Jump to content

Starting 5 - Gary Williams Era


glorydays

Recommended Posts

Booth was never the 1st option other than his senior year. Obviously, Smith was there his first two years and his junior year you still had Rhodes and Simpkins. His senior year he was the man and carried his team to the tournament with arguably a worst team than GV had his senior year. Booth had 3 sophomores(Ekeze, Profit, Stokes) and a Junior( Sarunus) around him. GV had Jordan Williams and two other solid seniors( Hayes, Milbourne).

Oh, and Rhodes as another guy who was very underrated and IMO better player than GV. All time ACC steals leader, was much better defensively, better rebounder at 6'4, better shooter. He was easily the more complete player. Given a chance to carry a team they both would've blown GV out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If Rhodes and Booth were so great, they should have been a lot better in Booth's Junior year.

BTW, Grievis won more games than Booth.

Hipp was a complete black hole on the '95-96 team. He brought that team down yet they still made the tournament on the backs of Booth and Rhodes. And the ACC was much more competitive in the mid '90s.

BTW.... GV played in 10 more games. Here's the kicker that you forgot to mention, GV had more cupcakes. Look at the number of "mid majors" the Terps played just in '09'-10 compared to '95-96. Over their careers, I bet Vaz played 10 -15 more cupcakes than Booth. Winning 7 more games in 10 more tries against easier competition holds zero weight. Booth had 37 ACC wins, GV had 38 but the ACC was tougher in the mid 90's. You know, when the conference wasn't watered down and you played every team twice in a season. Booth's '94 and '96 teams won 8 ACC games and they comfortably made the NCAA tournament. GV's '08 team won 8 ACC games and wasn't even one of Lunardi's last 4 out.

http://terrapinstats.com/bb/gamesum.cfm?season=2010

http://terrapinstats.com/bb/gamesum.cfm?season=1996

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His senior year he was the man and carried his team to the tournament with arguably a worst team than GV had his senior year. Booth had 3 sophomores(Ekeze, Profit, Stokes) and a Junior( Sarunus) around him. GV had Jordan Williams and two other solid seniors( Hayes, Milbourne).

Boy, I have to really disagree with this. Ekeze/Profit/Stokes/Sarunas is >>>> Williams as a freshman/Hayes/Milbourne. Not even close IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, I have to really disagree with this. Ekeze/Profit/Stokes/Sarunas is >>>> Williams as a freshman/Hayes/Milbourne. Not even close IMO.

No way. Williams freshman year was arguably better than any year any of those other guys had in their career at MD let alone their sophomore years. Hayes and Milbourne had very good senior years. Remember we aren't talking careers we are talking '96-97 vs '09-'10. I'm gonna take the '09-'10 team without even giving it much thought.

And let me point out that the two most effecient years GV had were his freshman and senior years when he had players playing very well around him and he didn't feel forced to be the man. GV was a very good player but he wasn't the superstar that many made him out to be during his time here. His soph and junior years he really put up empty, volume numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way. Williams freshman year was arguably better than any year any of those other guys had in their career at MD let alone their sophomore years. Hayes and Milbourne had very good senior years. Remember we aren't talking careers we are talking '96-97 vs '09-'10. I'm gonna take the '09-'10 team without even giving it much thought.

I might take the '09-'10 team as well - but only because that team had Greivis.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I have nothing against Hayes and Milbourne, but they would have been bench players on a truly good team. A lot of the numbers Williams put up were because Vasquez was constantly feeding him easy dunks - granted, he still had to put himself in the right place at the right time.

But the real crux of the matter is, was Vasquez the 4th best Terp under Williams? I don't think it's a clear case either way. But I can definitely see the argument for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Rhodes was really, really good. He's definitely underrated. But he NEVER took over a game like Vasquez did. Never led on the court the way Vasquez did. And teams never said the key to beating Maryland was making sure you contained Johnny Rhodes and make other players beat you instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hipp was a complete black hole on the '95-96 team. He brought that team down yet they still made the tournament on the backs of Booth and Rhodes. And the ACC was much more competitive in the mid '90s.

BTW.... GV played in 10 more games. Here's the kicker that you forgot to mention, GV had more cupcakes. Look at the number of "mid majors" the Terps played just in '09'-10 compared to '95-96. Over their careers, I bet Vaz played 10 -15 more cupcakes than Booth. Winning 7 more games in 10 more tries against easier competition holds zero weight. Booth had 37 ACC wins, GV had 38 but the ACC was tougher in the mid 90's. You know, when the conference wasn't watered down and you played every team twice in a season. Booth's '94 and '96 teams won 8 ACC games and they comfortably made the NCAA tournament. GV's '08 team won 8 ACC games and wasn't even one of Lunardi's last 4 out.

http://terrapinstats.com/bb/gamesum.cfm?season=2010

http://terrapinstats.com/bb/gamesum.cfm?season=1996

The two schedules you linked to seem to show one more solid to tough out of conference games before the tourney in the Booth season. So not a big deal

Booth also had more talent around him over the course of his career so he should have had more success than Greivis. But that wasn't the case and you can't totally blame Hipp either.

Booth was a PF who only shot .456% from the field and never averaged 8 rebounds a game. Oh, and he turned the ball over almost as much as Greivis did his senior year(for some reason bb-reference only has his senior year tov's). That's not that great and I don't see how he can possibly be considered a no doubter over Vasquez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might take the '09-'10 team as well - but only because that team had Greivis.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I have nothing against Hayes and Milbourne, but they would have been bench players on a truly good team. A lot of the numbers Williams put up were because Vasquez was constantly feeding him easy dunks - granted, he still had to put himself in the right place at the right time.

