Greivis Vasquez and Gary Williams, will be made official at 1:00 p.m.
Pretty slam dunk choices, I imagine Derrick Favors will win freshman of the year.
Printable View
Greivis Vasquez and Gary Williams, will be made official at 1:00 p.m.
Pretty slam dunk choices, I imagine Derrick Favors will win freshman of the year.
I wouldn't call Vasquez a slam dunk choice, as has been discussed on here. Could have went to either Scheyer or Delaney given the #'s and what they meant to their teams. It's a tough call between 3 really good players.
I'll give you Williams as COY though. I honestly didn't expect Maryland to be as competitive as they were this year, earning a split of the ACC regular season w/Duke. He did a helluva job with what he's got on that team.
I'll be interested to see who finishes 2nd behind Favors in ROY voting. I think Durand Scott has to be the next best Freshman behind him.
It was a slam dunk, Vasquez owns Scheyer in every statstically category except turnovers and their assist to turnover ratio is equal. Jordan Williams was second in freshman of the year voting. Vasquez took home over 70% of the vote for ACC Player of the Year.
I'll simply disagree b/c nothing I could say that's rational would come close to changing your mind. They're Twerps, they're the greatest EVAR. All hail. :mooning:Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
I'd go with that if I were you as well since no stats are close when comparing Vasquez vs. Scheyer in ACC Play. Keep on loving K.
Amended for truthfulness.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
It always makes me feel good when you do this, it means I'm right because you have no statistical information or merit to stand on. Please continue embarrassing yourself if you wish.
Do what? Point out your bias that shows you wouldn't look at the stats rationally even if I posted them? That embarrasses me terribly. Poor me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
I'm just saying I ain't gonna waste my time speaking rationally to a biased brick wall.
I wouldn't post their stats either if I were you. Glad we had one of these this year, I was beginning to wonder. I knew this would eat at your heart.
I don't have a problem with him getting POY based on his performance but man is he ever a punk. Heck of a player but a smart A__ attitude.
Wow..."eat at my heart"? No sir. I don't take too much seriously anymore. I suggest you start doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer_down
Not so sure about that. He's Latino,and if you've ever been around any of thses folks,you'll see alot of passion,animated exhuberance,and confidence. Many times folks mistake that for a punk swagga. Those folks have their hearts on their sleeves,and he's no different. I enjoyed seeing the fired-up emotion in the Duke game. That's what all ballers should possess. I can see an argument for him and the Dukie as well,but I can't hate that he landed the award. It's not like he didn't deserve it and this was some atrocity.
That was kinda my point from the get-go. A case could have been made for Vasquez/Scheyer/Delaney, and a solid case for all of them. But--my boy Double D won't take off his MD glasses long enough to even grant that much that everyone else seems to be rationally thinking.Quote:
I can see an argument for him and the Dukie as well,but I can't hate that he landed the award. It's not like he didn't deserve it and this was some atrocity.
Que sera-sera.
If it was close I would agree, Scheyer/Delaney didn't have the season Vasquez had. Frankly, it is not close. To say otherwise is just being a homer.
Wow...look who's talking!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
Still not seen your argument that he shouldn't have won it. haha
When did I claim that, ever? I said he was worthy of it, just as worthy as Scheyer/Delaney. You keep forgetting that I thought Delaney was just as good of a choice b/c he's right up there with Scheyer/Vasquez, IMO...look, knowing me, and knowing my disdain for anything VT related, why in the world would I be giving Delaney his due unless 1) he deserved it, and/or 2) I honestly think he was a viable candidate? I'm such a homer I'm giving a VT guy his due, and in the same breath a MD guy his due. But, because I say all 3 guys are worthy of it, I'm a Duke homer b/c the 3rd guy is Scheyer???Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
Who's being an irrational homer now man...talk about embarrassing. The only thing I said in the beginning was that all 3 were worthy, that Vasquez wasn't a "slam dunk" choice. You got your schwartz in a wad and got peeved b/c I didn't say Vasquez was the ONLY choice. Sorry to break it to ya, but you're looking a lot more biased here than I.
Gotta agree on this one....the bias part :)
If someone loves a team or a player or a coach, and they get themselves convinced that people off of that team are the only options, slam dunk choices, its kind of bad to then turn around and call someone else a homer.
Not saying that he isn't player of the year, honestly haven't watched enough to give a greatly informed opinion. Just I don't often find cases where there is one person or player that is so clearly up and above any other options. You do find them but when the person expressing that opinion is a fan of that team, its a bit cloudy :)
Here are the stats, instead of just claiming someone is bias and acting like that matters, here are the cold, hard facts.
