Quincy Pondexter is sort of smart, sort of not
by Nuss on Oct 28, 2009 6:14 PM PDT
in The Pac-10
39 comments
So, my friend Seth alerted me to this recap of a live chat Quincy Pondexter had on Percy Allen's Husky basketball blog at the Seattle Times. Seth's a Husky fan -- and a good guy -- so he thought it would be nice to pass along this little nugget, in case I missed it:
"(Pondexter said) the toughest defenders he's played against are former WSU star Kyle Weaver and Venoy Overton."
Now, I'll go ahead and give him props for singling out Weaver. I mean ... duh -- Weaver is one of the top two defensive guards in the Pac-10 this decade (Darren Collison being the other).
But Overton? Really?
I'm not going to flog Pondexter too much for this. After all, the nature of these live chats is that guys have to come up with off-the-cuff answers to completely random questions, so it can be hard to come up with complete answers that reflect all the information available. That's clearly the case here, but I can't let another person pass along the myth that Overton is some great defender, let alone one that worthy of even being mentioned in the same breath with The Name Above All Other Names.
At the height of his powers, Weaver put up a 4.1 steal percentage (as a junior) -- good enough for 40th nationally. Overton put up a 3.6 mark this past year. That's comparable to Weaver, right?
Unfortunately, that would completely ignore Overton's astoundingly awful 5.2 fouls called per 40 minutes, which begs the obvious question: If he's such a good defender, why does he have to foul so much? Weaver never exceeded 3.2 fouls called per 40 (as a sophomore), and as senior, he only committed 2.3 fouls per 40.
However, come to think of it, I guess I can almost see where Pondexter might put Overton in that class -- he only has to practice against Overton, where there aren't any of those pesky referees there to call any fouls. Of course, Overton and every other Husky will tell you that all those fouls -- all 5.2(!) per 40 minutes of them -- are completely unfair and totally not fouls in the first place ...
Click on the jump for more of Venoy's greatest "hits"!
via grfx.cstv.com
0 recs |
39 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Also comparable to Weaver:
Overton’s career steal % of 3.7 versus Weaver’s career mark of 3.4
by thecassino on Oct 28, 2009 7:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or does that make Weaver comparable to Overton?
by thecassino on Oct 28, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that Weaver did it while 80-90 percent of the Cougs' minutes
Overton can barely stay on the floor for 50 percent. Think he could maintain that rate if he was playing 35 minutes a night instead of 20?
by Nuss on Oct 28, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll never know.
The Huskies have one of the deepest backcourts in the nation, it’s not that he can’t stay on the floor for more than 20 minutes, it’s that he’s part of a rotation.
by thecassino on Oct 28, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, you are now officially delusional
It’s not that he can’t stay on the court? WHAT? Um, 5.2 FC/40 … that’s more than five, which is the amount to get disqualified from a game. Maybe he just knows he’s only going to be on the floor for 20 minutes, so he’s going to get his money’s worth. Maybe he’s just that brilliant of a player. I don’t know. But I think if you were totally honest, you’d admit that the deep backcourt is only a part of the equation here.
by Nuss on Oct 28, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you don't get math
5.2/2 = 2.6, so obviously he CAN stay on the floor for more than 20 minutes.
by thecassino on Oct 28, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know as well as I do
That when I guy gets two fouls in the first half, he goes to the bench. When a guy gets three fouls early in the second half, he goes to the bench. When he gets four fouls before the last few minutes of the game, he heads to the bench.
So, while Overton mathematically could play more than 20 minutes a night, the way he picks up fouls in bunches prevents him from ever being a dependable contributor who realistically could play more than 20 minutes a night.
He’s a pest of a sixth man who occasionally will ignite a team with a key steal. Nothing more.
by Nuss on Oct 28, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the rotation is a huge part of the equation
Even guys like Brandon Roy, Nate Robinson, Isaiah Thomas, Tre Simmons, Will Conroy and Justin Dentmon didn’t get 80% of the minutes.
by thecassino on Oct 28, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't let facts get in the way of your memory
It’s only a recent development that Romar hasn’t had guards above 70 percent:
Nate Robinson, 04-05: 78.1 percent
Will Conroy, 04-05: 74.3 percent
Brandon Roy, 05-06: 78.1 percent
If you want to go even to the next year …
Ryan Appleby, 06-07: 73.1
Justin Dentmon, 06-07: 71.7
True, they didn’t get all the way to 80 percent, but the difference between their marks and 80 percent is so small (about one to three minutes a night on average) that your point is just simply not true.
by Nuss on Oct 28, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't let facts get in the way of your memory either
Nate Robinson and Will Conroy played that much because Brandon Roy wasn’t healthy for most of that year. B-Roy’s senior year he was as good a college basketball player you’re going to find, and he STILL only played 30 minutes a night., so I don’t know why anyone would expect Overton to ever touch that. He was part of a 4 guard rotation last year, and will likrly be part of the same next year. There’s simply too much depth (which isn’t going anywhere by the time his elligibility expires) for him to ever see more than 20ish minutes a night.
by thecassino on Oct 28, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, so what you're really doing is agreeing with me
In that he’s really nothing more than a 6th man. If he was as good as people think, he’d be approaching that 70 percent mark, right? Because that’s where Thomas and Dentmon were last year. And with Dentmon gone, somebody’s got to pick up those minutes, right? Why not Overton?
