McRoberts

[BGleas]

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Sure, so far, in the last several games, right? Already said he looks like a Hartman type, or a Jeff Foster type, if he can keep it up, and I hope he can. So why the angst? Why not recognize where we agree instead of this? What's the point?? Good grief, have a happy new year.

Again we're not far off here -- although I don't read into a few games how much a player will contribute for the rest of season, though I hope he proves this true over the rest of the season --

"But who cares? If the discussion is about who most helps this team win, McRoberts is clearly one of guys you want on the floor at this point in the season. And that's taking us back to who starts or who should be on the floor -- that is a different question than who is the "best" or second best player on the team. McRoberts absolutely has helped the team, in a big way, over the last few games, and he's earned increased minutes, by how much he's helping the team. That doesn't make him a better player than Davis or Rob or whoever, it means, in the role he's playing, he's helping the team win. So sure, maybe he should start (and get us out of a 3-guard lineup, a good thing). I think his role will continue to grow -- not defending the other teams' best players or running the team or leading scoring, or being the primary option up front, but he could lead the team on the glass, he could be that "Jeff Foster" (Pacers) type player that every team needs. Lots of games left to be played, I'm looking forward to seeing how well he does."

There hasn’t been any angst from me? Yes, we agree on the many positives McRoberts brings. 

But, I haven’t said one word about who ranks where on the team. My only position is that I believe he should start because the team clearly plays best when he’s on the floor, and the team has struggled to start games offensively, so IMO a shakeup to the starters is warranted.  

I don’t care where people rank him in terms of talent on the team, at this point he needs to be on the floor. 

[PoHoosier]

Like everyone else, I have my opinions.  I am not as articulate at supporting them as many of you.

For fun, I ran some numbers as to where Morgan and McRoberts stack up across different categories.

If I were not at work on my phone I could have made this easier to read, perhaps, even made it pretty.

Juwan Morgan

386 minutes

.262 rebounds a minute

.036 assists a minute

.049 turnovers a minute

.036 steals a minute

.054 blocks a minute

.554 points per minute

 

Zach McRoberts

159 minutes

.239 rebounds a minute

.082 assists per minute

.044 turnovers per minute

.057 steals per minute

.013 blocks per minute

.207 points per minute

 

I am certain there is likely a site out there that does this already, but, I like running numbers.  I also usually stay away from these types of threads.  This thread is intriguing and seems we can all agree with what we have seen and the numbers seem to support it.  Zach is absolutely making the most of his minutes.  Even if he produces at just 80% of his current levels across expanded minutes, it seems like a worthwhile experiment.  Looking at "the when" he is getting his minutes, he has been in often at clutch time, making clutch plays of late.

[KoB2011]

In summation, we are no longer to heavily weigh how much a player helps a team win in conversations with regard to who is best. 

[milehiiu]

36 minutes ago, PoHoosier said:

Like everyone else, I have my opinions.  I am not as articulate at supporting them as many of you.

For fun, I ran some numbers as to where Morgan and McRoberts stack up across different categories.

If I were not at work on my phone I could have made this easier to read, perhaps, even made it pretty.

Juwan Morgan

386 minutes

.262 rebounds a minute

.036 assists a minute

.049 turnovers a minute

.036 steals a minute

.054 blocks a minute

.554 points per minute

 

Zach McRoberts

159 minutes

.239 rebounds a minute

.082 assists per minute

.044 turnovers per minute

.057 steals per minute

.013 blocks per minute

.207 points per minute

 

I am certain there is likely a site out there that does this already, but, I like running numbers.  I also usually stay away from these types of threads.  This thread is intriguing and seems we can all agree with what we have seen and the numbers seem to support it.  Zach is absolutely making the most of his minutes.  Even if he produces at just 80% of his current levels across expanded minutes, it seems like a worthwhile experiment.  Looking at "the when" he is getting his minutes, he has been in often at clutch time, making clutch plays of late.

Job well done.  Keep it up.  You did good.  Nothing to be ashamed of.  In fact, quite the opposite.

[5fouls]

4 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I'm not "vehemently" arguing against anything, you keep nitpicking away and Fouls ignores basically my entire post to quibble. Shake your head away, lol.

Huh?  Did you post something?  I had not noticed.  

Are you sure you're not ex-wife #3?  Or, maybe #7?  Possibly #8? 

