Allow unbridled optimism?

[mathboy]

He is obviously a troll.
Smarter then Snu however.
No Purdue fan would call Max a top transfer however.
Why would belien let a player of that ability with four years in the system go if he was that good?
He wouldn't.

SNU isw too busy cross posting to Peegs about what people post here. The funniest part is that he is consistently misquoting and mis-reading the posts. Meanwhile he has been calling other Peegsters "dumb" for their posts just because they use facts to back up their opinions. It's really not funny-funny. It's funny-sad.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Would you agree that if you eliminated all of Purdue's weaknesses from last year that they would be the favorite to make the Final Four? Kentucky & Duke both had their guts ripped out this offseason via early NBA departures, so it's impossible for them to improve every weakness when so many more were created. It wouldn't matter much if a team like Northern Iowa improved every weakness, because there's just not much talent at their core. The ceiling is too low for them. But Purdue's ceiling is astronomically high. We are talking about NINE Top 150 recruits, including a McDonald's All-American, on the roster, after all. I believe Purdue has fixed every weakness this offseason. The MAIN weaknesses of 2014, at least. Here are what I viewed as the biggest weaknesses of 2014 (in order) and how Purdue fixed them:

1.) Inability to Break the Press: Purdue's top 2 point guards last year were the now-departed Octeus & Scott. The problem with this was that both players were natural shooting guards shoehorned into the role of point guard. Let me illustrate: In the Feb. 7 game at Minnesota, Purdue held a 4-point halftime lead. In the 2nd half, Minny slapped on a mean press. Octeus started the 2nd half at point. Turnover, committed foul, rushed shot. Minnesota went on a run. Bryson comes in to relieve Octeus. Turnover, committed foul, rushed shot. Minnesota continues the run. All told, it was a crushing 21-2 run. As soon as 3rd string point guard P.J. Thompson, a true point guard, came in, Purdue went on a 10-2 run and clawed back into the game, ultimately losing by 4.

Octeus could dunk & rebound, sure. But he couldn't do fundamental point guard tasks like break a press or set up his teammates. It's very clear to see that when you look at his stats prior to Purdue. His last season at Colorado State, he averaged 2.7 assists per 40 minutes, a paltry number for a point. His replacement this year, Johnny Hill, another true point guard, averaged double that last season at 5.4 assists per 40. That's not a fluke either, as he averaged 4.8 the year before in a different system with a different set of teammates.

Purdue's top 3 point guards this year are all true point guards. The press will be a non-issue.

2.) Shooting: The fact that Purdue shot 4-26 from 3 against UC and still lost by just a single point in overtime is a testament to how good they were at defense and rebounding. Purdue won't be challenging the Belmonts of the world at 3-point production in 2014. But they will be significantly improved.

Kendall & Dakota weren't healthy last offseason or during the season. Still, Kendall flirted with a very healthy 40% 3-point rate and should have no problem climbing into the mid-40% this year if his health holds up. Dakota shot 48% from 3 his senior year of high school. You can expect a slight drop off with any player moving from high school to college. But dropping all the way down to 32% doesn't make much sense. With better health, conditioning, and experience, Dakota should bridge that gap a little and climb closer to 40%. Don't sleep on Basil, either. He rose from a dismal 8% 3-point mark as a Freshman to a not-as-horrific 19% as a Sophomore. With another offseason of hard work, it's not impossible that he makes another big jump to a respectable 30-33%.

Plus, Raphael is taking 500+ shots a day to improve his professional resume. That can't hurt his chances of finally eclipsing 30% from behind the arc. Last but not least, there's Cline, who's only the best 3-point shooting Freshman in the country. Shooting will no longer be an Achilles' heel.

3.) AJ Was Too Slow: In the 2nd half of Purdue's late-season blowout loss to Wisconsin, Kaminsky dominated AJ. Dominated in the sense that AJ not only couldn't get a shot off without getting blocked, but also couldn't hold the ball without it getting knocked away.

The fact that Kaminski graduated helps. That leaves very few centers with his defensive presence left in college, and those are mostly guys out West like Tarczewski and Karnowski. But it wouldn't really be fixing a weakness unless AJ improved. After spending an entire month with NBA guys in the offseason to specifically work on being able to survive in the quicker pace of pro ball, AJ at least put in the effort to correct his biggest flaw. I think it'll pay big dividends when he faces off with Karnowski in the Final Four.

