Dion Waiters Should have started (I told you so)

[NKR1978]

If Dion started SU wouldn't have been down when Dion came in and he wouldn't have to play catch up. Your best players should always start and the best players didn't start supported by the facts provided. I'll say it again THE ONLY STRETCH SU GOT OUTSCORED BY IT"S OPPONENTS WAS THE FIRST 8 MINUTES.

Holy , you can see alternate realities!

 

[arbitragegls]

Otto123...this board is not about being right or wrong...it is discussing whatever we want and making comments to it. It is a play ground for all of us to enjoy...if you cannot accept that then go and play in your own sand box...most likely by yourself.

 

[bevosu]

Why can't people just admit they were wrong? I have provided FACTS and all I hear is people crying get over it.

You haven't supplied facts..you've made an assumption.

Your assumption is..'if Waiters started we would have won the games that we lost'. That's a subjective opinion stated as a fact. You don't have any stats to back that up. There are way too many variables to make an unqualified statement like that.

If you qualify that statement with..I think...probably...maybe..we might have...possibly, then you're making a reasonable statement. Otherwise it's your opinion backed up with speculation.

Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, but too many people state opinions as if they were facts.

 

[otto123]

34 and ******* 3. If you were the coach would we have been undefeated?

34 and ing 3 and we didn't make the final 4. If Dion started we would have at least made the championship

 

[CuseTroop]

34 and ******* 3 and we didn't make the final 4. If Dion started we would have at least made the championship

If Bjorn would have started, we would have won the whole damn thing :bang:

 

[ROCcuse]

Don't sell yourself short. I'm guessing that the quality of your opinions reminds a lot of people of Skip Bayless.

 

[otto123]

You haven't supplied facts..you've made an assumption.

Your assumption is..'if Waiters started we would have won the games that we lost'. That's a subjective opinion stated as a fact. You don't have any stats to back that up. There are way too many variables to make an unqualified statement like that.

If you qualify that statement with..I think...probably...maybe..we might have...possibly, then you're making a reasonable statement. Otherwise it's your opinion backed up with speculation.

Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, but too many people state opinions as if they were facts.

You're wrong what i'm saying is Waiters should have started and my facts support this. When Waiters was in the game we outscored our opponents. An 8 minute stretch where Waiters didn't start is the ONLY stretch where SU was outscored by it's opponents.

 

[MSOrange]

It's just amazing that "being right" about something like this means so much to you. That makes me sad.

 

[orange79]

If Dion started SU wouldn't have been down when Dion came in and he wouldn't have to play catch up.

And you know this for sure? Cool. Say Hi to Fringe's alternate universe for me. Especially Walternate.

 

[pearl31]

If Dion started SU wouldn't have been down when Dion came in and he wouldn't have to play catch up. Your best players should always start and the best players didn't start supported by the facts provided. I'll say it again THE ONLY STRETCH SU GOT OUTSCORED BY IT"S OPPONENTS WAS THE FIRST 8 MINUTES.

god you're an idiot

 

[orange79]

I had a dream last night. I dreamed this thread would not go well for you. And my dreams are never wrong. Sorry

 

[Alsacs]

This thread led me to think of this. I mean seriously I wasted 15 minutes reading your thoughts.

 

[orange2win]

Very amusing string.

A more germane point of course is that if Dion gets drafted in the first round, he will rank among the elite who have ever played for SU. A major achievment for which we can all applaud. Better still, if he succeeds in the Association, we will all be thrilled and some of us quite surprised. Yet, the record will always memorialize that he was the only SU elite who, while participating in almost every game over a two year period, never was once honored with a position in the starting line-up. That folks - in my view - could turn out in hindsight to be an embarrasement.

 

[mountaincuse]

I wish I used the starting eight minutes of my day to read this thread as opposed to the final eight.

 

[orangefan13]

We were outrebounded by 13 in the paint and the turnover margin was 12 even.
OSU took 17 more ft's then us.


Whether Dion would have helped or not doesn't matter...
Despite shooting 41 percent the refs acted like we deserved no momentum but OSU was entitled. We even shot better from the line then OSU but they still made 11 more ft's then us in a 7 point loss.

The pace of the game made it all about efficiency. The refs took all defense and Will to win away. Oh Lord

Take out the ND loss where we were unprepared without Melo, and the OSU game being so one sided and we lost one game to a cincy squad that played a nearly perfect game all year.
Hard to say we should change anything with a resume like that.

 

[SoBeCuse]

threads like this make me miss Bjorn's posts and orange colored banter... where is bjorn anyway?

We drove Bjorn out and we can do the same to another.

 

[cap2nine]

I’ve read through this thread with gritted teeth and will resist the temptation to pile on the ridicule of the OP’s author. But, I have to point out a few serious flaws in the underlying statement of; Waiters start = SU win.

Repeatedly it has been said by Mr. 123 that SU was outscored by its opponents in the first 8 minutes of its games, but not in the remaining 32. This has been offered as fact, I have no reason to doubt it so without researching I’ll accept it as such.

So if Waiters had entered the game at precisely the 8 minute mark and played the remaining 32 minutes every time, the theory would be quite air-tight. However, this is far from the case. Although Waiters never started a game this season, his time of entry and minutes of participation were variable, yet the team still managed to win 34 times.