Aw heck, I tried to ignore all of them   

[cohete15]

McRoberts doesn’t disappear. Nor does Juwan. That’s why they’re the best. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

15 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

Like everyone else, I have my opinions.  I am not as articulate at supporting them as many of you.

For fun, I ran some numbers as to where Morgan and McRoberts stack up across different categories.

If I were not at work on my phone I could have made this easier to read, perhaps, even made it pretty.

Juwan Morgan

386 minutes

.262 rebounds a minute

.036 assists a minute

.049 turnovers a minute

.036 steals a minute

.054 blocks a minute

.554 points per minute

 

Zach McRoberts

159 minutes

.239 rebounds a minute

.082 assists per minute

.044 turnovers per minute

.057 steals per minute

.013 blocks per minute

.207 points per minute

 

I am certain there is likely a site out there that does this already, but, I like running numbers.  I also usually stay away from these types of threads.  This thread is intriguing and seems we can all agree with what we have seen and the numbers seem to support it.  Zach is absolutely making the most of his minutes.  Even if he produces at just 80% of his current levels across expanded minutes, it seems like a worthwhile experiment.  Looking at "the when" he is getting his minutes, he has been in often at clutch time, making clutch plays of late.

Great info, thanks for posting it

[Hoosierhoopster]

15 hours ago, BGleas said:

There hasn’t been any angst from me? Yes, we agree on the many positives McRoberts brings. 

But, I haven’t said one word about who ranks where on the team. My only position is that I believe he should start because the team clearly plays best when he’s on the floor, and the team has struggled to start games offensively, so IMO a shakeup to the starters is warranted.  

I don’t care where people rank him in terms of talent on the team, at this point he needs to be on the floor. 

And it could work -- he's bringing it big time. I think we may see him start tonight -- and if he keeps it up, fantastic.

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

McBob starting...not the answer. 

[NCHoosier32]

10 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

McBob starting...not the answer. 

this is what i've been trying to say, but it takes a frustrating loss to get people onboard.  sure, he gives us hustle and grit, and that's important, but is he going to be a part of what is hopefully a much better rotation next year?

[5fouls]

I'm still okay with him starting.  Morgan, Johnson, and Hartman had average or better games.  No one else did.  Based on the reality that no one else is going to give the team what it needs, McRoberts has earned the start based on his play leading up to this game.

[Seeking6]

10 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

McBob starting...not the answer. 

Ask the other one's that tried to explain how him starting would be the answer. I know I wasn't for it.

[PoHoosier]

12 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Ask the other one's that tried to explain how him starting would be the answer. I know I wasn't for it.

Not sure I can find where anyone advocated McRoberts as "the answer"

I did see him starting posted as an idea to an experiment to something he has earned through heart and hustle in game and in practice.

There may have been five that outperformed him at Wisconsin but one cannot say that over the collective course of the last five games.

[Hoosierhoopster]

^^ Gleas's take:

"My only position is that I believe he should start because the team clearly plays best when he’s on the floor, and the team has struggled to start games offensively, so IMO a shakeup to the starters is warranted."

This was one game, on the road. McRoberts did not have a big game, he didn't help get the team a W, but I also don't think it's fair to say from this one road game that he won't make a difference. As the discussion above reflects, my take (fwiw) is that with McRoberts he only started getting major minutes in the past few games and it's going to take time to see how that pans out, as he plays more, gets scouted more, etc.

For me, that doesn't change in one game, either way. Collin had a strong game, but then maybe his coming off the bench is good for the team in the long run, a leader, scorer, floor-spreader off the bench. Maybe McRoberts will settle into a strong role playing position as a starter. Still too early to judge either way, imo. 

[IowaHoosierFan]

18 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

^^ Gleas's take:

"My only position is that I believe he should start because the team clearly plays best when he’s on the floor, and the team has struggled to start games offensively, so IMO a shakeup to the starters is warranted."

This was one game, on the road. McRoberts did not have a big game, he didn't help get the team a W, but I also don't think it's fair to say from this one road game that he won't make a difference. As the discussion above reflects, my take (fwiw) is that with McRoberts he only started getting major minutes in the past few games and it's going to take time to see how that pans out, as he plays more, gets scouted more, etc.

For me, that doesn't change in one game, either way. Collin had a strong game, but then maybe his coming off the bench is good for the team in the long run, a leader, scorer, floor-spreader off the bench. Maybe McRoberts will settle into a strong role playing position as a starter. Still too early to judge either way, imo. 

