A Sea Of Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: The National Championship Tebow Drinking Game Bar-right-arrows



Vaught's Views: UK's Porter ready to lead

Nice interview with Michael Porters's dad and how Mike is progressing this summer what he thinks our new players this season.

Link 6 months ago K-32ha2v_tiny kykat51 Comment 21 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

No Seniors this year?

Have I missed something…I thought Carter was a Senior. Has he transferred?

by kykat51 on Jul 11, 2008 3:11 PM EDT   0 recs

Carter is a senior.

Although it is possible that UK could get an extra year of eligibility for him if they desire, since he didn’t play the year before last.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 11, 2008 4:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh thanks...

I thought perhaps our good guy “Out Of Africa” had left us.

by kykat51 on Jul 11, 2008 5:13 PM EDT   0 recs

Porter...

has a lot work to do if he wants to be a leader on the floor for this team. Namely defense, ball-handling, consistency, scoring and distributing the ball. In other words, I have my doubts but I do hope he gets better.

by SevenRings on Jul 11, 2008 6:09 PM EDT   0 recs

Yeah ...

... he has to be able to stay out there in order to lead. It’s hard to lead from the bench.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 11, 2008 6:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Porter

3 time Calif All-Stater. 4 straight Final 4 appearances in Calif HS playoffs. Leading scorer in Modesto CHS history. (Nope, not Chuck Hayes)

Not only played against but DEFEATED Galloway’s HS team regularly.

I think he’ll be the first sub in at either G and see 10-15 minutes PT this season.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 12, 2008 9:52 AM EDT   0 recs

That sounds ...

... about right, depending on Liggins’ status.

He could wind up the starter. Tough kid. He isn’t going to just roll over for the guys who have more athletic ability.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 12, 2008 11:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Porter

Now that I would actually agree with.

I can see him at 10-15 minutes a game. I dont know about the first sub off the bench but I definitley think he’ll be the first sub in for point guard.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Jul 12, 2008 10:10 AM EDT   0 recs

First G Sub

Not necessarily 6th man.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 12, 2008 1:07 PM EDT   0 recs

I haven't really..

ever been real big on Porter, but he is a Wildcat and I’ll cheer my head off for him everytime he is in the game. The most impressive thing I have seen him do was keep on playing with the banged up shoulder, didn’t say anything, didn’t ask to come out of the game, he just sucked it up and played through the pain. I gained huge amounts of respect for him with that.

by wldcatsfreak on Jul 12, 2008 2:26 PM EDT   0 recs

Team player….

I remember the shoulder injury also, and when BCG asked Porter about it and why he didn’t tell the coaching staff about the injury before he went into the game, didn’t he say something along the lines of, "Don’t worry Coach, I wasn’t going to shoot.” It was pretty sharp of him to have the presence of mind to think that his shots weren’t going to be falling (or the best offensive option for the team) with a bum shoulder. Hell, yes, he definitely garnered my respect after that as well.

by BigSkyCat on Jul 12, 2008 4:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

DON'T LET LACK OF HYPE FOOL YOU.

I suppose if Michael Porter made rap albums or flashed gang symbols from the court he would get more attention from the media, and there would be fewer Michael haters on these blogs showing their ignorance about his abilities. But do not mistake the lack of gaudy street-balling with a lack of talent.

I realize that these blogs are filled more with “ordinary fans” than with legitimate basketball analysts, and that’s fine, but all too often the ordinary fan blogger just accepts what he reads, and perpetuates myths that are wildly at odds with the reality. Such is the case with the Michael Porter haters.

Is he athletic enough? In terms of athleticism, Michael actually bench presses more than anybody on the team. Strength coaches generally use the military press as the best general measure of strength and conditioning—somebody might be able to squat thrust more than Michael, or whatever (I haven’t seen those figures), but the point is that DESPITE what people think they know about Michael, the facts are that he is not only athletic, he is the STRONGEST all around athlete on the team.

