Below average is the one part that isn't subjective. 🤣 You just have to specify the metric and the group being quantified.
Next Season’s Guards
- Thread starter acedog
- Start date
We are going around in circles! The vast majority of people that weighed in clearly think Chase Deserves the recognition for his contributions. A few people think that makes them Homers. I will stand by what it says on my avatar. No amount of bickering about what is “fact” and what is subjective will change anyones mind.
Really seems like PWB is simply trying to find an agreed set and you are evading perhaps because you aren’t sure anything you agree to will support your contention and then you will be in a pickle…
Cool story. You should gather all of your cool stories and publish a collection.
I'm able to disagree with the metrics that PWB wants to use and still find value in metrics. Heck, I often find value in the metrics that PWB uses and support him when I do. In this case, I just disagree with them and suspect that he realizes that he was overly broad with his original claim, which is why he is suddenly narrowing it down with a bunch of modifiers.
This is probably what you meant, but disagreeing with metrics and disagreeing with the narratives we might try to build around metrics is a very different thing. Metrics (really, just any traditional stat) and the naked eye indicates clearly that Audige is a very inefficient offensive player. However, building a narrative that that’s case closed is clearly high questionable for many reasons (usage volume, especially on a scoring challenged team, defensive excellence, etc)Cool story. You should gather all of your cool stories and publish a collection.
I'm able to disagree with the metrics that PWB wants to use and still find value in metrics. Heck, I often find value in the metrics that PWB uses and support him when I do. In this case, I just disagree with them and suspect that he realizes that he was overly broad with his original claim, which is why he is suddenly narrowing it down with a bunch of modifiers.
I posted the table of data in a new thread.Cool story. You should gather all of your cool stories and publish a collection.
I'm able to disagree with the metrics that PWB wants to use and still find value in metrics. Heck, I often find value in the metrics that PWB uses and support him when I do. In this case, I just disagree with them and suspect that he realizes that he was overly broad with his original claim, which is why he is suddenly narrowing it down with a bunch of modifiers.
Audige was below average on offense. Not sure how one could argue otherwise.
I had a debate about Audige on twitter similar to this. There is no doubt that Audige struggles on offense overall but while that is true, he also can win you games on the offensive end as he is insanely streaky and can be horrible for 17 minutes of a half but in the other three score 10 plus points. I defer to the last 3:43 of the Purdue game but he did the same against UCLA.
Sure sometimes he's a net positive on the offensive end.
But he dug us into a bunch of huge holes too.
I see it pretty simply - he took too many shots.
If you look at missed shots as 80% of a turnover, he turned it over a lot. So the steals he got on defense were offset in large degree by the missed shots.
I have nothing against the man himself, but his stats profile was not helping the team as much as people seem to believe. In my opinion, of course.
Hey PWB, who would you have had shoot the ball more? IMO, only Boo was clearly a better option. Barney came on, but he had the same gunslinger mentality as Chase at times. Berry was even more streaky than Chase. Big Matt’s range right now is a dunk or layup. Robbie was reluctant and Mart wasn’t much of an option at this point in his career.
My opinion is there weren’t great alternatives and Chases’s driving to the hoop often resulted in open shots for others ( even if they weren’t shot at a high %). We were offensively challenged most games.
Its a good question. Audige's 2nd half was pretty bad. So, in that regard you could say "anybody" but as you say, "anybody" included Berry and Beran.
I wanted us to work harder to get the ball into the paint, where we'd at least have a chance to crash the boards and get rebounds. One thing that I think would have worked was using Beran on ball screens on occasion to try to free up easy lobs to Nicholson. "Nicholson within dunking distance" was our best option in the 2nd half, so I just thought we should have tried harder to get those opportunities. Coordinated drives to the basket where Audige waited for Nicholson to wall off defenders in the paint seemed like another thing that was successful.
Other than lobs, Barnhizer was definitely the 2nd best scoring option to Buie after the Covid break.
And honestly, if Chase had shot more 3's and fewer 2's he would have been more effective.
I'll make a table for our players in the last 13 games (2nd half Big Ten, BTN tournament, NCAA tournament).
Let it go - another guy that doesn’t want to truly discuss. He’s too busy moving the goalposts each time you try to engage him.
This is our last 13 games. Lots of columns... The minutes per game are off slightly, but close.
The struggles of Beran, Audige and Berry on 2 point attempts is glaring. Beran made 3's at a rate of 33%, so we needed more of that from him. Berry was just really bad at scoring after Roper got hurt and his playing time increased. He made half as many 3 pointers as Buie, but attempted 4 more. On the plus side, Berry remained active on the boards and had more steals than turnovers.