There you have it. Purdue is correcting all of their major weaknesses from 2014. Does that guarantee a spot in the Final Four? No. But it makes it ok to go into every single game expecting the Boilers to win. Because they can. Bring on the Turtle.

What you are failing to mention is that the T.O. ratio for Octeus before coming to Purdue and the T.O. ratio of Hill before coming to Purdue. Hill may have had more assists, but he had quite a bit more turnovers too from what I recall.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Yeah, he be trollin.

 

[Jack_Ripper]

Oh, I didn't know he had big calves. He must be awesome then...

Betting Crean keeps stats for that....like deflections....

 

[blockm2]

I think you're missing the point. Purdue has been young, but Purdue is getting old. Maturity matters,especially with a system coach like Matt Painter who relies so heavily on his players reading and staying on the same page. Michigan has nothing to do with it.

I think you are missing the point. You can't say Purdue is young without comparing them to every other team in the conference and/or country. Youth is relative. Most teams are young these days. My point is that perhaps Purdue has been as veteran as many other teams the last few years and not as young as you think.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

This thread is about the truth. Here is the truth about Johnny Hill: Here are his stats in 6 games against Louisville, Kentucky, Texas, and Wichita State while he was at Illinois State & Texas-Arlington. These teams were all ranked in the Top 50 in defense the year he played them. The type of teams you'll face in March.

5.2 points per game
3.0 assists per game
4.2 rebounds per game
1.3 steals per game

You can see even against elite competition he gives you good production in every phase. He's not a perfect player. I assume he would've jumped to the NBA by now if he was. In those games he also averaged a healthy 3.7 turnovers and only hit 37.9% of his field goals.

So with Johnny you're getting a guy that's gonna set up your other numerous playmakers for big nights with his ability to dish, while doing some serious work on defense and on the boards. He doesn't shoot a ton, so his lack of shooting efficiency doesn't kill you. Plus, let's keep in mind that he's another year older and surrounded by better talent than he's every had at his disposal. So you may be seeing a more efficient, more NBA-ready Johnny Hill in 2015-16.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I think you are missing the point. You can't say Purdue is young without comparing them to every other team in the conference and/or country. Youth is relative. Most teams are young these days. My point is that perhaps Purdue has been as veteran as many other teams the last few years and not as young as you think.

Matt Painter was talking about this recently, I believe on Dakich. He was talking about how Purdue has been young for three years in a row and has needed to get old. He then talked about how he finally has an experienced team this season and how that's very important.

What is relevant to the original point (and I don't mean your point) is that for the first time since Robbie Hummel was a senior, Purdue has a veteran team. (In other words, the previous three Purdue teams were young, relative to this year's Purdue team.) The only person I see comparing Purdue's experience to the rest of the country is you.

 

[boilerzz]

I think you are missing the point. You can't say Purdue is young without comparing them to every other team in the conference and/or country. Youth is relative. Most teams are young these days. My point is that perhaps Purdue has been as veteran as many other teams the last few years and not as young as you think.

According to KenPom, Purdue ranked 311th in experience out of 351 teams last year. The only B1G teams that were younger were Michigan and Indiana.

 

[purdue4sure]

It could be. But Snu speaks in absolutes with nothing to back it up except his first hand observations.
He also would have already started calling those who disagreed with him names and said that they were homers.

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Snuie's idea of research was to look at the latest polls and declare them as facts. I think this guy is an iu journalsim grad looking for an outlet -- and obsesses over Purdue.

 

[purdue4sure]

I think you are missing the point. You can't say Purdue is young without comparing them to every other team in the conference and/or country. Youth is relative. Most teams are young these days. My point is that perhaps Purdue has been as veteran as many other teams the last few years and not as young as you think.

Not really. Purdue was young by any standard. Even the "old" players were new to the program and didn't grow together as a team. You can't overestimate the importance of that.

 

[Boilermaker03]

This thread is about the truth. Here is the truth about Johnny Hill: Here are his stats in 6 games against Louisville, Kentucky, Texas, and Wichita State while he was at Illinois State & Texas-Arlington. These teams were all ranked in the Top 50 in defense the year he played them. The type of teams you'll face in March.

5.2 points per game
3.0 assists per game
4.2 rebounds per game
1.3 steals per game

You can see even against elite competition he gives you good production in every phase. He's not a perfect player. I assume he would've jumped to the NBA by now if he was. In those games he also averaged a healthy 3.7 turnovers and only hit 37.9% of his field goals.

So with Johnny you're getting a guy that's gonna set up your other numerous playmakers for big nights with his ability to dish, while doing some serious work on defense and on the boards. He doesn't shoot a ton, so his lack of shooting efficiency doesn't kill you. Plus, let's keep in mind that he's another year older and surrounded by better talent than he's every had at his disposal. So you may be seeing a more efficient, more NBA-ready Johnny Hill in 2015-16.

Johnny Hill and NBA? Now I know he's a troll. You can't wave off nearly 4 turnovers a game and then call him NBA ready. Def IU troll.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

Let's see if there are TEN weaknesses visibly corrected from last season. If there were 10, you'd have to believe the 2015-16 Boilers will make it to the Final Four, since they weren't overly far away last year. Here's a list of the fixed problems that I've already covered (in order of how big the problem was):

1. Press Break
2. Shooting
3. AJ Too Slow
4.
5.
6. Vince Perimeter D
7.
8.
9.
10.

4 are out of the way. Here's a proposed #4: Painter Was Too Dumb.

Painter is still a relatively young coach. With just over 20 years under his belt, he's got barely half the experience of Kryzewski. There's an unlimited amount of knowledge to pick up about the game, so it's safe to say Painter learns a little more each year. It's just recently that he realized he could add immediately-eligible transfers for quality depth. He's incorporated a zone that flustered the extremely efficient Wisconsin offense for a half last year. He also figured out that you can't start milking the clock at the 10-minute mark, like they attempted in the nail-biting Tournament loss to Kansas.

Is Painter suddenly going to become the level of coach that Kryzewski is? Probably not. The great Gene Keady couldn't even do that. But Painter has a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of a team that returns 8 of its top 9 players. He might even have come up with some more answers to attack the press, which would also help with the #1 weakness.

Isn't every team's coach going to be better? No. Several major programs like Iowa State, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have to break in new coaches this year. Those teams are guaranteed to have growing pains as the players learn a new system and the coach learns new players. As proof of the struggle that can be, Rick Pitino, a frequent Final Four participant, couldn't achieve 20 wins or make the Tournament in his 1st season at Providence, Kentucky, or Louisville.

Painter will be a better coach for Purdue this year than last. That's what we're trying to achieve. 10 noticeable improvements from the 2014-15 season that will make it crystal clear that this team is destined for Houston.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

I want to pound out this list of Purdue's 10 fixed weaknesses from 2014, so everyone will finally submit to unbridled optimism. The list so far:

1. Press Break
2. Shooting
3. AJ Too Slow
4. Painter Too Dumb
5.
6. Vince Perimeter D
7.
8.
9.
10.

Introducing #5: Extra Scoring Chances. Purdue ranked 161st in the Nation in extra scoring chances per game (offensive rebounds + turnovers forced) last year, creating just 1/10th of one extra scoring chance per game than they gave up.

Purdue returns almost all of their rotational players. They should all improve their extra scoring chance efficiency, since experience has been shown to be the best thing for reducing turnovers. Which means we only need to focus on the 2 primary rotation players Purdue is adding.

Johnny Hill has turned the ball over a lot in the past (although a run-and-gun system inflated those numbers last season). That's no secret. But he also creates a lot of extra scoring chances per game. He's an excellent rebounder. I assume some of those occur on the offensive end. His steals per 40 minutes over the last 2 seasons would've ranked 3rd on the team both years, and 1st among players getting starter minutes against the other teams' #1's.

Caleb Swanigan is a heady player that doesn't turn the ball over much. He had only 3 turnovers combined in his 3 All-Star games against the most elite high school competition. But he did serious work in the extra scoring chances category, with 3 steals, 3 blocks, and 12 rebounds. His 7'3" wingspan will wreak havoc on D and on the boards.

