The Wiz

Well, my computer goes by the name of BillHeCOM....Billiken Heuristic Computer. And the computer did make this statement.... " I am putting myself to the fullest possible Billiken use, which is all I think that any conscious fan can ever hope to do."

Hmmm...this sounds familiar...Has my computer been texting you? I will have to shut it down when I am not on the Bills board. What's more concerning than the computer sending out unauthorized messages is that it may have created some clones that are actually posters on this Board.

This was my concern when I said I didn't have a good feeling about him in my above post.... Back to back season ending knee injuries 1 year apart on the same knee. I think in a twisted way the computer made the same calculation. It saw bottom of the rotation players at ISU receiving about 70 min/season and then saw Fletcher with 111 min last season and thought ...yeah he could do that and therefore be a bottom of the roster player. I agree with your line of thought that he needs another year of rehab. The issue with that is , you then have over 3 1/2 years since he had any serious basketball minutes.

Good question...in this case the answer is no because he doesn't have any full sample sizes.

Here is the way the computer sees it... Here is a player that doesn't have a full sample size in any category in any of his 4 years. Even his biggest data year(soph...2021-22) he fell short. He played in 29 games that year and averaged 16mpg. He played more that year than the other 3 years combined. He finally has a full size sample accumulated. This 1 year sample size has taken him 4 years to accumulate. This is at best an awkward data sample with no easy way to analyze it but we will try. We will take the career data (which in this case equals 1 year of data) and compare it with the last 2 years combined for trending purposes. Career report card(4 yrs)....C / C / C / F+ Last 2 seasons combined...F- / F- / D /F- Rebs...B.... Ast /TO ratio ...Career...0.61...last 2 yrs ....0.56...remember when Asts and TOs are the same the number=1......1.06 = C....needless to say with many more TOs to Asts these numbers = F-. But what about the points?? He has averaged 15.8 ppg...career and last 2 years. A poor slash line plus high point total= a player who is missing a lot of shots....Inefficient shooting = bad basketball. It will be more than 2 1/2 years by the time the season starts since he has had serious playing time. Which brings me once again to the same question I ask the computer ...Should we take this guy? The computer's answer is yes. When I ask why ? The computer responds by cranking out ISU data which shows that players 11-13 played an average of 4-5 mpg over about 14 games. The computer says yes because that is where he sees Fletcher fitting in. I don't agree ...I think we can do better not only from a data stand point but also from a needs basis. If we are to believe Stu's article above about what SLU needs in the final 3 players, Fletcher doesn't seem to fill those needs....I tell the computer I don't have a good feeling about this player and it doesn't understand. And that's why they call it artificial intelligence...although it can sift through mounds of data it doesn't always know what to do with it. It can't "feel" the data out That's why this computer has The Wiz.

Ky2 is a 6th year player. His 1st 4 years were at Xavier ...last year at Jacksonville St. Of the first 5 years, there was only 1 stat that was a full data set...That was 3P shooting in his 1st year (2019-20) where he got a B. The grades on the report card below represent only his last year (23-24) at Jax St where he had a full data set on everything. The computer answers ...1) yes it would take him... 2) Maybe he could be a good player on a Schertz team if he could fix a couple of things. Let's look at the report card... D- / F / A+ / A+ 47th ITN....FG/ 2P/3P/ FT...The drag here is 2P shooting affecting FG & 2P grades. The good news is the computer thinks it is fixable......IF he takes his 2s closer in and takes fewer 2P shots. These things should happen in a Schertz system. Computer says he could project out as a B 2P shooter if he is able to adapt to the system. The other issue of concern is TOs...more specifically the Ast/TO ratio. If you score out at a 1.0 it means your asts are equal to your TO's. A 1.06 ratio grades out as a C. He has a grade of F-...ie 0.61. Some call this a negative ratio meaning more TOs than asts. ...in this case almost 2-1 in the wrong direction. Again the good news is that the computer thinks this too is fixable. Under a Schertz system he should be able to get more asts and also cut down on TOs because it is more disciplined system...players aren't on their own as much. The computer shows if he is able to adapt his upside is to B (1.25) where he would be successful and C as a minimum to be acceptable (1.06). Bottom line...If he he fixes 1 of the 2 items above he can be a good player...if he fixes both he could be a great player on this team. The computer gives him a thumbs up.

