|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2017 9:38:22 GMT -8
Pope was 6'7 when he was being recruited and last played in HS before the leg injuries. He's now 6'10 and has added strength. He's not quick enough to guard most 3's and much better suited to guard the 4. He hasn't played the 3 since he got here, except maybe a few minutes when we decided to go really big (w/ Sky, JJ as a FR; Sky & Z as So), which was very rare. When Z & him were on the court they were typically playing the 4 & 5. Given the make-up of this team he's more apt to get time at the 5 than the 3 next year. Bottom line, we'll most likely use him like we did in the Conf tourney last March, which is where he flourished. We want him near the basket on D, given he's a very good rebounder & shot blocker, and he can break down a 4 both inside (via speed) & on the perimeter (height). The guy is a nightmare match-up for anyone offensively, and his long arms make him more of a defensive threat inside than outside. He played very well overall after getting hurt against AF, and not sure how people can't be excited by the potential. A few highlights from those last 14 games: * His average O-Rating during that 14-game stretch was 114, which would rank in the top 20 in the nation * He averaged 13.1 pts/gm & 7.1 rebounds per game * He scored 23.6% of our team's points while on the floor, while playing 29 minutes a game * Our offense overall when he was on the floor scored at a pace of 76.9 pts/40 minutes * He shot 45% from 2; 47% from 3; and 75% from the FT line * Even though he did get in foul trouble a couple times he only averaged 3.3 fouls/40 minutes * Using O-Rating as a guide, he played 5 exceptional games (130+), 3 above average games (104+), 2 OK games & 4 bad (below 100) If he plays in 25+ games next year and gives us anything close to these types of stats we're in for a good year. Ideally I'd like to see him closer to 15 & 8, and get the % of bad games below 20%, but that's being picky. The kid can play; he's proved it. We're a significantly better team with him on the floor. Just hope he stays healthy like he did over the last 2 months. If he does, the rest will fall into place. Yup - he proved it during that 14 game stretch you mentioned. What about the years before that? Are we only picking and choosing the "good games?" Sounds like it. However, it's his untaped potential that keeps people interested. Good thing for him though is that if he starts under-performing, he'll always have a handful of fans coming to his defense claiming that the injuries have taken their toll and it's because he simply hasn't played enough to really get things going. Which is also kind of ironic, since those same people will cite 14 games as enough evidence and proof of his greatness. You focus on the end of the year because that's the most recent representation of data available, and given the fact he missed more games than he played prior to that. It also represents nearly half the season, and at a point where he was actually able to practice during the week before games, unlike earlier in the season. A reasonable person would actually prefer to focus on the most recent set of data rather than dwelling on something from 1-2 years ago. Frankly I could give a crap about "the years before that" when you can see his impact just last year. It's a hope that he stays healthy, but a realistic interpretation of what he can do when he is. Nobody makes up excuses for the guy, but someone misses several games that is a factor when evaluating a player. Now go ahead & find a way to piss all over another post/thread, per your usual MO. It's what you do.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jun 7, 2017 11:19:22 GMT -8
Yup - he proved it during that 14 game stretch you mentioned. What about the years before that? Are we only picking and choosing the "good games?" Sounds like it. However, it's his untaped potential that keeps people interested. Good thing for him though is that if he starts under-performing, he'll always have a handful of fans coming to his defense claiming that the injuries have taken their toll and it's because he simply hasn't played enough to really get things going. Which is also kind of ironic, since those same people will cite 14 games as enough evidence and proof of his greatness. You focus on the end of the year because that's the most recent representation of data available, and given the fact he missed more games than he played prior to that. It also represents nearly half the season, and at a point where he was actually able to practice during the week before games, unlike earlier in the season. A reasonable person would actually prefer to focus on the most recent set of data rather than dwelling on something from 1-2 years ago. Frankly I could give a crap about "the years before that" when you can see his impact just last year. It's a hope that he stays healthy, but a realistic interpretation of what he