Summer Workouts | Page 18 | Syracusefan.com

Summer Workouts

Niastri said:
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. ;)
Expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Niastri said:
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. ;)
Expand...
my personal opinion is that all stat models and metrics are flawed to a certain degree...(significantly so with the NET, for example)

furthermore, I generally do like BPM, especially with a large sample size (something naheem didnt provide)

however I think there will be certain examples and players that are misrepresented in these kinds of models...i would suggest that naheem is a great example of this.

he gets "stats" so he looks good. but his glacial footspeed and glacial situational awareness allow opponents to gain an overall advantage while he simultaneously accumulates metrical points. he'll block a shot but give up 2 open buckets. so the overall impact is negative even though he is "putting up numbers". i'd reather have 3 contested shots and no blocks than 1 block and 2 open buckets. but maybe its just me.

my questions about him start and finish with can he move quicker (was it the injury? will the surgery fix that?)...can he learn to play team defense and rotate and not allow opponents easy/wide open shots? IF he can do those things, he will be good. and not just in an empty fashion, like he was last year.

also on offense he doesnt really know how to play the positionless pass heavy style of the rest of the team...doesnt matter too much i guess bc if he is within 5 feet he should shoot every time. but having another center that cannot pass/dribble allows the opponnent to cheat a lot and forces 4 players to do the creating...which is why lampkin appeals the staff, imo...hes the opposite. with naheem on the floor...the offensive sets will have to cater to him. is he worth it?

my biggest issue with your posting and why it triggers me is that I hope the staff doesnt see things like you: but I think they do. I think they look at his metrics and think he's good. but he hasnt shown to be a winning basketball player. im a skeptic.

and i think the center position is the key to the season.
 
Last edited:
Niastri said:
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.
Expand...
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:
  • 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.
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.

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.
 
Zelda Zonk said:
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.
Expand...
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.
 
Cuse99&01 said:
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.
Expand...
Word.
 
Niastri

were-good-right-5454bbd40b.jpg
 
Scott11 said:
For those of us who don't subscribe, can someone give us the skinny from this article?
Expand...

NYC trip was for team bonding with so many new faces. Noted how they didn't get a chance to do stuff like this last year. Key words, imo: chemistry, maturity, experience. Team is blending well.

Reading between the lines, the culture for this year's team was key for Red.

Other stuff was mostly complimentary of the new guys. One thing I caught that was kind of funny is that Chris Bell called Jyare a 4-man. Red said he could play a couple positions.

Not sure how limited I am in posting pay-walled info, so just keeping it to that for now.
 
billsin01 said:
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:
  • 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.
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.

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.
Expand...

It’s actually pretty simple- VT pointed it out and that is making the second play. If he makes that play then he probably has even better metrics and also they would be more significant on film too. He was very difficult to score on in the post. He was an issue on ball screens but most every center is either a liability there or in defending stronger post players and then there are the elite guys who can defend both( and often are also useless on offense).

If he can give us a healthy and aggressive 10-12 mpg at the 5 it would go a long ways to having the 5 spot locked in. Defend the rim, rebound and react to second shots faster on defense, be a lob threat, set good screens and rebound on offense to a put back or kick out. Anything else he does well would be gravy but if he could do the rest consistently for 10 mpg that would be huge.
 
billsin01 said:
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:
  • 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.
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.

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.
Expand...
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.

This, of course, passes the eye test. McLeod is a great shot blocker, but not great on offense.

I also couldn't find out how many possessions need to be considered before it's no longer a small sample size.

In baseball, things like walk and strikeout rates stabilize in as little as 100 plate appearances, or less than 20% of a season... You can tell how good a player is at taking a walk after very few plate appearances. On the other hand, defensive stats sometimes take 2 or more seasons of defense to become predictive.

McLeod played 204 minutes, which amounts to about 400 possessions... Leader boards I saw were including players after only 50 team possessions, but apparently McLeod didn't qualify for the all time leaders board for his stellar block%. In short, his BPM might not be predictive. Either way, half a season of part time play is a SSS in my mind. McLeod's BPM from previous seasons is all over the place, with his offense and defense having huge variance. He has never played starters minutes... 567 total in his time at Florida State. His whole career could be a small sample size!

www.sports-reference.com

Naheem McLeod College Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Naheem McLeod - Stats, Game Logs, Splits, and much more
www.sports-reference.com www.sports-reference.com

I found this deep dive into the math behind BPM interesting.

basketballstat.home.blog

Box Plus/Minus (BPM)

Hey everyone, I’ve really enjoyed doing this series so far and hopefully you’ve enjoyed it as well. In case you missed the first two posts, I’m doing a series that deep dives into…
basketballstat.home.blog basketballstat.home.blog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TexanMark
    • Like
    • Love
Sneak Peek
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
sutomcat
sutomcat

Forum statistics

Threads
170,152
Messages
4,873,867
Members
5,989
Latest member
OttosShoes

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
1,254
Total visitors
1,411
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom