What if (Stokes edition)

#26
#26
im not gonna go through the maze/golden arguement again all im gonna say is show me a season at UT that maze led the sec or averaged even close to what golden does in assists, you cant. people saying maze is a much better distributor are not paying attention to what golden is doing out there distributing. maze led us his senior year, before we count out the sophomore golden maybe we should let him finish his career.

Sure, by his senior year, I might prefer Golden over Maze. But we don't know anything about senior Golden, and sophomore Golden is extremely inconsistent. There's really not any arguing that, is there? I'd take senior Maze any day.

Senior Maze was 62nd in the country and 2nd in the SEC in assist/turnover ratio. Sophomore Golden is 233rd in the country and 13th in the SEC.

Doesn't that pretty well prove my point?
 
#28
#28
Sure, by his senior year, I might prefer Golden over Maze. But we don't know anything about senior Golden, and sophomore Golden is extremely inconsistent. There's really not any arguing that, is there? I'd take senior Maze any day.

Senior Maze was 62nd in the country and 2nd in the SEC in assist/turnover ratio. Sophomore Golden is 233rd in the country and 13th in the SEC.

Doesn't that pretty well prove my point?

we know that sophomore golden is a better distributor than senior maze, the numbers prove that there is no arguing that.

there assist/turnover ration is actually very close, maze had a 2:1 and golden has a 1.8:1, thats pretty much the same. heres the difference golden averages 5.2 assists while maze averaged about 3 assists a game, so golden dishes 2 more assists a game than maze. sounds to me like golden was a MUCH better distributor.

All the numbers say golden is a better PG, doesnt that prove my point?

edit: golden also averages more steals and rebounds than maze did, just figured id add that one in too.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
there assist/turnover ration is actually very close, maze had a 2:1 and golden has a 1.8:1, thats pretty much the same.

So 62nd in the country and 2nd in the SEC is pretty much the same as 233rd in the country and 13th in the SEC? Are you sure this is the where you want to make your stand?
 
#30
#30
I just had a chill run down my spine at the thoughts of a NC.:)

here is one that actually to the best of my knowledge could have been a reality.

craft/goins
sebly/golden
hopson/tatum
harris/hall
williams/fields

this was obviously last years team and including players that never arrived but that's a pretty scary team. who knows how they would have performed but still.
 
#31
#31
So 62nd in the country and 2nd in the SEC is pretty much the same as 233rd in the country and 13th in the SEC? Are you sure this is the where you want to make your stand?

you clearly dont understand that each year numbers change. the year maze was pg obviously there werent that many good pg's playing, this year there obviously are more. what your saying makes no sense, your basing how good someone is by their ranking that isnt a constant, that ranking changes every year. show me numbers that back up your point that maze is a better distributor.
 
#32
#32
Sure, by his senior year, I might prefer Golden over Maze. But we don't know anything about senior Golden, and sophomore Golden is extremely inconsistent. There's really not any arguing that, is there? I'd take senior Maze any day.

Senior Maze was 62nd in the country and 2nd in the SEC in assist/turnover ratio. Sophomore Golden is 233rd in the country and 13th in the SEC.

Doesn't that pretty well prove my point?

uhm where do you get your numbers, according to the ncaa website:

golden is 148 in the country, and once yesterdays game is added will be 128. where are you getting your information. if your going to post something make sure it's accurate and not just a number you guess.

as i said numbers change every year going by ranking to prove your point is really pretty stupid. so if player A averages 25 ppg and ranks 50th in the country because there are a lot of good scorers that year, and player B the next year averages 20 ppg but ranks 10th because there arent many good scorers, that makes player B the better scorer? no he simply is benefiting from there being a lack of production in that particular statistic that is all, look at there averages simple as that.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
uhm where do you get your numbers, according to the ncaa website:

golden is 148 in the country, and once yesterdays game is added will be 128. where are you getting your information. if your going to post something make sure it's accurate and not just a number you guess.