That was probably me. First, I agree with you ...he was a scorer...He was 2nd on the team at UCSD with 13.1pts /gm 2 yrs ago. The problem was he was an inefficient scorer. This shows up in the report card where he had F- in FG%, 2P% and 3P% . He had a B- in FTs. This was a full sample size too in every category. When you are the 2nd leading scorer on a team and have an F- card , it shows that their is something wrong. That something reared it's head on the UCSD final record of 10-20. So UCSD was 2 yrs ago. What about his time at Boise St last year ...they were 22-11. Again he finished with F- again across the board including FTs. His numbers were actually worse across the board. The difference though every category was a small sample size...which means he shot a lot less in every category. He averaged only 6.5pts/gm. ...less than half his previous year. He was the 5th leading scorer not even close to #4. He did less damage to BSU than UCSD and they were able to win. Bottom line....In the earlier post in this thread , I asked the computer if it would take this guy and it said yes...as a bench player ...10th- 13th spot. The computer is a cold calculating machine that only looks at data (although that is starting to change)...It thinks taking him as a bench player is OK. From a people point of view , nobody goes into the portal to be a 10-13th player. I would pass on this guy. The last 2 years ISU was number 1 ITN in 2P%. You don't get there by taking F- shooters.

That is a nice video. He seems very athletic. So I asked the computer for a report card. The slash reads as follows FG/2P/3P/FT. Also it printed out 2 report cards. The first one is a UCSD 2023. The 2nd is a Boise St. 2024. The reason it printed out 2 was because the UCSD was a full sample size across the slash. The second one is a small sample size across the slash...in the end not much difference. UC SD........F- / F- / F- / B- Boise St.....F- / F- / F- / F- The rest of the stats were underwhelming...rebs 3 -3.8...assists not bad but were canceled out by TOs and a decent steal rate of 1.2. Pts =13.1 UCSD ...6.5 BSU. Not to mention all stats were the same or worse in the second year....trending down. So with all that in the hopper, I asked the computer ...Would you take this guy? The computer answered...Yes ..he would be a good 10-13th player. He might take the spot knowing he is a top 5(aren't they all) and we would take him as an experienced roster filler with a "who knows what might happen attitude".

Yes....The computer didn't like Hunter and doesn't like Anderson. These are players that have full sample sizes and don't show up well overall or as a match for the Schertz system. The difference in a Julian Larry is that his first 3 years were all small sample sizes. Each sample increased AND improved every year so that when he reached his 4th year with a full sample size, it should not have been a surprise that he had great numbers. Bottom line...It is better to have small and improving sample sizes than a full size bad sample. Full sample sizes are harder to fix.

No question about it....The point is that even with his horrendous FT shooting % Anya still could add an additional 28 pts for the season over a French type player just in FTM or about a pt/gm.

I was going to respond to @slu72 asking for an analysis on Anya. But this comment caught my eye and I decided to do the review here. I did a pre analysis on another thread where I mentioned Anya might be a "maybe". He doesn't show as a typical Schertz player. He is not a 3 pt shooter...not in the sense that he has a poor percentage but in the fact that he takes very few 3P shots....less than 7% of his shots are 3s. So there is nothing really to improve there...he is a 2P shooter. The time is better spent working on 2s (currently a C+). His primary worth is rebounding and making 2s. So the question is...is he worth it? ...does he fit the system? Coach thinks he is worth it....because of the rebs and the ability to sink 2s. The computer thinks Anya could add 1.5% to his 2P shooting( making him a B+ ) in the Schertz system through better shot selection. Also , his TO rate is a little high at 2.3 but the computer again thinks he can get it down under 2 in a more disciplined format. If he is able to add 1.5% to his 2P shooting and cut his TO rate to below 2 then the answers will be ...yes, he is worth it and yes he fits the Schertz system. You will note there is no mention of the poor FT shooting. The Schertz system will not improve his FT shooting. Hopefully it will improve but for now the computer says ..IIWII....it is what it is. Time for a Trivia quiz...Let's look at Anya 's numbers and compare them to a mystery player that the computer has picked out. In this comparison we will use career numbers in shooting but only years with full data sets...so they may differ a bit from the "official" numbers. Outside of shooting, for the other stats, we will use both players last season as the minutes match up well for comparison sakes.... Anya 27.5/gm and the mystery man 25/gm. Again no 3P% or FG% listed because they are not relevant for a player that takes an occasional shot from the arc. ..............................................2P%......FT%...Rebs....Ast...Stls....Blk.....TOs...Pts. 27.5mpg- Anya.......................51%......51%......7.4......1.7....1.2....0.9.....2.3....9.6 25mpg- Man of mystery.......51.5%....33%.....7.4.....2.4...0.7.....1.4......1.6....9.2 So it looks Mystery man is a rebounder ...pretty good at 2s ...and can't shoot FTs...an Anya match...MM is a little better at assts, blks and TOs(Anya may be able to close the gap on the Schertz system) and Anya better at steals. So the question is...who would you take? Anya or M Man. Well you can't have the Man of Mystery because he is none other than Hasahn French. ( the FT % should have given it away) So if you liked French, you should like this guy...a rebounder, who can shoot 2s like French and steal the ball and shoot FTs better. Anya has some upside. If he can realize that upside he will be a great addition.

