McDermott Top Offensive Player of Century; Adding Creighton & Other Greats to Game

In the basketball board game I picked the 42 teams (7 teams for 6 conferences) who made the Final 4 or finished in the top 5 of www.kenpom.com. However, when I decided to round out each conference with an 8th team based on the greatest team on a school not represented, I missed one thing that should have jumped out at me years ago in www.valueaddbasketball. Here are the playing cards for the six new teams.

Doug McDermott is by far the best offensive college basketball player of the century.

While there are many great one and dones, I realized only two players were ever one of the best five offensive players in the country more than once (see list of the top 5 offensive players every year - including Travis Diener, Steve Novak and Jimmy Butler).

In 2005, Duke's JJ Redick was the third best offensive player in basketball, and in 2006 he improved to be the best offensive basketball. Truly amazing, and yet ...

In 2012 and 2013 in the Missouri Valley Conference McDermott was the third best offensive player in the country (keep in mind Value Add adjusts for competition, so this means it is estimated he would have ranked as the third best offensive player whether he played in the ACC, old Big East, Big Ten etc.

Only four players ranked in the top 5 overall players (Offense, defense and position adjustment); Boston College's Troy Bell in 2002 and 2003, Duke's Shelden Williams in 2004 and 2005, Davidson's Stephen Curry in 2007 and 2008 and Utah's Delon Wright in 2013 and 2014. You may assume Steph would have made the offensive list but not the overall - but actually he played in a stretch of years where the guards were so roughed up that their actual numbers were much lower than front line players - and it is actually the position adjustment that made it clear he was a top five player both years.

Adding the Teams of these Great Players to the Game

As for the game, I am adding McDermott's Creighton team to the Big East, Curry's Davidson team to the "SEC," and Wright's Utah team to the Pac-12. I did toy with adding Kawhi Leonard's San Diego State team instead of Utah since Kawhi is the greater NBA player in the headlines and both teams wee equal as No. 8 at www.kenpom.com and both losing to the eventual national champ in the Sweet 16 (UConn and Duke). However, at the college level Kawhi's best year was 11th ranked, and Wright was the only player to finish in the top two twice - so I went with him and did not he had triple doubles a few times after taking over the starting position for the Grizzlies this year.

To fill out the other conferences with a great player, I went with Reggie Evan's Iowa team from the beginning of the Century as the 8th team in the Big East, Chris Paul's Wake Forest team for the ACC and Michael Beasley's K-State team for the Big 12.

McDermott's Legacy

For the debut of the realigned Big East in 2014, McDermott was even better as the best offensive player in the country. More importantly for the Big East, he was selected as the National Player of the Year by all six major selection groups.

Marquette and the rest of the Big East owe the McDermott's a lot for that 2014 debut season - when people still weren't sure about the Big East after alignment. Obviously everyone owes Villanova for the two national titles, but having the greatest offensive player of the Century for a debut season went a long way.

Top 5 Offensive Players Each Season 2002 to 2019

Off rank	Player	Team	Overall Rank	Year
1	Henry Domercant	Eastern Illinois	9	2002
2	Reece Gaines	Louisville	2	2002
3	Steve Logan	Cincinnati	1	2002
4	Rasual Butler	La Salle	5	2002
5	Chris Davis	North Texas	47	2002
1	Adam Hess	William & Mary	9	2003
2	Chris Williams	Ball St.	11	2003
3	Troy Bell	Boston College	3	2003
4	Mike Sweetney	Georgetown	1	2003
5	Brett Blizzard	North Carolina Wilmington	8	2003
1	Devin Harris	Wisconsin	1	2004
2	Travis Diener	Marquette	7	2004
3	Luke Jackson	Oregon	2	2004
4	Chris Paul	Wake Forest	3	2004
5	Ryan Gomes	Providence	4	2004
1	Taylor Coppenrath	Vermont	8	2005
2	Andrew Bogut	Utah	1	2005
3	JJ Redick	Duke	6	2005
4	John Lucas	Oklahoma St.	32	2005
5	Spencer Nelson	Utah St.	2	2005
1	JJ Redick	Duke	2	2006
2	Adam Morrison	Gonzaga	6	2006
3	Brandon Roy	Washington	4	2006
4	Quincy Douby	Rutgers	5	2006
5	Steve Novak	Marquette	17	2006
1	Kevin Durant	Texas	1	2007
2	Jared Dudley	Boston College	3	2007
3	Drew Neitzel	Michigan St.	6	2007
4	Jaycee Carroll	Utah St.	28	2007
5	Adam Haluska	Iowa	8	2007
1	Tyler Hansbrough	North Carolina	3	2008
2	Michael Beasley	Kansas St.	1	2008
3	Maarty Leunen	Oregon	6	2008
4	Kevin Love	UCLA	2	2008
5	Ryan Anderson	California	8	2008
1	Ty Lawson	North Carolina	1	2009
2	Aaron Jackson	Duquesne	37	2009
3	Jerome Randle	California	16	2009
4	Blake Griffin	Oklahoma	2	2009
5	DeJuan Blair	Pittsburgh	3	2009
1	Jon Scheyer	Duke	1	2010
2	James Anderson	Oklahoma St.	10	2010
3	Jimmy Butler	Marquette	5	2010
4	Kyle Singler	Duke	2	2010
5	Quincy Pondexter	Washington	6	2010
1	Jordan Taylor	Wisconsin	1	2011
2	Kemba Walker	Connecticut	2	2011
3	Charles Jenkins	Hofstra	11	2011
4	Reggie Jackson	Boston College	16	2011
5	Noah Dahlman	Wofford	19	2011
1	Kevin Jones	West Virginia	4	2012
2	Anthony Davis	Kentucky	1	2012
3	Doug McDermott	Creighton	17	2012
4	John Jenkins	Vanderbilt	13	2012
5	Damian Lillard	Weber St.	19	2012
1	Trey Burke	Michigan	1	2013
2	Erick Green	Virginia Tech	4	2013
3	Doug McDermott	Creighton	14	2013
4	Kyle Barone	Idaho	73	2013
5	Nate Wolters	South Dakota St.	10	2013
1	Doug McDermott	Creighton	7	2014
2	Billy Baron	Canisius	6	2014
3	Bryce Cotton	Providence	49	2014
4	Nik Stauskas	Michigan	44	2014
5	Joseph Young	Oregon	24	2014
1	Frank Kaminsky	Wisconsin	3	2015
2	Jerian Grant	Notre Dame	5	2015
3	Delon Wright	Utah	1	2015
4	Aaron White	Iowa	6	2015
5	Kevin Yogi	Indiana	70	2015
1	Quinton Hooker	North Dakota	5	2016
3	Buddy Hield	Oklahoma	2	2016
4	Anthony Barber	North Carolina St.	20	2016
5	Kay Felder	Oakland	15	2016
1	Mike Daum	South Dakota St.	29	2017
2	Dallas Moore	North Florida	71	2017
3	Frank Mason	Kansas	2	2017
4	Luke Kennard	Duke	7	2017
5	Monte Morris	Iowa St.	4	2017
1	Nick Masterson	Kennesaw St.	191	2018
2	Trae Young	Oklahoma	6	2018
3	Jeff Roberson	Vanderbilt	16	2018
4	Yante Maten	Georgia	3	2018
5	Jordan Howard	Central Arkansas	109	2018
1	Zion Williamson	Duke	1	2019
2	Cassius Winston	Michigan St.	4	2019
3	CJ Massinburg	Buffalo	6	2019
4	Ja Morant	Murray St.	8	2019
5	Sam Merrill	Utah St.	18	2019

Villanova 2018 Nudges Louisville 2013 to Start 2-0 in Simulation; Syracuse 2003 Leads ACC

Carmelo Anthony (22 ppg) led Syracuse 2003 to a buzzer beater win over Duke and 1st place in my simulated "ACC" replay but Villanova's 2018 Mikal Bridges (28.5, 8.0 rebound) has been even better as Nova nudged Louisville 2013 to take first in the Big East.

