Predicted record 08-09

[SpanglerFan316]

I'm working late and SN is a great place to relax for a few minutes before I get back to the software. Let's see; we are 11-19 right now. If Michael Jordan (when he was 22) time traveled here, put on a Shocker uniform and played the best games of his life, we could play in and win 4 MVC tourney games and 6 or 7 NCAA tourney games, for a total of 40 or 41 games this year. Michael didn't invent a time machine so going 21-19 for the season looks difficult. Of course, with a better record we might not play four MVC tourney games but only three and we would not be a 16 seed in the play-in game. So a "reasonable" maximum for the number of games WSU could play next year is 39. So, what will be our record? .....

How about 39-0? :shock: :lol: .......... ;-) :drum:

[ShockRef]

Before this season started I predicted 10 wins.

I had hoped to be wrong but I try and not look at the Shox thru rose colored glasses like a lot of you do.

2008-2009, 13 wins 18 losses, Shirley knows basketball.

Let's think about this:

1. The Shocks won 3 more games than you predicted, which means that someone who predicted 16 wins made just as good a guess as you.

2. The Shocks had a huge number of injuries (which could not be accounted for in your preseason prediction), so your record was made on the assumption of a healthy team. This means that a team riddled by injury still won more games than you gave them credit for.

Looks like you don't know basketball so well.

TMH is a purveyor of facts.
I like facts. They can not be argued against and totally befuddle morons. 8)

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Before this season started I predicted 10 wins.

I had hoped to be wrong but I try and not look at the Shox thru rose colored glasses like a lot of you do.

2008-2009, 13 wins 18 losses, Shirley knows basketball.

Let's think about this:

1. The Shocks won 3 more games than you predicted, which means that someone who predicted 16 wins made just as good a guess as you.

2. The Shocks had a huge number of injuries (which could not be accounted for in your preseason prediction), so your record was made on the assumption of a healthy team. This means that a team riddled by injury still won more games than you gave them credit for.

Looks like you don't know basketball so well.

TMH is a purveyor of facts.
I like facts. They can not be argued against and totally befuddle morons. 8)

It must be the ROSE colored glasses. I have heard they are worse than yellow glasses, as they tend to see things negatively.

Perhaps some clear glasses, such as the ones TMH wears, or yellow ones, like I and others wear, would help you too see things better.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

only nerds wear glasses
























:D :D :D :D :D

[SFL]

only nerds wear glasses



Nerds!!!!!!!




















:D :D :D :D :D

[The Mad Hatter]

Before this season started I predicted 10 wins.

I had hoped to be wrong but I try and not look at the Shox thru rose colored glasses like a lot of you do.

2008-2009, 13 wins 18 losses, Shirley knows basketball.

Let's think about this:

1. The Shocks won 3 more games than you predicted, which means that someone who predicted 16 wins made just as good a guess as you.

2. The Shocks had a huge number of injuries (which could not be accounted for in your preseason prediction), so your record was made on the assumption of a healthy team. This means that a team riddled by injury still won more games than you gave them credit for.

Looks like you don't know basketball so well.

TMH is a purveyor of facts.
I like facts. They can not be argued against and totally befuddle morons. 8)

Actually, you must not like my post, since I put down the wrong number of wins this year (at 13 instead of 11). The season is not yet over, so the win total may or may not be finished.

I apologize for the mistake, but standby my stance that a predicting fewer wins than a team destroyed by injury (and one that has lost numerous close and overtime games) is hardly the marker of basketball acumen.

[shocker0624]

Before this season started I predicted 10 wins.

I had hoped to be wrong but I try and not look at the Shox thru rose colored glasses like a lot of you do.

2008-2009, 13 wins 18 losses, Shirley knows basketball.

Let's think about this:

1. The Shocks won 3 more games than you predicted, which means that someone who predicted 16 wins made just as good a guess as you.

2. The Shocks had a huge number of injuries (which could not be accounted for in your preseason prediction), so your record was made on the assumption of a healthy team. This means that a team riddled by injury still won more games than you gave them credit for.

Looks like you don't know basketball so well.

TMH is a purveyor of facts.
I like facts. They can not be argued against and totally befuddle morons. 8)

Actually, you must not like my post, since I put down the wrong number of wins this year (at 13 instead of 11). The season is not yet over, so the win total may or may not be finished.

I apologize for the mistake, but standby my stance that a predicting fewer wins than a team destroyed by injury (and one that has lost numerous close and overtime games) is hardly the marker of basketball acumen.

you sir are a smart a*ss

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Before this season started I predicted 10 wins.

I had hoped to be wrong but I try and not look at the Shox thru rose colored glasses like a lot of you do.

2008-2009, 13 wins 18 losses, Shirley knows basketball.

Let's think about this:

1. The Shocks won 3 more games than you predicted, which means that someone who predicted 16 wins made just as good a guess as you.

2. The Shocks had a huge number of injuries (which could not be accounted for in your preseason prediction), so your record was made on the assumption of a healthy team. This means that a team riddled by injury still won more games than you gave them credit for.

Looks like you don't know basketball so well.

TMH is a purveyor of facts.
I like facts. They can not be argued against and totally befuddle morons. 8)

Actually, you must not like my post, since I put down the wrong number of wins this year (at 13 instead of 11). The season is not yet over, so the win total may or may not be finished.

I apologize for the mistake, but standby my stance that a predicting fewer wins than a team destroyed by injury (and one that has lost numerous close and overtime games) is hardly the marker of basketball acumen.

you sir are a smart a*ss

you definently have the smart part right.

[DUShock]

I think it prudent to at least wait and see who's around.

Go Shocks!!!!

[Snapshot9]

Well, without knowing who all are going to be here next year, but having a feeling on the coach, I am going to say we go 18-13 next year.

I am basing this on:
1) 1st year was a great learning experience for CGM and staff.
2) Coach is a winner, fast study.
3) Team will be shaped mostly how he wants them to be next year.
4) Recruits we currently have coming in, and possibles.
5) We should have much more scoring power next year, and more balanced
scoring.
6) The team itself will be better balanced.
7) Having more height in the post.

Now, after spring signings go down, and/or player releases, I will make another prediction.

[tropicalshox]

It's best to wait and see who we will have, but right now I'd be happy with 16 wins. We will need freshmen and a JC or two to come through and that is pretty much a guess.

[WSUwatcher]

Bad breaks, cont'd

In an earlier post I mentioned that one reason I'd be disappointed with no more than .500 next year, even based on just who we already know will be added, was that it's taken an extraordinary run of bad luck to keep the Shocks from being a .500 team even this year. Here's one more example.

I was looking up some conference standings on ESPN, and in doing so happened to notice the America East at the top of the page, the league in which Quinnipiac plays. They're of interest because that's where Turgeon / Spinelli recruit Evann Baker ended up, so I checked their team stats. It turns out that Baker is having a nice season for them; he's their second leading scorer at 11.1 ppg in 29 minutes a game, along with 3.6 rpg and 2.6 apg (vs. 2.4 turnovers). He's shooting 45% from the field, 82% at the line (86% since his first three games), and 53%(!) from three (on just 16 of 30 for the year) -- which sounds like just the kind of take-it-to-the basket guy the Shocks have really missed having.

Recently Marshall said that in retrospect he should have probably taken another guard -- typical; a coach second-guessing himself about something that went wrong -- and obviously Baker was there as a candidate, although whether the match could still have been made after the old coaching staff left isn't exactly clear. Obviously, too, given what happened with Braeuer and the other guard injuries, if Baker had ended up a Shocker he could almost surely have helped quite a bit. Yet when Marshall talks about haven taken another guard, who would he have replaced? Griskenas was a guy they needed and who looked, as a 1st team JC all-American, like a ready-made player; and even despite his poor start he was just coming into form when he was (of course) hurt. And WSU could hardly not have kept a scholarship available for Orukpe, whom they obviously hoped and expected to have here by now and whose absence has left them with only 12 scholarships in use, one of which belongs to a guy who may be their most talented player but (of course) is sitting out as a transfer.

So as nice as it would have been nice have Baker (or a comparably useful guard) this year the way things turned out, there was no way of knowing at decision time how much such a player would be needed, or that a scholarship would be sitting vacant all year while Orukpe sits in the back country waiting for someone to make a deposit in one of those e-mail Nigerian bank accounts to spring him. And thus occurred the guard shortage that ended up being just one more piece in the amazing mosaic of disasters that have plagued the Shocks this year.

You take that, plus the death of Guy Alang-Ntang, plus the rash of injuries (especially the one to Braeuer, WSU's least expendable guy), plus a key missed free throw here or Braeuer's potential game-winner against UNI that rattled out there, and it just confirms how easily this year's team could have been at .500 or better with any decent luck at all. And if this year's team was that close, and as confident as I am that next year's team will be better even though young, it's easy to see where a good record could -- and should -- come from next year: maybe even the 17-14 predicted by that notorious optimist KC; maybe even a bit better than that.

[WuDrWu]

I know about ifs and buts. I am a firm believer that a healthy and full team from the start would have won 18-20 games this year. Everything else is in place for success.


UTA, UMKC, DU (Home), ISU (home), CU (X2), UNI (X2), SIU (home), UNA, UE (away), ISU (away). That's 12 games right there. If only 1/2 break our way we are 17-13.


If healthy and full next year, I believe we will improve on that mark.


:wsu_posters: :goshocks: :posterwsu: :posterwu:

[RoyalShock]

WSUwatcher, that is a good analysis, and one that has me rethinking my position that a .500 record next year would be a major accomplishment.

The thing keeping me from fully reversing on my position is that there will be so many newcomers (and so far all but one will be freshman - since Hawkins has sat out this year, I don't really include him as a newcomer). Also, addition by subtraction only goes so far.

One thing is certain. Next season will be exciting.

[The Mad Hatter]

I know about ifs and buts. I am a firm believer that a healthy and full team from the start would have won 18-20 games this year. Everything else is in place for success.


UTA, UMKC, DU (Home), ISU (home), CU (X2), UNI (X2), SIU (home), UNA, UE (away), ISU (away). That's 12 games right there. If only 1/2 break our way we are 17-13.


If healthy and full next year, I believe we will improve on that mark.


:wsu_posters: :goshocks: :posterwsu: :posterwu:

While I agree that a healthy team would have have won more games, I think that 18-20 is a bit of a stretch.

I can't bring myself to include UTA, UMKC, or Drake, because we had not had major injuries to that point (although the fact that we were using a scholly on Arbry Butler turned out to be detrimental to our depth all year).

Of the remaining games, my guess is that we would have won around half of those games. Given all of that, my guess is that we would have won between 15-17 games this year had we been healthy.