Starting Point Guards...B1G Points Per Game

[Degaz-RU]

The OP isn't really saying anything earth-shaking here. Our starting PG Mulcahy HAS been playing extremely poorly over the past 8 games, there's no doubt about it. OP is correct that, with better PG play, we'd be playing better. Otherwise stated, Mulcahy's poor play is a major contributing factor to our late season collapse.

Where OP falters, though, is in claiming that simply reversing Mulcahy's and Simpson's minutes would have changed everything. For MOST of the season, Simpson has been erratic, a bad shooter from deep (20%), and a turnover machine, and has also been beaten repeatedly on defense. He has had TWO, count 'em TWO, really good games (home for Indiana, and away at PSU). There were a handful of other "solid" games. Most others were erratic and net-negative.

Simpson simply wasn't (and still isn't) ready to be our full-time PG, and as others have said, I'm not sure he really is a "point guard" at all, as opposed to a small combo guard.

 

[MiloTalon13]

Simpson simply wasn't (and still isn't) ready to be our full-time PG, and as others have said, I'm not sure he really is a "point guard" at all, as opposed to a small combo guard.

Thanks - I was beginning to think I was the only one thinking this.

 

[Degaz-RU]

Both are true, one was ignored for 2 weeks and now another 2 weeks later, one far exceeds the other in terms of impact to the roster.

If Mulcahy plays normal last place B1G caliber PG, RU is 5 points per game better than without. Why is the narrative Mag holds the key to the entire roster, while ignoring Mulcahy and his collapse??

How is your "the PG play is way more important than the loss of Mag" hypothesis more scientifically valid than the notion that Mag's injury was hugely important in our poor final 8 games? I'm no science/stats guy, but you have no "control group" for your hypothesis since the PG's poor play CAME DURING THE SAME 8 GAMES THAT MAG HAS BEEN OUT, and in fact, the PG played much better when Mag was healthy.

In other words, your hypothesis is just pure conjecture, not based on any valid statistical analysis.

I am of the view that Mag's injury devastated this team for various reasons and was a major cause of our 2-6 finish.

I am also of the view that Mulcahy's poor play was ALSO a major cause. On this I agree with you (but only to an extent).

But for you to say that Mulcahy's poor play is 85% and Mag's loss is only 15% is just rank guesswork, based on no valid "data" at all. "Rank guesswork" is being kind actually -- the truth is you're really just pulling those percentages out of thin air.

Please just admit that you are advancing nothing more than OPINIONS on all of this. You're entitled to your opinion. But on this board of critical evaluators, you're not entitled to claim that your opinions are somehow a scientific fact.

 

[S_Janowski]

How is your "the PG play is way more important than the loss of Mag" hypothesis more scientifically valid than the notion that Mag's injury was hugely important in our poor final 8 games? I'm no science/stats guy, but you have no "control group" for your hypothesis since the PG's poor play CAME DURING THE SAME 8 GAMES THAT MAG HAS BEEN OUT, and in fact, the PG played much better when Mag was healthy.

In other words, your hypothesis is just pure conjecture, not based on any valid statistical analysis.

I am of the view that Mag's injury devastated this team for various reasons and was a major cause of our 2-6 finish.

I am also of the view that Mulcahy's poor play was ALSO a major cause. On this I agree with you (but only to an extent).

But for you to say that Mulcahy's poor play is 85% and Mag's loss is only 15% is just rank guesswork, based on no valid "data" at all. "Rank guesswork" is being kind actually -- the truth is you're really just pulling those percentages out of thin air.

Please just admit that you are advancing nothing more than OPINIONS on all of this. You're entitled to your opinion. But on this board of critical evaluators, you're not entitled to claim that your opinions are somehow a scientific fact.

Thank you.

Well said, and in a much smarter way than I could ever say it lol.

 

[Scangg]

How is your "the PG play is way more important than the loss of Mag" hypothesis more scientifically valid than the notion that Mag's injury was hugely important in our poor final 8 games? I'm no science/stats guy, but you have no "control group" for your hypothesis since the PG's poor play CAME DURING THE SAME 8 GAMES THAT MAG HAS BEEN OUT, and in fact, the PG played much better when Mag was healthy.

In other words, your hypothesis is just pure conjecture, not based on any valid statistical analysis.

I am of the view that Mag's injury devastated this team for various reasons and was a major cause of our 2-6 finish.

I am also of the view that Mulcahy's poor play was ALSO a major cause. On this I agree with you (but only to an extent).

