wow JS looking good!!

[mark79]

nm

 

[orangefan13]

I am all for him shooting that midrange bunny. He made one for there but that second one was so close to rolling in.

 

[Rocco]

He is filthy right now... wow.

 

[SoBristol]

Wow -- another dimension. Nice.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

meh, he looks like a 10th man to me. Huge gunner, shoots way too much and not very efficiently (44% career shooter, 36% from 3), he is a poor rebounder and shot blocker for his size, an ineffective defender and he hardly ever gets to the line. If he played 25 minutes a game, he would lead the team in shots, misses, and used possessions most nights out.

Currently, Southerland has more shot attempts than:

Waiters,
Joseph,
Fair,
Xmas,
MCW, and
BMK
combined.

I hate how often we use the early season to cement bad habits, by allowing gunners to post meaningless but gaudy numbers against bad competition. If given a chance, Mookie would light up many of these teams in the early season.

We are much better moving the ball around, and not having gunners take over the offense.

 

[Knicks411]

meh, he looks like a 10th man to me. Huge gunner, shoots way too much and not very efficiently (44% career shooter, 36% from 3), he is a poor rebounder and shot blocker for his size, an ineffective defender and he hardly ever gets to the line. If he played 25 minutes a game, he would lead the team in shots, misses, and used possessions most nights out.

Have to disagree on his efficiency. 54% true shooting last year. His 2010 season was pretty bad, but it was such a small sample I'm willing to throw it out. He's obviously been incredibly efficient this year, and it isn't like he shoots a ton, he took 22% of our shots when he was on the court last year, that was the same % as Brandon Triche.

I think there is some merit to what you're saying though. He doesn't contribute in a lot of other areas of the game, though he does seem to be diversifying his game. I think if he;s your 8th or 9th man its a good fit. If his shot is falling, he can play major minutes, and if not, it's not a huge loss to bench him.

 

[SoBristol]

meh, he looks like a 10th man to me. Huge gunner, shoots way too much and not very efficiently (44% career shooter, 36% from 3), he is a poor rebounder and shot blocker for his size, an ineffective defender and he hardly ever gets to the line. If he played 25 minutes a game, he would lead the team in shots, misses, and used possessions most nights out.

Currently, Southerland has more shot attempts than:

Waiters,
Joseph,
Fair,
Xmas,
MCW, and
BMK
combined.

I hate how often we use the early season to cement bad habits, by allowing gunners to post meaningless but gaudy numbers against bad competition. If given a chance, Mookie would light up many of these teams in the early season.

We are much better moving the ball around, and not having gunners take over the offense.

Not sure what you are seeing. Southerland has shown a smooth mid-range game in addition to a solid stroke on those 3s; more hustle; and more willingness to do some inside work. Nice year over year improvement. If that is our 10th man, well . . . .

 

[orangefan13]

Hes talking about Efficiency. Its a fair point. Efficiency is more important then taking a big shot in a close game. It keeps it from being a close game in the first place.

But in all honestly James has probbaly been one of our top 4-5 efficient players thusfar. Really with the way he is playing we can argue top 3 this game and the last. Hes 6 for 9 today for 13 points and 2 for 2 from three and one of those fouline misses nearly bounced in.
Thats pretty efficient .

 

[Cuse_1999]

We will have many games where the offense is stagnant. JS is the only pure shooter who gets minutes and he can help us big time in those games. JS playing well can be the difference between us being good and us being great. He adds a dimension that nobody else does. We need him to have games like this during BE play

 

[orangefan13]

make that 14 points

 

[fanfanclubclub]

Have to disagree on his efficiency. 54% true shooting last year.

a 54% true shooting percentage isn't very good. Southerland's 54% true shooting percentage was the third lowest on last season's squad, and also ranked poor nationally:

Mook! 61.5
RJ: 58.4 [terrible ft shooting kills his TS%]
Kjo: 56.7
Melo: 56.7
Fair: 56.2
BMK: 55.2
Triche: 54.9
_______________
Dirty: 53.9
Waiters: 52.4
Scoop: 51.6

Southerland would be a star on many very, very good teams. His usage is too high, and his TS too low, for him to contribute much to this team, unless he adds to his floor game.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

JS is the only pure shooter who gets minutes and he can help us big time in those games.y

No, JS is not even close to the only pure shooter on this team.

Kris Joseph is one of the best shooters in the country, and one of the better shooters we have ever had.

 

[SouthCampusHero]

a 54% true shooting percentage isn't very good. Southerland's 54% true shooting percentage was the third lowest on last season's squad, and also ranked poor nationally:

Mook! 61.5
RJ: 58.4 [terrible ft shooting kills his TS%]
Kjo: 56.7
Melo: 56.7
Fair: 56.2
BMK: 55.2
Triche: 54.9
_______________
Dirty: 53.9
Waiters: 52.4
Scoop: 51.6

Southerland would be a star on many very, very good teams. His usage is too high, and his TS too low, for him to contribute much to this team, unless he adds to his floor game.

:crazy::bat::bang::blah:

 

[Knicks411]

a 54% true shooting percentage isn't very good. Southerland's 54% true shooting percentage was the third lowest on last season's squad, and also ranked poor nationally:

Mook! 61.5
RJ: 58.4 [terrible ft shooting kills his TS%]
Kjo: 56.7
Melo: 56.7
Fair: 56.2
BMK: 55.2
Triche: 54.9
_______________
Dirty: 53.9
Waiters: 52.4
Scoop: 51.6

Southerland would be a star on many very, very good teams. His usage is too high, and his TS too low, for him to contribute much to this team, unless he adds to his floor game.

Hmm, why did I think it was better than that? National average is what, 52%?

I wasn't trying to say the guy was ridiculously efficient, but he was above average. (He was right; I have it in my mind the NBA average TSP is like 53-54%, so I assume the NCAA average is a tick or two lower? If I'm wrong then forget this whole thing)

Southerland is shooting a lot this year, but it wasn't like he took a ton of shots lats year. His shot% was Scoop, Triche, Dion, and Kris.

Anyway, I think for the most part I agree with you, but I think we're definitely seeing an improved player this year. Time, and better competition, will tell how improved.

Edit: I take it you took the plunge on a Kem Pom subscription? Wish it was free, but for $20 a year I can't complain.

James did lead the team, by far, in offensive rating last year. Though that was mainly due to the low turnover rate, which is partially related to the role he filled on the team.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

:crazy::bat::bang::blah:

Haha, i hear ya. That is how most fans react to advanced metrics.

For most people, basketball counting stats and how a player looks are all that matters, and I get that.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Haha, i hear ya. That is how most fans react to advanced metrics.

For most people, basketball counting stats and how a player looks are all that matters, and I get that.

fanfanclubclub, you are making an early run at the most idiotic poster of the year.

Southerland goes out and scores 14 points in the first half, doing it all in the flow of the offense, coming off a 15 point stat stuffing game last night, all coming in the flow of the offense, and you want to bring up some bizarre stat from last year trying to make a claim he's not a good player.

:crazy:

 

[fanfanclubclub]

fanfanclubclub, you are making an early run at the most idiotic poster of the year.

Southerland goes out and scores 14 points in the first half, doing it all in the flow of the offense, coming off a 15 point stat stuffing game last night, all coming in the flow of the offense, and you want to bring up some bizarre stat from last year trying to make a claim he's not a good player.

:crazy:

Seattlecuse, my point was very logical.

JS scored a bunch of early points against lousy competition, and a few posters started saying that he was looking like a new, very good player. In response, I pointed out that the empiricism demonstrates that JS is a high-volume, mediocre-percentage shooter, who adds little else. I explained that I don't like it when the Cuse wastes their early season games by letting gunners put up big stats: like Scoop did last year.

Infact, maybe I should have used more stats from last year to prove my point. JS has already done this early season act before, and so has Scoop, MeShawn, and some other gunners of note. Syracuse has regularly wasted some of our early season cupcakes by letting role players put up too many shots: instead of working on building an efficient offense. I don't want to see us invest very many shots and offensive sets in James Southerland, when we have so many more valuable players who are younger and need reps, sets, and shots (MCW, Waiters, Fair, Melo, etc)

The fact that you consider true shooting percentage, usage, and other such very simple metrics to be a "bizarre" stat kinda proves my point. You are only looking at a very narrow snapshot: how JS is shooting in the first half against Albany, mostly focusing on points. The problem with such a narrow focus, is that you might get tricked by a small sample size, instead of noticing "regressions to the mean."

That is why I provided relevant, historical stats: to put JS's hot first half in context. I am trying to look at the bigger picture: whether or not letting a high-volume, mediocre-efficiency shooter dominate our offense is good for our national championship hopes.

I understand that this sort of analysis is tremendously unpopular to most casual fans. Last season, I was the leading Scoop critic (under the name ThomServo). At first I was banned and blocked simply for using statistics to demonstrate that Scoop was not playing efficiently. The board is finally coming around to my opinion on Scoop. James is a similar player. Both he and Scoop would be legends on lesser teams, but they are not efficient enough to be shooters on an elite team.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Seattlecuse, my point was very logical.

