A Sea Of Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Falcons and Chargers Recap: The Win Is The Thing Bar-right-arrows



A look at basketball starting lineup possibilities

There isn't much Kentucky basketball news out there, so I thought it might be interesting to project ourselves forward into the regular season and look at some possible starting lineups for the Wildcats, and examine how each might be beneficial.

First off, Let's look at our roster:

# Name Pos. Yr. Exp. Ht./Wt. Hometown (last school)
1 Alex Legion G Fr. HS 6'5"/196# Detroit, MI (Oak Hill Academy)
3 Ramel Bradley G Sr. 3V 6'2"/199# New York, NY (The Pendleton School, Fla.)
5 Derrick Jasper G So. 1V 6'6"/213# Paso Robles, CA (Paso Robles)
13 Michael Porter G So. 1V 6'2"/193# Modesto, CA (Modesto Christian)
15 A.J. Stewart F Fr. HS 6'8"/208# Jacksonville, FL (Arlington Country Day HS)
21 Perry Stevenson F So. 1V 6'9"/192# Lafayette, LA (Northside)
23 Jodie Meeks G So. 1V 6'4"/212# Norcross, GA (Norcross)
25 Mike Williams C Fr. HS 6'11"/270# Solihull, (Bishop Ireton HS)
32 Joe Crawford G Sr. 3V 6'5"/221# Detroit, MI (Renaissance)
34 Ramon Harris F So. 1V 6'7"/216# Anchorage, AK (West Anchorage HS)
42 Mark Coury F So. 1V 6'8"/230# Detroit, MI (Detroit Day HS)
43 Jared Carter C Jr. 1V 7'2"/250# Georgetown, KY (Scott County)
54 Patrick Patterson F Fr. HS 6'9"/219# Huntington, WV (Huntington HS)

Now, lets make a starting lineup.  My first iteration, or Option 1, based on nothing more than past performance and expectations, would probably look something like this:

# Name Pos. Yr. Ht./Wt. Option 1
3 Ramel Bradley G Sr. 6'2"/199# 1
23 Jodie Meeks G So. 6'4"/212# 3
32 Joe Crawford G Sr. 6'5"/221# 2
43 Jared Carter C Jr. 7'2"/250# 5
54 Patrick Patterson F Fr. 6'9"/219# 4

Obviously, this option is contingent upon Jared Carter being a) available to play, and b) being the best available option -- i.e. significantly better than going with another forward or another guard.  I am not sanguine about either contingency based on what we know now.  But let's just assume this is what we have for the moment.

Backups would look like this:  Jasper for Bradley, Harris for Meeks, Legion for Crawford, Stevenson for Carter and Stewart for Patterson.  This team would have the following characteristics:

  • Good perimeter shooting
  • Best interior size
  • Good rebounding
  • Fair running team
  • Good free-throw shooting
  • Fair perimeter size
  • Fair passing
  • Good perimeter defense
  • Fair interior defense

Option 2, actually one I consider somewhat more likely, would assume Carter is unavailable, and replace him in the lineup with Stevenson.  It would look like this:

# Name Pos. Yr. Ht./Wt. Option 2
3 Ramel Bradley G Sr. 6'2"/199# 1
21 Perry Stevenson F So. 6'9"/192# 5
23 Jodie Meeks G So. 6'4"/212# 2
32 Joe Crawford G Sr. 6'5"/221# 3
54 Patrick Patterson F Fr. 6'9"/219# 4

This lineup, in my opinion, is substantially more likely than Option 1.  The backups would be DJ for Bradley, Legion for Meeks, Harris for Crawford, Stewart for Stevenson and either Harris or DJ for Patterson, assuming that Williams or Coury isn't a better option.  If we rotate in guards the team would have the following characteristics:

  • Excellent perimeter shooting
  • Best perimeter defense
  • Good interior size
  • Best interior defense
  • Good passing
  • Best running team
  • Best free throw shooting
  • Good perimeter defense
  • Fair perimeter size

Obviously, there are other permutations on this that could be considered, but these two seem the most likely at the moment.  It is possible, but not likely, that either Ramel or Crawford would not start.  It is also possible and somewhat more likely that Jasper or Legion could wind up in the starting lineup, but I am doubtful about the former and very doubtful about the latter.

0 recs | Comment 64 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Good stuff as usual Tru...
...  I admit it also makes me chuckle a bit to see basketball stuff up when football season is just days away.

Kind of the same thing Gator fans are accused of, just opposite sports.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Aug 28, 2007 1:43 PM EDT   0 recs

Thanks, GP ...
Well, UK fans think about basketball constantly, it's our obsession really.  Football is nice, but basketball is where we hang our hopes of competing for a national championship, year in and year out.

Especially this year, after having two utterly forgettable years in a row and getting our second really good recruiting class in a row, we are anxious to get into the season.  We are also anxious to find out how Gillispie is going to do.

I'm sure you guys felt the same way when Urban Meyer came on board.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 28, 2007 1:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe I'm Wrong But ...
And I haven't seen these kids play but I still like to believe that Jasper and/or Ramon Harris can still be in the mix when talking about starting lineups. Jasper was hot at first last season then cooled off due to Meeks, you maybe could say because of Tubby, but I'm not a Tubby hater so. But anyways, Jasper can run the court, we've seen that, and he could play 2 or 3 in my opinion, at least better than Meeks at the 3 and have the height advantage. I just, I don't know, I'm just not ready to cut off Jasper quite yet from starting spot. I just feel, and yeah he played very poorly when Meeks shined, but how much of that was Meeks and Jasper just not doing enough, you know? But either way we're going to have a good bench. And I'm not a Meeks hater now, I loooove Meeks like everyone, but just feel Jasper still has a shot at the starting lineup. You know we might just see a 4 guard lineup as well.
Loading ... checking memory card ... press Start and enjoy the game.

by giddyupwcb on Aug 28, 2007 2:52 PM EDT   0 recs

Yes ...
I considered Jasper as a possibility also, but the post just became too long.  

It is certainly a possibility that Jasper will beat Meeks out for the starting spot, or that Jasper will start in place of Stevenson.  My figuring is that Meeks will provide a little more offensive firepower than Jasper will.

But Jasper could wind up the choice because of his defense, so just because Meeks got my nod doesn't mean Gillispie will agree.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 28, 2007 3:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Now Truz..
Did you really think about what you just wrote?  Honestly.  "Meeks will provide a little more offensive firepower than Jasper will."  That is like saying "Patterson will provide a little more physical presence than Bobby Perry."  Unless it is a fast break, Jasper is a liability on offense while Meeks was UK's best threat last year.  "A little more" ????  Come one Truz...

by Catfan on Aug 28, 2007 4:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

heh heh...
Catfan's got a point there..."Meeks will provide A LITTLE more offensive firepower"  than Jasper?  I know Tru's probably just trying to be optimistic about DJ's seeming complete aversion to shooting, but if last year holds, it's quite possible that I PERSONALLY will provide a little more offensive firepower for this team than will Jasper.  (Well, maybe not.)

And I would like to thank the blog for throwing us all basketball people a bone!  I know we're supposed to be all rah-rah about our football team this year--and I certainly do hope we do well 'cause that's my team and everything--but being a true Kentucky girl, I'm all about the roundball, even in August.  I'm afraid I'm kind of blah about the football, and was afraid it might turn into a 24-7 football-a-thon around here until October or November.  So, thanks for allieving my worries!

by blue kentucky girl on Aug 28, 2007 5:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: blue kentucky girl
You wrote: "I know we're supposed to be all rah-rah about our football team this year...". I apologize for pointing out the faus pax in your statement, but we are supposed to be "all rah-rah about our football team"...every year, not just this year. But I feel yea about the rest of your statement.

I love talking football, but a basketball fix in August is welcome.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 28, 2007 11:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

my faux pax
You say, " I apologize for pointing out the faus pax in your statement, but we are supposed to be "all rah-rah about our football team"...every year, not just this year."