But for you to say that Mulcahy's poor play is 85% and Mag's loss is only 15% is just rank guesswork, based on no valid "data" at all. "Rank guesswork" is being kind actually -- the truth is you're really just pulling those percentages out of thin air.

Please just admit that you are advancing nothing more than OPINIONS on all of this. You're entitled to your opinion. But on this board of critical evaluators, you're not entitled to claim that your opinions are somehow a scientific fact.

Lol exactly

It's pretty obvious Mag's loss was a killer and Paul's play has also been a killer

The team would be better if Mag wasn't hurt. The team would also be better if Paul wasn't playing so poorly

 

[richthedentist]

Thank you.

Well said, and in a much smarter way than I could ever say it lol.

Agreed the person who has been replacing Mag Palmquist barely played 20 minutes the whole season and now you are asking him to play 15-20 minutes a game there was a reason he is just not good; Pikell didn't recruit well and we have zero depth and no bench and yes all this coincides with Mag's loss

 

[Shelby65]

Clearly , Paul Mulcahy has killed is the last 8 games , Yes scoring 5.5 points per game for a starting point guard or any damn starter is killing us. But you are blind if you do not see the MAG loss as massive. He not only was scoring 10 points a game over his last 7 games and was about to score his 9th point when he got hurt with 5:25 left in the first half, Hyatt was coming off the bench for 6-12 points. So we were getting 16–22 from the 4 spot. Why are we scoring 43 and 53 points against Michigan and NW at home and only around 60 on the road during this stretch , because we are missing MAG offensively. Not to mention his press defense which was elite , his help defense with Cliff and the rest of the team , his offensive rebounding , almost non existent now and defense rebounding . Our depth and rotations have been abysmal.

Now Paul and to a lesser extent Caleb because of injuries have struggled offensively as starting BIG 10 guards. I expected each to score 10 points a game. The number of times I have looked up midway through a game and see 1 or both have 0 or just 2 points. , is way too often , and clearly why we are losing . Cam also hasn’t done enough to make up the slack . Derek has been a spark these last 2-3 games but not enough to offset the starters lack of offensive production. If we still had Mag then Derek ‘s points with Mag’s points keep us in these games.

Derek has also caused a serious defensive problem. He has gotten in his stance instead of putting pressure on opposing point guards and it has literally killed us and cost us 10 points in each of the Michigan and Northwestern games. Boo Buie threw 5 lobs to Nickerson for dunks because Derek gave too much space and never fought over 1 screen. Pup McDaniel did the same thing in the Michigan game and hit 4-5 midrange shots. Derek defended most of them along with Cam. That costs 10 points in each game. So although we need Derek’s offense , breakdown ability , we need his defense to get better.

disagree. sure, Mag could score some but ‘missing him offensively’ isnt the biggest issue. the biggest issue is that Paul now has to guard the second best player and invariably a far better athlete and he’s outclassed. is such a weak link that the entire defense fails. teams go at him, drawing in Cliff or others to help and leaving guys open shots or rebounds. Having Paul defend athletic players is the same as defending a power play in hockey. Always an extra guy because Paul cant defend.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

Why do people think Simpson is a point guard? He's a small shooting guard.
He doesn't create shots for anyone else, he doesn't run the break to do anything but take the ball to the hoop, he struggles to run offense against any ball pressure and he doesn't pass out of ball screens.
He's a point guard in size only.
I think he can be a good B1G player, and if we have Cam and Griffiths out there, we might not need a point guard, but I don't see how Simpson is a point guard.

And at least today he is not a very good shooting guard. He has done ok slashing to the rim, but his shooting from mid range and further out has been pretty atrocious. The airball on the open 3 pointer in the Northwestern game was particularly embarrassing.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

Let me just add a few general comments. Most teams in college basketball will struggle when key players go down. Very few teams have any real depth, especially in the portal era. If you are good enough to play, you are not sticking around at a program to provide depth. So losing Mag has definitely been a blow. That said, our poor performance has been compounded by a general collapse by all of our key players, at least when it comes to offensive production. As the OP noted, Paul has been awful, but Caleb, Cliff and Hyatt have also been pretty bad and no one else has really been able to step up. some of this may just be bad luck with injuries, Paul and Caleb in particular have been banged up all year, but this team is lost on offense and is playing with no confidence.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

The only thing that was ignored for 2 weeks was your acknowledgment that Mags injury was a pretty big loss to overcome and our bench wasn’t deep enough to make up for it.

You have literally dismissed that notion from day 1 and actually tried telling us we would be better/more explosive on offense without him.

Plenty of people have recognized the issues with our PG position.

