OttoMets
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 20,858
- Like
- 39,769
Sorry, Dan - beat you to the punch: http://www.syracuse.com/orangebaske...e_gerry_mcnamara-le.html#incart_river_default
As predicted, I strongly disagree with this ranking and the implicit rationale that Waters offers in support of it. Few teams have looked so lethargic and inept for the majority of the season as this one. The DePaul rout was extreme, but it summed up the season. I have few fonder memories than of those four inspired performances in New York (especially Georgetown), but the 31 other games define the team better than that tiny sample size could.
The most curious series of assertions: "...Gerry McNamara was clearly Syracuse's best player in 2005-06. Actually, that was part of Syracuse's problem in 2006. McNamara averaged 16.0 points per game, but his 3-point shooting percentage dipped to a career-low 33.4 percent because he was Syracuse's main scorer. He took 100 more threes than any other player on the team that year."
First, maybe McNamara was our best player that year. But it was far from clear.
Second, Mike's correct - that was part of our problem. Deliberately running the offense through one player (our de facto point guard, no less) at the expense of two other offensive talents made us easier to defend and necessarily took shots away from those two (more efficient) players.
Third, that is a stunning turn of illogic in which the distinction between correlation and causation flies by unnoticed. McNamara's shooting percentage hit a career low because he was Syracuse's main scorer? Yeah, I hate when that happens. It was really disappointing when Hakim Warrick's shooting percentage bottomed out the previous year because he was our leading scorer and even more disappointing the next season when Demetris Nichols became our leading scorer and saw his percentage plummet as a result. Oh…that didn't happen? No, of course not. And one thing (leading the team in scoring) has no bearing on the other (shooting percentage). There exists any number of reasons why McNamara's shooting percentage was woeful as a senior. Scoring more points than any of his teammates was not one of them.
Finally, McNamara took more threes than any other player on the team. With Devendorf and Nichols alongside him, was this wise? Nichols made 73 of the 201 he attempted; McNamara made 103 of 308. With increased usage the next season, Nichols made 100 of 240. There are times when one player needs to take a disproportionate number of long jumpers. That usually happens when he's a dead-eye (Andy Rautins as a senior, 41% on 118 more attempts than the next-nearest player) or when he's stuck on a team with no shooters (McNamara as a sophomore, 39% on 198 more attempts than the next-nearest player). Neither of those situations existed in 2006; it was odd that our offense was so unbalanced and it surely hurt our chances at success.
As predicted, I strongly disagree with this ranking and the implicit rationale that Waters offers in support of it. Few teams have looked so lethargic and inept for the majority of the season as this one. The DePaul rout was extreme, but it summed up the season. I have few fonder memories than of those four inspired performances in New York (especially Georgetown), but the 31 other games define the team better than that tiny sample size could.
The most curious series of assertions: "...Gerry McNamara was clearly Syracuse's best player in 2005-06. Actually, that was part of Syracuse's problem in 2006. McNamara averaged 16.0 points per game, but his 3-point shooting percentage dipped to a career-low 33.4 percent because he was Syracuse's main scorer. He took 100 more threes than any other player on the team that year."
First, maybe McNamara was our best player that year. But it was far from clear.
Second, Mike's correct - that was part of our problem. Deliberately running the offense through one player (our de facto point guard, no less) at the expense of two other offensive talents made us easier to defend and necessarily took shots away from those two (more efficient) players.
Third, that is a stunning turn of illogic in which the distinction between correlation and causation flies by unnoticed. McNamara's shooting percentage hit a career low because he was Syracuse's main scorer? Yeah, I hate when that happens. It was really disappointing when Hakim Warrick's shooting percentage bottomed out the previous year because he was our leading scorer and even more disappointing the next season when Demetris Nichols became our leading scorer and saw his percentage plummet as a result. Oh…that didn't happen? No, of course not. And one thing (leading the team in scoring) has no bearing on the other (shooting percentage). There exists any number of reasons why McNamara's shooting percentage was woeful as a senior. Scoring more points than any of his teammates was not one of them.
Finally, McNamara took more threes than any other player on the team. With Devendorf and Nichols alongside him, was this wise? Nichols made 73 of the 201 he attempted; McNamara made 103 of 308. With increased usage the next season, Nichols made 100 of 240. There are times when one player needs to take a disproportionate number of long jumpers. That usually happens when he's a dead-eye (Andy Rautins as a senior, 41% on 118 more attempts than the next-nearest player) or when he's stuck on a team with no shooters (McNamara as a sophomore, 39% on 198 more attempts than the next-nearest player). Neither of those situations existed in 2006; it was odd that our offense was so unbalanced and it surely hurt our chances at success.
