Class of 2022 SF Chris Bunch (CA / Wasatch) COMMITTED/SIGNED TO SYRACUSE

[rrlbees]

Literally 4 of our guys are top 100 on MULTIPLE sites.

Judah is 33rd on ON3, 35th on ESPN
Bunch is 55th on 247, as hard as that is to believe for some of you and I don't know everyone is acting like bunch can't play worth a crap.
Taylor is 68th on Rivals, when he's on hes on. Also take in to account hes a shooting guard that had to play a power forward role during high school.
Quadir is 86th on Rivals, and I'm not sure why other sites don't rank him higher. Pretty sure he's like just outside the top 100 on ESPN.

It’s why Rivals has us #7, they have 4 of our guys in the top 100. FWIW, Q dropped to 91 and also, Bunch is 1 spot higher than Lands. None of it is gospel though.

 

[orange79]

Literally 4 of our guys are top 100 on MULTIPLE sites.

Judah is 33rd on ON3, 35th on ESPN
Bunch is 55th on 247, as hard as that is to believe for some of you and I don't know everyone is acting like bunch can't play worth a crap.
Taylor is 68th on Rivals, when he's on hes on. Also take in to account hes a shooting guard that had to play a power forward role during high school.
Quadir is 86th on Rivals, and I'm not sure why other sites don't rank him higher. Pretty sure he's like just outside the top 100 on ESPN.

Because they WANT it to be true.

 

[orange79]

Nobody other than mintz is inside the top 100, so yeah… there’s that. We’re just honest.

Let us know how many nanoseconds of your day it took to research that gem.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Because they WANT it to be true.

Why would we want that to be the case? Truly? Because one losing season isn’t enough?

I’ve heard it from enough posters who I consider to be even-keeled and don’t wear orange colored glasses to accept fairly low expectations from this class out of the gate.

 

[orange79]

Why would we want that to be the case? Truly? Because one losing season isn’t enough?

I’ve heard it from enough posters who I consider to be even-keeled and don’t wear orange colored glasses to accept fairly low expectations from this class out of the gate.

To further your (and others') agenda that our recruiting class sucks.

See your misinformed post about who was in the top 100.

I stand by my statement.

 

[littlereg]

Why would we want that to be the case? Truly? Because one losing season isn’t enough?

I’ve heard it from enough posters who I consider to be even-keeled and don’t wear orange colored glasses to accept fairly low expectations from this class out of the gate.

What do national rankings from nations pundits have to do with orange colored glasses? It’s not syracusefan.com board members making the national rankings so not sure how those are orange colored and not even-keeled but sure.

 

[FrancoPizza]

To further your (and others') agenda that our recruiting class sucks.

See your misinformed post about who was in the top 100.

I stand by my statement.

Agenda? And there it is... the A-word.

I knew Bunch was #98 or something even when I wrote that post. I don't have the patience for over-analysis when I'm trying to assess the bigger picture. The real issue is some get so hot and bothered when an opinion counters their own. Why does it matter if his ranking is 98, 101, 103? Does it really make that much of a difference? My opinion is based on similar recruiting profiles spanning the last 7-8 years. Recruits hovering around or outside the top 100 haven't fared well here (for any number of reasons). Heck, we can probably revise that to the top 75 or so, but that's just a hunch. If the over-optimistic crowd wants to believe the next Lawrence Moten is in this class, that's great. I sure as heck hope that happens, especially if we don't portal to replace Cole. And I'm not going to try and discredit that opinion.

I hope that someday that people on internet fan boards will not get so caught up in trying to split the atom. So much energy is wasted here by so-and-so trying to discredit a poster on a technicality.

 

[Trueblue25]

That might be true. The game I watched, he scored 2 pts and really, didn't help his team in any way. He can block shots coming from the weak side. We haven't seen that in a while.

Think you just described Alan Griffin

 

[rrlbees]

Agenda? And there it is... the A-word.

I knew Bunch was #98 or something even when I wrote that post. I don't have the patience for over-analysis when I'm trying to assess the bigger picture. The real issue is some get so hot and bothered when an opinion counters their own. Why does it matter if his ranking is 98, 101, 103? Does it really make that much of a difference? My opinion is based on similar recruiting profiles spanning the last 7-8 years. Recruits hovering around or outside the top 100 haven't fared well here (for any number of reasons). Heck, we can probably revise that to the top 75 or so, but that's just a hunch. If the over-optimistic crowd wants to believe the next Lawrence Moten is in this class, that's great. I sure as heck hope that happens, especially if we don't portal to replace Cole. And I'm not going to try and discredit that opinion.

I hope that someday that people on internet fan boards will not get so caught up in trying to split the atom. So much energy is wasted here by so-and-so trying to discredit a poster on a technicality.

