Austin Williams Visiting RU

[NewJerseyHawk]

What was left out of you evaluation is that Spencer was our best player last year.

This is hilarious but it speaks to how fans don't understand basketball.

There's an evaluation of basketball that I don't have days to explain and it simply comes down to this.

When a players best attribute is shooting and an opponent knows that's all the player can do, what happens to the overall teams performance, when that player ISN'T able to shoot 3s, make 3s??

If Spencer isn't hitting shots, does he impact the game in other areas?? He's not a plus defender 1 on 1.....he's not a transition player, that makes plays on defense and it results in fast break opportunities for himself or others.....he also cannot play any other position, where he can initiate the offense or guard multiple positions.

The reality is based on TEAM basketball, that Paul Mulcahy is a better player, fit and offers more towards winning than Cam Spencer.....and Mulcahy was replaced, because he has a right to want to continue his career as a PG......even though it's clear to me, he's not a full time PG at this level of basketball.

Players have to fit into a team and offer versatility on multiple areas. As terrible a shooter as Caleb was and as banged up as a player he was physically, a 21% 3 point shooter and player with a bad back, earned a free agent NBA contract with the OKC Thunder, averaging 9PPG in college, as a 5th year senior.

If that doesn't sink in on impact to winning, I'm not sure what does. Caleb plays or impacts winning, far more than Spencer's impact ever could.

And I will repeat again, a 43% 3 point shooter only averaged around 11PPG vs teams that weren't Q4 opponents.

For basic math people, if a shooter was even shooting 38% from 3 (which is where Spencer was vs non Q4 opponents) that's 3 out of 8 from 3.

Gavin Griffiths is more likely to be able to shoot more 3s per game, because he's simply a better player, he is 6'7" and a Top 50 prospect. Spencer was simply too limited to take the 7 or 8 3 point shots per game, so he could hit 3 or more per B1G contest. There weren't enough games where his shot attempts got into the 14, 15, 16 shot attempt category.....

Spencer also played soft basketball, by not drawing enough contact and driving to get fouled, because he's too limited or content to only shoot when wide open. As a 90% FT shooter, he should have gotten to the FT line much more, but turned and faded away from defenders, avoiding contact....he should have been looking to draw contact to get to the line.

RU will be much better off with Gavin Griffiths taking MORE threes per contest, irregardless of what his shooting percentages look like. Same with Fernandes, Williams and ultimately Simpson, who isn't going to shoot 21% again from 3. As the guards around him are able to also drive and kick, Simpson will see cleaner looks and shoot a better %.

 

[ImBadRU]

Transitioning to a fast athletic team requires...athletes...twitchy quick mobile...we'll see how it goes. Mag was the most important player last year...not even close.

 

[rubaseball78]

This is hilarious but it speaks to how fans don't understand basketball.

There's an evaluation of basketball that I don't have days to explain and it simply comes down to this.

When a players best attribute is shooting and an opponent knows that's all the player can do, what happens to the overall teams performance, when that player ISN'T able to shoot 3s, make 3s??

If Spencer isn't hitting shots, does he impact the game in other areas?? He's not a plus defender 1 on 1.....he's not a transition player, that makes plays on defense and it results in fast break opportunities for himself or others.....he also cannot play any other position, where he can initiate the offense or guard multiple positions.

The reality is based on TEAM basketball, that Paul Mulcahy is a better player, fit and offers more towards winning than Cam Spencer.....and Mulcahy was replaced, because he has a right to want to continue his career as a PG......even though it's clear to me, he's not a full time PG at this level of basketball.

Players have to fit into a team and offer versatility on multiple areas. As terrible a shooter as Caleb was and as banged up as a player he was physically, a 21% 3 point shooter and player with a bad back, earned a free agent NBA contract with the OKC Thunder, averaging 9PPG in college, as a 5th year senior.

If that doesn't sink in on impact to winning, I'm not sure what does. Caleb plays or impacts winning, far more than Spencer's impact ever could.

And I will repeat again, a 43% 3 point shooter only averaged around 11PPG vs teams that weren't Q4 opponents.

For basic math people, if a shooter was even shooting 38% from 3 (which is where Spencer was vs non Q4 opponents) that's 3 out of 8 from 3.

Gavin Griffiths is more likely to be able to shoot more 3s per game, because he's simply a better player, he is 6'7" and a Top 50 prospect. Spencer was simply too limited to take the 7 or 8 3 point shots per game, so he could hit 3 or more per B1G contest. There weren't enough games where his shot attempts got into the 14, 15, 16 shot attempt category.....

Spencer also played soft basketball, by not drawing enough contact and driving to get fouled, because he's too limited or content to only shoot when wide open. As a 90% FT shooter, he should have gotten to the FT line much more, but turned and faded away from defenders, avoiding contact....he should have been looking to draw contact to get to the line.

RU will be much better off with Gavin Griffiths taking MORE threes per contest, irregardless of what his shooting percentages look like. Same with Fernandes, Williams and ultimately Simpson, who isn't going to shoot 21% again from 3. As the guards around him are able to also drive and kick, Simpson will see cleaner looks and shoot a better %.

