This popped up in my RSS reader from Turtle Soup, and I can't say I'm not surprised. Interesting take, to say the least, from Jeremy over at TS:
9-27 FG (33%), 4-12 3PT, 8-11 FTs, 7 assists, 6 turnovers, 4 rebs
That's Vasquez' line from tonight's game. It's an abomination. 27 shots? 12 threes [sic] point attempts? These numbers don't even illustrate how bad it was down the stretch. J Will is open at the low block with a guard on him. Greivis ignores him and drives to the baseline and throws up a prayer. Down two with 15 seconds left in OT. Screw the play Gary just drew up, I'm firing up a three with a hand in my face.
What does it matter if he kept us in the game down the stretch in regulation if he was going to kill us all game with his selfish play?
Is Greivis really indispensible? How many of his 18 missed shots could have been passed up for a better shot by a teammate? 30 points is worthless to me when it is achieved so selfishly.
Later, he posted this in a comment:
Greivis' line in MD's losses:
Cincy: 5-17 FG, 0-5 3PT, 4 assists, 3 turnovers
Wisc: 6-13 FG, 2-4 3PT, 2 assists, 5 turnovers
Nova: 3-9 FG, 1-4 3PT, 7 assists, 7 turnovers
W&M: 10-23 FG, 2-9 3PT, 6 assists, 4 turnovers
Wake: 9-27 FG, 4-12 3PT, 7 assists, 7 turnovers
A quick summary: 26 assists against 26 turnovers. That is bloody awful.
33 of 89 from the field (37%). 9 threes against 34 attempts (that's an average 7 3PT attempts per game at a 26% clip).
GV supporters will say as Greivis goes, so go the Terps. I prefer this: Grievis gets selfish in big games and kills the Terps.
First off, I like the guys at Turtle Soup. It's a good blog and has been around for a really long time. This isn't meant to be a public criticism of this, but I need to argue against someone if I'm going to make this post. I've seen this argument used elsewhere, though this is the most eloquent - I simply disagree. To the guys at TS, please don't take it personal. Everyone has an opinion, and I recognize that.
So, respectfully, I cannot wrap my head around this mindset.
Of course Greivis' line is bad when Maryland loses: he's the best player on the team. When the best player doesn't play well, the team loses. What's the point?
It's selective memory, to an extent. Was FSU not a big game? Was UNC last year not a big game? We know Greivis is inconsistent, but without him last night, Maryland doesn't have a shot, and having a shot is better than not having one. There's a reason he was 2nd team All-ACC and is generally recognized as one of the best players in the country. He can take bad shots, but that's something you have to live with.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that part of the reason he holds on to the ball so much is because he's the only guy that can score with any consistency? No one else on the team was visible at all last night. Part of that was Vasquez's fault, yes, but anyone that thinks Hayes or Milbourne is a consistent 20 point scorer is insane. Most of Hayes' 3s come from Vasquez drives and kicks; he's a great player, but dependent on Vaz. Landon is still undersized and still disappears/wears down easily. He makes his living on putbacks and midrange jumpers, neither of which are go-to plays.
Sean Mosley has potential, but if last night showed anything, it's that he's not there yet. He looked a little timid and hasn't been an effective offensive option since...the William and Mary game. He brings a lot to the table, but that's not one of the things (yet). So who's the main option? It's Vasquez, all the time. If Maryland goes anywhere, good or bad, Vasquez will take them there.
Last second shots are difficult. They're pressure-packed situations and decision-making is difficult. Greivis was playing averagely at that point, but he's hit two game-tying shots in similar situations before. To me, he has to take that shot. Was it a bad one? Yes. But I have more faith in him than anyone else, and I'll generally trust him.
Greivis wasn't great last night. In fact, it's not hard to argue he was bad. He turned it over too much and took bad shots, particularly in OT. But to insinuate that Maryland would be just as good without him just seems ridiculous. They lost for a lot of reasons last night, and the biggest was probably the fact that it was their second game in three days and on the road. Why not look at Jordan Williams' missed free throws, or Landon Milbourne's foul on Aminu, or the absolute abomination of defensive rebounding?
Maryland lost when he disappeared last season. Not a coincidence.
Am I off-base? I know there are some people less than pleased by Vasquez, as well as those that love him more than I do. Vote and profess opinions below.