrast, TL and MC never started, often did not even play in games and played only sparingly - often getting their minutes and points at the end of games when the outcome of the game was not in doubt. Points per minute for kids averaging 1 basket per game? really?

Second, other than you, no one is comparing Sloan to either TL or MC. Instead, my point had been that SLU has never had real depth (except these past few years) allowing good players to sit the bench. Instead, and for the most part, if players didn't step in and produce their freshman year, they never produced. Skepticism exists about how good our Sophs really are due to their limited roles/successes last year. History suggests that SLU Frosh who played only sparingly and who only averaged 1 basket per game have not turned out to be very good.

Clock, I'm pretty sure if you go back and look the stats you are quoting for Sloan are for his sophomore year. He started 24 of 31 games and averaged 3.7 ppg in 2001-02. The previous season, his freshmen year, he started 16 of 29 games and averaged 1.3 ppg. Does that count as "producing" per your definition?

Your second paragraph above starts off real good and I agree with it but I would add an additional sentence or two saying something like: "All that being said, SLU has never had a senior laden team as good as the one last year and as such comparing the success of freshmen from past regimes where the team wasn't very good and playing time was readily available to this freshmen class probably isn't fair. It is quite possible the freshmen can play but were simply blocked by the by the most successful class in SLU history."

[Box and Won]

Sloan averaged 3.7 PPG in 20.2 MPG as a sophomore.

He averaged 1.3 PPG in 9.8 MPG as a freshman.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/saint-louis/chris-sloan

EDIT: What kshoe said.

[RUBillsFan]

Not trying to be secretive about the word "produce". Instead, just came up with a word which suggests that kids made a real impact for their teams their Freshman year. Points per game don't always tell the full story.

Also, not trying to cut you off with all your examples, but other than Voyoukas, I don't recall to many others.

I said vague. Not secretive. If you think Sloan "produced" his freshman year, then our definitions of "produce" are so far apart that it doesn't make sense to even argue. I used PPG because that is an easily available and concrete number rather than some vague concept such as "production". Making an "impact" by starting on a bad/awful team your freshman year (which was the case for a lot of your examples) isn't much of an impact in my book.

It really seems that the only decent comparisons that can be made would be with young players on the Bonner teams, Claggett teams, or maybe the Miracle in Memphis team. I think Jeff Harris was the best counter example to your argument. He actually fits too because his freshman and sophomore years were on the great Claggett teams. John Duff is okay because his first few years were during the Bonner years and he was a decent contributor his Sr year. Mo Jeffers is a decent example because his 1st year he deferred to Love, but then took over scoring his 2nd year. Ryan and Jeff Luechtefeld are decent examples because they contributed a lot more later in their careers. Jeff was on the Bonner teams early in his career and Ryan was behind guys like Harris and Virgel Cobbin in terms of scoring options. Check out Carlos Macauley's senior year compared to his freshman-junior years which were behind Claggett, et al. Brian Conklin doesn't fit because he had ample playing time his freshman year, but is a good example because his contributions as a senior so far surpass anything he did prior.

That's only halfway through the SLU alumni alphabet, but hopefully those are enough examples for you.

TL & MC might not turn out to be any good. I have no idea, but to suggest that they would be trailblazers as guys who didn't do much their freshman years and then contributed later is false.

[slufan13]

SLU basketball, college basketball in general, and high school basketball are all pretty dramatically different than they were even 10 years ago. Not sure you can really try to make any comparisons.

[Clock_Tower]

Your second paragraph above starts off real good and I agree with it but I would add an additional sentence or two saying something like: "All that being said, SLU has never had a senior laden team as good as the one last year and as such comparing the success of freshmen from past regimes where the team wasn't very good and playing time was readily available to this freshmen class probably isn't fair. It is quite possible the freshmen can play but were simply blocked by the by the most successful class in SLU history."

Yes. That's my point. Quite probably I didn't make it clear enough but last year was a very unusual year for us. We have never had 5 Senior starters who played as much as they did. Therefore, to conclude that our Sophs will likely be role players b/c they didn't produce that much in their Frosh year is not fair.

At the same time, why couldn't our Sophs take minutes away from Jake Barnett? and provide assistance to DE when he had matchup problems with guys 4 inches taller and bigger than him down on the low blocks?

We should know alot within only a few games this year.