Ripleys believe it or not

[Brooky03]

It’s amazing how many rebounds Joe gets despite being 6 foot tall with a 3 inch vertical.

It helps when you play alongside a non-rebounding Forward, too. Reminds me of a linebacker I played football with. Set the school record for tackles. The records don’t show that the DTs had like 4 tackles a piece for the season. Somebody had to get them.

 

[Orangezoo]

I picked on Gerry’s vertical once. Got death threats

Scranton folks can be a little rough at times. That boy can jump though. Saw it plenty when we faced them in HS. Joe I'm sure would love to have Gmacs hops.

 

[Orangezoo]

He actually is really good boxing out for a guard. It's noticeable.

He's done a really good job learning how to position himself attacking near the basket too.

 

[MikeSU02]

How does win share work? Like, if Michael Jordan was on an NBA team that started 4 JV girls from the local high school and they lost every game while he scored 80 points a game, would his win share suffer?

Fair question.

Im stealing the very basic definition that I think I remember, basically a players' contribution to a win across the board of what he has to do during the game and then aggregating that total for the season/career.

So GMac is going to benefit and be challenged by being on better teams. Meaning, he had Melo and Hak et al vs JGIII having guys that weren't all americans next to him. So GMac is going to have more wins/better production as a team to get win shares from, but he also has better players playing with him to get a piece of that win share.

So MJ would likely be getting every win share in almost whole for any game that his team won in your scenario, but would be limited by total overall team performance because MJ ain't beating the Bad Boy Pistons in that scenario.

Now, is this a fully beloved advanced stat? No. It has a bias built in to players on good teams. Now, you may say "well MikeSU02, of course there is a bias towards players on good teams because that player is a reason that team is good!".

This was a definition on reddit from a while ago that gets into the nuts and bolts that may help give clearer info.

So, looping back to GMac v JGIII - I think it is more of a "this reiterates what the eye test is showing me". I think it is fair to say that if you just straight swapped JGIII and GMac, GMac would have a harder hill to climb vs JGIII who would all of a sudden be shooting wide open three pointers.

So, this is what I would say:
1) GMac vs JGIII is probably closer than we would generally say based on memory and current impressions that we may have some bias against (I know I basically want to forget last year, for example).
2) I think it's safe to say GMac had more in his bag and ability as an overall basketball player than JGIII has.
3) I think it's fair to say that JGIII probably has never been able to showcase his full potential on the teams he's played on, including this one.

Net net - I'd say GMac is more of a winning player and a better basketball player, but JGIII, while probably more limited than GMac, hasn't been teed up to showcase his abilities in the best way possible.

 

[MikeSU02]

Scranton folks can be a little rough at times. That boy can jump though. Saw it plenty when we faced them in HS. Joe I'm sure would love to have Gmacs hops.

 

[Brooky03]

Fair question.

Im stealing the very basic definition that I think I remember, basically a players' contribution to a win across the board of what he has to do during the game and then aggregating that total for the season/career.

So GMac is going to benefit and be challenged by being on better teams. Meaning, he had Melo and Hak et al vs JGIII having guys that weren't all americans next to him. So GMac is going to have more wins/better production as a team to get win shares from, but he also has better players playing with him to get a piece of that win share.

So MJ would likely be getting every win share in almost whole for any game that his team won in your scenario, but would be limited by total overall team performance because MJ ain't beating the Bad Boy Pistons in that scenario.

Now, is this a fully beloved advanced stat? No. It has a bias built in to players on good teams. Now, you may say "well MikeSU02, of course there is a bias towards players on good teams because that player is a reason that team is good!".

This was a definition on reddit from a while ago that gets into the nuts and bolts that may help give clearer info.

So, looping back to GMac v JGIII - I think it is more of a "this reiterates what the eye test is showing me". I think it is fair to say that if you just straight swapped JGIII and GMac, GMac would have a harder hill to climb vs JGIII who would all of a sudden be shooting wide open three pointers.

So, this is what I would say:
1) GMac vs JGIII is probably closer than we would generally say based on memory and current impressions that we may have some bias against (I know I basically want to forget last year, for example).
2) I think it's safe to say GMac had more in his bag and ability as an overall basketball player than JGIII has.
3) I think it's fair to say that JGIII probably has never been able to showcase his full potential on the teams he's played on, including this one.

Net net - I'd say GMac is more of a winning player and a better basketball player, but JGIII, while probably more limited than GMac, hasn't been teed up to showcase his abilities in the best way possible.

Excellent breakdown

 

[Orangezoo]

Fair question.

