Roster Updated

[Furmanoid]

Gotcha. I hope those 40% shooters really do each produce the 15-20 ppg you predict. I mean, guess it’s a lock, right?

[youwouldno]

Gotcha. I hope those 40% shooters really do each produce the 15-20 ppg you predict. I mean, guess it’s a lock, right?

Can you point to where I made that prediction?

[Furmanoid]

Last year’s team came up short.
We lost about 30 ppg off that team.
We need to replace that 30 ppg.
We need to add another 10 ppg so we don’t come up short again.
I think we need scoring help from new guys.

You are defending the argument that the guys we already have are clearly up to the task. In fact you seem to think that only an absolute idiot would fail to see that we are loaded down with scorers and don’t need any more shooters. So somebody will need to drastically increase their output. The 40% shooters are the best candidates so they will need to from 4 ppg to 15 or so if Hunter and others improve but more like 20 ppg if they don’t. OK, it could happen. Those guys can shoot. I’m just not as confident as you.

Go in peace.

[youwouldno]

I never said any of those things, or anything even remotely similar. Not a great habit you have there.

[Furmanoid]

Yes I’m beginning to suspect you don’t realize what argument you jumped into. You came in after about 3 comments. I had just (too sarcastically, I admit) questioned the statistical argument that we had a whole bunch of offensive firepower mostly riding the pine last year. As good as we were, it seemed to me that if we really had another 30-40 potential points to put in during dry spells we should have been unbeatable.

Then you sort of dived in and mostly just attacked me (I suspect just for the fun of it) and sorta said “how dare you question statistics you oaf. Stop focusing so much on wins and championships.” I attempted to defend my argument a couple of times with what you called gibberish, but you got nastier and nastier. So I said, well maybe you are right. And that would mean a couple of guys, one of them Lawrence, are going to freaking explode for big points this year, and I would LOVE to see that! That’s what the stats indicate will happen. Trust the stats, man.

[youwouldno]

I read the thread before posting. No one said that "we had a whole bunch of offensive firepower mostly riding the pine last year." That's something that only exists in your head. You don't need to post here to have an argument against yourself. Get a diary or something.

[cavedweller2]

We will find out soon enough. Season starts 4 weeks from today.

[Furmanoid]

I read the thread before posting. No one said that "we had a whole bunch of offensive firepower mostly riding the pine last year." That's something that only exists in your head. You don't need to post here to have an argument against yourself. Get a diary or something.

Now you’re just getting ridiculous. No it wasn’t a quote. To paraphrase even more accurately, the comment said we have plenty of shooters (firepower) on the roster already so the ability to score was not a big deal for the incoming players. That can only mean that we expect to replace the production of Mounce and Gurley (plus some extra for improvement) using guys who spent most of their time on the bench (riding the pine) plus some improvement among the returning starters. I thought that was understood. That was the whole point of the conversation. I don’t know how to break this down any better for you to understand what you were arguing about.

Anyway as Cavedweller wisely points out we will find out very soon. And the more I think about it I hope one or two of the bench guys really do have break out years. Lawrence could be the next Dirk Nowitzki. But just in case, I’m really curious to see the DII transfer guy.

[PaladinPower]

Oh, OK. I forgot that we dominated the conference and won the tournament. I mean, how could we not?

You literally asked who the shooters were and someone told you them, plus their stats. Because you were probably to lazy to look them up yourself. And YOU brought up dominating the conference and winning the tournament.

[PaladinPower]

Yes, that was pretty uncool of me. But the frustrating thing is the way Furman basketball has made such a compelling case AGAINST the use of statistics for the past few years. Do you watch the games? Have you not seen the incredible dry streaks when nobody could throw the ball into the ocean? And have you noticed that those usually strike when we play good or decent teams? OK, maybe it’s just incredibly bad luck. Or maybe we just let the wrong guys shoot. But that can’t be seeing as how we have a Mt. Rushmore coach. Or MAYBE the stats are misleading.

If you want to argue that offensively we improve by losing Mounce and Gurley go ahead, but I’m skeptical despite what statistics say.

