Mailbag: Bolivia, Stauskas Comparables, Nice Places To Put Money

Mailbag: Bolivia, Stauskas Comparables, Nice Places To Put Money

Submitted by Brian on December 5th, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Say hi to McFarlin

Greetings from Bolivia!



Kevin is in Bolivia, and he wanted to add something to the blog's many ways to say "you are going to Bolivia." This our community.

Stauskas comparables.


Stoudamire and Korver. I know I broke the rule that white players have to be compared to white players.

Hey Brian,


What’s the ceiling for Stauskas?

I had hoped coming in that he could turn into our version of Jon Diebler but if you look at his early numbers, they compare pretty favorably to Diebler’s senior season, especially on a per minute basis.

I’m sure there is some regression this year but coming it’s also not crazy to expect some year to year improvement.  Can we expect him to be a 20ppg scorer by his junior year?  Should we be worried about him leaving early??


We of course don't know yet after just eight games, only three of which came against tourney-type competition. But I think you're both right and wrong that it's higher than Diebler. The wrong part: Diebler was literally the most efficient offensive player in the country as a senior and he wasn't far off his junior year. Stauskas can't really do better than 50% from three long term, unless he is literally the greatest shooter in the history of college basketball.

The right part: a large part of that stemmed from Diebler's role in the offense as Guy Who Sits In Corner And Rains In Threes Generated By Sullinger Guy. His usage and %shots dipped significantly in his final year, and he took about 80% of his shots from long range. Stauskas is currently at just over 50% and has a free throw rate that ranks.

We've just seen him start running the pick and roll productively, attacking the basket productively, and displaying a crossover Tim Hardaway Jr. envies. Stauskas has shown the potential to generate shots, not just take them. (This doesn't show up in the stats yet, it is an eye thing at the moment.) He's also just a freshman, one playing with Trey Burke and Tim Hardaway Jr. Once those guys are in the NBA, his usage should rocket upward, not decline.

Statistically, the guy's long term future may be more like Salim Stoudamire, who did this in 2005 for the Arizona outfit that lost to the Williams/Brown/Head Illinois team in OT for the right to go to the Final Four:

Salim Stoudamire 2005

ORtg %Poss %Shots eFG% AR TOR FTR FTM-FTA 2PM-2PA 3PM-3PA
126.1 22.2 24.6 64.7 13 19.3 32.1 122-134 90-179 120-238

That's 91% from the line, 50% from 2, and 50% from three with a nearly-even split between shots inside the arc+FTs and threes with a high usage rate.

That was good enough to see him go at the top of the second round as a senior, but Stoudamire is 6'1", not 6'6". Also I'd guess Stauskas would have a better assist rate just based on what we've seen so far.

Other bigtime snipers in the Kenpom age are not particularly good fits just because they often come from small schools on which they were far and away the best option, so they take up huge percentages of their teams shots and subsequently fire at a lower percentage. Stephen Curry put up over 30% of his team's shots in his three years and was the #1 guy in usage as a senior with a whopping 38%; he shot "just" 39% from three as a result. Same thing with Jimmer Fredette and JJ Redick.

The exception is Kyle Korver.

Kyle Korver 2003

ORtg %Poss %Shots eFG% AR TOR FTR FTM-FTA 2PM-2PA 3PM-3PA
129.6 N/A 25.2 63.2 17.6 15.8 30.6 109/120 54/122 129/269

Again around 90% from the line, 44% from inside the arc, and 48% from three, but with reasonable shooting rates and a good assist output. At 6'7", Korver is also the closest comparison in terms of height.

That's about the ceiling since Stauskas is going to spend his career with guys like Burke and Derrick Walton and Zak Irvin and GRIII and so forth and so on. Pretty nice ceiling.

As far as the other two questions: it's really hard to be a 20 PPG scorer unless you've got a usage rate in the Redick/Fredette/Curry range and I don't think Stauskas will have to be that guy, so no, and it doesn't seem like any of these snipers save Curry was coveted by the NBA early. Korver and Stoudamire were second round picks; Fredette and Redick went at the tail end of the lottery after four-year careers; Curry was the seventh pick after three years. NBA teams are going to want to see if Stauskas can carry a team and get to the rim before they spend a high draft pick on him, so I'd bet on three or four years.


to tie all the coaching changes together, any chance Scott Loeffler ends up back at michigan in some sort of QB coach capacity?


No. Borges doesn't want to work with a QB coach after he didn't like it in his two years at SDSU, and for whatever reason I've heard that Loeffler is not likely to return in any capacity under Hoke.

Besides, who's leaving to make room? These guys are pretty tight-knit. I would expect the only coaching changes Michigan deals with in the near future are because of retirements from Jackson and Mattison, and there's going to be a war for Jackson's spot between Wheatley and Hart, amongst others.


I know one of the negatives of the conference expansion you've personally taken umbrage with is the potential damage that could result from the excess money generated in the years to come by the Big Ten Network and its competitors. They'll run out of things to build, as you say. Corruption is always just around the corner.

Is there some rule against directing profits back to the university, or the endowments of the schools? I seem to remember Bill Martin always gave a million or so back to M at the end of the fiscal year. What would be wrong with that model? Doesn't the athletic department exist for the benefit of the university?

Secondly, and most people will probably not agree with me on this point, but couldn't the breadwinners of the conference more fully share their good fortune with the poorer members? After all, we wouldn't be Michigan if we didn't beat up on Minnesota year after year. Doesn't their participation in the Little Brown Jug count somewhat financially? I'm no socialist, but the better we all do in the B1G, the better for M.

Class of 2004

Athletic departments are rarely profitable because they don't have to be, and the will expand to fill the available money. Whether it's by adding sports, building new facilities, or increasing the amount of money coaches get paid, there will always be too much money being spent to have any meaningful impact on the rest of the university. We're talking about a few million dollars of surplus; the University of Michigan's 2012-2013 budget projects an operating revenue of six billion dollars.

I mean, on the other side of the coin campuses like Rutgers slap a surcharge on their students of a couple hundred dollars. Compare that to tuition costs. Right: it does not compare.

As far as helping the less fortunate, what's left to share? Every school in the league gets an equal cut of all bowl and TV revenue, even nonconference games. Even the gate revenues are shared to some extent. If any Big Ten team getting a conference cut of 22 million dollars can't stay afloat, they do not deserve to be afloat.

The excessive revenue sharing is actually a problem, IMO: since there is little financial incentive provided by having a more attractive television product, the gate is the thing. Thus many boring games against not good teams.


Prior to Brady's arrival, M always seemed to have backs capable of breaking tackles at the LOS or at least pushing the pile forward for an extra 3-4 yards.  Even under the finesse regime of RR, Minor Rage could break through tackles and get extra yardage. In Brady's tenure, when the backs don't have a gaping hole, they are either stopped cold at the LOS or bounce once or twice before being stopped cold. Size does not seem to be an issue since both Fitz and Rawls are way bigger than Mike Hart who was always able to advance the pile a few yards.

Do you think this is an issue with talent, are they being coached differently than before, or is it somehow an OL issue?  Hard to understand since Fred Jackson has been the lone constant over these periods.

Wolverine in Savannah

A combination of talent and OL and possibly some decline in Jackson.

There is a point at which any coach gets too old and cracks start appearing in the foundation as they age. This is clearest with head coaches (SMILE) but it happens with everyone in all walks of life. I'd imagine it's particularly acute in jobs like football that will suck up any and all available time if you let it, which you have to until you're old and institutional like Jackson. Jackson's probably approaching that point where he's a tree that sometimes remembers he's a football coach.

And then there's the talent. Denard has some talent and just set a Michigan record for yards per attempt. It is possible to run long distances still. Rawls and Smith and to a lesser extent Toussaint—who did have a nifty 2011—have never shown similar capabilities. The stable at running back is legitimately thin.

And there is an OL aspect to this as well. When you're trying to dodge or tackle a guy downfield usually you've got some steam and/or some space. You have neither in the backfield, and neither when two guys are converging on you, or one guy is totally unblocked. It's a lot easier to power through a guy standing still or still dealing with a block or coming from an outside angle because he had to. When they're a train running on the same track as you, things get bad.

All of the above! Hopefully two of the three things get fixed soon.