Dylan - the point MChem is making is that based on all available data from a WHOLISTIC viewpoint, it would not appear that Kam is going to be an above average type player next year. People jumping down his throat are taking isolated instances rather than frequent flashes in an attempt to bolster. Of course Kam will improve, because quite frankly, he couldn’t be any worse than he was last year. Does that mean he will be average, above average, or good? So sick of people trying to cut into those that suggest anything less than what certain others want, despite the fact that what MChem says is based on objective data as opposed to some Fairytale dream. Here’s reality, we’re talking about a kid that shot 32% from the field and 26% from 3. Even with significant improvement, let’s say +5% on both, he’s still nowhere near what we need.
Let’s get real here folks, MChem has validity to his points even if it doesn’t fit your narrative. He’s basing his opinion on numbers whereas some are basing opinions on faith. One is sound and the other not so much.
Still with the Chatman hot takes? He will be one of the most improved players In the league next year. Is Bates-Diop a bum too? He had a similar flash a brilliance mixed in with wtf kind of year. Ever hear of developing?
Based on what, exactly, other than your wanting it? Wishing and hoping that he will be doesn’t remotely make it so. And yes, Bates-Diop may indeed turn out to be a disappointment too. But as underwhelming a season as he had last year, he still put up better stats than Chatman, in fewer minutes. And as far as development, Chatman had a whole year to develop, and still went scoreless 3 of his last 4 games. Where the “flash of brilliance” from Chatman was, I have no idea. The fact remains that players who are going to be high quality starters as sophomores usually show quite a bit more than Chatman did last year.
In the two games before the last four you mention, Chatman scored 6 and 7 respectively against OSU and Maryland, on 6-9 combined shooting in 28 total minutes of playing time. For the last six games, he was 10-19 from the field, 3-6 from 3, and 3-4 from the line, all huge improvements on his performance prior to that time. Each side can cherry pick the stats they want to support an argument on this. I’ve seen highly rated guys with first year stats like those of Kam go on to be really good (Deshawn Sims), and guys who never developed (Bobby Crawford). I think he’s going to be good, and that’s not just based upon wishing and hoping, but rather flashes I saw, and the passing ability and court vision he possesses, which are pretty unique for a guy his size. You disagree. We’ll see this winter.
Sorry, but you’re the only one guilty of “cherry-picking”. You can’t argue that a player is “developing” or making “huge improvements” when you have to pluck examples which are both more limited and earlier in the season to try to make a case, while dismissing poorer performance over a longer stretch of games later in the season (by which time he should presumably have been MORE “developed” and “improved”, not less). “Flashes” that are no longer than a play don’t cut it…anyone can have those, but I guess you’re going to imagine you’ve seen what you want to. And “passing ability” and “court vision”? Seriously? He only had six assists for all 18 Big Ten games, which was fewer than Beilfeldt, for pity’s sake.
Personally, I’ll look at a guy like Dawkins as far more likely to have a great year next year, based on “flashes” like scoring 31 in a game, or shooting 48% on threes in the Big Ten.
Seriously, why even waste your time debating with him?
And yet, you’re “wasting your time debating with [me]” in another thread. You’re free to ignore me if you’d like. You’re also free to ignore Dylan, LA, Sane and others who disagree with your opinion.
Still with the Chatman hot takes? He will be one of the most improved players In the league next year. Is Bates-Diop a bum too? He had a similar flash a brilliance mixed in with wtf kind of year. Ever hear of developing?
Based on what, exactly, other than your wanting it? Wishing and hoping that he will be doesn’t remotely make it so. And yes, Bates-Diop may indeed turn out to be a disappointment too. But as underwhelming a season as he had last year, he still put up better stats than Chatman, in fewer minutes. And as far as development, Chatman had a whole year to develop, and still went scoreless 3 of his last 4 games. Where the “flash of brilliance” from Chatman was, I have no idea. The fact remains that players who are going to be high quality starters as sophomores usually show quite a bit more than Chatman did last year.