You lost me at Spencer was a soft player. I disagree. He was a player with limitations (ie, didn't have the size quickness, jumping ability to create his own shot), but was not a soft player.

 

[KevH]

Words to remember: Losing is a mindset just as WINNING is. Athletes always believe they can win no matter what the circumstance. Give our guys a little more credit. Each season is a new season and must be viewed individually.

Never underestimate our guys:
Eugene Oromuyi: turned out to be a good player for two seasons. I recall fans on this site calling him a bum because he was a late pickup with no other offers.

Geo Baker: people continue to complain about him, yet he was so clutch for the program he will be remembered as a legend at Rutgers. Much respect!

Caleb McConnell: overlooked, forgotten, and trashed by many. Another legend who impacted games in a way rarely seen on the banks.

Myles Johnson: few offers coming off an injury. Sound familiar? He left the banks beloved. He was a tough defender who anchored the beginnings of a strong defense. He wasn't great offensively but somehow finished with 9/10 points a game by cleaning up missed shots or ally-oops.

Who is to say Fernandes, Davis, and Gavin can't outplay the low expectations set by our fans? Let's not forget Simpson begin to flash his abilities at the end of the season. Most players in any sport likely make the biggest leap in development between their first and second seasons. Don't knock them until you see them in person. 🤣

Amen. What most of us wouldn't give to exceed expectations the way those guys have.

 

[Mr_Twister]

This is hilarious but it speaks to how fans don't understand basketball.

There's an evaluation of basketball that I don't have days to explain and it simply comes down to this.

When a players best attribute is shooting and an opponent knows that's all the player can do, what happens to the overall teams performance, when that player ISN'T able to shoot 3s, make 3s??

If Spencer isn't hitting shots, does he impact the game in other areas?? He's not a plus defender 1 on 1.....he's not a transition player, that makes plays on defense and it results in fast break opportunities for himself or others.....he also cannot play any other position, where he can initiate the offense or guard multiple positions.

The reality is based on TEAM basketball, that Paul Mulcahy is a better player, fit and offers more towards winning than Cam Spencer.....and Mulcahy was replaced, because he has a right to want to continue his career as a PG......even though it's clear to me, he's not a full time PG at this level of basketball.

Players have to fit into a team and offer versatility on multiple areas. As terrible a shooter as Caleb was and as banged up as a player he was physically, a 21% 3 point shooter and player with a bad back, earned a free agent NBA contract with the OKC Thunder, averaging 9PPG in college, as a 5th year senior.

If that doesn't sink in on impact to winning, I'm not sure what does. Caleb plays or impacts winning, far more than Spencer's impact ever could.

And I will repeat again, a 43% 3 point shooter only averaged around 11PPG vs teams that weren't Q4 opponents.

For basic math people, if a shooter was even shooting 38% from 3 (which is where Spencer was vs non Q4 opponents) that's 3 out of 8 from 3.

Gavin Griffiths is more likely to be able to shoot more 3s per game, because he's simply a better player, he is 6'7" and a Top 50 prospect. Spencer was simply too limited to take the 7 or 8 3 point shots per game, so he could hit 3 or more per B1G contest. There weren't enough games where his shot attempts got into the 14, 15, 16 shot attempt category.....

Spencer also played soft basketball, by not drawing enough contact and driving to get fouled, because he's too limited or content to only shoot when wide open. As a 90% FT shooter, he should have gotten to the FT line much more, but turned and faded away from defenders, avoiding contact....he should have been looking to draw contact to get to the line.

RU will be much better off with Gavin Griffiths taking MORE threes per contest, irregardless of what his shooting percentages look like. Same with Fernandes, Williams and ultimately Simpson, who isn't going to shoot 21% again from 3. As the guards around him are able to also drive and kick, Simpson will see cleaner looks and shoot a better %.

Though in Spencer’s behalf, he is going to a team that is head and shoulders better than the one he leaves.
It will be interesting to see his impact on his new team. The head coach obviously values him.

 

[RU84]

What was left out of you evaluation is that Spencer was our best player last year.

Cliff was our best player last year. The fact that Cam may be considered one of the best players last year tells you more about how challenged our team was last year for a go to scorer than how good Cam is.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

You lost me at Spencer was a soft player. I disagree. He was a player with limitations (ie, didn't have the size quickness, jumping ability to create his own shot), but was not a soft player.

Ability or willingness to play through contact is a trait a player has or doesn't. It shows up on tape....do you fight through screens on defense, do you draw charges....do you drive into your defender to draw contact, then pump fake, knowing full well, that a player in the air, is going to crunch you on top of your head, shoulders or slap down on your arms to prevent the shot from getting released.

Spencer, as a player who has one primary strength, didn't get to the line enough, unless it was him catching an inbound pass at the end of the game. Those other things mentioned, all happen within the standard flow of a game.

The 3% percentage, needs expansion into something similar to the MLB review of who's eligible to win a batting title for highest average. If you shoot 43% from 3 and 90% from the line, but have a smaller number of attempts, you probably don't register as a true shooter.

