Fox Sports 1 Big East Previews All 5 Games: top 99 players with all eight key stats for each

Fox Sports 1 tips off momentarily. We have run the www.valueaddbasketball.com numbers just for Big East players (the database will have the numbers prior to Christmas. In addition to ranking the players based on their Value Add per game (which shows Luke Fischer as the second most valuable player in the conference to date), we provide the eight biggest factors the ratings for each player (shooting, offensive and defensive rebounding, assists, turnovers, blocked shots, steals and fouls drawn). Players with a Value Add of 0.00 are not included - exactly 99 have brought some value to their team.

If any of you have not subscribed to www.kenpom.com you of course need to do it TODAY.

11 a.m. - St. John's favored by 2 1/2 over Seton Hall - You hate to be missing your point guard against St. John's pressure (Isaiah Whitehead, ranked 32nd). St. John's #15 Sir'Dominic Pointer comes into conference play ranked No. 1 in Value Add per game - worth almost nine points a game. Seton Hall's Sterling Gibbs actually shot up briefly to No. 1 in the nation after a 40-point outing against a pretty good Illinois State team, but he has not scored 20 in any game since then.

1:30 p.m. - Butler 11 point underdog at Villanova - Butler has been the sweetest surprise of the Big East early start, but Nova looks so tough with three of the top nine players in the conference and nine players in the top 30.

4 p.m. - Marquette 4 1/2 point favorite at DePaul - In Luke Fischer's four games he has been worth more than eight points a game to Marquette (8.07 Value Add per game) making him the second most valuable player in the conference. Meanwhile DePaul has really fallen off as the one weak team in the conference with no players in the top 40 in the conference. Still, DePaul won on this floor against Stanford. Matt Carlino ranks 14th and Juan Anderson 23rd, and Duane Wilson has become the additional offensive threat in rising up to 38th.

6:30 p.m. - Creighton 5-point underdog at Providence - Creighton pulled the great upset over Oklahoma early, but really looks like they need a year to reload. Providence incredible Top 10 duo of Kris Dunn (6th) and LaDontae Henton (10th) looked shell-shocked for a couple of games after the Kentucky loss, but other than that this tema looks like a contender.

9 p.m. - Georgetown 5 1/2 point underdog at Xavier - Georgetown capped the incredible non-conference season for the Big East with the comeback win over Indiana. Georgetown's #4 D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera has been a Value Add favorite, ranking in the top 10% in 2013 and top 2% of all players the two years since, including ranking 3rd in the Big East.The player right behind him at 4th in the rankings is Xavier's #40 Matt Stainbrook, who was top 5% of all players last year and is even better - and a floor general even from the front court.