In the two games before the last four you mention, Chatman scored 6 and 7 respectively against OSU and Maryland, on 6-9 combined shooting in 28 total minutes of playing time. For the last six games, he was 10-19 from the field, 3-6 from 3, and 3-4 from the line, all huge improvements on his performance prior to that time. Each side can cherry pick the stats they want to support an argument on this. I’ve seen highly rated guys with first year stats like those of Kam go on to be really good (Deshawn Sims), and guys who never developed (Bobby Crawford). I think he’s going to be good, and that’s not just based upon wishing and hoping, but rather flashes I saw, and the passing ability and court vision he possesses, which are pretty unique for a guy his size. You disagree. We’ll see this winter.
Sorry, but you’re the only one guilty of “cherry-picking”. You can’t argue that a player is “developing” or making “huge improvements” when you have to pluck examples which are both more limited and earlier in the season to try to make a case, while dismissing poorer performance over a longer stretch of games later in the season (by which time he should presumably have been MORE “developed” and “improved”, not less). “Flashes” that are no longer than a play don’t cut it…anyone can have those, but I guess you’re going to imagine you’ve seen what you want to. And “passing ability” and “court vision”? Seriously? He only had six assists for all 18 Big Ten games, which was fewer than Beilfeldt, for pity’s sake.
Personally, I’ll look at a guy like Dawkins as far more likely to have a great year next year, based on “flashes” like scoring 31 in a game, or shooting 48% on threes in the Big Ten.
Seriously, why even waste your time debating with him?
And yet, you’re “wasting your time debating with [me]” in another thread. You’re free to ignore me if you’d like. You’re also free to ignore Dylan, LA, Sane and others who disagree with your opinion.
I already do with LA and Sane because I realize what I’m dealing with. I do respect your opinion for the most part (even if I disagree at times), but you are definitely on the ‘everything is great at UM’ train to a certain degree even if it defies logic at times.
Still with the Chatman hot takes? He will be one of the most improved players In the league next year. Is Bates-Diop a bum too? He had a similar flash a brilliance mixed in with wtf kind of year. Ever hear of developing?
Based on what, exactly, other than your wanting it? Wishing and hoping that he will be doesn’t remotely make it so. And yes, Bates-Diop may indeed turn out to be a disappointment too. But as underwhelming a season as he had last year, he still put up better stats than Chatman, in fewer minutes. And as far as development, Chatman had a whole year to develop, and still went scoreless 3 of his last 4 games. Where the “flash of brilliance” from Chatman was, I have no idea. The fact remains that players who are going to be high quality starters as sophomores usually show quite a bit more than Chatman did last year.
In the two games before the last four you mention, Chatman scored 6 and 7 respectively against OSU and Maryland, on 6-9 combined shooting in 28 total minutes of playing time. For the last six games, he was 10-19 from the field, 3-6 from 3, and 3-4 from the line, all huge improvements on his performance prior to that time. Each side can cherry pick the stats they want to support an argument on this. I’ve seen highly rated guys with first year stats like those of Kam go on to be really good (Deshawn Sims), and guys who never developed (Bobby Crawford). I think he’s going to be good, and that’s not just based upon wishing and hoping, but rather flashes I saw, and the passing ability and court vision he possesses, which are pretty unique for a guy his size. You disagree. We’ll see this winter.
Sorry, but you’re the only one guilty of “cherry-picking”. You can’t argue that a player is “developing” or making “huge improvements” when you have to pluck examples which are both more limited and earlier in the season to try to make a case, while dismissing poorer performance over a longer stretch of games later in the season (by which time he should presumably have been MORE “developed” and “improved”, not less). “Flashes” that are no longer than a play don’t cut it…anyone can have those, but I guess you’re going to imagine you’ve seen what you want to. And “passing ability” and “court vision”? Seriously? He only had six assists for all 18 Big Ten games, which was fewer than Beilfeldt, for pity’s sake.
