Overall perimeter improvement? Probably Jok, his Junior year certainly he appears to be passing by Marble's level. The last twenty-years by the way doesn't give us many good players to pick from.
Peter Jok All Big
- Thread starter Mohawkeye
- Start date
Overall perimeter improvement? Probably Jok, his Junior year certainly he appears to be passing by Marble's level. The last twenty-years by the way doesn't give us many good players to pick from.
Peter has been an elite shooter all his life. Marble was, quite frankly, a pretty bad perimeter shooter until his sophomore season. He also made huge strides in his free throw shooting and mid-range jumpshot. I would argue that he improved more in these areas than Jok did.
Also, in the past 20 years we've had Dean Oliver, Duez Henderson, Glen Worley, Jeff Horner, Pierre Pierce, Adam Haluska, Mike Henderson, Tony Freeman, Tyler Smith, Jake Kelly, Matt Gatens, Eric May, Mike Gesell, Anthony Clemmons, etc. All turned out to be very good players, and I don't think any improved as much as Marble did. There's also countless other players, that seemed to have potential, but never panned-out.
You seem to be taking my comments about Marble negatively. However, what I am trying to convey is an appreciation of Marble's development at Iowa. It was largely unprecedented. We've had a lot of good players, but few have made it to the NBA. Given his start as just an average recruit, and below average player his freshman year, I do find it amazing that Devyn was able to improve to the level he did.
1) Are we talking shooting or playing basketball? Because in my opinion Jok has progressed further, in his third year, as a basketball player.
2) Like I said, not much to pick from, I thought you said perimeter players? What are Henderson and Worley doing on the list?
3) I don't think you are being negative towards Marble. The point I disagree with is that you seem to feel no one could spot his potential. I disagree.
"I have a hard time believing anyone that says they predicted his game would develop like it did, because that kind of development happens maybe once every 10-20 years." That's my only complaint. Would you at least believe this guy?:
"Roy Devyn Marble couldn't do much about the first. The comparisons were inevitable for a Michigan kid named Marble, especially once he put a basketball in his hand. But the latter -- the attitude -- that Devyn Marble, as he prefers to be called, could control.
And so rather than run from the people who put his game alongside his dad's all the time, Devyn decided to embrace them. If people asked how Devyn would match the accomplishments of Roy Marble Sr., a one-time first-round draft pick and the all-time leading scorer at Iowa, he said he would top them; if they wondered why he chose to walk in his pop's collegiate footsteps rather than forge his own path, Devyn shrugged and said "Why not?""
Like it or not, I believed Dev would be a star from his play during his freshman season. Maybe it was luck, but he looked like a player to me that was going to be special. He was gangly, but along with his pedigree, I felt he already showed plenty of signs of the player he would become once his body caught up with his game.
(1) Peter Jok might be a better basketball player as a junior than Marble was, but Jok was light-years ahead of Marble as a freshman, thus, Marble made a larger improvement.
Consider a few stats for comparison (link):
- Wins-share per 40 minutes (i.e., overall efficiency rating)
- Freshman-Marble: 0.052
- Junior-Marble: 0.174
- Overall improvement: 234%
- Freshman-Jok: 0.144
- Junior-Jok: .206
- Overall improvement: 43%
- Offensive Rating:
- Freshman-Marble: 91.4
- Junior-Marble: 110.3
- Overall improvement: 21%
- Freshman-Jok: 114.2
- Junior-Jok: 120.7
- Overall improvement: 6%
- Player Efficiency Rating
- Freshman-Marble: 10.6
- Junior-Marble: 20.6
- Overall improvement: 194%
- Freshman-Jok: 16.9
- Junior-Jok: 24.2
- Overall improvement: 43%
(2) Both Worley and Henderson were only an inch taller than Marble and spent a large percentage of their time on the perimeter.
(3) You have yet to show a single Iowa player that has improved as much as Marble did. Go back 30 or 40 years if you want.