Oh wait … I know why … because he’s really just a nice bench player, as both Gaddy and Turner pass him in the rotation. He simply cannot play the way he plays and stay on the floor for more than 20 minutes. Now, does he fit a nice role for Washington? Absolutely. He’s the perfect piece for them, in that you rightly point out that they don’t need him for more than those 20 minutes because of their depth. Romar can afford to let him run around all crazy and mug everything in sight, getting under people’s skin, because they don’t need him when the game’s on the line.
But can we please just stop this nonsense that he somehow could be a good 30-minute-a-night point guard in the Pac-10? Because that brings me back to my original point: Without that, he’s simply not in the same universe as guys like Collison and Weaver.
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's nothing more than a sixth man because he plays for one of the deepest backcourts in the nation
If he had stuck with his USC commitment, he’d be starting and playing 30 minutes a game this coming season.
The only players on the team who approached the 70 minute mark last year were All Conference, which Venoy isn’t and never will be. But he’s a much better player than you give him credit for. I know you hate him, I would too if I had to play against him, but you’re letting your personal bias effect your view of him as a basketball player.
by thecassino on Oct 29, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"If he had stuck with his USC commitment, he’d be starting and playing 30 minutes a game this coming season."
And be nowhere near as effective. (Never mind the fact that playing 30 minutes a night for this USC team wouldn’t mean anything …)
Look: I don’t hate him. I don’t hate anyone. He’s just vastly overrated based on an ability to do two things — irritate people and steal some balls — and that was the whole point of this thing. It’s not about him. It’s about people like you, and writers, and talking heads who buy into this myth. He’s nowhere near a complete defender, and the evidence backs that up — evidence you haven’t once been able to refute with any kind of concrete evidence of your own.
Beyond that, to say “he’s a much better player than I give him credit for” implies that he’s not just a better defender than I want to acknowledge, but a better guard in general. That’s ludicrous. When you start bringing in other parts of his game — such as his 92.8 ORtg, or his 45.5 eFG%, or his 31.4(!) turnover rate from a point guard — it really, really starts to slide downhill fast.
He’s a niche player. That’s not a slam on him; that’s just what he is, and he is exceptionally good at it. Guys have made out handsomely finding one thing and being really, really good at it, and he seems to be one of them. Good for him, because, like I said, the point of this isn’t to trash him. The point it to set other people straight using, you know … actual facts.
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you don
Is wrong. And when he picks opposing point guards and gets two free points for his team we’re all wrong in thinking that it’s
by thecassino on Oct 29, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't know what happened with that last post
But he’s one of the best defenders in the nation. It’s something everybody seems to agree on except Cougar fans, so it’s either a “myth” that EVERYBODY else somehow sees except you, or bias. And when you write an entire post dedicated to an off the cuff remark by one of his teammates it becomes painfully clear which it is.
And again, he would have played a ton of minutes for USC last year too. You think he’d be less effective, that’s an opinion and not something that can ever be proven, just like saying he’d be less effective playing more minutes for UW. It’s not his fault Romar has done a great job of recruiting and doesn’t need his players to play 80% or more minutes per game.
by thecassino on Oct 29, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, "everybody" thought the Cougs were a poor offensive team during the Weaver/Low years, too
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency
2007-08: 115.9 (26th nationally)
2006-07: 112.6 (54th nationally)
“Everybody” also thinks the Cougs were a good defensive team because they don’t give up many points.
Just because “everybody” is too lazy/stupid to look up/understand freely available information that will allow them better insight into a player or team doesn’t mean they know a damn thing about what they’re talking about. Besides, who is “everybody”? I know the coaches put him on their all-defensive team, which means they think he’s one of the best defenders in conference. Who are these “everybodies” who say he’s one of the best in the nation?
You’re right in saying that it’s my opinion that he’d be less effective in more minutes; however, it’s not as baseless as you’re trying to make it, given that I’ve cited multiple statistics that suggest pretty strongly that he’d have to change the way he plays to stay on the court long enough to be an integral player for a team. You’ve done no such thing to support your opinions …
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's one thing that should make you feel better
Bone called DeAngelo Casto a “poor-man’s Jon Brockman” today at Media Day …
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't exactly want to get in the middle of this, but...
To thecassino:
If Overton was “one of the best defenders in the nation” and “EVERYBODY else sees it” then he should have been on the Pac 10 defensive team last year. I know he received votes, so obviously some people think he’s solid. Nuss is a big stats guy, so if you can find some stats that show he actually is actually a great defender we’d all love to see them. Your steal % stat is useful, are there any others like it? Obviously he’s a little short to be accumulating blocks and defensive rebounds but it would be interesting to see (for example) if the Huskies as a team played better defense when he was in, or if the other team played better due to accumulation of fouls. THAT would be a good stat argument, if it was true Overton contributed significantly more points from steals / fast breaks then he cost from fouls that put the other team in the bonus sooner. I’d say to use +/- but we have had plenty of discussion about that stat on this site and we’re not all in agreement about how useful it is.
Also, not that this means anything significant, but in Kyle’s Jr. year he posted a 4.1 steal %, better than anything Overton has yet to do. We’ll see if Overton increases that as he matures, and my guess would be that he does.
To Nuss:
Overton might be less effective over more minutes defensively but similarly he might commit fouls at a lesser rate. I think he maximizes the use of his limited time – he’s frenetic and disruptive, and it leads both to turnovers and to fouls. If he had to conserve his energy I think both stats will go down, though I don’t know if that would be better for the Huskies or not.
As a side note, I am not sure if this comment by Pondexter was really worth a whole post complete with multiple pictures. We don’t really know what was going through Pondexter’s mind at the time or if he really means what he said. Like you pointed out, going against someone in practice probably IS tougher because fouls aren’t really called. I know every Coug hates Overton for mugging Rochestie and generally being insufferable, but it felt a little over the top to me.
by johnnycougar on Oct 29, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Nuss kind of got at this
Part of the reason he may foul is because he knows he only has 15-20 minutes to do something. It allows him to get his mug on while not having to worry about losing minutes, really. He can run the risk of fouling because he isn’t a starter that needs to be out there 30 minutes a game. Take that away and I’m not sure he’s as effective, either
by cougfan on Oct 29, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Overton might be less effective over more minutes defensively but similarly he might commit fouls at a lesser rate."
That’s precisely that part of my point. And if he’s committing fouls at a lesser rate, is he being as effective?
Over the top? Maybe. Mostly I was just trying to have a little fun, but also make the point that evidence just doesn’t back up this idea that he’s such a great defender. He’s very good at what he does. But this constant overstatement of his abilities just drives me bananas.
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
Not egregious or anything, I can just see thecassino’s point on the blown-out-of-proportion thing.
As a Coug, though, it IS funny / borderline crazy.
by johnnycougar on Oct 29, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did acknowledge the context of the remark
And the post isn’t even that long. The comments are WAY longer than the post (unless you include the pictures, which I thought would add a little levity), because he insists on arguing a point that’s indefensible. He’s offered nothing other than “HE’S REALLY GOOD ! EVERYONE SAYS SO EXCEPT YOU!!!!” Hence, my extended responses.
by Nuss on Oct 30, 2009 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BEST? Seriously?
Come on, you can’t sit here and label him as one of the best defenders in the nation. What are you basing this on? That he picks a few pockets? He’s not even the best in the Pac-10.
See the all Pac-10 defensive team post below as well. You can come up with handfuls of better defenders that are also better players. Overton has ONE aspect to his game right now, the ability to gamble and occasionally force steals. When it goes wrong for him, and you saw it go wrong in the tourney, it shoots your team in the foot.
by cougfan on Oct 29, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately for Overton
The Pac-10 officials, bad as they are, have caught on to his blatant hand checking. Additionally, the refs that called UW’s NCAA tournament game caught on to it as well. If you want Overton on the floor you better take the good with the bad. He’s going to put his nose on the ball, but he will also foul and get beat because of it.
by cougfan on Oct 28, 2009 7:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Overton is a great defender
only with the help of the Pac 10 referee. Weaver was great because he was great.
I think Russell Westbrook belongs in the same category as Weaver and Collison.
by Coug1990 on Oct 28, 2009 7:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure Jorge Gutierrez is already a better player than Venoy Overton
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2009 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of players that are already better than Venoy Overton
by Nuss on Oct 28, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guarding with your feet > Guarding with your hands
And yes, Gutierrez is, and has been, better. He’s a manchild on the defensive end and he does it the right way
by cougfan on Oct 29, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should have slipped a pic in there
of Venoy doing his whiny “WHAT???” face after a blatant mugging. Maybe even after each of the pics.
by TiltingRight on Oct 29, 2009 1:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I tried to find one
And couldn’t. If anyone can find one, I will modify. I did, however, find many pictures of him NOT flashing a gang sign …
I believe the official explanation is that he’s making the “W” many Huskies make.
Looks the same to me … what, it doesn’t look the same to you?
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only one I could find is this one
by TiltingRight on Oct 29, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Which is pretty remarkable since
he gave the “WHAT???” face every other time he fouled.
by TiltingRight on Oct 29, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the facts are
If the refs are “letting them play” then Overton is probably the “best” defender in the Pac 10.
If the refs are calling the game a little ticky-tacky, Overton spends a lot of time sitting down.
I think when you have Weaver’s size and basketball IQ you have a lot of advantages on defense without needing to foul. Overton has quickness and agressiveness, which is exceptionally good for causing steals or wearing opponents out, but unfortunately (for him) also leads to a lot of foul calls. I’m just worried he’ll figure out how to be just as pesky without causing fouls.
by johnnycougar on Oct 29, 2009 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If he ever does, I'll give him props
Because then he’ll be Darren Collison. But not until then.
by Nuss on Oct 29, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, except for the ridiculous field shooting percentage and near-perfect free throw conversion rate
and excellent ballhandling.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2009 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