Do you realize you have the last comment on @ 75% of the threads on pg 1?

And to talk about accuracy to someone else. You have been corrected on multiple occasions about plays, players, heights, weights, etc, just today.

You needing to get the last word on everyone is odd
 
#35
#35
Do you realize you have the last comment on @ 75% of the threads on pg 1?

And to talk about accuracy to someone else. You have been corrected on multiple occasions about plays, players, heights, weights, etc, just today.

You needing to get the last word on everyone is odd

whose weight did i have wrong? i mistaked someone for another recruit and immediately said i was wrong. the play, i remember wes being stripped, he lucked out and it went out of bounds, so it wasnt a turnover. once again, i said that i was wrong. so whose weight did i get wrong?
 
#37
#37
uhm where do you get your numbers, according to the ncaa website:

golden is 148 in the country, and once yesterdays game is added will be 128. where are you getting your information. if your going to post something make sure it's accurate and not just a number you guess.

as i said numbers change every year going by ranking to prove your point is really pretty stupid. so if player A averages 25 ppg and ranks 50th in the country because there are a lot of good scorers that year, and player B the next year averages 20 ppg but ranks 10th because there arent many good scorers, that makes player B the better scorer? no he simply is benefiting from there being a lack of production in that particular statistic that is all, look at there averages simple as that.

statsheet.com

And 2.2 A/TO ratio would be in the top 100 this year, whereas Golden is in the mid-200s. Two years ago, Golden's 1.8 would've been #196, whereas Maze was in the top 75.

It's undeniable that Maze takes care of the ball much, much better. You just can't debate that.
 
#38
#38
statsheet.com

And 2.2 A/TO ratio would be in the top 100 this year, whereas Golden is in the mid-200s. Two years ago, Golden's 1.8 would've been #196, whereas Maze was in the top 75.

It's undeniable that Maze takes care of the ball much, much better. You just can't debate that.

ok so they are seperated by a .4.ast:to ratio. so what im saying is i'll take the extra 2.5 assists a game golden brings and sacrifice the .4 turnovers that he will commit. your telling me that youd rather have a pg give you 3 assists and 1.5 turnovers a game than a guy who'll give you 5 assists and 2.9 turnovers? if so that is fine i understand i personally think golden brings enough to the table that makes up for the 1 extra turnover a game. he averages more steals and rebounds than maze did so i can take the 1 moer turnover from him. i think it says something about goldens VISION & DISTRIBUTION skills that he puts up over 5 assists a game, and leads the sec that is very impressive and i feel nobody wants to give him credit for.

at this point its hard to pick either guy i think, but i think we can all agree that we hope golden continues to improve because he clearly has the vision to average 6 or 7 assists a game and be one of the best pg's to come through here. the fact that we are talking about a sophomore pg putting up comparable numbers to a senior pg who many say is the best in the last 7 years should say enough.


also find it interesting that golden ast/game rank top 50 in the country but maze wouldnt be top 200. i think it's fair to say that golden has better vision and is a better distributor but maze took care of the ball better than golden does at this point. would you consider that a pretty fair assesment?
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
ok so they are seperated by a .4.ast:to ratio. so what im saying is i'll take the extra 2.5 assists a game golden brings and sacrifice the .4 turnovers that he will commit. your telling me that youd rather have a pg give you 3 assists and 1.5 turnovers a game than a guy who'll give you 5 assists and 2.9 turnovers? if so that is fine i understand i personally think golden brings enough to the table that makes up for the 1 extra turnover a game. he averages more steals and rebounds than maze did so i can take the 1 moer turnover from him.

at this point its hard to pick either guy i think, but i think we can all agree that we hope golden continues to improve because he clearly has the vision to average 6 or 7 assists a game and be one of the best pg's to come through here. the fact that we are talking about a sophomore pg putting up comparable numbers to a senior pg who many say is the best in the last 7 years should say enough.