What I am saying is two things:
(1) Marble's improvement over his career is extremely rare (if not unprecedented)
(2) Such rare/unprecedented improvement is not reasonably predictable
(2) Such rare/unprecedented improvement is not reasonably predictable
If you disagree with either of those conclusions, feel free to explain why.
probably should factor in Marble was a year young for his class, coming into college at 17...i think. this might explain some of the vast improvement when his body matured some. he looked like a toothpick his freshman year.
1. Check out all the minutes Marble had to play on that 4-14 Big Ten team. You can say he looked terrible as a freshman compared to what he became, but of all the other players you mentioned, how many had to play as often right off the bat?
Look at Jeff Horner. He had to play over 35 mpg. Shot .332 fg% and .277 from three. He struggled, and he improved. But who is to say if he had come in behind someone his shaky first year wouldn't have been hidden. Jok, better first year than Marble? So why did Marble play nearly half a game and Jok around ten mpg? Again, need. So Marble gets the "bad" first year thing? Just like Woody. Guys we had to play because we had no one else.
I'll be honest, I think you are mistaking a guy who had to play due to need as having improved a great deal more than other guys who just didn't have to play much their first year.
2. Is to. Just not by everybody. Again, I entered into this with no dog in the hunt regarding Marble. Just, don't come back in three years and say I was unreasonable, or lucky, or whatever when Williams is kicking rear at point.
We don't have anyone on the current roster that creates shots for Jok and he is averaging 20 ppg. Jok isn't great at creating off the dribble but he has gotten better. What he is great at is reading screens and making contested jumpers. You can't tell me he is just standing behind the 3 point line this year waiting for Mike to drive and kick. Jok "creates" his shots coming off screens without the ball in his hands. I would argue Mike actually hurts Jok's ability to create because he's not a willing shooter and his man sags off him limiting driving lanes with Jok's ability to use shot fakes and drive to the basket.
We are getting him a lot of open looks in transition with our team defense(Mike and Sapp large contributors). JU has drawn lots of attention and created good floor spacing. Mike and Sapp have done a good job of getting into the lane for the most part this year. I think the D has been the key factor.
You should go post this on the Maryland board.Yes.
And I was aware of the other thread, I'd actually done one on it 3-4 weeks ago too, but I think those threads were played out. I thought it worthy of a new post based upon what I saw in Trimble last night
No way the Junior Jok will get more votes than the Senior Trimble from the writers. Remember, deserves got nothing to do with it.
I'm telling you right now that Valentine, Uthoff, Ferrell and Trimble are locks for first team B1G.
Last edited:
As our defense has gotten worse over the course of the year, Jok has gotten better so I don't think it's the D specifically. It's nice to say that Mike is getting into the lane and helping Jok but that's not how most of his assist have come. A majority have come with Jok getting himself open off screens or just pushing it in transition. Fran is always going to run an uptempo style and Jok will get some in transition whether it's Mike or someone else running the point. Uthoff on the other hand has actually made Jok better especially when they're screening for each other off the ball and the defense has to pick their poison.
Last edited:
I think you and another poster or two are remembering Dev as a sophomore because you clearly aren't describing his play as a freshman.
1. Check out all the minutes Marble had to play on that 4-14 Big Ten team. You can say he looked terrible as a freshman compared to what he became, but of all the other players you mentioned, how many had to play as often right off the bat?
Look at Jeff Horner. He had to play over 35 mpg. Shot .332 fg% and .277 from three. He struggled, and he improved. But who is to say if he had come in behind someone his shaky first year wouldn't have been hidden. Jok, better first year than Marble? So why did Marble play nearly half a game and Jok around ten mpg? Again, need. So Marble gets the "bad" first year thing? Just like Woody. Guys we had to play because we had no one else.
I'll be honest, I think you are mistaking a guy who had to play due to need as having improved a great deal more than other guys who just didn't have to play much their first year.
2. Is to. Just not by everybody. Again, I entered into this with no dog in the hunt regarding Marble. Just, don't come back in three years and say I was unreasonable, or lucky, or whatever when Williams is kicking rear at point.