Oh, are we?  Ah, man.  Okay, I'll do my best : )

Do we all also need to get rah-rah about Kentucky women's basketball, track and field, baseball, shot put, gymnastics, the rifle team, cheerleading, the debate team....that's honestly my only problem with the fact that some people get all offended about my lackluster UK football support.  Not that you were all offended, Ken--you were perfectly friendly and just supporting your team.  But SOME people act like it's just awful that I can't get up for UK football, when obviously we ALL all are choosing the sports and teams we that follow.  I just happen to be very, very selective...so selective that it's just the one.

And how ironic that here I am moaning for more basketball talk and yet I myself am talking about...not-basketball.  Sorry, please proceed.

by blue kentucky girl on Aug 29, 2007 11:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: blue kentucky girl
My comments were in jest, but you make a good point with your response.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 29, 2007 9:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not going to stop covering ...
basketball.  Even at the height of football season, it's hard to imagine our coverage going much past 60%/40 football to basketball.

No matter how good we are at football, Kentucky is not going to turn into a football state.  It just isn't.

And as far as Jasper is concerned, I think last year was more of an anomaly than what we will see from now on.  I don't think he is ever going to average 20 points, but I think 10 or so is very realistic.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 6:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

huh
I dont quite understand the whole Jasper played poorly due to Meeks idea.

He played poorly because his shot sucks and everyone layed off of him daring him to shoot the ball. I like Jasper a lot and am anxious to see how well he plays this season. I dont think he cracks the staring lineup though.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 28, 2007 3:12 PM EDT   0 recs

Impossible task
I don't think your going to see a "Set" starting line up this year.  I honestly think that who Coach G sends on the court will depend on the match ups. We are so thin at the 5 (both in numbers and in pounds) that I think there will be times we see Williams start....just because we need the wide body in there.

I can't wait to see though!

by sylvar on Aug 28, 2007 3:29 PM EDT   0 recs

Jodie Meeks, Patrick Patterson
I think will be the MVP's of this Wildcat team combine that with smarter play from Joe and Ramel this team is Elite 8 good.

by UK44 on Aug 28, 2007 3:30 PM EDT   0 recs

4 Guards
I would think that a 4 guard line up will be a very real possibility.

While a 2G, 2F, C line up is the "traditional" approach; I'm of the opinion that our relatively bare cupboard leaves us squarely in the non-tradional line-up camp.

I could easily see Jasper playing a "Point Forward" role.  He's certainly big enough to be considered a smallish forward.

by chirop1 on Aug 28, 2007 3:41 PM EDT   0 recs

I think lineup #2 is what we should expect.
I think that will be an exciting lineup.  Fast.

However, far too early to know if this will be a good, much less excellent perimeter shooting team.  Given how poorly Crawford and Bradley shot the ball last year, we should not get our hopes up.  However, given Meeks is on the rise and Legion brings additional competition, we can expect improvement.  

I hope they shoot well, because Patterson has his hands full.  I hope BG is working on his guards rebounding skills.

by Catfan on Aug 28, 2007 4:20 PM EDT   0 recs

Well ...
neither Bradley, Crawford nor Meeks shot the ball "poorly" by any reasonable definition.
Name        all            FG 3-point
J. Crawford 179-401 44.6%  63-180 35.0%
R. Bradley  141-336 42.0%  69-188 36.7%
J. Meeks     95-227 41.9%  44-121 36.4%

If these numbers are "poor", you and I are from different planets. I think all three are capable of significantly better, and if that's what you're saying, then we are in agreement.

I really think the big difference is that last year, we were forced, as much by Morris' inability to run the floor and the need to keep him from getting too tired as anything else, to play to a bit of a rigid, half-court style. We had to keep Morris in there for rebounding and a low post threat, because without him, we had no low post threat at all.

Defensively, we weren't nearly as good against quality competition as we needed to be.

Patterson doesn't have 260# to chug around with him, so that shouldn't be as much of an issue with him. Not only that, Patterson has a totally different mentality from Morris. Where Morris seemed passive and somewhat remote, and would pout when he didn't get a pass after working for position, Patterson is tireless and relentless.

Plus, we have much more bench depth this year and people who can get their own shot if need be, even if it is considerably smaller.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 6:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

maybe I should have said
unreliable shooting and not used the word "poor."  Their stats are ok.  Not great and not bad.  But anyone who watched all of UKs games knows that Crawford's shot was unreliable and very inconsistent.  Same for Bradley.  I never once felt that when either Crawford or Bradley had an open look it was "money."  Not like Lee Humphrey, not like Lofton.  Hell, UK's team averaged 36% from behind the arc and I believe that is very close to the SEC average.  Point is, our 3-point shooters last year were very very average.  Are you satisfied that our "best" shooters are simply average?

Maybe my perception of poor comes from expectations.  I do not believe expecting Crawford, the 5 star superstar, starter, designated "shooter", to shoot 40% maybe 45% from behind the arc was unrealistic.  

HOWEVER, I believe this year will be different.  I have to believe Crawford realizes this season will define his career.  He has competition for playing time from Meeks and Legion.  If he has a shot of a pro career (uhm, not NBA but maybe in Europe) he has to rise to the occasion this season.  With new life from Billy G., I believe he will do it.  I believe this is the season Crawford performs at more than an average level.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 8:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah ...
I think partially our expectations were too high of Crawford's shooting ability.  He was a good shooter in high school, but never like a Lofton or Humphrey.  His forté was using his strength and size to overpower opponents.  If we expected better than about 37% behind the arc, I think it was because we didn't really know all there was to know.  For example, this is how Ed Magoni reviewed his game back in the day:
Regardless of who Crawford takes the court with, he's going to get your attention. This kid soars to the basket and just victimizes anyone in his path. In one contest at Nike, Crawford caught a pass flat-footed about six feet from the rim and without taking a step, leaped into the air and jammed it. For most of the camp, I thought he just got by on his athletic ability, and believe me he could, but as the camp wound down he proved he can shoot from the perimeter. Hailing from Detroit, it seems like only a matter of time before Tom Izzo makes Crawford the next Jason Richardson.

Not really sure what happened to all that aggressiveness, but he hasn't really showed that same capability on the college level.  He's still a good player, but comparing Magoni's insights to what we have seen, you might think he was talking about somebody else.

Crawford has never really been the same since he banged up his knee back during his first season.  His explosiveness hasn't been there, and I think that's part of the problem.  Word on the street is that he is continuing to have knee problems, but we can all hope it gets better.

He started using his size and athleticism more toward the end of last season, but the problem was, he would try to do it every play and force it, rather than taking advantage of opportunities.  The biggest knock I have on Crawford is that his basketball IQ just isn't where it should be.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 8:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Meeks
I think calling him Uk's best threat last year is a stretch. Most potential sure but he was still a freshman last year and averaged a little over 8 points a game.

I dont think we will see much of a "traditional line up with Billy G at the helm at any time in his coaching tenure. I have heard he favors 3 guards 2 big forwards rather than 2guards 2 forwards and a center.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 28, 2007 5:00 PM EDT   0 recs

I should have said
he ended last year as UK's best all around guard.

by Catfan on Aug 28, 2007 5:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agree
I would agree with that. I cant wait to see what he does this year and Legion as well.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 28, 2007 7:30 PM EDT   0 recs

Shooting Perspective
Let's look at some shooting stats from last year so everyone will be informed as to who shot well, and who didn't.

Crawford: 2's-52%, 3's-35%
Bradley: 2's-49.1%, 3's-36.7%
Meeks: 2's-48.1%, 3's-36.4%

The problem last year was not shooting. The problems were an excessive amount of turnovers, and an inability to offensive rebound. UK gave up, over the course of the year, 150+ possessions due to their deficiencies in the above mentioned areas.

These problems stem from not having a true power forward, a freshmen point guard, as well as a true 2, trying to play point. In Jaspers defense, he was hurt most of the latter part of the year, and like a trooper, he tried to play through the pain, but there is simply no doubt he was adversely effected.

The '07-'08 edition of the 'Cats will be well served by valuing the damn ball, and crashing the boards like there is no tomorrow. If they execute these two, rather elementary parts of the game, they will have an excellent season.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 28, 2007 10:55 PM EDT   0 recs

I think this is mostly ...
right.  Turnovers were a huge problem last year.  When you have games where guys individually had turnover numbers like 8 (Morris), 7 (Crawford) and 6 (Bradley), you have a problem.

The major problem was not having a power forward, in my opinion, although that was a problem.  The problem was, in order to keep Morris from falling down from fatigue, we had to play a half-court style.  

Because he was so critical to the offense and to our rebounding, and we had virtually zero depth at his position, he had to play 28 minutes per game.  We actually needed him more like 35 out of Randy, but his tendency to grab when he got tired forced us to take him out before he fouled out.

We are much better this year.  Even though we still have no appreciable depth in the front court, we have lots more in the back court, which gives us some nice options when it comes to a fast, 4-guard lineup that we didn't have last year.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 7:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Power Forward
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the power forward issue being a major problem area.

I do agree with you on your take on Morris. A strong argument can be made though, regarding Woo's effectiveness. I thought he brought a ton of positive energy while contributing both in the scoring column, and rebounding. His points and rebounds per minute played were both excellent.

Fans don't give him enough credit for his contributions. But, hey, what's new.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 29, 2007 9:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, I didn't exactly say ...
it wasn't a major problem, I said it wasn't THE major problem.  I would agree that it was a problem, and a pretty big one.

And I think you are exactly right about Woo.  He did bring a lot of energy, and I really enjoyed how he played.  I wish we had him for one more year, to be honest.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 11:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'll be damned... (shooting %s)
You know... I guess this is an example of perception overriding stats.

Until I saw those numbers, I certainly would have agreed with Catfan when he said "Given how poorly Crawford and Bradley shot the ball last year."

And if you had told me that Crawford shot 52% from two and hit one out of three from beyond the arc, I would have told you to shut up and go home.  But since I've now seen it on the internet; and we all know that everything on the internet is true ;-) I guess I'll have to reevaluate it.

Very interesting.  Like I said, perception is everything and maybe I was just caught up in overwhelming pessimism but it sure seemed like there were some horrible shooters in there.  I can't even begin to express how surprised I am.  Next thing you know, someone will produce a stat that shows despite all our other perceptions, Morris was actually in position in the post early in the shot clock over half the time!  Wouldn't that just send me for a loop!!??!!

by chirop1 on Aug 29, 2007 7:47 AM EDT   0 recs

Chirop, don't let stats fool you.
First those shooting stats show just how average UK's "best" shooter were.

Second, Crawford didn't show up, especially his shot in most big games.  After shooting well in two losses agianst UCLA and Memphis, from behind the arc Crawford was 0-5 against UNC, 0-3 against Indiana, 0-3 against Louisville.  In two games agains Florida he went 0-11.  

Crawfords stats were helped with good shooting in games in the middle of the season when he went on a tear against Ole Miss, Auburn, Miss St, S. Car, Vandy, GA, UT and and Arkansas.

Maybe the best way to summ up Crawford last season is that he was money against average competition but failed to perform in the big game.  That is troubling.

However, like I posted before.  I truly believe Crawford will be a different player this season.  I expect big game performances and I expect him to be money on open looks.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 8:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not even going ...
to concede you "average", especially in the case of Bradley.  He was among the conference leaders in 3-point FG%:

12.Bradley, Ramel-UK........ JR 34    69   188  .367

He was only .001 behind JaJuan Smith of UT and significantly better than Shan Foster of Vanderbilt, who's line looked like this:

14.Foster, Shan-VU.......... JR 34    74   214  .346

This is conference play only, of course, but it still illustrates my point.  It might also surprise you to know where Crawford was in conference scoring:

 9.Byars, Derrick-VU........ SR 34   206   451  .457
10.Smith, JaJuan-UT......... JR 35   183   402  .455
11.Foster, Shan-VU.......... JR 34   191   425  .449
12.Crawford, Joe-UK......... JR 34   178   401  .444

So, at least in conference play, Crawford and Bradley were among the leaders.  Overall, they were a little worse, but "average" isn't really fair.  They were good, both of them.  Not good enough, maybe, and arguably worse than their ability and hype would suggest, but let's not let perception overwhelm reality.

