Jump to content

The Wiz

Billikens.com Donor
  • Posts

    4,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Retained

  • Member Title
    The Wizard of Odds

Recent Profile Visitors

15,626 profile views

The Wiz's Achievements

Listener of the Streets

Listener of the Streets (6/7)

  1. As far as his numbers, KB shows insignificant...ie sample size so small in all categories as you can not draw any conclusions as to how he will perform as a player. The computer did have 1 concern....Ast/TO was .36. He had almost 3 times as many TOs as assts. Based on a 40 min game, almost 4 TOs/gm. Not good. Again the numbers are small so not a flashing red but a blinking yellow...ie something to work on...cutting down on TOs.
  2. Here is a post I made May 1st in the "Transfer 2024" thread regarding Roddie Anderson.... ...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. So this takes us to Kobe....Here is what his report card looks like on the slash....C+ / D+ / F- / B...this is a bit better than the the Roddie slash of F- / F- / F-/ B-.... but at first glance still doesn't seem like a Schertz player. But there is more to this than meets the eye. First, Roddie numbers are a full sample size, Kobe's are not. In fact , if you combine all 3 years only 1 stat equals a full sample for 1 year for Kobe. Let me take a time out here on sample sizes. If you have a full sample size and have a poor report card (especially if you have 2+ years ) the computer doesn't holdout much hope for improvement ...you are what you are(Roddie). If, however, you don't have any full sample sizes then there is the possibility of improvement. (Kobe). OK timeout over. Instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it is better to try and figure out what you have. So my question to the computer is ...what is the upside of Kobe?...A+/ A+ / F- / A+...Well now that is more Schertz like but a strange line both overall and compared to the original. The computer looked at the numbers and decided that he is not a 3 pt shooter. But couldn't he be a better one under the Schertz system?...a weaker league than the B12 might mean less pressure and more 3PM. This could be possible but the machine thinks that Kobe is a 2 pt shooter and that if he worked on that skill under the Schertz system while taking fewer 3s he could be an outstanding 2 shooter. Yeah but....no buts...the computer thinks he could be a top 100 2P shooter. That is why the line looks strange...the 2P potential is so strong that the few 3s don't matter as much. Also taking more 2s will generate more FTs and the computer thinks he can excel there too. So the mystery is solved...he is or could be a Schertz type player. You will note from the bolded quote above that ISU was #1 team in 2s. If he can make 2s and FTs he fits the pattern. Bottom line...The real reason Kobe is on the team is because of his upside potential. The computer didn't see that potential in Roddie....side note...so far most of the players the computer hasn't liked have wound up else where. If Kobe can adapt to the Schertz system and realize his potential he could be a valuable member of the Bills team this coming season.
  3. Small chance of that happening
  4. As the Bills player acquisition situation has cooled a bit in recent days , I thought I would ask the computer who it liked. In other words, ...Who is available that would best fit The Bills/ Schertz system? Answer ...Chaz Lanier SG from N Fla...6'4...175.....has played 4 years there( 1 yr remaining)...current teams that are reported to have interest ...KY , Tenn , BYU. This guy is a Majerus type player (180+ slash) checking in at 183..... 51/ 60.3/ 44/ 88 = A+ / A+/ A+ (66 ITN) / A+ (53rd ITN) = FG/ 2P / 3P/ FT plus 4.8 rpg. He would be a good get....The point is there are still plenty of good players available at this time.
  5. I generally don't do a review on a player unless they are coming for a visit or a reputable source has the prospect as a finalist (top 3). And I especially try to avoid players we have lost to other teams. In the case of Posh, I am going to make an exception because ...1) He was a player the computer liked AND 2) He is going to Day a team we will be battling with for a top spot in the A10. On the Offensive side he was not quite the Schertz ideal player but on the defensive side he could have been the defensive guard Stu mentioned we were looking for. First let's look at the report card....He has a full stat sheet...with a full sample size in almost every category (exceot 3P shooting... only the last year did he make the cut) C- / C- / C / B+...FG /2P / 3P / FT Asts...........A+...59th ITN...a good fit here Stls..........A+.....16th ITN Ast/TO ....A-...an OT side note here...Meadows (you remember him) finished with an A+ in this category...83rd ITN Bottom line ...Posh will be another thorn in the thorn bush (Day). The good news is we will be better equipped to deal with Day this year than last and will have a better chance at beating them. As for prospects, their are still many good ones that are left in the portal as good as Posh or better ...would that make them "more Posh" ?
  6. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Good question...in this case the answer is no because he doesn't have any full sample sizes.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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".
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...