Dan, all the stats I referenced were adjusted for minutes played, so I struggle to see any relevance of saying Marble's efficiency stats were worse because he played more minutes. One possibility is that you believe Marble had to take too many shots because the team he played on was poor. However, Jok actually averaged more shots per minute than Marble did as a freshman, so when Jok was playing he was heavily involved in the offense. Another possibility is that you think Marble struggled because he couldn't handle playing 19 minutes per game; and if that is the case, then we will simply have to disagree. I don't think 19 minutes per game is a struggle for any NCAA basketball player. In fact, many freshman at Iowa have played at least 19 minutes per game and had pretty good freshman seasons:
- Jeff Horner: 35 minutes
- Matt Gatens: 34 minutes
- Tyler Smith: 34 minutes
- Cully Payne: 33 minutes
- Eric May: 31 minutes
- Jake Kelly: 27 minutes
- Jeff Peterson: 25 minutes
- Zach McCabe: 20 minutes
- Josh Oglesby: 20 minutes
The bottom line is that Marble was pretty bad at getting the ball to go in the hoop when he was a freshman, which is a relatively important skill in basketball. Jok, on the other hand, was pretty efficient at getting the ball to go in the hoop, even as a freshman.
The stats are pretty straight forward - Devyn really struggled as a freshman. His statistical improvements were greater than any other Iowa player in the modern era. Predicting that type of improvement, in my opinion, is damn near impossible unless you have a crystal ball.
Ya Pete didn't score his first points until mike sat down then Bam 8pts I know that's just one incident. I like mike but I'll say they are not using Pete to be teams best advantage yet. I have no doubt he will get stronger and be a better finisher
Thanks for the discussion. We will have to agree to disagree.
I'm talking about basketball, not just scoring. And Marble came in with far more upside than Jok. Not to pick on either one, but that's just fact. It was discernable, predictable and it turned out like many people expected.
Jok has worked his way into playing better as a Junior by learning to play defense, getting in the best shape of his life, and (if you watch McCaffery's interactions with him) old fashioned in your face coaching.
Only one of us has been consistently providing facts. You have made plenty of assertions, but have only supported them with your opinions which you portray as fact. "Marble came in with far more upside than Jok" is not a fact, it is an opinion, and an opinion that not everyone would agree with. For example, in this article, coach Francis says that Isaiah Moss is more athletic and has a more consistent jumpshot than Marble did when Marble came to Iowa. Marble never showed a consistent jumpshot until his sophomore year.
As an example of the dynamic our debate has taken, let's look at one of our points of contention: I argue that it was not reasonable to predict Marble would become our team's best perimeter shooter based on his freshman performance [opinion]. Why? Because he shot 27% from three [fact], and just 53% from the free throw line [fact]. However, you argue that his shooting potential was recognizable [opinion]. Why? Because...you watched him more closely?
Please let me know of a single fact that supports the argument that Marble was a better first year player at Iowa. While you do that, I'll provide a litany of facts supporting the argument that Jok was better:
- Jok's true FG% was a full 10 percentage points better than Marble
- Jok scored more points per minute than Marble
- Jok's FT% was a full 17 percentage points better than Marble
- Jok's assist/turnover ratio was better
- Jok averaged more assists per minute than Marble
- Jok averaged more blocks per minute than Marble, and the same amount of steals per minute
- Jok had a higher Player Efficiency Rating, Wins Shared/40 minutes, and Offensive Rating
^^^^ "I cannot find a valid reason as to how someone could have predicted Marble's amazing improvement in his game." Again, that comment is what I am disagreeing with. And we can argue stats and facts but evaluating a players potential is about far more than stats and facts.
Try this. Facts. Coming out of high school Devyn Marble was the son of a former first round NBA pick. He was athletic, known to be a year younger than his peers, and the upside was sky high. Peter Jok was coming off a knee injury which had many Hawkeye fans, and others, wondering if he wasn't a wasted scholarship. Especially after his first game where it became obvious that defense was like a foreign language to him. (Those are pretty much undisputed facts...but that's not the kind of point I've been trying to make.)