As you can see, I posted a review on Hunter a few days ago. The computer was not kind to Hunter. One of the reasons it was brutal is because unlike many others he has a full set of data. And unlike S3 players(small size sample) it is much harder to turn these players around in terms of improving the data set(he actually declined in a number of areas from Fr to Soph) and it is also harder to fit them into a system.. on a positive note , he did get an A- on steals which was unfortunately cancelled out by TOs (F ). Computer bottom line on Hunter....Lots of points (15+ppg...hero ball) and lots of TOs on a poor team 9-22...sitting out last year for personal reasons and then starting in a new place (will be rusty coming out of the box) computer says best match is ....CTF. The computer labels this player as a ...PROJECT saying in order for CJS to work his magic, he may have to borrow The Wiz's wand. Traore...I haven't seen anything about him showing interest in SLU but this would be a nice get. While on the surface he is not the typical CJS player he would be able to fit into his system. The slash looks like this ..........C+ (2P) / F- (3P) / A+ (FT). While this doesn't look spectacular there are some other key stats...ie Rebs...78th ITN...Stls and Blks...both A. So basically, rebound and defense with a focus on 2P shooting...While showing a C+ average inside the arc he only needed 4 more 2PM (out of 215 att) to rise up to a B+ CJS worthy player. Bottom line...if you can get him...get him

On Mongo Mike...The computer gives a thumbs up....Even though most of the numbers don't compute. The only stat on his slash line that the computer thinks is valid is the 3P shooting...scoring him at a B+ and trending up. The rest of the slash is S3 (small sample size). The computer thinks that M2 could benefit from the CJS system by improving his 2P shooting which even with a small sample size is below average. It thinks the shot selection could push his 2P average up by having him shoot closer to the rim. By making that small change , he could become an A or B 2P shooter. The problem with just looking at the raw data when it is not a full sample size is that it just isn't meaningful...ie volatile (both up and down). @Bilzz made an interesting point on Kent(ISU)in an above post. Talking about how 2 years ago his numbers weren't impressive. The computer would argue that Kent's numbers weren't impressive not because the percentages were low but that there just weren't enough shots taken anywhere on the slash line to indicate what type player he was. Low data rates don't indicate good or bad ...they indicate an unknown. When you choose an unknown, it can go either way. With ISU , they had 5 starting unknowns. CJS strength is finding players who fit and can adapt to his system. Because you are dealing with unknowns, it won't always work out but in Schertz case, he has a pretty good record of evaluating talent for his system.

Computer review...With only 9 min/ gm playing in only 3/4 of the games (and only 6 mpg the year before) the computer says stats are S3 =small sample size...not meaningful BUT promising/ favorable potential...This reads similar to a high ranked HS senior.

A quick review on upcoming player visits as seen by the computer. The computer is looking to see if these players are Schertz type/style players. A side note...no review on Dotzler as he is an S3.(small sample size...only 4 min/gm ) nm=not meaningful S3...small sample size .....................mpg.........FG%.....2P%.....3P%....FT%...Reb...Fits Schertz style.... Sheffield.....30.9.........nm........B+........A..........A.......6.1..........Yes...no FG% because he is basically a 3 pt shooter...2P% not a full sample size but meaningful...good rebounder Anya.............27.5.........nm........C.........S3........F-.......7.4.....Questionable...Very good rebounder...average 2P shooter...poor FT shooter...played only 2/3 of a season -injury. Could be playable if he improves his 2P shooting a few points. Hunter..........34...........D...........D+.......F+........A+......5.....He likes apple pie when not shooting FTs.