Nicholson had 4 more made 2 pointers than Audige and 48 fewer misses.
| Player | Mins | Made 2 | Miss 2 | Made 3 | Miss 3 | FT/FTA | OR/DR | Asst | TO | Stl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buie | 36.4 | 58 | 62 | 28 | 45 | 54/65 | 12/32 | 63 | 29 | 15 |
| Berry | 29.6 | 14 | 25 | 14 | 49 | 16/22 | 12/51 | 11 | 12 | 17 |
| Audige | 35.9 | 31 | 59 | 22 | 57 | 20/27 | 7/40 | 34 | 34 | 27 |
| Barney | 29.6 | 34 | 38 | 15 | 23 | 26/28 | 19/57 | 11 | 10 | 9 |
| Beran | 20.2 | 9 | 18 | 13 | 26 | 8/8 | 6/35 | 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Nichol | 21.5 | 35 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 7/18 | 24/32 | 17 | 9 | 10 |
| Verhoe | 16.9 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 9/11 | 21/13 | 7 | 4 | 10 |
| Martin | 10.5 | 11 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 2/7 | 9/8 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
The struggles of Beran, Audige and Berry on 2 point attempts is glaring. Beran made 3's at a rate of 33%, so we needed more of that from him. Berry was just really bad at scoring after Roper got hurt and his playing time increased. He made half as many 3 pointers as Buie, but attempted 4 more. On the plus side, Berry remained active on the boards and had more steals than turnovers.
Nicholson had 4 more made 2 pointers than Audige and 48 fewer misses.
I think an ever better argument for Audige offensively is, to be honest he’s not very good, BUT he can at least attempt to create and this team was desperate for second and third scoring options all year when Buie wasn’t pouring it in, so he had no choice but to be pretty inefficient in a high volume way. SOMEBODY else had to take some shots. In a situation where Boo and BB are scoring stats 1 and 2, MN is a slightly more consistent scoring threat, and even somebody like Berry is more of an option, I’m curious what Audige’s numbers look like in such a situation.
Buie led his team to a totally surprising second place finish. Without him, they don't get anywhere near there. Young was his team's leading scorer, but he didn't lift his team like Boo did. Thus, Boo was voted first team. These things are not all based on "statistics." or single game matchups (although Buie did average 2 pts more per game than Young for all games). If stats were all that mattered, Antoine Davis, the guy who almost broke Maravich's scoring record would surely have been more than an honorable mention all-american, but his team stunk. As for Audige, he was really the only Cat who could create his own shot, causing him to have to force some late in the shot clock, thus skewing his stats. And again, his defense was "difference making" for a team that way overachieved, thus he was voted second team. These were "team awards" as much as anything else.
Buie’s recognition was at least in part deserved for his late game work in huge games, no doubt!
It is reasonable to attempt to get the ball inside more. However, Big Matt almost always dished the ball right back out unless it was a lob dunk. It was a hot potato in his hands when six feet away. Maybe CCC told him to do that, but he sure looked reluctant to even attempt any kind of an offensive move. Robbie seemed to stop shooting after a couple of misses. There just wasn’t many options.
Exactly why literally just one halfway solid move inside six feet makes him dramatically better.
Looking forward to seeing what Brian James and Big Matt come up with in the lab this summer.
The first and only time I heard Coach Collins referred to "the lab" was when he talked about fixing Ty Berry's shot.
Hopefully we have multiple labs.
Yes most of his baskets were dunks.
He did not get the ball passed to him near the basket much at all, other than the pick and roll.
But he was open down there pretty often.
And yes he would kick the ball elsewhere, but we are talking about once or twice a game.
I'm just saying that more lobs would have led to easier baskets and we should have made a more concentrated effort to do that, beyond the pick and roll. Have others set the ball screens from time to time to get those easy lob looks. I don't think it was ever part of the offense - Nicholson was viewed mainly as a screener.
Honesty half of the use of an inside move would be following offensive rebounds. It would make that pick and roll even more deadly too. It wouldn’t suddenly make playing a 1997 inside-outside feed the big man post game the Cats way, just deliver probably 4-5 high efficiency extra shots a game. That would be massive.
One thing that Nicholson could have done from the post was kick to a 3 point shooter moving off a screen. I think that would have helped Beran in particular, who shot 33% from out there in the 2nd half of the season and (like Audige) was "okay" from 3, while "not good" from 2.
It was a lot to throw at Nicholson in a single season, I will admit, but he handled whatever he was asked to do as the season progressed (other than make free throws).
Agree in principle, but given how many open looks from 3 pt range that our team missed collectively over the course of the season, I'm not convinced this would have made a difference. That was perhaps among the disappointments this season: our team accuracy from long-range. I don't recall players like Beran or Berry taking a bunch of bad, contested 3pt attempts. I was fairly happy with the shot selection for the most part last season - the problem was they just didn't hit them at a high enough rate in most games. I don't see how the pass to the open shooter coming Nicholson from the post vs Audige/Buie after penetrating the lane would have made a difference in the 3pt percentage.
Exactly why Langborg would be such a great addition.
Other than Boo, you mean.
Better O players hit more of those late shots.
Demps was a streaky shooter (.341 3P%), but he had quite a run of hitting late game tying/winning shots as the clock wound down.
BMac also hit 3s at a .341 clip.
Cobb is at .336., Hearn at .353, Lindsey at .356. and Boo at .326.
People overlook this aspect of Juice's game, but he was a blazing .409 from 3 pt land.
Audige is .310 in his NU career, so, a bit lower than past NU guards.
Last edited:
Beran really never shot from 3 unless he was wide open!
I do think a post player can pass more accurately to a shooter because he is looking right at him.
A guy driving to the basket often kicks it while moving, so the shooter is picking the ball up off the floor, or jumping / moving to catch it or whatever.
To me, a big factor in success from 3 is how the shooter receives the pass.
And a little variety in your offense is usually a good thing!
Similar threads
