WFU Hoops: '24-'25 Roster Construction Thread: +Spillers/Biliew/Cosby/Johnson/Abass

[CONeill]

I mean he's the only one that's been drafted (so far). LaRavia performed the best in terms of advanced stats I imagine.

But yeah, Alondes and Sallis were both clearly more impactful players during their year at Wake

Right. So many ways to measure "best" and I'm not going to argue with advanced metrics ... but Alondes, Appleby and Sallis had larger impacts.

The one who was a first round pick and has played in 70 NBA games? Doesn't seem like much of stretch.

So is that list of "best" transfers dependent on NBA draft position and production, when the gap between how NBA and college games are played is widening?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

If those numbers are to be believed (which who knows whose asshole this guy pulled them out of) and we are up there with those other schools in a positive measurable value, then all that tells me is we have a really, really bad coach. So we get the most out of our transfers yet still can't do a goddamn thing with that output. Wonderful.

 

[DeacsATS]

I like EvanMiya but how much stock are you putting on data that tells you Jake LaRavia has been Wake's best transfer?

I don't see why it's a crazy statement to make. Jake was really, really good that year.

To measure transfer production, we will use end-of-season Bayesian Performance Rating from EvanMiya.com. BPR is the best single metric for capturing a college basketball player’s value that he brings while on the court, on a per-possession basis. The metric incorporates a player’s individual efficiency stats and on-court play-by-play impact all in one. It also adjusts a player’s rating to account for the strength of all other players on the court for every possession played. You can find the full historical leaderboards for BPR on the Player Ratings page.

 

[Haros]

It tells me our coaching staff is good at evaluating talent AND at coaching them up to get more than expected out of their talent.

 

[DeacsATS]

If those numbers are to be believed (which who knows whose asshole this guy pulled them out of) and we are up there with those other schools in a positive measurable value, then all that tells me is we have a really, really bad coach. So we get the most out of our transfers yet still can't do a goddamn thing with that output. Wonderful.

This is gonna sound snarky, but I'm sorry.

Tell me you know nothing about statistics without actually telling me you know nothing about statistics.

 

[DeacsATS]

My take is that we've brought in really good transfers who have played well for Wake, but the team success has been elusive due to a mix of: lack of depth, injuries, and bad luck. And perhaps you could throw in lack of defense and maybe even toughness.

 

[PhDeac]

Right. So many ways to measure "best" and I'm not going to argue with advanced metrics ... but Alondes, Appleby and Sallis had larger impacts.


So is that list of "best" transfers dependent on NBA draft position and production, when the gap between how NBA and college games are played is widening?

No. I'm just saying it's not crazy that advanced stats would show the NBA pick was the most productive.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

My take is that we've brought in really good transfers who have played well for Wake, but the team success has been elusive due to a mix of: lack of depth, injuries, and bad luck. And perhaps you could throw in lack of defense and maybe even toughness.

Or, bad coaching.

 

[deacvision7]

I get the feeling that 2&2 will be cheering against Wake next season just to be able to say, "I told you so!!!"

 

[DeacsATS]

FWIW, you can search the numbers he's talking about.

If you just look at the 1st season after the transfer, here's how they rank on that metric:

LaRavia - 5.36
Sallis - 5.34
Appleby - 5.08
Reid - 5.03
Williams - 4.14

Alondes gets dinged (a ton) for his "defense"

So it was very close between LaRavia and Sallis.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

My take is that we've brought in really good transfers who have played well for Wake, but the team success has been elusive due to a mix of: lack of depth, injuries, and bad luck. And perhaps you could throw in lack of defense and maybe even toughness.

We have had basically 4 distinct teams under Forbes. All 4 of them have had certain guys individually exceed perceived expectations by massive margins. Despite that individual overachievement, all 4 of them have also failed to achieve team success by the most basic of college basketball measurables. Some had lack of depth, some had injuries, some had bad luck. Sure, that is all part of sports and every team deals with it to some degree. But the one constant through that failure, that did not vary from year to year, was Forbes as coach. The constant is the bad coaching, not the other excuses.

 

[DeacsATS]

Or, bad coaching.

You have to be kidding, right?

It was bad coaching to bring in kids that hugely outperformed their expected level of play after coming to Wake Forest?

If anything, it shows Forbes as both a good evaluator of talent AND adept at putting players in position to succeed.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I get the feeling that 2&2 will be cheering against Wake next season just to be able to say, "I told you so!!!"

I can cheer for us and still, unfortunately, say I told you so, as the result is going to be the same.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

who has read a single 2&2 post ever and thought he would be moved by a statistic more advanced than points per game?

 

[DeacsATS]

We have had basically 4 distinct teams under Forbes. All 4 of them have had certain guys individually exceed perceived expectations by massive margins. Despite that individual overachievement, all 4 of them have also failed to achieve team success by the most basic of college basketball measurables. Some had lack of depth, some had injuries, some had bad luck. Sure, that is all part of sports and every team deals with it to some degree. But the one constant through that failure, that did not vary from year to year, was Forbes as coach. The constant is the bad coaching, not the other excuses.

Aside from the last sentence, I can get on board with pretty much all of this.

My issue with the last sentence is "bad coaching" just feels like a catch-all for: we aren't winning enough and I have to blame someone

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

You have to be kidding, right?

It was bad coaching to bring in kids that hugely outperformed their expected level of play after coming to Wake Forest?

If anything, it shows Forbes as both a good evaluator of talent AND adept at putting players in position to succeed.

Yes, those are both parts of coaching. Taking those elements and actually winning games with them is the most important part of coaching, and what he has failed most spectacularly at.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Aside from the last sentence, I can get on board with pretty much all of this.

My issue with the last sentence is "bad coaching" just feels like a catch-all for: we aren't winning enough and I have to blame someone

Right, in some sense I agree. But it is sports - the only ones to blame for not winning enough are the players and the coaches. But you are not blaming the players - everyone is lauding them for their overproduction. So there is only someone else to blame.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Guys, just put him on ignore - he's going to do this on every single basketball thread for the next 5 months+

 

[CltDeac99]

Right, in some sense I agree. But it is sports - the only ones to blame for not winning enough are the players and the coaches. But you are not blaming the players - everyone is lauding them for their overproduction. So there is only someone else to blame.

You know there is another team on the court right? Sometimes you just get beat. Nobody to blame but simply tip your cap to your opponent

 

[06deacon]

It’s like reading DR posts. Crapping on Wake with no nuance in order to feel superior to other folks who are hoping for success.