A couple of years ago we had a guy who was 15th nationally in 3 point attempts and was unranked in 3 pt percentage for most of the season. But when I pointed that out I was lambasted for paying so much attention to percentages. So maybe that converted me to the anti analytics camp.

No one said Furman was going to improve by losing Mounce and Gurley. Your first paragraph is entirely anecdotal.

If you shoot it a lot more than everyone else, you probably miss more than everyone else, too. Not sure what point you're trying to make there.

[PaladinPower]

I’m just trying to follow the logic here. I guess the idea is that Pugh and Lawrence should have been the marquee players but their touches were limited because of Gurley and Mounce. Now with those guys out of the way they’ll show out, and the team will be vastly improved. OK, if you say so. But just in case, I hope some of the new guys can shoot, and I’m pretty sure they can. I think Hunter will show out.

Who is "you" when you say, "if you say so" ? No one on this board even said that.

[Furmanoid]

Yes, that was pretty uncool of me. But the frustrating thing is the way Furman basketball has made such a compelling case AGAINST the use of statistics for the past few years. Do you watch the games? Have you not seen the incredible dry streaks when nobody could throw the ball into the ocean? And have you noticed that those usually strike when we play good or decent teams? OK, maybe it’s just incredibly bad luck. Or maybe we just let the wrong guys shoot. But that can’t be seeing as how we have a Mt. Rushmore coach. Or MAYBE the stats are misleading.

If you want to argue that offensively we improve by losing Mounce and Gurley go ahead, but I’m skeptical despite what statistics say.

A couple of years ago we had a guy who was 15th nationally in 3 point attempts and was unranked in 3 pt percentage for most of the season. But when I pointed that out I was lambasted for paying so much attention to percentages. So maybe that converted me to the anti analytics camp.

No one said Furman was going to improve by losing Mounce and Gurley. Your first paragraph is entirely anecdotal.

If you shoot it a lot more than everyone else, you probably miss more than everyone else, too. Not sure what point you're trying to make there.

OK let’s go step by step.

We didn’t get where we wanted to be last year did we? We want to win the conference, right?

So I think we want to improve, right?

We lost Mounce and Gurley’s production, right?

In order to get better, we have to replace their 30 ppg and add another 5-10. Follow me? Those points have to come from somebody.

So your choices are
A. We don’t improve.
B. We replace about 30+ ppg and then some with lots of help from new players (my outlook).
Or
C. we replace those points and then some using only the guys we have from last year- guys who for some reason weren’t allowed to shoot much. That’s pretty much saying you improve by losing Mounce and Gurley. How is it not?

I think that’s crazy but I am clearly in the minority.

[RaleighDin]

You keep mentioning that we have to add points to improve on last year, but I don't know if I follow the logic entirely. If we're a couple of points better on defense, the net effect is the same.

And to say certain players weren't allowed to shoot much last year is misleading too. If shooting was the only thing that matters, pretty sure Pugh would have been a starter the second he stepped on campus. It's about shooting PLUS understanding of the system PLUS defensive effort and understanding. If guys didn't shoot much last year, it's because they didn't grade out high enough across the board relative to the competition on the team to get as much playing time (NOT because they couldn't shoot). ***Quick edit to note that Pugh got injured last year which sucked, because he looked like a big time weapon the way he was playing when he went out.

This entire back and forth is a straw man, with filling in the blanks on what was said to fit a narrative. Bottom line is we lost a LOT of talent in Gurley and Mounce, but we have some guys who are now going to get a chance to step up. I can't wait to see what they do with it.

[PaladinPower]

No one is arguing that we have to improve and replace the offense that left (they do that every year, but you can’t seem to remember). There are capable shooters that will improve in all aspects of the game (gets them more playing time). The only minority you’re in is posting completely baseless claims that make very little sense and putting words in other poster’s mouths.

[Paul C]

You guys are spending alot of time talking about stats, but one area where this year's team has a chance to be much improved is in the area of on-the-court leadership.

I would say we missed THAT part of Jordan Lyons game far more than his points, rebounds and defense last year.

This years team will see some guys who have real leadership personalities step up and lead when we hit the inevitable rough spots game to game.