Glad you seem to have come around to Mags impact. Took awhile and a bunch of losses but you made it!

You must not read much....85% of the issue is Mulcahy, 15% Mag....if you feel that's saying Mag's loss is the primary reason, good luck with that, it's not a factor whatsoever.

 

[RUChoppin]

You must not read much....85% of the issue is Mulcahy, 15% Mag....if you feel that's saying Mag's loss is the primary reason, good luck with that, it's not a factor whatsoever.

lol

Do you agree at least that depth is an issue? Whether or not it was Mag going down or another starter, that is.

Do you think playing Palmquist 15-20 minutes per game has had no impact?

To what do you attribute our significant fall off in 2P defense, or do you think that's somehow connected to lack of scoring at the PG position too?

 

[RUJMM78]

This thread has focus on the point guard but the offensive problems are more widespread.The lack of shooters that create and make shots off the dribble is a obvious team weakness.A half court offense that doesn't run plays for open 3 point shots for Spencer and Hyatt is a coaching issue.The fact so many players have shown so little improvement during the season is a recruiting and player development problem.Bottom line Mulcahy shouldn't be the scapegoat for a mediocre offense.

 

[S_Janowski]

You must not read much....85% of the issue is Mulcahy, 15% Mag....if you feel that's saying Mag's loss is the primary reason, good luck with that, it's not a factor whatsoever.

Dude you need to read @Degaz-RU post above. Lol at you trying to associate percentages to Mulcahy and Mags impact.

Also you continue to say “Mag isn’t a factor whatsoever” yet go one to assign a random “15%” factor to his loss. You managed to contradict yourself in 2 whole sentences. Hahaha what are you smoking. Kudos for keeping your post short though - we need more of that from you.

I requested this in another thread were you went off the rails on Mag saying he isn’t a BIG10 starter but I’ll try again….Please do us all a favor and stop posting about him. You’re clueless!

 

[RUChoppin]

Okay, so, we started the season 16-7 (8-4), and have since gone 2-6. The argument being made is that our dropoff is due to PG play.

Let's take a look at Mulcahy's dropoff when comparing the start of the year (only major conference opponents) prior to Mag's injury (13 games) vs. the subsequent 2-6 run to quantify his dropoff in effectiveness, as the argument is that this decrease is "85%" of the reason we've hit a late season swoon:

First 13 major conference games:
34.2 min, 9.8 pts (.440 FG%), 3.5 rb, 5.4 ast, 1.5 stl, 0.4 blk, 2.2 tov, 1.6 pf

Last 8 games
33.8 min, 5.6 pts (.315 FG%), 3.9 rb, 4.9 ast, 1.3 stl, 0.1 blk, 2.1 tov, 3.4 pf

The delta here is -4.2 pts, +0.4 rb, -0.5 ast, -0.2 stl, -0.3 blk, -0.1 tov, +1.8 pf

Having an extra 4.2 points on average in each of our last 8 games would have changed our record from 2-6 to 3-5

I can do a comparison to Mag's production vs. the conglomerate of Palmquist (13.4 min), Simpson (additional 4.8 min... 25% of his production), Hyatt (additional 4.4 min... 16% of his production), and Reiber (additional 1.8 min... 23% of his production) if you'd like.

 

[zebnatto]

I think some of you are being too tough on Derek. You point out his weaknesses but fail to acknowledge how sluggish and predictable our offense is with him off the floor.

 

[RUChoppin]

I think some of you are being too tough on Derek. You point out his weaknesses but fail to acknowledge how sluggish and predictable our offense is with him off the floor.

Simpson is a needed spark for our offense - he's the only one who seems to have any dribble penetration in his toolkit, and also the only one who seems able to consistently hit the foul line jumper. But he's also not a distributor (yet?), and he hasn't shown any range out beyond about 15 feet.

I think we need to use him more minutes and bring Mulcahy/Spencer down closer to 30 min from 34. As one of just 6 productive rotation players, he needs to be playing at least 28 min, imo.

 

[Degaz-RU]

You must not read much....85% of the issue is Mulcahy, 15% Mag....if you feel that's saying Mag's loss is the primary reason, good luck with that, it's not a factor whatsoever.

Wait, you're doubling down on the 85% thing!? Holy mackerel.

 

[Scangg]

You must not read much....85% of the issue is Mulcahy, 15% Mag....if you feel that's saying Mag's loss is the primary reason, good luck with that, it's not a factor whatsoever.