Personally, I’ll look at a guy like Dawkins as far more likely to have a great year next year, based on “flashes” like scoring 31 in a game, or shooting 48% on threes in the Big Ten.
Kam was terrible from the Syracuse game to the OSU game–nobody is denying that. Maybe he’ll be the same, or only marginally better next year–if so, he’ll play very little. Aubrey played extremely well late in the year–again, nobody is arguing that. Nor is anybody arguing that Aubrey is more likely to have a great year next year based upon his end of the season performance.
It makes absolutely no difference to me which 8, 9 or 10 players play for Michigan next year, and which 2-4 do not–I’m not Kam’s relative or friend, and I do not, have nor have I ever had, any relationship with him whatsoever. If he’s not one of the best players, he should sit. I’m not seeing what I want to see, I’m seeing what I believe is there as potential, the same thing others saw in high school, though it was obviously well hidden last season. I might be wrong–it wouldn’t be the first time. I might be right too. That’s why I said we’d see next winter.
I didn’t use the last 4 games stat on Kam–you did. If you’re going to use 4 games, though, you can also look at 6. That’s all I said. Whole year stats–he was bad. That’s not a debatable topic. The question is what he’ll be like next year. Again, we’ll see. You’re welcome to your own opinion.
I want Chatman to succeed as much as the next guy (I would love it if he could crack the starting lineup again) but the fact that he improved just enough to overtake walk-ons in the lineup doesn’t say much at all. Frankly I disagreed with JB ever playing a walk-on in his place, since Chatman ought to have a much higher ceiling and would have benefitted from those opportunities to develop (it’s not like the use of walk-ons prevented the opponent from going on huge, game-jeopardizing runs in any event).
The encouraging thing is that his improvement may be (partially) a matter of overcoming nerves; he made a bunch of the kind of utterly bad mistakes that can only be explained by nerves. That and developing his body further. My guess (just a guess) is that he probably looks a lot better in scrimmages than in real game situations (this is based on JB’s comments about him initially “grading out” as a rotation player and his starting spot ahead of Dawkins for the first half of the season). So count me in the “hopeful” camp – and I think it’s likely that he’ll be higher in the depth chart than Robinson or Wagner come the start of the season, having benefitted from his experience and Sanderson work. That said, I am not expecting any miracles.
If you watched Kam play down the stretch... He definitely improved. He wasn't a star, but he looked so much more comfortable on the floor. The big shift late in the season was that Michigan was able to play Kam instead of one of the walk-on guards and shift everyone down a position. Kam's improvement was just as important as Zak's to make that shift happen.
Here’s what I wrote after the Illinois game:
Chatman isn’t always perfect, but his improved play has enabled Michigan to rest the backcourt with a much more effective ‘big lineup’ with Irvin at the two. Chatman grabbed four defensive rebounds and while he missed his four shots from the field, he still played an improved floor game and was active defensively.
Aubrey obviously showed more scoring potential than Kam (and he earned the spot last season obviously), but there are things that Chatman can bring to the table that Dawkins doesn’t.
Sorry, but looking “comfortable on the floor” and “improved floor game” are just ways to be saying something nice when you don’t have any actual production to point to. I could point to any number of recent players for us who were less highly rated but showed a lot more actual production by the end of their first year than Chatman, no excuses necessary. I could, but I don’t need to, because you know who they are perfectly well. And saying that Chatman “isn’t always perfect”? Not sure where in the world that came from, since he wasn’t EVER perfect or even close to it, nor did anyone claim he was. And the fact that there are a lot of areas that he could potentially improve in is not evidence that he will improve in those areas.
Just for the record, I’m not saying and never have said that Chatman won’t improve next year. He almost certainly will. But guys who played better than him last year can also be expected to improve, and they will be improving on top of already demonstrated better performance. Is it absolutely impossible that Chatman will improve more than any other player in the Big Ten, and be a real star next year, leaping ahead of most everyone else on the team? Again, no, but there is no objective evidence right here and right now to justify predicting that he will, just finger-crossing and wishful thinking. I prefer to base projections of future performance first and foremost on past performance.
