KenPom Rankings Out

[handdownmandown]

Yes and no.

Yes compared to last season, no compared to Butler.

[Bill Marsh]

Yes and no.

Yes compared to last season, no compared to Butler.

Last year Butler had Kellen Dunham andKyle Marshall coming back from the previous season. Chatman's a good player, but I don't see this kind of 1-2 punch at Creighton to build around. Dunham and Marshall were not alone. They had several experienced veterans ready to step into the starting lineup with them. Anyone who watched them play last year knows that they were a good team which had the misfortune of losing a lot of close games. It's not like they weren't competitive. They went into the Big East season with a 10-2 record OOC, their only losses being a pair of 2-point losses to OK State and LSU In OT. they had P5 wins over Purdue, Washington State, and Vanderbilt.

3 of Butler's BE losses came in OT, leading to a 5 game conference losing streak right out of the gate. It was all up hill from there. 4 more losses were in single digits and then thy lost a 1-point game in the BE tournament. With a few breaks this could have been a .500 team in conference. Looking at them and saying, "this could never happen to us" ignores just how tough this league is. If it happened to a good Butler team, it can happen to anyone.

[FlyJays]

Butler was not a good team last season. They looked like a mediocre mid-major team in Omaha, and that's not really an exaggeration.

I must be the only one not overly impressed with Kellen Dunham. He played "ok" games both times against us, and took ill-timed and forced shots consistently. I think he's a solid player, but not someone that I would call a "1" in a 1-2 punch. He scored 16 p/gm last season because he took a ton of shots. His career field goal percentage is a pedestrian 38%, and he's a 35% shooter from 3. Not exactly earth-shattering numbers. He also had more turnovers than assists last season. I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up as a reason Butler had as much or more talent last season than Creighton does this season. Dunham averaged 9.5 pts/gm coming into last season, which isn't all that different than Chatman, yet you seem to dismiss Chatman as any sort of offensive threat. What am I missing, Bill?

[Professor_Bulldog]

You guys have a decent bball tradition and program. You don't need to act like someone called your mother a whore every time someone says Creighton will be mediocre.

[aughnanure]

You guys have a decent bball tradition and program. You don't need to act like someone called your mother a whore every time someone says Creighton will be mediocre.

This.

[Bill Marsh]

Butler was not a good team last season. They looked like a mediocre mid-major team in Omaha, and that's not really an exaggeration.

I must be the only one not overly impressed with Kellen Dunham. He played "ok" games both times against us, and took ill-timed and forced shots consistently. I think he's a solid player, but not someone that I would call a "1" in a 1-2 punch. He scored 16 p/gm last season because he took a ton of shots. His career field goal percentage is a pedestrian 38%, and he's a 35% shooter from 3. Not exactly earth-shattering numbers. He also had more turnovers than assists last season. I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up as a reason Butler had as much or more talent last season than Creighton does this season. Dunham averaged 9.5 pts/gm coming into last season, which isn't all that different than Chatman, yet you seem to dismiss Chatman as any sort of offensive threat. What am I missing, Bill?

Yes, they looked like a mid in Omaha in a 28 point blow out. So did Villanova. Dismissing them too as a mid major? Is that how you evaluate teams, i.e. How they perform on the road against one of the best teams in the country?

By that standard I wouldn't rate the Creighton team that I saw in Providence last winter very highly they were dismantled by the Big East champions who were never threatened in that game, who built u a 20 point lead in the 2nd half, and who coasted to an easy victory. Wragge and Chatman were horrible in that game and McDermott was okay. Is that where my assessment of Creighton in 2014 should stop?

You say that you saw the Butler game at Butler. Did they look mid major in that game? If so, so did Creighton. Butler held a 1-point lead with less than a minute to go in a game that could have gone either way.

When I watched Butler last year, I saw a team that moved the ball crisply, that hit the open man, and that played extremely well together as a unit. From the POV of basketball fundamentals, they were frankly a joy to watch.

As for Dunham getting his points because he took "a ton of shots," I beg to differ. He's a perimeter player who hit 39% of his shots overall. That's what perimeter players do. They hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of their shots. D'Angelo Harrison of St. John's took more shots than Dunham and hit a lower %. But whether you're talking about Bryce Cotton, or Markel Starks, or Harrison, or, Dunham, or any of the rest, that's what they do.

As for more TO than Assists, not according to the numbers I saw from last year. As for your comparison of Dunham with Chatman, it doesn't really hold water. Chatman has ever been seen as a potential big time scorer. Not last year and not when they recruited him. Don't get me wrong. He's a good player, but he's had 3 years to show what he can do and he's never scored more than 8 ppg? You're comparing that with what Dunham did as a freshman! Dunham was a 4-star recruit who was expected to develop into a very good player. He showed that potential as a freshman, which is why big things were expected of him as a sophomore. Marshall, with 10 ppg, 7 rpg in a balanced offense, had already shown himself to be a very good low post scorer/rebounder. All I'm saying is that those 2 gave Butler an inside/outside game of established players that they could build around.

