|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 7, 2017 15:26:45 GMT -5
Earlier, a poster compared Matt Husek to Pat Whearty with the implication that we get little from Matt, especially compared to Pat. While there is no question Pat was a more valuable center for us, the difference might be smaller than some suspect. Admittedly, this is a little like comparing an apple to an orange as Pat was an inside, close to the basket center while Matt is used almost exclusively outside. Pat was expected and did bang the boards while Matt is expected to run back on defense on missed shots and is often around the foul line on D. Using the KY75 standard of play per 40 minutes (definitely the "gold standard," at least until Phreek comes up with something better  ), let's take a look at careers noting that Matt still has a number of games to play this season: Per 40 minutes: Points per 40 minutes: Pat 15.6 Matt 13.1 Rebounds per 40: Pat 10.1 Matt 4.8 Assists per 40: Pat 1.2 Matt 2.0Turnovers per 40: Pat 3.0 Matt 1.9Steals per 40: Pat .9 Matt 1.0Blocks per 40: Pat 1.9 Matt 1.9FG %: Pat 52.3% Matt 43.2% 3 FG%: Pat 30.3% Matt 35.4%FT%: Pat 69.7% Matt 63.4% As you might expect, 95.3% of Pat's shots were 2 pointers compared to Matt only 57.6% were from inside the arc and 42.4% outside. Pat's close in play generated 320 points (4.7 per 40) from the line compared to only 45 (1.4 per 40) for Matt and accounts for the point differential per 40. Bottom line for me, while Matt is not at the level of Pat Whearty, he is making his contribution, at least on the offense. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 7, 2017 15:46:31 GMT -5
Matt is on the perimeter because he has not developed a low post game, vital for a guy 6' 10". MA, RC, and KC all post up more than Matt. Maybe even PB. Thus he rarely draws fouls. what are those numbers ?
His defensive rebounding is very weak. He is almost always near the hoop when an opponent's shot goes up.
His value does not compare to Pat's at either end. Did you see Pat play much ?
please compare their senior numbers
|
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 7, 2017 15:47:30 GMT -5
Gold Standard? Too funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 7, 2017 15:48:30 GMT -5
No comparison between Whearty and Husek.
Husek is closer to the level of Greg McCarthy -- perhaps a bit better than him.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Feb 7, 2017 15:57:25 GMT -5
To compare Husek to Whearty by stats alone is laughable. Two entirely different type players, with entirely different attitudes, and if Whearty played on this year's squad, HC's record would much better.
As to Husek: 6' 10" guy needs to pull down a LOT more than 4.8 rebounds per game to be a factor. That is where Husek is lacking in being the contributor that he should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 7, 2017 16:01:14 GMT -5
Anybody remember the old days when we played at Fordham? Whearty, in front of the Poughkeepsie crowd, made driving layup in a crowd for the W ! No stats would ever convince me that they were at all similar players
|
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Feb 7, 2017 16:02:35 GMT -5
Per 40 minutes: Points per 40 minutes: Pat 15.6 Matt 13.1 Rebounds per 40: Pat 10.1 Matt 4.8 Assists per 40: Pat 1.2 Matt 2.0Turnovers per 40: Pat 3.0 Matt 1.9Steals per 40: Pat .9 Matt 1.0Blocks per 40: Pat 1.9 Matt 1.9FG %: Pat 52.3% Matt 43.2% 3 FG%: Pat 30.3% Matt 35.4%FT%: Pat 69.7% Matt 63.4% Ok, I'll play, but a different game . . . This season only to date, all stats per 40 minutes Points - Husek, 13.7. Floyd, 7.4 Rebounds - Husek, 4.7. Floyd, 5.7Assists - Husek, 1.8. Floyd, 3.1TOs - Husek, 1.4. Floyd, 3.0 Steals - Husek, 1.2. Floyd, 1.6. Blocks - Husek, 1.5. Floyd, 2.5EFG% - Husek, 59.5%. Floyd, 52.8% FT% - Husek, 66.7%. Floyd, 69.2Defensive Win Shares - Husek, .051. Floyd, .073
Jehyve needs to play. Now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 7, 2017 16:11:23 GMT -5
Anybody remember the old days when we played at Fordham? Whearty, in front of the Poughkeepsie crowd, made driving layup in a crowd for the W ! No stats would ever convince me that they were at all similar players Here's the NYT write-up from that game: HOLY CROSS 65, FORDHAM 63: Pat Whearty scored off a rebound at the buzzer to give Holy Cross a victory over Fordham, ending the Ramssix-game winning streak. Whearty led Holy Cross (7-2) with 16 points and 11 rebounds Arseni Kuchinsky led Fordham (6-2) with 14 points, and Bevon Robin and Jason Harris scored 10 each. Szatko made a 3-pointer with 1:21 remaining to cut Fordhams lead to 61-60. Jeff McMillan hit a jumper to give the Rams a 63-60 lead, but Szatko tied it with another 3-pointer with 45 seconds to play. Holy Cross' Ryan Serravalle missed a 10-footer, but Whearty grabbed the rebound and scored as time expired. |
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Feb 7, 2017 16:11:56 GMT -5
As to Husek: 6' 10" guy needs to pull down a LOT more than 4.8 rebounds per game to be a factor. That is where Husek is lacking in being the contributor that he should be. In fairness, and to put things in perspective, Tim Clifford averaged 4.1 rebounds for his career. The real problem with Husek is at the defensive end, something more difficult to quantify, but pretty obvious to the eye. |
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 7, 2017 16:13:51 GMT -5
Husek has grabbed six offensive rebounds all season. SIX!