The overall perception of last season really does look worse, in retrospect, than many of the actual statistics indicate.  Chalk it up to expectations, but just as we have to face the fact that Crawford and maybe even Bradley haven't lived up to ours, they certainly haven't been average, especially when compared to the rest of the SEC.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 9:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

OOps...
Crawford's stat above is FG%, not scoring as I erroneously indicated above.  He was 14th in the conference in scoring.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 9:14 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It is
very convenient to use only the conference stats to try to make Crawford out to be more than he is.  Cherry pick the data if you want, you are good at that.

Joe Crawford last season (3pt shots):
0-3 against IU
0-3 against Loiusville
0-5 against UNC
0-11 against Florida

Again, capable of good performances against average competition.  But in big games, the biggest UK games, he didn't show up.  I am  UK homer too and I want Joe to have a spectacular season in 07-08.  I admire him for sticking it out at UK.  But I am not going to distort his past performance or coddle the guy.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 9:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Just in case
you do not want to do the math, in the 5 most important, meaningful games last season, Crawford was 0-22 from behind the arc.  I look forward to your response as I am sure there is going to be some stellar explanation as to why those #s are not meaningful.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 9:31 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

0-11
really it should be just the IU, UNC, and U of L games that weren't included. the florida games were taken into account for the conference stats.
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 10:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

my mistake
actually not only were the florida games included, but so were all the others. the stats the tru pointed out are for the entire season. the very first number in the row is 34, as in 34 games played. tru labeled it conference leaders because it's only stacking up the players in the conference, not the games played within.

so really tru didn't do anything convenient, he didn't cherry pick, and didn't distort his past performance. that said, i would agree that crawford was inconsistent and he did struggle against some of the big time teams (he did play well against UCLA and Memphis...you seemed to have left those out).

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 10:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No
i didn't leave out UCLA or Memphis, I mentioned those.

Tru certainly cherry picked the shooting stats; but it doesn't matter, coddling is a way of life on this message board.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 11:46 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

you're right
you did mention memphis and ucla...my bad.
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 12:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

cherry picking
but tru didn't cherry pick his stats...he used the stats for the entire season.
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 12:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

wrong
he used SEC only games.

OK, Crawford against OOC ranked teams on the road: 0% from 3 point line.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 4:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

take another look
tru posted 4 numbers in each row...the headings going across are games played, shots made (3-pt shots for bradley), shots attempted (3-pt for bradley), and shooting percentage. 34 games played is the entire season, not SEC play, but if that doesn't convince you, look at the raw numbers. you think crawford put up 401 shots in 16 games? or that bradley made 69 of 188 attempted 3s in 16 games. not sure exactly where tru got his stats from, but here's where i actually checked: http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/teamstats?teamId=96
you've got to admit that you were wrong this time and tru didn't cherry pick.

speaking of cherry picking...you have crawford's line out of conference (1), against ranked teams (2), and on the road(3). That's three filters you put his stats through just so you could prove your point. aren't you being so "objective" to the point of being anti-crawford (yes, i know you think he'll be good this year). so i went back to ESPN to check your stat about Crawford shooting 0% from beyond the arc against OOC ranked teams on the road. you were right...but your criteria only fits one game (UNC). my source for that: http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/teamsched?teamId=96&seasonYear=2007
we did have to games against OOC ranked teams on neutral ground (UCLA and Memphis in Hawaii). I'll just use 3-pt percentage since you did and the total for those three games is 37.5% (6-16).

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 6:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My god...
I wasn't even serious about that statistic.  