Purdue will be vastly improved in the Extra Scoring Chances rankings this year. Keep in mind that with the shortened shot clock, teams with long, athletic, experienced players on defense like Purdue will have an advantage since offenses will be more inclined to rush things. The Boilers should have no problem climbing into the Top 50 in this crucial stat in 2015-16.

 

[purdue4sure]

I want to pound out this list of Purdue's 10 fixed weaknesses from 2014, so everyone will finally submit to unbridled optimism. The list so far:

1. Press Break
2. Shooting
3. AJ Too Slow
4. Painter Too Dumb
5.
6. Vince Perimeter D
7.
8.
9.
10.

Introducing #5: Extra Scoring Chances. Purdue ranked 161st in the Nation in extra scoring chances per game (offensive rebounds + turnovers forced) last year, creating just 1/10th of one extra scoring chance per game than they gave up.

Purdue returns almost all of their rotational players. They should all improve their extra scoring chance efficiency, since experience has been shown to be the best thing for reducing turnovers. Which means we only need to focus on the 2 primary rotation players Purdue is adding.

Johnny Hill has turned the ball over a lot in the past (although a run-and-gun system inflated those numbers last season). That's no secret. But he also creates a lot of extra scoring chances per game. He's an excellent rebounder. I assume some of those occur on the offensive end. His steals per 40 minutes over the last 2 seasons would've ranked 3rd on the team both years, and 1st among players getting starter minutes against the other teams' #1's.

Caleb Swanigan is a heady player that doesn't turn the ball over much. He had only 3 turnovers combined in his 3 All-Star games against the most elite high school competition. But he did serious work in the extra scoring chances category, with 3 steals, 3 blocks, and 12 rebounds. His 7'3" wingspan will wreak havoc on D and on the boards.

Purdue will be vastly improved in the Extra Scoring Chances rankings this year. Keep in mind that with the shortened shot clock, teams with long, athletic, experienced players on defense like Purdue will have an advantage since offenses will be more inclined to rush things. The Boilers should have no problem climbing into the Top 50 in this crucial stat in 2015-16.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

I've shown that 6 of Purdue's weaknesses are guaranteed to be improved from 2014. Here's a 7th: Haas Was Too Soft. Isaac is a physical monster at 7'2" with good muscle tone. Operating almost exclusively at 3 feet and in, he posted a decent 53.5% field goals. But that paled in comparison to other Freshman bigs of similar size, talent, and usage, like the 67%+ field goals of Poetl & Sabonis out West.

Due his size, Haas draws more contact than I've ever seen. Statistically, he does draw more contact than anyone I've watched. In the last 4 years, at least. He's the only player in the Nation in the last 4 years who attempted 130+ free throws while playing less than 15 minutes per night.

The problem is that last year Isaac was only good at absorbing contact. He couldn't play through it. Smaller, but more physical defenders on the block routinely disrupted his layup attempts.

I haven't seen Haas going extra hard on the weights or slamming it home every possession in practice. I don't have access to that. But I did see something that bodes well. Somehow, inexplicably, Isaac was invited to the exclusive Pan-American Games tryouts. That was a very good experience for him. Not just because of the tips he might've gotten from great coaches there or the chance to play against elite competition. The best thing for him was that he didn't make it past the 1st cut. Imagine being relatively unknown and out-of-nowhere you get a chance to become famous on the World stage, only to be told "Nevermind, you weren't as good as we thought" when you get there. I saw him getting interviewed after he was cut. He was noticeably embarrassed, pissed, and motivated. Those are three traits that translate directly into increased toughness. Prepare to see a 7'2" monster on a mission for Purdue in 2015-16.

 

[AZboiler]

I've shown that 6 of Purdue's weaknesses are guaranteed to be improved from 2014. Here's a 7th: Haas Was Too Soft. Isaac is a physical monster at 7'2" with good muscle tone. Operating almost exclusively at 3 feet and in, he posted a decent 53.5% field goals. But that paled in comparison to other Freshman bigs of similar size, talent, and usage, like the 67%+ field goals of Poetl & Sabonis out West.