It's not a factor whatsoever 🤣

That would mean Oskar is just as good as Mag

You're embarrassing yourself man just stop it already. It's getting tough to watch

 

[fluoxetine]

How is your "the PG play is way more important than the loss of Mag" hypothesis more scientifically valid than the notion that Mag's injury was hugely important in our poor final 8 games? I'm no science/stats guy, but you have no "control group" for your hypothesis since the PG's poor play CAME DURING THE SAME 8 GAMES THAT MAG HAS BEEN OUT, and in fact, the PG played much better when Mag was healthy.

In other words, your hypothesis is just pure conjecture, not based on any valid statistical analysis.

I am of the view that Mag's injury devastated this team for various reasons and was a major cause of our 2-6 finish.

I don't want to go too far down this road, but there is statistical support for what he's saying. The data isn't the games we played without Mag, it's all of the other games played by other teams and the outputs of the standard ways of attempting to measure the impact of players.

Even the very, very best players have an estimated impact of something like 6-7 points per game over a generic replacement, Mag was only playing like 25 minutes a game, and as much as we all like him he is not Zach Edey. Unless he was also the Paul Mulcahy whisperer (and others, it's not like Paul is the only one playing badly at the moment) even a very aggressive estimate of his impact is not going to be more than 5 points per game. Only one of our losses with him out was that close.

 

[MiloTalon13]

I don't want to go too far down this road, but there is statistical support for what he's saying. The data isn't the games we played without Mag, it's all of the other games played by other teams and the outputs of the standard ways of attempting to measure the impact of players.

Even the very, very best players have an estimated impact of something like 6-7 points per game over a generic replacement, Mag was only playing like 25 minutes a game, and as much as we all like him he is not Zach Edey. Unless he was also the Paul Mulcahy whisperer (and others, it's not like Paul is the only one playing badly at the moment) even a very aggressive estimate of his impact is not going to be more than 5 points per game. Only one of our losses with him out was that close.

A generic replacement assumes league average or just below that? We don't have anything close to "average" to replace him.
We are an outlier as a team too in that we rely on elite defense and to put it nicely, mediocre offense.

 

[fluoxetine]

A generic replacement assumes league average or just below that? We don't have anything close to "average" to replace him.
We are an outlier as a team too in that we rely on elite defense and to put it nicely, mediocre offense.

Generally the replacement used is something like -2 pts/100 which is meant to be an average bench player. That said the estimates are not great for defense and I would be really hesitant to assign a specific value to him, the uncertainty is really large.

That's why I'm more just looking at upper bounds. Players like peak Jordan/Lebron were estimated to be worth like 10 pts per 100 over replacement in the NBA. It's not apples to apples but I think that peak MJ to generic NBA bench guy represents at least a large a drop off as Mag to our replacements. Mag was playing less than 50 possession a game. So that caps it at roughly 5 points right there, and likely significantly less.

 

[RutgersDom]

A lot of items are being placed at the feet of the coaching staff in terms of recruiting talent, lack of depth, Mawot Mag being injured but it's simply not the case.

Here are you starting B1G Point Guards and their PPG averages for the season.

13.4 INDIANA
But there is another option . Give more minutes to the kid.
11.3 NEBRASKA

10.0 PURDUE

9.8 MINNESOTA

8.3 MICHIGAN

16.3 MARYLAND

10.0 ILLINOIS

18 PSU

12.6 MSU

17.2 NW

10.0 OSU

12.4 IOWA

12.2 WISC

8.2 RUTGERS

I would say 8.2 is probably not the standard, but the difference between 8.2 and 12 PPG is an enormous gap in scoring in conference games.

So I just figured I know the guard play impacts the offense and RU was fine through the MSG game at MSU

Mulcahy accumulated 128 points in 1st 12 B1G games. 16 points at Purdue, 15 vs Maryland, 12 at Northwestern, 12 at MSU, 11 vs PSU at the RAC, 11 at Iowa....not all wins obviously, but games were Mulcahy was in the league average of PG production.

The last 8 games, have not been ideal, for any starting player, in any lineup, but it impacts everything, when it is your starting PG

45 points in last 8 B1G games is 5.625 PPG. RU is 2-6 obviously in the last 8 games.

Could RU easily have been 3-5 with Minnesota in the win column?? Sure, but I could easily offset that RU had no business winning at Wisconsin without Caleb playing and certainly no legitimate chance down 19 early in the 2nd half at PSU.

5.6 PPG from any starting PG is not going to win many games. It's beyond just scoring, any player can hit a shooting slump, but the overall play is so severely below B1G PG standards, that your offense is going to completely unravel.

5.6 is 3 to 4 PPG below Minnesota and their PG. If I take a closer look at Michigan's PG, Dug McDaniel in all B1G games, he is at 10 PPG.

We can discuss a bunch of items, but leaping past this wide of a gap from our PG play, vs what may be far and away the least productive PG in terms of PPG in all of the B1G, is a open and easy way to bring things to a point.

We have no real options to remedy this for the Michigan game and it's not solving everything. But the team needs a guard that can at least reach the 13th best production out of 14 teams, if we are going to remotely compete in any game.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

How is your "the PG play is way more important than the loss of Mag" hypothesis more scientifically valid than the notion that Mag's injury was hugely important in our poor final 8 games? I'm no science/stats guy, but you have no "control group" for your hypothesis since the PG's poor play CAME DURING THE SAME 8 GAMES THAT MAG HAS BEEN OUT, and in fact, the PG played much better when Mag was healthy.

In other words, your hypothesis is just pure conjecture, not based on any valid statistical analysis.

I am of the view that Mag's injury devastated this team for various reasons and was a major cause of our 2-6 finish.

I am also of the view that Mulcahy's poor play was ALSO a major cause. On this I agree with you (but only to an extent).

But for you to say that Mulcahy's poor play is 85% and Mag's loss is only 15% is just rank guesswork, based on no valid "data" at all. "Rank guesswork" is being kind actually -- the truth is you're really just pulling those percentages out of thin air.

Please just admit that you are advancing nothing more than OPINIONS on all of this. You're entitled to your opinion. But on this board of critical evaluators, you're not entitled to claim that your opinions are somehow a scientific fact.

The numbers per game are not any more "advancing an opinion ", than the nonsense that the team collapsed because of Mag being out.....and it's no more of a guess than to try and connect the Mulcahy struggles directly to Mag not being there. The same player played a solid game at Wisconsin and scored 17 2nd half points in the same game where Mag was lost to injury.

I keep seeing no substantial data points beyond Mulcahy and the lack of productivity as the sole and primary/overwhelming reason for 2-6.

And the numbers support that not having your starting PG go multiple games without a FG in the 1st half of games, is not ideal.

The Mag item without mentioning Mulcahy and the dropoff is a lazy and unsupported take, with NO supporting documentation. The least you can do is simply state the case with data that exceeds the 5PPG drop off with Mulcahy's production.

I've already stated that Hyatt, Palmquist and others can make up for Mag's loss.

And I am pointing to Simpson because his numbers, if expanded beyond 18 minutes a game, is not a large leap that he will have more numbers.

If there's clear data that Mag's loss is worth 8 to 10PPG, then you'll be correct (it's not, full stop).

 

[RUBlackout]

Clearly , Paul Mulcahy has killed is the last 8 games , Yes scoring 5.5 points per game for a starting point guard or any damn starter is killing us. But you are blind if you do not see the MAG loss as massive. He not only was scoring 10 points a game over his last 7 games and was about to score his 9th point when he got hurt with 5:25 left in the first half, Hyatt was coming off the bench for 6-12 points. So we were getting 16–22 from the 4 spot. Why are we scoring 43 and 53 points against Michigan and NW at home and only around 60 on the road during this stretch , because we are missing MAG offensively. Not to mention his press defense which was elite , his help defense with Cliff and the rest of the team , his offensive rebounding , almost non existent now and defense rebounding . Our depth and rotations have been abysmal.

Now Paul and to a lesser extent Caleb because of injuries have struggled offensively as starting BIG 10 guards. I expected each to score 10 points a game. The number of times I have looked up midway through a game and see 1 or both have 0 or just 2 points. , is way too often , and clearly why we are losing . Cam also hasn’t done enough to make up the slack . Derek has been a spark these last 2-3 games but not enough to offset the starters lack of offensive production. If we still had Mag then Derek ‘s points with Mag’s points keep us in these games.

Derek has also caused a serious defensive problem. He has gotten in his stance instead of putting pressure on opposing point guards and it has literally killed us and cost us 10 points in each of the Michigan and Northwestern games. Boo Buie threw 5 lobs to Nickerson for dunks because Derek gave too much space and never fought over 1 screen. Pup McDaniel did the same thing in the Michigan game and hit 4-5 midrange shots. Derek defended most of them along with Cam. That costs 10 points in each game. So although we need Derek’s offense , breakdown ability , we need his defense to get better.

Great breakdown—this is why Simpson is getting limited minutes right now (defense). While he can break down a player offensively it’s his defense that is hurting. It’s the same with Spencer yet his bball IQ is MUCH higher than majority of our team and has a higher percentage in shooting which we need.

Someone should post the efficiency rankings of our players and I get you will see the differences and why people like PM play more minutes along with Caleb. Would be interesting to see across the board for the year and then what it looks like over the past 8 games. I don’t even know how to get these stats and I’m hypothesizing but bet it shows these discrepancies

 

[fluoxetine]

FWIW, Paul Mulcahy's bad play also isn't enough to fully explain any single loss besides Minnesota.

 

[jerseybird]

I don’t care who’s playing guard.
You keep saying our offensive talent is limited and we can’t create shots on our own.
Yet the players are obviously coached to run the clock and have ONE guy create a shot for himself.
That’s our offense.
That and die trying to get the ball to a double and Triple teamed Cliff… yet there’s no one for him to pass to…why is that?

Every time someone is double-teamed, someone is open. Knowing who is open is the key for a quick pass to foil the defense. Sometimes, when Cliff gets the ball down low, the defensive player shades him toward the center of the lane to defend his "hook shot". When the move to center lane doesn't materialize, a player comes from the other side of the lane along the baseline for the double team. There will be an opening somewhere on that far side. Could be the man in the corner. If a defender higher up in the lane drops down to cover the corner/baseline player, then the offensive player out by the far 3pt. line will be open unless a higher defender shifts over to guard there, and then, the offensive player at the top of the 3pt. line will likely be open. The pass beats the feet.

 

[fluoxetine]

Game	P Mulcahy Mins	P Mulcahy Est Impact	D Simpson Mins	D Simpson Est Impact
Indiana	31​	-2.6​	18​	1.3​
Illinois	34​	0.1​	22​	-5.2​
Nebraska	35​	-3.3​	19​	1.7​
Wisconsin	36​	1.5​	21​	-3​
Michigan	35​	1​	11​	-0.1​
Penn St	29​	-7.7​	28​	2.7​
Minnesota	35​	-5.4​	12​	-2.1​
Northwestern	34​	-3.6​	23​	-0.2​
Total	269​	-20​	154​	-4.9​
Per 40 minutes	-2.973977695​		-1.272727273​

 

[DJ Spanky]

I'm not even going to read through this thread, got too much to do. However, PM is not completely healthy, he needs the off season for that shoulder to fully heal. Sadly we don't seem to have depth to be able to absorb the injuries this team has experienced.

 

[RUDivision]

A lot of items are being placed at the feet of the coaching staff in terms of recruiting talent, lack of depth, Mawot Mag being injured but it's simply not the case.

Here are you starting B1G Point Guards and their PPG averages for the season.

13.4 INDIANA

11.3 NEBRASKA

10.0 PURDUE

9.8 MINNESOTA

8.3 MICHIGAN

16.3 MARYLAND

10.0 ILLINOIS

18 PSU

12.6 MSU

17.2 NW

10.0 OSU

12.4 IOWA

12.2 WISC

8.2 RUTGERS

I would say 8.2 is probably not the standard, but the difference between 8.2 and 12 PPG is an enormous gap in scoring in conference games.

So I just figured I know the guard play impacts the offense and RU was fine through the MSG game at MSU

Mulcahy accumulated 128 points in 1st 12 B1G games. 16 points at Purdue, 15 vs Maryland, 12 at Northwestern, 12 at MSU, 11 vs PSU at the RAC, 11 at Iowa....not all wins obviously, but games were Mulcahy was in the league average of PG production.

The last 8 games, have not been ideal, for any starting player, in any lineup, but it impacts everything, when it is your starting PG

45 points in last 8 B1G games is 5.625 PPG. RU is 2-6 obviously in the last 8 games.

Could RU easily have been 3-5 with Minnesota in the win column?? Sure, but I could easily offset that RU had no business winning at Wisconsin without Caleb playing and certainly no legitimate chance down 19 early in the 2nd half at PSU.

5.6 PPG from any starting PG is not going to win many games. It's beyond just scoring, any player can hit a shooting slump, but the overall play is so severely below B1G PG standards, that your offense is going to completely unravel.

5.6 is 3 to 4 PPG below Minnesota and their PG. If I take a closer look at Michigan's PG, Dug McDaniel in all B1G games, he is at 10 PPG.

We can discuss a bunch of items, but leaping past this wide of a gap from our PG play, vs what may be far and away the least productive PG in terms of PPG in all of the B1G, is a open and easy way to bring things to a point.

We have no real options to remedy this for the Michigan game and it's not solving everything. But the team needs a guard that can at least reach the 13th best production out of 14 teams, if we are going to remotely compete in any game.