Your enthusiasm and support of UK and Crawford is appreciated.  I am sure you are a great loyal fan.  However, last year's 0-22 shooting from beyond the arc in the 5 biggest games of the year summarizes Joe's season and career at UK; failed to live up to the expectations and failed to show up for big games.  He shot 35% from 3 point land last year and that is hardly impressive.  I think this season will be different though.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 8:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

what?
first, of course you weren't serious about that statistic...now.

second, i was stating tru's numbers which you said were only conference stats. not that tru asked me to do this, or needs me to, but i saw you were wrong, and i just wanted to let you know. what a surprise that you've completely ignored this fact.

look, i agree with you about crawford. he came in with a lot of expectations and i thought this last season he would break through. he hasn't lived up to them. i hope this season goes well for him and the team too.

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 9:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe you
should read what I said more carefully.  I said, "It is very convenient to use only the conference stats to try to make Crawford out to be more than he is."  His stats on Crawford were SEC #s and he even noted that in his follow-up post.  Now, did you really see that I was wrong?

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 9:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

what i should do
is read what tru said more carefully. tru said the stats he listed were from conference play. which is what you're saying. so not only were you wrong, but so was tru. i looked this up on ESPN, and i linked the exact sites above. the numbers are actually from the entire season. if crawford took 401 shots over the 16 game conference season, he would have averaged 25 shots a game(in conf. play)...i'm pretty sure i'd remember that, especially considering he averaged 14-15 pts a game. so having shown you the links a few posts ago, do you still see me as being wrong?
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 29, 2007 10:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You were wrong about what I said.
I was absolutely correct.  Case closed.

by Catfan on Aug 30, 2007 7:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, not really
you said they were SEC stats, and I proved they weren't.

just saying you're right and i'm wrong doesn't actually make it so. i backed my comments with actual sources. you're free to do the same. if you can show me that those numbers you said are from conf. play, i'll admit i was wrong.

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 30, 2007 9:41 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Once again
Crawford's #s were SEC stats.  Read more carefully or just give up.   Time ot move on.

by Catfan on Aug 30, 2007 11:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

seriously
other then just saying they are SEC stats, can you prove it with actual tangible proof? you can't? well, i guess that ends it...
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 30, 2007 11:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You leave me speechless..
feel free to have the last word.

by Catfan on Aug 30, 2007 2:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't need ...
to give you anything, pal.  Your points are fair, but your tone isn't.  

Crawford had good moments and bad, and four poor shooting games do not condemn his season to the trash heap.  We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable, I hope.

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 11:05 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

5 miserable shooting games..
and they just happened to be the five most important / meaningful games.  It is not a matter of agreeing to disagree, the fact is Joe Crawford was a failure in big games and he has proven to be an average shooter.

Again, I think he rises to the occasion this season.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 11:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree
with Truz...again

by run and gun on Aug 29, 2007 1:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Big surprise...
I love the Wildcat Nation and all my fellow big blue fans.  Few are capable of being objective and that is certainly understandable.  However, my analysis of Crawford is objective and you cannot agree or disagree, the facts stand on their own.  0-22 in the 5 most important games.  I see most on here like to coddle more than the UK players.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 4:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't you think that just maybe ...
ascribing the games you mention as "the most important" could be just a little subjective?

by Truzenzuzex on Aug 29, 2007 5:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Stats
UK, and any other school's stats, are readily available in any number of places. ESPN, FOX, CBS Sportsline, among others, or the individual school athletic sites.

by Ken Howlett on Aug 29, 2007 9:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Your perception is correct.
We remember meaningful games, big games, important games.  Throwing up #s against Ole Miss and Auburn is one thing, but stepping up to the plate and performing at a high level in big time games in big time situations is where the great are seperated from the good.

Joe Crawford last season (3pt shots):
0-3 against IU
0-3 against Loiusville
0-5 against UNC
0-11 against Florida
----
0-22 in the 5 most important regular season games

BUT, let's hope for a great 2007/2008 season where he rises to the occasion and becomes and elite SEC player!  I think he will.

by Catfan on Aug 29, 2007 9:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs