Todd Day

[gmarv]

theres also a thing such as heart. i can,t even imagine someone
like larry johnson telling sutton he needs to get some men.
sid would of tried to walk thru hell for a win todd would of shot a
3 ball.

[mhuff]

I'm one of the outliers that did not despise Day, and have already stated on here that he is my fav Hog of all time. Yet I'd put him 2nd to Super Sid.

JMO.... Sid is the greatest all around player in Arkansas history.

[East TN HAWG]

JMO.... Sid is the greatest all around player in Arkansas history.

You got it mhuff.  Its actually fun that we can make arguments for each player.  Plus one for Erie for doing that even though he is wrong.... 

[McKdaddy]

JMO.... Sid is the greatest all around player in Arkansas history.

You got it mhuff.  Its actually fun that we can make arguments for each player.  Plus one for Erie for doing that even though he is wrong.... 

Ha, agreed

[gmarv]

yeah i don,t really wanna diss todd but come on.
i think sidney is one of if not the greatest hog ever
in any sport.

[sadhogfan]

Because Day was most certainly not beloved of the Razorback Nation;  the rape allegations that hung over his last season here (and other players) did a ton to ruin his reputation.    The media and our fanbase pilloried Todd Day, as he,  Roosevelt Wallace, Darrell Hawkins, and Elmer Martin were tried in the court of public opinion.

Heck, the very idea that there's even a conversation as to who is the greatest Razorback of all time is outstanding evidence of how little people collectively like Day-- because it really isn't even remotely close.

It blows my mind how closed-minded you are about this.

Your points generally seem to be that Day is the better player because:

(1) He won more
(2) He won more awards
(3) He was a better scorer
(4) He was a better defender/all-around player.

(1) This is basically negligible. Both went to a Final Four and an Elite Eight. Overall, I think Day played on more talented teams, but that is debatable. I firmly believe that Day had the better coach. I have no idea how the talent of the SWC of the late 70s compared to the SWC/SEC of the late 80s early 90s.

One point that I consider to be in Moncrief's favor is how he led the team to the Elite 8 as a senior without Delph and Brewer there. In Day's senior year, still playing with Mayberry and Miller, they choked in the second round.

(2) I am no expert here, but according to hogstats.com, Moncrief actually accumulated more All-American accolades than did Day.

http://www.hogstats.com/players/list-of-arkansas-basketball-all-americans.php

(3) Day scored more points, and averaged more points per game. As a volume scorer, he was superior. But was he a better scorer? A couple of things to consider:

First, you made sure to point out that Moncrief's teams were fairly high-scoring, so it's not like we can pretend that Sid just didn't get the chance to score much because his teams plodded along. Fair enough. But they still scored significantly less than Nolan's teams of the late 80s/early 90s did.

DAY'S TEAMS
88-89: 89.7
89-90: 95.6
90-91: 99.6
91-92: 89.8

MONCRIEF'S TEAMS
75-76: 80.0
76-77: 74.0
77-78: 75.1
78-79: 74.6

So while Sid's teams could score a good bit, there were still a lot more points to be scored for Day's teams. Not surprisingly, Day's scoring averages were higher than Moncrief's each year:

DAY
88-89: 13.3
89-90: 19.5
90-91: 20.7
91-92: 22.7

MONCRIEF
75-76: 12.6
76-77: 15.4
77-78: 17.3
78-79: 22.0

But, what's interesting is that each year, Moncrief actually scored a higher percentage of his team's overall points than Day did:

DAY
88-89: 14.8%
89-90: 20.4%
90-91: 20.8%
91-92: 25.3%

MONCRIEF
75-76: 15.8%
76-77: 20.8%
77-78: 23.0%
78-79: 29.5% (Wow.)

And, Moncrief scored a higher percentage of the team's points than did Day, despite the fact that, arguably, he was the primary scoring option only one season out of four, while Day was the primary option three seasons out of four!

And that doesn't even get into the fact that Moncrief played without a 3 point line. He was no Marvin Delph, but he clearly lost points because of that.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about offensive efficiency, yikes. Day was a good shooter, but Moncrief for his career shot over 60% from the field! The following stats represent the percentage of overall team shots taken by each player (Day's last year is adjusted to account for the games he missed due to suspension):

DAY
88-89: 15.1%
89-90: 19.8%
90-91: 20.8%
91-92: 23.6%

MONCRIEF
75-76: 13.1%
76-77: 15.5%
77-78: 18.2%
78-79: 25.2%

With the exception of their senior years, Day shot a higher percentage of the team's shots than did Moncrief, while scoring a lower percentage of the team's points. Not super surprising as Day was always a high volume shooter. What's more interesting is that if you compare this chart to the one immediately above it (% of team scoring), you'll see that in only 2 of his 4 seasons did Day actually score a higher percentage of the team's points than he took of the team's shots. Moncrief on the other hand, always scored at a considerably high rate compared to the quantity of shots that he took.

So when everything is taken into account, I question whether or not Day was a better scorer.

(4) It's harder to account for defense by looking at statistics, especially incomplete ones. Clearly Day accumulated more steals, but that's to be expected under Nolan's system. I realize that the quote from Jordan heralding Moncrief's defensive ability is anecdotal rather than statistical and that it came from his NBA days, but coming from the greatest player of all time, it definitely means something and I doubt that he only learned to play defense for the Bucks. Point being, if Day was a better defender, it wasn't by much (heck, Todd was a perfect fit for Nolan's system, but he wasn't generally considered to be the best defender on his team).

Certainly Day accumulated more blocks; at 4 inches taller than Moncrief he should have. With 102 blocks for his career, he wasn't exactly a dominating shot-blocker though. Day had a significant edge over Moncrief in assists and assist-turnover ratio (though Moncrief's TO records are incomplete), but Moncrief was the significantly better rebounder (over 1000 for his career at 6'4"—unbelievable).

So, let's review:

(1) Day won more—not to any significant degree
(2) Day won more awards—as far as I can tell, he didn't at least not on a national level
(3) Day was a better scorer—when all things are considered, he wasn't
(4) Day was a better defender/all-around player—he was better in some areas, equal in some, not as good in some

The point of this post is not to indicate that you are dumb (you certainly are not), or that Todd Day wasn't a great Razorback (he certainly was). Furthermore, it is not to indicate that Moncrief was clearly better or that anyone who thinks Day is the best is wrong.

The point of this post is that it is ludicrous to say that Day is the best Razorback of all time and that "it really isn't even remotely close."

[ErieHog]

It blows my mind how closed-minded you are about this.

Your points generally seem to be that Day is the better player because:

(1) He won more
(2) He won more awards
(3) He was a better scorer
(4) He was a better defender/all-around player.

So far, so good.

(1) This is basically negligible. Both went to a Final Four and an Elite Eight. Overall, I think Day played on more talented teams, but that is debatable. I firmly believe that Day had the better coach. I have no idea how the talent of the SWC of the late 70s compared to the SWC/SEC of the late 80s early 90s.

It was significantly less.   I'll give some historical context, to show how bad the league was, and had been.

Key reference point:

NCAA fields by year:
1939-1950 -  8 teams-  keep in mind, until 1950, the NIT was often considered The Tournament
1951-1953 - 16 teams 
1953-1974 - 22 to 25 teams, varying by year
1975-1978-  32 teams
1979-  40 teams
1980-1982 - 48 teams
1983-  52 teams
1984- 53 teams
1985-2000- 64 teams

Outside of Houston, post-Moncrief, no SWC tournament team made the Final Four between 1968 and the end of the *Day* era.  The rest of the conference was 0-Fer.   Indeed,  the '90 Texas team that Day's Razorbacks swept 3-0,  is the only SWC team that made it to the Sweet 16 in 6 years.

The heyday for non-Arkansas teams in the SWC was actually from 43,to 50--  Texas made a FF appearance in 43, again in 47',  with Baylor gaining the other two bids  in 48' and '50.

When you expand it a bit, to include Elite 8 appearances and Sweet 16 appearances, the difference becomes even more galling;   TAMU's best season was a 1969 Sweet 16 berth.   Tech actually had much better results-- Sweet 16 berths in '61, '62,  and '76.   Texas managed the Sweet 16 in '60, '63, and '72--    SMU was actually the best-- S16 berths in '55, '56', '57, '65, '66, and '67.  Houston was 2nd, with additional Sweet 16 bids in '66, '61, '65, '70, and '71.  TCU managed their high water mark in '52, '53, '59, and '68.  Rice had a Sweet 16 in 1954.   The problem with some of these results, of course, is the context of field size; there were teams that reached their high points by simply making the tournament. 

For context, based on years and tournament fields, for the teams other than Arkansas:

From 1947 to 1951,  the SWC won 6 tournament games collectively.  (4 first round wins, 1 Texas consolation win, 1 second round win) -   Total record: 6-4
From 1951 to 1953, the SWC won 2 consolation games by TCU.   Total record: 2-3
From 1954 to 1956, the SWC won 3 games-- all by SMU in '56.  Total record: 3-3
From 1957-1960, the SWC won 2 consolation games (SMU, TCU) Total record: 2-4
From 1960-1965, the SWC won  2 regular games,  3 cons (T-Tech, Texas, SMU) Total record: 5-6
From 1966-1970, the SWC won  3 regular games, 1 consolation game (SMU)  Total Record: 4-6
From 1971-1975, the SWC won 1 game.   Total record: 1-6.

1974 would normally be the break point there, because of the inclusion of non-conference champs, but the 1975 one and done for TAMU  fits just fine.

We're up to the Moncrief era!   

From 1976-1979:  1 Game.   Moncrief's Hogs won 6.     That's a huge disparity, despite getting 2 teams in in 2 of those years.  The SWC was -dire-.

Possibly the worst major conference in basketball at the time.     It isn't a shock that the Razorbacks dominated it.

Now that we have both the Moncrief era, and the pre-Moncrief era, to provide the context of just how bad a basketball league the SWC was--

The Day Era

1989: Texas 1-1,  Arkansas 1-1
1990: Texas 3-1 (Lost to Arkansas), Houston 0-1, Arkansas 4-1
1991: Texas 1-1,  Arkansas 3-1

In just 3 years, other SWC foes won 5 games in the Tournament,  to 1 in *4* years of Moncrief.

In the SEC season,   LSU 1-1, Alabama 1-1, Kentucky 3-1

That runs the total number of conference NCAA tournament wins by fellow conference members to  10-1.    The Day era was far, far, far more competitive, with better opposition.

One point that I consider to be in Moncrief's favor is how he led the team to the Elite 8 as a senior without Delph and Brewer there. In Day's senior year, still playing with Mayberry and Miller, they choked in the second round.

Day missed 2 months of his senior season, yet still managed to win a game.   Moncrief won 1 more game his senior tournament.   

(2) I am no expert here, but according to hogstats.com, Moncrief actually accumulated more All-American accolades than did Day.

Yep.  Nevermind that while Moncrief played, every single All-American organization that honored Day was honoring All-Americans, while Day did not have the Converse Magazine (defunct), and that two of Moncrief's were Honorable mentions, (TSN, AP) that didn't exist in the Day era.  You made the 1st to 3rd teams, or didn't.   Both organizations recognized 1st through 3rd team AA's in both eras.

That is the sum total of the 'AA' advantage to Moncrief-- before even considering the differences in the raw number of players eligible, over whom Day had to earn his honors.

(3) Day scored more points, and averaged more points per game. As a volume scorer, he was superior. But was he a better scorer? A couple of things to consider:

First, you made sure to point out that Moncrief's teams were fairly high-scoring, so it's not like we can pretend that Sid just didn't get the chance to score much because his teams plodded along. Fair enough. But they still scored significantly less than Nolan's teams of the late 80s/early 90s did.

DAY'S TEAMS
88-89: 89.7
89-90: 95.6
90-91: 99.6
91-92: 89.8

MONCRIEF'S TEAMS
75-76: 80.0
76-77: 74.0
77-78: 75.1
78-79: 74.6

So while Sid's teams could score a good bit, there were still a lot more points to be scored for Day's teams. Not surprisingly, Day's scoring averages were higher than Moncrief's each year:

DAY
88-89: 13.3
89-90: 19.5
90-91: 20.7
91-92: 22.7

MONCRIEF
75-76: 12.6
76-77: 15.4
77-78: 17.3
78-79: 22.0

But, what's interesting is that each year, Moncrief actually scored a higher percentage of his team's overall points than Day did:

DAY
88-89: 14.8%
89-90: 20.4%
90-91: 20.8%
91-92: 25.3%

MONCRIEF
75-76: 15.8%
76-77: 20.8%
77-78: 23.0%
78-79: 29.5% (Wow.)

And, Moncrief scored a higher percentage of the team's points than did Day, despite the fact that, arguably, he was the primary scoring option only one season out of four, while Day was the primary option three seasons out of four!

This is finally something more substantive-- but again, minutes matter.  Day scored his  rates, while playing about 20% less time per game.   In one hand,  you mention Day's teams scored more, yet hold against him that in significantly less time, he scored a smaller fraction of more points. 

And that doesn't even get into the fact that Moncrief played without a 3 point line. He was no Marvin Delph, but he clearly lost points because of that.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about offensive efficiency, yikes. Day was a good shooter, but Moncrief for his career shot over 60% from the field! The following stats represent the percentage of overall team shots taken by each player (Day's last year is adjusted to account for the games he missed due to suspension):

DAY
88-89: 15.1%
89-90: 19.8%
90-91: 20.8%
91-92: 23.6%

MONCRIEF
75-76: 13.1%
76-77: 15.5%
77-78: 18.2%
78-79: 25.2%

With the exception of their senior years, Day shot a higher percentage of the team's shots than did Moncrief, while scoring a lower percentage of the team's points. Not super surprising as Day was always a high volume shooter. What's more interesting is that if you compare this chart to the one immediately above it (% of team scoring), you'll see that in only 2 of his 4 seasons did Day actually score a higher percentage of the team's points than he took of the team's shots. Moncrief on the other hand, always scored at a considerably high rate compared to the quantity of shots that he took.

I'm glad you mentioned the 3 point shot-- in fact, it encouraged players for taking less efficient shots, helping drive down FG%.   Any 'advantage' from the 3 point line is, at the very least, substantially negated by a scoring system that encourages lower percentage attempts.

So when everything is taken into account, I question whether or not Day was a better scorer.

That's reasonable.  I'm not saying Day was a hugely better scorer.  I much prefer Moncrief's shooting percentage, and laud him for being super efficient.

(4) It's harder to account for defense by looking at statistics, especially incomplete ones. Clearly Day accumulated more steals, but that's to be expected under Nolan's system. I realize that the quote from Jordan heralding Moncrief's defensive ability is anecdotal rather than statistical and that it came from his NBA days, but coming from the greatest player of all time, it definitely means something and I doubt that he only learned to play defense for the Bucks. Point being, if Day was a better defender, it wasn't by much (heck, Todd was a perfect fit for Nolan's system, but he wasn't generally considered to be the best defender on his team).

Except that it isn't.   We know Day played fewer cumulative minutes,  and that possession rates weren't ridiculously disparate.  We do have two seasons for all the major defensive statistics for Moncrief-- and even giving him the benefit of the doubt, for his freshman and sophomore seasons-- say he stole the ball twice as often as he did as  junior or senior--  he'd still have fewer steals than Day.  The same holds true for blocks.  Moncrief could have doubled his JR/SR numbers as a Fr/Soph-- and he'd still be short of Day.

There is no defense, logically, of Moncrief being a better college defender.  None.

Certainly Day accumulated more blocks; at 4 inches taller than Moncrief he should have. With 102 blocks for his career, he wasn't exactly a dominating shot-blocker though. Day had a significant edge over Moncrief in assists and assist-turnover ratio (though Moncrief's TO records are incomplete), but Moncrief was the significantly better rebounder (over 1000 for his career at 6'4"—unbelievable).

Glad the height disparity was brought up.  It is worth looking at-- it is  2 inch disparity (6'6 vs. 6'4), not 4.

So, let's review:

(1) Day won more—not to any significant degree

Against better competition, in demonstrably deeper leagues,and in the tournament.  No consolation game to pad the NCAA numbers, either.

(2) Day won more awards—as far as I can tell, he didn't at least not on a national level

Day couldn't win non-existent awards, in his era.

(3) Day was a better scorer—when all things are considered, he wasn't

Arguable.  Even giving Moncrief the benefit of the doubt there, he was demonstrably a less complete player.

(4) Day was a better defender/all-around player—he was better in some areas, equal in some, not as good in some

Strikingly better.  It isn't like these are alien things that were done with a basketball, in either era.

The point of this post is not to indicate that you are dumb (you certainly are not), or that Todd Day wasn't a great Razorback (he certainly was). Furthermore, it is not to indicate that Moncrief was clearly better or that anyone who thinks Day is the best is wrong.

The point of this post is that it is ludicrous to say that Day is the best Razorback of all time and that "it really isn't even remotely close."

Not really.   I love Sid.   He did a ton for Razorback basketball-- and he is easily my favorite Hog.

He isn't, however, in Day's company as a Hog.   

[Hogimus Prime]

From this thread I've gathered this:
10-12 think Day is the best Hog of all time
10-12 think it's Moncrief

[Dominicanhog]

From this thread I've gathered this:
10-12 think Day is the best Hog of all time
10-12 think it's Moncrief

Hmmm... that's not the way I read it,  looks more like 22 to 2.

[hog.goblin]

10 - 12 of us think it was Corliss

[Hogimus Prime]

Hmmm... that's not the way I read it,  looks more like 22 to 2.

Read this thread another 10-12 times.

[FineAsSwine]

Another vote for Todd Day here. This would have been a great subject for a hogville poll.

[McKdaddy]

If I were to hold anything against Day and the "2nd" Triplets in general, it would be that relatively disappointing end to the 1991-92 season. Yes, we learned after the fact that Big O played hurt most or all of that season. Yes, Day missed the first 12 games of the season due to suspension, as well as the others suspended. Yes, the team won the SEC regular season. Yes, we were a #3 seed in the NCAAT. But that loss in the 2nd round still chaps. I understand anything can happen in the NCAAT, but that loss is one of a handful of NCAAT losses that still gets to me. Memphis owned us 2-0 that season.

[McKdaddy]

Your points generally seem to be that Day is the better player because:

(1) He won more
(2) He won more awards
(3) He was a better scorer
(4) He was a better defender/all-around player.

(1) This is basically negligible. Both went to a Final Four and an Elite Eight. Overall, I think Day played on more talented teams, but that is debatable. I firmly believe that Day had the better coach. I have no idea how the talent of the SWC of the late 70s compared to the SWC/SEC of the late 80s early 90s.

One point that I consider to be in Moncrief's favor is how he led the team to the Elite 8 as a senior without Delph and Brewer there. In Day's senior year, still playing with Mayberry and Miller, they choked in the second round.

(2) I am no expert here, but according to hogstats.com, Moncrief actually accumulated more All-American accolades than did Day.

http://www.hogstats.com/players/list-of-arkansas-basketball-all-americans.php

(3) Day scored more points, and averaged more points per game. As a volume scorer, he was superior. But was he a better scorer? A couple of things to consider:

First, you made sure to point out that Moncrief's teams were fairly high-scoring, so it's not like we can pretend that Sid just didn't get the chance to score much because his teams plodded along. Fair enough. But they still scored significantly less than Nolan's teams of the late 80s/early 90s did.

DAY'S TEAMS
88-89: 89.7
89-90: 95.6
90-91: 99.6
91-92: 89.8

MONCRIEF'S TEAMS
75-76: 80.0
76-77: 74.0
77-78: 75.1
78-79: 74.6

So while Sid's teams could score a good bit, there were still a lot more points to be scored for Day's teams. Not surprisingly, Day's scoring averages were higher than Moncrief's each year:

DAY
88-89: 13.3
89-90: 19.5
90-91: 20.7
91-92: 22.7

MONCRIEF
75-76: 12.6
76-77: 15.4
77-78: 17.3
78-79: 22.0

But, what's interesting is that each year, Moncrief actually scored a higher percentage of his team's overall points than Day did:

DAY
88-89: 14.8%
89-90: 20.4%
90-91: 20.8%
91-92: 25.3%

MONCRIEF
75-76: 15.8%
76-77: 20.8%
77-78: 23.0%
78-79: 29.5% (Wow.)

And, Moncrief scored a higher percentage of the team's points than did Day, despite the fact that, arguably, he was the primary scoring option only one season out of four, while Day was the primary option three seasons out of four!

And that doesn't even get into the fact that Moncrief played without a 3 point line. He was no Marvin Delph, but he clearly lost points because of that.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about offensive efficiency, yikes. Day was a good shooter, but Moncrief for his career shot over 60% from the field! The following stats represent the percentage of overall team shots taken by each player (Day's last year is adjusted to account for the games he missed due to suspension):

DAY
88-89: 15.1%
89-90: 19.8%
90-91: 20.8%
91-92: 23.6%

MONCRIEF
75-76: 13.1%
76-77: 15.5%
77-78: 18.2%
78-79: 25.2%

With the exception of their senior years, Day shot a higher percentage of the team's shots than did Moncrief, while scoring a lower percentage of the team's points. Not super surprising as Day was always a high volume shooter. What's more interesting is that if you compare this chart to the one immediately above it (% of team scoring), you'll see that in only 2 of his 4 seasons did Day actually score a higher percentage of the team's points than he took of the team's shots. Moncrief on the other hand, always scored at a considerably high rate compared to the quantity of shots that he took.

So when everything is taken into account, I question whether or not Day was a better scorer.

(4) It's harder to account for defense by looking at statistics, especially incomplete ones. Clearly Day accumulated more steals, but that's to be expected under Nolan's system. I realize that the quote from Jordan heralding Moncrief's defensive ability is anecdotal rather than statistical and that it came from his NBA days, but coming from the greatest player of all time, it definitely means something and I doubt that he only learned to play defense for the Bucks. Point being, if Day was a better defender, it wasn't by much (heck, Todd was a perfect fit for Nolan's system, but he wasn't generally considered to be the best defender on his team).

Certainly Day accumulated more blocks; at 4 inches taller than Moncrief he should have. With 102 blocks for his career, he wasn't exactly a dominating shot-blocker though. Day had a significant edge over Moncrief in assists and assist-turnover ratio (though Moncrief's TO records are incomplete), but Moncrief was the significantly better rebounder (over 1000 for his career at 6'4"—unbelievable).

So, let's review:

(1) Day won more—not to any significant degree
(2) Day won more awards—as far as I can tell, he didn't at least not on a national level
(3) Day was a better scorer—when all things are considered, he wasn't
(4) Day was a better defender/all-around player—he was better in some areas, equal in some, not as good in some

The point of this post is not to indicate that you are dumb (you certainly are not), or that Todd Day wasn't a great Razorback (he certainly was). Furthermore, it is not to indicate that Moncrief was clearly better or that anyone who thinks Day is the best is wrong.

The point of this post is that it is ludicrous to say that Day is the best Razorback of all time and that "it really isn't even remotely close."

Thanks for the data.

[Hogimus Prime]

I think its a tie between Day and Moncrief.

[McKdaddy]

I think its a tie between Day and Moncrief.

Perhaps so.

[sadhogfan]

He isn't, however, in Day's company as a Hog.   

I won't go through your post line by line, because it's clear to me at this point that you aren't even considering arguments which oppose your perspective. That's fine. I think it's clear to a third party how unsupportable the statement you made above (and have made now in several forms) is.

Briefly:

(1) I appreciate the context you provide on how bad the SWC was in basketball. It seems like, with the exception of Texas, it wasn't significantly better in Day's day either, and that he didn't face much tougher competition until he got to the SEC. Also, it is fair to point out that making it to the Final Four out of 64 teams is tougher to do than out of 32. So rather than comparing total wins or "final destinations", tournament record would be more accurate. As you already pointed out, Day's teams were 9-4, Sid's were 6-3. This is the definition of a negligible difference. So ultimately, all of the good historical context you provided doesn't change what I originally suggested.

(2) Certainly Day couldn't win All-America honors that weren't available at that time. So let's just look at some media outlets that were available for each:

Wooden Award: Day (2 1st teams), Moncrief (2 1st teams)
NABC: Day (1 3rd team, 1 2nd team), Moncrief (1 3rd team, 1 1st team)
UPI: Day (1 3rd team), Moncrief (2 2nd teams)
AP: Day (1 2nd team, 1 3rd team), Moncrief (1 3rd team, 1 1st team)
Sporting News: Day (1 2nd team), Moncrief (1 2nd team)

Again, once you eliminate the awards unavailable to Day and Sid's honorable mentions, it still comes out in Moncrief's favor (slight advantage in NABC, AP, bigger advantage in UPI, equal in Wooden and Sporting News).

As an aside, Day's cumulative accolades were definitely hurt by the fact that he missed 12 games his senior season due to a suspension. But he shouldn't get any credit for that.

(3) You concede that it is arguable who the better scorer is. Since this was my entire point, I won't say anything more.

(4) You claim that Day was clearly the better defender based off his steals and blocks and that it's foolish to argue that Sid was better. I am not arguing that Moncrief was better, but I did say that I didn't think Day was significantly better. Sure he had more steals, but Nolan's teams produced steals by the bucketful. Sid would have had a ton of steals playing for Nolan as well. For the style that he played, Sid accumulated a lot of steals, and we know that he later had a reputation as a world-class defender at the NBA level. I don't think either of these guys were pushovers defensively.

So, offensively, they were both great (though different in the way they scored points), and defensively they were both very gifted (despite playing in different styles).

I've already conceded that Day gets the edge as the distributor, but then you have Moncrief's huge rebounding advantage over a taller player (thanks for correcting my error; I misremembered Day's height).

All of this taken together dispels any notion that Day was a complete player while Moncrief was relatively limited.

Again, they're both great players, pick whichever one you want. But, unless you've just already made up your mind and won't listen to other arguments (hint hint), you just can't conclude that one is in an entirely different class than the other.

[sadhogfan]

I think its a tie between Day and Moncrief.

And THAT, is a completely reasonable conclusion. It's also reasonable to think Day was better, or to think that Moncrief was better.

It is NOT reasonable to think that one of them was in an entirely different class than the other (either way).

[sadhogfan]

Because Day was most certainly not beloved of the Razorback Nation;  the rape allegations that hung over his last season here (and other players) did a ton to ruin his reputation.    The media and our fanbase pilloried Todd Day, as he,  Roosevelt Wallace, Darrell Hawkins, and Elmer Martin were tried in the court of public opinion.

Some people have argued with you that Day was not beloved, but I do think you're right. I was a Mayberry guy and always thought that he was the more beloved player.

Why was he not beloved?

(1) Rape allegations as you mentioned above.
(2) This has been mentioned multiple times, but Day had a tendency to occasionally shoot us out of games. I was young when he played, but this is what I remember: he shot and shot and shot whether he was on or not. The fact that a lot of people remember it this way indicates that it was at least partially true.
(3) The fact that his teams regressed in the tournament each year from 90-92 also hurt his legacy (and that of Mayberry and Miller as well). When they made it to the Final Four as sophomores, it seemed so certain that better days were ahead. That team losing to Memphis in the tournament was inexcusable (from a devoted fan perspective).

[McKdaddy]

Again, they're both great players, pick whichever one you want. But, unless you've just already made up your mind and won't listen to other arguments (hint hint), you just can't conclude that one is in an entirely different class than the other.

This. I try to be open-minded, take in other's POV, listen to good arguments while taking into consideration the points being made on both sides. I'm one that if we are discussing politics from opposite perspectives, I'll try to look at your perspective and rationalize your thinking so that we can try to have a positive dialogue, and hopefully have less of a close-minded discussion (however, I have to admit that people discussing politics rarely will ever concede that anything other than their opinion might have validity, ha).....

but I'm having trouble digesting Erie's "he isn't, however, in Day's company as a Hog" that has permeated this thread. Don't get me wrong, Erie has made some good points in this thread, and I've enjoyed this thread. I can understand Erie's arguments concerning Day as the greatest hoops Hog. Erie has me now ranking Sid and Day as "1 & 1a"; whereas, before this thread I ranked them "1 & 2". But I can't agree w/ this not being a close comparison betwee who is the greatest hoops Hog.

[McKdaddy]

And THAT, is a completely reasonable conclusion. It's also reasonable to think Day was better, or to think that Moncrief was better.

It is NOT reasonable to think that one of them was in an entirely different class than the other (either way).

Much more concise than my rambling.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

Moncrief was not nearly as well rounded as Day. 

I've been willing to humor you for the past several days and give you the benefit of the doubt in championing one of the top 3 players in Razorback history as the very best. 

Then you wrote this and you lost all credibility.  Sidney Moncrief was, in the collective opinion of probably 80% of Hog fans, the most well-rounded player in Razorback history.  A 6'4" jumping jack who did most of his damage inside, who could guard anyone from Rickey Pierce to Larry Bird.  And when he left Arkansas, he was at the time the all time leading scorer and the all time leading rebounder.  At 6'4". 

Look up "well rounded" in the dictionary and you'll see Sidney's picture beside the definition.  You won't see Todd Day's.  And I love me some Todd Day.

[FineAsSwine]

I've been willing to humor you for the past several days and give you the benefit of the doubt in championing one of the top 3 players in Razorback history as the very best. 

Then you wrote this and you lost all credibility.  Sidney Moncrief was, in the collective opinion of probably 80% of Hog fans, the most well-rounded player in Razorback history.  A 6'4" jumping jack who did most of his damage inside, who could guard anyone from Rickey Pierce to Larry Bird.  And when he left Arkansas, he was at the time the all time leading scorer and the all time leading rebounder.  At 6'4". 

Look up "well rounded" in the dictionary and you'll see Sidney's picture beside the definition.  You won't see Todd Day's.  And I love me some Todd Day.

What dictionary were you using?

I just looked up "well rounded" in the dictionary and I saw a picture of "Big O"

[Jackrabbit Hog]

What dictionary were you using?

I just looked up "well rounded" in the dictionary and I saw a picture of "Big O"

+1.  Oliver was indeed "well rounded."  Regrettably, too much so his senior year.

[Polecat]

I just Todd Day at the Wyndam in NLR Saturday morning along with a bunch of AAU youngsters. I wonder if he has a son that age or if he's coaching a youth team.

[Kevin]

erie, did you see sidney play?

[Kevin]

starting line-up sidney's senior season
sidney
us reed
steve schall
scott hastings
alan zahn

day's senior year:
day
mayberry
miller
Isiah morris
darryl shepherd

no question which player had to carry his team. plus, sidney got that team to the elite eight.  lost 5 games that year. one more big thing, sidney had to guard the other teams best player, regardless of size.

day's senior team lost 8 games, and lost 2nd round of ncaa's

[MikePiazza]

starting line-up sidney's senior season
sidney
us reed
steve schall
scott hastings
alan zahn

day's senior year:
day
mayberry
miller
Isiah morris
darryl shepherd

no question which player had to carry his team. plus, sidney got that team to the elite eight.  lost 5 games that year. one more big thing, sidney had to guard the other teams best player, regardless of size.

day's senior team lost 8 games, and lost 2nd round of ncaa's

Robert Shepherd or Darrell Hawkins?

[Kevin]

robert shepherd,

thanks

[ErieHog]

I won't go through your post line by line, because it's clear to me at this point that you aren't even considering arguments which oppose your perspective. That's fine. I think it's clear to a third party how unsupportable the statement you made above (and have made now in several forms) is.

I'm giving them a lot of consideration;  the problem is, that even the most quantitatively strong defense of Moncrief is severely lacking.   I can't fix an unsupportable case, because it keeps going back to the bottom lines-- where Day has clear separation.


Briefly:

(1) I appreciate the context you provide on how bad the SWC was in basketball. It seems like, with the exception of Texas, it wasn't significantly better in Day's day either, and that he didn't face much tougher competition until he got to the SEC. Also, it is fair to point out that making it to the Final Four out of 64 teams is tougher to do than out of 32. So rather than comparing total wins or "final destinations", tournament record would be more accurate. As you already pointed out, Day's teams were 9-4, Sid's were 6-3. This is the definition of a negligible difference. So ultimately, all of the good historical context you provided doesn't change what I originally suggested.

Interesting that you give Moncrief enormous credit for 1 additional win his senior year, compared to Day, but when Day averages 0.75 tournament wins more, *every year*,  without the benefit of a consolation game, the difference is suddenly negligible.

(2) Certainly Day couldn't win All-America honors that weren't available at that time. So let's just look at some media outlets that were available for each:

Wooden Award: Day (2 1st teams), Moncrief (2 1st teams)
NABC: Day (1 3rd team, 1 2nd team), Moncrief (1 3rd team, 1 1st team)
UPI: Day (1 3rd team), Moncrief (2 2nd teams)
AP: Day (1 2nd team, 1 3rd team), Moncrief (1 3rd team, 1 1st team)
Sporting News: Day (1 2nd team), Moncrief (1 2nd team)

Again, once you eliminate the awards unavailable to Day and Sid's honorable mentions, it still comes out in Moncrief's favor (slight advantage in NABC, AP, bigger advantage in UPI, equal in Wooden and Sporting News).

This is a much better form of your original argument-- but I'll add some context to show how much more competition Day faced for the awards.

During the Moncrief years, there was much more limited pool of players to consider for the awards.  Fewer than 243 teams played D-1 basketball, during the Moncrief era;  it is one of the odd eras where D1 participation actually declined his sophomore and junior seasons, before rebounding his senior year to an all-time high.

Day, conversely, came in at the front end of an explosion in college basketball;  as a freshman, there were 309 D1 teams; by the time he left as a senior, 319;  there are currently 346, with several more coming down the pipe over the next 5 years. 

It is also worth noting the difference in scholarship limits, that prevented teams from stockpiling talent in the Day era, and pushed the diffusion of talent away from a handful of programs, allowing guys who would have stayed as 3rd options at a major program and never emerged,  having their own chance to be 'the man' at a smaller program, and being allowed to gun for numbers, making them viable statistical alternatives for receiving honors.

Depending on the year, Day literally had about a thousand more scholarship players competing against him for the same limited pool of honors.

On a less statistical note, the popularity of basketball was at a near nadir during the Moncrief era, making the sport relatively unattractive to potential players;  by the Day era, basketball had never been more popular, or more attractive to young players.

As an aside, Day's cumulative accolades were definitely hurt by the fact that he missed 12 games his senior season due to a suspension. But he shouldn't get any credit for that.

None was given, so bringing this up only served to damage the case for Moncrief, when you are ostensibly arguing on his behalf.  Odd.

(3) You concede that it is arguable who the better scorer is. Since this was my entire point, I won't say anything more.

To me, this is where the absolute strength of the Moncrief case has to be made-- efficiency, efficiency, and more efficiency.  Unfortunately it isn't enough.

(4) You claim that Day was clearly the better defender based off his steals and blocks and that it's foolish to argue that Sid was better. I am not arguing that Moncrief was better, but I did say that I didn't think Day was significantly better. Sure he had more steals, but Nolan's teams produced steals by the bucketful. Sid would have had a ton of steals playing for Nolan as well. For the style that he played, Sid accumulated a lot of steals, and we know that he later had a reputation as a world-class defender at the NBA level. I don't think either of these guys were pushovers defensively.

It isn't to say Sid wasn't an excellent defender.  He was.   Sutton was never considered a slouch, when it came to defensive basketball, for his time, either-- so it is best not to pretend like he was hampered by an era of 15 shots per team, per game, where you weren't allowed within 10 feet of the opposition.

The difference is far from negligible.   I could buy it,  if it was  'Well, if Sid had similar steal and block rates his freshman and sophomore seasons, as he did as a junior and senior,  he'd be ahead of Day, or even'-    the problem is that you could *double* his steal and block rates, in both seasons-- and he would still fall short of Day-- and that's with Day missing 11 games,  about 8% of his career, due to suspension.   

Sid's consistency was laudible--  he had 44 steals both his junior and senior seasons-- but Day broke the previous *school* record by 41.     That's the essence of separation-- when one guy breaks the then-school career record by 3 fewer steals than you get in your known best season.   Day essentially could have spotted,  presuming Sid stole the ball at similar rates his freshman and sophomore seasons,  Day's best season of stealing the basketball,  and still came out ahead, in 3 years, compared to Sid's 4.

So, offensively, they were both great (though different in the way they scored points), and defensively they were both very gifted (despite playing in different styles).

I've already conceded that Day gets the edge as the distributor, but then you have Moncrief's huge rebounding advantage over a taller player (thanks for correcting my error; I misremembered Day's height).

All of this taken together dispels any notion that Day was a complete player while Moncrief was relatively limited.

The separation, defensively, can't be any more stark, statistically-- and even if you gave Sid an enormous benefit of the doubt,  it can't back fill a void; the separation as a rebounder is the second pillar of the Moncrief argument, and I feel the strongest;   the scoring differential is small, in either direction, and the distribution edge is clearly in Day's favor.  You,  yourself, mentioned turnover ratios being a clear Day advantage (I think they're slightly smaller, anecdotally, than on paper),  but there is again clear separation in favor of Day, despite Day playing less.    Do more, in less time, with more success....and be deemed inferior?   That is bizarre.

Again, they're both great players, pick whichever one you want. But, unless you've just already made up your mind and won't listen to other arguments (hint hint), you just can't conclude that one is in an entirely different class than the other.

I'm glad you are admitting you won't be swayed by the evidence.   It'd be much easier if Sid *were* the best Razorback of all time.   Everyone loves Sid.  The problem is, a sometimes sullen, often unpopular guy flat-out outperformed him as a Razorback.

[ErieHog]

This. I try to be open-minded, take in other's POV, listen to good arguments while taking into consideration the points being made on both sides. I'm one that if we are discussing politics from opposite perspectives, I'll try to look at your perspective and rationalize your thinking so that we can try to have a positive dialogue, and hopefully have less of a close-minded discussion (however, I have to admit that people discussing politics rarely will ever concede that anything other than their opinion might have validity, ha).....

but I'm having trouble digesting Erie's "he isn't, however, in Day's company as a Hog" that has permeated this thread. Don't get me wrong, Erie has made some good points in this thread, and I've enjoyed this thread. I can understand Erie's arguments concerning Day as the greatest hoops Hog. Erie has me now ranking Sid and Day as "1 & 1a"; whereas, before this thread I ranked them "1 & 2". But I can't agree w/ this not being a close comparison betwee who is the greatest hoops Hog.

I wish I could make a reasonable argument for 1 and 1a.  I just can't find any logical way to support it.   I love Sid.   As I have said, he is my favorite Hog. 

[ErieHog]

I've been willing to humor you for the past several days and give you the benefit of the doubt in championing one of the top 3 players in Razorback history as the very best. 

Then you wrote this and you lost all credibility.  Sidney Moncrief was, in the collective opinion of probably 80% of Hog fans, the most well-rounded player in Razorback history.  A 6'4" jumping jack who did most of his damage inside, who could guard anyone from Rickey Pierce to Larry Bird.  And when he left Arkansas, he was at the time the all time leading scorer and the all time leading rebounder.  At 6'4". 

Look up "well rounded" in the dictionary and you'll see Sidney's picture beside the definition.  You won't see Todd Day's.  And I love me some Todd Day.

As I have said, that assertion is based on sentiment alone.  The problem is the pesky record keeping.  People put Sid ahead on the strength of sentiment.

[ErieHog]

I just Todd Day at the Wyndam in NLR Saturday morning along with a bunch of AAU youngsters. I wonder if he has a son that age or if he's coaching a youth team.

He's coaching HS kids in Memphis, last I knew.

[MikePiazza]

Erie, they didn't retire Day's jersey, they retired Moncrief's.

When they retire Day's, then you have an argument.

[ErieHog]

erie, did you see sidney play?

As I have said several times before, yes; the last two Moncrief teams were the birth of my basketball fandom, and he will always hold a special place, to me.

[ErieHog]

Erie, they didn't retire Day's jersey, they retired Moncrief's.

When they retire Day's, then you have an argument.

This just hammers home how much people are mistaking popularity for performance.

[MikePiazza]

This just hammers home how much people are mistaking popularity for performance.

Did Todd Day ever shut down Larry Bird in the Elite Eight?

[ErieHog]

starting line-up sidney's senior season
sidney
us reed
steve schall
scott hastings
alan zahn

day's senior year:
day
mayberry
miller
Isiah morris
darryl shepherd

no question which player had to carry his team. plus, sidney got that team to the elite eight.  lost 5 games that year. one more big thing, sidney had to guard the other teams best player, regardless of size.

day's senior team lost 8 games, and lost 2nd round of ncaa's

Sidney won 2 games in the tournament, his senior season.   Day's won 1.   Moncrief's teams had to win fewer tournament games to garner their Final Four and Elite 8 berths.   Formatting matters.

The rest is generally more solidly pro-Moncrief than other efforts, but it ignores actual performance.
Moncrief bellied up to the best players,  but against significantly worse competition.      Day's team lost 6 games with him in the lineup, as a senior, despite playing in a much better, deeper league.

[ErieHog]

Did Todd Day ever shut down Larry Bird in the Elite Eight?

Nope.  But one game does not a greatest player make-- and Arkansas didn't even win the game, which would at least elevate it to an important 'biggest win in the biggest moment' in the discussion.  This is sentiment, sentiment, and more sentiment, trying to substitute itself for performance.   

[Jackrabbit Hog]

Nope.  But one game does not a greatest player make-- and Arkansas didn't even win the game, which would at least elevate it to an important 'biggest win in the biggest moment' in the discussion.  This is sentiment, sentiment, and more sentiment, trying to substitute itself for performance.

You keep calling it sentiment when it is actually recollection.  Stats don't mean everything, when evaluating a team or an individual.  Was Pete Maravich the best basketball player of all time?  Allen Iverson?  Do Baylor and Oregon belong in the BCS Championship game this year?  Wasn't Loyola Marymount the best college basketball team of all time when Westhead was their coach?

There is an element of an athlete's make-up known as intangibles.  They don't show up in a box score; just the eye test.  Just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean that it isn't very real.  Sidney had all the intangibles in spades.

[ErieHog]

You keep calling it sentiment when it is actually recollection.  Stats don't mean everything, when evaluating a team or an individual.  Was Pete Maravich the best basketball player of all time?  Allen Iverson?  Do Baylor and Oregon belong in the BCS Championship game this year?  Wasn't Loyola Marymount the best college basketball team of all time when Westhead was their coach?

There is an element of an athlete's make-up known as intangibles.  They don't show up in a box score; just the eye test.  Just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean that it isn't very real.  Sidney had all the intangibles in spades.

Recollection *is* sentiment.  It burnishes over rough patches, makes the high points higher, and otherwise ignores the night-to-night actual performances.

You cite a couple of statistical outliers and say 'Hey!  Weren't these the best, because of their numbers?' --  but don't mention context;  you refer to parts of their statistical record, without touching on underlying things like 'wins' and 'losses',  that matter, that are also part of the statistical record.

The problem with saying  'Sidney had *it*!'  is that Day wasn't completely lacking in intangible qualities, either.    I understand why people like Sid.  I know why people *prefer* Sid-- heck, I prefer him myself--  but it is poor, extremely limited context,  when addressing the best player in program history.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

Recollection *is* sentiment.  It burnishes over rough patches, makes the high points higher, and otherwise ignores the night-to-night actual performances.

You cite a couple of statistical outliers and say 'Hey!  Weren't these the best, because of their numbers?' --  but don't mention context;  you refer to parts of their statistical record, without touching on underlying things like 'wins' and 'losses',  that matter, that are also part of the statistical record.

The problem with saying  'Sidney had *it*!'  is that Day wasn't completely lacking in intangible qualities, either.    I understand why people like Sid.  I know why people *prefer* Sid-- heck, I prefer him myself--  but it is poor, extremely limited context,  when addressing the best player in program history.

1.  Statistical outliers were pointed out for that very reason --- to show that statistics do not always tell the whole story and you should not make a "greatest ever" argument based solely on empirical data.

2.  Todd did indeed have intangibles.  Totally agree with you.   Just not to the extent of Sidney.

3.  We will agree to disagree since we are both "dug in" on our respective positions.  Trying to convince you that Sid was better would be as futile as my attempts earlier this week to convince MMQB that the LSU receiver did not commit offensive pass interference.

[ErieHog]

1.  Statistical outliers were pointed out for that very reason --- to show that statistics do not always tell the whole story and you should not make a "greatest ever" argument based solely on empirical data.

That's the thing, though.   It isn't just a statistical outlier.  It is pretty well *across the board*.    I'd love to be able to write it off, easily.     If it were closer, I could.

2.  Todd did indeed have intangibles.  Totally agree with you.   Just not to the extent of Sidney.

I give Sid an intangible edge, still.  It just isn't enough to offset actual performance. 

3.  We will agree to disagree since we are both "dug in" on our respective positions.  Trying to convince you that Sid was better would be as futile as my attempts earlier this week to convince MMQB that the LSU receiver did not commit offensive pass interference.

[Kevin]

numbers can take either side of the fence.

just like you saying sidney only has to win 2 games to get to elite eight. which means the tournament teams were better than the teams day had to play against.

day was never ask to be the defensive stopper & carry the load offensively.

moncrief was.

both great players, with both having great careers.

sidney could have stopped day, day could not have stopped sidney.

but that is my opinion

[ErieHog]

numbers can take either side of the fence.

just like you saying sidney only has to win 2 games to get to elite eight. which means the tournament teams were better than the teams day had to play against.

day was never ask to be the defensive stopper & carry the load offensively.

moncrief was.

both great players, with both having great careers.

sidney could have stopped day, day could not have stopped sidney.

but that is my opinion

Sentiment has the benefit of being unassailable by fact.   That's why it is so powerful.

[dhornjr1]

If someone wants to say Moncrief was the best, I won't argue. I think he was.

If someone believes Todd Day was the best, I won't argue. He was a tremendous player and, I believe, the second-best all-around Hog ever.

What irks me are the people who don't even have him in their top ten. Look at some of the "greatest" lists compiled on Hogville the last few years and Day won't even be mentioned.

It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

[ErieHog]

If someone wants to say Moncrief was the best, I won't argue. I think he was.

If someone believes Todd Day was the best, I won't argue. He was a tremendous player and, I believe, the second-best all-around Hog ever.

What irks me are the people who don't even have him in their top ten. Look at some of the "greatest" lists compiled on Hogville the last few years and Day won't even be mentioned.

It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

I think Dean Tolson is another guy who gets incredibly shorted in Top 10 Hogs of All-Time.

[Kevin]

Sentiment has the benefit of being unassailable by fact.   That's why it is so powerful.

sidney being the main offensive force & defensive stopper is not sentiment

[Jackrabbit Hog]

It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

Don't be so ostentatious.

[ErieHog]

sidney being the main offensive force & defensive stopper is not sentiment

Sure.  But what did he do with those roles?  Performance, as always, matters.