Obviously it is only a 2-game sample and while I believe the player cards in the free game are now very accurate, dice lead to the same variations as you see in real games. In fact, in the first two games of my SEC play, Kentucky 2012, Florida 2006 and Auburn 2019 are all 2-0, but using the same player card for Sidarius Thornwell (who we still have nightmares about from the South Carolina tournament game a few years ago) scored 33 points against VCU after being held to 7 by Florida. Partly that is the result of tougher defensive match-ups, but part is just the dice from game to game - and likewise as awesome as Marquette fans saw both Bridges and 2002 Cincinnati great Steve Logan are, they will not keep their current 28.5 and 26.0 points per game over the course of several games.

With the disclaimer that it is only two games, here are Big East leaders in four categories followed by the stats for all Marquette players who played enough to have a card, followed by the standings and box scores from the seven games played so far.

Big East Scoring leaders (2 games)	Pts	Reb	Stl	Block
Bridges, Villanova 2018	28.5	8.0	0.0	2.0
Logan, Cincinnati 2002	26.0	2.5	1.5	0.0
Gordon, Connecticut 2004	23.5	2.0	1.0	0.5
Green, Georgetown 2007	21.5	5.0	1.5	2.0
Smith, Louisville 2013	19.5	5.0	2.5	1.0
Big East Rebound leaders (2 games)	Pts	Reb	Stl	Block
Okafor, Connecticut 2004	17.5	16.5	1.5	0.5
Dieng, Louisville 2013	7.0	10.0	0.0	0.5
Hibbert, Georgetown 2007	11.0	9.5	0.0	5.0
Bridges, Villanova 2018	28.5	8.0	0.0	2.0
Spellman, Villanova 2018	10.0	7.5	2.0	0.0
Davis, Cincinnati 2002	4.5	7.5	1.5	0.0
Big East Steals leaders (2 games)	Pts	Reb	Stl	Block
Siva, Louisville 2013	19.0	1.5	4.5	0.0
Wade, Marquette 2003	14.5	6.0	3.5	0.5
McElroy, Cincinnati 2002	10.5	3.0	3.5	0.5
Brown T, Connecticut 2004	2.5	1.5	3.5	0.5
Brunson, Villanova 2018	15.5	0.0	3.5	0.5
Big East Blocks leaders (2 games)	Pts	Reb	Stl	Block
Hibbert, Georgetown 2007	11.0	9.5	0.0	5.0
Williams, Connecticut 2004	1.5	0.0	1.0	2.5
Bridges, Villanova 2018	28.5	8.0	0.0	2.0
Green, Georgetown 2007	21.5	5.0	1.5	2.0
Boone, Connecticut 2004	5.5	5.0	0.0	2.0
Other Marquette 2003	Pts	Reb	Stl	Block
Jackson, Marquette 2003	15.5	6.0	0.0	0.0
Diener, Marquette 2003	14.5	2.5	1.0	0.0
Novak, Marquette 2003	5.5	4.0	0.0	0.0
Townsend, Marquette 2003	4.0	1.0	1.5	1.0
Merritt, Marquette 2003	3.8	4.0	0.0	0.0
Chapman, Marquette 2003	3.5	0.0	0.0	0.0
Grimm, Marquette 2003	2.5	1.5	0.0	0.0
Bradley, Marquette 2003	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Here are the standings. After the 6-game round robin the tie breaker will be point differential and teh top two make my tournament, but 2nd place team must win two play-in games (like being in the round of 32 to start) while the champ goes right to the Elite 8. I would say Marquette's road is a little uphill due to a very weak defense and the fact that they have not played and of the three defending national champs, but as we all know from 2003 MU's fire power gives them a shot even against a No. 1. This is the same setup for my Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12 and SEC, but because the addition of Syracuse 2003 gives the ACC five national champs, I am giving them the two extra spots for their 3rd and 4th place team in the preliminary round of my tournament.

Just updated the standings after McDermott scored another 32 points against UConn to up his mark to a national best 31.5 ppg, but UConn dominated 86-61 to move into second place due to a 12-point average margin of victory.

Big East (past & present)	W	L	Pts	PtsAll	Pt Dif
Villanova 2018	2	0	83	67	16.0
Connecticut 2004	2	1	73	61	12.0
Marquette 2003	2	1	73	73	0.0
Louisville 2013	1	1	74	69	5.0
Georgetown 2007	1	1	76	71	5.0
Cincinnati 2002	1	1	71	75	-4.0
Creighton	0	2	72	85	-13.0
Butler 2010	0	2	54	80	-26.0

Finally these box scores would be a little more neat of I did not include the info to the left, but it is helpful when others play the game. It shows the position at which I play each player and which of the last 44 possessions I have them on the court when playing the game. For example, Steve Novak has the best three-point card and the best free throw card of all players on all 42 teams, but the card shows he can play 14 of the last 44 possessions, so I play him at the end in possessions 14-1 (1 is the final). Todd Townsend is actually the workhorse, so he plays from the 1st possession (44) down to when Novak enters (so "44-15"). Here are the instructions of you want to try any matchups yourself, and it links to cards for all 353 teams from 2019 if anyone is curious about current.

		Villanova 2018			77
		Louisville 2013			73
G-F	Poss	Villanova 2018	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	41-1	Brunson	13	0	4	1
2	37-1	DiVincenzo	18	1	4	1
3	35-1	Paschall	3	1	3	0
4	42-1	Bridges	31	5	0	1
5	35-1	Spellman	6	5	0	0
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
			0	0	0	0
1	44-42	Gillespie	3	0	0	0
2,3,4	44-38,37-28,27-25	Booth	3	2	0	0
5	44-36	Cosby-Roundtree	0	2	0	0
		Total	77	16	11	3
G-F	Poss	Louisville 2013	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	40-1	Siva	25	2	6	0
2	44-41,34-1	Smith	15	7	3	1
3	38-35,31-1	Hancock	17	4	1	0
4	31-1	Dieng	3	9	0	1
5	30-1	Behanan	4	5	0	0
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
1,2,3	44-41, 40,35, 34-32	Ware	0	2	0	2
3	44-39	Van Treese	3	0	0	0
4.3	44-32,31-24	Blackshear	0	4	0	0
5	44-31	Harrell	6	2	0	0
		Total	73	35	10	4
		Connecticut 2004			71
		Butler 2010			47
G-F	Poss	Connecticut 2004	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	39-1	Brown T	5	2	6	1
2	all	Gordon	23	2	0	1
3	30-1	Brown D	0	4	0	0
4	24-1	Boone	5	5	0	4
5	38-1	Okafor	19	12	3	1
		Bench
1	44-40	Williams	3	0	0	5
3	44-31	Villanueva	5	2	0	2
4	44-25	Anderson	8	4	0	0
5	44-40	Armstrong	3	7	0	0
5	39 - s	Tooles	0	1	0	0
		Total	71	39	9	14
G-F	Poss	Butler 2010	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	44-39,34-1	Mack	7	0	0	1
2	38-1	Nored	7	4	4	0
3	39-1	Veasley	14	3	1	0
4	31-1	Howard	12	2	0	0
5	43-1	Hayward	7	5	1	0
		Bench
2,1			0	0	0	0
3	44-39,38-35	Vanzant	0	0	2	0
4	44-40	Butcher	0	0	0	0
4	44-32	Hahn	0	1	0	0
5	44	Jukes	0	1	0	0
		Total	47	16	8	1
		Cincinnati 2002			79
		Georgetown 2007			77
G-F	Poss	Cincinnati 2002	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	all	Logan	27	1	3	0
2	39-1	McElroy	18	3	0	1
3	44-30,20-1	Davis	6	4	3	0
4	35-1	Stokes	6	7	0	0
5	29-1	Little	10	6	0	0
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
			0	0	0	0
2	44-40	Barker	0	1	0	0
4	44-36	Williams	7	2	0	0
5,3	44-30, 29-1	Maxiell	5	6	2	2
		Total	79	30	8	3
G-F	Poss	Georgetown 2007	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	42-1	Wallace	12	4	0	0
2	44-43, 41-1	Sapp	13	1	1	0
3	all	Green	13	5	0	0
4	32-1	Summers	23	2	1	0
5	32-1	Hibbert	12	8	0	4
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
1,2	44-43, 42	Macklin	0	0	0	0
4	44-33	Ewing	0	2	0	2
4	44-38	Rivers	0	1	0	0
5	37-33	Egerson	4	1	0	0
		Total	77	24	2	6
		Marquette 2003			73
		Cincinnati 2002			62
G-F	Poss	Marquette 2003	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	all	Diener	22	4	1	0
2	42-1	Wade	11	6	6	1
3	14-1	Novak	8	5	0	0
4	37-1	Merritt	12	11	0	0
5	36-1	Jackson	7	9	0	0
		Bench
1			0	0	0	0
4,5	44-43	Chapman	0	0	0	0
4	44-15	Townsend	8	1	3	2
5	44-38,37	Merritt	0	2	0	0
5	44-38	Grimm	5	2	0	0
		Total	73	40	10	3
G-F	Poss	Cincinnati 2002	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	all	Logan	25	4	0	0
2	39-1	McElroy	3	3	7	0
3	44-30,20-1	Davis	3	11	0	0
4	35-1	Stokes	11	4	1	0
5	29-1	Little	3	8	1	3
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
			0	0	0	0
2	44-40	Barker	0	1	0	0
4	44-36	Williams	4	1	0	0
5,3	44-30, 29-1	Maxiell	13	4	0	0
		Total	62	36	9	3
		Marquette 2003			62
		Georgetown 2007			74
G-F	Poss	Marquette 2003	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	all	Diener	7	1	1	0
2	42-1	Wade	18	6	1	0
3	14-1	Novak	3	3	0	0
4	37-1	Merritt	3	2	0	0
5	36-1	Jackson	24	3	0	0
		Bench
1			0	0	0	0
4,5	44-43	Chapman	7	0	0	0
4	44-15	Townsend	0	1	0	0
5	44-38,37	Merritt	0	1	0	0
5	44-38	Grimm	0	1	0	0
		Total	62	18	2	0
G-F	Poss	Georgetown 2007	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	42-1	Wallace	16	5	0	0
2	44-43, 41-1	Sapp	7	1	3	0
3	all	Green	30	5	3	4
4	32-1	Summers	3	4	0	0
5	32-1	Hibbert	10	11	0	6
		Bench
			0	3	0	0
1,2	44-43, 42	Macklin	3	6	0	2
4	44-33	Ewing	0	1	0	0
4	44-38	Rivers	3	1	0	0
5	37-33	Egerson	3	1	0	0
		Total	75	38	6	12
		Villanova 2018			89
		Butler 2010			60
G-F	Poss	Villanova 2018	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	41-1	Brunson	18	0	3	0
2	37-1	DiVincenzo	13	4	0	0
3	35-1	Paschall	14	3	0	0
4	42-1	Bridges	26	11	0	3
5	35-1	Spellman	14	10	4	0
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
			0	0	0	0
1	44-42	Gillespie	0	0	0	0
2,3,4	44-38,37-28,27-25	Booth	0	1	3	0
5	44-36	Cosby-Roundtree	4	1	0	0
		Total	89	30	10	3
G-F	Poss	Butler 2010	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	44-39,34-1	Mack	8	5	0	0
2	38-1	Nored	17	1	1	1
3	39-1	Veasley	3	3	0	0
4	31-1	Howard	20	8	0	0
5	43-1	Hayward	12	5	0	1
		Bench
2,1			0	0	0	0
3	44-39,38-35	Vanzant	0	2	2	0
4	44-40	Butcher	0	0	0	0
4	44-32	Hahn	0	1	0	0
5	44	Jukes	0	1	0	0
		Total	60	26	3	2
		Connecticut 2004			61
		Louisville 2013			74
G-F	Poss	Connecticut 2004	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	39-1	Brown T	0	1	1	0
2	all	Gordon	24	2	2	0
3	30-1	Brown D	3	4	1	0
4	24-1	Boone	6	5	0	0
5	38-1	Okafor	16	21	0	0
		Bench
1	44-40	Williams	0	0	2	0
3	44-31	Villanueva	0	0	0	0
4	44-25	Anderson	12	1	3	0
5	44-40	Armstrong	0	1	2	0
5	39 - s	Tooles	0	1	0	0
		Total	61	36	11	0
G-F	Poss	Louisville 2013	Pts	Reb	Stls	Blks
1	40-1	Siva	13	1	3	0
2	44-41,34-1	Smith	24	3	2	1
3	38-35,31-1	Hancock	17	6	3	0
4	31-1	Dieng	11	11	0	0
5	30-1	Behanan	4	3	1	1
		Bench
			0	0	0	0
1,2,3	44-41, 40,35, 34-32	Ware	0	0	2	0
3	44-39	Van Treese	0	1	2	0
4.3	44-32,31-24	Blackshear	4	1	2	0
5	44-31	Harrell	1	3	2	0
		Total	74	29	17	2

dddddd

Nothing for #mubb, but we do close out the Sports Movie Bracket

Breathe, there is absolutely nothing to talk about when it comes to #mubb, so we're going to take advantage of the opportunity to spend 90 minutes closing out the Sports Movie Bracket. We name a champion, but not without controversy and debate along the way. Let us know if you think we got it right or wrong (@joemccann3 @mooof23). Enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/mz344s/scrambledeggs_edit_051919.mp3

Results of Marquette 2003 vs. Georgetown 2007 and Cincy 2002; Nova 2018 Dominates

The scoresheet below was supposed to be of the Georgetown 2007 vs. Marquette 2003 team which brought back so many memories of going to my first Marquette game in 20 years. However, let's just say I'd forgotten just how bad our Final Four team's defense was at keeping opponents away from the hoop and off the glass and Roy Hibbert took full advantage. However, MU did manage to survive the second game despite 24 points by Cincinnati's Steve Logan and Coach Huggins great defense, so here are the early standings of my replay and the full game scoresheet further down.