JS scored a bunch of points, and a few posters started saying that he was looking like a new, very good player. In response, I pointed out that the empiricism demonstrates that JS is a high-volume, low-percentage shooter, who adds little else. I explained that I don't like it when the Cuse wastes their early season games by letting gunners put up big stats: like Scoop did last year.

Infact, maybe I should have used more stats from last year to prove my point. JS has already done this early season act before, and so has Scoop, MeShawn, and some other gunners of note. Syracuse has regularly wasted some of our early season cupcakes by letting role players put up too many shots: instead of working on building an efficient offense.

The fact that you consider true shooting percentage, usage, and other such very simple metrics to be a "bizarre" stat kinda proves my point: you aren't looking at the big picture. You are only looking at a very narrow snapshot: how JS is shooting in the first half against Albany. I am looking a the bigger picture: whether or not letting a high-volume, mediocre-efficiency shooter dominate our offense is good for our national championship hopes.

I understand that this sort of analysis is tremendously unpopular to most casual fans.

You really don't know much about statistical analysis, let's just leave it at that.

 

[Knicks411]

JS scored a bunch of points, and a few posters started saying that he was looking like a new, very good player. In response, I pointed out that the empiricism demonstrates that JS is a high-volume, low-percentage shooter, who adds little else. I explained that I don't like it when the Cuse wastes their early season games by letting gunners put up big stats: like Scoop did last year.

Yeah but I need to disagree, I think you are going a little too far on both sides. Southerland isn't a particularly high volume shooter (would you call Triche a high volume shooter?) and while I may have overestimated his efficiency a bit, I don't think you can call a guy who had an above average TSP and a minuscule TO rate a low percentage shooter.

Edit: And yes we're setting aside the leap forward he has seemed to make this year.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

You really don't know much about statistical analysis, let's just leave it at that.

I use linear regression to analyze sports statistics for a living. I used to do empirical work for the Blue Jays. I currently represent a client purchasing a major sports franchise, and I'll be in a pro front office within six months. Don't worry, I'll keep ya updated . I'm no slouch on statistical analysis.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

Yeah but I need to disagree, I think you are going a little too far on both sides. Southerland isn't a particularly high volume shooter (would you call Triche a high volume shooter?) and while I may have overestimated his efficiency a bit, I don't think you can call a guy who had an above average TSP and a minuscule TO rate a low percentage shooter.

Edit: And yes we're setting aside the leap forward he has seemed to make this year.

Good point about the usage rates, I hadn't noticed that JS was lower than Triche. Point taken, JS is not quite the high-volume shooter that I thought. Not to nit pick, but JS was a tick below national average for TSP.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I use linear regression to analyze sports statistics for a living. I used to do empirical work for the Blue Jays. I currently represent a client purchasing a major sports franchise, and I'll be in a pro front office within six months. I'm no slouch on statistical analysis.

Doesn't mean you are doing it correctly.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

Doesn't mean you are doing it correctly.

Very true. The Blue Jays sucked, and my work didn't help much. But I am very familiar with advanced metrics and professional statistical analysis.

I get a little tired of people who don't even know what linear regression is (and who have never worked professionally in sports) hurling ad hominums and saying I don't know anything about stats every time I use an advanced metric.

 

[SouthCampusHero]

I use linear regression to analyze sports statistics for a living. I used to do empirical work for the Blue Jays. I currently represent a client purchasing a major sports franchise, and I'll be in a pro front office within six months. Don't worry, I'll keep ya updated . I'm no slouch on statistical analysis.

Color me unimpressed...says my professor Dr. Eugene Fama.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Very true. The Blue Jays sucked, and my work didn't help much. But I am very familiar with advanced metrics and professional statistical analysis.

I get a little tired of people who don't even know what linear regression is (and who have never worked professionally in sports) hurling ad hominums and saying I don't know anything about stats every time I use an advanced metric.

You also seem really pleased with yourself for someone who appears to think linear regression is the ultimate analysis tool. I have no problem with using stats but don't act like a jerk if people don't agree with you. Sometimes a player improves. How are you modelling that? Your rather primitive analysis of JS is predicated on the theory that players are statues that can't or don't improve their skills or approach to the game.

Nobody needs a calculator to see JS is playing the best ball of his career right now. He is rebounding, making the extra pass, and utilizing a mid- and short-range game that he simply didn't have last year. That is current data. It's a small sample size, sure, but so is what you are using. He hasn't exactly racked up the minutes in his career. I'm not saying he'll be the next Carmelo, but he looks like a player that can help the team. Why do you want to act like everyone who thinks that is not worthy to bow at your feet?