Player		Team	Pos	Ht	VA/Gm	G	eFG%	OR%	DR%	Ast	TO	Blk%	Stl%	FD/40
15 Sir'Dominic Pointer	1	St. John's	PF	6' 6"	8.79	11	58.8	4.4	19.5	22.1	17.3	6.4	4.6	3.9
40 Luke Fischer	2	Marquette	C	6' 11"	8.07	4	83.9	8.3	25.8	16.9	12.2	12.7	0	4.3
4 D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera	3	Georgetown	PG	6' 3"	7.80	11	47.2	2.9	12.9	23.5	11.3	0	2.8	5
40 Matt Stainbrook	4	Xavier	PF	6' 10"	6.68	12	66.1	10.5	23.4	15.5	14	3.5	1.7	5.4
3 Josh Hart	5	Villanova	PF	6' 5"	6.58	12	66.7	9.4	14.6	13.5	16.1	1.4	3.3	4.7
3 Kris Dunn	6	Providence	PG	6' 3"	6.55	12	50.8	4	15.8	49.1	26.1	0.9	5.8	5.1
11 D'Angelo Harrison	7	St. John's	SF	6' 4"	6.26	11	50	3.6	12.7	11.8	8.4	1.1	2.2	5.4
4 Sterling Gibbs	8	Seton Hall	SG	6' 2"	6.12	12	59.4	1.9	3.6	24.4	16	0	2.6	4.9
4 Darrun Hilliard	9	Villanova	SG	6' 6"	6.08	11	50.9	2	9.9	15	8.3	0.7	4.6	3.4
23 LaDontae Henton	10	Providence	SF	6' 6"	5.17	13	53.7	4.9	13.1	8.1	13	0.8	3.1	4.7
31 Kameron Woods	11	Butler	C	6' 9"	4.97	13	50.7	12.6	24.1	9.9	17	4	2.9	3.7
2 Brandon Mobley	12	Seton Hall	PF	6' 9"	4.77	12	54.4	4.4	18.5	8.1	11.2	5.2	2.2	3.6
5 Trevon Bluiett	13	Xavier	SF	6' 6"	4.75	12	57.2	7.2	12.4	13.7	12.3	0.3	1.9	4.2
13 Matt Carlino	14	Marquette	PG	6' 2"	4.73	12	53.5	0.7	11.2	26.2	17.7	0.6	2.3	4.5
1 Austin Chatman	15	Creighton	PG	6' 0	4.60	13	48.6	2.8	12.3	30.3	12.2	0	0.6	4.5
23 Daniel Ochefu	16	Villanova	C	6' 11"	4.57	12	63.4	13.1	25.4	10.8	25.8	6.6	1.7	4
31 Dylan Ennis	17	Villanova	SF	6' 2"	4.56	12	57.5	5.8	11.2	21.3	15.7	0.6	2.1	3.5
24 Kellen Dunham	18	Butler	SF	6' 6"	4.40	13	57	3.3	6.9	5.1	15.7	0	1.5	4.8
21 Isaiah Zierden	19	Creighton	SG	6' 2"	4.34	13	61.1	0.9	8.3	11.9	8.6	0.3	1.7	3.3
24 Joshua Smith	20	Georgetown	C	6' 10"	4.25	11	63.6	15.6	18.7	11.4	23.6	4.7	2.5	6.3
12 Chris Obekpa	21	St. John's	C	6' 10"	4.16	11	46.2	10.3	19.8	1.7	13.7	13.7	1.6	3.9
11 Dee Davis	22	Xavier	PG	6' 0	3.63	12	49.5	0.8	6.6	31.8	22.9	0	3.9	3.4
10 Juan Anderson	23	Marquette	PF	6' 6"	3.62	12	58.5	9.9	16.8	18	21.5	1.5	3.1	4.4
23 Rysheed Jordan	24	St. John's	PG	6' 4"	3.49	10	48.6	5.5	7.1	21.3	22.6	1.1	4.3	6.1
23 Aaron Bowen	25	Georgetown	PF	6' 6"	3.40	11	72	9.6	6.5	14.9	21.3	1.8	3.8	4
20 Desi Rodriguez	26	Seton Hall	PF	6' 6"	3.38	12	57.5	9.1	18.4	7.2	12.7	1.6	4	5
2 Kris Jenkins	27	Villanova	SF	6' 6"	3.32	12	60	2.7	7.7	5.7	11.1	1.4	3.9	3.2
22 JayVaughn Pinkston	28	Villanova	PF	6' 7"	3.27	12	41.3	9.5	18.9	9.9	20.4	5.1	2.1	6.3
33 Carson Desrosiers	29	Providence	C	7' 0	3.24	13	50.7	9.5	14.5	6.2	16.5	12.8	1.5	4.1
55 Jabril Trawick	30	Georgetown	SF	6' 5"	3.18	11	65.5	4.7	16	19.1	24.4	1.2	1.9	3.4
3 Alex Barlow	31	Butler	SG	5' 11"	3.15	13	46.8	0.8	11	12.1	26.1	0.3	4.7	2.5
15 Isaiah Whitehead	32	Seton Hall	PG	6' 4"	3.15	11	46.2	3.3	14.6	28	24.7	1.7	2.9	4.2
15 Ryan Arcidiacono	33	Villanova	PG	6' 3"	3.12	12	36.3	1.8	5.7	22.1	12.3	0	3.2	3.7
1 Jalen Reynolds	34	Xavier	C	6' 10"	3.09	12	64.7	12.6	25.1	3.8	14.9	6.3	1.1	4.2
25 Tyler Harris	35	Providence	PF	6' 9"	3.08	13	48.3	5.2	13.8	10.1	9.8	0.6	1.8	4.7
10 Remy Abell	36	Xavier	SG	6' 4"	3.06	12	64.3	2	6.1	14.8	11.8	0.3	1.1	3.5
31 Angel Delgado	37	Seton Hall	C	6' 9"	3.03	12	60.6	17.2	23.2	5.8	20.1	6.5	1	4.9
1 Duane Wilson	38	Marquette	SF	6' 2"	2.76	12	46.6	2	8.2	16.7	14.8	1.8	3.5	5.6
21 Roosevelt Jones	39	Butler	PG	6' 4"	2.71	13	43.8	7.8	12.3	26.2	20.2	2.4	1.8	4.8
13 Paul White	40	Georgetown	SF	6' 8"	2.67	11	57.6	1.1	15.7	7.2	18.2	3.9	1.8	3
25 Steven Bennett	41	Butler	PG	6' 2"	2.65	5	37.5	6.4	6.6	9.7	24	0	0	1.2
25 Durrell McDonald	42	DePaul	PG	6' 2"	2.52	13	53.2	2.4	13.1	19.4	25.3	0.8	3.8	1.6
15 Myles Davis	43	Xavier	SG	6' 2"	2.43	11	61	1.5	9.8	13.6	18.6	0	1.1	3.5
0 Khadeen Carrington	44	Seton Hall	PG	6' 3"	2.31	12	44.9	3.8	10.9	13.3	19.9	1.6	3.1	3.8
5 Phil Booth	45	Villanova	SG	6' 3"	2.25	12	78.6	2.5	9.3	14.3	20.7	0.7	0.4	3.9
21 Jamee Crockett	46	DePaul	SF	6' 4"	2.18	13	57.9	6	6.2	9.3	15.9	1.8	2.6	4.2
45 Andrew Chrabascz	47	Butler	PF	6' 7"	2.07	13	53	6.3	10.9	13.2	14.5	0.7	1.6	3.9
0 Jamal Branch	48	St. John's	SG	6' 3"	2.07	11	56.1	3	8.1	19	20.7	0	2	2.4
