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

[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

 

[FrancoPizza]

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

wouldn’t timely service be something some people would want at the bar? Maybe you wouldn’t care… but others might.

I get that rivals has some questionable rating tactics, but every recruit is judged by the same composite and they all have to deal with outlier scores, potentially. Take away the lowest rating from Bunch and you have to do that for every other recruit in the system. The net result is that he may not be ranked any higher unless you think there’s a conspiracy where rivals is purposely trying to undervalue Syracuse.

 

[Cusefan0307]

wouldn’t timely service be something some people would want at the bar? Maybe you wouldn’t care… but others might.

I get that rivals has some questionable rating tactics, but every recruit is judged by the same composite and they all have to deal with outlier scores, potentially. Take away the lowest rating from Bunch and you have to do that for every other recruit in the system. The net result is that he may not be ranked any higher unless you think there’s a conspiracy where rivals is purposely trying to undervalue Syracuse.

My problem with some the fans who call out the rankings is most have never watched these guys play. So when people make posts about players and someone responds with rankings it's lazy analysis.

Keep in mind rankings can be all over the place because scouts aren't watching every game these guys play. That's why the rankings for each service are different.

Bunch player pretty well in AAU and wasn't very good in HS. Taylor wasn't very good in AAU, but has been much better at IMG.

For that reason I am more bullish on Taylor than Bunch.

Using rankings to rebut what people have seen with their eyes is lazy analysis IMO. And I've seen these guys play so that's why am calling out the rankings stuff. It's just another piece of analysis to look at.

 

[Niastri]

I thought that right up to the moment that Cole said see ya. I really liked that starting 5. But two big questions at forward is one too much for me. I live for a quality forward in the portal. Banana shake if we get one. Maybe with some junk food with it.

Now you're just looking for excuses.

 

[721Comstock]

My problem with some the fans who call out the rankings is most have never watched these guys play. So when people make posts about players and someone responds with rankings it's lazy analysis.

Keep in mind rankings can be all over the place because scouts aren't watching every game these guys play. That's why the rankings for each service are different.

Bunch player pretty well in AAU and wasn't very good in HS. Taylor wasn't very good in AAU, but has been much better at IMG.

For that reason I am more bullish on Taylor than Bunch.

Using rankings to rebut what people have seen with their eyes is lazy analysis IMO. And I've seen these guys play so that's why am calling out the rankings stuff. It's just another piece of analysis to look at.

Agreed 144%.

Taylor has a much more well-rounded, diversified game.
In addition to having a little more beef on his bones too.

Bunch is a streaky outside shooter, and that's... about it.
He could end up being like DNic or Southy. In time.
Or he could end up Mookie 2.0.