gwhoops.com - The Most Comprehensive Site for Colonials Basketball

GW's freshmen better than GMU's freshman

GW's freshmen better than GMU's freshman
12/9/2009 1:33:00 AM
Poster: Free Quebec

(and sophmores, too).

A lot has been made about how young GMU is, and how their recruiting class was ranked #1 among mid-majors. But tonight, I think we saw that Karl Hobbs has put together an even better recruiting class. I realize two guys were out for GMU (I think one is a freshman), but even with Kromah having his worst game as a Colonial, there's no question that the future is brighter for us right now than for them. Johnson and Bynes played terrific defense and finished in transition (and Johnson hit that sweet 17 footer), and Pellom was his usual promising self, albeit with less PT behind a red-hot Hollis. And I still like Dwayne Smith, even though he contributed little tonight.

The bottom line is that we have a group of freshmen who can play sick defense, handle the ball, and, usually, make shots.

If I were George Mason, I'd be kind of bummed not just about how they lost, but about how much more talented GW's young guys appear to be.

it's good to be a Colonials fan again.

12/3/2009 12:06:00 AM
Poster: cagwu

Kind of a random thought, but what if Rob Diggs was still around this season (or this class had arrived earlier). His presence down low combined with his ability to step out. Wow, what a squad that would have been.

12/3/2009 12:14:00 AM
Poster: Herndon

FWIW, both of our leading scorers were freshmen, and outscored everybody on your team ecept for your lone senior.

12/3/2009 12:16:00 AM
Poster: bobo

FQ:

Suspended players, Pearlson and Cornelius, both sophmores for GMU. Freshman, Luke Hancock does have a very well rounded game and will be productive for the net 4 years for Mason.

12/3/2009 12:16:00 AM
Poster: Herndon

Also outrebounded your freshmen, again, just FWIW.

12/3/2009 12:24:00 AM
Poster: Mentzinger

Pellom is Regis.

12/3/2009 1:01:00 AM
Poster: Free Quebec

That's all well and good, Herndon, but you might have noticed Bynes, Johnson, Kromah, and Pellom pretty much keyed the defense that shut your team down. Bynes and Kromah combined for 6 steals by themselves.

12/3/2009 2:36:00 AM
Poster: Levinator

FQ- you are my hero. those would be my two points also in response. Sure... individual point totals are good...sure rebounds are good... but total defense is much better as well as making the actual first shot you put up

lev out

12/3/2009 6:19:00 AM
Poster: herve

I enjoy Hancock's tried and true push, shoulder thrust move on every drive. He's a hack on offense and is so easily flustered handily the ball it's amazing he didn't have 14 turnoves rather than 7. The folks in front of me were Mason fans and kept cheering like crazy everytime Hancock put his head down and barreled into a GW player. Kid has great heart on defense and hitting the glass, but his offense is like watching old men play pick-up--full of dirty tricks.

The rest of GM's frosh were terrible and looked like BCD and I did playing pick-up against the women's team years ago.

12/3/2009 6:40:00 AM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

FQ... Yeah on the game. Mentz asked about Ware in the chat and the guy who had a bad game was Aaron. In fact, Ware got in Hancock's face on a 3 then let him make it all the way down the lane for a putback rebound. Ware was immediately off floor. (closest thing to the old Hobbs).

The best rebounder amongst the Freshmen from both teams was Pellom. (sorry)

Especially Kromah, but also Bynes and Johnson missed all but one of their open looks and you aren't going to make a living giving those guys those open looks--especially Kromah. Their points against GMU were just coming off of steals.

Herndon, a couple of disheartening points... I know that we didn't see a couple of very good GMU players, but you may not be aware that you didn't see our freshman big man Warren. He will probably red shirt, though he is back and practicing. From what we hear, he has a more polished post game than our current crop. Secondly, we didn't even use a few of the defensive sets that drive offenses nuts.

GMU got two or three iffy calls on high corner traps that were purely scoreboard calls. They just prettified the game.

Hardest thing to watch as a basketball fan? Hobbs having his team run a weave over and over against a 2-3 zone. I think every gave we have to see that, we should take 10K off his salary... just for pain and suffering.

Truly, the only scorer on display last night was Hollis and he was breaking legs with head fakes. I think that he had a good time in a fine city battle.

THE BATTLE OF THE BUFF Line.

12/3/2009 7:30:00 AM
Poster: formerly Boston Pops

just one comment about hancock. i think he looked like a bull in a china shop on offense because they were asking him to handle the ball more than he would normally. he does look like he's a scorer. kind of in the hollis mold. i suspect we will be seeing a lot more of him. to me the biggest difference between us and them was our team speed. and whoever said pellom was regis is nuts. defensively maybe, but pellom is gonna be way better than regis

12/3/2009 8:03:00 AM
Poster: GWlaw

We won and I am happy about this, but did not beat a team that had its starters. We played GMU's bench and they had a star player that seemed injured.

12/3/2009 8:25:00 AM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

formerly BPops!

Many of Hancock's "deserved" points came from Opuku's inability to play eleventh grade basketball defense. Twice, in double team situations, Hermann actually, picked his teammate as Hancock went around his outside shoulder. NO CLUE. Another time, he had a simple block, but just hacked the hell out of Hancock. (If I remember correctly).

It was a clear case of a defensive basketball dismembering by GW while, at the same time, it was one of GW's worst offensive performances to date. It could have been 45 points or more. AND, I think that Hobbs "lifted" a bit. He left some defensive sets on the shelf, as well.