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 7, 2017 16:16:25 GMT -5
I also would like to see more of JF--- I wonder what he might contribute if he got to play bigger chunks of time rather than a few minutes at a time. One problem with that, however, would be his tendency to commit fouls (also a problem for Pat Whearty) as this season JF is committing 6.8 PF/40. That very high rate, while alarming, is an improvement over last season's 8.5/40 minutes. I believe almost all players commit fouls more frequently as freshmen as they get used to the much faster pace of play in college.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 7, 2017 16:19:16 GMT -5
JF and MH playing about same. Give jf minutes be cuzzins he's coming back next year. Start resting seniors and kc for tourney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 7, 2017 16:24:23 GMT -5
As to Husek: 6' 10" guy needs to pull down a LOT more than 4.8 rebounds per game to be a factor. That is where Husek is lacking in being the contributor that he should be. In fairness, and to put things in perspective, Tim Clifford averaged 4.1 rebounds for his career. But how many rebounds per 40 minutes? |
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 7, 2017 16:25:18 GMT -5
Husek has grabbed six offensive rebounds all season. SIX! I think your read the wrong stats line--go back and double check and we can then both delete our posts I see only six offensive rebounds. |
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Feb 7, 2017 16:26:33 GMT -5
Rebounding comparison for the season by players at least foot apart in height:
Husek: offensive: 6, defensive 49
Benzan: offensive 20, defensive 49
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 7, 2017 16:27:10 GMT -5
Pat was a kind of player that in crunch time, if you could get him the ball down low, it was a hoop or foul
Altrhough I can appreciate that the game is more and more a guard's game and there is value to having a big guy with the ability to open things up by being a legit 3 threat, from Foyle to Ciosici to Sankes to Whearty to McNaughton to Muscala the team at the top usually had a traditional big man
|
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Feb 7, 2017 16:30:54 GMT -5
Height isn't the problem; we lack bulk underneath and get pushed around.
|
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Feb 7, 2017 16:37:25 GMT -5
Rebounding comparison for the season by players at least foot apart in height: Husek: offensive: 6, defensive 49 Benzan: offensive 20, defensive 49 Astonishing. Benzan rebounds and scores in close much better than many bigs. He is one crafty little sucker. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 7, 2017 16:51:14 GMT -5
I think your read the wrong stats line--go back and double check and we can then both delete our posts I see only six offensive rebounds. You are right and I am wrong and apologize. You weren't on the wrong line, I was on the wrong year. MH had 19 O boards last season and I must have clicked on the wrong season |
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Feb 7, 2017 16:55:37 GMT -5
Whearty's type of player was starting to become extinct when he played and, 12-13 years later, it IS just about extinct.
And I think that it made him even more effective because a lot of teams, even good ones, didn't have a guy like him.
I'd take him back in a second. No offense to Matt; in fact if Whearty was out there he'd make MA and MH that much better. Ironically, maybe not Benzan; IMO his drives are successful because the rest of his teammates aren't near the basket; therefore big defenders often aren't too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 7, 2017 16:58:38 GMT -5
So glad to see this has generated some discussion but apparently some of you posters have skimmed all the caveats that I started with: "While there is no question Pat was a more valuable center for us, the difference might be smaller than some suspect. Admittedly, this is a little like comparing an apple to an orange as Pat was an inside, close to the basket center while Matt is used almost exclusively outside. Pat was expected and did bang the boards while Matt is expected to run back on defense on missed shots and is often around the foul line on D. Using the KY75 standard of play per 40 minutes (definitely the "gold standard," at least until Phreek comes up with something better ), let's take a look at careers noting that Matt still has a number of games to play this season: " So, I stipulated Pat is a better center. But how they are played is different (i.e. apples and oranges) regardless whether that is because of Matt's limitations or because Carmody chooses to play him the way he does. As I've said before, you pretty much get 0% of the rebounds you don't try for. Yes, hoops, I did watch Pat play, as much or more than most everyone on this board. When a shot went up, Pat went to the board for a rebound. When a shot goes up, Carmody has Matt and virtually everyone else in full retreat. I am not saying Matt is a better rebounder, he's not. But at least some degree is because he is not allowed to even try. I have also observed and stated that on rebounds, PB and CLS, unlike almost everyone else on the team "loiter" and try to see if a ball comes there way and have gotten some o-boards that way (PB obviously more than CLS). If the ball goes the other way, they tear@$$ back on D. I assume Carmody thinks these two are fast enough to get back on D to let them try. But even Pat's boards are because they come to him, he does not head to the hoop unless he is the one making the shot. As for "gold standard," that was meant not applying to either Pat or Matt but as a equity measuring stick that KY often uses because it somewhat levels the playing field because, let's face it, a player who is on the court 30-35 minutes a game should have better stats than one who only plays 15-20 minutes a game. I can turn this around and say, Pat stunk as a 3 point shooter. In his career he only made 10 3 pointers (took 33). I believe Carmody at one of the pre-game interviews made comments that when he saw how well Matt shot from beyond the arc, he asked him to concentrate on that. And let me remind you and further stipulate that like HC70, I have been looking for us to get a 6'12" power center in the Whearty/Clifford/Sankes mode as long as I've been looking for a 230 lb RB for the football team!  (I don't think Carmody is even looking unless they can shoot lights out and Gilmore would like to but can't find one) That said, let the discussion continue! |
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Feb 7, 2017 19:11:38 GMT -5
Always was a big Pat W fan (I can still see him taking it right at Nick Collison, Patrick Doctor and the bigs for Marquette)......but something interesting (to me) to ponder: given Coach Carm's mantra of passing, shooting, and dribbling skills, if Pat was coming out of high school now, would he be a priority recruit? Could probably ask the same of JF. Remember - not talking level of talent, but the skills Coach Carm craves.
|
|
|
|
Post by cfrivals on Feb 7, 2017 19:19:17 GMT -5
It's true that CBC doesn't have his guys, but what concerns me is that out of 5 chances on his own, does his type of player exist any longer, especially at this level?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 7, 2017 19:34:13 GMT -5
If the point is that the offensive statistical difference between the guy we all consider a stud and one we consider a contributing role player isn't that much, I get it,but still disagree. Stats as we all know can be made to show all kinds of stuff - especially in the hands of an insurance man. For example, just looking at points per 40. We all know that players develop over time, but Whearty had a smaller percentage of his minutes in his last two years, so Matt's numbers are more heavily skewed to his upper class years. Just looking at their last two years, Matt's points per 40 goes up to 13.2, but Pat's goes to 19.5
As I stated earlier in the thread, most repeat PL winners had a strong traditional center. It's getting forgotten because it's a rare asset, but it's still an incredibly valuable asset that can't be overestimated
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 7, 2017 19:46:34 GMT -5
Well, now, Tom: "Stats as we all know can be made to show all kinds of stuff - especially in the hands of an insurance man." You know I am retired now, right? Besides, other guys like Phreek use stats much more frequently than I do and we all know he is a . . . a . . . a . . . what does he actually do again? I think NAD touched on something that I am not sure the CWC would even go after Pat as a recruit. I was not the one who made the initial comparison to Pat to Matt. My only point is that Matt is not as bad as some make it seem. He makes his contributions to the team and if we need a 3 pointer, he's the guy I would want shooting it. No question he is not close to as strong as Pat became and he lacks stamina and not very quick, though I don't recall Pat excelling in that area either. And, Tom, "We all know that players develop over time?" Ah, no, I don't know this and we have seen a bunch of cases the last few years in which there has been regression for a number of reasons whether due to injuries or other issues (in their head?). |
|
), let's take a look at careers noting that Matt still has a number of games to play this season:
(I don't think Carmody is even looking unless they can shoot lights out and Gilmore would like to but can't find one)