The argument we have (if we even have to have one) is that you feel no one could have predicted the kind of career Devyn Marble would have. And I disagree. I even presented you with a quote from one person who believed it right out of high school. Devyn himself.
My only thing is this, many people have predicted serious doom and gloom about our point guard situation next year. And I'm not talking about posters with concerns. Heck, I get concerns, fair to have them when there is always the unknown. But I'm talking about the, "Fran better find a fifth year senior to run point or we're in trouble!!!", crowd.
IF you want stats to back up my assertion that Christian Williams is going to be a good point guard for us next year, I can't give them to you. He has been learning the position in practice. Like with Marble out of high school, does that then in your rules of evaluation make me wrong? Because I don't have stats to back me up?!?!?
Evaluation is more than stats. Much more. Recognizing what a player can become based on his athleticism, willingness to accept coaching, it all means something.
So, when Williams surprises a lot of people please don't come back with something like, "Dan's guess was lucky". I don't get 'em all right but I do get my fair share right.
Kind of like the "Farmers Almanac", which is still pretty accurate even though it doesn't rely on stats and facts like the National Weather Bureau. (You should look it up sometime..you'd be surprised how little difference there is between the two in accuracy.)
Try this. Facts. Coming out of high school Devyn Marble was the son of a former first round NBA pick. He was athletic, known to be a year younger than his peers, and the upside was sky high. Peter Jok was coming off a knee injury which had many Hawkeye fans, and others, wondering if he wasn't a wasted scholarship. Especially after his first game where it became obvious that defense was like a foreign language to him. (Those are pretty much undisputed facts...but that's not the kind of point I've been trying to make.)
The argument we have (if we even have to have one) is that you feel no one could have predicted the kind of career Devyn Marble would have. And I disagree. I even presented you with a quote from one person who believed it right out of high school. Devyn himself.
My only thing is this, many people have predicted serious doom and gloom about our point guard situation next year. And I'm not talking about posters with concerns. Heck, I get concerns, fair to have them when there is always the unknown. But I'm talking about the, "Fran better find a fifth year senior to run point or we're in trouble!!!", crowd.
IF you want stats to back up my assertion that Christian Williams is going to be a good point guard for us next year, I can't give them to you. He has been learning the position in practice. Like with Marble out of high school, does that then in your rules of evaluation make me wrong? Because I don't have stats to back me up?!?!?
Evaluation is more than stats. Much more. Recognizing what a player can become based on his athleticism, willingness to accept coaching, it all means something.
So, when Williams surprises a lot of people please don't come back with something like, "Dan's guess was lucky". I don't get 'em all right but I do get my fair share right.
Kind of like the "Farmers Almanac", which is still pretty accurate even though it doesn't rely on stats and facts like the National Weather Bureau. (You should look it up sometime..you'd be surprised how little difference there is between the two in accuracy.)
Nothing in this argument speaks to anything Devyn did his freshman season, which is the premise of the argument I presented and you attacked. I know who his father was - that doesn't make it any more likely to believe that Devyn was going to be an NBA player based on what we saw him do as a freshman.
You keep saying that Marble's potential was sky high, but Iowa was the only major program to offer him a scholarship - he was not a highly ranked recruit. We've seen plenty of lightly recruited players make it to the NBA, so just because Marble wasn't highly recruited doesn't disqualify him by any means of becoming a star college player; but it similarly does nothing to buttress your argument.
Finally, another argument you bring up is what Devyn said in an interview. To that argument I would ask, do you normally base your predictions of future NBA careers based off of player interviews? For example, what do Gesell's interviews tell you about his potential future NBA prospects? How about Andrew Fleming or Christian Williams? To cite this as a fact of why Devyn's potential was easily recognizable is laughable.
Alright, this is over. Third time I've posted this, we will just have to disagree. If you can't handle it I don't know what to say. Sure seems to be a growing defense on this board, "No one could see the good things coming! Not reasonable.