The guy that needs to keep up his spirits is Smith. He is just caught in a numbers game for right now.

Pellom is a fantastic 2-way player and GMU has no clue what he can do. Compared to Hancock, Pellom is a sick ball handler who can run the break. They saw nothing last night. Ware has been struggling a bit and that may open the door for Smith, but otherwise, Smith has to do what Ware did and hit the weight room.

Taylor showed so much... He was finding people all night and penetrating to the rim with abandon. I will give the coaching staff much credit (and the team)... these guys are creating open looks. Last year's offense was just 100% FACEPALM.

Pops, as a coach, I would put my three bigs under the basket 2 at a time and have them play one on one where they have to keep one foot inside the restraining line at all time and just bang. They need to learn how to go up hard (and ask themselves, "what would Pops do?") but put it up soft. Edwards has to be introduced to the glass from an angle. I would do this for 15 minutes each practice, or before or after.

I will give them the fact that the three were more active. Opuku's hands are among the worst that have ever been at GW... Could be that he is just to ecited around the glass. Hermann has a technique problem where he doesn't get his elbows out. That should be corrected. He lets opponents get to the ball.

12/3/2009 8:38:00 AM
Poster: herve

Hancock had four field goals and four turnovers in the game. Wow.

12/3/2009 9:02:00 AM
Poster: seneca

And FWIW, Hancoack is an ass. I was talking with someone who had courtside seats and he said Hancock was jawing with the fans and even pointed at them after he made a shot in the first half. BTW, did anyone notice the tongue lashing that Larranaga gave Hancock near the end of the game?

Hancock and the two suspended clowns who were trying to engage the GW students verbally from the bench early in the game shows just how unglued the Mason team became last evening early on.

GW's all-time record v. GMU is now 10-1. Not much of a rivalry until GMU starts winning some games.

12/3/2009 10:57:00 AM
Poster: Herndon

Well, I'm trying not to get into a pissing match here (because, again, I'd lose, you guys killed us)

but just to throw out total numbers:
Here are the comparitive numbers from the floor for GW's 5 freshmen,and GMU's 5 top freshmen
           GW                GMU
FG     10-25           10-19
FG% 40%                52.6
3PT   0-8                    1-3
FT      0-4                    9-14
Reb   13                     10
Ast       2                       2
Stl        8                       6
Blk      0                         0
TO      4                         7
Pts     20                     30

So basically what you have pretty close numbers, either way. GMU's freshmen shot better from the floor, from 3, and from the line, which accounts for their superior scoring. GW's freshmen were slightly better in terms of steals, and GMU's freshmen did turn the ball over more.

For you to make the argument that GW's freshmen were clearly superior isn't backed up by the numbers.

FURTHER, I'd make the argument that Wright and Hancock (who had 5 of our freshmen's 7 turnovers) were playing in roles they were not accustomed to (primary ball handlers) due to the loss of our 2nd ball handler.

IMO, the game was really decided by one thing. Your best player had a great game, ours had an awful game. If Hollis and Long each have average nights, this game is a nip and tuck affair.

Is it is, they didn't and you kicked our butts.

Congratulations on the win, but I wouldn't be overconfident in the years to come, were I you guys.

12/3/2009 12:05:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

Herndon,

Hollis is an NBA caliber player. He has been getting beaten up by the coaching staff to go out there and play this year. He shot .440 from 3 as a freshman. Worse, if he wasn't on the court, then you get Pellom, who like Hollis is a lights out on the dribble drive. His drive through the lane and three Mason defenders with a beautiful underhanded dish to Katuka for the flush caused, I believe, the last time out to be used in the 2nd half.

Believe me, you wouldn't want a do over. Both Bynes and Kromah have had huge shooting nights already this year (including 4 threes in a row). You didn't have to swallow any of that. Your freshmen weren't anywhere close to our shooters. The fact is that there were way too many open looks. Believe me, I know what slow rotation looks like... we had to watch GW play D last year.

Worse, we left half the defensive schemes in the closet. The last 3rd of the game was all about getting touches for the trio of GW big men. It was as much a training session to turn over the offense.

Hollis has been making those shots for 4 years. Your team just couldn't even get in his way. There were two phantom travels... and a mysterious charging that could have made it worse for your men.

Take the beating.

You have to get ready to go down to Wilmington.

There is always net year at the Patriot Center. THe guy that GW pissed off the most and who will make sure this doesn't happen again is Coach L.

12/3/2009 12:33:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

Dauphin,

I suppose that it's possible that Hollis is an NBA player. That said, he would be an NBA player who is averaging 13 PPG, after averaging 13 PPG last year (and never scoring over 25) . He shot 44% from 3 as a freshman, in limited time (small sample size) and has never been close again since.

If we got stuck with Pellom, we had the dreaded 6 and 5 guy who shoots 0% from 3.

I saw Kromah and Bynes. Kromah looks like a nice player, Bynes? I'll put it like this: you guys have played 6 games, in 3 of those gameds, he is 0-3, 1-6, and 1-7 from the floor. I have a hard time buying the assertation that he suddenly lost his miraculous shooting touch. As a matter of fact, he shot 3-6, and RAISED his season FG% to a massive 33%

And, I checked on the numbers, Hollis has never (repeat, never) shot the ball that well in a game where he's had at least 10 shots.

Just so we're clear, he had the best shooting night of his entire career.

But my argument wasn't even about Hollis. I like him, think he's a nice player.

My argument was about the Freshmen, who were no worse than just as good as your freshmen, and were (and are) arguably better.

You kicked our asses. No doubt about it, but lets not make it out to be something it's not.

Your best player had the best night of his career.

Our best player had the worst night of his career, on a night that we were missing two starters.

I'd be interested to see the game again this year, but I'm REALLY looking forward to net year.

12/3/2009 12:56:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Herndon, you might want to acknowledge that because you were missing two starters last night, Wright and Hancock's roles and subsequent minutes were increased last night, thereby inflating their numbers. I'm pretty certain that if Hollis and Taylor were out last night, our freshmen statistics would also have significantly increased. Not looking for a pissing match so good luck this season.

12/3/2009 12:59:00 PM
Poster: herve

also GMU's frosh (sans Hancock's first half foul-fest) numbers were largely in garbage time with the game well out of reach.

12/3/2009 1:37:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

The MV,

That's entirely valid. 100% fair argument. I had thought of doing the numbers, but was too lazy, and hoped nobody would call me on it

.

So, I went ahead and did the research, and here's what I came up with.

NOTICE: MILD STATISTICS AHEAD

Luke Hancock played 34 minutes, which is his season high. That said, he's averaging 28 minutes per, and 2 games ago played 32 minutes. I don't think you can say the injuries significantly changed his minutes, as he was our first guy off the bench anyhow. If you wanted to discount his numbers due to the increase in minutes, you'd use a discount rate of around 88%, so you could say his uninflated numbers were like 13.2 points, etc. Basically, due to minutes, the change is there, but it's pretty negligable.

The net part is going to be harder to quantify. While his minutes didn't change much, his role definately did. He is not our primary ball handler, he is a secondary or tertiary ball handler. He's generally a slasher, as opposed to a guy who brings the ball up the court.

You can argue the numbers with me (I recognize there is some wiggle room here), but I'd guess his scoring would be largely unaffected, but his assists (and turnovers) would be inflated.

The point is, I don't think you can discount Hancock's numbers all that much.

Now, there ARE two players (and particularly one) who's minutes WERE inflated:

Kevin Foster played 26 minutes, and for the season is only averaging 19. It's not a whole order of magnitute difference, particularly as his playing time has increased as of late (played 24 minutes a couple of games ago), it's still ~35% more than his season average. I'm not willing to discount his numbers the full 35%, because his playing time has been trending up, so I took the average minutes of the last 3 games, and used that to discount his numbers. It comes to roughly a 22% discount.

The BIG change was in Ike Tate, who played 28 minutes (his season average is 10, and that has been trending downward). Because he got so massive of a jump in PT and effectiveness, I'm willing to accept the argument that he would have likely done NOTHING had our 2 starters been there, and discount his numbers at 100%.

Sherrod Wright, Paris Bennett,and Johnny Williams contributed almost nothing with their increased minutes, so I can't see how that would help your argument at all, so I'm leaving them out.

SO........here's the upshot of it all

I'm willing to say that due to the starters being out, our other players GAINED the following:
Hancock 1.8 Points, .36 rebounds, .12 Assists, .12 Steals (I won't include turnovers, because I'm trying to be fair)
Foster 1.98 points, .88 rebounds, 0 assists, 0 steals
Tate 8 points, 3 rebounds, 1 assist

For a total GAINED of 11.78 points, 4.24 rebounds, 1.12 asists, and .12 steals

Now, we take the numbers of the players missing for a total LOST of
19.5 points, 7.9 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 1.2 steals.

So (because I think I was being generous in not counting turnovers that would likely been far fewer witouth non-ball-handlers doing the ball-handling), we can say that GMU missed AT LEAST 7.72 points, 3.66 rebounds, 1.98 assists, and 1.08 steals.

Any issues with my methodology (full disclosure, I'm finishing my MBA at GW in 1 week

)

12/3/2009 2:26:00 PM
Poster: Free Quebec

It's nice to leave them out of your argument because they contributed almost nothing, but my point about GW's freshmen being better than Mason's freshmen is largely true because you can't just ignore the bulk of your freshman class. Those three guys are no better than Dwayne Smith (who can't get much PT on this Colonials team right now, but will eventually be solid). It's just that the other 4 guys are making an impact already.

I mean, it's nice to cherry pick stuff from the boscore (ignoring when the stats were accumulated and how the game went down), and it's nice to think that the only difference in the game was Hollis having a good game, but we all saw what we saw. Even you, Herndon. And even if you are judging our freshmen by this game, their worst shooting game of the year, they still dominated your freshmen all over the court.

12/3/2009 2:29:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

Earth to Herndon:

Damian Hollis is a better 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 than you have.

He is playing basketball within a system that does not feature one guy.

The 25 you saw was because GMU has no defense.

OOPS did I say that?

It's too late to talk trash. The problem with your Stats is that the game was OVER. OVER. DONE. Hobbs was nice to you.

What's worse, the GMU offense was all dribble and shoot.

herve gave you the scoop. I will tell you again that the last third of the game was a training session for GW. It was a practice. If the goal was for Hollis to drop 40 on you all he had to do was post up your bigs. The problem with that is that this isn't a rec game and we couldn't loan you players.

I wish you the best.

12/3/2009 2:32:00 PM
Poster: bobo

Not sure why all the hate from herve and gwhoops.com regulars on Luke Hancock.

Probably too slow to play in Hobbs' system but looks like a smaller version of Yegor Mescheriakov (or better yet a smaller version of Yegor's little brother, Nikita). 17 pts, 17 rebounds and 15 assists vs GA Tech and Indiana is impressive for any freshman. The kid is tough, has an Inside, outside game, can hit the 3, dribble and pass.

