We All Love Ed.....but

[ammtd34]

The fact was he makes more mistakes than any other starter. I don't need to cherry pick stats. I watch the games.

You realize that you provided zero references for what you said was a fact and then said my statistics, specifically used to refute the statement, were useless, correct? That's not how facts work.

[drudy23]

You realize that you provided zero references for what you said was a fact and then said my statistics, specifically used to refute the statement, were useless, correct? That's not how facts work.

Pretty sure he was saying this about stats and facts - I don't care...I watch the games. And he's not wrong.

He isn't wrong, but I still love JP. He's not afraid of anything, plays hard as hell, is an impact player, and when he gets hot, is the ultimate weapon. He has weaknesses like any other player in the world...but his strengths and importance to this team far outweigh them.

[bobbiemcgee]

I'm curious why you disagree. The way I see it, if you can get a glass-cleaning big guy that can make dunks and putbacks (hopefully Tyrique is the answer here), and surround him with really talented guards and wings, that's the way to go short of having Bam Adebayo or Gonzaga's big Polish guy.

We are 1st in the BE in rebounding and 21st in the country. 37-22 tonite.

[SemajParlor]

We are 1st in the BE in rebounding and 21st in the country. 37-22 tonite.

Really unsure why we don't play 2 bigs

[XUFan09]

No, O'Mara was not a reliable backup, especially defensively. Your the stats guy, show me one indicator that suggests O'Mara is a serviceable defender. I haven't seen any. Farr and Reynolds effectively backed each other up IMO.

I agree that part of the reason they played alone was because we didn't need them too. However, we've seen times where it was a good option, and because of foul trouble it wasn't usually possible. Reynolds averaged 6.7 fouls per 40 minutes and Farr averaged 4.7. Reynolds literally wouldn't make it through a game if we needed.

Also, Mack desperately wants more bigs. He offered 5 Cs and 6 PFs last year.

Either your standards for a backup are way too high or you are being unfair to O'Mara. He was fairly efficient at a moderately high usage rate and he was the best low post option on the team. He also rebounded the ball at a respectable rate. On defense, he knew what position to be in and was solid in one-on-one situations against post players. He was a little slow-footed but that doesn't make him much different from Farr and he had better defensive awareness than Reynolds. This more than meets the standards for a reliable backup. A starter? No, probably not, but definitely a backup. As for defense, there are few statistics outside a subscription to Synergy Sports. If you wanted to harp over things like blocks and steals, just remember that J.P. Macura has the second best steal rate on the team. These stats are highly questionable in their validity for testing defensive prowess.

Concerning foul rates, I don't know why so many on this board don't get this concept: If a player knows he's not going to play many minutes, he tends to be more aggressive. At 4.7 fouls per 40 minutes, Farr could have definitely averaged more than 20 minutes per game and would have held back some accordingly. Even at 6.7 fouls per game, Reynolds could have still averaged more than 20 minutes per game and held back some. Seriously, it would not have been that difficult to give Farr and Reynolds a combined 10 more minutes of playing time each game. Mack didn't because it doesn't fit the four-out, positionless playstyle that he is aiming for. The only time they saw the court together or one of them and O'Mara saw the court together was when they were playing the 1-3-1, because that specific defense is better with traditional bigs (or a Gates or London).

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[waggy]

How come Gates isn't a big?

Rhetorically.

[Caf]

Either your standards for a backup are way too high or you are being unfair to O'Mara. He was fairly efficient at a moderately high usage rate and he was the best low post option on the team. He also rebounded the ball at a respectable rate. On defense, he knew what position to be in and was solid in one-on-one situations against post players. He was a little slow-footed but that doesn't make him much different from Farr and he had better defensive awareness than Reynolds. This more than meets the standards for a reliable backup. A starter? No, probably not, but definitely a backup. As for defense, there are few statistics outside a subscription to Synergy Sports. If you wanted to harp over things like blocks and steals, just remember that J.P. Macura has the second best steal rate on the team. These stats are highly questionable in their validity for testing defensive prowess.

Concerning foul rates, I don't know why so many on this board don't get this concept: If a player knows he's not going to play many minutes, he tends to be more aggressive. At 4.7 fouls per 40 minutes, Farr could have definitely averaged more than 20 minutes per game and would have held back some accordingly. Even at 6.7 fouls per game, Reynolds could have still averaged more than 20 minutes per game and held back some. Seriously, it would not have been that difficult to give Farr and Reynolds a combined 10 more minutes of playing time each game. Mack didn't because it doesn't fit the four-out, positionless playstyle that he is aiming for. The only time they saw the court together or one of them and O'Mara saw the court together was when they were playing the 1-3-1, because that specific defense is better with traditional bigs (or a Gates or London).

I want to quickly remind you that the below is what you're responding to. You're arguing against a lot of secondary points.

To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

Again, it's situational. Mack didn't go to it very often last year, the reason is really not that important important. My original point is that sometimes it is necessary based on matchup. We've seen a few games this year where we've been highly vulnerable in the lane namely Cincinnati and Baylor. Reynolds or Farr could contest the lane and were great about switching and providing help. No one on our roster is as good in that regard, I think two bigs could help with it. That's all.

[XUFan09]

Actually, the reason that Mack didn't go to a big lineup last year is important, because it's central to his playstyle philosophy going forward. I mildly disagreed with your initial post, but then in a followup post you said the reason was a lack of depth. That implies that once he has frontcourt depth again, we'll see two traditional bigs out there again on a frequent basis, and that's simply wrong. Mack used to put out traditional frontcourts most of the time, but he's gone away from that recently, not out of necessity but out of a desire to change Xavier's playstyle. We'll continue to see that going forward, as he recruits players on "positionless basketball." I get that you might want a big lineup from time to time, but that's a different debate from what Mack is actually doing.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[XUFan09]

How come Gates isn't a big?

Rhetorically.

I know it was rhetorical, but Gates is a combo forward. With a traditional frontcourt, we'd see him at the 3 a lot, but in a small-ball lineup, he's perfect for the 4 spot.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[xuwin]

How come Gates isn't a big?

Rhetorically.

Because his athleticism makes him more valuable playing a roll where he can stretch the floor both offensively and defensively.