I wouldn't say Marble was athletic. He had average athleticism at best which is what made his improvement all the more spectacular.
You were also in love with Trey Dickerson and Fleming before the year started so I would slow down on the "I get my fair share."You basically say everyone is going to be good and because Fran is such a good talent evaluator and developer you want to take credit.
If Flemming was forced to play as Dev was because of lack of talent maybe he would improve but because of the team situation we are in now we may never know how good be may of been earlier in his career. Think about who was backing Dev up as a sophomore.
I do pretty much believe anyone that Fran brings in has the talent to become a good player if they work at it. You have revealed my secret. I trust Fran. And I do take credit for that. I sure don't feel like an idiot like anyone who ever wanted a countdown on how long Fran had should feel.
And I don't have to practice the art of having a memory like a goldfish for all the times I've been wrong. However. You may notice I haven't made the comments about others like I've made about Williams. He's the guy on which I'd put my ability to assess talent upon. And I just don't want to suffer the same fate that apparently those who predicted great things for Marble are suffering. Disbelief, or they got lucky. Especially from someone who seems to think he was the only one who recognized Marble's potential to be a pro after his junior year.
Seriously, my friend, a lot of people were right there with you.Not sure why all this is so important to you. I haven't paid much attention. Do you have Demons of Error to exorcise yourself? Is all this some rudimentary fictional bolder to hide behind? I don't get it. But you've nothing to prove to me. As far as I'm concerned we all get to make our predictions, and be right or wrong based on the results...claims of just being lucky later should be grounds for a technical in this game.
I have been as big of a supporter of McCaffery as anyone. After our last loss to Penn State I was one of the few saying that this team wasn't imploding. I believe this year's team is a legitimate National Championship contender. I am far from a pessimist.
However, I also believe arguments should be supported by facts. You don't seem to share that belief.
You attacked my argument in a respectful manner, but did not support your rebuttal with any factual evidence from Marble's freshman year. Honestly, what do you think is more important in predicting a player's future success; who his father is and what he said in an interview, or how he has actually performed on the basketball court in a competitive atmosphere?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from Devyn, Iowa had only one guard drafted in the Alford, Lickliter, and McCaffery eras combined (Haluska). During this time, Iowa had a number of very talented guards, and many of them had very good freshman seasons. Marble did not have a good freshman season. By sheer odds alone, it would be a far-fetched prediction to surmise that Devyn was destined for the NBA based on his freshman season, and I don't see how that is even debatable. Nevertheless, you have valiantly tried to argue against this premise by citing who his father was, what he said in an interview, and expressing your own high school recruiting evaluation of him. Why you believe these items to be compelling evidence while simultaneously dismissing Devyn's poor shooting and turnover production as irrelevant is beyond me.
If you want to debate in a fantasy land devoid of facts and objectivity, you will have to venture there without me. I'll remain in the world of objective measures of on-court production.
OK. One fact. Roy was Devyn's father when Devyn was a Freshman. That's a fact from Marble's freshman year.
Would you consider a compromise. Because clearly I'm not all into stat and fact from a freshman year and you aren't all into evaluations based on things they don't keep stats on...like can a player use both hands, does he look down to handle the ball or can he keep his head up? Can that player see the open man and does he know how to bounce pass? Does he dribble into trouble and force shots? Will he get dirty for a rebound? You know, stuff like that.
So, how about this. My main concern is that by now we should accept that the unknown is not necessarily a bad thing. Fran sees these guys and knows what he is doing. And in fact we've seen plenty of unranked three star guys, or guys barely ranked in the top 150, have pro success, or on their way to it.
Fair enough? And, you can tell me next year at this time how I got lucky and there was no way that watching whole high school games or other things could have told me Christian Williams will be a dang good point guard. And I'll tell you politely that yes it could...saw it right off, kid is a freak.
Disbelief, or they got lucky. Especially from someone who seems to think he was the only one who recognized Marble's potential to be a pro after his junior year.
I'm guessing you're addressing me with this comment based on what I said earlier in this thread ("Hell, even in his senior season I was one of the few on these boards that was confident he'd be drafted.")