What about his defense? Despite those who claim he “needs to work on his defense,” the FACT is that he was the best defender on last year’s team as measured by the Steals-Per-Forty-Minutes average. That’s right! Nobody else was even close. Those of you who weren’t aware of that fact were reading blogs when you should have been watching the ball games. His tremendous defensive skills are obvious to anyone who knows anything about the game. His presence at the point changes the complexion of the game—not by being flashy, but by being smart, and stayinmg two stepos ahead of the competition. Talk to any of the opposing point guards he played against last year. How many of them have you spoken with? I’ve talked with several.

That’s why even as a sophomore Michael tended to get into the games when we needed a defensive stop - because BCG knows more about defense than those who read too many articles by people who know too little about the actual playing of the sport. My fellow cat fans - don’t drink the blogger Kool-Aid.

What about his basketball smarts? Don’t you have to have smarts to be a good lead guard? Well, Coach G says Michael has the highest basketball IQ of anybody on the team (of course his dad is a coach, so what do you expect?) That’s part of the reason Michael was the ONLY wildcat in the top ten in the SEC last year in Steals-Per-Forty. He stayed a step ahead of the opposition. While the flashy guys were flaily around, Michael had already outsmarted the other guys and knew exactly where the ball was going before it got there. While all of the pot-bellied has-beens are writing that Michael isn’t as good defensively as he could be, all he was doing was taking the ball away—away from the flashy guys some of you folks think are good because they’re flashy. Well, GOOD is measured by results, not flash, and that’s where Michael puts the lie to those who knock his defense.

So. let’s see. Hmmm. He’s the strongest, the smartest, and the best defender, but what about his scoring? Don’t we often hear the same old nonsense from the same old foolish armchair experts about how Michael is not a scoring threat? Well, again, let’s look not at the blogs, but at the facts. Who was the best shooter on our team from the free throw line we had last year? That’s right, Michael. And who shot better from behind the three point line than Crawford, Meeks, and Bradley—and everybody else who’s returning to the team this year? That’s right, it was Michael Porter. Hmmm… And don’t even try to give me that line about Michael not having as many attempts as some others. All you can do is hit the shots you take, and that’s what he did again and again, better than anybody else (from 3 and the chartity stripe).

Let’s see. The FACTS say he’s the best shooter, the best defender, the strongest athlete, and has the best sense of the game on the team. And he put up these stats last year while having to come in cold off the bench (usually). Had he started in place of Ramel and, like Ramel, been given time to play after he had fully warmed up in each game, he would have out shot and out defended Ramel by even bigger marins than he already did this year. (Spare me the nonsense about Ramel “having to play tired.” The facts show that Ramel almost always got better as the game wore on, like most guys. Had Michael been given those minutes, his stats would have been incredible.)

So what do the brilliant arm chair experts say about him? “Oh, if we don’t get a better lead guard, we’ll win only 50% of our games this year.” It’s really quite laughable. That kind of comment says more about the blogger than it does about Michael Porter.

I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but there’s a reason some people are making millions coaching and recruiting, while others are living in a fantasy playing analyst on a blog somewhere showing how much they don’t know about guys like Michael Porter.

No, Michael is not the best shot blocker on the team. No, he can’t muscle through a Pat Patterson. Yes, he does sometimes expect too much of his teammates and wind up throwing the ball away (yes, being smarter than your teammates can be a liability if you don’t keep their limitations in mind). Yes, there are some guys who are better at getting their own shot when the clock is winding down. But he is an extraordinary athlete who has already played well above what Tubby expected, and who just keeps getting better under BCG.

Those of us who actually go to the practices and ball games know Michael is a class act who shows up early, stays late, accepts whatever role he is given without complaint, and rises to the occasion again and again for the blue and white. He is now and will be when he graduates a credit to the institution.

All of this makes me almost hope Liggins won’t qualify this year so you can see how wrong you were (almost).

The next time you are tempted to talk about how limited Michael Porter is at this or that, and how miserable we are going to be unless so and so gets qualified, be aware that to those who know a little something about basketball your comments will say more about your limitations than they will say about Michael’s.

