UpstateSM
First to Surmise Dakota Leffew Would Be Orange
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Messages
- 10,294
- Like
- 41,626
I thought that we were just saying stuff that we all know isn't true againHot take of the day. I don't like the odds, but I hope so.
I thought that we were just saying stuff that we all know isn't true againHot take of the day. I don't like the odds, but I hope so.
No one picks basketball. Not a surprise.Eddie’s a dawg.
Well, okay—all of that I can agree with. This feels like a vastly different take, though. I also was optimistic and high on his potential early on. I love the deterrence factor, the actual blocks, and just having an immovable at the defensive post. I was very dismayed and quite vocal, though, at the lack of rebounding sensibilities. One day when I’m beyond bored, I’ll try to edit some game clips of him to show what I was ranting about: he would often take himself away from rebounding positions because he was more focused on blocking out the shooter(?), who was 20’ from the rim and moving away further from it. Stuff like that just boggled my mind….The purpose of developing comprehensive "overall value" stats on per minute basis, like BPM and PER is too help isolate what's happening in the court statistically. I didn't think McLeod was our best player last year, by any stretch of the imagination. I was shocked when I saw that the two most referenced statistical models considered him almost as good as Maliq Brown.
Like most posters here, I had kind of written McLeod off after we recruited Lampkin (and paid him an exorbitant sum of money) to come here and start at center.
Unlike most here, when I saw data that didn't meet my preconceived notion of who and what McLeod could do as a player, I changed my belief based on that new information.
I think McLeod, even hobbled as he was, was a much better player than we give credit for last season. I think he will be a very credible backup this season.
He's better than I thought he was. I was trying to give other posters the information that I found so eye opening.
That's why we're here.
so is Benny ... lolMcLeod is a future NBA player, IMO.
my personal opinion is that all stat models and metrics are flawed to a certain degree...(significantly so with the NET, for example)The purpose of developing comprehensive "overall value" stats on per minute basis, like BPM and PER is too help isolate what's happening in the court statistically. I didn't think McLeod was our best player last year, by any stretch of the imagination. I was shocked when I saw that the two most referenced statistical models considered him almost as good as Maliq Brown.
Like most posters here, I had kind of written McLeod off after we recruited Lampkin (and paid him an exorbitant sum of money) to come here and start at center.
Unlike most here, when I saw data that didn't meet my preconceived notion of who and what McLeod could do as a player, I changed my belief based on that new information.
I think McLeod, even hobbled as he was, was a much better player than we give credit for last season. I think he will be a very credible backup this season.
He's better than I thought he was. I was trying to give other posters the information that I found so eye opening.
That's why we're here.
Looks like Eddie taking on leadership responsibilities. Great to see from an experienced player like him.Love the comment on a quiet summer lol. Also seems like this group gets along pretty well. Eddie is full of it but seems like a good dude honestly…
Yeah, I'm late to this discussion but when you're talking advanced metrics I think the issue is that 200-ish minutes isn't enough to glean much from. Small sample size noise. 13 and 9 against Chaminade, for example, is going to weigh very heavily in those numbers. 7, 9 and 5 blks against Canisius is great -- I'll take it, but again, it's going to skew those numbers a bit.I'm excited to see how the radically different play styles and abilities of our two centers messes with the heads of opposing players.
The difference in shotblocking abilities might get McLeod an extra block or two a game, as opponents get used to just being able to shoot over Lampkin and McLeod puts it back in their face.
The other thing that can problematic with some of the advanced stats for a player that doesn't play a lot of minutes and/or in the majority of the teams games, as was the case for Mcleod last year, is they don't differentiate the competition in which the actual stats were derived. Most of his stats and his better statistical games were for the most part against the easier teams on Cuse's schedule last year.Well, okay—all of that I can agree with. This feels like a vastly different take, though. I also was optimistic and high on his potential early on. I love the deterrence factor, the actual blocks, and just having an immovable at the defensive post. I was very dismayed and quite vocal, though, at the lack of rebounding sensibilities. One day when I’m beyond bored, I’ll try to edit some game clips of him to show what I was ranting about: he would often take himself away from rebounding positions because he was more focused on blocking out the shooter(?), who was 20’ from the rim and moving away further from it. Stuff like that just boggled my mind….
I still don’t know at what point the foot became an issue for him. Maybe he was hampered from early on, earlier than we were made aware. I hope he gets a full healthy season in, and along with experience (and some bad/ridic habits coached out) and we can see the athlete and physical presence I expected.
Word.The other thing that can problematic with some of the advanced stats for a player that doesn't play a lot of minutes and/or in the majority of the teams games, as was the case for Mcleod last year, is they don't differentiate the competition in which the actual stats were derived. Most of his stats and his better statistical games were for the most part against the easier teams on Cuse's schedule last year.
For those of us who don't subscribe, can someone give us the skinny from this article?
The transfers are better than expected lolFor those of us who don't subscribe, can someone give us the skinny from this article?
Yeah, I'm late to this discussion but when you're talking advanced metrics I think the issue is that 200-ish minutes isn't enough to glean much from. Small sample size noise. 13 and 9 against Chaminade, for example, is going to weigh very heavily in those numbers. 7, 9 and 5 blks against Canisius is great -- I'll take it, but again, it's going to skew those numbers a bit.
So, when I think of McLeod, and I think of him struggling, i think of the following things:
So I'm not really taking a side on whether or not he can be effective -- he certainly killed us a couple years ago so there must be something there. But, at the same time, there's nothing that suggests he was one of our better players statistically -- at least in a statistically significant sense -- nor anecdotally.
- He scored 41 points total in 13 games against opponents not named Chaminade. That's effectively 3 ppg in effectively 14 mpg. Tells me that he had trouble staying on the floor AND that he was a non-factor offensively when he was on the floor.
- He was a massive liability in any high ball-screen action. Not trying to crush the kid because it could have been largely a function of his injury ... but it was not pretty.
It seems to simply be a question of whether or not a fully healthy McLeod is a far different player. Let's all hope that is the case.
Who is in the best shape of their life? Who added something to their "back pocket" that is never shown? At least BA didn't practice this year, final four predictions would be flying.The transfers are better than expected lol
Me, and thanks for asking.Who is in the best shape of their life?
Definitely not the back seat of the Subaru.Me, and thanks for asking.
The thing about BPM, in particular, is that it to accounts for things like playing time and level of competition. The fact is, even after accounting for everything mathematically, they are coming up with a 4.9 BPM, which is about halfway between all star and all NBA. One admitted weakness of BPM is that it measures offense very well, but defense less well... Naheem McLeod probably gets extra credit for his excellent block% and his excellent BPM is defense heavy, with 3.4 dBPM and 1.5 oBPM.Yeah, I'm late to this discussion but when you're talking advanced metrics I think the issue is that 200-ish minutes isn't enough to glean much from. Small sample size noise. 13 and 9 against Chaminade, for example, is going to weigh very heavily in those numbers. 7, 9 and 5 blks against Canisius is great -- I'll take it, but again, it's going to skew those numbers a bit.
So, when I think of McLeod, and I think of him struggling, i think of the following things:
So I'm not really taking a side on whether or not he can be effective -- he certainly killed us a couple years ago so there must be something there. But, at the same time, there's nothing that suggests he was one of our better players statistically -- at least in a statistically significant sense -- nor anecdotally.
- He scored 41 points total in 13 games against opponents not named Chaminade. That's effectively 3 ppg in effectively 14 mpg. Tells me that he had trouble staying on the floor AND that he was a non-factor offensively when he was on the floor.
- He was a massive liability in any high ball-screen action. Not trying to crush the kid because it could have been largely a function of his injury ... but it was not pretty.
It seems to simply be a question of whether or not a fully healthy McLeod is a far different player. Let's all hope that is the case.
There was a whole discussion at to why they can’tFor those of us who don't subscribe, can someone give us the skinny from this article?
Weight room?
No mavericks/outlaws/anarchists out there?There was a whole discussion at to why they can’t
Not any that want to stay here.No mavericks/outlaws/anarchists out there?