It's not like those extra attempts are just vanishing into thin air. On Maze's team, Prince had excellent vision and would regularly aid with assists. In fact, he averaged 3 assists per game in his last two seasons. Without Prince, Maze is responsible for more distribution, so he likely has more assists and more turnovers. But, given his A/TO ratio, as his assists bump to 5.0 per game, his turnovers stay at 2.3.

Golden just needs to take better care of the ball. He has better vision than most two-guards, but he doesn't have the precise ballhandling and passing of a point guard. JP Prince was a great distributor, but you wouldn't want him playing the point. I feel similarly about Golden. Is he better than any other option we have? Yes. Do I hope he improves? Yes. But right now, he's a good shooting and distributing two-guard being forced into a role as a turnover-prone point guard.
 
#40
#40
]It's not like those extra attempts are just vanishing into thin air.[/B] On Maze's team, Prince had excellent vision and would regularly aid with assists. In fact, he averaged 3 assists per game in his last two seasons. Without Prince, Maze is responsible for more distribution, so he likely has more assists and more turnovers. But, given his A/TO ratio, as his assists bump to 5.0 per game, his turnovers stay at 2.3.

Golden just needs to take better care of the ball. He has better vision than most two-guards, but he doesn't have the precise ballhandling and passing of a point guard. JP Prince was a great distributor, but you wouldn't want him playing the point. I feel similarly about Golden. Is he better than any other option we have? Yes. Do I hope he improves? Yes. But right now, he's a good shooting and distributing two-guard being forced into a role as a turnover-prone point guard.

that is a very good point, i find it interesting that team with maze averaged 14 assists and this team with golden averages 14 assists.

yea thats exactly what i was saying in my last post golden has very good vision for a 2 guard and is a good passer for a 2 guard, but he has the ball handling of a 2 guard as well and thats the only problem i see. funny you mention prince not being a guy you want at the point, i seem to remeber pearl deciding to start him at point in the ncaa's, genius move. i think golden has the potential to be a great pg if he improves his ball handling because that is all thats lacking right now. his shooting, passing, vision, rebounding, and defense are all at a good level his ball handling just needs to improve.
 
#41
#41
Back to the "what if" this thread was created for. Honestly, I see us winning 2-3 more games if Stokes was here all season. I don't think it really would have affected the "team" tremendously though. We needed some of those bad losses to effectively buy in to CCM's defensive philosophy. We will be a good/great team next season. This season is really just to grow into the beast we will be next season. I am all for enjoying the process at this point my friends
 
#42
#42
Back to the "what if" this thread was created for. Honestly, I see us winning 2-3 more games if Stokes was here all season. I don't think it really would have affected the "team" tremendously though. We needed some of those bad losses to effectively buy in to CCM's defensive philosophy. We will be a good/great team next season. This season is really just to grow into the beast we will be next season. I am all for enjoying the process at this point my friends

completely agree i would say in that range of 1-3. as you stated this team just was not buying into what CCM was selling at all until the UF game. i dont know that if jarnell was here the team would have bought in sooner or not, but everything seemed to just be good timing, jarnell showing up and the team buying in. as you said i think anything this team does this year is just a bonus and hopefully they continue to improve this year, because the more they improve this year the more of a head start we have next year IMO.
 
#43
#43
I think we beat Memphis the first time, Austin Peay, and CoC. Duke potentially, I know it would've been closer.

from there, I'm a bit more skeptical really.
 
#44
#44
I think we beat Memphis the first time, Austin Peay, and CoC. Duke potentially, I know it would've been closer.

from there, I'm a bit more skeptical really.

The only two I really think we win are duke or memphis (1) and miss st, other than that who knows. JMO
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
I know I would love to play Duke right now again. I dont think there is any way Stokes and Maymon wouldn't go for 30 and 18 combined.
 

VN Store



Back
Top