Class of 2025 SF Aaron Womack (WI) COMMITTED TO SYRACUSE (9/30/24)

[Orangezoo]

Not sure about the podcast, but the article said “likely”… I know it’s nitpicking, but it’s there.

One likely example of Tulyagijja’s influence is the recent commitment of Aaron Womack, a 6-foot-5 guard from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Womack is considered a three-star recruit and ranked outside the top-100 players in the 2025 class by all the major recruiting sites.

Yeah I figured they were being cautious a bit on that but language wasn’t definite to your point.

 

[MamesJungro]

Why?

Kline was a guy who worked in an NBA front office. He has great insight into how to evaluate players. It doesn't imply "advanced analytics" on just stats.

I replied to a thread that referenced “advanced analytics,” and my point is that it’s functionally meaningless to play money ball with a mid major recruit who grew three inches this year

Lots of other ways to evaluate a kid, but you don’t need Synergy data to realize that we need guards who can shoot

 

[Niastri]

I replied to a thread that referenced “advanced analytics,” and my point is that it’s functionally meaningless to play money ball with a mid major recruit who grew three inches this year

Lots of other ways to evaluate a kid, but you don’t need Synergy data to realize that we need guards who can shoot

As somebody pointed out, you could watch the game tape and create your own scouting report and analytics.

The staff and analytics team could drill down to minute details, like we only want players with usage rates under "x" amount and assist rates above "x" amount and only guys that can dribble up court above "x" mph on the fast break, because those are hidden characteristics that they think are more likely to result in success. The list of things they could create analytics for it's virtually endless.

Combined with physical measurables like height, arm length, hand size and athletic characteristics, they can find diamonds in the rough more systematically than the old eye test method.

Whatever it is they are looking for, Womack made the cut.

Personally, I was wowed by how well Womack blocked shots. Long arms and great timing. The Syracuse teams that have been great in the past always seemed to have a great shotblocking center, but also a team full of long, lean guys that blocked shots at a high rate for their position.

 

[baggerbob]

As somebody pointed out, you could watch the game tape and create your own scouting report and analytics.

The staff and analytics team could drill down to minute details, like we only want players with usage rates under "x" amount and assist rates above "x" amount and only guys that can dribble up court above "x" mph on the fast break, because those are hidden characteristics that they think are more likely to result in success. The list of things they could create analytics for it's virtually endless.

Combined with physical measurables like height, arm length, hand size and athletic characteristics, they can find diamonds in the rough more systematically than the old eye test method.

Whatever it is they are looking for, Womack made the cut.

Personally, I was wowed by how well Womack blocked shots. Long arms and great timing. The Syracuse teams that have been great in the past always seemed to have a great shotblocking center, but also a team full of long, lean guys that blocked shots at a high rate for their position.

And you need to play good defense as a team to be great. The good Syracuse teams in the past could get after you.

 

[MamesJungro]

Right, I’m very familiar with what analytics are, and I just think it’s a fools errand to pretend they are useful to meaningfully evaluate a still developing teenager.

I do think it’s a red flag that Marquette, Wisconsin, or any of then Chicago area schools hadn’t offered. We’ve missed on virtually every similar recruit in the last few years

 

[Orangezoo]

Right, I’m very familiar with what analytics are, and I just think it’s a fools errand to pretend they are useful to meaningfully evaluate a still developing teenager.

I do think it’s a red flag that Marquette, Wisconsin, or any of then Chicago area schools hadn’t offered. We’ve missed on virtually every similar recruit in the last few years

Honestly if that’s your take then I don’t think you are as familiar with modern sports analytics even with a younger player. There is a lot that goes into it and that includes analysis against different levels of competition as well as looking for improvement over time and a lot more.

Just because he is still developing doesn’t hinder the effectiveness of the analysis. There is no guarantees when it comes to development but as others have noted there are a number of things to look at even on the surface let alone diving deeper into breaking down film quantatively.

 

[HoustonCuse]

His girlfriend is a 4. Tops.

 

[General20]

Normally when you are looking for high school players who translate to the next level you look for the superstars, for obvious reasons. But often times it's the 3 & D guys who go under the radar, but whose skills end up translating really well. Think Andy Rautins who was a 1 star recruit. This kid seems like a 3 & D guy to me. Like pitching in baseball, every team needs another 3 & D guy, you can never have too many.