In MLB, I believe it was 500 At Bats needed to qualify, but I don't follow MLB like I did 10 to 20 years ago. All I know is, from a starting guard aspect in the B1G, Spencer falls below average, if we're comparing him in overall play/impact. I can name at least 20 to 25 guards in the B1G that play a more complete game in all areas that impacts winning, moreso than Cam Spencer. The team needs an upgrade at guard, which is what RU should be getting across the position, from the 1st guard, through the 5th guard on the roster.

 

[Degaz-RU]

He's not that good, ate you saying UConn has 13 all Americans, 13 lottery picks of their 13 scholarship kids....Mulcahy could pick Xavier and wind up starting for them and it wouldn't mean he's better for RU than Fernandes, Williams, Simpson or Griffiths....people do realize there are more quality players than Power 5/6 spots. Cam Spencer is a limited specialist....he's not a primary man on any reasonably good team. He's going to play a reduced role at UConn that gets catch and shoot opportunities because of the talent and big man Clingan, who's going to immediately draw double coverage.

It's amazing how many fans don't comprehend fit, roles and responsibilities and workload on a basketball court. Cam Spencer had 34 games (no injury excuses) and had ample opportunity to step up and take big shots on a consistent level. He simply is too limited to be a primary scoring option that can generate his own offense, on a NCAA caliber team. He requires his teammates to create offense/shot opportunities for him.

RU needs a more complete arsenal of guards, beyond Spencer and Mulcahy, who simply don't create their own shots, off the dribble or can jump shoot unless it's a catch and shoot scenario.

You’re arguing a point NOBODY has made. Nobody has argued that Spencer should be our “primary” scoring option. Most of us are upset he left because he would’ve been on a team this year that had more offensive options, thereby freeing him to do what he does best — shoot.

This thread started out as notification that we got a visit from Austin Williams, and for some reason you have taken it down the road of comparing Williams to Cam, and making a random and completely unfounded claim that Williams would be better than Cam.

And now you’re arguing that Cam “was not good” and was basically only solid against bad opponents.

We get it - you prefer athletic guys who can slash, run, jump, defend “1-on-1,” and break down defenses. But your constant need to put down the guy who led our team in scoring and single handedly won us three Big Ten road games (among other accomplishments) is… baffling to say the least.

As an aside, your position on Cam is completely inconsistent with your position on Mag…

 

[Degaz-RU]

This is hilarious but it speaks to how fans don't understand basketball.

There's an evaluation of basketball that I don't have days to explain and it simply comes down to this.

When a players best attribute is shooting and an opponent knows that's all the player can do, what happens to the overall teams performance, when that player ISN'T able to shoot 3s, make 3s??

If Spencer isn't hitting shots, does he impact the game in other areas?? He's not a plus defender 1 on 1.....he's not a transition player, that makes plays on defense and it results in fast break opportunities for himself or others.....he also cannot play any other position, where he can initiate the offense or guard multiple positions.

The reality is based on TEAM basketball, that Paul Mulcahy is a better player, fit and offers more towards winning than Cam Spencer.....and Mulcahy was replaced, because he has a right to want to continue his career as a PG......even though it's clear to me, he's not a full time PG at this level of basketball.

Players have to fit into a team and offer versatility on multiple areas. As terrible a shooter as Caleb was and as banged up as a player he was physically, a 21% 3 point shooter and player with a bad back, earned a free agent NBA contract with the OKC Thunder, averaging 9PPG in college, as a 5th year senior.

If that doesn't sink in on impact to winning, I'm not sure what does. Caleb plays or impacts winning, far more than Spencer's impact ever could.

And I will repeat again, a 43% 3 point shooter only averaged around 11PPG vs teams that weren't Q4 opponents.

For basic math people, if a shooter was even shooting 38% from 3 (which is where Spencer was vs non Q4 opponents) that's 3 out of 8 from 3.

Gavin Griffiths is more likely to be able to shoot more 3s per game, because he's simply a better player, he is 6'7" and a Top 50 prospect. Spencer was simply too limited to take the 7 or 8 3 point shots per game, so he could hit 3 or more per B1G contest. There weren't enough games where his shot attempts got into the 14, 15, 16 shot attempt category.....

Spencer also played soft basketball, by not drawing enough contact and driving to get fouled, because he's too limited or content to only shoot when wide open. As a 90% FT shooter, he should have gotten to the FT line much more, but turned and faded away from defenders, avoiding contact....he should have been looking to draw contact to get to the line.

RU will be much better off with Gavin Griffiths taking MORE threes per contest, irregardless of what his shooting percentages look like. Same with Fernandes, Williams and ultimately Simpson, who isn't going to shoot 21% again from 3. As the guards around him are able to also drive and kick, Simpson will see cleaner looks and shoot a better %.

Have you similarly broken down the stats of other shooters to compare their 3-Pt percentages against low level opponents versus their 3-Pt percentages against P6 opponents? I suspect you’d see a similar breakdown as with Cam, i.e., higher % against non-P6 teams, lower % against P-6 teams.