Show some love when it's deserved.

12/3/2009 2:32:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

FQ, to be fair to our guards, it wasn't all over the floor, most of the critical stretches of the game took place only on our offensive end. The maintenance crew could have taken their basket down for three or four minutes and it wouldn't have affected the score.

12/3/2009 2:41:00 PM
Poster: doug sandels

My favorite Hancock move from his offensive game was when he put his head down the barrel into his defender (like herve has alluded to), but instead decides to throw a no-look, behind-the-back bounce pass to absolutely no one.

12/3/2009 2:48:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

LOL!!

Dolphin:

Just so I'm clear: Your argument is that GMU is the worst defensive team that Hollis has played in his 4 years of college? You're saying that he had THE BEST GAME HE"S EVER HAD because he's never faced worse defense?

I'm pretty sure the numbers wouldn't back you up on that one.

I'm ALSO pretty sure that the fact that the guy who would have been guarding him was suspended might have had a little bit to do with it as well.

You're saying it's just outside the realm of possibility that he got super hot, hotter than he's EVER been before, and played a great game?

I also suppose that if you argue with guys who say things like "OOPS, did I just say that?" you shouldn't epect much in the way of reasonable, rational argument. What are you, 8?

Free Quebec:

There are two separate arguments at hand here, the one about 1) How much did the absence of the starters increase the numbers of our freshmen, and 2) Are your freshmen better than ours.

You're getting confused between the two. The part about disregarding those that didn't contribute much was regarding the first one.

The second one was previously addressed. Your freshmen simply did not out perform ours. The numbers (and watching the game) tell the facts, which are that our freshmen outperformed yours, or at very minimum performed at a comparable level.

Now, you could make the argument that your "basement" is higher than our basement, and you'd have a point, because your worst freshman outperformed our worst freshman (sort of), but the counter would be that our best freshmen outperformed your best freshmen.

What's CERTAIN is that your freshmen certainly did not dominate ours all over the court.

Hollis played a magnificent game, and Cam Long played an awful game, and that was largely the difference last night.

12/3/2009 3:00:00 PM
Poster: Free Quebecv

Herndon, you are discounting the fact the reason Cam Long had a bad game is because he had an athletic freshman guard in his face all game long, absolutely wreaking havoc with his game. Usually it was Bynes, sometimes Johnson (and sometimes Kromah or one of the sophmores, Ware or Taylor), but you are pretending like the game happened in a vacuum, like GW's defense had nothing to do with your tunovers and failure to generate open looks.

You know, as long as Hobbs has had good teams at GW, we've heard the same whiny ecuses from opposing fans -- we had a bad game, it wasn't GW's defense, we'll beat them net time, etc.

I assume this has something to do with the style of play (aggressive pressure defense and generally balanced scoring), but you sound eactly like all the losing fans before, trying to ecuse that you just lost becuase so and so had a bad day, and not recognizing that the reason so and so had a bad day is becuase he was playing against the pressure defense of a terrific defensive ball club.

12/3/2009 3:03:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

FQ,

Now that's a reasonable argument!

I'm ABSOULUTELY certain that your brand of defense did indeed have something to do with his struggles.

I'm not as sure it had a ton to do with him limping, but who knows?

12/3/2009 3:11:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

Herndon,

Your argument misses a key component in comparing freshman. The GMU freshman played a total of 87 minutes. the GW freshman played 68 minutes. Aside from the fact that GMU made more free throws than GW attempted (note 2 free throws for GW in the entire first half, and none after the first possession of the game), the point differential was made largely at the free throw line.

GW's freshman contributed all around last night.

12/3/2009 3:25:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

Dj,

I'm not certain I understand your point.

Our freshmen put themselves in a position to get to the line.

Making free throws is no different than making field goals. Our players were fouled, because they were in a superior position to the guy guarding them.

That is no different than making a shot because they put themselves in a position to get an open jumper and making it. They gained an advantage, and made the shot after having gained that advantage.

If your argument is that the game was called unfairly in GMU's benefit, and that because of this unfair refereeing, the GMU players were unfairly granted opportunites to shoot FT's, that is a separate argument, and not one I buy.

12/3/2009 3:28:00 PM
Poster: Tuna Can

Ha Ha Ha

12/3/2009 3:38:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Herndon, as I was catching myself up with this thread, I came across your speculation that maybe the reason why Hollis had such a strong game was due to the fact that the man who was supposed to guard him was missing. Of course, he and his buddy were suspended because they decided to steal pillows from a hotel for their flight home, because lord knows that an airline wouldn't have pillows to give them. But you probably didn't want to mention that this missing player and his buddy are idiots for doing this and rightfully so. So upon reading this, I was going to ask you not to do this, not to speculate on what might have happened if your suspended player was allowed to guard Hollis, since that makes you sound like an 8 year old, and frankly, you hadn't come across this way until that post. However, as I continued to read, I came across your remark about Cam Long limping as if to infer that this is why he was 2-10 from the field. And upon reading this, my inclination wasn't to tell you not to do this but rather to ask that you simply go away. Because now, you just sound like a lame ecuse-maker and you probably don't want to be perceived this way. Therefore, your best bet is to just go away.

Good luck to the Patriots.

12/3/2009 3:48:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

The MV,

As this is your board, I will comply.

But, it should be noted, that those guys are a pair of boneheads, and it's nobodys fault but their own that they missed the game.

12/3/2009 3:51:00 PM
Poster: herve

Woah! I like Herndon mainly because he has ALWAYS followed the ONLY board rule: make an argument. He not only follows it, he makes strong arguments--something MANY long-time posters here do not do. It's almost as if he "got it" from the get-go and/or is a reasonable person.

12/3/2009 3:51:00 PM
Poster: BLACKBERRY

a GW player would NEVER steal a pillow.

12/3/2009 3:51:00 PM
Poster: bobo

Herndon,

You're a rational and reasonable board poster and are thus welcome on this site.

You should not feel the need to go away, but if you do, can you take The MV with you? Please? Pretty please? We're begging you now.

12/3/2009 3:58:00 PM
Poster: Tuna Can

herve? Do I have to make an argument?

That seems harsh.

Anyway, if Herndon stays, we have someone to poke with a stick.

12/3/2009 4:07:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Herve, I liked Herndon as well up until the point when the ecuses started flying. Is making an argument the same thing as making ecuses? He was actually doing quite well until his inferences that Damian had the game he had because a suspended player wasn't there to guard him and Long had the game he had because he was limping. Sorry, but bad form on those.

Bobo, you can insult me all you want but the fact is I am still in such a good mood over the New York Yankees 27th World Series Championship that very little gets me down these days. Remember what it used to be like when your teams won?

12/3/2009 4:09:00 PM
Poster: Free Quebec

I like Herndon because he is trying to so hard to spin reality, and to use misleading stats to paint a picture that really wasn't there. It's a technique near and dear to my heart :)

12/3/2009 4:13:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

Herndon, that was indeed some bad D. Not just by one guy, but by the team. To be fair, you were totally outgunned on the boards, as well. Your team will be very good. In most games, teams stop themselves. It's just unfortunate for George Mason that Hollis showed up.

What alarmed me, btw, Herndon is that I have rarely seen a Hobbs team like that much more prepared for a game than the opponent.

I suppose that you will have to agree that, whether they played much of a statistical role in the game, the GW Freshmen put George Mason into the deep freeze offensively for a deadly stretch and that was enough to win the game. Turnovers and layup drills and game. No?

Anyway, as you can tell, most of us are quite supportive of the series and the success that GMU has, just not against GW. Not the same as I feel about MD even though I know their skipper.

12/3/2009 4:14:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

Herndon,

Partly because it is easy to disagree with MV, and partially because you're a good poster- you're welcome here any time.

My post had two points

1) GMU freshman played more minutes. Thus, they had more opportunities for steals, points, assists, turnovers, etc. Thus a straight comparison of numbers is irrelevant. As MV pointed out (while he is easy to disagree with, his points can sometimes be valid), would Hancock have played as many minutes had the two suspended players been available? Would he have taken 7 shot sand 8 free throws? Similarly, would he have had 7 turnovers?

2) As far as free throws- I agree that they can count similar to a field goal attempt. However, the disparity of foul calls in the first half was immensely obvious. This is not to say that the officials were favoring Mason. This is to say that the officials had a poor game. They were unpredictable as to what they would allow, and when they would allow it. It made the game difficult to generate any flow and difficult to ascertain when a foul should have been called. When the game ends with GW shooting only 11 free throws, and they are averaging 25 free throws a game (24 if you t ake out the two outliers), it is an anomaly, a best.

12/3/2009 4:15:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

So MV, is Herndon correct in his assertion?

12/3/2009 4:22:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Dolphin, I understand where he's going but I can't say he's right. Statistics often answer questions but subjective ones like which group of freshmen played better are more difficult to quantify. GW was up by 26 points but won the game by 17. Statistically speaking, GMU's freshmen may have performed better over the game's final minutes to help make up those 9 points. But, does this really matter and should it be factored? The answer is no, not when the game was already won and lost.

Danjsport, to borrow from The Sports Guy, you are today's winner of the backhanded compliment award.

12/3/2009 4:25:00 PM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

YEs, MV, that's all you have to say, you are wrong, my little friend. Our friend Herndon is searching for a silver lining in a very dark cloud. I would be more concerned that his team was so poorly prepared for the GW D.

12/3/2009 4:26:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

MV,

my pleasure. I guess what I don't get is your lack of allowing others to make ecuses. I believe you've been making ecuses for Hobbs poor recruiting classes (until this year, which appears to be a good recruiting class), blaming it on other t hings and other people.

So when another poster says things like...we would have played better had our two best players been avaialble...and HOllis would have been defended better had our two best players been avaialble....i don't see any terrible ecuse making, but rather fair points.

Would GW have been better two years ago if King didn't get hurt? Lots of us said that. Would GW have had a better chance in the NCAA"s and A-10 if Pops didn't have a banged up knee? Lots of us said that too.

12/3/2009 4:40:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Guys, first of all, by my telling someone to go away, it doesn't really give me the power to make this happen. You all know this, right? When Herndon was giving his theory about why the GMU freshmen outplayed the GWU freshmen, I didn't agree with him but I didn't tell him to go away. Ecuses are a different matter. I do my best not to make them and don't appreciate it when others make them. Did GMU really lose yesterday because Cam Long was limping a bit? Did Hollis really have the game he had because another player was suspended? You're doing both Damian and the team quite a disservice if you buy into either of these ecuses.

Danj, I'm afraid you're accusing me of stating things here that I just have never said. When I have ecused Hobbs for his recruiting the past few years (prior to this one)? If you're referring to Albritton, I criticized both Hobbs and Collucci on this recruitment. Both were at fault. If you're referring to someone else, please remind me what I said.

12/3/2009 4:40:00 PM
Poster: Herndon

(almost) All,

Appreciate the kind words, but I will be leaving here shortly, mostly because after this game I will very little add to this board, as I do not follow GW (and there's nothing worse than a random rival fan sticking around your board adding his opinion when it's neither asked for nor welcome).

Just wanted to address a couple of final points.

Dolphin,

They certainly contributed to it. Yes. I maintain that Cam Long's horrific performance was the greater factor (we will put aside the reasons for his horrific performance for now so as not to offend The MV's delicate sensitivities), because his role is generally to set the tone for the team, and control the ball to put people in good positions, but turnovers are game losers, and our freshmen contributed their fair share. And yes, I think this has the potential to be a very fun series (People on our side are already giving last nights game an "official" name. The best I've heard is "The Pillow Thief Massacre").

DJ,

1) I tried to address that above (in my "warning: statistics ahead" post), by discounting raw numbers by the percentage of minutes played above the number of minutes the guys in question could have otherwise been epected to have played had our starters not played. Read through that (and yes, it's VERY dry, but I think it addresses what you're talking about) and tell me what you think.

If you're talking about doing a "per minute freshman contribution" report, I could work that out, but it would probably look pretty similar, and the shooting numbers would be unaffected (our freshmen shot a far higher percentage, across the board than yours did)

2) Well, on this we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My opinion is that if you play high pressure defense, you should EPECT to have more fouls called on you, because you likely commit more fouls. I mean, we can both throw out missed calls going both ways (and yes, I acknowledge there were some calls that Mason got, but where the hell was the offensive hook on your big man right in the middle of your big 2nd half run, and Morrisons foul trouble wasn't helped by at least one atrocious call), but my epectation is that a team that plays very aggressive defense likely commits more fouls than one that does not.

Further, I think a lot of the time that teams that play high pressure D get an unfair advantage, because refs feel the need to keep it sort of even. This goes back to watching Rick Pitino's kentucky teams that would slap and hack and grab and bump, and eventually, the refs would just stop calling it because the foul disparity was so huge.

Anyhow guys, it's been fun!

See you net year.

12/3/2009 4:54:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

MV,

I'm not really adept at searching this board for old threads. I suspect you're OK with this technological flaw, as you can't keep an email address up and running.

However, I recall numerous threads where you've bemoaned the serious restrictions placed on Hobbs in his recruiting due to Omargate. You've noted that Hobbs was unduly restricted in how he could recruit.

12/3/2009 5:03:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Danjsport, restrictions. Real, unfabricated restrictions. Not ecuses. And by the way, not once have you heard Hobbs use these restrictions as an ecuse. And, when Hobbs does make ecuses, like comparing our facilities to others in the conference for eample, I don't like that one bit either.

12/3/2009 5:10:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

Without looking to get into a pissing contest with you MV....isn't it a "real, unfabricated restriction" on GMU's team to be playing without their 2 best players.

Couldn't Hobbs still have recruited better than he did?

12/3/2009 5:22:00 PM
Poster: Free Quebec

Herndon, Mason was trying to play pressure defense, too. And for what it's worth, Mason came into the game as one of the most foul-prone teams in the nation (as measured by FTA/FGA), so I would say it's fortunate for them to finish a half with an 11-2 FTA disparity against a team that wasn't just passing it around the perimeter looking to chuck threes.

12/3/2009 5:29:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Danj, let's look at it this way...if roles were reversed and GW lost because Hollis and Taylor were unavailable to play, would you go on Mason's message board and write something to the effect of "sure you guys won but we were without two of our best players." Mason did have restrictions last night; there's no denying that. Using it as an ecuse is annoying. Cam Long did injure himself last night. He was probably around 1-7 from the floor when he injured himself. He finished 2-10. To infer that Mason lost because Long injured himself is an ecuse (and a bad one at that). Seriously, you don't find fans of losing teams making ecuses to be the slightest bit annoying?

12/3/2009 5:50:00 PM
Poster: cagwu

We do it all the time, MV.

12/3/2009 6:08:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

MV,

We do this all the time. I wouldn't write on another team's message board ever. I would, however, post on this message board something like "if Hollis stepped up like we epected him to, and was a leader to stop the early run by OSU, we'd have been in the game." I'd post something like "sure, we lost in the A-10's, but Pops was hurt." I'd post things like "Reece's grandmother passed away, which is why he had such a poor game. If that didn't happen, he would have played better and GW would have won."

If Hollis was injured last night, and GW lost by 3, I'd bet there would be lots of posts about how the freshman and sophmores really stepped it up, and it shows they are coming a long way. If only Hollis was healthy, we could have won! I'd bet you would have praised Hobbs for his effort getting this young team prepared to play such a big game, without their leading senior.

12/3/2009 6:20:00 PM
Poster: The MV

Guys, you do it HERE. Where you're speaking to other GW fans. Is this the same thing as a Mason fan coming on a GW message board and making ecuses for why his team lost? Of course it's not the same thing.

This is my point...nobody went on Oregon State's message board and posted how GW was a much better team than OSU but we were so nervous playing in front of the President, particularly since we're so young and the OSU players got to meet the President a day earlier and the President was openly rooting for OSU, and these are all opf the reasons why we lost. No, you don't go on the opponents message board and make ecuses why your team lost. And if you do, being told to go away isn't eactly a cardinal sin.

12/3/2009 6:33:00 PM
Poster: BLACKBERRY

No one is taking into account that Kromah was sick with flu symptoms and he still whooped ass

12/3/2009 6:53:00 PM
Poster: bobo

The obvious fallacy in FQ's arguement is in trying to make a definitive judgement on the recruiting classes from 1 blowout win on somebody's home court. FQ knows as well as anyone that we won't be able to judge these classed until at least the end of the season.

What's interesting is that the most prominant GMU recruits were Wright and Williams. Both more athletic type of players than GMU ussually brings in (especially Wright). 3 years from now it may be Pellom and Wright as the 2 leading freshmen that played in Wednesday's night game.

12/3/2009 7:43:00 PM
Poster: danjsport

MV- to follow your argument

First, it was "Herndon made ecuses and that's annoying"

After it was pointed out that we make ecuses too, it was.."danj, your'e accusing me of making ecuses when I didn't."

After it was pointed out that you do make ecuses, the argument became "they aren't ecuses, they are restrictions"

After it was pointed out to you that restrictions and ecuses can really be used interchangeably, your argument became "well, we do it on our board, not on another team's board."

This person came to our board, discussing the basketball team he roots for, and epressed his belief that the game could have been very different with GMU's full squad (a point many GW fans have also made). Your constant need to bash others, and find a way to stir trouble is really tired.

12/3/2009 8:48:00 PM
Poster: Orel Miraculous

Remember when this thread started with actual basketball analysis? Good times, those were.

12/3/2009 10:18:00 PM
Poster: Bigfan

Herndon, you have a lot of zeal. Perhaps epressed a bit frequently in one threat, but that is your right.

We welcome your reasonably civil contributions net year and while respecting Mason and Larranaga, hope you are again talking about a losing Mason performance. While understandingand again greatly respecting Larranaga's rationale and leadership, would be best if no one is suspended (something we have done in the past with seniors) so there are no ecuses on either side.

12/4/2009 9:12:00 AM
Poster: GWHoopology

If we suspended 2 of our best guys, would we have won playing at Mason?

12/4/2009 9:26:00 AM
Poster: herve

Question is: who would the top two players be? Hollis? Probably, but remember up until the GM game he had been statistically average. Taylor? Probably, because of his importance at the PG slot, but aside from assists, his numbers were non-descript. Truth is, GW does not have to pin their hopes on the "starters" label this year, unlike GM. We have a lot of players who do the same things, the same way. It'll make for some fitfull nights when KH looks down the bench for difference-makers and realize they are all just like the other guys currently on the court.

We'll find out because their will inevitably be some injuries this season.

12/4/2009 9:36:00 AM
Poster: doug sandels

Just want to let Herndon know that I do enjoy when a random, rival fan sticks around our board. Flyer Fan-DC is one of my favorite posters because he usually provides a good outside perspective from us (we're either chicken little's or koolaid drinkers).

On the other hand, if Herndon were to start complaining that our board didn't have enough video games to play...

12/4/2009 9:59:00 AM
Poster: poster

You guys are so interesting to say the least. Sharrod is a better player than you have seen. I know because I have watched him play many games at Mt. Vernon. I even coached him growing up. He was pretty much not used the way that he should be used. He is a slasher and plays the game hard. I don't take anything away from GW freshmen, but sharrod will develop into a fine player. I also had the occassion of watching Tony T. grow up and play ball with Sharrod. I see you guys aren't to hot on him, but trust me he can play. He had a rough year last year because he didn't have anyone to really "help him ease into the position". He wears his heart on his sleeve and Hobbs didn't help that along. He was a scoring point in HS, and now he doesn't have to score. I am amazed at some of the comments here because if he makes a mistake he is crucified, if he runs the team and does well no one cares. The players on the team have different roles and now Tony is running the team. I personally think he should have stayed in NY like Sharrod, but things happen. I will add this, Sharrod will mean more to his team then many of your new freshmen by the end of the four years. If Tony stays, Im sure he will be one of the best PG's to come out of GW.

12/4/2009 10:34:00 AM
Poster: Alumnus

Poster, I think you're wrong about how Taylor is being viewed here. There have been plenty of compliments about his play this year, noting that he's more in control, that he almost eliminated turnovers in the first 4 games, and that he's unselfishly running the team without trying to push his own scoring totals. I still am a little skeptical whether he can be the starting point guard on an NCAA tournament team, but I appreciate his development, and I think plenty of other people have said that too. I think some of his better games were overlooked last season, but that's kind of understandable considering the chaos in a lot of our games.

12/4/2009 10:57:00 AM
Poster: poster

I don't think he ever tried pushing his scoring totals since he's been here. He is being compared to kids that have a year or two etra of school, that have physically matured etc....Also you don't have him running the point on a ncaa tournament team...he's not on one. I also read somewhere on here where someone stated he was selfish. I spoke with his high school coach, and he stated, the only reason Tony scored is because he had to. If Tony has a bad game he sucks...if other players have bad games the comment is oh he has the flu, or oh he took good shots, or oh he was out of position. I post on the gmu board from time to time as well as other boards, and i enjoy a good conversation. Hey, it's college basketball....E-style.

12/4/2009 10:58:00 AM
Poster: The MV

Danjsport, your eamples are apples to oranges. Now, it would have been closer to a fair comparison if I had posted here that nobody should have epected anything different than KH's record the past two years given the recruiting restrictions he's been placed with. Of course, I never said this because I don't believe it's the truth. In other words, it's one thing to make the statement that there have been recruiting restrictions but it's another to use it as an ecuse. And even if you disagree with me (shocking as that may be) and feel that I did use this as an ecuse (which again, I do not feel I've ever done), this still isn't a parallel eample to Herndon's posts. The reality is I thought Herndon was doing fine until he insinuated that Hollis had the game he had because his "normal" defender was suspended and that Long had a bad game because he was injured (while in reality, he was having a bad game well before his injury). Not quite sure how this compares to your Hobbs recruiting eample. But then again, I can write that I firmly believe that the world is round and I'm sure you'd have dozens of reasons for me as to why I was wrong.

Nevertheless, the one thing we can agree on is that I am tired of this as well.

12/4/2009 11:01:00 AM
Poster: danjsport

The world is round! Seriously? Net thing you'll tell me is that we're killing the environment and it's not just coincidence that it is 62 degrees in December!

12/4/2009 11:03:00 AM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

Doug,

What is often misunderstood as koolaid drinking is often a wise poster talking about 1st and 2nd derivative analysis of performance... ie. I see improvement. It seems that misinterpreting such posts as statements of absolute improvement or failure is where we have our issues. ... that is other than Lev who has made is prediction.

The more thoughtful ones on GWHoops are pleasantly surprised and pleased--reflecting movement in the right direction. I think that, and I quote a genius on the board, what the GW Freshmen do that the GMU freshmen don't is dictate how the other team will play. That is, by itself, huge.

That fact is invisible to statistics.

12/4/2009 12:08:00 PM
Poster: doug sandels

DM, I think you're hinting at FQ and I most definitely do not consider him a Kool-Aid drinker (even if LSF does). I'm talking more about how after each summer, a lot of us are ready to pencil in Katuka for a double-double every game and how Hollis was going to average 19 and 8 and be a last 1st round pick. In general, almost all of us get too caught up in the highs and lows (myself included), so that's why I appreciate the outsider perspective (as well as the numbers FQ always brings to the table).

12/8/2009 11:20:00 AM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

Doug, I wasn't hinting at anyone, and especially not FQ. All I was suggesting that when I get really positive about what is happening, I am not by any means suggesting that we are going to go through the season with a couple of losses. We could end up .500 and I would still be pretty happy that there is, to date, a different feel about this team.

I was pretty much done with Old Hobbs. I'm good with 2nd and 3rd chances if the receiver puts them to good use. I also think that the entire staff is doing a good job.

People are reacting incorrectly to much of the happy thoughts. I think that those who are seeing a serious silver lining here are not crazy and don't need to receive buckets of cold water.

That's all. FQ is the sort of guy with whom one can have a nice friendly disagreement.

We all certainly also have room to be a bit wrong.

Me, I would be a lot happier if Copes weren't a 2011 or if we had a another serious big man on the horizon. At least now, we have something to sell. I think that my causes for ecitement is correct and that is our new intense pressure package. AND our very credible guard troup.

12/8/2009 11:46:00 AM
Poster: The MV

Dolphin, once again we have in front of us a line that should be so easy to see but in the end, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

We all have every reason in the world to be happy with this team. We all have every reason to believe in the future of this program. We all have every reason to acknowledge that what some people referred to as the "bad Hobbs" is gone as he has not said or done anything this season to cause shame to himself or the university. In fact, his postgame remarks after the Oregon State loss were precisely what they should have been. We all have every reason to believe that the coaches are working hard and that the players are buying into what is being presented. The one game suspension of 3 players is a blip on the radar and nothing more.

On the other hand.....

We should not be referring to a nonconference game against Providence, our 8th game of the season, as our most important game of the entire season. We should not be studying the RPI in December. We should not be thinking of ourselves as a bubble team in December. I mean, one can do all of these things, but it strikes me as foolish.

One other thought...to those who were unhappy over our inability to sign anyone during the early signing period (Copes is a verbal but has not formally signed), it's obvious that at least some recruits were playing a "wait and see" game, making sure that a turnaround was in progress before committing. Therefore, if the season progresses along the lines of what we've seen so far, you'd certainly have to feel much better about future recruits (keeping in mind that only 2 spots will be opening up net season and Copes will presumably be filling one of these, assuming of course that nobody transfers out) than you did a month ago.

12/8/2009 11:52:00 AM
Poster: Dolphin Michael

BTW, may I add that I no idea about the goings on in the program other than what I see out in public. I also think that, if this all keeps going in the right direction, the university is much better for it and, frankly, so is Hobbs. I really want this to work out as a great story. I feel, btw, the same about the Fridge at MD.

I don't think that GW is scaring anybody in the A10, yet. Maybe by net season. The staff has a lot of work to do to find replacements... especially at the 5. I don't get the feeling that we have gone anywhere with that yet.

12/8/2009 11:53:00 AM
Poster: Free Quebec

Boy, Dophin Mike is a silver-tongued one, huh. I didn't even know he had disagreed with me. Still can't tell what we disagreed on!

12/8/2009 2:05:00 PM
Poster: Its George Mason not GM

Good luck to you guys net year, should be a good game considering our starters will all be in the net one. Have a good season.

12/9/2009 1:33:00 AM
Poster: Levinator

Levinaotr Recap Thread - FYI - If any y'all want to add your last thoughts- do it soon. it seems the Gm crew may have left us for the moment to focus on the Dayton and UNCW boards. Jk.

As for all of us- we need ot regroup and remember...only herve has the power to terminate your Gwhoops dreams!

Poster:

Title:

Board

GW's freshmen better than GMU's freshman