Stop the Michael hatin’!

Go ‘Cats!

by Ken Pomeroy on Jul 13, 2008 10:56 PM EDT   0 recs

Where the hell did that come from?

I don’t see a single comment above where anyone bashes the kid. The closest anyone came to being negative was saying he is good for 10-15 minutes a game or “I’ve never been real big on him.” Those aren’t exactly fightin’ words.

What exactly did anyone say that offended you to the point where you felt the need to attack others on this site or does banging away on your keyboard in complete annonimity just make you feel better?

by wldcatsfreak on Jul 14, 2008 6:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's not just here....

It appears on just about any site where the casual fan posts.

And what is most troublesome is that the usual response (see davw83, for a good example) is irrational, and does not meet the substance of the argument. Because the facts don’t back up what people think they know, or what they want to believe, they strike back irrationally. Instead of saying, “You know, I never realized that Michael was that good of a defender, because when I see quicker feet on other guards, I automatically get beguiled into believing they are better defenders. Perhaps I should look more closely at his results—does he get the steal by being quick, or does he get even more steals than the quick guys by being very smart, and quick enough?”

That is a response I could respect. Instead, what you get is, “Your stats are garbage,” without any better argument than that. Not a very compelling argument, to say the least.

I could respect this: “You know, I never realized Michael shot free throws more accurately than Ramel (and everybody else on the team), and was more accurate from three than Joe, Ramel, Jodie, and all of our returning players. I guess I sometimes let the press attention given to the big dogs blind me to the success of the lesser known players. Maybe he is better than I realized, although we’ll never know for sure until he gets more playing time.”

But what I hear is this: “Your stats are garbage,” or “your sample size is ridiculously low.” In fact, Michael played 385 minutes in 25 games. You do the math. That’s over 15 minutes a game as a sophomore, behind a senior lead guard. That’s a statistically significant chunk of playing time on any team—in which time he got more steals than, say, Pat Patterson did with three times his minutes.

I could respect the criticism that 25 games is an insufficient amount of time in which to create a fair and objective statistical history, except for the fact that the same guys who use that to knock Michael’s excellent defensive and shooting stats use the very same playing history to complain about Michael’s Assist-to-Turnover ratio. Well, if it’s unfair to credit him with excellent defense and excellent shooting because the sample size supposedly generates unreliable results, then why is it acceptable to use an equally small sample size to criticize his Assist/Turnover Ratio?

The answer, of course, is that these guys use what suits their opinion, and reject what doesn’t. Hypocrisy, pure and simple. They do with Michael’s stats the same thing they criticize Dick Vitale for doing.

And it’s getting old…...

by Ken Pomeroy on Jul 14, 2008 12:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nonsense

By your argument, Porter could have played 40 minutes a game every game, hit one three per game, and everyone should consider him better than Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley. After all, he shot 100% from three-point-range for the season. While even that would be impressive, it might mean that in 40 minutes, he was only able to create his own shot one time. As odd as it sounds at first blush, there is more to being a good offensive player than shooting a high percentage.

This much I agree with you on: using terms like “your stats are garbage” won’t bolster any argument. In fact, it can subvert even the most sound argument. I also agree that the only way to know for sure how good Porter is would be for him to get the minutes.

This much I agree with davw83 on: If BCG believed, as you do, that Porter’s percentages and per-forty-minutes numbers would hold up over the course of significant playing time and still didn’t give him any more time, he should be fired. You want to complain about how we are drinking the blogger Kool-Aid and aren’t as enlightened as you, but are you suggesting you’re a better evaluator of Porter’s talent than Gillispie? I also agree with davw83 that Porter is a good player, by all accounts a good person, and could surprise some people this year. I’d add that he definitely improved from his freshman to sophomore seasons.

This much I throw out as irrelevant: your mention of his assist-to-turnover ratio. It may have been mentioned elsewhere, but it has no place in rebutting davw83’s argument. No one in this particular thread has even mentioned A-to-T ratio.