And even playing on your ballfield, I would take 38% on 3-pointers against P-6 competition any day if the week. Are we supposed to agree with you that 38% is not good?

For comparison’s sake — something you don’t like to do — 38% as a team was top 15 in the country in 3-Pt. shooting percentage. NCAA statistics for individuals only rank the top 50 players, and #50 was 38.77%. Number 49 was Jordan Hawkins of UConn at 38.79%. Is that “bad”? And these are overall numbers that include non-P6 opponents.

Let’s not ignore real statistics in order to squeeze things into your narrative.

 

[ScarletLongIsland]

Not really. He never got to the line

Next year's free throws are going to be a roller coaster ride without Cam 90%

 

[rubaseball78]

Ability or willingness to play through contact is a trait a player has or doesn't. It shows up on tape....do you fight through screens on defense, do you draw charges....do you drive into your defender to draw contact, then pump fake, knowing full well, that a player in the air, is going to crunch you on top of your head, shoulders or slap down on your arms to prevent the shot from getting released.

Spencer, as a player who has one primary strength, didn't get to the line enough, unless it was him catching an inbound pass at the end of the game. Those other things mentioned, all happen within the standard flow of a game.

The 3% percentage, needs expansion into something similar to the MLB review of who's eligible to win a batting title for highest average. If you shoot 43% from 3 and 90% from the line, but have a smaller number of attempts, you probably don't register as a true shooter.

In MLB, I believe it was 500 At Bats needed to qualify, but I don't follow MLB like I did 10 to 20 years ago. All I know is, from a starting guard aspect in the B1G, Spencer falls below average, if we're comparing him in overall play/impact. I can name at least 20 to 25 guards in the B1G that play a more complete game in all areas that impacts winning, moreso than Cam Spencer. The team needs an upgrade at guard, which is what RU should be getting across the position, from the 1st guard, through the 5th guard on the roster.

I don’t disagree that he was a below average starting guard. That doesn’t mean he’s soft. When I played I was more of a perimeter player. If you called me soft at some point in the game you would receive a well placed elbow.

 

[rudad02]

This is hilarious but it speaks to how fans don't understand basketball.

There's an evaluation of basketball that I don't have days to explain and it simply comes down to this.

When a players best attribute is shooting and an opponent knows that's all the player can do, what happens to the overall teams performance, when that player ISN'T able to shoot 3s, make 3s??

If Spencer isn't hitting shots, does he impact the game in other areas?? He's not a plus defender 1 on 1.....he's not a transition player, that makes plays on defense and it results in fast break opportunities for himself or others.....he also cannot play any other position, where he can initiate the offense or guard multiple positions.

The reality is based on TEAM basketball, that Paul Mulcahy is a better player, fit and offers more towards winning than Cam Spencer.....and Mulcahy was replaced, because he has a right to want to continue his career as a PG......even though it's clear to me, he's not a full time PG at this level of basketball.

Players have to fit into a team and offer versatility on multiple areas. As terrible a shooter as Caleb was and as banged up as a player he was physically, a 21% 3 point shooter and player with a bad back, earned a free agent NBA contract with the OKC Thunder, averaging 9PPG in college, as a 5th year senior.

If that doesn't sink in on impact to winning, I'm not sure what does. Caleb plays or impacts winning, far more than Spencer's impact ever could.

And I will repeat again, a 43% 3 point shooter only averaged around 11PPG vs teams that weren't Q4 opponents.

For basic math people, if a shooter was even shooting 38% from 3 (which is where Spencer was vs non Q4 opponents) that's 3 out of 8 from 3.

Gavin Griffiths is more likely to be able to shoot more 3s per game, because he's simply a better player, he is 6'7" and a Top 50 prospect. Spencer was simply too limited to take the 7 or 8 3 point shots per game, so he could hit 3 or more per B1G contest. There weren't enough games where his shot attempts got into the 14, 15, 16 shot attempt category.....

Spencer also played soft basketball, by not drawing enough contact and driving to get fouled, because he's too limited or content to only shoot when wide open. As a 90% FT shooter, he should have gotten to the FT line much more, but turned and faded away from defenders, avoiding contact....he should have been looking to draw contact to get to the line.

RU will be much better off with Gavin Griffiths taking MORE threes per contest, irregardless of what his shooting percentages look like. Same with Fernandes, Williams and ultimately Simpson, who isn't going to shoot 21% again from 3. As the guards around him are able to also drive and kick, Simpson will see cleaner looks and shoot a better %.

This is pretty hilarious. Speaks to how much you know about basketball &, it appears athletics in general. Spencer hit a cold patch where he couldn't buy a hoop, however, it wasn't always because he was defended so well by a Big Ten defender. Many misses were off of good, open looks. Slumps happen in sports.
He was our top scorer, I believe 3pt shooter, & free throw shooter. He was our smartest player, excellent basketball instincts which resulted in numerous steals, & a very underrated rebounder.
He would sometimes get beaten one on one by quicker guards, but other than that, while not a world beater, a very, very solid basketball player.

