FWIW…
As a freshman, Nik shot 50% from three in non-conference games and 37% in Big Ten games.
He was 3-of-18 in 5 of 6 NCAA tourney games, then he had the 6-of-6 vs Florida.
Duncan shot 55% from three in non-conference play and 35% in Big Ten games.
I don’t really like the Nik/Duncan comparisons because Nik did so much with the ball as a freshman and then as a sophomore compared to Duncan, but his three-point shooting did fall off a bit in a similar fashion.
I don’t really think this argument works. You’re asserting that we don’t have guys who can attack and draw doubles consistently, and your conclusion is that we should take a pure shooter off the floor, which would make the spacing even worse for our ball-handlers, and replace the shooter with . . . another guy who can’t space the floor or draw double teams but is maybe a somewhat better defender? That’s just going to make the offense worse. And it’s not like we have a defensive stopper who also is decent at offense. Robinson helps the offense tremendously even if we don’t have a top 10 offense overall, and you don’t give that up unless you are benefiting substantially some other way.
I don’t really think your argument works either, given that it’s a straw man. I’ve made it fairly clear that with the current roster Duncan should be 100% starting. However, 93grad said in the comment that everyone is currently discussing, “If we had a real option at the 4.” If we did, it would likely be in our best interest to play him there with Irvin at the 3 and MAAR at the 2. I won’t address the rest of your comment because it is based on that false premise.
I just looked at all of Nik’s game logs from his freshman year:
13.8 a game, .518 from the floor, .590 from three in the non-conference.
Big Ten: 9.9 per game, .428 from the floor, .347 from three.
Oh, and 2 games where he didn’t score a point, 2 more where he had 5 points and 4 points.
In the tourney, despite his one awesome game against Florida, he still averaged 8.6 per game, had 4 of 6 games below double figures, and in the last two games of the year, 0 points against Cuse, 3 against Louisville, and combined 1-7 shooting in those games.
So, what exactly are you talking about? His sophomore year?
I’m not saying Duncan and Nik are all that much alike. Nik has more point guard skills and better ability to drive off the dribble. Duncan, while a solid passer with vision, can’t handle like Nik. But both guys wore down as shooters in the Big Ten (which is why I think a strong offseason of conditioning and lifting will help Duncan), and both had to figure out how to adjust their games. Nik had a huge leap from his freshman to sophomore year - in the fall of 2013, no one thought he would be a lottery pick after the season, or even have a realistic chance of entering the draft at that point.
It’s not a straw-man, but whatever…
Nik Stauskas was 30/81 from three in Big Ten play which equates to 37%, 11th in the country for conference only stats. Nik Stauskas was 50/101 in nonconference for 49.5%, which was ranked in the 40s. As I said, he improved his national ranking, meaning that his falloff was actually better than most people’s. He shot 44% overall in conference play and 48% overall in nonconference. Again, I have no clue where the hell you’re getting your stats because they’re blatantly wrong, but mine are from here: http://kenpom.com/player.php?p=15470
In comparison, Robinson shot 58/105 from three in nonconference for 55% but 37/105 in conference for 35%. He shot 53% overall in nonconference but 39.6% in conference play.
So let’s take a look at the final numbers. From conference to nonconference, Stauskas’ total field goal percentage dropped a whopping 4% and his three point percentage dropped 12%. Duncan Robinson’s field goal percentage dropped 13% and his three point percentage dropped by 20%. Now I’m no mathematician, but I believe a 4% drop is a lot better than 13% and a 12% drop is a lot better than 20%. I’m sorry, LAW, but those are nowhere close to each other. And these kenpom numbers for nonconference account for Stauskas’ bad tournament and Robinson’s good one. If you only count pre-Big Ten play nonconference the numbers are even further in Stauskas’ favor in terms of change.
So no, I think it’s been proven pretty clearly that Robinson’s dip in big ten play is far harsher than anything Stauskas experienced.
@tarverine Did you see those numbers I posted above? From a 3-pt perspective they are almost identical drop offs. Also the ‘rank’ for conference only stats is based on conference, not national.
I just went through the numbers, Dylan. Stauskas had a 12% drop and Robinson had a 20% drop. And yeah, I think you’re right about the rankings after looking further. I’ll stop using those but I think my argument still stands pretty well nonetheless. I think the difference in that drop is more than significant enough to say you can’t compare the 2. I mean Robinson’s was almost double Stauskas’, and that’s not bring total field goal percentage into account, where Robinson’s dropped more than 3 times more than Stauskas did (4% from Stauskas, 13% from Robinson).