Well, I'm sure you'll find this thread (link) interesting and see what a lot of people had to say about Marble's chances in the NBA during his senior year.
While there were a few that said he had a chance, only one person said that Marble was a lock for the NBA. The consensus seemed to be that he would not make it:
- Marble is lengthy but really lacks quickness to make it at the next level.
- White and Marble, good college players but no way.
- Marble can't defend well enough and his 3 pt range isn't good enough.
- I think Marble will play pro overseas
- Marble just isn't fast/athletic enough to make it at his position.
- Marble and White can make good careers for themselves in Europe.
- Marble: the lack of a jump shot and explosiveness put him out of the NBA.
- The only thing more ridiculous than White in the NBA is the mention of Marble.
- If Haluska/Horner/Brunner couldn't play in a regular-season NBA game, White/Marble/Olesani won't either.
- Marble can't defend the best points in the big 10 so he can't play point in the pros. He isn't a strong enough scorer to be a true 2. His game is set for Europe.
Wait, you were one of the few on these boards that was confident he'd be drafted.
And as facts you present all the negative comments from one thread on an opposing site?
I see what you did there. The coin is still in your left hand. I know I'm not supposed to know that.
Misdirection isn't your strong suit.Remember I said a lot of people were right there with you. Not everyone, not even a majority. It wasn't a vote. It was a lot of people saying Marble could get drafted.
You want me to prove it? No.
Again, no. Not my job.You should go post this on the Maryland board.
No way the Junior Jok will get more votes than the Senior Trimble from the writers. Remember, deserves got nothing to do with it.
I'm telling you right now that Valentine, Uthoff, Ferrell and Trimble are locks for first team B1G.
Trimble is a Sophmore
Wait, you were one of the few on these boards that was confident he'd be drafted.
And as facts you present all the negative comments from one thread on an opposing site?
I see what you did there. The coin is still in your left hand. I know I'm not supposed to know that.
Remember I said a lot of people were right there with you. Not everyone, not even a majority. It wasn't a vote. It was a lot of people saying Marble could get drafted.
You want me to prove it? No.
The difference between us Dan, is when you challenge my assertions, I actually provide facts and neutral third party opinions to back them up. However, when your assertions are challenged, you simply hug your opinions tightly and tell the rest of the world that no amount of facts or evidence can tell you otherwise.
For example, in support of my assertion that it was not reasonably predictable that Marble would be a future NBA draft pick based on his freshman season, I have provided:
- Statistical analysis showing his improvements were greater than any other perimeter player at Iowa in the last 20+ years
- Direct statistical comparisons between Marble's freshman year and Jok's freshman year, and their respective improvements by the time they were juniors (and a subsequent explanation of why the adjusted per-minute stats are valid when you challenged their applicability)
- 9 examples of players who played as much or more than Marble as freshmen when you asserted that Marble struggled as a freshman because he played a lot of minutes
- A BHGP article analyzing the incredible improvements Marble made during his career at Iowa, and how it is rare that a player's progression is as linear and as large as Marble's was
- An article quoting coach Francis where he said that Marble was not as athletic as other freshmen and lacked a consistent jumpshot when he got to Iowa
- Evidence that only one other guard at Iowa has been drafted in the past 16+ years, which by sheer odds alone demonstrates that there was a low chance Marble would be drafted, especially after he struggled more as a freshman than many other guards that went undrafted
- Contemporaneous evidence supporting the fact that most Iowa fans didn't think Marble would be drafted, even when he was a senior, when you mocked my assertion that I was one of the few people that was confident he'd be drafted
- Roy Devyn Marble's father was Roy Marble
- Marble once said in an interview "Why not?" when asked if he chose to go to the same college as his father
- Marble was a mid-tier recruit
The important thing is we're both big fans of McCaffery, and we both laugh at those who questioned whether he was on the hot seat at any time during his tenure at Iowa. Go Hawks
Who is better on defense.....Jok or Marble? How about rebounding?