 

[Scarlet Bri]

Getting back on topic, is this guy expected to commit?

 

[RUChoppin]

This is hilarious but it speaks to how fans don't understand basketball.

There's an evaluation of basketball that I don't have days to explain and it simply comes down to this.

When a players best attribute is shooting and an opponent knows that's all the player can do, what happens to the overall teams performance, when that player ISN'T able to shoot 3s, make 3s??

If Spencer isn't hitting shots, does he impact the game in other areas?? He's not a plus defender 1 on 1.....he's not a transition player, that makes plays on defense and it results in fast break opportunities for himself or others.....he also cannot play any other position, where he can initiate the offense or guard multiple positions.

The reality is based on TEAM basketball, that Paul Mulcahy is a better player, fit and offers more towards winning than Cam Spencer.....and Mulcahy was replaced, because he has a right to want to continue his career as a PG......even though it's clear to me, he's not a full time PG at this level of basketball.

Players have to fit into a team and offer versatility on multiple areas. As terrible a shooter as Caleb was and as banged up as a player he was physically, a 21% 3 point shooter and player with a bad back, earned a free agent NBA contract with the OKC Thunder, averaging 9PPG in college, as a 5th year senior.

If that doesn't sink in on impact to winning, I'm not sure what does. Caleb plays or impacts winning, far more than Spencer's impact ever could.

And I will repeat again, a 43% 3 point shooter only averaged around 11PPG vs teams that weren't Q4 opponents.

For basic math people, if a shooter was even shooting 38% from 3 (which is where Spencer was vs non Q4 opponents) that's 3 out of 8 from 3.

Gavin Griffiths is more likely to be able to shoot more 3s per game, because he's simply a better player, he is 6'7" and a Top 50 prospect. Spencer was simply too limited to take the 7 or 8 3 point shots per game, so he could hit 3 or more per B1G contest. There weren't enough games where his shot attempts got into the 14, 15, 16 shot attempt category.....

Spencer also played soft basketball, by not drawing enough contact and driving to get fouled, because he's too limited or content to only shoot when wide open. As a 90% FT shooter, he should have gotten to the FT line much more, but turned and faded away from defenders, avoiding contact....he should have been looking to draw contact to get to the line.

RU will be much better off with Gavin Griffiths taking MORE threes per contest, irregardless of what his shooting percentages look like. Same with Fernandes, Williams and ultimately Simpson, who isn't going to shoot 21% again from 3. As the guards around him are able to also drive and kick, Simpson will see cleaner looks and shoot a better %.

I love how a terrible take is being defended as "you just don't understand basketball", lol

Yes, Spencer impacted the game when he wasn't shooting. He was 3rd in the conference in steals, 13 in assists, and 6th in assist/turnover ratio.

If there were a player in the portal with his production, we'd be all over him right now. Grad-transfer honorable-mention-all-conference guard from a major conference who scored 13.2 ppg (.444 FG, .434 3P, .894 FT), and recorded 3.8 rb, 3.1 ast, 2.0 stl, and 1.4 tov in 31.5 mpg. The question wouldn't be whether he'd start or not, but whether we'd even be able to afford him with other competing offers.

 

[Fat Koko]

Very, very poor evaluation of Spencer.

Thank you for your comment on another’s evaluation.

What is your Cam evaluation?

My Cam review is he helped RU, evidenced by his team leading scoring and hiring by UConn, reigning national champions.

What is your Cam evaluation?

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Transitioning to a fast athletic team requires...athletes...twitchy quick mobile...we'll see how it goes. Mag was the most important player last year...not even close.

No… he wasn’t. Losing him hurt a ton because of our depth situation and inability to run the press effectively without him, but that’s different from saying he was the stand out most important guy. Losing Caleb, for example, would’ve put us in an equally bad situation because the perimeter halfcourt defense would’ve been a problem against teams with shooters (see Temple game for example). Losing Cliff would been the biggest disaster. If we had to go any longer without Paul early on that would’ve been a problem too. Simpson was nowhere ready to be the main ball handler the first half of the season. And yes, there were also games where we wouldn’t have been able to overcome the loss of Cam as we really didn’t have other shooters.

 

[rudad02]

Thank you for your comment on another’s evaluation.

What is your Cam evaluation?

My Cam review is he helped RU, evidenced by his team leading scoring and hiring by UConn, reigning national champions.

What is your Cam evaluation?

See above post.

 

[Scarlet Blind]

You can play devil's advocate too with the Cam evaluation. The despite being the leading scorer on two separate teams in two years, neither team won enough games because of his play and shooting at Loyola MD 14-16(8-10 in the Patriot) or Rutgers 18-14(12-8), 21-22 to 19-15(10-10), 22-23 after Mag's injury.

 

[njcanesfan]

Getting back on topic, is this guy expected to commit?

Bump

 

[RU_DIO]

This team will miss Cam, a deadly 5th year sharp shooter. Something every top team wants and needs.