4 Myke Henry	49	DePaul	PF	6' 6"	2.07	13	55.5	10.1	13.1	11.2	20.2	3	2.8	4
0 Henry Lowe	50	Villanova	PG	5' 11"	2.04	6	0	0	9	11.6	0	0	0	1
5 Billy Garrett	51	DePaul	SG	6' 6"	2.04	13	45.5	0.7	7.9	22.8	19.4	0.8	1.5	6.4
12 Derrick Wilson	52	Marquette	PG	6' 1"	2.02	12	44.7	3.3	8.2	19.2	13.1	1	1.9	3
3 Mikael Hopkins	53	Georgetown	C	6' 9"	1.98	11	39.1	12.9	17.9	10.9	29	9.6	2.4	3.5
31 Will Artino	54	Creighton	C	6' 11"	1.95	13	53.5	13.2	20.9	3.4	14.2	3.2	2.8	5
11 Tyler Clement	55	Creighton	PG	6' 1"	1.89	7	42.9	0	9.3	19.6	24.6	0	1.2	2.4
55 J.P. Macura	56	Xavier	SF	6' 5"	1.81	11	55.3	4.8	10.3	9.7	21.8	0.8	5.6	5.2
23 JaJuan Johnson	57	Marquette	SF	6' 5"	1.77	12	51.1	0.9	10.8	17.6	19.7	2.5	4.1	3.5
11 Forrest Robinson	58	DePaul	PF	6' 10"	1.64	13	54.6	4.8	15.7	4.5	12	3.9	1.5	2.4
3 Brandon Randolph	59	Xavier	PG	6' 2"	1.55	12	51.4	2.2	10.5	21.3	22.2	0.6	2.3	2.1
32 Toby Hegner	60	Creighton	PF	6' 10"	1.52	13	55.7	3.1	14.6	9.3	13.5	3.4	0.4	2.8
0 L.J. Peak	61	Georgetown	SG	6' 5"	1.51	11	45.6	3.3	6.2	10.1	20.2	1.2	2.7	4.6
5 Sandy Cohen	62	Marquette	SF	6' 6"	1.51	12	60.6	1.9	13.2	14.1	15.9	1.7	2.6	3.3
1 Phil Greene	63	St. John's	SG	6' 2"	1.44	11	42.1	1	9.3	9	9.5	0.3	2.2	2.2
24 Kyron Cartwright	64	Providence	PG	5' 11"	1.42	13	36.2	1.6	9.9	29.2	29	0.7	2.9	1.9
2 Tommy Hamilton	65	DePaul	C	6' 11"	1.40	13	54.5	6.3	20.5	10.1	24.8	3.9	1.3	4.8
2 James Farr	66	Xavier	C	6' 10"	1.36	12	41.1	14.6	27.3	5.6	23.1	7	2	2.4
13 Jackson Davis	67	Butler	PF	6' 8"	1.30	5	25	8.9	50.6	0	16.7	8.9	4.7	9.4
21 Jalen Lindsey	68	Providence	SG	6' 7"	1.22	12	59.3	1	6.6	2.9	8.3	0.9	1.5	1.5
30 Kelan Martin	69	Butler	PF	6' 6"	1.20	13	49.6	6.6	13.6	6	13.1	1.1	0.9	4.8
30 Jaren Sina	70	Seton Hall	SF	6' 2"	1.19	12	50	3.4	6.3	14.5	20.1	0	1	2.5
11 Isaac Copeland	71	Georgetown	PF	6' 9"	1.19	11	51.2	7.9	5.8	4.8	13.7	2.9	1.5	3.3
0 Austin Etherington	72	Butler	SF	6' 6"	1.19	13	51.5	3.5	14.3	6.7	21.5	0	3.3	2.1
22 Ted Bancroft	73	Providence	PF	6' 6"	1.18	9	85	5.7	24	9.5	8.6	2.7	1.4	4.9
4 Tyler Wideman	74	Butler	C	6' 8"	1.12	13	54.5	8.4	22.2	7.8	19.4	6.9	2	6.2
41 Geoffrey Groselle	75	Creighton	C	7' 0	1.06	12	70.4	8.1	16.9	2.4	11.3	5.5	0.6	3
1 Tre Campbell	76	Georgetown	SG	6' 2"	1.05	11	32	3.1	8.6	12.3	12.2	0	4.5	2.4
25 Steve Taylor	77	Marquette	C	6' 7"	1.02	12	47.9	10.2	14.7	6.2	11	0.7	1.4	2.9
30 Deonte Burton	78	Marquette	PF	6' 4"	0.94	8	52.8	5	5.7	3.2	23.8	2.7	4.7	4.6
5 Devin Brooks	79	Creighton	SF	6' 2"	0.86	13	37.9	7.3	17.9	28.3	24	0.4	2.7	4.2
14 Darryl Reynolds	80	Villanova	C	6' 8"	0.85	11	71.4	10	18.7	6.2	25.2	11.1	2	4.4
13 Paschal Chukwu	81	Providence	C	8' 2"	0.77	13	58.3	12.4	15.9	3.7	20.6	7.5	1.7	4.7
12 David Allen	82	Georgetown	SG	6' 2"	0.75	5	0	0	0	0	48.7	0	4.7	2.8
4 Edmond Sumner	83	Xavier	SG	6' 5"	0.60	6	20	6.5	8.6	22	30.1	0	2.9	5.2
11 Jackson Aldridge	84	Butler	SG	6' 0	0.56	8	59.1	0	0	0	17.6	0	1.2	2.9
14 Ismael Sanogo	85	Seton Hall	C	6' 7"	0.56	9	28.6	9.1	18.9	3.4	22.9	9.8	4.7	5.1
40 Zach Hanson	86	Creighton	C	6' 9"	0.55	13	61.4	9.5	16.6	3.6	24.9	2.4	2.2	3.9
0 Larry Austin	87	Xavier	SG	6' 2"	0.52	8	100	0	10.2	4.6	57.1	0	3.4	2.5
45 Stephane Manga	88	Seton Hall	SF	6' 6"	0.49	9	54.5	3.8	10.6	4.5	31.3	2.2	2.6	3
4 Christian Jones	89	St. John's	PF	6' 7"	0.48	10	62.5	8.6	14.8	0	9.8	0	0.9	2.4
54 Sean O'Mara	90	Xavier	C	6' 10"	0.42	9	75	13.4	7.9	6	5.6	1.9	1	7.3
32 Junior Lomomba	91	Providence	SG	6' 5"	0.36	12	54.2	2.6	8.6	3.8	21.2	1.2	1.9	1.9
23 James Milliken	92	Creighton	SF	6' 2"	0.34	11	52	0.6	15.6	12.4	16.6	0	0.3	2.9
1 Darrick Wood	93	DePaul	SG	6' 5"	0.33	12	47.2	4	10	15	23.2	0	1.8	3.1
15 Aaron Simpson	94	DePaul	SG	5' 11"	0.30	13	49	2.5	10.2	12.4	26.3	0	2.3	2.4
24 Felix Balamou	95	St. John's	SF	6' 4"	0.28	8	33.3	10.7	7.7	2.8	38.9	0	2.8	3.1
52 Kevin Rafferty	96	Villanova	PF	6' 8"	0.16	6	100	0	21.4	0	0	0	0	0.9
2 Myles Stewart	97	St. John's	PF	6' 5"	0.04	10	40.9	1.5	7.8	2.5	10.7	4.2	0.8	1.2
22 Avery Dingman	98	Creighton	SF	6' 6"	0.02	8	51.9	2.4	14.7	14.2	23.1	0.8	1.2	2.4
5 Reggie Cameron	99	Georgetown	SF	6' 7"	0.01	9	47.2	1.7	8.1	7.3	25.2	3.2	0.8	3

