mikesyracuse1 said:

---

Looking through thus thread and Not on topic, but where is Pumpkinhead. He is a long time regular on this board, and I haven't seen him on here in a long time

Mikesyracuse1

---

Appreciate the shoutout, Mike.

Yeah that's prob right now that I think about it.

We need a preliminary attempt at this year's Dawg/Skill matrix that we update throughout the season.

My current thoughts:

PJ Haggerty: 10 skill, 6 dawg*
Jordan Pope: 8 skill, 4.5 dawg*
Jalen Reece: 5 skill, 6 dawg
Tyshawn Archie: 4 skill, 9 dawg
Mackenzie Mgbako: 9 skill, 1 dawg (sample size issue here but we can only go by what we've seen)
Jamie Vinson: 5 skill, 0 dawg
Cade Phillips: 3 skill, 10 dawg
Zach Clemence: 7 skill, 1 dawg
Chris McDermott: 0 skill, 8 dawg
Lukas Walls: 5 skill, 3 dawg

* - Haggerty and Pope both fall into a sort of "kind of dawg" place on the matrix similar to Wade Taylor. They don't really have a ton of physicality to their game and I think they're both kind of question marks on defense, but they do have that "I'm going to go put one in the basket" dawg-factor on offense that you want.

insufficient data for preliminary analysis:
Neiko Munday
Josh Irving
Jeremiah Green

Skill x Decision-Making x Dawg = Winning Impact

Decision-marking is already factored into both the skill and dawg ratings.

A real elite skill/dawg player has to both make some questionable decisions at times but also be skilled enough that most of them work out.

I'm not a numbers guy. I

If a Dawg award included a 0 to 10 rating using a previous A&M player as an anchor for 10, who might that previous player be?

'That performance was a 7.2 [Previous A&M Player] Dawg.'

Hmmmm....

R. Agee, A. Garcia, C. Walker.... maybe D. Kirk and D. Sloan?

So the question is really who was our most Dawg player?

Agee was really high. Quenton Jackson. Sloan for sure. Those are dawgy dawgs.

I'd push back on Andersson Garcia as a 10. But he's hard to place on the skill/dawg matrix. Being a great offensive rebounder is an elite dawg trait, but it taking five years to convince him to shoot the ball when he's open is extremely not-dawg.

GrayMatter said:

---

Hmmmm....

R. Agee, A. Garcia, C. Walker.... maybe D. Kirk and D. Sloan?

---

Maybe this guy setting that screen…

I almost included Joe Jones. Him and Agee are basically the same player, Joe was just bigger. Extreme dawgs for sure.

bobinator said:

---

So the question is really who was our most Dawg player?

Agee was really high. Quenton Jackson. Sloan for sure. Those are dawgy dawgs.

I'd push back on Andersson Garcia as a 10. But he's hard to place on the skill/dawg matrix. Being a great offensive rebounder is an elite dawg trait, but it taking five years to convince him to shoot the ball when he's open is extremely not-dawg.

---

I'd say the player who had the most skill and dawg meter is 10 or near 10.

It's an interesting question, I don't know that we've had a 10/10 on the dawg/skill matrix.

Agee, Sloan and Joe Jones are probably the closest? I'll also die on the hill that junior Tyler Davis is probably the most underrated player we've ever had, he'd be pretty high up there.

Is Q the only dawg whose made it to the league? Andy is probably on the verge of it, with the right situation. There was a horse I used to ride big, strong, and probably the most talented horse at the stable. He won every race to the barn. Lol. But he wasn't a dawg. He won because he had the tools, and there were some mean ass horses out there too. The dawgs are my favorites. They are relatable, lovable, and fun to watch, then I'm always disappointed they rarely advance to the next level.

Caruso is a little hard to place on the dawg matrix also but he had some dawg qualities.

bobinator said:

---

Caruso is a little hard to place on the dawg matrix also but he had some dawg qualities.

---

That game against Arizona State comes to mind.

Joe Wilbert is the John David Crow of dawgs.

bobinator said:

---

It's an interesting question, I don't know that we've had a 10/10 on the dawg/skill matrix.

Agee, Sloan and Joe Jones are probably the closest? I'll also die on the hill that junior Tyler Davis is probably the most underrated player we've ever had, he'd be pretty high up there.

---

For sure that's a tough question. It's a question that can arguably last until the end of time because you can make the case for any of the players already mentioned.

To me, I think you have to look beyond the stats and let the eye be the test. I'd also add that to be considered a dawg as a minimum requirement, they must have played in the tournament.

We once considered dawgs to be the ultimate hustle kind of player that played lights out on the defensive end. It has morphed into a highly skilled player that was the ultimate player on both ends of the court.

You could probably end up with a defensive and offensive Dawg team. I can see where we've had players that can play lock down D but weren't great on the offensive end. We also had players that could get a bucket at will when we needed it, but weren't that great on defense. From those teams, we could probably whittle it down to 2 or 3 dawgs because I don't think we have that one ultimate dawg.

That ultimate dawg is really a unicorn.

Shanne Jones back in the day was a dawg. Of course, his teams weren't very good...

One of the biggest problems with "dawg" analysis is conflation with "junkyard dog" mentality because they are related but different.

A junkyard dog (see also "glue guy") is a player that does the dirty work and makes an impact despite not having a high skill level. Your Chris Walkers, Marlon Pompeys, etc.

A dawg is a player that can just impose their will on a game. They don't rely on anyone else to get them going. They want to take the big shot and can create it for themselves, they want to defend the ball in the clutch (and they're actually good at it) etc. They don't shy away from contact.

So they share some traits, but like you said, it's hard to be an elite dawg if you aren't a very good player overall. I would disagree that they had to play in the tournament, though it's also pretty rare for bad teams to have high level dawgs.

Some dawg considerations:

- It's easier for bigs to be dawgs. This is just a scientific fact, but it also stands out more when bigs aren't dawgs. Like Vinson and Fede last year. Extremely not-dawgs.

- It's harder for shooters to be dawgs. When you think of dawgs at guard, think Houston basketball. Those guys that just drive it right at you and score anyway when you foul them and then lock you down on the other end.

- Dawgs are almost always at least decent defenders. Can't be a dawg if you're getting blown by on the other end.

The award should be renamed for Andersson Garcia if it isn't already

To me, I think you have to look beyond the stats and let the eye be the test. I'd also add that to be considered a dawg as a minimum requirement, they must have played in the tournament.

Agree on the first part and not the second. It helps but Q was often a dawg