Agreed has been a big problem with Ron and Geo gone who took all of the focus from other teams defenses gone Paul had been one of the key focuses for opposing teams. Take him out of the game and slow us down. Plus with him and Caleb on the court together your really allowing other teams to cheat toward and double Cliff and Cam. The answer is playing Simpson more but more importantly using him in the correct way. For most of the season they insert him and use him off the ball staring in the corners. He is a ball dominant ISO guard who can get to the rim at will. He does not play the defense at the level of Paul ( which is one reason Pike pulls him). Pike values loyalty over legacy but having to look Caleb on the face and tel him he could not get him back to the dance because he wanted to be loyal is a tough conversation. Caleb’s comment after the NW game shows he knows they need more Offense and he knows who should have the ball and starting.

 

[RUChoppin]

I keep seeing no substantial data points beyond Mulcahy and the lack of productivity as the sole and primary/overwhelming reason for 2-6.

As has been noted a few times at this point, you are not accounting in any way for the severe drop off in 2P% defense. We are giving up more points per possession than we were before, primarily due to easier baskets inside the arc.

We are currently playing with only one post defender instead of two. The only player suited to that niche that has seen a minutes increase in the last eight games is Hyatt, and he's only making up about 20% of the lost time.

 

[RUChoppin]

Generally the replacement used is something like -2 pts/100 which is meant to be an average bench player.

The issue with the replacement logic in our case is that Mag has not been replaced by an average bench player, because our lack of depth left us without an average bench player to go to.

Our bench production this season is ranked in the upper 200s nationally, so our average bench player is worse than the national average right out of the gate.... And far below the conference average.

Our only two productive bench players have seen their minutes increase in Mag's absence, but they don't even account for half of the lost time. Instead, we've turned to a player who wasn't even among the top four guys off the bench to make up the majority of those minutes.

Given that, the "vs average replacement player" metrics kind of go out the window.

And we'd have been in this situation if any of our starters had gone down.

 

[fluoxetine]

The issue with the replacement logic in our case is that Mag has not been replaced by an average bench player, because our lack of depth left us without an average bench player to go to.

Our bench production this season is ranked in the upper 200s nationally, so our average bench player is worse than the national average right out of the gate.... And far below the conference average.

Our only two productive bench players have seen their minutes increase in Mag's absence, but they don't even account for half of the lost time. Instead, we've turned to a player who wasn't even among the top four guys off the bench to make up the majority of those minutes.

Given that, the "vs average replacement player" metrics kind of go out the window.

And we'd have been in this situation if any of our starters had gone down.

This is understood, but again the 5ppg is generated by comparing MICHAEL JORDAN to an average bench player.

I think that more than makes up for the difference between our bench and a Big Ten average bench.

 

[RUChoppin]

This is understood, but again the 5ppg is generated by comparing MICHAEL JORDAN to an average bench player.

I think that more than makes up for the difference between our bench and a Big Ten average bench.

But even Michael Jordan is not so far above the NBA average bench player as a major conference starter is above a low major bench player. Even the worst NBA bench players were elite at the next level down, or they would not be drawing an NBA salary.

Brian Scalabrini has gone around just embarrassing non-NBA players after leaving the league. He once said something to the effect that he's closer to Michael Jordan than the average non-NBA basketball player is to him.

There is really no equivalent to Palmquist sitting on an NBA bench.

 

[goru7]

disagree. sure, Mag could score some but ‘missing him offensively’ isnt the biggest issue. the biggest issue is that Paul now has to guard the second best player and invariably a far better athlete and he’s outclassed. is such a weak link that the entire defense fails. teams go at him, drawing in Cliff or others to help and leaving guys open shots or rebounds. Having Paul defend athletic players is the same as defending a power play in hockey. Always an extra guy because Paul cant defend.

You can disagree all you want but you would still be wrong. Paul’s defense has never been great and his help defense was lousy a lot as he left the corner three guy alone and got there too late for a close out. Plus Mag and Caleb pretty much made up for Paul’s deficiencies most of the time because he would be assigned the least offensive player from the opposition so hardly would we be burned repetitively.
You sorely underrate Mag’s offense impact. Not early in the year but in his past 7 games. He and Aundre would give you 16-22 per game from the 4 spot and now getting 6-12, maybe 14.
Mag also cut to the basket when Cliff was being doubled and got key baskets to make sure we didn’t go in draughts .
Mag was our best offensive rebounder allowing for second and third chance points which are almost non existent now.
Mag’s offensive threat gave Cliff more room to operate . He also just started stroking his 3 better than his entire career.
Sometimes I wonder if you ever watch the games or maybe you watch with blinders on !!!

 

[fluoxetine]

But even Michael Jordan is not so far above the NBA average bench player as a major conference starter is above a low major bench player. Even the worst NBA bench players were elite at the next level down, or they would not be drawing an NBA salary.

There are estimates of this kind of stuff for college as well, and players like Zach Eddy (#1 in this category this year) are estimated to be worth like 7 points per 40 over a generic replacement.

Implicit in all of these arguments, by the way, is that Pike is a complete idiot since he only played this supposedly super-elite player for 25 minutes per game.

 

[goru7]

I don't want to go too far down this road, but there is statistical support for what he's saying. The data isn't the games we played without Mag, it's all of the other games played by other teams and the outputs of the standard ways of attempting to measure the impact of players.

Even the very, very best players have an estimated impact of something like 6-7 points per game over a generic replacement, Mag was only playing like 25 minutes a game, and as much as we all like him he is not Zach Edey. Unless he was also the Paul Mulcahy whisperer (and others, it's not like Paul is the only one playing badly at the moment) even a very aggressive estimate of his impact is not going to be more than 5 points per game. Only one of our losses with him out was that close.

You can try to see if analytics or metrics support any theory then you can watch the games. We beat Indiana at Indiana with Mag. He was not the one going for 2 points each , that was Paul and Caleb. Andre and Oscar were great in the first half with 18 points but a zero in second half . We were leading Illinois for 25 minutes , then we couldn’t score and couldn’t rebound as Trent Norman killed is on the glass leading to like 14 second chance points because MAG was not there to rebound nor there for the 10 minute scoring draught. Wilcher would have been guarded by Mag in the Nebraska game and granted he was hitting some bombs but he hit 5 and my opinion is MAG holds him to 2 which is a 9 point differential. Michigan , not sure the impact loss because although we didn’t score for several long periods which MAG would have helped , we got hurt by Pup McDaniel who Cam and Derek could not stay with and by Hunter , neither of which MAG would have impacted defensively , so not sure it would have been the difference between a win and loss. Minnesota , Mag would have covered Garcia or Battle and between Caleb and him would have reduced their scoring significantly with Garcia getting about 20 and Battle 16 and Pike could have played more man less zone which resulted in the late made threes.
His impact was both offensively and defensively reducing the points scored by the other team.

 

[zebnatto]

Simpson is a needed spark for our offense - he's the only one who seems to have any dribble penetration in his toolkit, and also the only one who seems able to consistently hit the foul line jumper. But he's also not a distributor (yet?), and he hasn't shown any range out beyond about 15 feet.

I think we need to use him more minutes and bring Mulcahy/Spencer down closer to 30 min from 34. As one of just 6 productive rotation players, he needs to be playing at least 28 min, imo.

I don't disagree, Choppin, but I think we have to look at him within the context of the options we have.

 

[goru7]

FWIW, Paul Mulcahy's bad play also isn't enough to fully explain any single loss besides Minnesota.

Indiana, Illinois second half , Michigan , Minnesota plus the last minute of Minnesota , Penn State ( almost cost us the comeback as well as his whole wretched game ).

 

[fluoxetine]

You can try to see if analytics or metrics support any theory then you can watch the games.

No, this is a category error. Correctly identifying the positive contributions that Mag made (something you are doing correctly) is a different problem than correctly quantifying them.

 

[Shelby65]

You can disagree all you want but you would still be wrong. Paul’s defense has never been great and his help defense was lousy a lot as he left the corner three guy alone and got there too late for a close out. Plus Mag and Caleb pretty much made up for Paul’s deficiencies most of the time because he would be assigned the least offensive player from the opposition so hardly would we be burned repetitively.
You sorely underrate Mag’s offense impact. Not early in the year but in his past 7 games. He and Aundre would give you 16-22 per game from the 4 spot and now getting 6-12, maybe 14.
Mag also cut to the basket when Cliff was being doubled and got key baskets to make sure we didn’t go in draughts .
Mag was our best offensive rebounder allowing for second and third chance points which are almost non existent now.
Mag’s offensive threat gave Cliff more room to operate . He also just started stroking his 3 better than his entire career.
Sometimes I wonder if you ever watch the games or maybe you watch with blinders on !!!

Odd, in your first sentence you say I’m wrong and then all of your next claims support my point. They used to be able to hide Paul on D and now without Mag they can’t hide him any more. That’s what you said too. Do you even read what you type ? That’s for agreeing despite thinking you weren’t.