Take a player !

Donate To GopherHole
M

march madness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
335
Points
83
Watching other B1G teams players I began to wonder if we could take 1 player off any other B1G team who would have helped us the most? We were deficient on the boards, and could really have used Kamisky's passing, scoring, and outside shooting.

1. Kaminsky
2. Russell
3. Decker
4. A. White
5. N. Hayes
6. B. Wells
7. Valentine
8. Trimble
9. Dawson
10. Trice

Hard to know it would also be nice to have a guard or wing who could bring the ball down at the end of games to take important shots?
 

Kaminsky.

Unselfish inside/outside player who can also find the open guy. Could live with defensive deficiencies because of his versatility.

Very good list, though. Wouldn't mind having any of those guys or their equivalents on the Gopher roster. Aaron White would be the last of those 10 I'd take.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Kaminsky.

Unselfish inside/outside player who can also find the open guy. Could live with defensive deficiencies because of his versatility.

Very good list, though. Wouldn't mind having any of those guys or their equivalents on the Gopher roster. Aaron White would be the last of those 10 I'd take.
Click to expand...

I'm curious which defensive deficiencies you're referring to. The advanced metrics have him as one of the better defensive players in the country.
 

Dekker, hands down. We had an above average center. Where we were weak was at SF and PF. I would take Dekker and start him at SF. Watch our rebounding from his position help us tremendously along with matchup problems and him and King could have been interchangeable as a spread 4 or power 3 on the team.

Dawson is also a good option who would increase athletism, defense, rebounding and a determination factor we missed though I'd rather have Dekker.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I'm curious which defensive deficiencies you're referring to. The advanced metrics have him as one of the better defensive players in the country.
Click to expand...

I don't pay attention to advanced metrics, but I'll take your word for it.

Which guy do your advanced metrics tell you you would select for the Gophers?
 


SelectionSunday said:
I don't pay attention to advanced metrics, but I'll take your word for it.

Which guy do your advanced metrics tell you you would select for the Gophers?
Click to expand...

Kaminsky, and it's not particularly close. He's been the best player in the country this year, and pretty easily too.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Kaminsky, and it's not particularly close. He's been the best player in the country this year, and pretty easily too.
Click to expand...

We're in agreement there. If Okafor gets it then we'll know the whole selection process is a complete joke.
 

Kaminsky seems like the easy answer, but it would be hard for me to pass on Valentine. He does it all.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Kaminsky, and it's not particularly close. He's been the best player in the country this year, and pretty easily too.
Click to expand...


I assume you didn't spend a lot of time on this but I'll ask anyways and perhaps you did spend that time. What do you feel about the gain we would see between replacing Mo with Kaminsky vs improving at our weakest spot the 3? Is the difference between Kaminsky and Mo from an advanced stats perspective greater than the difference between Morris and Dekker or King and Dawson or Hayes?

Eye test tells me adding Dekker and having Morris get spread out between the 2 and 3 position gives us a lot more size, some rebounding, and a vast improvement at the 3 position. Kaminsky's impact would be significant but from an eye test stand point, while significantly better, the gap isn't as great as it would be between Morris and Dekker.

Thoughts?
 




Winasota Gopher said:
I assume you didn't spend a lot of time on this but I'll ask anyways and perhaps you did spend that time. What do you feel about the gain we would see between replacing Mo with Kaminsky vs improving at our weakest spot the 3? Is the difference between Kaminsky and Mo from an advanced stats perspective greater than the difference between Morris and Dekker or King and Dawson or Hayes?

Eye test tells me adding Dekker and having Morris get spread out between the 2 and 3 position gives us a lot more size, some rebounding, and a vast improvement at the 3 position. Kaminsky's impact would be significant but from an eye test stand point, while significantly better, the gap isn't as great as it would be between Morris and Dekker.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I haven't given it much thought at all, but I guess it's a case of differing philosophies. You're looking at incremental improvements on a positional basis and trying to maximize that accumulative gain, while I'm looking at it from the perspective of having the best possible player on the roster. In my opinion, basketball is unique among team sports in that the team with the best player on the floor tends to win more often than not. And on the basis of that (perhaps flawed) assumption, I'd rather have Kaminsky than anyone because I know (at least on the basis of this season) that he will almost always be the best player on the floor.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I haven't given it much thought at all, but I guess it's a case of differing philosophies. You're looking at incremental improvements on a positional basis and trying to maximize that accumulative gain, while I'm looking at it from the perspective of having the best possible player on the roster. In my opinion, basketball is unique among team sports in that the team with the best player on the floor tends to win more often than not. And on the basis of that (perhaps flawed) assumption, I'd rather have Kaminsky than anyone because I know (at least on the basis of this season) that he will almost always be the best player on the floor.
Click to expand...

When I said Dekker i was thinking of the NCAA version of Sam Dekker not the early season one. Anyone know the advance stats difference between Dekker and Kaminsky from only the tournament games? It's probably closer than it was during the regular season stats.
 

I'd take Dawson 100%. Rebounding and toughness were huge weaknesses and he provides both.
 







You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom