Bigger loss: Stutz, or Ragland?

[CBB_Fan]

Who do you think we will miss the most? Both were special players that really blossomed their final year, but only one can be "the biggest loss." Don't just go by the drop-off to the next guy (Armstead, Orukpe/Hall), because this about those two, not their replacements.

Personally, I think Ragland will be the bigger loss. Stutz was a special player, but he tended to play his best in games against lower ranked teams that couldn't defend against his size and strength. Tougher games pitted him against guys that were just too fast for him, and it showed in his foul trouble.

Ragland was not physically a dominant player, but he was one of the best shooters in the nation. If you take players with a minimum of 100 3PA last season, Ragland was second in the NCAA in 3P%. However, I think the biggest thing about him was his performance in "big" games. We all know what he did against UNLV (31 points, 8-9 from the 3PT line), and stepped his game up against Creighton (24 points), Davidson (30 points) and in numerous other games that could have gone worse without his help. Those three games made Wichita State's season last year, and losing them would have probably kept them from a tournament at-large (or at least, a high seed).

I'm not trying to attack Stutz, but his worst games generally coincided with losses or near losses. He scored 5 points when we lost against Creighton. 8 the second time we faced them. And of course, 6 points in the final two losses of the season. His highs were arguably higher than Raglands, and he averaged more points, but he didn't the same timing with his great games.

[1972Shocker]

The loss of Garrett will probably cause more of a change in how we play the game on both ends of the ball. 3G mentioned on his show last night that with Garrett we looked to be take more of an inside-out attach on offense and that this year that may not be the case. On defense we will be much more athletic at the 5 and our bigs can really get out and run. Hopefully, Chadrack can get healthy enought to contribute this year.

With Joe, we are IMHO well prepared to replace his contributions with Malcolm and Fred (assuming we can get him healthy). Was very impressed with Malcolm at Shocker Madness. Of course, with Fred we have an inexperienced player. However, with Malcolm we get a more experienced player. Malcolm is a lefty. Joe was a lefty. Time will tell if Malcolm can consistently knock down the 3-ball and get to the basket like Joe did. At Shocker Madness Malcolm knocked down the treys, hit a nice tear-drop runner and did make a nice drive to the basket although I think he missed that shot. Maclolm should be every bit as good, if not better defender than Joe.

Fred is still kind of a mystery, but if he proves to be the real deal (and I think he will) he will bring a somehwat different, but very effective, high BBIQ style to the point guard position plus a kid who simply refuses to lose. Maybe the biggest question with Fred will be how well he can defend at the D-1 level. Really looking forward to seeing Fred.

[WuDrWu]

Stutz and it isn't close. He changed the way teams had to play us. He scored when he didn't score. Joe was great and valuable in his own right, but Garrett's mere presence made everyone else better.

[_kai_]

Stutz due to the fact that we have better and more options at replacing Joe than we do at Garrett.

[Aargh]

The bigger loss was clearly Stutz. I mean, Garrett was 7' tall. What was Joe, 6'1"? Garrett was much, much bigger than Joe.

[SPEShockAlum]

Someone want to calculate a WAR for last year's roster? I'd be interested to see that.

[CBB_Fan]

Someone want to calculate a WAR for last year's roster? I'd be interested to see that.

I don't have a WAR score for the players, but last year I calculated the WIN score for each player (and the same score by minute and by game). WAR is hard to calculate in basketball because "above replacement" is hard to quantify, especially considering the defensive impact that a player can have (which is not statistically defined in basketball like it is in baseball).

The most relevant of those statistics is the WIN per minute, because basically it states how much a player helps per minute of play. Here is what we get (most to least):

James Anacreon: .538 (*)
Garrett Stutz: .355
Jake White: .314 (*)
Evan Wessel: .267 (*)
Carl Hall: .245
Joe Ragland: .243
Ehimen Orukpe: .242 (*)
David Kyles: .203
Tekele Cotton: .178
Toure Murray: .168
Randall Vautrevers: .166 (*)
Ben Smith: .142
Demetric Williams: .110


(*): Less than 10 MPG, unlikely to be totally accurate

I could also do PER, which is probably more accurate. Either way, my reasoning for choosing Ragland as a bigger loss has more to do with his performance in the most important games than the performance in the other 25; I think he was responsible for defining the 2011-2012 season through the Shockers signature wins.

[Kung Wu]

I'm not trying to attack Stutz, but his worst games generally coincided with losses or near losses. He scored 5 points when we lost against Creighton. 8 the second time we faced them. And of course, 6 points in the final two losses of the season.

Think about what you just wrote here, and then reevaluate your opinion.

[CBB_Fan]

Think about what you just wrote here, and then reevaluate your opinion.

You are trying to say that Stutz's success and failure had a large effect on our team. That is true. But if we look at the signature performances of this team (good and bad), I find a trend. In our significant wins, Ragland is dominant, regardless of what Stutz did. In our signature losses, Stutz was bad, regardless of what Ragland did. Against the Evansvilles and Drakes of the world, Stutz will be a bigger loss. But in the games that define our season (VCU, Tennessee this season, for example), I think the loss of Ragland's ability to score 30+ on ridiculous efficiency will be bigger.

[im4wsu]

Stutz 7"0 255 lbs > Ragland 6'0" 185 lbs.

[WstateU]

[small tyme baller]

Ragland ... hands down

[shock]

Rags ran the floor, and was the best player on the team.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Ragland.

The only thing that made Stutz even serviceable was his size and his decent shooting. He was weak, slow, and many times throughout his career got a majority of his points from the free throw line. He definitely helped us win games, but many times he didn't do it in the traditional way a center would. I found that reality maddening. Stutz played like he was several inches shorter. With that said, I think White (if he had to) could replace Stutz's production this year no problem.

Ragland on the other hand was our point guard and without him doing the things he did, we would have lost a lot of games (and I'm not just talking about his scoring). Ragland was the quarterback.. and one of the finest quarterbacks in the country. Stutz might not have even been the best center in the MVC.


T


...:cool:

[pie n eye]

Toure. Tough to replace a guy who was so versatile he went unnoticed at times.

But in the spirit of the thread I will say Ragland. He was a floor general, rarely turned it over, shot lights out from everywhere and improved his defense significantly his senior year.

I would never complain about a guy scoring most of his points from the line. A free throw is eclipsed in accuracy only by wide open layups and dunks. Give me more free throws, please.

Now if we want to complain about the number of free throws shot by the other team as a result of fouls...