@gE strikes again!

[kso_FAN]

Brown attacks to score though, he's got less of a PG mentality than Stokes.

Not a bad thing though.

[#LIFE]

Jake was really good at attacking the rim under control and drawing fouls by his senior year iirc. Not saying we have another Jake anywhere, but having someone that could do this would be nice.

[TownieCat]

I didn't want to say anything, but Jake and Kamau's freshman per game stats are very similar.

[CNS]

Steffy's Eye Test should be added to all charts form her on out.

[michigancat]

The bottom line is no one on this team can create offense outside of the context of oscar's offense. How that is done - creating shots for themselves, creating shots for others, having an ability to take deep shots, etc. is irrelevant.

[8manpick]

Our guard play is such that I pine for the days of Blake Young

[sonofdaxjones]

Anyone who thinks that it's going to get better under Weber, should immediately be given a frontal lobotomy and institutionalized for the rest of their lives.

[sys]

the thing is, tons of freshmen pgs have similar stats (in terms of quality, the style of the stats has more information).  some develop into v good guards, some don't.  the stats alone don't mean much.  the eye test actually is more meaningful.  2-7 also has some relevant information.

i can't recall a single thing that stokes did all year, so i don't have much of an opinion on him, beyond 2-7.

[Cire]

the thing is, tons of freshmen pgs have similar stats (in terms of quality, the style of the stats has more information).  some develop into v good guards, some don't.  the stats alone don't mean much.  the eye test actually is more meaningful.  2-7 also has some relevant information.

i can't recall a single thing that stokes did all year, so i don't have much of an opinion on him, beyond 2-7.

  had a really good game against unc and someone else

[ChiComCat]

the thing is, tons of freshmen pgs have similar stats (in terms of quality, the style of the stats has more information).  some develop into v good guards, some don't.  the stats alone don't mean much.  the eye test actually is more meaningful.  2-7 also has some relevant information.

i can't recall a single thing that stokes did all year, so i don't have much of an opinion on him, beyond 2-7.

  had a really good game against unc and someone else

Really good game against Tech - Was a rough early in the season and then again early in conference play.  Both times I think he was forcing some 3s instead of getting set shots.  At this point, he can't really create his own three.

[sys]

from the stats, he looks like a volume shooter with little ability to penetrate.  if he improves his 3% a little, he could be a valuable spradling-type pg (but one that shoots more).  presumably his to rate will go down and his assist rate will go up, but it doesn't look like he's a particularly good passer.

the stats don't say much of anything about his defense.

[sys]

shot a higher % of 2s to 3s in conference than out without his 2% dropping, so that would be encouraging.

[Steffy08]

On eye test (and back to the "who would college coaches choose?" question):  Do you think D1 coaches would choose Stokes or Angel by looking solely at the stats?  Of course not.  They would want to watch them play.  From this, I think it is fair to say that stats aren't everything in basketball; they are much less helpful (although still important, of course) than they are in, say, baseball.  Baseball can be pretty much reduced to numbers.  Basketball can't.  (This doesn't mean that I am any good at the eye test, of course.)

On Stokes:  I disagree with those of you saying he is not a point guard.  He definitely is a point guard.  (Brown is definitely a two.)

On Stokes:  I do agree with you that he did not get into the lane much this year.  My eye test says he has that ability.  Even so, I don't think he will ever be as good of a dish-er as Angel was.

Stokes is light years better than Jevon or Nigel were as freshman.  The best comparable is Angel.  Both of them are a little below Pullen.

I also agree with the poster that says much of this just depends on how they develop.  But I think Stokes has a very high ceiling (higher than Angel).

[Steffy08]

Can you show Angel's freshman year stats? Those are from his sophomore season.

Oh man. This is a real "get your stats straight!" moment from me. 

I will admit, Steffy's case is much stronger when comparing the correct years. My apologies to Steffy, I'm not so convinced after looking at the correct stats.

It's all good.  Yesterday I got excited because I thought the batcats had split a series with UC Irvine.  I was considerably less excited when somebody told me it was UC Riverside.

[sys]

you're insane if you don't think art had an obviously high ceiling as a freshman.  he's actually been a bit of a disappointment in terms of development.  it was reasonable to project as a freshman that his 3% would be significantly higher than it has been (some of that, i think, is how miami uses him, but that's not a data-based argument).

unless stokes has the ability to go by his man at will maintaining balance and court vision as well as incredible defensive instincts (balance, again), he's not comparable to art.

[8manpick]

No one is eye test picking Stokes over this guy:

[Trim]

I just read 8mp's post and walked over to my still-unpacked suitcase and grabbed the PR flag and started waving it around.

[Steffy08]

you're insane if you don't think art had an obviously high ceiling as a freshman.  he's actually been a bit of a disappointment in terms of development.  it was reasonable to project as a freshman that his 3% would be significantly higher than it has been (some of that, i think, is how miami uses him, but that's not a data-based argument).

unless stokes has the ability to go by his man at will maintaining balance and court vision as well as incredible defensive instincts (balance, again), he's not comparable to art.

I thought Art had a high ceiling as a freshman.  I think Stokes has higher.

I think people forget that Angel was actually pretty bad in many games as a freshman.  If I recall, he really started coming in to his own about this time during his freshman year.  I seem to remember a late road win at MU where I was like "yeah, this guy is going to be really damn good."  (A sweet split of a double on a pick and roll, followed by a perfect alley-oop to JO, sticks in my mind.)

But, his shot was slow, his feet were slow on defense (compensated for, though, by his quick hands and good instincts), and he was shaky dribbling against heavy pressure/good defenders.

But, we don't need to turn this into an anti-Art thread, because that isn't my point.  Playing point as a true freshman is damn hard; both Art and Stokes showed incredible promise in doing it.

[Ptolemy]

What a worthless topic!

Comparing/contrasting Weber/Wooly/Tan Tom would be FAR more compelling.

[SdK]

So Kamau (his nams is so fun to say. Why shorten it?) could be Nigel, Angel, or Jake-esque.

[MakeItRain]

So Kamau (his nams is so fun to say. Why shorten it?) could be Nigel, Angel, or Jake-esque.

Kamau's FTr is abysmal but it isn't his fault that he isn't allowed to attack. Also a likely reason for the low turnover number.

[nicname]

I'll take my body bag size large please.

[nicname]

Jake was really good at attacking the rim under control and drawing fouls by his senior year iirc. Not saying we have another Jake anywhere, but having someone that could do this would be nice.

He was pretty good at it his whole career iirc.

[pissclams]

Jake was really good at attacking the rim under control and drawing fouls by his senior year iirc. Not saying we have another Jake anywhere, but having someone that could do this would be nice.

He was pretty good at it his whole career iirc.

no he wasn't, he had to learn.  early on he'd drive and kick and frank would scream at him and bench him.

[nicname]

@trim.