Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



Username Post: Stefanini        (Topic#19971)
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
02-20-17 04:07 PM - Post#222687    

His team, ranked # 10 in NJ, beat the team that is # 17 in the semis of the Bergen County tourney. The writeups included: "But Stefanini began to impact the game in a plethora of ways. His rebounding, passing and key shots helped B.C. Lead . . . . He led his team, which has 2 other Div. 1 players, with 18 pts, 8 rebounds, 4 assists and 3 steals. In the county finals this Friday, his Bergen Catholic will face Don Bosco, ranked # 9 in the state, with whom B.C. Split this season.

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
02-20-17 04:17 PM - Post#222689    
    In response to Dr. V

It's curious--Stefanini only gets a 59 on ESPN recruiting, though they do describe him as a crafty European guard. Other assessments are more favorable. Do you have any idea what it is they are failing to appreciate?

NB: They gave Penn's Betley just a 62 last year, and he has been a prime force behind their resurgence.

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
02-20-17 04:27 PM - Post#222692    
    In response to cc66

People who follow the recruiting services more closely might be in a better position to comment than I. That said, that Stefanini only played one season of h.s. And only one season of AAU ball might have something to do with his ranking. Whatever, I had a chance to see him during the summer, including seeing him participate in pick up games involving our players, and he was impressive.

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
02-20-17 04:34 PM - Post#222695    
    In response to Dr. V

I forgot that he hasn't had much exposure to American HS bball. It sounds as if he is catching up quickly, and like Tape, though for different reasons, might be a late bloomer.

 
Mike Porter 
Postdoc
Posts: 2124
Mike Porter
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
02-20-17 04:41 PM - Post#222698    
    In response to cc66

Recruiting services tend to put a lot of focus on athleticism. I haven't seen him play, but what I was told by folks that have seen him often is that he's good offensively and crafty with the ball (but not quick of foot). Sounded like the big question is if he'll be able to defend at D1 level.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
02-20-17 05:02 PM - Post#222704    
    In response to Mike Porter

One of the services which rates all of the Ivy incoming players named him as the best incoming SG. He is supposed to be the best pure shooter among the incoming Ivy recruits.


 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
02-20-17 08:26 PM - Post#222749    
    In response to Chet Forte

Which service says that? And who else did they view as a SG? I haven't seen anything that would put him ahead of Haskett, Williams, or Desrosiers, and I really don't think he would be ahead of Schweiger either. Could be that those guys are all ranked at another position. Overall, though, Stefanini doesn't look top 10 among incoming recruits for the league next year. Faulds does, though.


 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
Stefanini
02-20-17 09:28 PM - Post#222765    
    In response to SomeGuy

On ESPN, Haskett has a 75, Desrosier a 73, Schweiger an NR (No Record), and maybe my research skills are failing me, but I can't find Williams.
Faulds remains the highest at 80. FWIW, POW Boudreaux was ranked at 79, and Penn A.J. Brodeur was listed at 76.

My sense is that although the higher ranks probably means something, the IL has certainly had a number of lower ranked players who made significant contributions.

Edited by cc66 on 02-20-17 09:32 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Stefanini
02-20-17 09:33 PM - Post#222769    
    In response to cc66

Penn's Jelani Williams. Might not be on ESPN.

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
02-20-17 09:42 PM - Post#222773    
    In response to SomeGuy

Yes, I know--that's who I looked up, to no avail.



 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
02-20-17 10:38 PM - Post#222779    
    In response to cc66

And I totally agree that unranked guys come in and are great immediately. Sometimes, it is kind of predictable, like with Oni. Other times, it's not predictable. So I won't be surprised if Stefanini is good, and better than more highly touted guys. But he doesn't seem to be as highly touted (or as heavily recruited) as the top 12 or so guys coming in.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
02-20-17 11:05 PM - Post#222784    
    In response to SomeGuy

Harvard's best recruit and one of the top ones in the league is Danilo Djuricic (Sebastian Much is probably the best). Djuricic is not rated - most likely because he reclassed from 2018, where he was getting high major offers. Haskett is a huge piece for Harvard as a perimeter stopper, but he's not going to be a huge producer on offense and won't grab attention for that reason.

Faulds is an odd fit for Engles. The kid's gonna need a calendar to time him baseline to baseline. While he's a skilled post, he'd have been great for Kyle's system, but I question how he'll mesh with Engles' more up-tempo aspirations.

For me, Myles Hanson is the best kid you guys picked up and I'm not sure it's close. Depends on how Faulds can fit.

 
Mike Porter 
Postdoc
Posts: 2124
Mike Porter
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
02-20-17 11:30 PM - Post#222788    
    In response to mrjames

Jelani Williams is given a 72 rating by ESPN with a write up from earlier in the season - http://m.espn.com/ncb/recruiting/recrui t?id=225031

Just behind Jarrod Simmons with 73 rating (but very old scouting report) and Eddie Scott 67 rating.

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
02-20-17 11:32 PM - Post#222789    
    In response to Mike Porter

Sorry I missed that.

I can't speak to the question of how Faulds fits into Engles' system, but at 80 on ESPN, he's still ranked higher than Much's 78.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
02-21-17 07:54 AM - Post#222803    
    In response to cc66

Yep. Faulds is higher rated by ESPN than Much, but Much is the better prospect.

 
TheLine 
Postdoc
Posts: 2889

Age: 53
Reg: 07-07-09
02-21-17 10:18 AM - Post#222827    
    In response to mrjames

By how much?


 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
02-21-17 10:31 AM - Post#222831    
    In response to TheLine

Ten Fauld.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
02-21-17 01:16 PM - Post#222862    
    In response to SomeGuy

There is a list that appeared on Twitter last week that I can't seem to locate which ranks the top incoming Ivy players by position and by skill. It listed a Princeton recruit as the top incoming recruit. As far as rankings, Maodo Lo only played one year of high school ball in the US before doing a PG year. I think he was either not ranked or ranked around 59 as well. And we know how that turned out. So it may be with Stefanini that we will be similarly pleasantly surprised. As far as Faulds, I have seen one four star rating and one three star rating. For Hanson I saw one 2* rating, but that was dated. I don't know how Brumant is rated.


 
Sagatius 
Freshman
Posts: 9

Age: 69
Reg: 11-17-15
02-21-17 03:04 PM - Post#222878    
    In response to Chet Forte

Try Hoopseen.com. I think this site has the article that you are referring to.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
02-21-17 03:43 PM - Post#222888    
    In response to Sagatius

Also, in today's NJ.com, which is covering the state championship, one of the writers (Schneider) picks Stefanini as his candidate for X factor and specifically notes that he is always tasked with shutting down the opponent's best player. He led BC with 18 in the big win over powerhouse Teaneck the other day.


 
Murph 
Masters Student
Posts: 575

Age: 57
Reg: 09-13-11
Stefanini
02-22-17 03:45 PM - Post#223031    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:

Faulds is an odd fit for Engles. The kid's gonna need a calendar to time him baseline to baseline. While he's a skilled post, he'd have been great for Kyle's system, but I question how he'll mesh with Engles' more up-tempo aspirations.

For me, Myles Hanson is the best kid you guys picked up and I'm not sure it's close. Depends on how Faulds can fit.



I think it's way too soon to speculate that Faulds will not fit into Engles' transition offense. If Faulds can rebound and make the outlet pass, he'll be a huge asset to Columbia's running game.

And on those frequent occasions when Columbia's transition game will get bogged down in a half court set, Faulds' low post offense and high post passing will be very useful.



 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
02-22-17 03:52 PM - Post#223032    
    In response to Murph

Harsh words from the usually decorous mrjames about young Mr. Faulds and his alleged lack of foot speed. I haven't seen many post players who have been speed burners, but in the videos I have seen of him he doesn't appear to " need a calendar" to measure his baseline to baseline speed.


 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 2816

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
02-22-17 03:59 PM - Post#223034    
    In response to Chet Forte

If Faulds is as talented as he's said to be, a smart coach (and Engles is definitely one of those) will figure out how to use him.

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
02-22-17 05:56 PM - Post#223048    
    In response to Silver Maple

Put another way, I'd bet that Faulds could beat Voss baseline to baseline.

Next year, Smith passing to Faulds should be a pretty potent combination.

 
Sagatius 
Freshman
Posts: 9

Age: 69
Reg: 11-17-15
Stefanini
02-22-17 08:31 PM - Post#223063    
    In response to cc66

JARON FAULDS, HOLT: The senior center finished just shy of a triple-double, scoring 22 points, grabbing 14 rebounds and blocking eight shots for the Rams in a win over Jackson.

This is in yesterday's USA Today High School Sports. Imagine what he could do if he could run!

Edited by Sagatius on 02-22-17 08:33 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
02-25-17 05:33 AM - Post#223480    
    In response to Sagatius

At least our incoming did well last night. Hanson led his team with 22 in a 81-58 W. I think they're something like 18-5.

Faulds led his team, which is 14-4, with another double-double at 18 pts and 14 rbs in a 46-40 W.