The Big East season is upon us

Most of the holiday feasting is over for you, and it is for Marquette basketball. The heart of the basketball season, conference play, starts up on New Year's Eve. In this Scrambled Eggs episode, we start by looking back at non-conference season and each finding a reason for optimism in the conference season and a reason for concern. We then transition to the conference season and what it looks like. We don't go game by game but we look at some critical match-ups and what a possible record looks like. We also can't help ourselves and have to have a little tournament discussion. Lastly, we give a huge shout out to Jimmy Butler who is absolutely doing work in the NBA. Happy New Year and Happy Conference Season. Download this episode (right click and save)

My Gift Being in ESPN the Mag; Best Gift in Basketball - MU Receiving Fischer

Merry Christmas to all. I had a great gift Christmas Eve when I opened ESPN the Mag to see myself quoted and a graphic produced to show Value Add. However, as I write in an upcoming piece on Breitbart Sports, the best basketball gift this year came to Marquette. My amazement over just how good Luke Fischer has been led me to bounce all of Jeff Goodman's transfer list against the www.valueaddbasketball.com database to see how many other midseason transfers have had the big initial impact on their teams.

"The metric, developed by stats pro John Pudner, assesses how many wins a player contributes to his team over that of a theoretical replacement player, similar to baseball's WAR. If Wright keeps it up, "he'd be one of the greatest college players ever," John Pudner, ESPN the Magazine, December 22, 2014 - page 26

The answer is only one comes close - Jesse Morgan has been almost as good in his two games for Temple including their destruction of Kansas - and there are only five total that project to add more than a point to their team's average score. Luke projects to be the 59th best player in the country at this pace, and more importantly make Marquette the 50th best team which would give us a shot. The top 5 midseason transfers are below (Luke projects to be worth 7.06 points on our average score).

Midseason Transfer	Team	Ht	Database	Projections	Proj Rnk
40 Fischer, Luke	Marquette	6' 11"	1.92	7.06	59
3 Morgan, Jesse	Temple	6'5"	1.00	6.00	111
11 Goodman, Savon	Arizona St.	6' 6"	1.27	5.08	184
0 Russell, DeWayne	Grand Canyon	5' 11"	1.21	3.62	388
10 Worsham, Raeford	Jackson St.	6' 4"	1.04	2.70	628

BTW, if Georgetown beats Indiana Saturday, the Big East should be ranked 3rd at www.kenpom.com since we trail the Big Ten .7909 to .7908 right now.

In this season of hope, will hope the real gift comes in March. But for now Merry Christmas!

9-9 Big East Mark Likely = 4 Top 50 Wins and NCAA Bid

It looks to me like MU gets an NCAA bid with a 9-9 or better mark. That would likely entail MU being one of only about 33 teams with four wins over teams in the RPI top 50, likely finish in the top 25 in Strength of Schedule, and get credit for being a better team with Luke Fischer than the early season 4-4 without him. The out-of-conference wins away from home against Georgia Tech (top 100) and Tennessee are decent on the resume as well.

RPI Forecast gives Marquette only a 17% chance of doing that, but that is based on results so far which included eight of 10 games without Luke Fischer.

According to RPI Forecast, Marquette is one of 49 teams projected to have three wins over teams that finish in the Top 50, which would put them right on the bubble of the top 47 or so that get into the tournament. The table below lists the contenders for bids based on how many Top 50 wins they are expected to have, and then how many chances they are expected to have. This ranks MU as 49th because of the teams with 3 Top 50 wins they would have been the one with the most chances (13) so I would put us in last of the 3-team wins. I included teams projected to have at least two wins over top 50 teams and/or to be projected to finish in the RPI Top 70.

If that played out, it would leave Marquette with a 15-15 mark, 7-11 in conference and a 96 RPI – so not enough to get a bid. By my math, Marquette gets in with a 9-9 conference (assuming no slipups in these last two games).

Obviously other games can affect this. Butler, Seton Hall and Georgetown need to stay in the Top 50, and it would be nice if Providence beat Miami to have a shot to finish there. Despite a tough weekend (Seton Hall blown out at Georgia, Xavier being upset by Auburn and Butler losing to Indiana), the Big East is projected to finish 2nd in RPI and have six teams in the top 50 (the projections basically assume one of the six does not end up there and Marquette goes 3-7 against the five that do).

