Dell Curry shot 40% in the pros and Steph is a 43% career shooter...are we on pace for a 50% three point shooter at Rutgers???His dad was a 47% three point shooter at Rider.
Dell Curry shot 40% in the pros and Steph is a 43% career shooter...are we on pace for a 50% three point shooter at Rutgers???His dad was a 47% three point shooter at Rider.
Yeah, I'm saying that if you roll a six-sided die 6000 times, you'll get a 6 about 1000 times But just because it's 16.7% chance doesn't mean that you can predict with any certainty the result of any single roll, or even that you'll get a 6 after 6 rolls. I'm using predictive to mean you can know something with a degree of certainty, which sounds like a more narrow definition than you are using.
We don't get to take 1000s of players, we get just a small handful every year. Our small handful of guys with offers hasn't yielded great on-court results so far. That's not saying I value guys without offers/stars equally to guys with offers/stars - just that I've started to put much less stock in offers/stars other than maybe as an indicator of potential. I'm leaning more to the camp of reserving judgement until after the balls are rolled out.
No Rutgers coach is going to get fired for lack of perceived value in incoming HS recruits... he's going to get fired for failure to get wins.
This is all becoming rapidly moot, though, anyway, as success in the transfer portal is beginning to replace success in HS recruiting as the most important thing to "get right". And we don't know the list of current offers for transfer portal guys, and they aren't re-rated on a star scale - you actually have to look at results to see if they're going to be a good fit for your team. And from what we've seen so far, we didn't get that right this year.
The word you may be looking for is precision. There is a lack of precision in the predictive models.
I am sorry. I made a mistake. The Lenape-Linden game at Cherokee is tomorrow (Saturday) at 5:30 PM.
Choppin, I generally agree with you in this thread that the stars/offers metric for INDIVIDUAL players won't always be an accurate predictor (while also agreeing with willis that I'd much rather take a chance with slew of 4-stars with offers).Possibly closer to what I was intending - but what is a prediction with poor precision called?
My thinking is more along the lines of theoretical probability vs. experimental probability. Theoretically, a coin flip yields heads 50% of the time, but experimentally if I flip the coin 8 times that doesn't mean I'm going to get 4 heads. Theoretically players with 4 stars and multiple major conference offers are better than 50% to succeed on a major conference team.... experimentally, we haven't seen that bear out here.
If we were able to sign 1000 players a year, our experimental probability would be closer to the theoretical probability. But we get closer to 3 per year. And our system is not nearly as simple as a coin flip or die roll - the theoretical probability of of success of "multiple-offer players willing to sign with Rutgers" may be different than the larger pool of "multiple-offer players overall", but we have no way to measure that.
Mechanics look solid, nice quick release. Love that it came off the dribble too.Jump shot looked decent eh?
Yet somehow the NCAA is littered with teams that beat the odds and are among the top programs year after year.. . .
If we were able to sign 1000 players a year, our experimental probability would be closer to the theoretical probability. But we get closer to 3 per year. . . . .
Choppin, I generally agree with you in this thread that the stars/offers metric for INDIVIDUAL players won't always be an accurate predictor (while also agreeing with willis that I'd much rather take a chance with slew of 4-stars with offers).
But one thing you might be missing here is that not every "4-star" is created equal. There are some 4-stars who have only a few committable offers, and other 4-stars have 10+ or 20+ committable offers. I would submit that the more OFFERS a recruit has, the more predictive it is of his future college basketball success.
That said, you're still correct that none of this is perfectly predictive for any individual player, and I'm with you in not getting too excited, or down, about the recruits we sign until we have a sample of their on-court play (while still preferring that we sign more 4-stars than not).
When is Linden going to move on from their current coach? He just hasn't worked out as Collichio's successor. Program has really gone down in the last couple of years. Sad to see.Derek Simpson has his first game tonight vs. Linden at Cherokee at 5:30 PM. I am looking forward to seeing how he does. He also will go head to head again Wagner of Camden within a few weeks.