Of course, Cincy, Butler and MU were really not in the Big East yet and Louisville has since left, but I've shuffled to make six 7-team conferences.

Big East	Won	Lost	Scored	Allowed
Villanova 2018	1	0	89	60
Louisville 2013	1	0	74	61
Georgetown 2007	1	0	74	62
Marquette 2003	1	1	135	136
Cincinnati 2002	0	1	62	73
UConn 2004	0	1	61	74
Butler 2010	0	1	60	89

(I am playing Syracuse 2003 and Pitt in the ACC, keeping all 6 conferences with 7 teams)

I never went to the Bradley Center until March 1, 2008, and decided if I was going to pay for a trip form Alabama I was buying seats three rows behind Tom Crean to see Georgetown - a year off a Final Four - come to town. It was my first time in the lower bowl of a college game, and I was stunned at how impossible the it seemed to even complete a pass against the speed and length you could only appreciate from this close to the action.

The heart break of fellow Alabama native Jonathan Wallace fouled by Dominic James on a 3-pointers in the final second to send the game into overtime where the Hoyas won was still exciting enough to start me on my 11 year streak of season tickets and making all March Madness games. I thought starting my Value Add Basketball game Big East play with the 2007 Georgetown team against the team that started making me watch Marquette on TV again - the 2003 Marquette seemed fitting.

Wallace even repeated being fouled on a three and hitting them all. Let's move on from that game and instead present the scoresheet from Marquette's second game.

Until late, it looked similar to the five games played between the two teams during Dwyane Wade's two years - during which the average score was Marquette 70, Cincinnati 67 as MU ended the Bearcats 20-game winning street as one of three wins.

Here is the scoresheet Cincinnati and the running score for the final 6:14 and 10 possessions of the first half, and then possessions 33 to 22 to start the second half. The numbers to the left show which possessions each player will play unless someone fouls out or a strategic change is made. The 5 "starters" are really "finishers," so Logan (who I ranked as the best player in 2002) can play "all" 44 possessions we play in the game, while McElroy can play possessions 39-1 (his card lets him play 39 possessions without being tired). You can see on the backups, Barker is down to play possessions "44-40." We start the game assuming all players have played about 11 of the first 22 possessions and the score is tied 22, so a player with a 39 really averaged 50 possessions that year, etc.

While we show total points for each player, we only record "contested" rebounds each player gets - since every other possession the rebound simply goes to the defense to keep the game moving - but the cards give all players the ranges to average the correct number of rebounds overall by giving offensive players twice as good a chance as they would really have of getting a rebound every other possession.

You may notice I choose to "start/finish" Steve Novak even though that just means he plays the final 14 possessions (14 to 1).  This is not because I am judging him better than Townsend, which he was not yet as a freshman, but if MU is down late in the game I'd rather have him as the best 3-point shooter of all 42 great teams in the game, and if MU is holding a lead late, I'd rather have him as the best free throw shooter in the game. However, you will notice Townsend had 9 points, 2 steals and a blocked shot to help key the win.

Logan cut the lead to 66-62 on yet another poor defensive play by Marquette, but Cincinnati could get no closer as they missed five straight shots after grabbing 4 straight offensive rebounds as well as Wade stealing the ball twice on plays that would have otherwise been made 3-pointers (which we only know in the game because we roll all the dice at once).

Cincy then had to foul Diener who hit both, and Novak hit a three with 1:15 left and MU scored on its final possession to end on a 7-0 run.

In the other games:

I was curious if Louisville's insane defensive pressure or UConn's dominant big man play would win out, but in this game Louisville stole the ball on 7 of UConn's first 11 possessions I played and Dieng gave Louisville enough rebounding to prevent a comeback for the 74-61 win. Siva, Smith and Hancock all had 3 steals - more like 4 or 5 since we don't track the first third of the game through the 20-20 tie. Eight of 9 Cardinals had steals, and the only one who didn't was the games leading rebounder Dieng who won 6 contested rebounds to offset UConn's size inside. Behenan fouled out trying to guard Okafor and then Harrell game back in and came within one foul of fouling out as well, but Okafor hit his average 50% of free throws (1-10 on 20-sided die) with 7 of 14 from the line.

Villanova appears the most dominant team in the conference, but Butler hung around to stay within 58-48 with Bridges picking up his 4th foul. However, between then and the 6:05 mark Nova went on one of their crazy 17-4 runs with a 3-pointer by DiVincenzo, 3 by Spellman, Brunson dunk, Bridges rebound and score, Pascall 4-point play and another 3 by DiVincenzo. Bridges never fouled out and finished with 26 points with a game-high 6 contested rebounds (we don't include the half of the misses that just go to the defense or those in the first 22 possessions) and Brunson added 19. Hayward scored 15, Mack 17 and Howard 18 for Butler in the 89-60 blowout win.

Finally, Green was dominant for Georgetown, getting past Marquette's defense early and often for a game high 28 points and 4 blocked shots (really like 6 blocks over all 66 possessions). Roy Hibbert started hot by blocking Jackson's first three shots and grabbing a game-high 5 rebounds, however Jackson turned it on in the second half to finish with a game-high 22 points to help Marquette make the final reasonable at 74-62.

No surprisingly, Kentucky is 2-0 in my SEC conference, and I have not started the Big 12, Big Ten, ACC or Pac-12 seasons yet.

Would you rather have MU's defense - blind comparison

I've been surprised at the number of people who believe MU did not have a good defense in 2019, and turning it into one of the "unfair" attacks against Wojo. I lined up a comparison of Marquette's defense against a mystery team so you can do a blind test.

I know the table is not that easy to read, but the overall top number is Ken Pomeroy's master calculation - adjusting how many points are allowed per 100 trips adjusted for the opposing offenses.

Clearly from the outset MU was much better than the other team, and in fact the mystery team played in an era in which fewer points were scored, so MU was the 45th best defense in the land compared to a very mediocre 109th.

MU was elite on the most important stat, holding opponents to only 46 percent eFG% (effective Field Goal percentage, which gives teams and extra half  "shot made" for 3-pointers) - so Wojo had excellent defense. MU was also a very good defensive rebounding team at 81st in the country while the mystery team was one of the worst. MU was the better shot blocking team.

The only place the mystery team was better was at steals due to one player being very good at steals, though other than that both teams had very few steals (often the trade off when you shut down opponents' shooting like MU did this year or Wisconsin does many years).

So anyone going into a game would much rather have Wojo's excellent defense than the very poor defense of Team A. And Team A is ... (go below chart)

Category	Team A	MU
Adj. Efficiency	99.2 109	96.7 45	Team a much worse than MU at overall defense, adjusted for opponents.
Four Factors
Effective FG%:	47.3 75	46.3 18	MU much better at denying opponents shots.
Turnover %:	18.1 306	16.6 297	Both teams terrible at forcing turnovers, MU a few spots better.
Off. Reb. %:	34.3 251	26.1 81	MU way above average on defensive glass, while Team A much worse than average when they played.
FTA/FGA:	32.5 75	35.9 252	Only thing Team A better at is not fouling, and slightly better at steals.
Misc
3P%:	33.2 85	32.4 65	MU slightly better at denying 3-pointers.
2P%:	45.9 76	45.1 19	MU much better (19th) at stopping 2 pointers, though Team A played when 2-pt % much lower.
FT%:	69.2 146	67.9 38	The one we joke about - FT defense - teams shot terrible free throw percentage against MU :-)
Block%:	9.1 126	11.2 81	MU much better at blocking shots.
Steal%:	8.8 249	6.9 325	Both terrible at steals, though Team A better due to one player who was great at steals.