Others might disagree, but Marble was the only true scorer on his team. Jok is doing well, but there are other options. Uthoff makes a lot of players look better when he's on your team.
Others might disagree, but Marble was the only true scorer on his team. Jok is doing well, but there are other options. Uthoff makes a lot of players look better when he's on your team.
Ican't..., I admire all the work you are putting into this discussion. As mentioned early on, I wasn't posting or reading on here back when McCaffery was first hired. So clearly I didn't make any assertions, but I believe those who say they did. Why not?
And as to the evidence thing, when Williams ends up being a very good player for us, in 2016/17, and if you demand to know what kind of evidence I had for predicting something that unreasonable. You might as well know now that I'm going to reply, "ESP". Because sometimes when the natives don't understand how something works, one might as well pretend to have special powers.
And as to the evidence thing, when Williams ends up being a very good player for us, in 2016/17, and if you demand to know what kind of evidence I had for predicting something that unreasonable.
You might as well know now that I'm going to reply, "ESP". Because sometimes when the natives don't understand how something works, one might as well pretend to have special powers.Ican't..., I admire all the work you are putting into this discussion. As mentioned early on, I wasn't posting or reading on here back when McCaffery was first hired. So clearly I didn't make any assertions, but I believe those who say they did. Why not?
And as to the evidence thing, when Williams ends up being a very good player for us, in 2016/17, and if you demand to know what kind of evidence I had for predicting something that unreasonable.
My central thesis is that everyone can have varying opinions, but even though opinions cannot truly be "right" or "wrong" they still should be grounded in some objective logic.
For example, I believe it is semi-reasonable to say that Williams will end up being a special player for a variety of reasons:
- He has good size and an incredible wing span
- He looks to be pretty athletic
- McCaffery has a good eye for talent
- For those who watched him in PTL or in another setting, perhaps they saw potential in his play
Thus, I am not saying Williams won't be a special player, and I am not necessarily saying that it is unreasonable to think he will be a special player. However, to base an opinion that he will be a star on the merits of his freshman season production is unreasonable because there simply is not much of a sample size to work with and the sample size the does exist is not overly encouraging.
To quote Denzil Washington in Training Day, "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove." In a similar fashion, it's not what you believe, it's why you believe it. If you believe Williams is going to be a star based on a supreme trust in McCaffery to develop a PG and because of Williams's great size and solid athleticism, that's fine. But I don't buy for a second that one of us regular fans can sit on our couch and watch Williams play insignificant minutes this year while shooting less than 30% from the field and is able to tell that he is going to be a star. If any of us had that type of innate basketball scouting acumen, then we'd be a basketball executive rather than whatever our actual day jobs are.
Ican't...Why do we keep talking about freshman years? Sometimes players have a spot open and they play, sometimes they sit.
Sorry, decided to edit due to your last paragraph. What about those of us who were excited to know that Uhl could shoot from the three? And that is before this season started. No it wasn't based on his stats, or his shot form. But from reports from practice and before that watching him in the PTL.
He's just one of those guys who hits shots.
And I suspect you do remember that as Legend was spending more than what he should have of his time reminding everyone that Uhl shot just 17% from three as a freshman.
There was nothing "factual" people could provide. Not that we were looking at a small percentage. Coming in cold off the bench makes a difference. Or that our EYES might be considered testimony if the wasn't the Court of Only Things we can Write Down and Count!
Sorry, decided to edit due to your last paragraph. What about those of us who were excited to know that Uhl could shoot from the three? And that is before this season started. No it wasn't based on his stats, or his shot form. But from reports from practice and before that watching him in the PTL.
He's just one of those guys who hits shots.
And I suspect you do remember that as Legend was spending more than what he should have of his time reminding everyone that Uhl shot just 17% from three as a freshman.
There was nothing "factual" people could provide.
Not that we were looking at a small percentage. Coming in cold off the bench makes a difference. Or that our EYES might be considered testimony if the wasn't the Court of Only Things we can Write Down and Count!