 

[Fat Koko]

See above post.

Nice. Got it. Agree with your evaluation. Cam was underrated on defense. Regularly frustrated opponents plans. Had 69 steals, in line with defensive-player-of-the-year Caleb’s 71 steals.

 

[cm_13]

Cliff was our best player last year. The fact that Cam may be considered one of the best players last year tells you more about how challenged our team was last year for a go to scorer than how good Cam is.

Correct. Had the exact same points per game as Cam, led the team in rebounding, and was key to our success on the defensive end given how much our defense fell of a cliff when he wasn't in the game.

 

[Knight Owl]

31% from 3 the past 2 seasons and 2.0 Assists vs 2.56 TO's for his career.

Yes, I'm being that guy.

31% for a dude usually doing the dribbling isn’t bad (Geo-ish percentage). His strength is getting downhill and scoring or drawing contact. Why he isn’t at least a 70% free throw shooter is a mystery to me because his form on his trey isn’t wonky at all. Playing tons of minutes may have hurt his FT percentage but I don’t have a study that proves it.

 

[RUChoppin]

No… he wasn’t. Losing him hurt a ton because of our depth situation and inability to run the press effectively without him, but that’s different from saying he was the stand out most important guy. Losing Caleb, for example, would’ve put us in an equally bad situation because the perimeter halfcourt defense would’ve been a problem against teams with shooters (see Temple game for example). Losing Cliff would been the biggest disaster. If we had to go any longer without Paul early on that would’ve been a problem too. Simpson was nowhere ready to be the main ball handler the first half of the season. And yes, there were also games where we wouldn’t have been able to overcome the loss of Cam as we really didn’t have other shooters.

We didn't really have a true superstar player last year, but we had a team that needed its top 6 rotational players to remain healthy to be consistently successful. The real villain last year was lack of redundancy and depth. Mag went down and upset the chemistry... but we'd have had just as steep a dropoff in effectiveness had any of Omoruyi, McConnell, Mulcahy, Spencer, or Hyatt had gone down.

The "next man up" just wasn't ready to perform at a competitive B1G level. Simpson started to put it together late in the year, but Palmquist/Miller/Reiber/Woolf just were not ready to take on starter minutes and be leaned on to replace any of the top 6 rotational guys.

 

[Scangg]

We didn't really have a true superstar player last year, but we had a team that needed its top 6 rotational players to remain healthy to be consistently successful. The real villain last year was lack of redundancy and depth. Mag went down and upset the chemistry... but we'd have had just as steep a dropoff in effectiveness had any of Omoruyi, McConnell, Mulcahy, Spencer, or Hyatt had gone down.

The "next man up" just wasn't ready to perform at a competitive B1G level. Simpson started to put it together late in the year, but Palmquist/Miller/Reiber/Woolf just were not ready to take on starter minutes and be leaned on to replace any of the top 6 rotational guys.

You can't honestly believe the drop off of losing Cliff or Hyatt would be just as steep

Hyatt got benched for Oskar lol

 

[RUChoppin]

You can't honestly believe the drop off of losing Cliff or Hyatt would be just as steep

Hyatt got benched for Oskar lol

Hyatt probably slightly less of an impact compared to the other five - but even so, had Hyatt gone down the with the same timing as Mag, we'd have been running with Mag/Palmquist instead of Hyatt/Palmquist and the outcome would have still been bad.

Hyatt definitely fell off in the final stretch and did not see the same productivity as a starter as he had as a 6th man / change of pace PF. Going into the game Mag was injured, Hyatt was averaging 23.8 min/g and Mag was averaging 25.4.... whichever went out, we'd have been relying on Palmquist getting called up from the end of the bench for minutes he really wasn't suited for. Instead of losing Mag's defense, we'd have lost Hyatt's scoring (3rd per 100 possessions behind Omoruyi/Spencer).

We couldn't afford to lose any of our starters, or Hyatt as our 6th man. Simpson found himself late, which bodes well for this year, but he wasn't as important to the "first 22 games" team as the other 6 were.

Palmquist largely sputtered. Hyatt lost his starting spot to him and saw his minutes fell off to single-digits for the conference tournament.... but Palmquist took that opportunity and gave us just 4 pts over 32 minutes in those two games.

The 6 top rotational players were balanced, with Simpson having time to grow as a 7th piece. Removing any one of them would have thrown the balance out and we'd have really struggled (as we did with Mag).

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

You can't honestly believe the drop off of losing Cliff or Hyatt would be just as steep

Hyatt got benched for Oskar lol

Yeah - Hyatt is a guy who can be really good when he’s streaky hot. The problem is that he’s not great with the little things so when his shot is off, he’s a liability even compared to less athletic players.

 

[cm_13]

You can't honestly believe the drop off of losing Cliff or Hyatt would be just as steep

Hyatt got benched for Oskar lol

Hyatt for sure was the most replaceable. I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure they bumped him to the 6th man once Caleb and Paul were healthy enough to go and he didn’t end up back in the starting five until Mag got hurt.