(PPG, APG, 3P&, RPG, BPG, SPG)
Vasquez:
19.6 6.3 .382 4.6 0.3 1.6
Scheyer:
18.9 5.2 .399 3.5 0.2 1.6
Delaney:
20.9 4.2 .320 3.6 0.1 1.2
im far from a Maryland fan, but he was the only logical choice for ACC POY
I'm sorry but in terms of pure numbers--that doesn't look like a "slam dunk" choice to me. 0.7 ppg, 1.1 rpg, and 1.1 apg and .1 bpg (Vasquez over Scheyer) doesn't make it "clear cut" or "slam dunk". It makes it a tough choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Plus, Delaney beat Vasquez/Scheyer in ppg by 1.3/2.0 respectively. He had to be in the conversation.
Then there's the argument (that is valid) that Scheyer split stats with two of the better players in the ACC in Singler/Smith. If you took Scheyer and put him on MD or VT, does he get the #'s that he had a Duke, or does he get better since more of the shots/opportunities would go to him? It's a valid question. Some people say yes, others no. That had to weigh in on the voting...which means it's not a "slam dunk".
Overall, I'm saying it's just a tough choice between the 3. Vasquez does indeed deserve it, but it's not a no-brainer. I'm not a huge fan of arguing over who is/isn't POY as it doesn't mean anything ultimately--basketball's a team game, people remember titles/championships more than POY's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoeburnCane
thats absurd
that is NOT a valid argument at all. Smith and Singler make it easier for Scheyer to get open shots and better opportunities to score, thats facts.
when a team relies on one player as much as UM does, it makes it easier for other teams to develop ways to stop him, because as we've found it, stop Vasquez and Maryland is easily beatable.
when Player A leads the other players in a POY race in every stat category but one, how is it not the obvious choice?
No, that's your opinion. Just like the converse is my opinion. It may open up the court for Scheyer, but they take shots away from him that he would otherwise take and possibly make. His stats could look better if he had 2-3 more ppg that Singler/Smith pull away from him in the context of Duke's offense.Quote:
thats absurd
that is NOT a valid argument at all. Smith and Singler make it easier for Scheyer to get open shots and better opportunities to score, thats facts.
When it's by slim margins, as it is. Your numbers don't show a guy blowing out the other two guys in stats, it shows slim margins on average. Plus, per your #'s...he leads in apg/rpg/bpg, not every category. Delaney leads in ppg, Scheyer in 3pt %, and Vasquez/Scheyer are equal in steals/game.Quote:
when Player A leads the other players in a POY race in every stat category but one, how is it not the obvious choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
I'm kind of confused. This is the argument was used in comments about all-lpd players earlier, and then it was one way, now its another :)
Its as always, clouded :)
Show the stats in ACC play only and it's a large spread. Just like the LPD Rock, Hubbard>Vanover, Vasquez>Scheyer.
Vasqeuz: 22.1 ppg, 44.2% fg, 6.7 apg, 39.8% 3pt fg
Scheyer: 18.7 ppg, 4.8 apg, 36.6% 3pt fg
Scheyer's fg% isn't listed on the ACC site for in conference because he's not in the top ten. Somebody lock this thread, or better yet leave it open. I'm rarely 100% right on something but this is it. Continue harping on Scheyer's skills if you wish Cane. Maybe Rock can chime in and tell us Vanover is better than Hubbard because he shoots 35 times a game. You see Rock, the difference is Vasquez actually shoots like 45% from the field. That is considered solid, by your logic Delaney should have won the award. He's not in the top ten in fg% either, if you shoot enough you will score. To Delaney's credit he gets fouled a ton going to the basket but anybody who shoots under 40% in ACC shouldn't be considered for POY.
In the words of the Mexican maid from Family Guy...."No....n-no....".Quote:
I'm rarely 100% right on something but this is it.
Compare those stats to the overall stats, and all what you posted means is that Scheyer stayed steady throughout the season w/his numbers and Vasquez played better when ACC play came around (as did the whole MD team).
Once again--I'm not harping on Scheyer. You are. I said all 3 guys were deserving to be in the conversation and...read carefully, use that PV edumacation...that Vasquez deserved the honor. I'm facking agreeing with you that Vasquez deserved it, and you can't let it rest that I have the opinion (along with plenty of other people) that all 3 guys were in the conversation at least--which is true. And you wonder why I've told you before that you with your MD bias is just as bad as someone with their "state of North Carolina" bias that you whine about on here each and every year. You proved it again.
The vote tally was:
Vasquez - 39
Scheyer - 12
Delaney - 2
...which I have no problems with at all. BUT--Vasquez didn't get every vote. That would have been the perverbial "slam dunk" you spoke of to start things off. He got the clear majority that he deserved, sure. However, some people out there actually voted for the other two guys, meaning they were at least (get this) in the conversation...which is all I said to begin with.