can do when he is. Nobody makes up excuses for the guy, but someone misses several games that is a factor when evaluating a player. Now go ahead & find a way to piss all over another post/thread, per your usual MO. It's what you do. Well, thank you for telling me what I do, haha. Anyway, this sounds like a typical "what have you done for me lately" idea I suppose. So, if Pope starts out slow this coming year, yet again, would you not focus on that because his stats aren't so good? Makes no sense; if he ended last year on a high note, he should be able to carry over that success into this new year, right? But if he doesn't? No worries, I guess it only counts when he starts doing good things. One of our resident statisticians seems to be of the same mindset; the body of work isn't as important as "the last 3 games" or "conference play." That is, unless the player has been good for a long time. Funny, it's a great way to downplay the importance of consistent play while essentially giving a blue ribbon for participation. Now go ahead and find a way to get upset at anyone who disagrees with you and piss all over this post/thread, per your usual MO. It's what you do.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2017 11:26:34 GMT -8
You focus on the end of the year because that's the most recent representation of data available, and given the fact he missed more games than he played prior to that. It also represents nearly half the season, and at a point where he was actually able to practice during the week before games, unlike earlier in the season. A reasonable person would actually prefer to focus on the most recent set of data rather than dwelling on something from 1-2 years ago. Frankly I could give a crap about "the years before that" when you can see his impact just last year. It's a hope that he stays healthy, but a realistic interpretation of what he can do when he is. Nobody makes up excuses for the guy, but someone misses several games that is a factor when evaluating a player. Now go ahead & find a way to piss all over another post/thread, per your usual MO. It's what you do. Well, thank you for telling me what I do, haha. Anyway, this sounds like a typical "what have you done for me lately" idea I suppose. So, if Pope starts out slow this coming year, yet again, would you not focus on that because his stats aren't so good? Makes no sense; if he ended last year on a high note, he should be able to carry over that success into this new year, right? But if he doesn't? No worries, I guess it only counts when he starts doing good things. One of our resident statisticians seems to be of the same mindset; the body of work isn't as important as "the last 3 games" or "conference play." That is, unless the player has been good for a long time. Funny, it's a great way to downplay the importance of consistent play while essentially giving a blue ribbon for participation. Now go ahead and find a way to get upset at anyone who disagrees with you and piss all over this post/thread, per your usual MO. It's what you do. No, you're one of the who pisses all over posts/threads, changing virtually every topic into an opportunity to bash a player and/or a coaching staff. That's just you. If he starts off poorly that will be more relevant than how he finished last year, just like how he finished this past year is more relevant than how he started, and so on. If he starts off poorly over a 10-game stretch or so then you look at what that issues appear to be and you look at the whole picture, not just one piece. If he missed 8 of those 10, then obviously health played a role. If not, then you look at the aspects of his game where he's struggling (or flourishing) & draw conclusions from that. What you don't do is anticipate someone is going to suck and/or only focus on just 1 aspect of the player's game, as you apparently love to do. PS. The "last 3 games" is more relevant than "his 1st 3 games"; how someone did in "conference play" is more relevant than how they did early in the year. Recent history is a better indicator of the future than the distant past.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 7, 2017 12:41:25 GMT -8
all that really matters is what Malik produces this year . Do not really care about HS or his first 3 years here.
Not sure what Malik is doing this summer . SS 2 or working on his own . We added Devin experienced PG so that should be great competition to make sure that the guards are delivering the basketball to All . Offense - Will it be adjusted ? - Dutcher's call . He did say it needs to improve and asked the coaches to review other schemes .
We also added Kameron at the 5 - he has PAC experience as a reserve . Does mean that Nolan and Kameron should be able to take care of the 5 position and Malik should be able to concentrate at playing a forward position not the 5 . At the other forward or backing up Malik are Jalen , Max, Teki , Trey or Jordan . Variety of options .