There’s no doubt that Dion was one of the best 5 players on the team but to assume that SU would have had better success in the opening 1/5 of the game or earned more wins had he started, is completely speculative. Boeheim’s teams have historically appeared sluggish at the beginning of games, largely due to the defensive philosophy and their opponents’ preparation. Every team in the country that played SU this year, as well as most for the past few decades, knew what style of defense they would face and what things they would have to do to succeed against it. One of the things most teams do to try and beat the zone is stretch it by establishing perimeter shooting early. Although JB and his team never want to simply allow open shots, the guards and wings will not be overly aggressive early in the game in covering the long-range looks. As a team proves they can hit the long stuff and/or makes other plays that crack the zone, JB and the team adjust. Boeheim is a master at this and his results don’t lie. It is also worth mentioning that there is a silver lining for the Orange when the other team has early success from behind the arc. As the game goes on and the defensive pressure ramps up, legs get weaker and (as a general rule) the percentages of those long shots go down. So, simply put, it is not surprising and perhaps even expected that SU would be on the short end of the score for the first several minutes of its games when averaged over the course of a season and certainly in specific examples. And, in case you’ve not noticed, Boeheim’s style is consistent regardless of who his starters are.

Another thing to consider, and probably the most important point in support of why Waiters did not and should not start, is his “spark” or energy that he brings from off the bench. In team sports in general it is rare that one of a team’s best players is held off of the field for an intended benefit. But, college basketball is a little different in that regard. Many teams across the nation can boast that their 6th man is one of their best 5 players. In fact it is so common that, as I’m sure you know, there are awards in conference and nationally for 6th Men of the Year. Not all players possess that kind of energy and influence and the spark that Waiters brings to floor when coming off the bench would be lost if he started outright. Most fans know this, JB knew this and eventually Waiters embraced and relished the role.

Otto, I’m not sure if you visit here and post unpopular opinions for the attention or if you genuinely feel that you are right. In either case, I can only agree with you in saying that Dion was one of the 5 best players on the team. But, to say that they would have won more games specifically as a result of him starting is simply not true.

 

[wfschrec]

Seeing as how Dion only played 20 mins in the game I am wondering where the other 12 time warped off to?

 

[SWC75]

Amid all the gratutious self-praise, there is a point there. If we start an inferior or out of position player, we are at a disadvantage at the beginning of a game if the other team is playing it's best players at their best positions, (as they likely are). Of course those players might get the same minutes later in the game but the other team might not have their best players in at that point or we may have a substantial lead at that point or our best players could be tiring at that point such that they wouldn't be our best players if they they didn't get a blow. That's a significant difference.

I think you need to go to your best guys to start the game.

 

[Cusee44]

I'm gonna start off saying this thread will probably be deleted and covered up like any other scandal surrounding the SU basketball program (Drugs, Sex Abuse, ect.) I said at the start of the season that if Syracuse were to lose this season that they would lose it in the first few minutes of each half, and I was RIGHT.

Maniacs like him embarrass our entire fan base.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Amid all the gratutious self-praise, there is a point there. If we start an inferior or out of position player, we are at a disadvantage at the beginning of a game if the other team is playing it's best players at their best positions, (as they likely are). Of course those players might get the same minutes later in the game but the other team might not have their best players in at that point or we may have a substantial lead at that point or our best players could be tiring at that point such that they wouldn't be our best players if they they didn't get a blow. That's a significant difference.

I think you need to go to your best guys to start the game.

Start the best, maybe as a general rule but there can be exceptions and other considerations. Suppose, for instance, you may have promised the starting job as an enticement to enroll (Rak?, Fab?). Or suppose you allow a self-centered player to return, with the understanding that they will come off the bench (Dion?).

There also could be the whole team concept involved. For instance, it may be that a better combination of players to have Rak teamed with Dirty and then have come off the bench CJ along with Whitehot. That would keep a 3 pt shooter on the floor with an inside guy and is not really indicative of the real value of CJ.

I personally have really enjoyed the recent change (the last 3 years) of not starting the best 5. This has taken JB away from using subs as just foul fill-ins. Before it would seem like he would play the starters almost all game long if they weren't in foul trouble. Now, when SU subs it isn't viewed as a result of a problem. It seems so much easier for JB to give out minutes to his bench by not starting his best. I like JB using his bench more, and not just for foul control, and this unusual strategy has allowed for that to happen.

 

[Guinness]

I'm gonna start off saying this thread will probably be deleted and covered up like any other scandal surrounding the SU basketball program (Drugs, Sex Abuse, ect.)

Just wow. Maybe the dumbest thing ever uttered on this forum since there is a WHOLE sub-forum dedicated to the BF scandal. :crazy:

 

[44cuse]

This could become a bigger train wreck than that Carmelo/LeBron thread.

That's a great thread. Theres actually alot more quality data in that thread than you will see on most topics. Too much lovey dovey Barnie crap in this board. The big fallacy is that everyone has to get along and be friends. Conflict is good.

Just because we all like the same team doesn't mean we are going to like every person. The world doesn't work that way.

44cuse

 

[br801]

That's a great thread. Theres actually alot more quality data in that thread than you will see on most topics. Too much lovey dovey Barnie crap in this board. The big fallacy is that everyone has to get along and be friends. Conflict is good.

Just because we all like the same team doesn't mean we are going to like every person. The world doesn't work that way.

44cuse

Well, I won't argue with you if you think that's a great thread. You certainly did bring some good data to that discussion and should be commended for your efforts to reason with a certain poster. I'm all for discussion and debate, but I have far less patience than you apparently have.

 

[br801]

Just wow. Maybe the dumbest thing ever uttered on this forum since there is a WHOLE sub-forum dedicated to the BF scandal. :crazy:

In otto123's defense, perhaps he doesn't realize that forum exists, just like he apparently didn't notice that SU went 34-3 with Waiters coming off the bench.