... the awful defensive unit of the 2003 Final Four Marquette team.

I realized just how bad that defense was when playing the game I invented with 42 great teams, and realizing how bad MU's 2003 defense was compared to other great teams and then realizing they were just bad compared to most major conference teams.

Obviously having the No. 2 offense in the country and the most dominant player in the tournament in Dwyane Wade covered up a very poor defensive team, but to those who keep pretending Wojo did not put a very good defensive unit on the floor are simply deniers.

Those who say watching Ja Morant, the likely No. 2 pick in the upcoming NBA draft, destroy MU's defense proves the former National Defensive Player of the Year Wojo is not a good defensive coach should go back and look at Kansas running a first half track meet against MU in the Final 4. Did that one game prove that MU 2003 really wasn't a great team and that the wins over three of the top 6 teams in the country culminating with the win over No. 1 Kentucky did not really mean anything.

If you are willing to look at facts, Wojo put the most improved defensive unit in the country on the floor last year, and this is a sign of good things to come.

Value Add Basketball Game: Marquette 2003 vs. Auburn 2019

We calculated and compiled these 42 great teams from the 21st Century, and set up this scoresheet to play games between them. The only other item you need is four dice. In this case the yellow 8-sided die of 3 indicates the small forward gets the ball, the roll of 32 on the two 6-sided dice in the middle column number is used to see if the defender stops the player in the 11-36 range, or if the player with the ball turns it over or dunks in the 41-66 range. Finally if nothing happens on those dice, then the 20-sided (green) die determines if the player with the ball can score or draw a shooting foul using the right column.

We added this video of how to set up the game to make sure it all made sense.

The following is Dwyane Wade's 2003 card, the more of an explanation under each column. Below that we show the other cards for the Marquette 2003 and Auburn 2019 Final Four teams to give my friends from both places the chance to play - but you can find those teams and 40 others on the link above. They are divided into seven great teams from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC, but great teams from other conferences were placed in one of the other conferences to set up a season.

The following is the team card and one possible line-up for Marquette 2003 - which puts Steve Novak into the starting line-up as the best 3-pointer shooter and free throw shooter on any of the 42 great teams in the game.

We filled in a score sheet with the Auburn 2019 Final Four team as the visitor and the 2003 Marquette Final Four team as the home team. The blue ink indicates items we would have written into the score sheet to start the game, as well as notes on when players would enter the game to avoid anyone becoming tired. We have steadily simplified the game without losing any of the key components, and we are finding it takes us 25 minutes to play a game.

The following is a starting line-up for Auburn. You could certainly play starters against starters to try to game, but the reserves on both teams and all 40 other great teams are available on the link at the top of this post.

Feedback is always welcome at pudnerjohn@gmail.com. Yes a few rough edges still and will continue to cleanup the goofy decimals etc.

A little bit of #mubb talk and a lot bit of sports movie talk

Well it's finally here, the first pod of the sports movie bracket but first we have some shade to throw at the #mubb social media team. The first 27 minutes of the pod we talk: Hauser transfer revisit, Zapruder MU videos, Wojo extension, and Jayce Johnson commit. Once that #mubb business is out of the way, we move to the heart of the early off season, the 76 team Sports Movie Bracket. We establish the ground rules and then dive in picking winners and losers in the play-in and opening round games. We have a good time recording, we hope you enjoy listening to it! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/em4vkr/scrambledeggs_edit_050819.mp3 The movie bracket was generated via S-Curve which in turn was generated by 3 key metrics: IMDB ranking, Rotten Tomatoes Fan Ranking, and Domestic Box Office adjusted to 2019. The movies were then slotted into the 76 team bracket with movement so that sequels don't face each other until the 3rd round and with the last 24 movies in participating in a 12 game play-in bracket.

 Below is the S-Curve:

 And here is the bracket itself:

Turnovers of the Non-Transfer Kind

I've given a lot of thought recently to Marquette & turnovers. I believe turnovers are a key to Marquette's 2019-20 success, not just on offense but also on defense. I'll acknowledge immediately that using Synergy, Paint Touches could probably do an even deeper dive, but I'm writing this to at least start the conversation. If anyone else wants to run with the idea, please do.

In 5 years under Steve Wojciechowski, Marquette's offense has been woeful in both offensive turnover rate & opponent steal percentage. The result of these turnovers is empty possessions at best & easy run-outs for the opponents at worst. Considering this has been an issue for 5 years, this seems like a system problem more than just a player problem.

 

Year	Off TO%	Nat. Rank	BE Rank	Off Stl%	Nat. Rank	BE Rank
2015	19.3	189	10	9.6	206	7
2016	20	292	9	9.5	277	7
2017	17.3	86	4	9.2	245	5
2018	17.3	99	7	8.3	121	5
2019	19.3	239	7	9.7	278	7

Looking at last year, a big part of the problem was Joey Hauser. Replacing his 22.3% TO rate with Brenden Bailey's 6.3% is a big step in the right direction. With 2.1 more minutes per game, Bailey would've ranked in the top-10 nationally. On the other end, if Sam Hauser's 11.9% rate is replaced primarily by Koby McEwen's 19.2% (at Utah State) it will largely offset this, especially as McEwen's expected higher usage rate will amplify his raw turnover numbers.

To illustrate that last point, consider that Markus Howard was hounded by Marquette fans for his turnovers last year with an 18.4% TO rate. Then think back to Derrick Wilson, who was was lauded for not turning the ball over. In 4 years, Wilson NEVER had a TO rate below 20%. His best was 20.1% as a junior.

Again, Derrick Wilson NEVER had as good a TO rate as Markus Howard did last year. The only reason we consider Howard's turnovers to be a deficit while Wilson's lack thereof were a strength were because of usage. In 4 years, Wilson (127) had less than half the turnovers Howard (282) has had in 3 years, but it seemed like less of a problem because Wilson rarely had the ball in his hands at the end of a possession, unlike Howard.

Wojo's offenses have with few exceptions been in the bottom half of both the nation & the league in both overall turnovers & live-ball turnovers. Even in their best seasons, 2017 & 2018, the chart above illustrates that top-150 nationally is at best pretty pedestrian when you are talking about a high-major league like the Big East.

The hope would be that moving to a three-guard offense would help, but of Marquette's returning guards that are expected to take on primary ballhandler roles, Markus Howard's 18.4% TO rate last year is better than any individual season posted by either Koby McEwen or Greg Elliott. If the ball is going to be in the hands of ball-handlers like Howard or worse, why would this be expected to improve? Frankly, I don't have an answer to this, but I do believe it needs to improve next year.

One way to change this is on the defensive end. As bad as Marquette has been on the offensive end, the defensive end is even worse. The reason isn't because the numbers have never been good, but because they have trended consistently down.

Year	Def TO%	Nat. Rank	BE Rank	Def Stl%	Nat. Rank	BE Rank
2015	21	59	1	11.6	29	2
2016	19.1	108	5	10.6	35	1
2017	18.3	186	7	10.1	59	6
2018	18.1	197	7	8.6	180	7
2019	16.6	297	7	6.9	325	10

Let's start with the system. In Wojo's first year, playing zone instead of man created more turnovers. In general, systems that play high pressure & defend space rather than individuals are going to create more turnovers. That's why teams like Washington, VCU, Auburn, & Syracuse will routinely have great defensive turnover rates. Wojo obviously favors man-to-man. Players are asked to stick to their assignment & challenge every shot. If a team defends well & boxes out, that should limit scoring, but it won't create turnovers & won't create the easy run-outs at the other end.

Ultimately, that's what this article is about. Losing the Hausers will almost certainly reduce Marquette's eFG% next year. The loss of their three-point shooting means the easiest way for Marquette to replace that scoring is by getting high percentage looks at the rim. The easiest way to do that is by creating turnovers that lead to run-outs, dunks, & layups. Further, those quick possessions are less likely to result in a turnover. Creating more turnovers on defense will lead to easier scoring opportunities & a lower turnover rate on offense. It's all connected.

I digress. Back to the system. The other thing Wojo had in his first season was long, quick athletes like Jajuan Johnson, Juan Anderson, & Duane Wilson. In addition, the grad transfer Matt Carlino was a good ballhawk going back to his BYU days. Playing a zone with players that excelled in creating turnovers led to the best defensive turnover rate of Wojo's career by far.

In the following years, Wojo moved back to man-to-man & we began to see roster turnover. Guys like Carlino & Wilson who had more length were replaced by Andrew Rowsey & Markus Howard, who lacked the length to get into passing lanes. In the frontcourt, guys like Johnson & Anderson were replaced by Sam Hauser & Matt Heldt, who lacked the quickness to create steals & transition offense. In 2017, when Wojo made the NCAA Tournament for the first time, Johnson & Wilson played just 20% of the total available minutes but accounted for 38% of the team's steals. They were 1 & 2 on the team in total steals. With their departure, we see that Wojo's system & recruiting has not prioritized live ball turnovers.

What really started me thinking about this was watching Joseph Chartouny. At Fordham, Chartouny played for a coach whose teams have ranked in the top-50 of DTO% in 9 of 14 years & top-10 5 times. Chartouny thrived in a high-pressure defense in which he was the tip of a spear specifically designed to create live ball turnovers. This led to him being ranked in the top-2 in the country in steal percentage as both a sophomore & junior & created the on-paper appearance that he was the perfect fix for a team that struggled to create turnovers.

However in Wojo's defense, he was asked to stay home. He looked hesitant, he didn't gamble, & being forced to focus on his defensive assignment muted his best attribute. Despite that, he still led the team in steal percentage. I fully acknowledge Chartouny didn't meet expectations. That said, had he played at Marquette in 2015, MU fans would remember him far more fondly.

While Wojo hasn't prioritized steals in his system, the distribution of minutes is also telling. Over the years we have seen a marked decline in defensive turnover numbers. A big part of that is who is on the court. The best players in terms of steal percentage are not getting the most minutes. In 2019, Chartouny (2.8%) & Jamal Cain (2.5) led the way but ranked 6th & 9th in minutes played. In 2018, it was Cain (2.7%) & Greg Elliott (2.7) but ranked 6th & 7th in minutes. In 2017, Johnson (4.1) & Wilson (3.3) led the way while ranking 3rd & 7th in minutes. In 2016, it was Johnson (3.7), Traci Carter (3.5), & Wilson (2.5) who ranked 5th, 7th, & 3rd in minutes.

This is not to suggest that Wojo shouldn't get his best players on the court. In this most recent season, I understand why Markus Howard & Joey Hauser got more minutes than Joseph Chartouny & Jamal Cain. But I definitely think Joey Hauser, who turned it over too often & created turnovers too seldom while hitting an obvious freshman wall in February, could've used more time on the bench.

Going into next year, it will be interesting to see the minutes given to players like Jamal Cain & Greg Elliott. It will also be interesting to see if the team is allowed to gamble a little bit more to create turnovers. With more long, quick athletes than Wojo has ever had at his disposal, allowing the players more flexibility to create turnovers & score in transition could help offset the loss of the Hausers while simultaneously playing into the strengths of the roster as constructed.

We interupt your scheduled Sports Movie Bracket with this Breaking News

We are shocked to say the least. As reported all over the interwebs on Monday, April 15th, the Hauser brothers have announced their intention to transfer from Marquette. Instead of the general odds and ends plus the first rounds of the Sports Movie Bracket, we get together to talk about this program altering and unexpected news. https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/hrjvu9/scrambledeggs_edit_041519.mp3

Something a bit different for CrackedSidewalks, we're doing a #ScrambledEggs Sports Movie Bracket

Welcome to the off season where we search for reasons to continue to be entertained. The Scrambled Eggs podcast has created the idea of a 76 "team" bracket to determine the ultimate sports movie to have ever have existed. We are going to debate the bracket match ups as part of our podcast and "determine" winners and losers. We'll also have a voting system through Google Forms you can access by following us on twitter (@mooof23 and/or @joemccann3). This will very likely take longer than a single podcast so we'll spread it across multiple episodes over the next couple of podcasts and we will of course also have updates around #mubb with each podcast. The movie bracket was generated via S-Curve which in turn was generated by 3 key metrics: IMDB ranking, Rotten Tomatoes Fan Ranking, and Domestic Box Office adjusted to 2019. The movies were then slotted into the 76 team bracket with movement so that sequels don't face each other until the 3rd round and with the last 24 movies in participating in a 12 game play-in bracket.

 Without further ado, below is the S-Curve:

 And here is the bracket itself:




 Enjoy the bracket! Podcast to come later.

Big East 2019-20 Non-Conference Schedules (So Far)

I put together a list on MUScoop today of what we know so far for the 2019-20 Big East Non-Conference Schedules. Feel free to tweet any updates I missed to @brewcity77 on Twitter so I can add them in and update this as the next couple months go on. I'll add a few thoughts after each one based on what we know.

Butler (6)

@ Baylor (Big East/Big 12)
@ Mississippi
vs Florida
vs Purdue (N)
Hall of Fame Classic (2 of Missouri, Oklahoma, Stanford)



This is a nice balanced start. The road games will be tough, but there isn't an overwhelming game on here. I'm assuming the Crossroads Classic continues. Butler seems like a good bet to get a Gavitt Game as they've only played in 2 so far, fewest of any Big East team.

Creighton (4)

vs Oklahoma (Big East/Big 12)
vs Nebraska
Las Vegas Invitational (2 of Iowa, Texas Tech, San Diego State)


Still a lot to flesh out, but both home high-majors are winnable & Vegas provides some good opportunities.

DePaul (3)

vs Texas Tech (Big East/Big 12)
vs Northwestern
@ Boston College


The Blue Demons don't have an exempt tournament yet, not sure if that will change. They are likely to play some of the local schools like UIC & NIU but I haven't seen anything concrete yet. Not a terrible start, but needs work.

Georgetown (5)

@ Oklahoma State (Big East/Big 12)
@ SMU
vs Syracuse
Empire Classic (2 of Cal, Duke, Texas)

A nice mix of quality opponents on here. The Big 12 Challenge game adds some quality & Georgetown seems likely to add a Gavitt Game. This looks like the best schedule so far under Ewing.

Marquette (5)

@ Kansas State (Big East/Big 12)
@ Wisconsin-Madison
Orlando Invitational (3 of Davidson, Fairfield, Harvard, Maryland, Temple, Texas A&M, USC)

 History would indicate MU will add a tourney quality buy game & at least one more high-major home game, either in the Gavitt Games or as a new home-and-home, quite possibly both. A home-and-home would help balance the schedule for this year & give a guaranteed away game opposite hosting UW-M in 2020.

Providence (7)

@ Massachusetts
@ Rhode Island
vs Texas (Big East/Big 12)
vs Boston College
Wooden Legacy (3 of Arizona, Charleston, Long Beach State, Penn, Pepperdine, UCF, Wake Forest)

This is a loaded slate & I love it. If Cooley's team takes a step up, they have a solid schedule with all winnable games. They could add a Gavitt Game but even without it have a solid non-con.


Seton Hall (7)

@ Iowa State (Big East/Big 12)
@ St. Louis
@ Rutgers
vs Maryland
Battle 4 Atlantis (3 of Alabama, Gonzaga, Iowa State, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Southern Miss)

This is a meat-grinder. Three road games, a tough home game, & one of the toughest exempt tournaments. They don't need any more quality, but SHU has only played 2 Gavitt Games so they could be in line for another & I'm sure a second quality home game to draw fans would be appreciated, though that's a murderer's row away from home.


St. John's (5)

vs West Virginia (Big East/Big 12)
vs 2 of Central Connecticut State, Columbia, Rider, Vermont (Air Force Reserve Campus Games)
Air Force Reserve Tip-Off (2 of Arizona State, UMass, Virginia)

Is any school more afraid of travel than St. John's? Three home games in here & the two neutral site games are 125 miles from campus. Like to see 2-3 road or neutral site games added that aren't within a 2 hour drive of NYC.

Villanova (8)

@ Temple
@ St. Joseph's
vs Penn
vs La Salle
vs Kansas (Big East/Big 12)
Myrtle Beach Invitational (3 of Baylor, Coastal Carolina, Middle Tennessee State, Mississippi State, Ohio, Tulane, Utah)

I love the Big 5. Such a cool concept & guarantees at least decent mid-major games. Add in Kansas at home & a tournament in which they'll likely be favored & this is a great schedule. Nova is another Gavitt candidate, having played just 3 games so far.

Xavier (6)

@ TCU (Big East/Big 12)
vs Cincinnati
vs Missouri
Charleston Classic (3 of Buffalo, UConn, Florida, Miami, Missouri State, St. Joseph's, Towson)

X is a strong Gavitt candidate, hopefully playing someone other than Wisconsin. This could probably use another home-and-home starting on the road or road Gavitt Game, but it's a solid schedule so far.

The Next Buffalo

With Marquette's season done, the focus shifts to coaching changes, the transfer portal, & non-conference scheduling. Since Marquette was assigned Belmont as a campus game in the 2015 Legends Classic they have consistently followed that with one NCAA Tournament tested buy game on the schedule.

In 2016, it was Fresno State. The Bulldogs finished #98 at kenpom & 76 in the RPI, just one spot away from qualifying as a Quadrant 2 home game. In 2017 it was Vermont. The Catamounts finished #76 at kenpom & 60 in the RPI, good enough to qualify as a Quadrant 2 win. This past year it was Buffalo. The Bulls finished #22 at kenpom & #15 in the NET, making them just one of two teams that played away buy games & qualified as a Quadrant 1A home win, which made Buffalo one of the best wins you could possibly buy...assuming you won (ask West Virginia & Syracuse about that).

Here's what we know about Marquette's 2019-20 schedule so far:

• Away vs Wisconsin-Madison
• Away vs Kansas State
• Neutral (x3) vs Davidson, Fairfield, Harvard, Maryland, Temple, Texas A&M (please, please, please), & USC

Most likely Marquette will host a Gavitt Game to help balance out the schedule and/or try to start another high major home-and-home series at Fiserv Forum. They will also likely want to get a quality buy game to add some shine to the home non-conference slate for season ticket holder interest. With that in mind, here are five teams (pending coaching changes & transfers) Marquette could line up to be next year's Buffalo.

1. Utah State: Put flashing lights on this one. Utah State earned the Mountain West autobid but would've been an at-large last year without it. They return most of that roster, including MWC Player of the Year Sam Merrill & NBA prospect Neemias Queta. With most of Nevada's roster graduating, the Aggies will be heavy MWC favorites next year. While this might seem like a big target for a buy game, it's no bigger than Buffalo was & comes from the same league as Fresno State.

2. East Tennessee State: When #3bidSoCon was trending, it was Wofford, UNC-Greensboro, & Furman that Twitter was talking about. Next year, it will likely be the Buccaneers. While the three teams above lose their best players, ETSU could return their entire rotation from a squad that went 13-5 in a quality league. Barring transfers or a coaching change, this will be one of the best buy game options in the country next year.

3. New Mexico State: Chris Jans had a top-40 NET team in the WAC this year & will likely have 5 senior starters next year. They lose two rotation players but will still be experienced & deep. The Aggies won 19 straight before falling to future Final Four team Auburn by 1 point in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. They should be even better next year.

4. Vermont: Next year's Vermont could be...Vermont. John Becker's team has won 20+ games 8 years running (11 if you count Mike Lonergan's last 3 years) & has finished top-100 at kenpom each of the last 3 years. They return 6 of their top 7 in terms of minutes from a NCAA team. More likely to be Quadrant 2 than 1, this will still be an excellent buy opponent.

5. Northeastern: They have to replace Vasa Pusica's scoring, but have 4 of their top-5 scorers back. The Huskies made the NCAA Tournament & should be favorites in the Colonial. They were just outside Quadrant 2 (NET #78) as a buy game last year but have a very good chance to improve on that next year.

Five More to Watch: Missouri State, UC Irvine, UT Arlington, Grand Canyon, Northern Kentucky

Value Add Basketball Game Showcases Markus' Ability to Create; S. Hauser's Efficiency

After beta testing the (free) Value Add Basketball Game to simulate each player's ability in just about every aspect of the game, we ran player cards for up to 10 players on all 353 teams as well as 32 All-Conference teams. The links to the game and players cards are below in case anyone wants to simulate a match-up (you did need two 6-sided dice and a 20-sided and 8-sided as well.

But first, last year after the season Value Add Projections showed Marquette as a 7-seed with Greg Elliott (projected 3.0), and with his loss Marquette dropped out of the top 32 to project as a first round NCAA loser. I haven't done a full projection yet, but just going with the projected Value Add's of every team's Value Add minus their seniors, Marquette is 10th in the country. That includes Zion Williamson's best ever 14.08 and all others who are really one-and-dones, so it's not an in depth but since the teams losing players early to the NBA are often the same teams who pick up new ones, it seems Marquette minus Elliott calculating as a 9-seed last year, and Marquette projecting as a 3-seed even before adding a projection for Elliott or McEwen for next year and our All-American Markus Howard being able to play shooting guard where opponents cannot badger him all game - I just don't see how fans can; 1) not be satisfied with this year as a whole, 2) not see the program as absolutely on pace under Wojo including making the tournament way ahead of schedule two years ago,par this year, and great expectations last year. Here are the top 10 teams in "non-senior" Value Add this year.