Does Malik start the season healthy and stay healthy - most important ? .
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2017 13:30:03 GMT -8
We also added Kameron at the 5 - he has PAC experience as a reserve . I think its safe to say he simply has PAC experience w/o defining him as a reserve. He did start 7 of the last 8 P12 games for Cal, and 8 of the last 9 games overall including the NIT game after all. He started against us as well, and was their starter until he got injured just before P12 play started.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jun 7, 2017 14:14:36 GMT -8
Well, thank you for telling me what I do, haha. Anyway, this sounds like a typical "what have you done for me lately" idea I suppose. So, if Pope starts out slow this coming year, yet again, would you not focus on that because his stats aren't so good? Makes no sense; if he ended last year on a high note, he should be able to carry over that success into this new year, right? But if he doesn't? No worries, I guess it only counts when he starts doing good things. One of our resident statisticians seems to be of the same mindset; the body of work isn't as important as "the last 3 games" or "conference play." That is, unless the player has been good for a long time. Funny, it's a great way to downplay the importance of consistent play while essentially giving a blue ribbon for participation. Now go ahead and find a way to get upset at anyone who disagrees with you and piss all over this post/thread, per your usual MO. It's what you do. No, you're one of the who pisses all over posts/threads, changing virtually every topic into an opportunity to bash a player and/or a coaching staff. That's just you. If he starts off poorly that will be more relevant than how he finished last year, just like how he finished this past year is more relevant than how he started, and so on. If he starts off poorly over a 10-game stretch or so then you look at what that issues appear to be and you look at the whole picture, not just one piece. If he missed 8 of those 10, then obviously health played a role. If not, then you look at the aspects of his game where he's struggling (or flourishing) & draw conclusions from that. What you don't do is anticipate someone is going to suck and/or only focus on just 1 aspect of the player's game, as you apparently love to do. PS. The "last 3 games" is more relevant than "his 1st 3 games"; how someone did in "conference play" is more relevant than how they did early in the year. Recent history is a better indicator of the future than the distant past. Then how come we've had a ton of players seemingly regress or not get better over time? If you stand by what you mean and think that recent history really is a better indicator of the future, I'm going to hold you to it. When Pope starts the year off slow or Kell (like last year), what will be your excuse then? I mean, hey, they ended the year playing significantly better than they started, right? So, they should continue that hot streak. Likewise, if a player performed horribly for 3.5 years but had a decent 10-game stretch to close out his senior season, I imagine those ten games are all that matter and are more indicative how good that player actually is? I'll take the law of averages any day over the exception to the rule...I mean come on, you seem to like the law of averages a lot yourself, especially when referring to the team as a whole – like when you say stuff like "SDSU is among the nation's top half in points per possession" and similar. So, can you just admit that you pick and choose when you think it's necessary?