Due his size, Haas draws more contact than I've ever seen. Statistically, he does draw more contact than anyone I've watched. In the last 4 years, at least. He's the only player in the Nation in the last 4 years who attempted 130+ free throws while playing less than 15 minutes per night.

The problem is that last year Isaac was only good at absorbing contact. He couldn't play through it. Smaller, but more physical defenders on the block routinely disrupted his layup attempts.

I haven't seen Haas going extra hard on the weights or slamming it home every possession in practice. I don't have access to that. But I did see something that bodes well. Somehow, inexplicably, Isaac was invited to the exclusive Pan-American Games tryouts. That was a very good experience for him. Not just because of the tips he might've gotten from great coaches there or the chance to play against elite competition. The best thing for him was that he didn't make it past the 1st cut. Imagine being relatively unknown and out-of-nowhere you get a chance to become famous on the World stage, only to be told "Nevermind, you weren't as good as we thought" when you get there. I saw him getting interviewed after he was cut. He was noticeably embarrassed, pissed, and motivated. Those are three traits that translate directly into increased toughness. Prepare to see a 7'2" monster on a mission for Purdue in 2015-16.

I don't share your impression that Haas was too soft. My impression was quite different. He wasn't knocking down guards coming inside that generates fouls. He held his position well and played well. I agree now that Haas has proven his is no Ten Dam, I expect to see him improve greatly… after all look at who he practices with….

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

AZBoiler mentioned this: 2014 Weakness #8: Weak Practices. Who is the one team that Purdue faces every single night? Themselves. Every scrimmage & drill Purdue's starters take part in, can only be done against the backup scholarship players, walk-ons, and coaches.

 

[Schnelk]

Is there going to be a test after this? Maybe I should be taking notes. I've learned more from Professor Finally since he arrived here than all my 45 plus years watching basketball put together

 

[thenagemj02]

I'm pretty sure this is the "Ibuildfurnaces" guy. Same posting style but trying not to flame quite so much so he doesn't get banned. Won't last though.

Ibuildfurnaces, gunkholden, painterlikeschoda (from the ESPN board days), billyhillui, FinallyABoilerFinalFour, and countless other handles.: It's all from the same guy. I'm pretty sure I know what his name is as well. He's from Fort Wayne like I am and around the same age as me. I caught him staring at my name tag at my old job several years back and then he posted my name on the Purdue ESPN message boards (when they existed).

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

#9: No Vision.

Purdue has made no secret about their goal for this season: Final Four. Some of the Freshman are even talking National Championship. It would be a tremendous lift to the Boilers in 2015-16 if their own fanbase shared their vision & belief.

 

[West James]

For years I have kept my expectations in check to avoid the dreaded heartbreaking soul crushing letdown, but this year I find myself wanting to drink the kool-aid like no time since the mid 90's, yet I am still hesitant. What say you fellow Boilermakers?

Bottoms up! I think Coach Painter knows this is a special team, & he/Purdue may not get anouther like it, in a real, real long time, if ever. I think we win the B1G, have a real shot at Final Four, & Coach Painter get's National Coach of the Year consideration. I think 2016 recruiting & 2017 recruiting will be a pleasant surprise, we finish the season ranked in the Top Ten, & we get a big [4/5 star] post player.


"In Painter We Trust"

Go Boilers/Colts!!!

 

[West James]

I still think the PG is the most important position on the floor. Granted, you have to have competent big of some sort (otherwise, you end up like iu), but a PG is like the QB, he has the ball in his hands most of the time and is going to set the tempo for the offense.
I'm really interested to see how Hill handles this at the Big10 level.

Guards are very critical, especially the PG. Who has the ball the most [time of posession] during a game, usually? The starting PG does, it's designed that way, & has been for a good reason/a long, long time. Who [other than coach] calls the plays, gets most of the assists, & is by defacto, the floor general/leader on the court, usually the PG is. The starting PG, is usually the foundation of a team/good team/successfull team. Want to build an exceptional/great team, that usually starts with an exceptional PG/floor leader. What good are your post players, if you can't get them the ball, right time, place & situation? Not much, about as usefull as an over extended paperweight.



Go Boilers/Colts!!!