He has to shoot.  If he doesn't shoot B1G teams will eat us alive while he is on the floor. Allowing them to double Morgan whenever due to him not being a threat will kill us.  He hustles and plays hard and rebounds well.  But almost never looks at the basket with the ball.

[btownqb]

5 hours ago, NCHoosier32 said:

this is what i've been trying to say, but it takes a frustrating loss to get people onboard.  sure, he gives us hustle and grit, and that's important, but is he going to be a part of what is hopefully a much better rotation next year?

Why can't he? 

[BGleas]

2 hours ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

He has to shoot.  If he doesn't shoot B1G teams will eat us alive while he is on the floor. Allowing them to double Morgan whenever due to him not being a threat will kill us.  He hustles and plays hard and rebounds well.  But almost never looks at the basket with the ball.

Agree.

And my call for him to start was after seeing him taking (and making a few) the open 3 when there the previous two games. If he's going to shoot good, open shots then I think he's really good. If he's going to passively dribble around the perimeter and not even look to score, then that would change my opinion. But either way, one game isn't enough to know ho well the move pans out. 

[NCHoosier32]

5 hours ago, btownqb said:

Why can't he? 

could be.  i think if he is starting or the 6th man, it's a bad sign of our talent though.

[IowaHoosierFan]

I personally like him as a 6th man off the bench.  There is something about the 6th guy that can just energize a team.  Thinking back to Will Sheehey (who was a better player) but thrived coming off the bench.  Wasn't so much when he was the starter as senior.  I can see McBob being this guy.

[btownqb]

3 hours ago, NCHoosier32 said:

could be.  i think if he is starting or the 6th man, it's a bad sign of our talent though.

I'd like to see his plus minus on the season

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

7 minutes ago, btownqb said:

I'd like to see his plus minus on the season

+5.4

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/zach-mcroberts-1.html

3rd on the team behind Morgan and Davis.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/indiana/2018.html

[BGleas]

3 hours ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

I personally like him as a 6th man off the bench.  There is something about the 6th guy that can just energize a team.  Thinking back to Will Sheehey (who was a better player) but thrived coming off the bench.  Wasn't so much when he was the starter as senior.  I can see McBob being this guy.

I’ve seen the Sheehey thing posted a few times. The thing with Sheehey though had more to do with the talent around him as opposed to starter vs. bench player. It’s easy to be good when you’re playing with Zeller, VO, Watford, Hulls, etc., not so much when you’re surrounded by Stan Robinson, Evan Gordon, a freshmen Troy Williams, etc. 

Sheehey was really good as a starter after VJ3 went down in the 11-12 season. 

[KoB2011]

3 hours ago, BGleas said:

I’ve seen the Sheehey thing posted a few times. The thing with Sheehey though had more to do with the talent around him as opposed to starter vs. bench player. It’s easy to be good when you’re playing with Zeller, VO, Watford, Hulls, etc., not so much when you’re surrounded by Stan Robinson, Evan Gordon, a freshmen Troy Williams, etc. 

Sheehey was really good as a starter after VJ3 went down in the 11-12 season. 

He wasn't bad his senior year, he just didn't turn into an All-Conference type player.  It's honestly somewhat similar to RoJo.  Both were/are solid four year guys, neither one has what it takes to be THE guy.  Nothing wrong with that, just we needed someone to be the guy both of their senior years so it leaves a bad taste in our mouth. 

[Reacher]

This answers a few questions debated in this thread as to why McRoberts should start. 

From Snowlings  link - 

— On his decision to start Zach McRoberts at Wisconsin: “He’s earned his opportunity to get in there. Part of the reason is, over a long period of time, you look at certain analytics and it’s overwhelming that the plus-minus when he’s on the floor is the highest on the team. Not one game, but seven or eight.”

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

This answers a few questions debated in this thread as to why McRoberts should start. 

From Snowlings  link - 

— On his decision to start Zach McRoberts at Wisconsin: “He’s earned his opportunity to get in there. Part of the reason is, over a long period of time, you look at certain analytics and it’s overwhelming that the plus-minus when he’s on the floor is the highest on the team. Not one game, but seven or eight.”

It could -- but it's also important that it's only been a few games where he played more than 12 to 15 minutes a game. Plus-minus of course measures the difference in points between the teams when you're on the floor. The more he plays, starter or non-starter, the more it tends to matter. I'll go back to the point that he could make a difference, but to what extent he does or doesn't takes time to assess.