Here is the ranking of NCAA teams based on projected wins over Top 50 teams (tie-breaker who had the fewest chances):

1. Kentucky (SEC) 10 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 1

2. Texas (B12) 10 wins over top 50 in 15 chances. RPI 4

3. Kansas (B12) 9 wins over top 50 in 16 chances. RPI 5

4. Baylor (B12) 9 wins over top 50 in 16 chances. RPI 9

5. Duke (ACC) 8 wins over top 50 in 11 chances. RPI 2

6. Wisconsin (B10) 8 wins over top 50 in 11 chances. RPI 3

7. Louisville (ACC) 8 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 7

8. Virginia (ACC) 7 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 6

9. Villanova (BE) 7 wins over top 50 in 11 chances. RPI 14

10. North Carolina (ACC) 7 wins over top 50 in 13 chances. RPI 8

11. West Virginia (B12) 7 wins over top 50 in 14 chances. RPI 16

12. Iowa St. (B12) 7 wins over top 50 in 15 chances. RPI 25

13. Utah (P12) 6 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 11

14. Butler (BE) 6 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 28

15. Oklahoma St. (B12) 6 wins over top 50 in 14 chances. RPI 23

16. Oklahoma (B12) 6 wins over top 50 in 15 chances. RPI 18

17. TCU (B12) 6 wins over top 50 in 15 chances. RPI 54

18. Arizona (P12) 5 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 13

19. Washington (P12) 5 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 24

20. Xavier (BE) 5 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 21

21. St. John's (BE) 5 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 34

22. Indiana (B10) 5 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 50

23. Georgetown (BE) 5 wins over top 50 in 14 chances. RPI 39

24. Ohio St. (B10) 4 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 12

25. Notre Dame (ACC) 4 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 42

26. South Carolina (SEC) 4 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 31

27. Purdue (B10) 4 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 73

28. Seton Hall (BE) 4 wins over top 50 in 11 chances. RPI 29

29. Providence (BE) 4 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 55

30. Creighton (BE) 4 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 114

31. Iowa (B10) 4 wins over top 50 in 13 chances. RPI 52

32. Texas Tech (B12) 4 wins over top 50 in 14 chances. RPI 84

33. Kansas St. (B12) 4 wins over top 50 in 17 chances. RPI 117

34. Gonzaga (WCC) 3 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 10

35. Wichita St. (MVC) 3 wins over top 50 in 6 chances. RPI 17

36. San Diego St. (MWC) 3 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 27

37. Arkansas (SEC) 3 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 35

38. Wyoming (MWC) 3 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 68

39. VCU (A10) 3 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 15

40. LSU (SEC) 3 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 60

41. Michigan St. (B10) 3 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 32

42. Miami FL (ACC) 3 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 37

43. Minnesota (B10) 3 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 36

44. California (P12) 3 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 40

45. Maryland (B10) 3 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 41

46. Georgia (SEC) 3 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 48

47. Stanford (P12) 3 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 62

48. North Carolina St. (ACC) 3 wins over top 50 in 11 chances. RPI 43

49. Marquette (BE) 3 wins over top 50 in 13 chances. RPI 96

50. Colorado St. (MWC) 2 wins over top 50 in 4 chances. RPI 26

51. Old Dominion (CUSA) 2 wins over top 50 in 4 chances. RPI 38

52. SMU (Amer) 2 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 20

53. Northern Iowa (MVC) 2 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 19

54. Rhode Island (A10) 2 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 53

55. UTEP (CUSA) 2 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 66

56. Evansville (MVC) 2 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 69

57. St. Bonaventure (A10) 2 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 97

58. Davidson (A10) 2 wins over top 50 in 6 chances. RPI 22

59. Cincinnati (Amer) 2 wins over top 50 in 6 chances. RPI 58

60. George Washington (A10) 2 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 70

61. Illinois St. (MVC) 2 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 79

62. Auburn (SEC) 2 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 167

63. Florida (SEC) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 30

64. Mississippi (SEC) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 99

65. Illinois (B10) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 51

66. Colorado (P12) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 59

67. Richmond (A10) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 72

68. Oregon (P12) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 106

69. Oregon St. (P12) 2 wins over top 50 in 8 chances. RPI 124

70. Georgia Tech (ACC) 2 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 76

71. Long Beach St. (BW) 2 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 82

72. Arizona St. (P12) 2 wins over top 50 in 9 chances. RPI 122

73. Syracuse (ACC) 2 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 64

74. Pittsburgh (ACC) 2 wins over top 50 in 10 chances. RPI 115

75. UCLA (P12) 2 wins over top 50 in 11 chances. RPI 78

76. DePaul (BE) 2 wins over top 50 in 12 chances. RPI 193

77. Green Bay (Horz) 1 wins over top 50 in 3 chances. RPI 46

78. Georgia St. (SB) 1 wins over top 50 in 4 chances. RPI 56

79. Wofford (SC) 1 wins over top 50 in 4 chances. RPI 57

80. Dayton (A10) 1 wins over top 50 in 4 chances. RPI 61

81. Boise St. (MWC) 1 wins over top 50 in 5 chances. RPI 44

82. Texas A&M (SEC) 1 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 65

83. Connecticut (Amer) 1 wins over top 50 in 7 chances. RPI 67

84. Harvard (Ivy) 0 wins over top 50 in 1 chances. RPI 47

85. Buffalo (MAC) 0 wins over top 50 in 2 chances. RPI 33

86. Eastern Washington (BSky) 0 wins over top 50 in 2 chances. RPI 49

87. Stephen F. Austin (Slnd) 0 wins over top 50 in 3 chances. RPI 63

88. BYU (WCC) 0 wins over top 50 in 4 chances. RPI 45

Marquette got a shiny, new toy for Christmas...Luke Fischer

Well to say the Luke Fischer era at Marquette got off to a fast start would be the least earth shattering news of this week. We jump right into the Luke story line and discuss our first impressions, what we liked, and what this might mean for this Marquette team. Be warned, we are pretty enthusiastic for Luke's future. We talk about the ASU game overall and then transition into a brief conversation on last weeks less than awesome transfer news. With the transfers, that leaves 3 open scholarships. As anonymous internet podcasters, we had to tell Wojo what he should do with those scholarships. Lastly we talk a little bit of future for this team. Unless something catastrophic happens, this will be the last pod until right before BE opening. Merry Christmas to all the Marquette fans and enjoy your presents, especially Luke Fischer.

