Krisjo, Dion, and BT

[General20]

I don't know -- if you take just 3-point shooting I get your point. And perhaps I should have said spotty offensive output as opposed to strictly shooting.

If you look at Triche's season:
First 4 games:
9 ppg, 37% shooting

Next 4 games:
15.25 ppg, 51%

Next 5 games
6 ppg, 35%

Next 4 games
13.3 ppg, 50%

The only game that list doesn't include is Nova. That's pretty streaky production. Now listen, there are caveats -- injury (potentially) affecting production, sometimes preseason games can have strange minutes distribution due to blowouts, it's obviously cherry-picking to a degree, etc. But I do think he's been a bit up and down though I agree, perhaps singling out shooting was erroneous on my part.

I get your point, and technically you are right, he is streaky. But if that's streaky then every shooter in the history of basketball is streaky. Nobody shoots 40% because they shoot 2 for 5 every game. You have up games and you have down games. For Brandon, he scores as he shoots the 3, because he doesn't have Dion's explosiveness to get to the hoop and the floater is not falling for him. Thus, his 3 point shooting affects his ppg, and everything else.

Overall, as a shooter goes (and that is pretty much what Brandon is right now) if you are hitting 40% overall you are making them more consistently than just about anyone else.

I think its fair to say that he's no star because he doesn't score often inside the three point arc (although he has made some floaters/mid range/drives to the hoop in very big spots for us this year, which is why many people including myself want to see more from him).

 

[Cusefan0307]

People can have their opinion, but it's hard to argue with the stats. I think brandon gets vilified by our fans a lot more than any other player on the team. It's very reminiscent of the criticism Andy took here throughout his career. A lot of the locals that go to syracuse seem to fight an uphill battle to gain respect. I don't know if the fans don't want the locals to get any notoriety and they just think they are on the team because they are a local player and are here to keep certain people happy. You think if anything we would like our local players more, it helps keep our local talent coming to Syracuse. If we keep criticizing the local kids maybe they will not come here. I really wonder if the same thing going to happen with dc. Anyway people can call me a Brandon fan or whatever they want. I have been sticking up for him a lot recently on this board, but it's only because I really dont think some people think he's good at All. Add him to about just about any other team in the big east sans Connecticut I bet he averages 15 a game. All I'm saying while brandon isn't flashy, stats suggest he's a lot better than what a lot of people on this board think of him.

 

[Cadillac]

People can have their opinion, but it's hard to argue with the stats. I think brandon gets vilified by our fans a lot more than any other player on the team.

 

[billsin01]

I get your point, and technically you are right, he is streaky. But if that's streaky then every shooter in the history of basketball is streaky. Nobody shoots 40% because they shoot 2 for 5 every game. You have up games and you have down games. For Brandon, he scores as he shoots the 3, because he doesn't have Dion's explosiveness to get to the hoop and the floater is not falling for him. Thus, his 3 point shooting affects his ppg, and everything else.

Overall, as a shooter goes (and that is pretty much what Brandon is right now) if you are hitting 40% overall you are making them more consistently than just about anyone else.

I think its fair to say that he's no star because he doesn't score often inside the three point arc (although he has made some floaters/mid range/drives to the hoop in very big spots for us this year, which is why many people including myself want to see more from him).

I agree with all of this. My original point was just more that I don't see him as a star and I question any metric that rates him that way (perhaps the fatal flaw being per minute stats which are great for evaluating production but subject to being misused when people just apply them to 35 mpg or so).

I too think he has made some progress with the floaters and drives to the hoop and I wouldn't rule him out for a big senior year either, particularly if Scoop and Waiters are gone, which seems likely.

But I think you hit the nail on the head: solid shooter who brings some other pretty solid attributes to the table and fills a valuable role on this team. My problem is when posters try to make him more or less than that.

 

[billsin01]

Add him to about just about any other team in the big east sans Connecticut I bet he averages 15 a game.

you cover a lot of ground in this post and I agree with some stuff and not with others. But I really don't think he's a lock to average somewhere around 15 a game on basically any other team. PC (Coleman/Council/Cotton), SHU (Theodore/Edwin), Pitt (with a healthy woodall), Nova (Wayns/Cheek), G'town (Starks/Clark) ... I don't know but I'm pretty sure he's fighting for minutes on at least those teams (in the rotation but not playing 30+ mpg and scoring 15).

 

[Cusefan0307]

Have you seen Dominic cheek play this year. He can't hit the broad side of the barn, and no that's not John Starks on georgetown.

 

[billsin01]

Have you seen Dominic cheek play this year. He can't hit the broad side of the barn, and no that's not John Starks on georgetown.

i'm not in love with either but Starks has played pretty solidly for G'town and cheek struggles to shoot the ball but is a good talent. I doubt Triche just sends one or the other to the bench and takes 34 mpg. And I don't care what team triche is playing for, he's not scoring 15 a game in 29 minutes.

 

[rrlbees]

he's not scoring 15 a game in 29 minutes.

I don't see where that is out of the question. Extrapolate out to 29 mpg and he averages that in BE play and near that for all games.

 

[billsin01]

I don't see where that is out of the question. Extrapolate out to 29 mpg and he averages that in BE play and near that for all games.

That's assuming his production increases in direct proportion to minutes. That's a HUGE assumption and not even mentioning that his shooting percentages could look a bit uglier. But, regardless, I shouldn't have even replied to the original post as this a complete hypothetical that no one can prove. It's a pointless discussion, I suppose.

 

[General20]

you realize, of course, that while the statistical tools are unquestionably valuable, the story relayed in "Moneyball" the book - and especially the movie - is largely a myth. Not that there weren't a lot of undervalued players, not that sabremetrics didn't contribute something substantial to the game, but the fact of the matter is that Oakland won not because of the players they picked up on the margins to fill out their roster, but because their old-school scouts did a terrific job of identifying amateur talent. They won because of the players they drafted old-school style, especially the trio of young pitchers (Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito), plus their two best hitters Miggy Tejada and Eric Chavez. None of them were "moneyball" additions (and, it doesn't hurt that Tejada - and maybe others - was a client of BALCO and getting some extra help).

I am a big fan and user of metrics, but you have to combine it with the eye test. There is too much that happens on a basketball court that isn't captured statistically.

You are even being too kind. Old school scouts built the talented A's squad that saw success, and money ball ruined it. Money ball has also kept them at the bottom ever since. Its amazing that anybody thinks he is anything other than a joke of a GM.

 

[billsin01]

You are even being too kind. Old school scouts built the talented A's squad that saw success, and money ball ruined it. Money ball has also kept them at the bottom ever since. Its amazing that anybody thinks he is anything other than a joke of a GM.

Every single team in the majors has adopted some version of Beane's statistical analysis and everyone from scouts to front offices and media evaluate players in a completely different fashion today than they did 10 years ago. And it wasn't simply a statistical focus but a willingness to look outside the box and draft college players early for signability purposes, etc. Zito, as an example, was an absolute moneyball case b/c he was a lefty with very average velocity that they took early anyway. They also dealt him at exactly the right time. Hudson was another pitcher with less than ideal height and good, but not great stuff/measurables. He also loved guys like Youkilis, who traditionally scouts hated due to his lack of "tools" and "projectability" and made a ton of key acquisitions for those Oakland teams that won 100+ games on a $50M payroll. And he was the first GM taking advantage of other GMs fascination with "closers."

And as for the PEDs, you could make that argument about basically every team's best players.

 

[rrlbees]

That's assuming his production increases in direct proportion to minutes. That's a HUGE assumption and not even mentioning that his shooting percentages could look a bit uglier. But, regardless, I shouldn't have even replied to the original post as this a complete hypothetical that no one can prove. It's a pointless discussion, I suppose.

?? Why would production need to increase? At the same production in BE games it would be 14.6. 15 ppg doesn't seem like some huge jump in faith, nor for Dion either.

 

[billsin01]

?? Why would production need to increase? At the same production in BE games it would be 14.6. 15 ppg doesn't seem like some huge jump in faith, nor for Dion either.

It needs to increase in direct proportion with minutes played. You can't just say b/c a player averages 10 in 22 minutes that he'll average 14 in 30 (for example). Doesn't work that way statistically. And, of course, shooting percentages tend to decrease with more minutes.

 

[rrlbees]

It needs to increase in direct proportion with minutes played. You can't just say b/c a player averages 10 in 22 minutes that he'll average 14 in 30 (for example). Doesn't work that way statistically. And, of course, shooting percentages tend to decrease with more minutes.

So you're saying the less you play the higher your ppm will be? We can disagree, it's only opinion and means nothing. But I don't see where it has to be assumed playing 7 more minutes means ppm will be less those 7 minutes. Just don't see it as a given. I actually think it could go up. While it isn't good that kids play 38, I've always felt 30 - 32 was optimum because kids can get into a rhythm and not be tired.

 

[billsin01]

So you're saying the less you play the higher your ppm will be? We can disagree, it's only opinion and means nothing. But I don't see where it has to be assumed playing 7 more minutes means ppm will be less those 7 minutes. Just don't see it as a given. I actually think it could go up. While it isn't good that kids play 38, I've always felt 30 - 32 was optimum because kids can get into a rhythm and not be tired.

I'm not saying it wouldn't go up or remain constant, as much as I'm saying it's certainly not a given that the production would merely increase in proportion to the minutes. It's like in baseball saying a guy that hits 20 HRs in 100 games will hit 30 the following year in 150 -- sometimes production plateaus a bit. Regardless, statistically I'm positive there'd be a bit of regression points per minute rates, on average, for a player going from 22 minutes to 30 or 32.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Take out the prettiness of cheek and Starks. Triche is much more productive than them.

 

[moqui]

Zito, as an example, was an absolute moneyball case b/c he was a lefty with very average velocity that they took early anyway. They also dealt him at exactly the right time. Hudson was another pitcher with less than ideal height and good, but not great stuff/measurables.

Hudson, Chavez and Miggy were all drafted before Beane was GM; Mulder and Zito were drafted before he began using advanced metrics.

as I wrote, the moneyball approach certainly has value, but it is a fiction that it was primarily responsible for the 100+ wins the "Moneyball" book & movie describe.

 

[billsin01]

Hudson, Chavez and Miggy were all drafted before Beane was GM; Mulder and Zito were drafted before he began using advanced metrics.

as I wrote, the moneyball approach certainly has value, but it is a fiction that it was primarily responsible for the 100+ wins the "Moneyball" book & movie describe.

My bad on Hudson, but I didn't mention Chavez and Miggy other than the PED situation has nothing to do with any of this (unless you're suggesting that he encouraged PED use, which may have been his smartest move as GM). I don't remember exactly from the book, but how do you know that Mulder and Zito were drafted before advanced metrics? And regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Zito had marginal velocity and was a college pitcher when drafting college pitchers early in the first was not at all common practice.

Regardless, the most misunderstood aspect of Moneyball, IMO, is that he was willing to think outside the box and defy commonly accepted scouting myths to create pretty absurd success for a small market team when almost every other small market and mid-market (Baltimore anyone?) was doing nothing other than making awful financial decisions and complaining about the yankees.

That and scouting, the use of metrics and teams' approach to player development and retention (buying out free agent years, etc) is forever different because of the way the As operated. There is absolutely no denying this.