Class of 2021 SG Lucas Taylor (NC) TRANSFERRING TO SYRACUSE (6/4/24)

[Cusefan0307]

I hate to admit it, but UCONN has a clear blueprint to winning basketball. They constantly bring in high-caliber perimeter shooting. This is why I'm so high on Ryder Frost.

And Frost is way more than just a shooter.

 

[RF2044]

But again, everybody looks good in their highlight films. You have to remember the level of competition those highlights were against. To be hones Ga St had a losing record against a terrible schedule. Taylor showed little to nothing against P5 opponents, either at WF or Ga St. Hopefully he will provide some 3 point shooting off the bench, but honestly expecting him to add any point guard skills is wishful thinking I’m afraid.

That's the fear.

 

[tep624]

Good players get doubled all the time. Good players use the double to their advantage and create assists. These assists would show up in his…wait for it…stats.

Then I hope you're looking at the shooting % of teammates that he fed the ball to specifically when he fed them the ball. Because you know, missed shots don't...wait for it...translate into assists.

 

[djcon57]

Then I hope you're looking at the shooting % of teammates that he fed the ball to specifically when he fed them the ball. Because you know, missed shots don't...wait for it...translate into assists.

Correct. Do missed shots translate into turnovers? That's your claim above. The turnovers were due to a hypothetical double team.

My point is...Is it possible that they are due to him being a sloppy player? A lazy player? Maybe it was a double team?

Regardless, the numbers are what they numbers are and that's my point. Some of you are creating the "vacuum".

 

[jordoo]

Correct. Do missed shots translate into turnovers? That's your claim above. The turnovers were due to a hypothetical double team.

My point is...Is it possible that they are due to him being a sloppy player? A lazy player? Maybe it was a double team?

Regardless, the numbers are what they numbers are.

Right, the numbers never tell the specific story of each and every occurrence. They do however tell us the general story of all the occurrences compiled together and that general story transfers with a small amount of variance a high percentage of the time. Sure guys can be on teams that can cause stats to be inflated or deflated but the stats should still be able to correctly indicate a players basic ability or lack of ability even in those situations. There are always outliers, players can be put in better situations to succeed and players improve but if a guy shot 25% from 3 on 100 attempts he's not a good 3pt shooter 99.99999% of the time.

 

[M2MPrinciples]

Excellent analysis.

I have a systemic question. With Carlos passing for 6.3 assists last season, couldn't it be a chicken or the egg situation with his teammates finishing at the rim?

If you have a guy who often passes you the ball when you're wide open at the basket, isn't that going to dramatically improve your numbers? Especially the guys who averaged low shot attempts... If Carlos got them one wide open dunk a game, their "finishing at the rim percentage" would be astronomical relative to what they could do on their own.

We really didn't have much of a distributor or a proficient distributing team last season. Everybody was playing isolation first and passing second.

I strongly suspect that won't be the offensive situation next year.

It's a combination of things:
+ Talent around you
+ Coaching - How good is the staff at drawing up plays that lead to clean looks?
+ How reliably do the players execute? If a guy isn't where he's supposed to be when a pass is to be delivered, the TO often gets pegged to the passer rather than the recipient, even though both can be accountable, and can cost the passer an assist.
+ How many assists come on the break, where it's more about the player's athleticism, timing and execution?
+ Pace
+ Competition

Those are just to name a few. A:TO ratio has its uses, but it barely scratches the surface.

 

[djcon57]

Right, the numbers never tell the specific story of each and every occurrence. They do however tell us the general story of all the occurrences compiled together and that general story transfers with a small amount of variance a high percentage of the time. Sure guys can be on teams that can cause stats to be inflated of deflated but the stats should still be able to correctly indicate a players basic ability or lack of ability even in those situations. There are always outliers, players can be put in better situations to succeed and players improve but if a guy shot 25% from 3 on 100 attempts he's not a good 3pt shooter 99.99999% of the time.

Exactly and there's plenty of positive numbers for Lucas to focus on. 35% from 3, 68.8 of made 3's assisted. Pair him up on the floor with Bell and dare them to zone us. That's a positive to me.

Yet one could easily go "35% from 3? yeah they were probably all over guys who are 5 feet tall playing in his crummy league"...to which I would similarly respond. Numbers are what they are.

 

[jordoo]

Exactly and there's plenty of positive numbers for Lucas to focus on. 35% from 3, 68.8 of made 3's assisted. Pair him up on the floor with Bell and dare them to zone us. That's a positive to me.

Yet one could easily go "35% from 3? yeah they were probably all over guys who are 5 feet tall playing in his crummy league"...to which I would similarly respond. Numbers are what they are.

Yep and his contributions are going to be determined by the coaching staffs ability to put him in situations where he is doing the things that the numbers already indicate he is good at while not putting him in situations where the numbers indicate he struggles. So as one of the last 3 rosters spots I'm happy with that especially if the coaches feel he's a good fit who is coachable.

 

[tep624]

It's a combination of things:
+ Talent around you
+ Coaching - How good is the staff at drawing up plays that lead to clean looks?
+ How reliably do the players execute? If a guy isn't where he's supposed to be when a pass is to be delivered, the TO often gets pegged to the passer rather than the recipient, even though both can be accountable, and can cost the passer an assist.
+ How many assists come on the break, where it's more about the player's athleticism, timing and execution?
+ Pace
+ Competition

Those are just to name a few. A:TO ratio has its uses, but it barely scratches the surface.

Yep, apparently something stat boy can't seem to comprehend. You can make this statement without it being extrapolated into the guy being an All ACC player. It's simply a statement that looking at stats alone is lazy analysis.

I've just been an analyst all my life...but what do I know???

 

[capeorange]

Not only is he better than an empty chair, he is MUCH better than an empty chair. I don't think that can be argued, although some here will try.

"Better than an empty chair" is right up there with "1 more rebound than a dead man"!
I love it and that line should be used as often as possible.

Edit: hopefully not in reference to any of our starters.

 

[orangefog]

"Better than an empty chair" is right up there with "1 more rebound than a dead man"!
I love it and that line should be used as often as possible.

Edit: hopefully not in reference to any of our starters.

Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this phrase, without the express written consent of Orangefog LLC, is strictly prohibited.

 

[Orangezoo]

Yep, apparently something stat boy can't seem to comprehend. You can make this statement without it being extrapolated into the guy being an All ACC player. It's simply a statement that looking at stats alone is lazy analysis.

I've just been an analyst all my life...but what do I know???

Who is stat boy?

 

[tep624]

Who is stat boy?

Anyone who think that stats explain everything. Remember this all goes back to me asking if a Rivals analyst actually watched the guy play...

 

[baggerbob]

Agree with the comment about making decisions based on stats in a vacuum. People who have played sports and understand them know that you can't just look at stats and understand how good or bad a player is. Particularly in basketball, where there aren't many players and so much depends on so many factors.

Anyway, I watch the highlight film for Lucas. There are some things you can always safely take away from film. What does his shooting form look like? How quick is his release? Does he move well? Can he shoot off the dribble?

I like his form. He holds the ball up high. Shoots with the same form consistently. It actually looks very much like the way Kiyan Anthony shoots. To me, he looks like a good athlete and yes, he looks comfortable shooting off the dribble as well.

I think his release is very quick. Given his height, his high release and how quickly he gets his shot off, I think he will not have problems getting outside shots off in conference play.

In the film, he takes a lot of what I will call long range (i.e. 24-25 foot) jumpers. On the surface, that is disturbing. We probably don't want that. But we know he was the leading scorer on Georgia State. We know Georgia State was not a good team. They had a losing record in conference play and a losing record overall. I bet he was often put in the position of 'making something happen' when the shot clock got down to under 5 and a lot of his long range shots were driven by that. Only way to tell for sure is to watch whole games, which I am not going to do.

His FG percentage isn't great either and I suspect him forcing shots late in the shot clock played a role here as well. He took 415 shots playing 953 minutes last season, which means he was taking a lot of shots every game. He won't have that role for us. That hopefully should mean a lot of bad shots he took last year won't be taken this coming season.

I know there are people who like Kyle Cuffe a lot and I understand it. He seems like a really good person and a great teammate. It makes him easy to like and root for and I am hoping he ends up having a really good career for Syracuse.

But he looked really raw in his limited time last year. Forced some shots, struggled to get open, struggled to shoot, struggled on defense sometimes. It was a tough year and I get it, he hasn't played much for a while. It is tough when you are an undersized shooting guard and your shot isn't falling.

I think the coaching staff felt that they had to add insurance at shooting guard in case Cuffe continues to struggle to score and in case Moore, a true frosh, struggles to play well his first year of college ball. Most freshman struggle some making the big adjustment to college ball. We have had a lot of good shooters come through the program but not many have bene able to produce at a high level immediately. GMac did but not many others.

So I like this move. Coach Autry is building up a roster with a bunch of options. If a player struggles or gets hurt, there is going to be another player ready to step in. Last year, we didn't have quality depth and when we had a couple players not performed as expected/get hurt, it really hurt the performance of the team.