I think their point is you chose to use worst case. No single service is gospel. Rivals has 4 of our guys in the top 100 with Q being the lowest at 91. They even have Bunch ahead of Lands and Taylor too. Even the 247 rating of Bunch you mention isn’t their rating. It’s the composite. 247s service has him in the 50s. It’s a crap shoot for all these places. Someone saying we have 4 too 100 recruits is just as valid as you saying we have none. Which way did you go?

 

[FrancoPizza]

I think their point is you chose to use worst case. No single service is gospel. Rivals has 4 of our guys in the top 100 with Q being the lowest at 91. They even have Bunch ahead of Lands and Taylor too. Even the 247 rating of Bunch you mention isn’t their rating. It’s the composite. 247s service has him in the 50s. It’s a crap shoot for all these places. Someone saying we have 4 too 100 recruits is just as valid as you saying we have none. Which way did you go?

Wouldn't the composite be the way to go here instead of focusing one whichever rating service fits the narrative? How is that choosing the worst case? 247 says we have 1 top 50ish recruit, and the rest are near or below the top 100. Tell me where I was focusing on a specific rating service that undervalued these players relative to other services.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Wouldn't the composite be the way to go here instead of focusing one whichever rating service fits the narrative? How is that choosing the worst case? 247 says we have 1 top 50ish recruit, and the rest are near or below the top 100. Tell me where I was focusing on a specific rating service that undervalued these players relative to other services.

Mathematically, it seems pretty likely that if you took the composite, there would be fewer guys with a combined ranking under 100 than 100 players.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Mathematically, it seems pretty likely that if you took the composite, there would be fewer guys with a combined ranking under 100 than 100 players.

Draw up an example for us.

 

[rrlbees]

Wouldn't the composite be the way to go here instead of focusing one whichever rating service fits the narrative? How is that choosing the worst case? 247 says we have 1 top 50ish recruit, and the rest are near or below the top 100. Tell me where I was focusing on a specific rating service that undervalued these players relative to other services.

Use rivals then.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Draw up an example for us.

A dude is rated 85, 95, 95, and 140 by the 4th service.

Average rating is over 100, but that's pretty clearly a top 100 guy.

I come here to enjoy my life so next time DO YOUR OWN DAMN MATH PROBLEMS, MMMKAAAAY?

 

[FrancoPizza]

A dude is rated 85, 95, 95, and 140 by the 4th service.

Average rating is over 100, but that's pretty clearly a top 100 guy.

I come here to enjoy my life so next time DO YOUR OWN DAMN MATH PROBLEMS, MMMKAAAAY?

That’s not how averages work. Maybe the composite should throw out the highest and lowest, but you can’t just arbitrarily say that one score should carry less weight than the others.

 

[Briancuse]

Use rivals then.

They have Judah ranked 55th not sure they can be taken seriously.

 

[rrlbees]

That’s not how averages work. Maybe the composite should throw out the highest and lowest, but you can’t just arbitrarily say that one score should carry less weight than the others.

It’s exactly how averages work.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That’s not how averages work. Maybe the composite should throw out the highest and lowest, but you can’t just arbitrarily say that one score should carry less weight than the others.

That's not what I said at all.

 

[FrancoPizza]

That's not what I said at all.

It sounded like you wanted to throw out the 140 because it pulls the average down. Averages don’t let you cherry pick which data points to include.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It sounded like you wanted to throw out the 140 because it pulls the average down. Averages don’t let you cherry pick which data points to include.

Explaining this any more is not going to be fun for me.

 

[007]

Explaining this any more is not going to be fun for me.

Not without using stick figures

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Not without using stick figures

and crayons

 

[Orangezoo]

That’s not how averages work. Maybe the composite should throw out the highest and lowest, but you can’t just arbitrarily say that one score should carry less weight than the others.

I sure hope you aren't the one slicing the pizzas.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Explaining this any more is not going to be fun for me.

They always say the smartest people are the ones who can reduce a complex concept to simple ideas so that everyone can understand. I think we’re just taking different approach to weighing outliers, but on the off chance I truly don’t get what you’re saying, I, a mere simpleton, would appreciate the lesson.

 

[Orangezoo]

They always say the smartest people are the ones who can reduce a complex concept to simple ideas so that everyone can understand. I think we’re just taking different approach to weighing outliers, but on the off chance I truly don’t get what you’re saying, I, a mere simpleton, would appreciate the lesson.

Four guys walk into a bar. 1 of the 4 doesn't think the bartender is any good because he or she pours his drink slower. The other three would prefer to get it faster but still like the drink and are able to enjoy their time. That 4th guy disagrees and just thinks he should have a better bartender.

The 4th guy is an outlier. That said if he gives a bad yelp review, the result is a 3.5 star rating vs a 4.5. So next time you go look up the yelp review- it looks pretty meh. All that because of one person bringing things down. So when you evaluate - it's more than just rankings.

As Bees said look at one site then like rivals- in that scenario they didn't invite the 4th guy