Losing Cliff to injury either of the last two seasons would have been an absolute disaster.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Hyatt probably slightly less of an impact compared to the other five - but even so, had Hyatt gone down the with the same timing as Mag, we'd have been running with Mag/Palmquist instead of Hyatt/Palmquist and the outcome would have still been bad.

Hyatt definitely fell off in the final stretch and did not see the same productivity as a starter as he had as a 6th man / change of pace PF. Going into the game Mag was injured, Hyatt was averaging 23.8 min/g and Mag was averaging 25.4.... whichever went out, we'd have been relying on Palmquist getting called up from the end of the bench for minutes he really wasn't suited for. Instead of losing Mag's defense, we'd have lost Hyatt's scoring (3rd per 100 possessions behind Omoruyi/Spencer).

We couldn't afford to lose any of our starters, or Hyatt as our 6th man. Simpson found himself late, which bodes well for this year, but he wasn't as important to the "first 22 games" team as the other 6 were.

Palmquist largely sputtered. Hyatt lost his starting spot to him and saw his minutes fell off to single-digits for the conference tournament.... but Palmquist took that opportunity and gave us just 4 pts over 32 minutes in those two games.

The 6 top rotational players were balanced, with Simpson having time to grow as a 7th piece. Removing any one of them would have thrown the balance out and we'd have really struggled (as we did with Mag).

I think we would’ve been fine if we had lost Hyatt. There were a few games where he just couldn’t miss his shots, so maybe those are losses, but more often than not the team would’ve carried on the way it had pre injury. With Mag out, we lost the ability to press. That alone arguably killed our season. Not only was the press highly effective, it didn’t require Caleb in the game so Pike was able to give him a rest for 6-8 minutes or so without a drop off in intensity.

 

[Knight Owl]

I think we would’ve been fine if we had lost Hyatt. There were a few games where he just couldn’t miss his shots, so maybe those are losses, but more often than not the team would’ve carried on the way it had pre injury. With Mag out, we lost the ability to press. That alone arguably killed our season. Not only was the press highly effective, it didn’t require Caleb in the game so Pike was able to give him a rest for 6-8 minutes or so without a drop off in intensity.

Hyatt might be a 10-5 guy (10ppg/5rpg) this season.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Hyatt might be a 10-5 guy (10ppg/5rpg) this season.

He could be - but that doesn’t mean we’ll be an NCAA or even solid NIT team. He’s always been fine to play big minutes against the cupcakes and when his shot is on against better teams. The problem with Hyatt has always been when he’s not shooting well. And his defense.

 

[RUChoppin]

He could be - but that doesn’t mean we’ll be an NCAA or even solid NIT team. He’s always been fine to play big minutes against the cupcakes and when his shot is on against better teams. The problem with Hyatt has always been when he’s not shooting well. And his defense.

Last year, though, his off nights we're still mostly better than Palmquist. Pike tried to switch it up for the conference tournament, and Hyatt ended up scoring more points in 15 minutes, then Palmquist did in 32.

Palmquist went from out of the rotation to the sixth man when Mag went down, and would have if Hyatt went down, too. We just didn't have enough quality depth to absorb an injury and still sustain success last year..

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Last year, though, his off nights we're still mostly better than Palmquist. Pike tried to switch it up for the conference tournament, and Hyatt ended up scoring more points in 15 minutes, then Palmquist did in 32.

Palmquist went from out of the rotation to the sixth man when Mag went down, and would have if Hyatt went down, too. We just didn't have enough quality depth to absorb an injury and still sustain success last year..

The main thing was that Oskar didn’t try to do too much and be first option. That’s the problem with Hyatt. He looks to be a high volume scorer which isn’t going to win you many games if his efficiency numbers stay where they are and his defense doesn’t improve much. If last year’s version of Hyatt is a 28+ minute guy it’s true that he might well average 10 / 5 but I doubt we’ll be good. Obviously if he does it much more efficiently it’s a different story. His defense for long stretches is going to be a problem though unless significantly upgraded. His surrounding cast will be frosh, one sophomore and a short super senior who wasn’t a good defender at the mid major level…

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Also - if you think about it - even if he’s a 10 / 5 guy, he’s really just neutralizing Caleb’s offense… Caleb was 9.1 / 5.5. It’s funny - with the way our fans talk about how much better our offense will now be, you’d think Caleb barely put up any points.

 

[MiloTalon13]

Also - if you think about it - even if he’s a 10 / 5 guy, he’s really just neutralizing Caleb’s offense… Caleb was 9.1 / 5.5. It’s funny - with the way our fans talk about how much better our offense will now be, you’d think Caleb barely put up any points.

Caleb was bad offensively - if you look at his Big 10 numbers, he shot 44% from 2 and 18.8% from 3 - his ORtg was 89.9 - that's an estimate that he'd produce about 90 points per 100 possessions. That's BAD.
For comparison sake - Paul was 102, Derek 105, Cam 111, Cliff 102, Hyatt 101.5, Mag 108.

