(UTSA 8-14, 2-7), at (WSU 9-13, 1-8) GAME THREAD

[SubGod22]

You may be right that Joy is better than some of the other guards who play now. I think HCPM disagrees with you or he'd be playing a lot more. I just don't want to accept losing to develop future players. Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.

I didn't say he was better, as we don't have enough to go on. But he can't be so bad that he couldn't have been playing a little here and there. And we've already been losing. Playing him some wouldn't have made us any worse. A lot of good coaches have found ways to play young guys even on good teams to get them experience and make their teams better as the year goes along. Sitting him on the bench of a bad team doesn't do him or the team any good. And it doesn't help make him any better for next year. You have to plan for things.

I guess you think we're better off losing and not planning for the future as opposed to losing and trying to build a better tomorrow. You can only do so much in practice when it comes to developing. You can learn so much more from actually playing in a game than you can from practicing for hours. He's shown me enough in the limited time he's gotten to feel that playing him 8-12 minutes a game would be much more valuable, even to this years team, than not playing him at all.

If Mills thinks so little of him now, then we should hope that Joy leaves after the season and goes elsewhere. Our guards this year are not good. And if Joy sucks so much that he can't play a little to make things better in the future then we're in really bad shape.

Losing and building towards something down the road and in the future is better than losing just to lose and doing the same bad crap over and over.

So yes, playing for the future is better than spinning your wheels and playing for nothing.

[1972Shocker]

One area where the Shockers are trending in the right direction is with the assist to turnover ratio.

In the Shocks first 6 AAC games of the season (all losses) they had a total of 60 assists vs 97 turnovers for an A/T Ratio of 0.62 They did not have a positive A/T ratio in any of those 6 games.


In the past four games (Wins over SMU and UTSA and losses to Memphis and Tulsa) the Shockers had total of 56 assists vs 35 turnovers for an A/T Ration of 1.60. Only in the loss to Tulsa did they not have a ratio > 1.00. In that game they had 11 assists and 11 turnovers.


A ratio of 0.62 for the season would have you at 348 out of 351 teams nationally. A ratio of 1.6 for the season would be a top 15 mark nationally. If they can sustain the level of sharing and caring of the last 4 games over their remaining 8 games they have a good chance of finishing on at least a relatively positive note. And it sure as heck is more entertaining to watch.

[Woodrow]

I didn't say he was better, as we don't have enough to go on. But he can't be so bad that he couldn't have been playing a little here and there. And we've already been losing. Playing him some wouldn't have made us any worse. A lot of good coaches have found ways to play young guys even on good teams to get them experience and make their teams better as the year goes along. Sitting him on the bench of a bad team doesn't do him or the team any good. And it doesn't help make him any better for next year. You have to plan for things.

I guess you think we're better off losing and not planning for the future as opposed to losing and trying to build a better tomorrow. You can only do so much in practice when it comes to developing. You can learn so much more from actually playing in a game than you can from practicing for hours. He's shown me enough in the limited time he's gotten to feel that playing him 8-12 minutes a game would be much more valuable, even to this years team, than not playing him at all.

If Mills thinks so little of him now, then we should hope that Joy leaves after the season and goes elsewhere. Our guards this year are not good. And if Joy sucks so much that he can't play a little to make things better in the future then we're in really bad shape.

Losing and building towards something down the road and in the future is better than losing just to lose and doing the same bad crap over and over.

So yes, playing for the future is better than spinning your wheels and playing for nothing.

No. I just don't want to lose any games. I want to play the best players we have to win the remaining games. I understand your logic about developing players but I just don't agree.

[Stickboy46]

What would it say about our team if we didn't put the best possible players on the floor every game. We have to try and win every remaining game. It's not like the end of a game where we are way ahead or way behind and that game is already won or lost at that point. In my opinion you never want to give up on games before you play them. I hope our coaching staff trys to win every remaining game. They have the best viewpoint on which players are going to give us the best shot to do it.

I think it says that we aren't happy with the results we are seeing from the "best possible players" .. which I think is a true statement.

[Aargh]

At some point, you have to at least consider the future.

Really, Joy should have been playing at least 5-10 minutes each game for the past 2 months. I find it nearly impossible to believe that we would be worse off now if that were happening. Joy would be better off for it. The team would be better off for it now and definitely in the future. It's not like we've been dominating guard play.

Here's how the team would be worse off playing Joy for 5 - 10 minutes a game:

Player A (who, along with the coaching staff, has seen Joy in practice): Coach, why'd you pull me.

Coach: I wanted to give Joy some game experience for next year

Later that evening Player A's web browser history shown a Google search for "trfr portal".

[Woodrow]

I think it says that we aren't happy with the results we are seeing from the "best possible players" .. which I think is a true statement.

I get you're not happy. The question is about playing the players to develop for next year or win the rest of the remaining games this year. I would prefer to win the remaining games. I just don't believe that HCPM can't determine which players will give us the best chance to win.

[pinstripers]

The question is about playing the players to develop for next year or win the rest of the remaining games this year. I would prefer to win the remaining games.

That was a great goal 7-8 games ago.

[SubGod22]

Later that evening Player A's web browser history shown a Google search for "trfr portal".

Would that be a bad thing?

[Stickboy46]

Here's how the team would be worse off playing Joy for 5 - 10 minutes a game:

Player A (who, along with the coaching staff, has seen Joy in practice): Coach, why'd you pull me.

Coach: I wanted to give Joy some game experience for next year

Later that evening Player A's web browser history shown a Google search for "trfr portal".

I do not think that makes the team worse off. If Mills is able to recruit at all...We are worse off if they don't transfer.

[BOBB]

He has a hell of a lot more competition than Paul had

Don’t know about that. 2006 was a vintage MVC crop. Miller didn’t luck into that due to weak competition.

Now, I don’t think Kenny’s going to be all anything, but I also don’t think he’s half an Anthony Tolliver.

[Woodrow]

That was a great goal 7-8 games ago.

Hopefully it is the goal all season long.

[WuShock16]

Once upon a time, I would have said that as counterintuitive as this sounds, if all things are equal, you play the younger guy because that kid will theoretically be around longer.

However, in today’s era, I’m not quite sure how that theory translates.

[pinstripers]

Once upon a time, I would have said that as counterintuitive as this sounds, if all things are equal, you play the younger guy because that kid will theoretically be around longer.

However, in today’s era, I’m not quite sure how that theory translates.

At this point, you play the kid with the higher ceiling.

[shock]

Playing a kid who isn’t ready can also destroy his confidence. If he gets out there and gets completely owned game after game, it might not be as good for his growth as sitting him.

Just look at NFL QBs who sit behind a vet vs those who start right away.

[shockerfan]

Playing a kid who isn’t ready can also destroy his confidence. If he gets out there and gets completely owned game after game, it might not be as good for his growth as sitting him.

Just look at NFL QBs who sit behind a vet vs those who start right away.

Generally I agree. But CJ Stroud says hello.