But the real crux of the matter is, was Vasquez the 4th best Terp under Williams? I don't think it's a clear case either way. But I can definitely see the argument for it.

Yeah, there's only 3 guys who are obvious for those 4 spots. After that Greivis competes with Baxter, Blake, and to a lesser degree Booth, Rhodes, and even Francis if you want to consider a 1 year player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might take the '09-'10 team as well - but only because that team had Greivis.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I have nothing against Hayes and Milbourne, but they would have been bench players on a truly good team. A lot of the numbers Williams put up were because Vasquez was constantly feeding him easy dunks - granted, he still had to put himself in the right place at the right time.

But the real crux of the matter is, was Vasquez the 4th best Terp under Williams? I don't think it's a clear case either way. But I can definitely see the argument for it.

Yeah, there's only 3 guys who are obvious for those 4 spots. After that Greivis competes with Baxter, Blake, and to a lesser degree Booth, Rhodes, and even Francis if you want to consider a 1 year player.

That's fine. I'd personally take all of Booth, Baxter, Rhodes, and Blake over Vasquez but I'll agree that there is not a clear cut #4 behind the big 3 and that Vasquez is in the discussion. Obviously, if we are going on great players and not looking at careers than Francis was clearly the better player as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I customized this leaderboard trying to get Mason Miller's 50% K rate into its appropriate Edwin Diaz-Felix Bautista context, and danged across 2022-2024 if 2024 Craig Kimbrel isn't right there in the top tier. https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&lg=all&type=1&ind=1&stats=rel&team=0&startdate=&enddate=&month=0&season1=2022&season=2024&qual=10&sortcol=7&sortdir=default&pagenum=1 Should OAK move Miller, I think Edwin Diaz-Jarred Kelenic is one decent example from recent seasons what a Bat for Relief star structure might look like.
    • This is what I love about this community. Nothing goes unpunished.
    • Well good thing I didn’t say he had great command every time. That said, he’s not going to have that level of success (and I don’t just means runs allowed) without having good to great command most of the time.
    • Sophomore slump deemed rough enough for Jordan Walker to need a reset even after a pretty good 2023.  
    • I want to answer this with a caution that I am not an agent or an executive with actual contracts and how they work.  My understanding comes from reading on line with the recent CBA and how MiLB contracts work... but my understanding may not be 100% correct but I think I am in the right room... Couple clarifications:  MLB roster is the 26 man.  Not the 40 man.  My understanding is players that get added to the 40 Man do not get the automatic minimum salary until they are placed on the 26 man.  When a player (Banuelos) in this conversation was added last week to 26 man roster (he was added because he was in town on Taxi Squad... not because he was/is next man up... but this is my opinion).  As a result, he was 'selected' from Norfolk and it is a different/new contract than his MiLB contract and likely at minimum salary of $740,000 per season or $4,568 per game (162 games).  He actually got the 1 AB so if he never plays in an MLB game again, he is one of a small number that can actually say he played in an MLB game.  When the O's DFA'd him, they basically released him from his contract.  Since no other team selected him to add to their 40 man roster, he in essence became a free agent again.  The O's offered him a spot back on Norfolk which he accepted.  This would be a new contract at the $60,300 minimum salary.   Instead of being sent to Norfolk, he is assigned back to the Taxi Squad and flies to LA.  Hays goes down.  Again... he is there so the O's select him and add him to the 26 man roster for Monday's game.  He earns his 2nd game pay day and 2nd MLB contract. This time... they Option him back to Norfolk.  So he is on the 40 man.  But now his minimum salary is $120,600.   More than likely when the O's need a pitcher that isn't on the 40 man or another position player, Banuelos will be DFA'd to make room again because the likelyhood he gets selected by another team is low.  This happened with Bemboom, Godoy, Kolosvary all last year.  They all came back to the Tides after DFA until end of year.  A couple other catchers that were selected off of other DFAs and then were bumped of 40 man chose Free Agency before they even showed up to Baltimore or Norfolk. For Banuelos... he goes from making $1200 a week in season to roughly $5,480 a week.  This is a serious case of right place right time and also likely a 'financial thank you' for not complaining about being on the taxi squad rather than getting playing time in Norfolk.  Any team that signs Banuelos moving forward will have to pay this minimum salary if/when they sign him. I don't know the exact formula but for players that had good time in the majors the season before signing an MilB contract get a guaranteed minimum based on what they earned the previous year.  So players have a good chance of making more than $120K while they look for next opportunity to play in MLB. My gut is telling me that Perez was Taxi the first week because McCann had a something tweek at the end of ST.  in 2023, Bemboom got about a month in the majors while McCann worked back from a ST injury.  This was likely the plan if McCann couldn't work thru it (which he did) so Perez went to Norfolk the following week when D.B. took the taxi spot. So at this point, Perez is earning his $120K+ minimum and likely has an Opt out at some point this year.  Likely around the July 30 trade deadline.  Banuelos is earning his $120K minimum and will be patient.  Handley is earning AAA minimum and is under control thru next year.  I don't believe that the O's are going to be put in a short term situation that puts Handley on the 26 man that may result in a DFA and exposure.
    • I hope Elias and Adley have as much success together as Belichick and Brady before in the long run of time baseball probably creates some data what happens with one but not the other. I do really enjoy Elias having grown up with OPACY before the Nats, and hope he'll be around for the long haul.   I think chances are at least decent there, but I do also think Mike Elias vs. the field might be an interesting prop bet if Hal Steinbrenner ever lets go of huckleberry Brian Cashman. From Sig interviews, I'm pretty sure he'll stick with Elias as long as he is able. I guess POBO Eve Rosenbaum here could be fun if succession ever became necessary.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...