@mchem83 then you must have thought Darius Morris would be a complete bum based on that freshman campaign then right? If that’s what you base it solely on is past performance? Freshman year D-Mo showed absolutely no signs that he was about to become a star… Not saying Chatman is gonna make that leap but some people base wayyyyyyyyy too much based on a player’s freshman year when they are adjusting to the college game… Sure some can do it seemlessly but others take time and it doesn’t mean they suck if they aren’t good off the bat… Kaminsky did nothing his freshman year and then become NPOY last year… Again, not saying that is Chatman’s trajectory but I hate when people make broad assumptions off of a small sample size and just assume that player won’t get better
I have high hopes for Chatman and still think he has some tools to become a good player… And I’m gonna wait to see how he progresses in the offseason before I rip on him and act like he won’t contribute next year
@mchem83 then you must have thought Darius Morris would be a complete bum based on that freshman campaign then right? If that's what you base it solely on is past performance? Freshman year D-Mo showed absolutely no signs that he was about to become a star.. Not saying Chatman is gonna make that leap but some people base wayyyyyyyyy too much based on a player's freshman year when they are adjusting to the college game.. Sure some can do it seemlessly but others take time and it doesn't mean they suck if they aren't good off the bat.. Kaminsky did nothing his freshman year and then become NPOY last year.. Again, not saying that is Chatman's trajectory but I hate when people make broad assumptions off of a small sample size and just assume that player won't get better
I have high hopes for Chatman and still think he has some tools to become a good player… And I’m gonna wait to see how he progresses in the offseason before I rip on him and act like he won’t contribute next year
See, here’s what gets my back up…I’ve made my arguments based on FACTS. On-court performance. Actual statistics. I haven’t called anybody names or made anything personal. And yet your response is to flat-out LIE about what I’ve said.
You said I’m assuming that Chatman “won’t get any better” when I said explicitly in the post JUST ABOVE that I think he almost certainly will. You said I’m acting like he “won’t contribute next year” when I said absolutely nothing of the kind. If you’d bothered to read the discussion, you’d see that I was responding to someone who thought that Chatman would be the most improved player in the Big Ten next year, a projection which I dismissed as having no support other than wishful thinking.
And if you look at Morris’ numbers as a true freshman, you’d see that even he was better and more consistent than Chatman. Yes, some players take longer to come along than others, but what I’ve said (again, if you’d been paying attention) is that players who are going to be as good as what Chatman was projected to be based on his recruiting ranking usually show better production and more flashes of really good play than Chatman did last year. No (to repeat), nothing is certain, but I prefer to base my projections of future performance based on what’s likely. I’d love to be wrong, because it would mean that we’d be a much better team than expected next year, but I don’t look for the world to work out that way simply because I’d like it to.
I was these charters worked. This study showed that the biggest jump in a player’s career is, on average, between the freshman and sophomore season. In fact, on average, players improve more between freshman and sophomore seasons than between sophomore and senior seasons.
One intriguing section of the article is as follows:
“And now, to bring on home to why our readers should care. For that, I bring you the 2008-09 Fighting Illini. This team won 24 games after going 16-19 the year before. Yes, a lot of that was bad luck (or “bad DeChellis” if you prefer), but the Illini also lost 1/3 of the minutes from that 16-19 team. It’s not like everyone came back. Another key piece in the Illini’s resurgence is that 48% of the minutes were played by sophomores. In other words, 48% of the minutes were played by guys who figured to improve the most. And they did.”
Similarily, between Dawkins, MAAR, Chatman, Doyle, and Donnal, Michigan should have a large percentage of minutes played by guys who figure to improve the most. (No, I don’t think they will all dramatically improve, so spare me the status quo strawman rebuttal).
Is it just me, or do others cringe at the idea of either Zak or Dawkins defending the 4 spot? I definitely think both of those guys bring value on the other end, but can't help but to wonder if it is a net negative to play either of those guys at the 4. Be interesting to see if Chatman/Wilson/Wagner can step up and man that spot.