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2017 14:37:29 GMT -8
No, you're one of the who pisses all over posts/threads, changing virtually every topic into an opportunity to bash a player and/or a coaching staff. That's just you. If he starts off poorly that will be more relevant than how he finished last year, just like how he finished this past year is more relevant than how he started, and so on. If he starts off poorly over a 10-game stretch or so then you look at what that issues appear to be and you look at the whole picture, not just one piece. If he missed 8 of those 10, then obviously health played a role. If not, then you look at the aspects of his game where he's struggling (or flourishing) & draw conclusions from that. What you don't do is anticipate someone is going to suck and/or only focus on just 1 aspect of the player's game, as you apparently love to do. PS. The "last 3 games" is more relevant than "his 1st 3 games"; how someone did in "conference play" is more relevant than how they did early in the year. Recent history is a better indicator of the future than the distant past. Then how come we've had a ton of players seemingly regress or not get better over time? If you stand by what you mean and think that recent history really is a better indicator of the future, I'm going to hold you to it. When Pope starts the year off slow or Kell (like last year), what will be your excuse then? I mean, hey, they ended the year playing significantly better than they started, right? So, they should continue that hot streak. Likewise, if a player performed horribly for 3.5 years but had a decent 10-game stretch to close out his senior season, I imagine those ten games are all that matter and are more indicative how good that player actually is? I'll take the law of averages any day over the exception to the rule...I mean come on, you seem to like the law of averages a lot yourself, especially when referring to the team as a whole – like when you say stuff like "SDSU is among the nation's top half in points per possession" and similar. So, can you just admit that you pick and choose when you think it's necessary? We're talking about a preview for his senior year, which is NEXT year, correct? Therefore, why would his last 10 games of next year matter when talking about 2019, so how can he "continue that hot streak"? If a senior plays horribly for 3.5 years & has a decent 10 game stretch, you can say he played well over that 10 game stretch. It doesn't take a genius to use perspective & understand appropriate timelines for reference. I know you struggle, but it's really not that hard. If a team is bad offensively and then has a sustained period of time where they are much better, if the season is still in progress then yes, the sustained period of success is something to focus on, not the past. Especially when the past included a roster besieged by injury. If they happen to be among the nations top half in PPP during that time frame THAT IS A FACT. It doesn't guarantee it'll be sustained but it's also not something that should be completely ignored while all the while harping on games 1-2 months prior. If at the end of the year they're average, then they're average. If below average, then below average. No one has ever said differently. Pope's stats are exactly what they were. Once he had the opportunity to practice again with the team he was very good, and our team was much better with him on the floor than off. Again, it's not rocket science nor is there anything misleading about that stat nor the other stats quoted. it really isn't that hard to use logic & understand how and when to look at & use trends. Seriously, it really isn't, despite your struggles.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jun 7, 2017 15:33:56 GMT -8
Then how come we've had a ton of players seemingly regress or not get better over time? If you stand by what you mean and think that recent history really is a better indicator of the future, I'm going to hold you to it. When Pope starts the year off slow or Kell (like last year), what will be your excuse then? I mean, hey, they ended the year playing significantly better than they started, right? So, they should continue that hot streak. Likewise, if a player performed horribly for 3.5 years but had a decent 10-game stretch to close out his senior season, I imagine those ten games are all that matter and are more indicative how good that player actually is? I'll take the law of averages any day over the exception to the rule...I mean come on, you seem to like the law of averages a lot yourself, especially when referring to the team as a whole – like when you say stuff like "SDSU is among the nation's top half in points per possession" and similar. So, can you just admit that you pick and choose when you think it's necessary? We're talking about a preview for his senior year, which is NEXT year, correct? Therefore, why would his last 10 games of next year matter when talking about 2019, so how can he "continue that hot streak"? If a senior plays horribly for 3.5 years & has a decent 10 game stretch, you can say he played well over that 10 game stretch. It doesn't take a genius to use perspective & understand appropriate timelines for reference. I know you struggle, but it's really not that hard. If a team is bad offensively and then has a sustained period of time where they are much better, if the season is still in progress then yes, the sustained period of success is something to focus on, not the past. Especially when the