As I said, Stauskas was a far more dynamic player as a freshman (and his two point and assist numbers show that).
They both went from making >50% of their threes to being fairly average three-point shooters in the 30s against Big Ten opponents.
Robinson also shot 41% from three against top-100 teams compared to 38% for Stauskas.
Basically I think it is pretty reasonable to say that their three-point shooting as freshmen was very similar. (The difference in their Big Ten numbers would be two more made threes by Robinson in Big Ten play)
I mean sure you can say both shot above 50% and both went below 40%, but that’s over simplifying it. Stauskas’ change was about 12% and Robinson’s was 20%. To me, those are the only numbers that really matter in this topic. And I don’t think there’s any way to spin them to make them seem equal.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but there is no way in the world that Nik’s conference 3 point percentage, whether 37% as you have it, or just under 35% as LAW has it (could the difference lie in whether BTT games are counted?) was 11th in the country for in-conference 3 point shooting percentages. This would mean that there were between 6 and 10 people in the entire country who shot 40%+ from 3 in-conference. Burke and Hardaway alone shot 40% or more from 3 in-conference that season. There’s something wrong here.
As I mentioned, it was 11th in the conference. Those rankings aren’t national.
Yeah it wasn’t, that was the conference only ranking like Dylan said. I have discounted that part of the argument but keep my 20% : 12% as all I really need. I’d like to see kenpom have an option for showing the national rankings for conference play.
Not really all that useful considering every conference is difference.
Would be more interested in the tier A, tier A+B stats with national rankings.
Interesting you mention those tier A’s and B’s. I was just looking at Kam Chatman’s stats and he had 118.3 ORtg in a decent sample size vs 13 tier A teams yet only a 104.6 ORtg for the year last season. I’m really interested to see how he does at Detroit. Anyways, this is the Robinson thread, so I’ll say this: Kam Chatman is listed at 215 lbs. on mgoblue.com so he’s probably only around 210 but most people were fine with him being a potential 4. Duncan Robinson is listed as the same thing on the site. 5 more lbs of muscle and I might be more open to him at the 4. I never realized how close they were height and weight wise.
Preseason non-conference: 39-69 from three (.565)
Big Ten: 30-81 (regular season): .370. Big Ten tourney: 2-8. Overall: 32-89 (.359).
NCAA tourney: 9-24 (.375), and that includes a 6-6 game.
He scored 3 total points against Syracuse and Louisville. You still think he wasn’t tired by the end of the year, or that he was better than Duncan at the end of this season? Come on.
Here’s my source, do the math yourself if you think I got it wrong: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/nik-stauskas-1/gamelog/2013/
Hopefully you’re now willing to see you’re wrong about that - Nik’s preseason three point percentage was .565, and his conference percentage was either .370 or .359, depending on whether you’re counting the BTT games (I have no idea why those shouldn’t count). And his NCAA tourney percentage was .375. So yes, Nik’s drop was almost exactly the same as Duncan’s. Right?
First of all, I assume you mean to say nonconference every time you say “preseason”? Secondly, Nik Stauskas shot 50/101 in nonconference play. That is 49.5%. He shot 30/81 in Big Ten play. That is 37%. As I said, I am no mathematician, but to me 12.5% seems to be far less than Duncan’s drop off of 20%. I mean if you have a different opinion on that it’s fine, but it doesn’t really correlate with reality.
Jesus, seriously? You didn’t even look at my source. If you had, it would be obvious why your argument is wrong.
Preseason (in other words, before Big Ten conference play) non-conference games: 39-69 (.565%).
Big Ten tourney: 2-8.
NCAA tourney: 9-24.
That’s how you’re getting the overall 50-101.
My thesis has always been that Nik, like Duncan, got tired once Big Ten play started and that carried over to the rest of the year.
As the stats above show, Nik shot .565% from three before Big Ten play started (and then about .370 thereafter).
So, the dropoff from before Big Ten play (.565%) to everything thereafter (including the BTT and NCAA tourney) was indeed about 20%. That’s the relevant comparison, not adding back in his stats from after_ the Big Ten season, so that his overall non-conference numbers are worse, so that you can then falsely claim a lower spread between those and his conference numbers.
If you can’t understand why your stats don’t work with the argument, I don’t know what to say.
Okay, fair enough.