It amazes me on how many rotations I see that have little to no reference to Robinson. I just have a hard time believing that coach would bring this kid in if he did not think he could play more than a few spot minutes.
It amazes me on how many rotations I see that have little to no reference to Robinson. I just have a hard time believing that coach would bring this kid in if he did not think he could play more than a few spot minutes.
I have him in my rotation. Brian at Mgoblog does as well. Shooting is always a fit in JBs offense.
It amazes me on how many rotations I see that have little to no reference to Robinson. I just have a hard time believing that coach would bring this kid in if he did not think he could play more than a few spot minutes.
Well, coaches bring in a lot of players who end up not being able to play more than a few spot minutes. Yes, Robinson can apparently shoot, and if I were putting together a team to play HORSE, I’d grab him first of anyone on the roster. But in terms of real game competition, I think a lot of people (myself included) see him on the scale of shooters as much closer to a Matt Vogrich type of player than a Nik Stauskas, i.e. a guy who doesn’t have much of a game beyond spotting up, and who can’t generate his own shot against DI major conference level opposition. While he was a top player in DIII, that doesn’t guarantee much in the Big Ten, so as much as I’d like to see him be more than a marginal contributor, I’m withholding optimism for now.
Well, in fairness he’s much bigger than Vogrich. I agree that if he is a Vogrich-level player, he probably shouldn’t see time on the court – we’re past that point as a program. If I recall, Vogrich was not only a spot-up shooter but a very streaky one at that. Not a deadeye by any means. But I have no idea what to expect with Robinson and am cautiously optimistic. If he can be a Diebler/Heslip type rain-or-shine sharpshooter, I am definitely down. But not some streaky guy whose % goes way down in pressure situations.
"He looked great," Magic coach Michael Crotty Jr. said of Robinson. "I'm very hopeful he's going to be a guy who can contribute for Coach Beilein. … The sheer ability to push people around or not be bumped off the ball himself seems like a vast improvement. He always shot the ball tremendously well, but was shooting off the hang dribble and doing some things off the bounce that seemed even stronger than what I had seen."
I don't see the point in trying to pick only 8 guys with a roster this deep. Pick a starter and his back up and split the minutes as appropriate. For example, Walton plays 30 and Spike gets the other 10. Caris gets 32 at the 2 and Rahk gets the other 8, Irvin 28/Dawkins 12, Chatman 20/Wagner 20 and Doyle 22/Donnal 12/Wilson 6. Change the names and/or the minutes, but the theory remains the same. It is not like past years where we had to pick the best 8 guys and roll with them or play Walton and Spike at the 1 and 2 just to get them on the floor. Unless that combination gives us some advantage on offense or defense, why limit our talent?
I’d be shocked if either Chafman or Wagner get anywhere close to 20 minutes let alone both. But it would be great if they were playing well enough to earn those minutes.
You may be right, but I think you missed my point. I said that you could change the names or minutes, but the point is why limit yourself to only 8 players when we have this kind of depth (assuming that they are as good as we think they will be).
There is a lot of possibilities that could arise, I am very interested to see how the minutes are going to shake out. If I had to give an eight I’d go
walton
levert
Irvin
Dawkins
Doyle
spike
maar
Chatman? this is where you could interchange many people. Easily could be wilson, robinson, wagner, or donnall. Hard to predict that one. The first seven though I listed I do believe to be our best guys at this point from what they have shown. I could also see them starting Chatman and having a second unit with spike and dawkins leading the scoring punch.
I am very high on MAAR and Dawkins as many have seen during my rants. I still like our chances to win the big ten next year too. I am not worried about m state or maryland. I have faith we can surpass them with a healthy team and the emergence of a few of our young guys late.
Watching Kam last year, it was just obvious to me that he just was trying to play way too fast and trying to compute everything. If the coaches can get him to act more naturally in the offense (which I think he was doing in the first half against the buckeyes.