everything that's on my mind
(as if there's not already enough people doing this)Monday, January 30, 2006
Redick and Morrison
Sportscenter finished up the recap of the Duke-Virginia game - highlighting J.J. Redick's 40 points - by saying "anything you can do, I can do better." This provided the segue to the Gonazaga-Portland recap, where they highlighted Adam Morrison's 42 point game.Now, I ment
ioned the race for player of the year in college basketball recently, and said I had an opinion but wouldn't comment until probably late February. However, Jay Bilas made a pretty good point this weekend, in my opinion, and I'm now inclined to echo his remarks. Commenting on the player of the year race, if you will, he said that he wouldn't choose either of these players - he'd choose them both. They're having great seasons and it's too hard - even ridiculous - to say one or the other is the player of the year. They both are.I think he's right, at least at this point in the season. I decided to look at a few stats (and could probably add more if I had the time or desire to do so.) Here's what I found:
Against ranked teams, Morrison is averaging 32.6 points per game. Redick is averaging 28.7. (Morrison had 43 against Michigan State, but it was 3OT game, so his average is down slightly if you factor in those extra 15 minutes. Redick has played in no OT games.)
Against those teams, Gonzaga is 3-4. Duke is 8-0.
Against "good teams" - which I would define as those ranked teams along with a few others that are in the top 40 or 50 (most likely), as well as common opponents, Morrison is averaging 30.7 points, and Redick 31.6 points.
Against those common opponents (Memphis, Maryland and Virginia), Morrison is averaging 28.6, and Redick 27.3.
Season averages are 29 points per game for Morrison, and 28 for Redick.
As for other stats:
As for other stats:
Rebounds per game: Morrison 5.9, Redick 1.9.
Assists per game: Morrison 1.7, Redick 2.4.
Turnovers per game: Morrison 2.4, Redick 2.2.
Steals per game: Morrison 1.1, Redick 1.2.
I could go on with other stats, but I think these say a lot about how close these guys are. Morrison is slightly ahead in most of the averages, but then again Redick has more wins, and more against top teams. One might argue in favor of Redick due to him playing in a tougher conference. While there's no question that this is true, during Gonzaga's pre-conference schedule, Morrison was getting it done against big-time opponents, too. In the end, he'll have fewer of those opponents on his resume then Redick will, but he's had enough already to prove his case.
So, who's the best? I don't know if it's possible to say. And it likely won't be at the end of the year, either. As I said before, I think Bilas has the right idea. They both will likely deserve it at the end of the year. And since there are multiple awards, they'll both likely get their share. I think it may make the most sense, however, to split them all between both of these guys. They're both too good to finish second.
I could go on with other stats, but I think these say a lot about how close these guys are. Morrison is slightly ahead in most of the averages, but then again Redick has more wins, and more against top teams. One might argue in favor of Redick due to him playing in a tougher conference. While there's no question that this is true, during Gonzaga's pre-conference schedule, Morrison was getting it done against big-time opponents, too. In the end, he'll have fewer of those opponents on his resume then Redick will, but he's had enough already to prove his case.
So, who's the best? I don't know if it's possible to say. And it likely won't be at the end of the year, either. As I said before, I think Bilas has the right idea. They both will likely deserve it at the end of the year. And since there are multiple awards, they'll both likely get their share. I think it may make the most sense, however, to split them all between both of these guys. They're both too good to finish second.
I stand corrected
I tuned in to the women's final at the Australian Open Friday night expecting a good match. I expected three sets, and the third set to go down to the wire. However, it didn't start that way, and it ended even worse. Amelie Mauresmo came out and blew Justine Henin-Hardenne off the court in the first set, and then, early in the second, Henin-Hardenne asked for a trainer. After returning to the court for a few more points, she then walked to the umpire and informed her she could not continue. So, she retired from match due to some sort of stomach illness, and Mauresmo won the match and the title.
Now, it's pretty rare to see someone retire in the second week of a grand slam, and evenmore so in a final. But Mauresmo only had to complete four matches in the tournament. Three times - that's right, THREE times - her opponent retired, including in both the semifinal and final. Not that she wouldn't have won those matches. She probably would have. But it's unfortunate that she didn't get to. And it's also unfortunate that tennis fans didn't get to see a little more tennis out of two of the last three women's matches.
Oh, and surprise, surprise - Roger Federer won the men's title. That's his seventh grand slam. As they said on Sportscenter, "maybe when he wins his tenth Americans will be able to recognize him on the street."
Archives
May 2004 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006