Download this episode (right click and save)

Fischer Top 5 in NCAA in Shooting, Blocks, Defensive Rebounds and Team Defense

How good was Luke Fischer's first game for Marquette? Simple, based on tempo free stats he is clearly the Player of the Year in the Country.

Defense - Fischer is the top defensive player in the country based on tempo free stats:

Blocked Shots (3rd nationally) - Fischer blocked 17.7% of Arizona State's shots in his debut. That is the third best season total in the country.

Defensive Rebounding (5th) - Fischer grabbed 31.4% of all the shots Arizona State missed. That is the fifth best figure in the country - interestingly Cinmeon Bowers of Auburn is second in the country at 34.9%

Team Defensive Rating (5th) - Marquette's adjusted team defense against Arizona State was 87.5 points per 100 trips (94.7 point per 100 trips by a team that averages 107.1 normally in a season in which the average is 99.9). Even with the shut down defense in Fischer's one game, Marquette now has the 125th best defense in the country, so they were more well over 100 spots better on defense with him in the line-up. If we just count the game in which Fischer played, the top 10 defenses this season are; 1, Louisville; 2, Kentucky; 3, Virginia; 4, Texas; 5, MARQUETTE with FISCHER; 6, Oklahoma; 7, San Diego State; 8, Wisconsin; 9, Arizona; 10, St. John's. Obviously you share credit for team defense, but if they are 5th with you and worse than 125th without you, pretty safe to say you are the man.

This easily makes him the best defensive player in the country.

Offense

Shooting - On the most important stat, Fischer has hit 81.8% of his shots, making his effective Field Goal Range (eFG% adding extra half shot made for each three-pointer made) second in the country to Lafayette's Joey Ptasinski.

Offensive Rating (21st) - Sum up all the offensive stats at www.kenpom.com, and he calculates that Fischer would produce 136.2 points per 100 times he had the ball, which ties him with Gonzaga's Kevin Pangos for 21st best offensive player in the country when he has the ball.

OK, seriously even though these are all figures from www.kenpom.com, he does not actually have the minutes played to qualify to be a leader in any category, but based just one his one game he would clearly be the National Player of the Year as the best defensive player in the country and 21st best offensive player. Obviously he will not keep up all of these numbers throughout the season, but if Marquette gets over half of what he produced against Arizona State this could be a tournament team after all. A long way to go through, and teams will certainly be watching a lot of film to make sure they position to stop his left hook ... and right hook ... and roll into a dunk ... and mid-range shot as the shot clock runs out.

Can Fischer stop MU opponents from scoring 73.2% of trips?

We covered the challenge Luke Fischer faces against Arizona State's front court in his first appearance. Not only does ASU have a duo at forward that can each put up 20/10 numbers, but MU without Fischer has been in the bottom 25 of all 351 teams in three categories - blocked shots (5.1%), 2-point attempts (55.8% allowed) and defensive rebounds (allowed 40.1% offensive rebounds). That means that in a possession in which MU does not force a turnover, and the opponent attempts only two-pointers, the opponent scores 73.2% of the time:

55.8% Score 1st shot

9.9% 1 offensive rebound, then score

4.4% 2nd offensive rebound, then score

1.9% 3rd offensive rebound, then score

0.9% 4th offensive rebound, then score

0.4% 5th offensive rebound, then score

73.2% Total % chance of scoring if no steal, foul, 3-point attempt

Pretty scary, but that is what Fischer is here to stop. Basically MU needs to get help from Fischer protecting the rim and clearing the boards, or if he is on the bench they made need to really gamble for the steal.This is a pretty big spotlight for his first trip back on the court since leaving Indiana a year ago.

Two ASU forwards coming off 20/10 appearances may force Fischer to play

I assume Wojo wants to ease Luke Fischer into action, but he may have to get him on the court to let Marquette play big against two Arizona State forwards who put in 20 points and 10 rebounds their last time on the court.

The following notes each player’s jersey number and Value Add rating (3.0 or higher at www.valueaddbasketball.com is a strong starter) in potential match-ups going from the “5” spot down to the “1” spot.

5 (center) – EDGE ASU – Luke Fischer (0.72 projected Value Add) may need to take the court against a very good 6-foot-11 center (ASU #21) Eric Jacobsen (4.40 actual Value Add). Certainly a tall task for Fischer, who may not be ready for a lot of minutes, but his presence may be needed due to the domino effect of needing Anderson and Taylor to match up with forwards who could destroy MU inside.

4 (power forward) – TOSS-UP - Steve Taylor (3.06) has done an excellent job at center and may be even better if he can slide over to power forward. So far he been much better than (ASU #40) Shaquielle McKissic (0.68 actual). However, McKissic was projected to be ASU’s best player, and unfortunately went back inside and dominated against Pepperdine last game for a 22 point, 11 rebound game that looked a lot more like his projected Value Add for 5.69 this year.