Im stealing the very basic definition that I think I remember, basically a players' contribution to a win across the board of what he has to do during the game and then aggregating that total for the season/career.

So GMac is going to benefit and be challenged by being on better teams. Meaning, he had Melo and Hak et al vs JGIII having guys that weren't all americans next to him. So GMac is going to have more wins/better production as a team to get win shares from, but he also has better players playing with him to get a piece of that win share.

So MJ would likely be getting every win share in almost whole for any game that his team won in your scenario, but would be limited by total overall team performance because MJ ain't beating the Bad Boy Pistons in that scenario.

Now, is this a fully beloved advanced stat? No. It has a bias built in to players on good teams. Now, you may say "well MikeSU02, of course there is a bias towards players on good teams because that player is a reason that team is good!".

This was a definition on reddit from a while ago that gets into the nuts and bolts that may help give clearer info.

So, looping back to GMac v JGIII - I think it is more of a "this reiterates what the eye test is showing me". I think it is fair to say that if you just straight swapped JGIII and GMac, GMac would have a harder hill to climb vs JGIII who would all of a sudden be shooting wide open three pointers.

So, this is what I would say:
1) GMac vs JGIII is probably closer than we would generally say based on memory and current impressions that we may have some bias against (I know I basically want to forget last year, for example).
2) I think it's safe to say GMac had more in his bag and ability as an overall basketball player than JGIII has.
3) I think it's fair to say that JGIII probably has never been able to showcase his full potential on the teams he's played on, including this one.

Net net - I'd say GMac is more of a winning player and a better basketball player, but JGIII, while probably more limited than GMac, hasn't been teed up to showcase his abilities in the best way possible.

It would be interesting to see certain players in different eras. Gerry and Joe swapping being one for sure.

Joe would have benefitted from teams lacking the 3pt prowess they carry today for sure. I couldn't see Joe going off like Gerry did but I could see him being more consistent and hanging around 38-39 pct vs where Gerry was.

 

[Wrinkle]

The truth is Gerry wasn't that good, he was just supremely clutch

 

[Orangezoo]

The truth is Gerry wasn't that good, he was just supremely clutch

He was a very good college player. Mediocre players don't drop 43 in a tourney game or 6 3s in a championship game or carry their team to BET title.

He wasn't a good pro prospect and of course had flaws like when he would get abused by UConn and Pitt guards year after year.

 

[two3zone]

Although I’d take Gmac in a heartbeat because of late game heroics. He could be 1/10 and he’s still hitting that 3 with 5 secs to play to win.

Even on Gerry’s worst supporting casts, he always had a better well rounded team around him than Joe has.

 

[Eric15]

Even on Gerry’s worst supporting casts, he always had a better well rounded team around him than Joe has.

I think the 2021 and 2006 teams were fairly comparable in terms of talent level but in general I agree with you.

 

[jec1521]

GMac chucked up a lot of shots out of necessity in his junior and senior seasons because that class of 03 took a long time to get started (if they ever did)

I would argue that is why his numbers went down after his soph season. And I would assume that Girards best year vs gmacs best year are not overly similar.

 

[orangefog]

Not exactly a "high flyer", but he put it down.

 

[alphaorange]

It’s amazing how many rebounds Joe gets despite being 6 foot tall with a 3 inch vertical.

He sure isn't David Thompson but he can dunk it and can dunk an oop.

 

[Cheriehoop]

WS/40 Career:
GMac: .135
JGIII: .095

WS per first three seasons (JGIII is obviously not done yet this year):
GMAC: 4.3, 4.4, 4.3
JGIII: 2.8, 1.5, 2.6

GMac is the choice, like you said. I think both guys have had to probably compromise efficient shots for volume shooting because of an over-reliance on their individual ways of playing

This isn't to knock JGIII, of course. I just think we need to be careful comparing to GMac (not you rrlbees ).

One note, you'll see GMac's WSs drops his last season when he was having to do a heavy lift. In hindsight, would have probably been better to give DN a bit more, but who knows if he could have handled it.

I have a number of complaints about JGIII, but dude is going to end up with 1600/1700 points, 450+ assists and if he holds, 36% three point shooting on like 800 3PA.

In a different world on a different team construct, Joe prob is more efficient because of the structure, but dude has put in work.

Both played point guard despite being true 2 guards during significant parts of their career at SU.

 

[PoppyHart]

Why normalize for 40 mpg? It’s not like JB ever rested them.

 

[dollarbill44]

Definitely shows his background playing football.

???