 

[West James]

I think this is true for most offenses but much less so for motion offense. Purdue doesn't ask it's PG to be the primary ballhandler in the half court offense. It's why you rarely see a PG averaging more than 4 assists. A strong PG is a valuable asset but not as critical.

Frankly, it's why I love the Carsen Edwards pickup. We don't need him to play a traditional PG. We need him to bring the ball up, start the offense, and be one of five guys on the floor who can put the ball in the basket.

Shoot, I think that had Ronnie Johnson ignored outside influences and been surrounded by more talented and experienced players, I think he would have been very successful at Purdue. Carsen Edwards is stepping into a much better situation.

We need a PG who will limit turnovers, while keeping one eye on the clock, & getting us into our plays/motion, while getting back on D/in transition. That's asking a lot, but that's your starting PG. Not an easy job, to say the least, much /high expectations, sometimes, little reward/appreciation. With the shortened 30 sec. shot clock, even more presure, one eye on the clock, the other on everything else [court related]. That's your floor general/PG.



Go Boilers!!!

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

#10: Not Enough Urgency. Purdue's rotation this year will likely include 3 Senior starters and almost no true freshmen. They should have a much easier time generating the sense of urgency required to pull out games late and advance in March.

 

[purdue4sure]

Oddest case of obsession I have seen. Ever.

 

[boiler800]

the kool aid is extra tasty this year.

Rock On BIGGIE, Rock On. Take a sip of the BIGGIE cool aid and you will chill out!

 

[boilernuke]

You never go full retard.

 

[blockm2]

According to KenPom, Purdue ranked 311th in experience out of 351 teams last year. The only B1G teams that were younger were Michigan and Indiana.

Now that is more like it. Actually objective data comparing teams. If that is the measure you use last season amongst major conference teams, Purdue was the 12th youngest (and 3rd youngest in Big Ten). Previous seasons their national rank was 292nd, 309th, and 81st.

So pretty stable around the bottom 20% of experience at the major level the last three years, though as a fairly bell shaped curve it put them closer to the 50th percentile (on an absolute basis) than the 1st. Next season they will probably be around the median.


I agree experience helps. I just think if you want to use inexperience as a crutch or experience as a boost you need to objectively do it in comparison to everybody else. Saying we were young when others were younger doesn't help an argument.

 

[blockm2]

Schnelk, the test will take place in your heart. 2014 Weakness #9: No Vision. I have no idea what Purdue's players' eyesight is like. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what they could see in their mind. Purdue's goals last year were probably the cliche "Win the B1G", and maybe even to make the Tournament, since they hadn't in the previous 2 seasons. They did manage to make the Tournament. But you know how that went.

Let me focus on 2 other teams last year: Wisconsin & Gonzaga. They both set lofty goals for themselves. Gonzaga aimed to make it past the Sweet 16 for the 1st time in 14 years. Wisconsin wanted to return to the Final 4 and beat Kentucky. Gonzaga had a relatively easy road to the Elite 8, not having to face anyone higher than a 7 seed. Still, they were so excited about making it there, that the coach literally stood on his head. They were just happy to be in the Elite 8. So there was no mental vision of the Final Four that had been implanted & continually reinforced over the entire year for Kyle Wiltjer as he shot a wide-open layup that would tie their Elite 8 game against Duke with 4 minutes remaining. He missed it. After that, the rest of the Zags quietly conceded the game as the Blue Devils pulled away.

Wisconsin's goal was very clear: to make it back to the Final Four, and once there, to beat Kentucky who had knocked them out of the Final Four with a last-second shot the year before. Now, once Wisconsin made it to the Tournament, they had to face a much more athletic North Carolina team in the Sweet 16. But the Badgers' vision was too strong. After UNC dunked their way to an early lead, Wisconsin willed themselves to a narrow victory. In the Elite 8, Wisconsin had to face Arizona. The Wildcats came into the game at 34-3 (with a regular season win against Gonzaga) and riding a very healthy 14-game win streak. On top of that, they had revenge burning in their hearts, since Wisconsin had knocked them out in the Elite 8 in overtime the year before. But again, Wisconsin's vision was too strong. They effortlessly swished 10 of their 12 second half 3-point attempts, with almost every single rotation player chipping in with one. 10 out of 12. Think that was a coincidence?