past included a roster besieged by injury. If they happen to be among the nations top half in PPP during that time frame THAT IS A FACT. It doesn't guarantee it'll be sustained but it's also not something that should be completely ignored while all the while harping on games 1-2 months prior. If at the end of the year they're average, then they're average. If below average, then below average. No one has ever said differently. Pope's stats are exactly what they were. Once he had the opportunity to practice again with the team he was very good, and our team was much better with him on the floor than off. Again, it's not rocket science nor is there anything misleading about that stat nor the other stats quoted. it really isn't that hard to use logic & understand how and when to look at & use trends. Seriously, it really isn't, despite your struggles. Hah - speaking of struggles...you seem to have a hard time with plain English, and that's a shame, sorry. No one was talking about how Pope does at the end of next year and how he'll perform to start the year after that – he'll be long gone by then). Not sure what confused you about that. Since you're so close to the program, I would assume you'd know what year Malik was in. Maybe you were incensed that someone would dare challenge your opinion that you couldn't think straight, who knows. I noticed you still didn't address my "law of averages" comment; its cool - I'll just assume you can't back up my claim that you pick and choose your stats at random (well, not quite randomly; I mean you've got to make SDSU look not so bad at any cost). You know, you really should try to represent your employer better than trying to bash the same people that help fund the school and pay your salary.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 7, 2017 20:51:12 GMT -8
If you flip heads 10 times in a row people say the chance of flipping heads on the 11th flip is 50/50. I disagree. If you flip heads 10 times in a row there is a much better chance you have a defective coin. Likewise, if Pope was only as good as his overall stats were last year, the chances of putting up the numbers he did in his last 13 games was so small that it is much more likely that he just was better late in the year. Was there something that could account for a change? Yes - injuries. This is not proof but something that merely gives us hope. Which is what we are posting - hope.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 8, 2017 6:41:15 GMT -8
#hopeforpope
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 8, 2017 8:30:00 GMT -8
We're talking about a preview for his senior year, which is NEXT year, correct? Therefore, why would his last 10 games of next year matter when talking about 2019, so how can he "continue that hot streak"? If a senior plays horribly for 3.5 years & has a decent 10 game stretch, you can say he played well over that 10 game stretch. It doesn't take a genius to use perspective & understand appropriate timelines for reference. I know you struggle, but it's really not that hard. If a team is bad offensively and then has a sustained period of time where they are much better, if the season is still in progress then yes, the sustained period of success is something to focus on, not the past. Especially when the past included a roster besieged by injury. If they happen to be among the nations top half in PPP during that time frame THAT IS A FACT. It doesn't guarantee it'll be sustained but it's also not something that should be completely ignored while all the while harping on games 1-2 months prior. If at the end of the year they're average, then they're average. If below average, then below average. No one has ever said differently. Pope's stats are exactly what they were. Once he had the opportunity to practice again with the team he was very good, and our team was much better with him on the floor than off. Again, it's not rocket science nor is there anything misleading about that stat nor the other stats quoted. it really isn't that hard to use logic & understand how and when to look at & use trends. Seriously, it really isn't, despite your struggles. Hah - speaking of struggles...you seem to have a hard time with plain English, and that's a shame, sorry. No one was talking about how Pope does at the end of next year and how he'll perform to start the year after that – he'll be long gone by then). Not sure what confused you about that. Since you're so close to the program, I would assume you'd know what year Malik was in. Maybe you were incensed that someone would dare challenge your opinion that you couldn't think straight, who knows. I noticed you still didn't address my "law of averages" comment; its cool - I'll just assume you can't back up my claim that you pick and choose your stats at random (well, not quite randomly; I mean you've got to make SDSU look not so bad at any cost). You know, you really should try to represent your employer better than trying to bash the same people that help fund the school and pay your salary. Issues with English? Ha. Here's your quote: "When Pope starts the year off slow or Kell (like last year), what will be your excuse then? I mean, hey, they ended the year playing significantly better than they started, right? So, they should continue that hot streak." Again, if he starts off poorly but ends the year playing significantly better, who cares if they 'should continue that hot streak', since his career at SDSU is over. You're the one implying he had another year, not me. I was just pointing out how stupid that was. I'm not "incensed that someone would dare challenge (my) opinion"; just frustrated that someone has so much trouble interpreting actual facts. There's a difference. Maybe someday you'll figure that out. As Bill points out, the "law of averages' in a situation like that is less likely to be relevant than a long-term streak (33%-45% of the season), especially when the streak comes at the end of the season & includes up and downs throughout. You're stupid insinuations about my employment just make you look childish, petty & foolish. Amazing how you want to make everything personal.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jun 8, 2017 13:17:56 GMT -8