3 (small forward/swing) – TOSS-UP. Likewise, Juan Anderson (5.36) has been awesome, and (ASU #11) Savon Goodman has not even played. However, Goodman was projected to be a lot better than Anderson before the year (4.46 to 1.30), but like Fischer had to sit out first semester after transferring from UNLV. He is the one ASU player who should end up in the NBA, and the last record we have from the court was during the 40 minute ASU scrimmage that he dominated with 28 points and 10 rebounds. This will be a true chance for Anderson to prove how far he has come this year – but it will not be easy.

2 (shooting guard) – SLIGHT EDGE MU. We thought last year that MU was a tournament team if Duane Wilson (3.34) had not gone down, and he is taking it to another level with a 30-point outing. Senior (ASU #33) Bo Barnes (3.10) has been only slightly behind Wilson’s mark, but with Wilson ascending MU seems to have a slight edge.

1 (point guard) – HUGE EDGE MU. The good news is that if MU can just hold their own on the front line, Matt Carlino (5.98) has the chance to dominate at point guard (ASU #3) Chance Murray (1.78). Carlino is inconsistent, but even on one of his bad nights he should have the edge on Murray, and if he is either scoring or setting up others with assists, MU has a huge edge at the point.

Of course, Derrick Wilson and Sandy Cohen could start for defense, and JaJuan Johnson (2.69) rates almost as strong as a good major conference starter off the bench so can provide the offensive spark either as a starter or off the bench. However, overall MU with only an 8-man rotation will give up depth to ASU and most opponents. ASU has bench players that contribute nice Value Add points with ASU #4 Gerry Blakes 1.52, ASU #1 Roosevelt Scott 2.07 and ASU #31 Jonathan Gilling 2.35.

Marquette is a one-point favorite at www.kenpom.com, but if you add Goodman’s 4.46 projected Value Add vs. Fischer’s 0.72, that makes ASU a 3-point favorite. MU needs a win Tuesday and then three easy wins to go to 8-4 entering conference play – where MU is favored in only three of 18 games right now at www.kenpom.com. We will learn a lot about MU with Fischer and the rest of the season Tuesday night.

Carlino 12th MU Player in Top 100? MU one of 15 that can put 5 strong starters on floor? Bid possible?

In putting together the early www.valueaddbasketball.com All-Big East team for Breitbart Sports, I started to believe the ingredients might be there for a 2010-like shocking run to an NCAA bid. Even before the huge defensive upgrade from Deonte Burton to Luke Fischer next game, Marquette is the only Big East team besides Villanova to have five of the top 32 players in the conference.

Matt Carlino is on pace to be the 2nd team all-Big East point guard and the 12th Marquette player to finish in the Top 100 at www.valueaddbasketball.com, and Juan Anderson isn’t far behind as the 3rd team All-Big East power forward. If Luke Fischer proves to be an above-average center OR JaJuan Johnson plays at the level he did in the first four games (11 steals, 9 rebounds), then Marquette would become one of only 15 teams who could put five above average players on the court at once.

Carlino has improved Marquette by an average of 5.98 points per game, making it likely he will join Gardner, Hayward, James, DJO, Mathews, McNeal and Novak as a Top 100 player (for ratings from 2003 to 2014 click here). He is ranked 120th right now of 4000 players, but players in major conferences usually move up once conference play begins because their Strength of Defense faced factor improves.

For a quick historical detour, I discovered for the first time when writing this that the only two teams with FOUR Top 10 players have been MU (Butler, Crowder, Diener and Wade) and Steve Wojciechowski’s former team Duke. Wisconsin would become the third team to do it if Frank Kaminisky finishes in the Top 10.

But back to the present …

In addition to Carlino and Anderson, the team also boasts two other players who measure as strong major college starters (above 3.0 Value Add means you should be starting for a major team) in Duane Wilson and Steve Taylor. Taylor has been forced to match up against bigger centers all year pending Fischer’s return in the next game (Arizona State), so it will be interesting to see if he is even better when being able to slide over to Power Forward in some games.

The only 14 teams that currently have five above-average starters (3.0 or higher) are Arkansas, Duke, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Miami FL, Michigan St., North Carolina, Ohio St., San Diego St., Texas, Villanova and Virginia.

With this potential balance, the high level of play from Carlino and Anderson, and two neutral site wins over major conference opponents, Marquette could pull off a few upsets in their seven road games against teams in the top 60 at www.kenpom.com. Do that, and we could suddenly be hoping for a repeat of the astonishing 2010 bid during which MU suddenly went 11-2 in a stretch to get to the Big East title game and make the NCAA.

As for the competition, the following is the All-Big East team based on www.valueaddbasketball.com ratings but with an attempt to balance for positions on each of the three squads.

I featured Seton Hall’s Sterling Gibbs in a Breitbart Sports piece today. He has been the best player in the country while having an offensive rating of more than 100 in ten straight games going back to his upset of Villanova.


1st Team All-Big East

All five first teamers have turned in dominant performances to give the Big East a great start, though Henton and Providence have fallen off dramatically including an embarrassing home loss to Brown.

PG, 4 D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera, Georgetown, 6.11

SG, 4 Sterling Gibbs, Seton Hall, 11.82

SF, 23 LaDontae Henton, Providence, 8.93

PF, 40 Matt Stainbrook, Xavier, 8.09

PF, 15 Sir'Dominic Pointer, St. John's, 9.47


2nd Team All-Big East

As noted, Carlino would run the offense for the 2nd team.

PG, 13 Matt Carlino, Marquette, 5.98

SG, 21 Isaiah Zierden, Creighton, 5.93

SF, 5 Trevon Bluiett, Xavier, 7.83

PF, 4 Myke Henry, DePaul, 5.48

C, 23 Daniel Ochefu, Villanova, 5.11


3rd Team All-Big East
Anderson would practically be playing for Villanova on the third team if center Daniel Ochefu just fell off a little to drop from second to third team.

