Quote from: John Gleich on March 03, 2015, 05:36:04 PM

Quote from: basketballman14 on March 03, 2015, 03:22:41 PM
Well, it's that time of year again: All-WIAC selections. I have always felt that All-WIAC selections should be made based on stats and how a player performed. I don't a team's record should factor into it. You can't have role players being selected as All-WIAC selections. Now, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the WIAC this season, but by looking at the numbers that players put up, the league really struggled. Can someone explain to me how Joe Ritchay was a first-teamer? He shot 40.5 percent, horrendous three-point and free throw shooting numbers and below-average rebounding numbers. Do people just love players from Point? I see the Pointers had five players selected on 1st and HM teams. Jordan Lutz was nothing more than a three-point shooter. Of his 200 shots, 120 were threes. Grant it, he shot 47.5 percent, but didn't do anything else. Evans and Young were the two players who were no-brainers. Egan is another one that shocks me. He is a beneficiary of Young and Evans. While Olson helped Oshkosh to the WIAC championship game, his shooting numbers across the board were less than average and he really struggled at times. I'm OK with Manning I suppose. Stocki, meh 50-50. Seems like he really under-performed. Grant Erickson is alright, but didn't do anything special. I'll give him credit, his numbers improved and he only played half a minute more per game this season. But that was also because River Falls was better. Christenson, I'm fine with. He had some nice games. Tyson Kailen was a volume three-point shooter who did nothing else. Don't agree with that selection. And as for Alex Richard and Austin Ryf, I suppose they deserve it. I don't mean to be the Grinch, but I feel like the WIAC just sucked all around this season. Superior, Stout and La Crosse were dreadful. EC, Oshkosh and Platteville were ho-hum. RF was most improved. Point wasn't even that good. They really struggled at times. They could have easily lost four or five conference games. And everyone knew WW would be great. I just feel every team in the league lacked one really good player. WW was the only team with two "stars". I don't know, just my opinion. Any thoughts?

Hmm... By your logic... the all-conference team should have been:

Evans
Young
Ryf
Richard
Manning
Christenson

Well, the WIAC first team has 12 guys, with 9 honorable mention. You've given us 6. Where are your other 15?

It appears that you aren't willing to give the players their due... this is for the 12 top players, and then the 9 next-highest.


To answer some of your questions... there are things in the game of basketball that matter in addition to simply the points that are scored.

For example:

All-Defensive Team
Steve Egan, Whitewater, Senior, Forward, Omro, Wis.
Jordan Lutz, Stevens Point, Senior, Forward, Amherst, Wis.
Lewis Mau, Eau Claire, Senior, Guard, Colfax, Wis.
Austin Ryf, Stevens Point, Senior, Guard, Winneconne, Wis.
Quardell Young, Whitewater, Senior, Guard, Kenosha, Wis. (Bradford)

Steve Egan, and Jordan Lutz, who you didn't deem worthy of all-conference accolades, were selected on the All-Defensive team.

Speaking of defense... UWSP led the nation in scoring defense at 55.6 PPG. Further, they were second at just 8.2 turnovers per game. These statistics aren't just happenstance... they require skill.


It's easy to poke holes... but there's more to it than that. There are (likely) two All-Americans in the WIAC this year - Young and Evans.  The league was down this year, at least in terms of non-conference record that the conference was able to achieve, compared to years in the past. But even so, these are annual awards. It goes to the best players in the conference, as voted on by the coaches and SID's.

First off, I should have said that I believe there should be two teams: first and second, comprising of five players each. Then, for HM, it should be five guys. It takes at least five guys to win a basketball game. Most teams play eight-10 players. I don't agree with the better teams having three players each because, normally, the third player is a wild-card, meaning you never know what you're going to get from that guy every game. Consistency needs to be looked at in these instances. If a team has one very good player but his team wins four conference games compared to a role player on a team that wins 10 conference games, does that role player deserve it over that very good player? In my opinion, the answer is "no" 100 out of 100 times. Ritchay is a role player. Lutz is a role player. Could those two players be the best player on Superior or La Crosse, or even EC? I highly doubt it. Point's system is the San Antonio Spurs system. Players' weaknesses are hardly exposed because the coaches know how to use them. It's just opinion. But I think the WIAC needs to re-configure the All-WIAC selections and break it into teams, and trim down the number.

Well, it's that time of year again: All-WIAC selections. I have always felt that All-WIAC selections should be made based on stats and how a player performed. I don't a team's record should factor into it. You can't have role players being selected as All-WIAC selections. Now, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the WIAC this season, but by looking at the numbers that players put up, the league really struggled. Can someone explain to me how Joe Ritchay was a first-teamer? He shot 40.5 percent, horrendous three-point and free throw shooting numbers and below-average rebounding numbers. Do people just love players from Point? I see the Pointers had five players selected on 1st and HM teams. Jordan Lutz was nothing more than a three-point shooter. Of his 200 shots, 120 were threes. Grant it, he shot 47.5 percent, but didn't do anything else. Evans and Young were the two players who were no-brainers. Egan is another one that shocks me. He is a beneficiary of Young and Evans. While Olson helped Oshkosh to the WIAC championship game, his shooting numbers across the board were less than average and he really struggled at times. I'm OK with Manning I suppose. Stocki, meh 50-50. Seems like he really under-performed. Grant Erickson is alright, but didn't do anything special. I'll give him credit, his numbers improved and he only played half a minute more per game this season. But that was also because River Falls was better. Christenson, I'm fine with. He had some nice games. Tyson Kailen was a volume three-point shooter who did nothing else. Don't agree with that selection. And as for Alex Richard and Austin Ryf, I suppose they deserve it. I don't mean to be the Grinch, but I feel like the WIAC just sucked all around this season. Superior, Stout and La Crosse were dreadful. EC, Oshkosh and Platteville were ho-hum. RF was most improved. Point wasn't even that good. They really struggled at times. They could have easily lost four or five conference games. And everyone knew WW would be great. I just feel every team in the league lacked one really good player. WW was the only team with two "stars". I don't know, just my opinion. Any thoughts?

Havej - Totally understand what you are saying. Even in in-conference play, Peterson still led the league in scoring by more than 1 point per game. He scored in double-figures in 15 of the 16 games and shot even better from 3-point land (46%, good for 3rd in the conference) and made the 6th most 3's while taking less attempts than every guy ahead of him. I still think it's just bologna that he didn't make First Team and a guy like Royston or White did. Even though people have already said that Peterson's team finished with a better record than White's and Royston's numbers are below average in terms of shooting %. But this is a fun argument for sure!

Badgerwarhawk - While you do make a lot of vaild points and I'm not arguing with you, here are some other numbers:

Peterson
Field goal %: 48.7
Free-throw %: 83.1 (2nd in conference)
Rebounds: 5.8 per game (8th in conference and 3rd on his own team)
Points: 20.3 (1st in conference)
Free-throws made: 123 (1st in conference)
3-pt %: 42.7 (6th in conference)
3-pt made: 47 (8th in conference)
Minutes per game: 32.6

Young
Field goal %: 54.1
Free-throw %: 68.2
Rebounds: 2.7 per game
Points: 10.5
Free-throws made: 45
3-pt %: 45.5 (didn't qualify to be on the leaderboard I think??)
3-pt made: 15
Minutes per game: 29.6

Also, Peterson played the two-guard last season and was forced into a point guard-type role this season, which he obviously wasn't too comfortable playing. He is not a point guard by any means. Young is a solid player, no question. But we all know that playing on a good team means your numbers will be a little more modest than some other players, however, your shooting percentages and other stats (other than points) will look better. It's a lot easier to hit open shots, which I assume Young was getting as oppose to shooting over players and going against the other team's best defensive player every single game. Not that it means anything, but Peterson had 5 30-point games this season (most in the league) and shot over 60% in those games as well. Like I said earlier, it makes for a fun argument. Hope all is well!

Quote from: havej on March 06, 2014, 04:05:23 PM
Junkie - you raise some interesting points.  As a consistent follower of the conference, the only thing I can safely say is that 1) playoff teams get more guys recognized and 2) some of the selections make no sense.

Agree with your point on playoff teams getting more guys. But last season, Superior made the playoffs, but had no all-conference guys. Peterson was .1 points per game behind Cross in leading the league scoring too and top 5 (?) in rebounding I think? Personally, I don't think the coaches have much respect for him. Having talked to him before and knowing him a little bit, I don't think the other coaches realize how much harder he works than everyone else. He is a pure shooter and scorer. Can he be a hot-head at times? Yes, he can. But I have seen more class-less acts from other teams' players towards him than he has ever displayed towards them. I think he was just frustrated with how the season went.

Quote from: havej on March 06, 2014, 09:22:35 AM
bballfan14 - we do not disagree on Peterson being left off.  In a post on February 23rd I had him on my first team.  There's no way he's not one of the ten best performers in the league.  I was just trying to pose possible reasons for his omission.  We'll never know why some guys didn't include him on their vote.

You commented that you saw Superior play often - they won just four games in league play this year and might have gone 0-16 without him??

I did see Superior play a lot and while they didn't fair well in conference, the roster is full of young guys...mostly freshman and sophomores who didn't have any or much experience prior to this season. Some injuries and bad play on the part of everyone on the team, including him, didn't help. They played Platteville extremely tough at home, could have even won that game. They played La Crosse tough at home on senior night, could have won that game. And if their last game against Oshkosh would have mattered, they could have won that one too. They could have won 7 games in conference this season. But he was a big reason in those games. Plus they had Bryne who could have been All-Defensive. Certainly a better defender than Cross and out-played Cross in the their first meeting and just about even in the second meeting. Cross struggled against him.

Quote from: havej on March 05, 2014, 05:54:55 PM
stoutfan - agree on Jenny being most deserving.  He plays as hard as anybody in the WIAC and any team would be better with him.  It's too bad he had to play with some injuries but great to see him make 1st team.

Hard to evaluate Peterson because his team was not very good.  He had to shoulder most of the offense which caused him to force shots and turn it over quite a bit.  Obviously coaches had varying opinions of his play.  Have to admit the guy competes but does some things that make you wonder.

Peterson still shot nearly 48% from the field and over 40% from 3. Led in free-throws made, top 10 in rebounding, top 5 in free-throws attempted and other numerous categories. Having watched Superior a ton this season, he was the best player on the court between the two teams 95% of the time. While he did have an attitude, he played extremely hard. And yes he did turn it over a lot but he didn't force that many bad shots if he still shot nearly 48%. Idk. Oh well. It makes for a fun argument!

Personally, to me, it should only be about production. Peterson was in the top half of every offensive category and his points-per-shot is second to none so it's not like he was chucking up shots for the heck of it. I don't know I'm just baffled.

Clayton Heuer averaged 9 points and not even 5 rebounds on a team that is loaded and earns All-Conference? Maybe the WIAC should just do away with All Conference honors. Anybody have any thoughts?

A big time surprise with the All-WIAC selections. Do coaches vote based on production or based on whether or not they like a player? Anybody know?