Love itHis dad was a 47% three point shooter at Rider.
First, lolYet somehow the NCAA is littered with teams that beat the odds and are among the top programs year after year.
It must be difficult traversing the world every day with no day-by-day trust of the weather forecast--walking out there every day with your layered jacket, sunglasses, umbrella, suntan lotion and galoshes ready to take on whatever they world may foist upon you.
First, lol
Second, while this is funny I think it’s a little unfair to choppin.
The R^2 on a model that predicts team quality from recruiting rankings and nothing else is likely to be rather low, which I think is really all he is trying to convey.
They offer and then pay. That's how they stay on topNo, to your last sentence. You may see all that. I see offers. Because they reflect what the programs see--their determinations as professionals. You should stop there. But you don't. Top programs stay that way for a reason. They offer (and then get) the best players and they stay top programs because enough pan out. It's simple stuff. Don't make it hard. Let's move on.
If true, that’s a whole different problem.They offer and then pay. That's how they stay on top
yep. It definitely it is for us. We don't provide houses, cars, jobs for relatives, etc.If true, that’s a while different problem.
Thanks for the link. Watched a portion of the first half and Simpson looks like he could have easily scored in the mid to high 30s if a few more shots went down in the early part of game. All good shots taken and no hesitation. He looks like the primary ball handler bringing up and they ran most of the offensive sets for him. Has a smooth calmness to his game and plays under control. Looks like he could go full jock mode and scored 40 plus but shares the ball with team mates. He caught a dunk on a quick transition feed. Didn’t see him take his man to the hole too often. Will check out second half to see if that changed. Has a nice decisive stroke from the outside and I look forward to seeing his play against a high level HS team. First half play looks almost like he’s holding back a gear or two to his play and wonder if the level of opponent may be the reason.
I watched the Camden game and he did a good job finding the open man alot. But Simpson showed no dog in him at all.. Wagner scored 17 pts in the 2nd qt, and not one time did Simpson even attempt to guard him. Not only that, he also never took the basketball and tried to keep his team in the game. He was completely content with just being on the floor and adding to his point total towards the end of the game. Competitive spirit was non existent. He'll be a nice player for us eventually, but probably not until his jr yr.
I watched the Camden game and he did a good job finding the open man alot. But Simpson showed no dog in him at all.. Wagner scored 17 pts in the 2nd qt, and not one time did Simpson even attempt to guard him. Not only that, he also never took the basketball and tried to keep his team in the game. He was completely content with just being on the floor and adding to his point total towards the end of the game. Competitive spirit was non existent. He'll be a nice player for us eventually, but probably not until his jr yr.
The game is here. I watched a bit and Lenape's defense was all about switching, so I don't think you can get on Simpson for not guarding Wagner (he wasn't primarily assigned to him anyway)I watched the Camden game and he did a good job finding the open man alot. But Simpson showed no dog in him at all.. Wagner scored 17 pts in the 2nd qt, and not one time did Simpson even attempt to guard him. Not only that, he also never took the basketball and tried to keep his team in the game. He was completely content with just being on the floor and adding to his point total towards the end of the game. Competitive spirit was non existent. He'll be a nice player for us eventually, but probably not until his jr yr.
Can you get on him for not guarding the other kids? 3rd qt kid with dreads was scoring all over him with ease. I actually did go back and found he guarded Wagner twice in the 2nd qt. He didn't actually attempt to guard tho. 2 lazy closeouts by Simpson, 2 easy open jumpers for Wagner.The game is here. I watched a bit and Lenape's defense was all about switching, so I don't think you can get on Simpson for not guarding Wagner (he wasn't primarily assigned to him anyway)
or if we made a dunkyep. It definitely it is for us. We don't provide houses, cars, jobs for relatives, etc.
We would have at least been in the Elite Eight a few times over the past 30 yrs
if we had