Last edited:
Because my original assertion in this thread was that those who formed their opinion that Marble would be a star based on his freshman season, did not have a rational basis for making that opinion due to the fact that he did not perform well in his freshman year.
What I am trying to illustrate is that we form opinions based on a number of observations that form a basis for our opinion. One may have a perfectly valid opinion, but if it was formed on an illogical basis, then the opinion remains hollow.
Sure, maybe you thought Marble would be a star for a variety of reasons, but to say that you watched him play his freshman year and knew that he would be a star based on those results is disingenuous because, frankly, he didn't play that well.
Similarly, you can sit here and say today that you believe Williams will be a star, but there is nothing to suggest that he will be a star based on the 63 minutes he has played this year. Thus, in order to legitimize that opinion, it should be grounded on something else; unless, that is, you want us to believe that you possess incredibly rare basketball scouting abilities.
But would you agree that time is not static. A person may be a freshman but he enjoys historical reference points from high school, AAU ball. Right? And while you can look at numbers all you want, is not raw talent, attitude (which can be apparent) also important in a persons development?
Human beings are not static, they are not rocks. And measuring future performance by current results alone seems to me the very beginning. The "Cave Painting" of evaluation techniques and in fact a pseudo pre-20/20 hindsight where by the time the stats show up to "predict" anything, the question has long been settled.
Ican't.
You can't bet on a horse race after it is run!!!I didn't cover the other end of the court, where Pete has improved dramatically, but is still Iowa's worst overall defender in the starting line up. That is not saying Pete is now a bad defender, just not at the level of the other four starters, who play very good team defense. And, no, leading the team in steals does not indicate that Pete is one of best defenders.
Some posters seem to be convinced that Iowa is a better team, when Gesell is not on the court. I only saw the first third of the PSU game, but I noticed that Garner went off right after Mike took his first break. The idea that Pete is somehow being held back by playing with four seniors is just silly fantasy. Pete will be a better player next year, but there is a very good chance that his individual numbers won't reflect that improvement, as other teams are better able to take his shot away. I hope I am wrong about next year, because it would mean that our younger players have learned well.
But would you agree that time is not static. A person may be a freshman but he enjoys historical reference points from high school, AAU ball. Right? And while you can look at numbers all you want, is not raw talent, attitude (which can be apparent) also important in a persons development?
Human beings are not static, they are not rocks. And measuring future performance by current results alone seems to me the very beginning. The "Cave Painting" of evaluation techniques and in fact a pseudo pre-20/20 hindsight where by the time the stats show up to "predict" anything, the question has long been settled.
Ican't.
I have never said you cannot use other variables in forming your opinion. Of course you can. I never argued that you can only judge a player's future performance based solely on his freshman year production. My critique was limited solely to freshman year performance, because that is the context in which it was brought up in this thread. In other words, certain posters claimed that they knew Marble would be a star because of what they saw when they watch him play his freshman season.
As an analogy, let's suppose that before last year's NCAA Tournament, someone said that they thought Duke was going to win because they have blue in their uniforms, and blue uniformed teams are superior. Would it have been nonsensical to predict Duke would with the championship? Not at all. But, would it have been nonsensical to predict Duke to win the championship because of the color of their jersey? Absolutely. Thus, even though Duke won the championship, I would still challenge the opinion that Duke would win the championship because of their jersey color.
So if someone tells me that they knew Marble would be a star based on his freshman season, I challenge that assertion because he did not play very well his freshman season. He certainly looked worse than many other freshman guards we have seen that failed to reach the NBA. Similarly, if someone tells me today that they know Williams will be a star based on his freshman season, I would challenge that assertion as nonsensical because there has not been large enough of a sample size to make any credible determination, and moreover, in the limited sample size to-date, he has not played particularly well.
RedHawk - I don't think Pete is a great defender but is more than passable. I like Mike at the point, I just don't think they work the ball enough to Pete to take full advantage of what Pete gives us (more scoring) . I do think steals are very important, his lead to transition points that can be back breakers . Pete is growing into a difference maker.
Similar threads