1. Virginia	47.49
2. Duke	47.12
3. Michigan	38.69
4. Kentucky	37.03
5. Gonzaga	36.64
6. Michigan St.	34.13
7. Maryland	33.97
8. Kansas	33.55
9. LSU	30.84
10. Marquette	30.54

The Value Add Basketball Game

To play your own game, click on the first 2 links for instructions and scoresheets, then pick two teams from any of the links below for player cards. You need only two 6-sided dice, a 20-sided die and an 8-sided die.

How to Play Value Add Basketball

Value Add Game Scoresheet

Pick 2 teams, click for Player Cards

All-Conference Player Cards

Abilene Christian to BYU

Cal Baptist to Duquesne

East Carolina to Green Bay

Hampton to LSU

Maine to Notre Dame

Oakland to Syracuse

TCU to Youngstown Player Cards

The Value Add Basketball Game simulates each players' ability to get the ball and get shots off,  rebound, hit from the line and inside and outside the arc, dish out great assists.

The first aspect of the game is the measurement of the ability to create shots and opportunities. While the game is an over simplification, it is accurate, it starts with a roll of an 8-sided dice and Markus Howard is one of the very elite players in the game that creates shots on three numbers, a 1, 6 or 8. Basically most players just get the ball if that die points to their position (1 = point guard creates, 2 = shooting guard creates, etc.), but the offense stalls on a 6, 7 or 8 unless you have a rate truly elite creator like Howard or with players with one extra number (7 for example) that is a very good creator, and one thing that does stand out is that noone else on MU was even the very good creator. Therefore if Markus is off the court, you can see why the offense stalls.

That being said, when he does create Sam Hauser has a virtually identical shooting/drawing foul card on a 1 to 20 roll. Both hit 3-pointers on rolls of 1-4, hit 2-pointers on 5 to 8, and Markus draws a shooting foul on one more number than Sam (9 to 11 vs 9 to 10). When they go to the line, both hit free throws on a roll of 1-18 since both round out to 90% from the line.

However, the player first must avoid a turning it over on a roll of 11-66 when the defender is trying to stop them, and while Markus is a slightly better than average with turnovers on just three numbers (51-53), Hauser is truly elite with  a turnover on only one roll, a 51. Keep in mind that the opposing defender can also steal the ball on some of their numbers. What really jumped out was Brandon Bailey, who not only never turns the ball over on his card but actually calculated a NEGATIVE three numbers which means I should really take away almost all the times his opponent steals the ball from him - but the game isn't that advanced.

Marquette's two top 30 players who are not seniors makes them truly elite net year. UVa is more impressive with three in the top 15, Gonzaga has two in the top 35 but likely loses one to the NBA, Duke has No. 1 and No 11 in Zion and RJ, but obviously the are both gone and the next most impressive is Texas Tech with two in the top 50.

While I hate to lose Sacar Anim's defense, being able to rotate in more offense in a year not having Joseph Chartouny as a strong defender was good but on offense not having him able to handle the speed of the competition (he actually has the highest turnover range in the game (44-56 are turnovers) and as much as we all love Matt Heldt but with two returning center all looks good. So the main change is returning players usually improve, and adding two point guards to let Marquette's superstars play the 2 and the 3 (shooting guard and small forward) gives Wojo the first team he has had that should win even a game in March Madness, and it definitely looks like a run is possible for the first time. Yes I'm in the Polyanna mode, but in this case I do not see why anyone is not.

Here are the Marquette playing cards in the game, but they really are easier to read on the google sheet in the game if you can click on that instead:

Hampton to LSU

Markus Howard	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 13: he steals ball	1 to 4: 3-pt made
BE,5-11	21 to 22: he blocks shot	5 to 8: 2-pt made
Value Add: 9.23	36 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	9 to 11: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	12 to 16: missed three
55	When he has ball check 44-66	17 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 53: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-1/Def Reb: 1-2
S - 1, 6&8	64 to 66: he dunks (scores at the rim)	1 to 18: free throw good
Sacar Anim	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 13: he steals ball	1 to 2: 3-pt made
BE,6-5	21 to 23: he blocks shot	3 to 8: 2-pt made
Value Add: 1.65	36 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	9 to 10: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	11 to 13: missed three
49	When he has ball check 44-66	14 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 52: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-1/Def Reb: 1-2
S - 2	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 11: free throw good
Sam Hauser	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 13: he steals ball	1 to 4: 3-pt made
BE,6-8	21 to 23: he blocks shot	5 to 8: 2-pt made
Value Add: 8.79	36 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	9 to 10: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	11 to 17: missed three
53	When he has ball check 44-66	18 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 51: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-2/Def Reb: 1-4
S - 3	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 18: free throw good
Joey Hauser	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 13: he steals ball	1 to 3: 3-pt made
BE,6-9	21 to 23: he blocks shot	4 to 7: 2-pt made
Value Add: 3.44	35 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	8 to 11: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	12 to 15: missed three
48	When he has ball check 44-66	16 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 55: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-2/Def Reb: 1-3
S - 4	Use this card on 44-66, Otherwise defender card	1 to 16: free throw good
Theo John	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 16+: he steals ball	None: 3-pt made
BE,6-9	21 to 26+++: he blocks shot	1 to 9: 2-pt made
Value Add: 2.75	33 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	10 to 14: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	No missed 3s
32	When he has ball check 44-66	15 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 55: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-6/Def Reb: 1-3
S - 5	Use this card on 44-66, Otherwise defender card	1 to 10: free throw good

Joseph Chartouny	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 15: he steals ball	1 to 3: 3-pt made
BE,6-3	21 to 22: he blocks shot	4 to 8: 2-pt made
Value Add: 1.18	36 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	9 to 10: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	11 to 16: missed three
27	When he has ball check 44-66	17 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	44 to 56: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-1/Def Reb: 1-3
B - 1	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 14: free throw good
Jamal Cain	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 16: he steals ball	1 to 3: 3-pt made
BE,6-7	21 to 25: he blocks shot	4 to 9: 2-pt made
Value Add: 0.64	35 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	10 to 11: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	12 to 16: missed three
13	When he has ball check 44-66	17 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	46 to 56: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-4/Def Reb: 1-4
B - 2	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 5: free throw good
Brendan Bailey	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 15: he steals ball	1 to 2: 3-pt made
BE,6-8	21 to 26: he blocks shot	3 to 6: 2-pt made
Value Add: 1.09	36 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	7 to 8: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	9 to 16: missed three
20	When he has ball check 44-66	17 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	Does not turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-3/Def Reb: 1-1
B - 3	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 14: free throw good
Ed Morrow	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 16: he steals ball	None: 3-pt made
BE,6-7	21 to 26+: he blocks shot	1 to 10: 2-pt made
Value Add: 2.77	34 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	11 to 13: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	No missed 3s
22	When he has ball check 44-66	14 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 56: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-6/Def Reb: 1-4
B - 4	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 14: free throw good
Matt Heldt	Check here when defending; 11-43 Roll	20-sided (if 11-66 not in a range)
Marquette	11 to 16: he steals ball	None: 3-pt made
BE,6-10	21 to 26+: he blocks shot	1 to 7: 2-pt made
Value Add: 0.53	33 to 36: commits shooting foul, check 20-sided	8 to 12: he draws foul, take 2 FT
Playing Time	41 = forces miss & gets rebound	No missed 3s
8	When he has ball check 44-66	17 to 20: missed two
Gets Ball (below)	51 to 53: turns ball over	Off Reb: 1-4/Def Reb: 1-2
B - 5	64 to 66: he dunks	1 to 15: free throw good