I said he did many things extremely well in the context of last night. That said, I just don't view DJ as a good player. Certainly above average, but perhaps my standards are just too high for some around here.
As G inquired, is he all B10?
I omit clear and convincing evidence at all times if that makes sense. Because if the evidence is presented objectively, Michigan just isn't all that appealing to an upper tier prospect at this point, and I think you, along with everyone else on this board, would be hard pressed to refute that.
Thanks for being forthcoming. Of course I'm not saying that you talk to a prospect about Michigan and say that it's an awesome place except for the basketball, but some kids are pretty savvy and can pick up on omissions of information.
Halfway through big ten play, hes averaging 14, 6 and 2 on insanely good percentages. 52% from three on 3 attempts per game. I would be shocked if he didn't make all big ten third team, if he stays remotely close to those averages.
Walton was all B10 last year, does he pass your "good" test?
I absolutely promote Michigan basketball, just from a stylistic standpoint, in particular to guards. I also promote education (which isn't really worth much to basketball recruits). I just don't present objective data to the extent of saying Michigan has a .500 conference record over the past 3 years, Michigan hasn't won a tournament game in 3 years, etc.
Don't think that would help the cause much, because frankly its underwhelming and looks poor.
No, at this point, he does not.
The very fact that you see a very large, clear distinction between "above average" and "good" appears to be the source of a lot of the disagreement.
Not that I think this was @guestavo1 trying to define "good," but it's just an example. What, both relative and independently, does DJ need to do to be--by your own personal definition--good? Who is a player who you would say is"good," but still pretty close to "above average." Context and benchmarks are important, when working these fine lines
I take a different approach, I like to evaluate players independent of other players. I think that's a better way to approach it because on any given year, 'good' can be borderline elite, or 'good' can be borderline poor, based on the other players around the conference. Too much fluidity in the standard when you apply that sort of barometer.
So your definition of "good" is all B1G or bust? So only 4-5 Big Ten teams each year have a good player?
Yup, honorable mentions are on the cusp, and all Americans are great. Seems objective instead of arguing semantics.
Yeah I've come to the conclusion this is heading nowhere. It appears people really take issue with me labeling DJ above average. I guess 'good' just makes people feel better apparently
I dont really understand, you always preach comp level. In a couple of other threads, for the last few hours, you've been talking about how much better (a relative term) other freshman around the country are than ours.
Comp level certainly means something, but it varies year by year is my point. So 'good' does not translate across years using a formula that is relative to other conference players exclusively. With regard to the other freshman being 'better', the disparity is so great, and our freshman are so poor, its not even worth my time to address that and I'm sure you'd agree.
If that's your definition of good I can see why you wouldn't call DJ that. However, I vehemently disagree with your standards of only the top 5.5% of B1G players being considered good and the top 0.22% of NCAA players being considered great. To each his own.
DJ Wilson is good, damn good. End of story
If season ended today off the top of my head
First team all big tenTrimble, Jok, bridges, Hayes, Swanigan
Second teamKoenig, Webster, Blackmon, Hill, Happ
Third TeamWatson, Lindsey, Irvin, DJ Wilson, Ward
Probably Thomas Bryant over Ward
Yeah, I agree. But it just seems fickle. However objective it is to look at players in a vacuum, it's not practical, especially not in a conference setting. Our "success" is defined by how we compete against these teams, and by how good our players are compared to their players. I know "the best team doesn't always win" and "the best player doesn't always play his best." But stats, rankings, W/L, all-conference, man v man, team v team match ups all matter. It matters that the team that we just held to 60 points usually scores 84. It matters that DJ has a good +/- and his highly statistically efficient. It also matters that he doesn't have a quick first step, could work on his post defense, and doesn't have a tight handle. Vacuums just don't exist in a sport where you compete against, and play with, other people.
I haven't said my opinion on DJ nor do I care to but just thought I'd frame the convo objectively
I wholeheartedly agree that success/lack of against other teams/individual players is a factor, but a factor among many. In other words, the eye test for me means a lot.