By comparison, Creighton is not bringing back 2 such established players to rebuild around. Chatman, an under-6'0" guard, is the only returning starter and in 3 years he has established himself as a complementary player. Maybe he'll do more this year, but he has never been regarded as having that kind of up side.

Why do I keep bringing up Dunham? Frankly I love the way the kid plays the game, the way he moves without the ball, the way he passes, the way he sees the floor. At 6'6", he's a rare player who can consistently hit from the outsid at that height. With that size to get his shot off, I guarantee that he would be even better in a more balanced offense. But that's just my bias.

I think what you're missing is that it's not just about whether Creighton has some pieces to rebuild around. It's that their success was so dependent on McDermott and the 3-point offense that he enabled them to play. It was freakish to have him and the seniors who complemented hi - Weagge, Manigat, and Gibbs - all hitting over 40% from 3. McDermott could always be counted on but with the trifecta around him, so could someone else. Teams live and die with the 3 because sometimes you're hot and sometimes you're not. When you're not, you go down in flames. Not last year's Creighton team. Most teams who shoot the 3 have just a few players that they go to for their perimeter game. Creighton went to everybody. AND everybody hit those shots for them. They could sustain their offense even when someone had an off night because there were so many others to go to. That Providence game was frankly the only time a saw them all year fail to come up with support for McDermott.

I've never in my life seen another team that could shoot like last year's Creighton team.

You don't just pick up the pieces and continue on when you've lost the 4 guys you all last from last year's team. It's going to take a major overhaul. Whoever is put out there this year is going to look like a poor substitute. Knowing how rare last year's team was, I can't imagine anyone that you could come up with replicating that. And it's not just how good they were, it's that they were all seniors. Players of McDermott's caliber don't hang around for 4 years any more. Wasn't Gibbs a 5th or 6th year senior? Combine their skill with the experience and veteran leadership and you got that once in a lifetime combination.

That's my take on it. Not looking to disparage your guys. Just calling it like I see it.

[stever20]

Yes and no.

Yes compared to last season, no compared to Butler.

Last year Butler had Kellen Dunham andKyle Marshall coming back from the previous season. Chatman's a good player, but I don't see this kind of 1-2 punch at Creighton to build around. Dunham and Marshall were not alone. They had several experienced veterans ready to step into the starting lineup with them. Anyone who watched them play last year knows that they were a good team which had the misfortune of losing a lot of close games. It's not like they weren't competitive. They went into the Big East season with a 10-2 record OOC, their only losses being a pair of 2-point losses to OK State and LSU In OT. they had P5 wins over Purdue, Washington State, and Vanderbilt.

3 of Butler's BE losses came in OT, leading to a 5 game conference losing streak right out of the gate. It was all up hill from there. 4 more losses were in single digits and then thy lost a 1-point game in the BE tournament. With a few breaks this could have been a .500 team in conference. Looking at them and saying, "this could never happen to us" ignores just how tough this league is. If it happened to a good Butler team, it can happen to anyone.

Vandy 15-16
Wash St 10-21
Purdue 15-17

This is why the P5 label is such a joke. There is nothing redeeming about any of those 3 wins at all. Nothing. All 3 were losing teams. Their OOC schedule was #283 last year. They were 10-2(really 9-2 because of the D2 win) because of that. The only 2 games they played against a team with a pulse, they lost. They were a paper tiger OOC. Only Seton Hall had a worse OOC schedule.

Oh and Dunham's Ken Pom Offensive Rating is 101.9. That isn't good. And much worse than the previous season(in the A10).

[XU85]

That's the first observation. The second is more complicated.


I must say that we have been welcomed to the Big East in an incredibly positive and enthusiastic manner. However, there still seems to be a slight whiff from C7 fans of wishing the three of us 'well, but not too well'. Why? The BE superiority story is pretty much ingrained in the fandom of the original C7; I wouldn't expect it to be any other way, really, and even in pointing it out I wouldn't characterize it as a negative. But the idea that Butler, Xavier, or Creighton can just roll in and do well, and consistently? That's not a thought most C7 fans want to entertain, because if it plays out like that, it brings up some questions that will (depending on which team you root for) range from queasy to vomit inducing. So, while being extended a very positive and genuine invite, the C7 seems to be thinking, best of luck, because really what we're thinking is, we hope you get your ducks in line pretty quickly, because this is a whole new ball of wax, and we don't want you dragging us down.

And again, I get that. And when that's your default basis for decision making, naturally the idea of Creighton at .500 or better in the conference (or whatever overachieving would be) is just something that can't be processed, because such an outcome isn't attainable. You cannot beat Big East teams with a bunch of Valley players; the same argument as was made last season, just in a different package. If our B team shows up and does well, proving you can amass strong BE results WHILE DOING SO WITH FAR, FAR LESS RESOURCES, then there's absolutely no excuse for the non-big 3 (Nova, GTown, Marq) to have underachieved to the degree that they have over the years, and that idea can't be entertained. Better to banish it.

Before you run in here and say, WTF, this guy is saying it's a conspiracy that C7 fans want the new three to fail, a)that's not what I'm saying at all and b)as C7 fans, you probably don't even realize you give off such an attitude. I'd bet $$$ that Butler and X fans agree with me, too, but even if they don't, we can smell it. And it's why dander gets raised when it starts to rear its head which is what's happening here: we see a blanket dismissal based on nothing other than reading a few dubious articles and sprinkling it with what, as C7 fans, you suspect isn't there (talent, because of your disdain for the players we could only get as a member of an inferior league), as fightin' words.

So if Chief Wiggum et al. want to wax rhapsodically about how there's no way for us to excel this year, bring it on. We're up for it. And if we blow, I'll be the first person on here to say, you were right. What we ask is you do the same.

//rant

As an addendum, I would like to give a shout out to one person on here who, last season, pretty much owned up to what I just said: admin. Total props for having the balls to come out and say, yes it's great that X and CU have done so well, but I'm really pretty disappointed in the efforts of the C7, because I wanted them to represent what we stood for in the BE in a much better manner than they did - teams joining from a lesser league and doing this well shouldn't be possible. That's not in quotes, because I didn't go find the thread where he said it (it's from memory), but I remember reading it and thinking, FINALLY SOMEONE HAS THE STONES TO SAY WHAT A LOT OF THE C7 IS THINKING. So, bravo for that, Admin.

Well said! Although far from scientific based on such a small sample, it seems even the coaches may underestimate the 3 new comers (or overestimate the C-7). Last year the coaches picked Butler, X, and Creighton to finish 9,7, and 3 respectively, and they finished 9, 3, and 2. X is picked 4th by the coaches this year, which is one of the lower predicted finishes amongst the available polls.

[Westbrook#36]

Oh, stop it already. Xavier is picked to anywhere between 2-5 in all the pre-season polls I've seen, same range as Georgetown and St. John's. Creighton finished 2nd last year, Butler looks like they might surprise this year. Seems like some of you new guys won't be happy unless all 3 of you are picked to finish 1-2-3 in the league, anything short of that is a sign of major disrespect or something, you guys are a bit sensitive . It's like some of you think you're going to waltz in and dominate, that the rest of the old guard "C7" should bow down before the flagship of the A-10, should kneel before the kings of MVC, or genuflect to the monsters of the Horizon.

Don't get started on disrespect, you have no idea what it was like in the old BE. The arrogance of the big public schools 'Cuse, Ville, UConn, & Pitt, being dismissed out of hand pretty much every year. If someone paid you a compliment it was along the lines of, "you guys we be pretty good this year for a small private school, if things go perfect for you, you could finish as high as 6th, you might even sneak into the dance".

[FlyJays]

I'm not sure what Professor Bulldog accomplishes with his posts, but thanks for the language.

I think my responses have been pretty even keeled. And I honestly just enjoy the discussion. I've picked Creighton to finish 5th-7th. I'm well aware they are going to be mediocre this year.

My response to Bill was in regards to Butler's team last year, and the idea that Dunham is some stud player. Just about every statistical measure illustrates that he's a good player, but not great by any means. I'm just trying to figure out why some view him as a big time player that can carry Butler, when Chatman is better in almost every statistical category heading into this season than Dunham was heading into last year, and Chatman is viewed as some afterthought.

As for Bill's Villanova point, Villanova was a very good team who just happened to match up horribly with Creighton. I see what you're attempting to illustrate by tossing in Creighton and Villanova as teams who had bad performances, but unfortunately for your argument, Villanova and Creighton had great seasons, while Butler piled up loss after loss. Butler was just a bad team, as Stever helped illustrate above. If you thought Butler was a "joy" to watch, you must be easily amused, because both times I watched them, they weren't great. You say Chatman's had three years to show what he can do, and has never averaged more than 8ppg. Yet, in an earlier post, you made it clear that the offense ran through McDermott and others. He's was the facilitator. He never had to be one of the go-to guys. In your opinion, he was never regarded as a guy with "upside". But that's simply your opinion. Again, you aren't in Omaha and have no idea what people here think of his upside. He has the ability to score a lot more than 8ppg.

Once again, I think you're making pretty reasonable assumptions and arguments, I just don't happen to agree with some of them. Specifically with regards to Butler's team last year. I expect them to be a good bit better with Jones back in the lineup, but still not great, simply because they don't have much else on the roster.