Are we done with adding players for 2024-25? | Page 11 | Syracusefan.com

Are we done with adding players for 2024-25?

It's amazing what those extra 6% makes, isn't it?

It also speaks to the whole body of sociological and psychobiological theories about humans needing storylines in everything.

Sports are a perfect place to live out a storyline with little risk. We believe Bell is a great shooter, we believe Starling is at best a streaky one. Those 6% extra makes and all the feels make it true.
It’s how you look at it. It’s six more threes made out of 100 shots taken. Divide that over 30 games and it’s not much of a difference.
 
well back to the point of this thread :

i think the last 3 spots on the roster will be filled...they are going to be patient and hopefully get some potential contributors...I believe they will try to get some good options.
 
It also speaks to the whole body of sociological and psychobiological theories about humans needing storylines in everything.

And this could start a never ending conversation. If we live in an energetic universe, if thoughts are energy, can there be actual results from consciously concentrated thought? Is belief a narrative we tell ourselves that we buy into?
If thoughts are changing energy from one form to another does that energy shape reality by itself or does it simply program our subconscious to seek that reality? Of course that opens up the argument of cause and effect when it comes to perception and reality. And that makes me think of the Hermetic philosophy. . . . . . and there I go. :rolleyes:
 
Id rather be boring at tailgates than have our season banking in JJ starling.
Well get ready. Because he and Bell are going to be a centerpiece of next season. Starling struggled to adjust at the beginning of last season. He couldn’t shoot at all and his shoulder was clearly bothering him. But he started playing better by mid to late December, and his 3 point shooting improved a lot. I have no doubt he’s going to be a lot better next year as an Upperclassmen.
 
This is where small sample sizes kill you... If one shot each of those four games had gone down instead of rimming out, he would have averaged 39.3% and we would all be excited about how great Starling is.
Now do that with his makes.
 
It’s how you look at it. It’s six more threes made out of 100 shots taken. Divide that over 30 games and it’s not much of a difference.
I don't even know why we look at percentages anymore.
 
And if Justin Taylor made 6 more 3’s on the year he would have shot 37%.
Minnesota Vikings Football GIF


Basically, if JJ was a 39% shooter. He'd BE a 39% shooter.

Hopefully he will be next year, he def had stretches
 
And this could start a never ending conversation. If we live in an energetic universe, if thoughts are energy, can there be actual results from consciously concentrated thought? Is belief a narrative we tell ourselves that we buy into?
If thoughts are changing energy from one form to another does that energy shape reality by itself or does it simply program our subconscious to seek that reality? Of course that opens up the argument of cause and effect when it comes to perception and reality. And that makes me think of the Hermetic philosophy. . . . . . and there I go. :rolleyes:
I'm actually writing a book vaguely about this topic... The belief systems of large enough groups of people manifest that belief or alter the reality to be more in line with that belief system. If course, the problems start when an alternate belief system is in direct opposition. Wars become a battle of morale in a much more tangible way than even our own real world.

In most sports, where there is no tangible benefit to being the home team (unlike baseball, where the home team bats last for instance) what causes the home team to have such an advantage? It seems to be the belief of the crowd that the home team should win.

Plus, Momentum is real, especially when talking about basketball!

Way off topic now.
 
what I am trying to figure out is are we going after more players or not. I see mid majors getting players and SU not adding more players. Are we pleased with what we have and do not see anyone who interests enough to be involved with them? Are we viewed as a team no one of value wished to join. Are we too broke to compete NIL wise. Is there a perception that anyone else who comes here is a bench or a role player? Is it something else? If anyone has real info and not opinion I would love to know.
All valid questions in my eyes.

Evidently not the eyes of many on this board who claim we are going to be better than last year.

Which may be true. But is better going to ultimately land us a top 4 seed and where we want to be? I question that very much.
 
All valid questions in my eyes.

Evidently not the eyes of many on this board who claim we are going to be better than last year.

Which may be true. But is better going to ultimately land us a top 4 seed and where we want to be? I question that very much.
We all want to be a top 4 seed, etc.

I think for everyone's sanity, my recommendation, just shoot to get in the tourney next year. It's going to be a fight and, if we can do it, fantastic. If not, Year 3 has a bullseye on it.
 
2-9 on February 7th
1-5 on February 10th
2-7 on February 17th
2-7 on February 24th

Why do you think Moore pushing him for minutes is a pipe dream?
Because one is a former McDonalds All American (which means he likely has a high upside, even if he hasn’t reached it yet) and will now be a junior. Moore is a freshman. He seems to be an elite shooter, so that’s promising, but how fast will that translate to production as a freshman is an open question. I’m not banking on it. Who knows, maybe he’ll be a big surprise. For Starling, cherry-picking a handful of poor shooting games in February isn’t going to convince me of anything. I expect Starling to be much better next year. If he’s not, I don’t think we’ll be very good at all. Red and the staff need to work hard with him this offseason. He has the athletic tools. Now he has to make progress and get better this offseason on his shooting, passing and defense.
 
Last edited:
All valid questions in my eyes.

Evidently not the eyes of many on this board who claim we are going to be better than last year.

Which may be true. But is better going to ultimately land us a top 4 seed and where we want to be? I question that very much.
Realistically, a four seed is a big lift from no tournament. I hope we get in and make some noise. Success should equal interest.
 
I can live with no big time PG the whole idea was to go away from Judah being extremely ball dominant. Just get 2 guys who are 24 year old 5th/6th year seniors one a PG and then a PF/C and won't act up if they don't play.
 
Say what you will about Calipari, but he threw out an interesting idea recently. He said he only wants to have 8 or 9 guys on scholarship, the implication being that the other 3-4 will constantly transfer out or get recruited over anyway, so what's the point of developing them for someone else? He would rather fill out the roster with walk-ons and employ grad assistants who played professionally but are still young enough to stand in as scout team players and help teach concepts.

Not sure if it would work in practice but he has a point - Spread your NIL money among a smaller pool of players so each one gets more and invest in strength, conditioning and nutrition to protect against having to go deep into your bench.
 
Last edited:

Makes a lot of sense. Guys who don't play but expect NIL are just going to cause problems and leave at the end of the year anyway.
 
Right. It’s like saying a .320 hitter in baseball isn’t any better than a .280 hitter.
Yes. Just like saying that. In mid April based on the statistical significance and sample size. Mhy only point is it seems arbitrary to say 1 extra made three in every five or six games seems awfully arbitrary to differentiate between a good 3 point shooter and one who sucks. I struggle to see any other logic, but have at it.
 
And if Justin Taylor made 6 more 3’s on the year he would have shot 37%.
Right but he was afraid to shoot wide open ones the last 1/2 of the year and then starting missing free throws. Even JB mentioned he took too long to get his shot off. Can’t play a kind like that at SF they need to be able to produce on a regular basis
 
Say what you will about Calipari, but he threw out an interesting idea recently. He said he only wants to have 8 or 9 guys on scholarship, the implication being that the other 3-4 will constantly transfer out or get recruited over anyway, so what's the point of developing them for someone else? He would rather fill out the roster with walk-ons and employ grad assistants who played professionally but are still young enough to stand in as scout team players and help teach concepts.

Not sure if it would work in practice but he has a point - Spread your NIL money among a smaller pool of players so each one gets more and invest in strength, conditioning and nutrition to protect against having to go deep into your bench.
what happens when you have 2 or 3 injuries? foul trouble?? good luck playing full games with 5 or 6 players lol

just foreit the games?

its a bad idea to not fill out the roster. period.

last season SU had 13 schollie players and had zero depth by the end of the season
 
last season SU had 13 schollie players and had zero depth by the end of the season
I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are. Patterson and Westry didn’t see the floor and Carey and Hima were disappointments even by the lowest of expectations. That’s four scholarships that gave SU nothing.

8-9 players is all you need if you have the right guys.
 
It was 9 games.
Does every college player shoot consistently over the course of a season?

For the year, despite a 3-24 start to the season, and a bit of a cooling off at the end, he still wound up at 32.4% for the year. It only takes 33% to make a 3 point shot the equivalent of a 50% 2-point FG, so he wasn't far off what's acceptable.

I would bet that he shoots around 35% or better from 3 this year.
And by the way, he shot more than 4 points better from 3 than Judah did.
So this will be improvement just by having better shooters take more shots.

IMO using 50% of 2 pt FG’s is not an accurate representation, and should not be used in calculating and quantifying a good 3 point shooter.

Looking at the top 90 schools (top 1/4) in the country (out of 362), the average 2 pt fg percentage is toughly 54%. That’s the equivalent of 108 points on 100 shots.

That would equate to 36% from 3 point range on 100 shots. I think that is the standard, or what I would use as the standard to define a good shooter.

Using 50% 2 point shooting would bring you to the 196 out of 362 teams in 2 pt fg percentage which would be worse than the top 50% of college teams.
 
IMO using 50% of 2 pt FG’s is not an accurate representation, and should not be used in calculating and quantifying a good 3 point shooter.

Looking at the top 90 schools (top 1/4) in the country (out of 362), the average 2 pt fg percentage is toughly 54%. That’s the equivalent of 108 points on 100 shots.

That would equate to 36% from 3 point range on 100 shots. I think that is the standard, or what I would use as the standard to define a good shooter.

Using 50% 2 point shooting would bring you to the 196 out of 362 teams in 2 pt fg percentage which would be worse than the top 50% of college teams.

Yes, I was using a short-hand comparison like announcers have used since the late 1980s. It's simple mental math. 33% from three equals 50% from two. Those are both "competency levels" that you look for as a coach. The points generated are equal.

People's 3 point shooting percentages have gone up and down, and they have adjusted the distance of the 3 point line a few times now. Sure, college kids are shooting a bit better than they did 40 years ago.

So if 33% now equates to 35% as "acceptable" or average, and 50% has become 54%, it doesn't really make that big a difference, does it?

Just like the guy who pointed out that 34% vs. 37% for volume shooters equate to six extra made threes over the course of a whole season.

What you need is consistency, and to be a threat to score from various places on the floor, to address different circumstances, different opponents and different defenses.

You just have to be good enough that they have to guard you. That's really the standard. They stopped guarding Judah last year, and he still couldn't make 30%.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,385
Messages
4,772,038
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
958
Total visitors
1,107


Top Bottom