Hot Stove: UNC Basketball

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 27K
  • UNC Sports 
Somebody brought up Ingram as an example of HD not “developing” players. Something about how HI was FOY for Stanford and then how (paraphrasing) he didn’t improve at UNC. I’m glad they brought up a specific example. So let’s crunch those numbers. these are HI’s stats:
Freshman at Stanford: FG - 39%; 3pt - 31%; RPG - 6.7
Sophomore at Stanford: FG - 40%; 3pt - 32%; RPG - 5.8 (a regression on the boards)
Junior at Carolina: FG - 43%; 3pt - 39%; RPG - 8.8 (tremendous improvement, and that was with rebounding machine Bacot on the floor with him).

So, the numbers PROVE Harrison Ingram progressed, got better and DEVELOPED under HD at UNC.

Now, would anybody want to do the research on EC’s numbers from frosh to soph?
 
Centerpiece said:
Somebody brought up Ingram as an example of HD not “developing” players. Something about how HI was FOY for Stanford and then how (paraphrasing) he didn’t improve at UNC. I’m glad they brought up a specific example. So let’s crunch those numbers. these are HI’s stats:
Freshman at Stanford: FG - 39%; 3pt - 31%; RPG - 6.7
Sophomore at Stanford: FG - 40%; 3pt - 32%; RPG - 5.8 (a regression on the boards)
Junior at Carolina: FG - 43%; 3pt - 39%; RPG - 8.8 (tremendous improvement, and that was with rebounding machine Bacot on the floor with him).

So, the numbers PROVE Harrison Ingram progressed, got better and DEVELOPED under HD at UNC.

Now, would anybody want to do the research on EC’s numbers from frosh to soph?
Click to expand...
Great analysis. How does one factor in surrounding players and their gravity? And, how does it prove he progressed? Could it be that he was the defenses third focal point, instead of their first (while at Stanford)?
 
GeeWhy said:
Here's your link - 👀
Click to expand...
Do you recall a poster on IC, I believe Nutz.

Anytime I read something weird from him I had an urge to respond with That's Nutz.

For some reason I get that same urge to respond to many of your post with Gee Why? Sorry, I'll try to control myself. 😁
 
stankeylegjones said:
Great analysis. How does one factor in surrounding players and their gravity? And, how does it prove he progressed? Could it be that he was the defenses third focal point, instead of their first (while at Stanford)?
Click to expand...
He was surrounded by a rebounding machine in Bacot, yet HI improved his RBG numbers astoundingly. Care to explain that one?
 
Centerpiece said:
Somebody brought up Ingram as an example of HD not “developing” players. Something about how HI was FOY for Stanford and then how (paraphrasing) he didn’t improve at UNC. I’m glad they brought up a specific example. So let’s crunch those numbers. these are HI’s stats:
Freshman at Stanford: FG - 39%; 3pt - 31%; RPG - 6.7
Sophomore at Stanford: FG - 40%; 3pt - 32%; RPG - 5.8 (a regression on the boards)
Junior at Carolina: FG - 43%; 3pt - 39%; RPG - 8.8 (tremendous improvement, and that was with rebounding machine Bacot on the floor with him).

So, the numbers PROVE Harrison Ingram progressed, got better and DEVELOPED under HD at UNC.

Now, would anybody want to do the research on EC’s numbers from frosh to soph?
Click to expand...
They picked a very bad example.
 
Centerpiece said:
He was surrounded by a rebounding machine in Bacot, yet HI improved his RBG numbers astoundingly. Care to explain that one?
Click to expand...
Not sure. Could be that Bacot's presence drew focus leaving him more open/free to rebound - hence my comment about factoring in the players around him at UNC vs Stanford. Also, I would imagine rebounding is a skill that is less about development and more about "want to," at least compared to shooting, playing defense, etc. But idk. By the way, didn't Bacot's number of rebounds drop last year compared to his previous years? (I thought I remember hearing that last year.) And, what in your opinion, lead to HI's numbers dropping after his freshman year?

Once again, you can argue that HD/staff truly do develop their players at the same level as a Kelvin Sampson, or John Scheyer, Oats, or Cal, but if players/agents don't think you can then that is what matters. Out of curiosity, can you find anyone that says HD/staff do develop their players?
 
Somebody also mentioned Bacot as another example of HD not “developing” players.
So let’s take a look:
Freshman Under Roy: 9.6 PPG; 8.3 rpg; FT% 64%
By the time he was a senior: 16 PPG; 10+ rpg: FT% 67
And he was a third team AA in the AP, SN and USBA
A double double machine.

I guess they picked another bad example.

Has anyone bothered to check EC’s numbers?
 
Ok, I’ll do EC:
Pts. Fg%. Asst. FT%. 3pt%
Fr. 7.3. .417. 4.1. .64. .189
So. 9.4. .445. 6.2. .67. .337

Looks like some “development” there…
 
Centerpiece said:
Somebody also mentioned Bacot as another example of HD not “developing” players.
So let’s take a look:
Freshman Under Roy: 9.6 PPG; 8.3 rpg; FT% 64%
By the time he was a senior: 16 PPG; 10+ rpg: FT% 67
And he was a third team AA in the AP, SN and USBA
A double double machine.

I guess they picked another bad example.

Has anyone bothered to check EC’s numbers?
Click to expand...
I think it's more that you didn't read what was written. I said Bacot's last three seasons were very similar in stats. Do you disagree? You seem to have the stats up, post them to see if my eyes test was off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top