Wednesday, April 23, 2014

News and Notes: Wednesday Edition

Above, Cornell's 2010 Sweet 16 Ring.  Below, news and notes for Wednesday...

  • The Atlanta Journal Constitution writes, "First Cornell transfer Nolan Cressler, now Camron Justice. The Vanderbilt backcourt will be loaded with shooting talent in 2015-2016."
Sure, it sounds like a movie plot.
A wide-open, free-to-enter, 32-team 5-on-5 single-elimination basketball tournament. $500,000 on the line. One shot at glory.  But this is real life, and squads from around the country are gearing up to participate in The Basketball Tournament (TBT, for short). Although you might half-expect Jackie Moon and the Flint Tropics to show up, the tournament, in its inaugural year, will bring out a whole lot of guys you might remember. The 2009 Villanova Final Four team? Check. That 2010 Cornell squad that won your heart and shot its way into the Sweet 16? They’re in.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Cornell loses Nolan Cressler next year, but may actually be a better outside shooting team."

Yup...Cornell is probably better w/o proven All Ivy and now SEC recruit Nolan Cressler...yup.

Be a fan, be a huge fan, maybe even slightly a homer. But don't be ridiculous.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

(1) Nolan wasn't All Ivy as a frosh. He was a 9 ppg scorer, and his numbers increased his rookie year when Shonn Miller, Devin Cherry, Jonathan Gray and Galal Cancer dropped off and gave him extended playing time and offensive opportunity. Only as a soph did Nolan really emerge as a star.

(2) Robert Hatter has nearly identical/comparable scoring and shooting numbers as Nolan's rookie numbers. Thus, it is within the bounds of reason that Robert could be an All Ivy type 15 ppg scorer next year. If Nolan can make the jump, so can Robert.

What you see is the departing sophomore in Cressler. What I see is the rising sophomore in Hatter.

And I see Nolan's numbers inflated A BIT last year by a roster that was ravaged by injury.

Don't get me wrong. Nolan is a legit talent. But so are Robert, Darryl, Devin and the frosh. Cornell will be fine off the ball. Lot of good scoring guards.

Anonymous said...

We've been thru this before.

Along with Sears, Cressler made a bigger jump in performance than any other freshman in the league last year.

He made a huge jump, outside the standard bell curve for freshmen improvement.

So there are 2 freshmen in the league who did that - and thirty something who didn't.

No one is saying that Hatter doesn't have potential - but why is he one of the 5%, and not one of the 95%?

The obvious answer is that there is no way to know.

But is it likely? I'll let common sense be the judge of that.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

One of our former coaches who I am betting you like and respect thinks Robert Hatter is a 1st Team All Ivy player at some point at the Sean McGonagil level.

Listen, you don't score over 30 pts in a game a rookie by accident. Robert can score the ball and like every other guard in the league, even MAA, his handle and ball control will just get better and better.

Robert will be a all star, possibly a league superstar.

Meanwhile, I hear that David O is the hardest working player in the program, tireless. A Jeff Foote like drive and work ethic. Also a great sign.

But back to the main point, Cornell will be just fine in the backcourt. Plenty of shooters and slashers now.

Anonymous said...

Well, we can hope, but I don't see the comparison.

Look at their freshman numbers.
Cressler's offensive rating was 115, already at a star level, and by far the highest on the team.

Hatter's offensive rating was 90, obviously sub-par.

And if you want to compare Hatter to McGonagil, go back and look at McGonagil's freshman numbers. Much better than Hatter's, and he was thrown in as a full time starter immediately.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Cressler's offensive rating was higher because he is 6'4"--- collected rebounds and was not responsible for turnovers (i.e. handling the ball). The rating is thus misleading. Moreover, Cressler had the luxury of being an unmarked shooter as a 3rd, 4th or 5th scoring option behind Gray, Miller and Peck.

Hatter was a starter from day 1 and was the #2 scoring option behind Cressler. Teams quickly defended Hatter once the secret was out on him. And as frosh, the ball was placed in his hands as a PG.

Nothing is guaranteed in terms of Hatter's development, but I actually like his upside more than Cressler's. Not only can Hatter shoot, but he has the ability and the physical tools to be an unselfish and quality playmaker. He's already shown a nice knack to drive the lane to complement his long range game.

Anonymous said...

You are forgetting a huge point here. Cressler is PROVEN. We lost a PROVEN player. Hatter may have upside, and I think he does, but Cressler proved himself. That is worth a lot, and that is not easily replaced.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Yes, Nolan proved himself in Year #2. But questions remained about him after year #1. We probably all felt the same way about Nolan as we do about Robert after their respective rookie years.

br2 said...

To be pedantic, and I'll play both sides here:

My side:
You say "Cornell loses Cressler but they may actually be better w/r/t outside shooting." I refute that Cressler is an upperclassman proven entity and that losing him does not make us better no matter who is coming in, esp if they were an injury prone freshman.

Your side:
Hatter has a lot of upside, and despite losing Cressler, Hatter could turn out to be even better than Cressler was, thus making us "better".

My last refutation:
Having Cressler and Hatter makes us better than none at all, so losing a proven Cressler does not make us a better outside shooting team. Hatter coming in at a level similar to Cressler's at best makes us the same.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

br2,

I did not say that Cornell is better BECAUSE it loses Cressler. I am saying that despite losing Cressler, Cornell still improves as a shooting unit because the Big Red add a bunch of shooters and add spacing with Miller. Had Cressler returned, Cornell would've been a real contender.

Losing the seniors is another story. I think that's addition by subtraction.

Anonymous said...

I still don't get how they will be a better shooting team.

Cressler was a much better shooter than Hatter. Regardless of how you spin shooting %'s.

Anonymous said...

I believe that HAtter does have a considerable upside. He may not be Siyani Chambers, but di dsho wreal flashes of brilliance at times last year.

That said, losing Cressler is big. He took great strides last year as a sophomore, carried the team and was Wittman-like at times. I have to believe that with two more Ivy seasons, and playng alongside a point guar dliek Hatter, Cressler wouldv'e been huge

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Cornell becomes a better shooting team because besides the return of Hatter, they add Glassman and Smith, both of whom are long range shooters and legitimate Division I recruits.

But you need more than shooters to be a good shooting team. You need spacing. What made the 2010 team deadly was the inside presence of Foote. And with Shonn back, Cornell's offense becomes less predictable.

Every coach last season knew Cornell had ZERO inside game. Nobody to throw the ball inside to (except Ned, who did not play because of his defensive liabilities).

Next season, the situation changes. Shonn demands respect. Hell, he demands double-teams because he can power the ball to the rim in a flash. His presence creates spacing...and a perimeter trio of Hatter, Cherry and say Glassmann and/or Smith, will have a lot more space to operate with new angles to attack.

Anonymous said...

penomer againStrange CCB how you can dream up anything to bolster Courtney and forget about reality. Cressler scored dispite a lack of screens & on only received fair point guard play. He was a very smart player with few turnovers. Hatter cannot go to his right and defenses will pick that up early. He is not a jump shooter but is a set shooter. takes too much time to execute that shot.