Getting 74% of the vote isnt a slam dunk choice?
i think every President would disagree
Then we disagree on semantics. Big whoop. I still haven't said anything out of the way in this thread that I couldn't back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
well, except claiming someone's whole argument is worthless because they happen to be a fan, i guess you are right.
but getting 75% of the vote, and putting up the stats that GV did in the ACC, its a slam dunk choice
If you have to keep telling yourself that your opinion is 100% right, sounds like you got a problem :)
And if you keep repeating yourself without any facts, or statistics, sounds like you have a problem admitting being wrong.
50%=Even, a toss up.
51%=A Majority
75%, 3/4=The obvious choice
Oh lord no, I can admit being wrong. Do it quite often. Just don't think that its a slam dunk choice, not when numbers are close across the board.
By the PVFan logic, when of course its not a team he supports, Vasquez shot 21 times tonight, and his team lost, and its easy to get 17 points when you shoot 21 times, and etc etc etc
Of course this time, he was facing triple-teams and was what the entire focus was on stopping since its a team he supports
Here's the problem, the guy probably is the best player in the league. No problem with that, but a big problem with the inability for anybody to have a different opinion when its counter to your favorite team.
If someone has watched Kentucky all year, you could make an argument for Wall or Cousins to be player of the year. Heck you could probably make a good argument for Paterson being the most valuable player. If you watched it today, Cousins wouldn't be in the argument. If you watched them lose earlier this year, you would swear that Dockett was the best player in the league. You had Smith being by far the best player on UT, they boot him off, you think they are dead, yet they still battle and win. It's the same type argument, there are seldom slam dunks. Maybe a players system makes them better, if you watch them every game and someone else a few games, you probably can see the little things they do or if you're against the other team, you see one of their players have a bad game and write them off.
One of the worst things that a lot of us do on here, myself included at times, is taking off our respective glasses and seeing that just because we think something, doesn't make it a slam dunk.
Being a Clintwood fan, going football-wise, I could honestly state that if someone seen Clintwood one game or two, or even a few, they would have thought that a player like Bevel didn't have the year this year that he had last year. Of course last year, he also had another guy on the line like Hull. Being there and seeing what he faced game-in, game-out, I can realize he was better this year. Same idea and I do understand the argument why someone could think he wasn't as good but there is no way to put numbers that make it better. We love to crunch numbers, but we all twist them around to pick the way we want. What is the saying, tell me what numbers you want, I'll find a way to make them fit what you need. Creative accounting, and it works with players.
Again, the guy is probably the POY and it may be a clear choice but when someone who is a fan of the team is the one talking about something being a slam dunk choice, it kind of rings hollow.
It's just dumb, he played awful tonight. It's a regular season award, he was hands down the best player in the regular season. You can find posts on here where I said PV was second in the LPD in football and CW was 1 due to their head to head win. I just use common sense, something that you and Cane simply can't do.
how are they not using common sense when all that they have said is that the other two players in question were also good choices for the award? It could have went all 3 ways. IMHO the deserving player won the award, and i would have been surprised if vasquez didnt win. SURPRISED, not SHOCKED. i dont see the argument here, ive read this thread at least 10 times and im not finding the argument, they both agree that your player should have won the award but that it was close. If im ina pass punt kick competition, and i throw the ball 62 yards, punt 59 yards, kick 45 yards and you throw 63 punt 61, and kick 47 thats not that big of a difference. the stats were close.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
and in closing i want to say grats vasquez YOU DESERVED IT
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Thats the argument I tried to make, that when there is 2 or 3 players who are really close, personal favorites should not make one a slam dunk choice and the others horrible if it went the other way.
Its kind of logical that when someone is a fan of a team, and there are a couple of equal or nearly equal choices, they are going to be jaded enough to see theirs as the best most of the time.
Keep thinking that Rock. I guess having over 70% of the people who follow this thing religously agreeing with me isn't enough? If it was close I would say you could pick either one, it wasn't. Maybe by next football season you'll finally come to realize that I don't hate Vanover, and I could see picking him over Hubbard, that was close. This is not.
that doesnt ness. have to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0cketer
just because you know people that cant put their rose glasses away, doesnt mean every person is like that.
what you are saying is that people are always bias and if their favorite team is involved, their opinion should somehow mean less.
and thats simply not true.
i know many many people, including some forum members on here, that can discuss their favorite team in realistic terms, so why is it so out of the ordinary to believe that maybe, even if he plays on a favorite team, that he is the obvious slam dunk choice?
Winning 75% of the vote=A slam dunk choice
winning 75% of the vote is a slam dunk win. doesnt necessarily mean he is the slam dunk choice though. : ) the stats were close spread out but he was better in ACC games. im a fan of the kid, love his passion, love his ability, but like i said i wouldnt have been totally shocked if any of the guys had won it and ive watched them all play many many times. im happy with the decision.