 

[Scooch]

The truth is Gerry wasn't that good, he was just supremely clutch

Yeahhh, that's not the truth,

 

[Orangezoo]

???

Physicality and just good instincts tracking it down through a crowd.

 

[hoopsupstate]

I think Joe’s a good rebounder because of his football days. He doesn’t shy away from contact and he can be aggressive.

 

[rrlbees]

Fair question.

Im stealing the very basic definition that I think I remember, basically a players' contribution to a win across the board of what he has to do during the game and then aggregating that total for the season/career.

So GMac is going to benefit and be challenged by being on better teams. Meaning, he had Melo and Hak et al vs JGIII having guys that weren't all americans next to him. So GMac is going to have more wins/better production as a team to get win shares from, but he also has better players playing with him to get a piece of that win share.

So MJ would likely be getting every win share in almost whole for any game that his team won in your scenario, but would be limited by total overall team performance because MJ ain't beating the Bad Boy Pistons in that scenario.

Now, is this a fully beloved advanced stat? No. It has a bias built in to players on good teams. Now, you may say "well MikeSU02, of course there is a bias towards players on good teams because that player is a reason that team is good!".

This was a definition on reddit from a while ago that gets into the nuts and bolts that may help give clearer info.

So, looping back to GMac v JGIII - I think it is more of a "this reiterates what the eye test is showing me". I think it is fair to say that if you just straight swapped JGIII and GMac, GMac would have a harder hill to climb vs JGIII who would all of a sudden be shooting wide open three pointers.

So, this is what I would say:
1) GMac vs JGIII is probably closer than we would generally say based on memory and current impressions that we may have some bias against (I know I basically want to forget last year, for example).
2) I think it's safe to say GMac had more in his bag and ability as an overall basketball player than JGIII has.
3) I think it's fair to say that JGIII probably has never been able to showcase his full potential on the teams he's played on, including this one.

Net net - I'd say GMac is more of a winning player and a better basketball player, but JGIII, while probably more limited than GMac, hasn't been teed up to showcase his abilities in the best way possible.

As an aside, not that it means much, but senior year Gmac and senior year Joe (to date) have the same WS/40.

 

[Jake]

WS/40 Career:
GMac: .135
JGIII: .095

WS per first three seasons (JGIII is obviously not done yet this year):
GMAC: 4.3, 4.4, 4.3
JGIII: 2.8, 1.5, 2.6

GMac is the choice, like you said. I think both guys have had to probably compromise efficient shots for volume shooting because of an over-reliance on their individual ways of playing

This isn't to knock JGIII, of course. I just think we need to be careful comparing to GMac (not you rrlbees ).

One note, you'll see GMac's WSs drops his last season when he was having to do a heavy lift. In hindsight, would have probably been better to give DN a bit more, but who knows if he could have handled it.

I have a number of complaints about JGIII, but dude is going to end up with 1600/1700 points, 450+ assists and if he holds, 36% three point shooting on like 800 3PA.

In a different world on a different team construct, Joe prob is more efficient because of the structure, but dude has put in work.

Both had to play PG and would have been much more productive playing off the ball. If Edelin is around for all 4 years, GMACs shooting pct is probably 4-5 points higher.

Joe gets more rebounds because his supporting cast were terrible rebounders. But I also think he seeks them more as well.

Gerry’s shooting Pct are worse because his supporting cast were terrible shooters. Gerry never had a season where he was the third option from deep. He would have been lights out if he had as many open looks as Joe got last year.

But having watched them both….there is no comparison in my book. GMACs game sense and defense were so much higher. And as we all know….down three, final possession…GMAC is #1 years on just about everybody’s list of who you want taking it in SU modern history.

 

[Eric15]

GMAC is #1 years on just about everybody’s list of who you want taking it in SU modern history.

No doubt about it. I would put Tyus Battle as the second most clutch player of the Boeheim era.

 

[djcon57]

But having watched them both….there is no comparison in my book. GMACs game sense and defense were so much higher. And as we all know….down three, final possession…GMAC is #1 years on just about everybody’s list of who you want taking it in SU modern history.

I'd add ball handling isnt close either. I rewatched the Big East tourney games vs UConn and GTown recently. The way he created open looks off basically pushing the ball, stopping and popping was amazing.

 

[Jake]

Not exactly a "high flyer", but he put it down.

The real advantage GMAC had vertically was in his jump shot. He had tremendous lift. Joe has almost none. GMAC would shoot over guys that were taller than him.

Joe doesn’t take those shots, he just backs up farther.