PG, 15 Ryan Arcidiacono, Villanova, 3.3

SG, 31 Dylan Ennis, Villanova, 5.44

SF, 3 Josh Hart, Villanova, 5.36

PF, 10 Juan Anderson, Marquette, 5.36

C, 31 Kameron Woods, Butler, 4.73


Best of the Rest (3.0+ equals solid starter)

Obviously the team cannot afford injuries with Burton (only 57th best player in conference with a 1.47) and Dawson departed, but if these eight stay healthy Fischer, Sandy Cohen and Derrick Wilson certainly provide enough defense. If the season ended today MU would not get an invite anywhere, but for the first time we now have a shot to do more than just dream about next season’s class.

16, SF, 2 Kris Jenkins, Villanova, 4.51

17, PF, 2 Brandon Mobley, Seton Hall, 4.41

18, C, 24 Joshua Smith, Georgetown, 4.29

19, PF, 20 Desi Rodriguez, Seton Hall, 4.23

20, C, 1 Jalen Reynolds, Xavier, 4.04

25, SF, 1 Duane Wilson, Marquette, 3.34

27, C, 25 Steve Taylor, Marquette, 3.06

32, SF, 23 JaJuan Johnson, Marquette, 2.69

Breaking: Wisconsin still sucks, Marquette may not be terrible, and Fischer is on his way

Nobody likes to lose, especially to a rival as filthy and despicable as the rodents from the west. However, that's what happened Saturday with a scrappy Marquette team taking on the #2 team in the country hanging in until late in the game. On this podcast we discuss the game, what we liked and didn't like and if anything can be taken away from a positive perspective. One of the definite positives is that Luke Fischer is now eligible and we will see this team with someone taller than 6'7" in 9 days when they play Arizona State. We discuss the anticipated impact Fischer will on the team both positively and negatively. We also discuss the implications of his availability to the rest of the players on the team, who will get more or less minutes and who's performance will improve. We then transition to the next game on the schedule, Arizona State at home after a week and a half off. What kind of performance can we anticipate from the team. We've got a lot of time between now and the next Marquette game, go ahead and listen a couple of times, if you don't enjoy it...we'll give you your money back. Download this episode (right click and save)

Anderson surges into top 100 Value Add Defenders: 9 Defensive Rebounds & Helped Make 2nd Best Offense Play like 333rd Best

Juan Anderson should rank as one of the top 100 defenders in the country after his performance Saturday. Coming into the game, Anderson's defensive Value Add ranked him as the 124th best defender of the 4000 Division 1 players (-1.82 means he takes away an average of 1.82 points per game from Marquette's opponents). That number will drop substantially after he grabbed an incredible nine defensive rebounds against the much taller Badgers, and was a key to holding Wisconsin to a pace of 90.7 points per 100 trips. Wisconsin ranks as the 2nd best offense in the country with 113.4 points per 100 trips adjusted for defense - but their Saturday total of 90.7 would make them the 333rd best offense.

Anderson should join fewer than 100 players in the country who take more than two points a game away from their opponents beyond what a replacement player would be expected to do with his defense. Below are each players season projections and actual Value Add at www.valueaddbasketball.com coming into Saturday's game.data base.

You get this by clicking on www.valueaddbasketball.com, putting "Marquette" in the search box, and then hitting the arrow by the "Player" heading so each player's projection and actual Value Add are next to each other.

When you do the math, Juan, Matt, Steve and Duane have all been more than two points per game better than projected. It looked like they would add about 6.27 points per game to Marquette's margin above how Marquette would do if each was replaced by the 500th best Power Forward, Point Guard, Center and Small Forward/Swing Player. In fact, the four combine for a Value Add of 16.00 exactly, meaning without the four of them we would likely have lost to Wisconsin by 27 instead of by 11 points today.

Derrick's improvement was actually probably two points as well. Value Add is "politically correct" in that we never give a player a rating below ZERO and Derrick therefore had a 0.00 Projected Value add instead of a negative number. Remember that about 1500 of the D1 players have a 0.00. Derrick's actual Value Add has been 0.99 so he adds a point.

Today's performance will hurt everyone's offensive ratings. Despite Matt's great points, his five turnovers kept him down to a Rating of 89 points per 100 trips down the court against a top 10 Wisconsin defense that that was giving up the same on 88.9 points per 100 trips. Every other offensive player has a very low rating, except for the short appearances by Deonte and Sandy.

However, defensive ratings will get better after holding the 2nd-ranked offense in the country down so well. The team's best defensive player (Juan Anderson, -1.89 for taking two points a game away from MU opponent's) will have a phenomenal defensive improvement for his part in holding the Badgers' scoring down and grabbing nine defensive rebounds.

A week can change a lot of things, including the level of Badger Hate

Well, the tone of this podcast has certainly changed in the last number of hours we're too lazy to calculate, lets just call it a week. Legitimately concerned about a 1-2 finish in the Orlando Classic, the previous podcast was filled with doom and gloom. However after seeing, ya know, the team actually play the games, we are decidedly more upbeat. We discuss the results of the Orlando Classic and how impressed we were by the coaching staff making changes to the plan based on previous results. That's a slight change from the previous regime. We then discuss the players themselves and who's impressed and what has made the biggest impact on the performance in Orlando. Lastly, we turn to the big angry elephant in the room, the showdown with Bucky in the Bradley Center. We kick off #badgerhateweek with our general overview of how the game is going to go, and then what has to happen in an ideal world for Marquette to get the win. Lastly, we go on a mini-rant, because we are filled with hate, about some evil maniacs twitter idea, #sconniepact. Sit back, listen, and let us fill you with BadgerHate Download this episode (right click and save)