Hah - speaking of struggles...you seem to have a hard time with plain English, and that's a shame, sorry. No one was talking about how Pope does at the end of next year and how he'll perform to start the year after that – he'll be long gone by then). Not sure what confused you about that. Since you're so close to the program, I would assume you'd know what year Malik was in. Maybe you were incensed that someone would dare challenge your opinion that you couldn't think straight, who knows. I noticed you still didn't address my "law of averages" comment; its cool - I'll just assume you can't back up my claim that you pick and choose your stats at random (well, not quite randomly; I mean you've got to make SDSU look not so bad at any cost). You know, you really should try to represent your employer better than trying to bash the same people that help fund the school and pay your salary. Issues with English? Ha. Here's your quote: "When Pope starts the year off slow or Kell (like last year), what will be your excuse then? I mean, hey, they ended the year playing significantly better than they started, right? So, they should continue that hot streak." Again, if he starts off poorly but ends the year playing significantly better, who cares if they 'should continue that hot streak', since his career at SDSU is over. You're the one implying he had another year, not me. I was just pointing out how stupid that was. I'm not "incensed that someone would dare challenge (my) opinion"; just frustrated that someone has so much trouble interpreting actual facts. There's a difference. Maybe someday you'll figure that out. As Bill points out, the "law of averages' in a situation like that is less likely to be relevant than a long-term streak (33%-45% of the season), especially when the streak comes at the end of the season & includes up and downs throughout. You're stupid insinuations about my employment just make you look childish, petty & foolish. Amazing how you want to make everything personal. Haha, you're "just frustrated that someone has so much trouble interpreting actual facts?" Are you serious? Did you just imply that there is only one way to interpret facts? I imagine you think your way of interpreting facts is the only way – classic. Also, don't confuse facts with stats....you cite stats and your opinions about them become your own facts. Oooh I know it chaps your hide when people don't agree with you. Speaking of making someone look foolish, it's "your" not "you're." Ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Jun 8, 2017 21:46:27 GMT -8
How about having Pope run the point of attack? WSIII is a baller somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Jul 14, 2017 18:52:23 GMT -8
Three reasons why SDSU should finish #1 in the MWC.
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Jul 14, 2017 20:11:13 GMT -8
This team will only go as far as Hemsley and Watson can take them. Hope Pope has a great senior year but every year he hope and nothing.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2017 21:02:31 GMT -8
This team will only go as far as Hemsley and Watson can take them. Hope Pope has a great senior year but every year he hope and nothing. Aztecs have a lot of players who could step up.
|
|
|
Post by uncledougy on Jul 15, 2017 0:10:53 GMT -8
ESPN's Chad Ford, who was in love with Malik's game after his Freshman year, still has hope for him. He said that " ...although Pope has really struggled to find any consistency the past two seasons, he has all the physical tools and skills NBA teams want. However, he can't seem to put it all together most nights. He likely would have gone undrafted had he stayed in the draft. He's a potential 2nd-Round pick in the 2018 draft." Dare we hold our collective breaths again? Can the Basketball Gods give us an X Thames kind of Senior year for him to help make up for all the Basketball disappointment from the last two years? Call me crazy but I'm already hoping. It's possible if he stays healthy physically and mentally. Watson wilhelp him get more open looks! I'm looking forward to this season! Boom!!! Watson take is spot on and reality. It will be a completely different season for Malik....a second breakout season and will dwarf the freshman year hype.
|
|
|
Post by podpeople on Jul 15, 2017 2:08:54 GMT -8
This team will only go as far as Hemsley and Watson can take them. Hope Pope has a great senior year but every year he hope and nothing. After last seasons debacle, this team better show up and play their asses off.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jul 15, 2017 8:40:43 GMT -8
The more games played for pope the farther we go.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Jul 15, 2017 8:52:46 GMT -8
When Pope decides to start working hard, that's when he'll take off. Until then, we won't see any real change in him....
|
|