Still, Wisconsin faced their toughest challenge in the Final Four: undefeated Kentucky. It didn't matter. Early on, Sam Dekker drove right at National Defensive POTY Willie Cauley-Stein and sank a layup in his face. At the end, Dekker swished a dagger 3. Wisconsin beat the unbeatable. Dekker was so overjoyed about making his vision come true, that he held his closed fists against his mouth and closed his eyes, letting the moment completely sink in. The following game, the National Championship against Duke, Dekker had no vision left. He was 0-6 from 3, had no free throw attempts, and his defense was so lax he let Grayson Allen look like Allen Iverson.

Purdue has made no secret about their goal for this season: Final Four. Some of the Freshman are even talking National Championship. What you are able to see & what you are able to believe, are what determines your destiny. It would be a tremendous lift to the Boilers in 2015-16 if their own fanbase shared their vision & belief. They are humans, after all. Kids. They can get discouraged. Be the 6th Man that picks them up and keeps them headed down the path.

No offense, but Gonzaga's goal was to make the Final Four last year and try to win a national title. Same with Wisconsin. Wisconsin's goal was to win it all. They didn't. Not because they had already achieved their goals, but because Duke was really damn impressive in the finals.

It's not about goals. It's about performance. About 20+ teams have realistic goals of making the Final Four every season. Most won't. In fact every single team at the end of the season will be <50% to actually do so (Kentucky was an outlier last year that had a slightly >50% chance of making the FF).

Making it to the Final Four means you were lucky. You can try to create your own luck, but in the end you are no more likely to be lucky than some other team. That's why you shouldn't base your value of a season on the outcome of a single elimination tournament. Some of the best teams in the country go home early every single year. That doesn't mean they weren't great, just that they caught somebody else's best shot and/or lucky shot and lost.

Gotta enjoy the ride and don't be too sad if it ends early.

 

[thenagemj02]

Now that is more like it. Actually objective data comparing teams. If that is the measure you use last season amongst major conference teams, Purdue was the 12th youngest (and 3rd youngest in Big Ten). Previous seasons their national rank was 292nd, 309th, and 81st.

So pretty stable around the bottom 20% of experience at the major level the last three years, though as a fairly bell shaped curve it put them closer to the 50th percentile (on an absolute basis) than the 1st. Next season they will probably be around the median.


I agree experience helps. I just think if you want to use inexperience as a crutch or experience as a boost you need to objectively do it in comparison to everybody else. Saying we were young when others were younger doesn't help an argument.

A lack of experience didn't hurt Michigan much a few seasons ago when they made it to the national title game. Having Trey Burke and pretty much their entire 2012 class end up being better than expected was a huge boost for them. So, it's true that experience doesn't always trump inexperience. We've seen that (for the most part) with two of the most recent national champions in 2011-2012 Kentucky and 2014-2015 Duke.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Now that is more like it. Actually objective data comparing teams. If that is the measure you use last season amongst major conference teams, Purdue was the 12th youngest (and 3rd youngest in Big Ten). Previous seasons their national rank was 292nd, 309th, and 81st.

So pretty stable around the bottom 20% of experience at the major level the last three years, though as a fairly bell shaped curve it put them closer to the 50th percentile (on an absolute basis) than the 1st. Next season they will probably be around the median.


I agree experience helps. I just think if you want to use inexperience as a crutch or experience as a boost you need to objectively do it in comparison to everybody else. Saying we were young when others were younger doesn't help an argument.

Again, these experience rankings, while interesting, aren't required to understand that Purdue will have a far more experienced team this season than last.

Now, there may be a legitimate question of how much experience matters, but I think that we can all agree that most players get better with experience.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

Talent matters. But experienced talent trumps young talent. There is 0 question about that.

 

[blockm2]

Talent matters. But experienced talent trumps young talent. There is 0 question about that.

Nobody questions that. But for the most part now young talent trumps experienced lack of talent. And in college hoops the overwhelming majority of the most talented players don't stick around to become seniors. So if you have a bunch of seniors, you probably have a bunch of guys that aren't as good.

Talent >>> Experience

So while experience is nice, talent is nicer.

 

[blockm2]

A lack of experience didn't hurt Michigan much a few seasons ago when they made it to the national title game. Having Trey Burke and pretty much their entire 2012 class end up being better than expected was a huge boost for them. So, it's true that experience doesn't always trump inexperience. We've seen that (for the most part) with two of the most recent national champions in 2011-2012 Kentucky and 2014-2015 Duke.

I don't deny that Michigan hasn't been hurt by a lack of experience. In fact I'd argue talent is always preferable to experience. If you can have both it's even better, but that's pretty rare.

College basketball isn't what it used to be. 20 years ago it was rare when a player went pro after their junior season. Now it's rare for them to stick around til their junior season if they are that good.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

The Michigan team of 2012-13 that keeps getting mentioned wouldn't even have made the Title game unless Burke hit an improbable 30-footer in the Sweet 16 that tied the game against a Kansas team with 4 Senior starters with 4 seconds left.

 

[Chuchumutha]

Anyone who is logically questioning if experience matters, please answer this question honestly: Who would win a game between last season's NBA All-Stars and the incoming college Freshmen McDonald's All-Americans? Would the spread be within 30 points? Is there any chance Biggie would outplay DeMarcus Cousins?

The Fab 5, at the time the only recruiting class to ever have 4 McDonald's All-Americans, didn't win the Title. Those 4 stayed around for a 2nd go at it as Sophomores. Didn't win the Title, specifically because Chris Webber made a youthful mistake. Two actually, but the 1st one wasn't called. Kentucky in 2013, at the time the only recruiting class to ever have 5 McDonald's All-Americans, didn't win the Title. Last year, Kentucky added more McDonald's All-Americans & tied the record for the most ever assembled on one team. Didn't win the title. In all instances, those young superstars lost to a veteran bunch. Perfectly exemplified by 5th year Senior Josh Gasser pump-faking as true Freshman Devin Booker literally flew by, then Gasser swishing the now wide-open 3.

The 2011-12 Kentucky & 2014-15 Duke teams both had a Senior, NBA-caliber leader (Quinn Cook & Darius Miller) playing starter minutes. You don't think Miller's 19 points on 6 for 8 field goals and 5 for 5 free throws were the difference in the Wildcats 102-90 Sweet 16 shootout victory over the Hoosiers that year?

Talent matters. But experienced talent trumps young talent. There is 0 question about that.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but your comparison is weak. A fair comparison would be the freshman McDonald's all americans vs. The McDonald;s all americans from 6 to 7 years ago.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but your comparison is weak. A fair comparison would be the freshman McDonald's all americans vs. The McDonald;s all americans from 6 to 7 years ago.

My comparison was completely fair. I'm comparing the top-tier talent from one level to the top-tier talent at another, more experienced level. It's relative. Still, if you wanted to do it your way, DeMarcus Cousins was a McDonald's All-American 7 years ago.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

Reason to be optimistic today: SMU was ruled ineligible for the 2015-16 NCAA Tournament.

 

[blockm2]

True, odds don't guarantee you anything. But the team who wins the Title is always the one who has the odds in their favor. Odds are created by talent PLUS experience.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Underdogs win individual games and tournaments all the time. Connecticut was not the best team in the country 2 years ago. They won the title with the odds not in their favor because they got hot at the right time and got some lucky breaks.

Winning the title doesn't mean in hindsight the odds were that you'd win it. Kentucky last season was one of the biggest favorites pre-tournament in a long time. They didn't even make the title game.

 

[FinallyABoilerFinal4]

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Underdogs win individual games and tournaments all the time. Connecticut was not the best team in the country 2 years ago. They won the title with the odds not in their favor because they got hot at the right time and got some lucky breaks.

Winning the title doesn't mean in hindsight the odds were that you'd win it. Kentucky last season was one of the biggest favorites pre-tournament in a long time. They didn't even make the title game.

Odds are determined by reality, not "experts". Was Kentucky the heavy favorite because they had no regular season victories over the other #1 seeds? Because they went undefeated through the conference with the SIXTH best RPI? Because they had consecutive overtime games in that 6th best conference? Because Duke had just as many McDonald's All-Americans as them? Because Wisconsin had only 1 loss all season when Kaminsky & Dekker were healthy?