 

[RF2044]

I replied to a thread that referenced “advanced analytics,” and my point is that it’s functionally meaningless to play money ball with a mid major recruit who grew three inches this year

Lots of other ways to evaluate a kid, but you don’t need Synergy data to realize that we need guards who can shoot

You replied to my post.

And I think what you're missing is that the correct algorithms and advanced metrics are what will determine if this guy is a mid major recruit, or an ACC caliber recruit.

Not subjective bias.

 

[RF2044]

Honestly if that’s your take then I don’t think you are as familiar with modern sports analytics even with a younger player. There is a lot that goes into it and that includes analysis against different levels of competition as well as looking for improvement over time and a lot more.

Just because he is still developing doesn’t hinder the effectiveness of the analysis. There is no guarantees when it comes to development but as others have noted there are a number of things to look at even on the surface let alone diving deeper into breaking down film quantatively.

Agreed.

 

[SUFan44]

Here are the 23-24 AA teams with their HS recruit rating. Anything below a 4 star is outside the top 100 ( some waaay outside) and 2 of the 4 stars here are outside the top 100. If you know what you are doing finding talent the rating is meaningless. Below is a perfect example of why.

2023-24 all Americans 1st team - HS rating
Zach Edey - 3 star - Senior
Tristan Newton- 0 star - 5th Year Senior (Transfer from ECU)
Jamal Shead 3 star - Senior (Houston)
RJ Davis 4 star - Senior
Dalton Knecht - juco 0 star - 5th Year Senior (Transfer from JUCO/N. Colorado)

2nd team
Tyler Kolek- 0 star - Senior (Transfer from George Mason)
Daron Holmes 4 star - Junior
Mark sears - 3 star - Senior (Transfer from Ohio)
Kyle Filipowski- 5 star - Sophomore
Hunter Dickinson - 4 star - Senior

Third team

Jaedon ledee borderline 4 star - 6th Year Senior
Johni Broome 3 star - Senior (Transfer from Morehead State)
Terrence Shannon - 4 star - 5th Year Senior
Caleb love- 5 star - Senior
Baylor Schieierman -0 star - 5th Year Senior (South Dakota State)

Added context to all of these. Talent evaluation matters at the highest levels, because these 0-3 star kids ARE NOT READY to play right away in the ACC.

Look at how many seniors are listed above. All but 2. And anyone that was a 0 star transferred after getting a ton of minutes at lower level schools - Morehead State, South Dakota State, Ohio, George Mason, Northern Colorado, East Carolina).

All this to say, this kid likely won't make an impact at SU unless he stays for 4 years and is OK sitting the bench for the first two (Edey played 19 & 14 minutes per game his first two years). And that happening these days with the transfer portal open is extremely rare.

 

[Orangezoo]

Added context to all of these. Talent evaluation matters at the highest levels, because these 0-3 star kids ARE NOT READY to play right away in the ACC.

Look at how many seniors are listed above. All but 2. And anyone that was a 0 star transferred after getting a ton of minutes at lower level schools - Morehead State, South Dakota State, Ohio, George Mason, Northern Colorado, East Carolina).

All this to say, this kid likely won't make an impact at SU unless he stays for 4 years and is OK sitting the bench for the first two (Edey played 19 & 14 minutes per game his first two years).

The context was implied already to be fair if you read my other responses tacking on. When you are recruiting you need to find talent that you can grow with that’s less of a guess if they can play and less of a guess if they will stick around. That said when you build a team you have to consider all of it.

Just because these kids started somewhere else doesn’t change the point that where you start ranking wise is only somewhat predictive of where you will end as a college player. The easy path to acquiring the best talent is the deepest pocket book for the best HS talent and portal talent. After that then it’s all about finding value and program guys. It’s now become a much bigger challenge than it was pre portal and NIL.

The significance of the post is about the fact there is talent everywhere up and down the HS rankings and the fact that in a world of 1 yr contracts the freshman impact is limited. You either have a monster class like Duke or you have some nice additions you need to surround with returning and portal guys or even a good class with a few top 100 guys doesn’t mean much.