I also find it odd that the only responses you could respect are ones that concede your points. That’s a little disingenuous, don’t you think? The fact is that the sample size is small, and that’s a point that can’t be ignored. You should be able to respect that some people see that as a concern with your argument, even if you don’t.

by Acdixon on Jul 14, 2008 1:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What's getting old ...

... is the fact that you continue to ignore the reality that your argument is flawed. You can’t say that Porter was a better free throw shooter than Bradley or anyone else based on the tiny sample of statistics to compare. The stats Porter accumulated may be significant in some cases, but the sample is small enough to make the MOE huge, especially compared to the rest of the team.

Your argument is sophistry, and full of logical fallacies, and quite frankly, the only irrational person I have seen in here is you. You have to accept the fact that Porter simply hasn’t established that he was either the best defender on the team or the best free throw shooter, because the statistics you cite do not support that conclusion, both due to an insufficiently small sample and several other relevant factors that you don’t even remotely consider, such as:


  1. 1. Bradley shooting many free throws after playing heavy minutes. This is known to be a negative in FT%. Porter’s minutes tended to come in short spurts where he was almost always fresh.

  2. 2. Porter’s steals were probably not always his. Also, Porter primarily saw minutes against the second string and less skilled teams, because his lateral quickness is a defensive liability against first-string high D-1 point guards.

  3. 3. All the above also apply to his shooting percentage.

  4. 4. Notice Porter’s 31% FG%. That, compared with his relatively high 3 point FG% do not speak highly of his offensive capability. He is unable to get into the paint or finish there against quicker guards.

  5. 5. Nobody in their right mind could argue FT% based on 8 total attempts!

  6. 6. By simply going to the website of your namesake, you can discover that Porter’s statistics were not included in the national rankings, because he didn’t have enough minutes to qualify.

I could go on and on for pages about why your argument is flawed beyond plausibility, but I am done with it. If you want to continue to look eccentric at best and downright foolish at worst, knock yourself out.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 14, 2008 1:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Boo yah

What Tru said.

The only thing this dude wants to hear is

You know I had never really though about how amazing Porter is. Ken you were right. you are my hero.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Jul 14, 2008 2:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

LOL

You have got to be kidding me.

I am not a Michael hater by any means but your argument is ludicrous and has already been discussed at length on this website by you and Tru. Your Porter percentages are garbage because the sample size of each of those stats is so ridiculously low. I don’t know how you can even think that Porter is the best shooter and defensive player on the team last year. If you really do think that then Billy G has to be a horrible coach for not playing Porter thirty minutes a game last season. How do you justify Porter’s playing time if you really believe those stats your spouting? Porter is a fine young man and a good basketball player. I think he definitely is good for around 15 minutes a game and while I don’t think he is a starting SEC guard pressed into that role I think he could surprise a lot of people. I don’t understand how you take yourself seriously though trying to justify the stats you through out there.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Jul 13, 2008 11:18 PM EDT   0 recs

What you said.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 13, 2008 11:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

oh and one more thing

I am aware that Porter benches ore reps of 185 than anyone on the team so dont bother to include all you stats about his athleticism if you post again. While he is very strong he isnt all that quick BUT i am not arguing your comments about his athleticism just his stats.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Jul 13, 2008 11:20 PM EDT   0 recs

Porter

Decent back-up at either guard spot, good for 10-15 minutes PT off the bench.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 15, 2008 8:00 PM EDT   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

An exciting user-driven SBNation blog, by and for fans of the Kentucky Wildcats.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Bcg_avatar_small
SEC Predictions
Small
Pelphrey Getting it Done
Small
Are we fooling ourselves?
Me_small
Legion coming back??
Small
A Favor To Ask (For Erik Daniels' Mom)
Bball0_small
Patterson now projected as a lottery pick
Small
Looking for Game Film from 1986-1987
Small
Where have all the "players" gone?
Small
Looking toward January . . . a change in the lineup Part II
Dj_small
UK vs. U of L/Momentum Shifter

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managing Editor

Tru_small Truzenzuzex

Editor

Small Ken Howlett

ad

Site Meter