I think the overall depth of the team is much improved. And if we can add a C/PF type as well, I am feeling pretty good about things. I think this roster will be our best roster in a number of years. I am not sure it will be good enough to make the NCAA tournament but I will be disappointed if we are not at least very much in the mix for an NCAA bid come early March.

Kohls didn't do much his freshman year but by his Senior year was very good.

 

[Orangezoo]

Anyone who think that stats explain everything. Remember this all goes back to me asking if a Rivals analyst actually watched the guy play...

Gotcha was just curious as a long time fellow analyst who’s done modeling myself. Lot of situational factors along with parameters for certain. Some basics ring true but you I’m sure well know how over analysis is a common flaw.

Should be a fun year seeing the puzzle pieces put together. Looks like we could and should be better with the whole of the roster and definitely with having more shooting than just Bell on the roster.

 

[dasher]

I think Taylor gives us insurance. Maybe Westry can't come back. Maybe Moore is a year away from helping us. Maybe Cuffe is what we saw last year and not the improved guy we hope for. The kid can shoot. How much he helps, I have no idea as of yet. But it gives us an older guy that can shoot and is there if we need him at the very least.

 

[orangefog]

Gotcha was just curious as a long time fellow analyst who’s done modeling myself. Lot of situational factors along with parameters for certain. Some basics ring true but you I’m sure well know how over analysis is a common flaw.

Should be a fun year seeing the puzzle pieces put together. Looks like we could and should be better with the whole of the roster and definitely with having more shooting than just Bell on the roster.

Were you a hand model?

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Fwiw, my take is 35 percent shoot from 3 seems ok to me. For when we got him, sure, decent depth. His defensive numbers are Ga State are hideous but with how we are building the team I don’t that matters much. I’m always down for getting more choices at all positions after what we’ve had in recent history

Can’t imagine he’s worse than JJ defensively.

All of us are rooting for Moore to be good off the bat and Starling played more minutes than anyone last year and never sat but this is a legit add even if it looks like more of what we already have.

Wish he replaced the other Taylor a year sooner.

 

[sutomcat]

Kohls didn't do much his freshman year but by his Senior year was very good.

Most of our best shooters that came in as frosh followed that path.

Marty Headd
Greg Monroe
Matt Roe
Marius Janulis
Demetris Nichols
Trevor Cooney
Andy Rautins

Bell actually shot 34.5% from 3 as a true frosh, which is only slightly behind the 35.7% GMac shot as a frosh.

 

[Orangezoo]

Were you a hand model?

Possibly…

 

[Nicknack]

Glad to hear that we have everything Taylor was looking for but I do wonder what that might be. I don't have a subscription to the PS so I didn't read the article. I wonder how things were sold/positioned to him by Red and staff.

 

[baggerbob]

Right, the numbers never tell the specific story of each and every occurrence. They do however tell us the general story of all the occurrences compiled together and that general story transfers with a small amount of variance a high percentage of the time. Sure guys can be on teams that can cause stats to be inflated or deflated but the stats should still be able to correctly indicate a players basic ability or lack of ability even in those situations. There are always outliers, players can be put in better situations to succeed and players improve but if a guy shot 25% from 3 on 100 attempts he's not a good 3pt shooter 99.99999% of the time.

The Yankees used to win World series, but ever since Cashman went to all these stat sheets a great franchise has won nothing.
You still have to have a feel for the game and put players in position to succeed.

 

[Orangezoo]

Glad to hear that we have everything Taylor was looking for but I do wonder what that might be. I don't have a subscription to the PS so I didn't read the article. I wonder how things were sold/positioned to him by Red and staff.

He wasn’t looking to join a team with 5 or 6 open spots - wants an opportunity at a high major level and playing in ACC again also noted he likes that there is depth and a lot of good players already at Guard and noted the fact everyone is a bit different in what they bring.

 

[baggerbob]

Most of our best shooters that came in as frosh followed that path.

Marty Headd
Greg Monroe
Matt Roe
Marius Janulis
Demetris Nichols
Trevor Cooney
Andy Rautins

Bell actually shot 34.5% from 3 as a true frosh, which is only slightly behind the 35.7% GMac shot as a frosh.

That's a great list there, thank you, didn't go to orangehoops to verify. But I remember watching all of them.

 

[Cappy3]

Anyone who think that stats explain everything. Remember this all goes back to me asking if a Rivals analyst actually watched the guy play...

Well, have you actually watched the guy play (and I don’t mean highlight reels). Most of the professional analysts have better contacts than most of the posters here, so I’m more inclined to accept their analysis than yours.