It kind of depends on how much each person is factoring in aging.
Some may overvalue the fact that Boozer is so young, and might thus give him to too much of a (subjective) boost. Others might be ignoring aging effects entirely.
This method should help attaching real numbers to the aging effect, in order to reduce the guess-work
And yet..Stirtz is still playing. Peterson is not. I think strength of schedule is pretty fluid. Is Iowa as mediocre as stats had them early? Also .Fleming is gone, scuff...playing what is close to an NBA team last night...got badly pushed around. The numbers don't look on paper THAT bad, but the hogs could play no defense Vs a bigger more mature Arizona team. For me, this is why Stirtz should be higher ...he controlled the game vs Nebraska. Fleming ..like acuff...could not. Illinois size was the most significant factor. And these feel like intangibles. One outlier is Braden smith...only 6 feet even. But Purdue won. Smith keeps winning.
So boozer is better than ppl think
It kind of depends on how much each person is factoring in aging.
Some may overvalue the fact that Boozer is so young, and might thus give him to too much of a (subjective) boost. Others might be ignoring aging effects entirely.
This method should help attaching real numbers to the aging effect, in order to reduce the guess-work
And yet..Stirtz is still playing. Peterson is not. I think strength of schedule is pretty fluid. Is Iowa as mediocre as stats had them early? Also .Fleming is gone, scuff...playing what is close to an NBA team last night...got badly pushed around. The numbers don't look on paper THAT bad, but the hogs could play no defense Vs a bigger more mature Arizona team. For me, this is why Stirtz should be higher ...he controlled the game vs Nebraska. Fleming ..like acuff...could not. Illinois size was the most significant factor. And these feel like intangibles. One outlier is Braden smith...only 6 feet even. But Purdue won. Smith keeps winning.