In addition, other than his offensive rebounding, Caleb is often in the wrong place at the wrong time/doesn't execute well, is not a good ball movement guy and does not make good/quick decisions. Great defender, but our worst offensive player by a long shot.

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

Caleb was bad offensively - if you look at his Big 10 numbers, he shot 44% from 2 and 18.8% from 3 - his ORtg was 89.9 - that's an estimate that he'd produce about 90 points per 100 possessions. That's BAD.
For comparison sake - Paul was 102, Derek 105, Cam 111, Cliff 102, Hyatt 101.5, Mag 108.

In addition, other than his offensive rebounding, Caleb is often in the wrong place at the wrong time/doesn't execute well, is not a good ball movement guy and does not make good/quick decisions. Great defender, but our worst offensive player by a long shot.

And he missed every big shot at the foul line all year. We laterally win 3 more games if he made key foul shots before the last possession in the game. We would have been 22-12.

But, great defensive player who frustrated a lot of opponents.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Caleb was bad offensively - if you look at his Big 10 numbers, he shot 44% from 2 and 18.8% from 3 - his ORtg was 89.9 - that's an estimate that he'd produce about 90 points per 100 possessions. That's BAD.
For comparison sake - Paul was 102, Derek 105, Cam 111, Cliff 102, Hyatt 101.5, Mag 108.

In addition, other than his offensive rebounding, Caleb is often in the wrong place at the wrong time/doesn't execute well, is not a good ball movement guy and does not make good/quick decisions. Great defender, but our worst offensive player by a long shot.

My point wasn’t that he was a “good” offensive player. Replacing his offense with a high volume, shoot first player who shot 37.4% from the floor doesn’t exactly inspire confidence of a measurable upgrade. Hyatt’s ball handling is a massive downgrade which relegated him to a catch and shoot guy (he takes a lower percentage of shots than anyone else with the shot clock expiring for this reason - simply because he doesn’t have the ball. You can’t count those shots the same in your relative possession analysis).

Also - I’m not sure how your running your numbers but Simpson hit 5 of his 13 threes against midmajors before Caleb was playing. One against Wake in garbage time. Another vs. Hoftstra. Once again - the 6 threes he hit in BIG play don’t exactly stand out and he didn’t shoot at a higher percentage than Caleb overall so I’m not sure how your math gets him higher?

 

[MiloTalon13]

My point wasn’t that he was a “good” offensive player. Replacing his offense with a high volume, shoot first player who shot 37.4% from the floor doesn’t exactly inspire confidence of a measurable upgrade. Hyatt’s ball handling is a massive downgrade which relegated him to a catch and shoot guy (he takes a lower percentage of shots than anyone else with the shot clock expiring for this reason - simply because he doesn’t have the ball. You can’t count those shots the same in your relative possession analysis).

Also - I’m not sure how your running your numbers but Simpson hit 5 of his 13 threes against midmajors before Caleb was playing. One against Wake in garbage time. Another vs. Hoftstra. Once again - the 6 threes he hit in BIG play don’t exactly stand out and he didn’t shoot at a higher percentage than Caleb overall so I’m not sure how your math gets him higher?

I agree the numbers from the weak OOC in the beginning of the season are near meaningless

All those numbers were Big 10 numbers from sports-reference.com - link below
Hyatt in Big 10 = 48% from 2, 30% from 3
Caleb in Big 10 = 44% from 2, 18.8% from 3

2022-23 Rutgers Scarlet Knights Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 2022-23 Rutgers Scarlet Knights Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

It's a bad comparison in a way because they're not playing the same position - Hyatt is a 4 and Caleb is a 2/3.

Hyatt shot 35% on corner 3's (20/57) - which is just below NCAA average and 28% outside of corners (25/90)
My hope for Hyatt is that with the addition of Griffiths and Fernandes he gets more space and time to take corner 3's and being less contested gives him a bump in percentage and even a little in 3P attempts (and fewer non-corner attempts). If that happens he'll be contributing far more to the offense than Caleb did.

 

[Knight Owl]

I agree the numbers from the weak OOC in the beginning of the season are near meaningless

All those numbers were Big 10 numbers from sports-reference.com - link below
Hyatt in Big 10 = 48% from 2, 30% from 3
Caleb in Big 10 = 44% from 2, 18.8% from 3

2022-23 Rutgers Scarlet Knights Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 2022-23 Rutgers Scarlet Knights Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

It's a bad comparison in a way because they're not playing the same position - Hyatt is a 4 and Caleb is a 2/3.

Hyatt shot 35% on corner 3's (20/57) - which is just below NCAA average and 28% outside of corners (25/90)
My hope for Hyatt is that with the addition of Griffiths and Fernandes he gets more space and time to take corner 3's and being less contested gives him a bump in percentage and even a little in 3P attempts (and fewer non-corner attempts). If that happens he'll be contributing far more to the offense than Caleb did.

Yeah. Hyatt should wind up wide open at times…after someone dribble drives and then several passes.

 

[MiloTalon13]

Yeah. Hyatt should wind up wide open at times…after someone dribble drives and then several passes.

Yup - like we saw teams do to us so often last year