Perhaps the best night, but most bitter, belonged to Stefanini. His Bergen Catholic team lost in the county finals 53-52, but the writeup informed as follows: "The best player on the court was Bergen Catholic senior guard Gabe Stefanini. The Italian scored a game-high 20 points and grabbed 12 rebounds." Bergen County is the largest in NJ with just under a million inhabitants, and the finals featured the state's # 9 team against the # 10 team.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
02-25-17 02:08 PM - Post#223533    
    In response to Dr. V

The reporter for nj.com did a great interview with Stefanini. His team, BC, has two other D1 players who have been eclipsed by Stefanini. His stock has been on the rise all season. One thing he has which we haven't really had all year is an outstanding three point shooter along with a quick release. I spoke to one administrator who is an impeccable source who told me that the coaches are really high on him, Faulds and Hanson.


 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
03-26-17 09:34 PM - Post#228179    
    In response to Chet Forte

There's a nice senior season video on YouTube titled "Gabe 'Mambo' Stefanini's Senior Highlights"

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
03-27-17 08:10 AM - Post#228184    
    In response to Dr. V

The video is pretty impressive. He's quick, athletic, and takes what he is given. My bet is that he continues to develop and becomes one of those under the radar surprises.

 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1386

Reg: 02-14-06
03-27-17 10:57 AM - Post#228197    
    In response to cc66

He will be a very good player at Columbia. I love the intangibles that set off Bergen Catholic and Don Bosco student-athletes from everyone else. They just plain work harder than everyone else.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
03-27-17 02:26 PM - Post#228209    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

Mike James, what do you hear about Stefanini?


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-27-17 04:28 PM - Post#228227    
    In response to Chet Forte

http://boards.basketball-u.com/showtopic.php?tid/1...

Ability to defend at the D1 level is the biggest Q.

 
Sagatius 
Freshman
Posts: 9

Age: 69
Reg: 11-17-15
03-28-17 02:24 PM - Post#228267    
    In response to mrjames

From NJ.com:

2nd Team All-State, hailed for his defense:

Gabriele Stefanini, Bergen Catholic, Sr., 6-1, 179 lbs, guard
The Columbia commit is one of the top defenders in the state. The Bologna, Italy-native scored plenty of key baskets and led Bergen Catholic to the finals of the Bergen County Jamboree and the North Jersey, Non-Public A tournament.

 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1386

Reg: 02-14-06
03-28-17 04:05 PM - Post#228276    
    In response to Sagatius

Thanks Sagatius. Let's hope Schneider and Greco are right.


 
internetter 
Postdoc
Posts: 2747

Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 11-21-04
04-18-17 04:10 PM - Post#228769    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

Check out @italhoop's Tweet: https://twitter.com/italhoop/status/85430 260709921...
west coast fan


 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-18-17 09:37 PM - Post#228773    
    In response to internetter

Mike James thinks the biggest question surrounding him is his defensive chops. I have heard elsewhere that he is the best pure shooter among all of the incoming IL players. PS, the Jim Engles newsletter has an attachment of a great video on Maodo Lo's impressive start to his pro career in Europe. It sounds like he may have NBA potential after all.


 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
04-19-17 09:09 AM - Post#228778    
    In response to Chet Forte

Where do you find Engles' newsletter? Are you refer to his Twitter feed or something else?

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
04-19-17 09:36 AM - Post#228781    
    In response to internetter

Great find, Internetter, thanks.

Several things jump out of this unusually thorough report and analysis. First, Stefanini's shooting percentages are off the charts. Second, if he's not yet 18 and has grown 3 inches in the last year, he may not be done growing. Third, the level of Bergen Catholic's competition was outstanding. Two of the players mentioned as opponents, Earlington of Don Bosco and R.J. Cole of St. Anthony, were both first team combined all state (Stefanini was second team), and a third, the little guard from Teaneck, James, whom Stefanini was chasing all over the court, was like Stefanini a second team combined all state.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-19-17 09:42 AM - Post#228782    
    In response to Dr. V

The Engles newsletter is sent by email from the AD. If I knew how to attach it I would.
I do not think we need to worry about Stefanini's offense.


 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1386

Reg: 02-14-06
04-19-17 10:48 PM - Post#228813    
    In response to Chet Forte

We may have the best backcourt in the Ivy League next season. Smith will start at point guard and at least five very talented players will be competing for the other spots in what is clearly shaping up as a very good three guard and maybe even four guard offense. However, the frontcourt is a question mark. Meisner is the only returning forward with substantial playing time, but while he obviously possesses the physical skills to become a dominant player in the Ivy League that has not yet happened. I would like to see him become more of power forward next season than a wing. Tape also has the physical tools to blossom into a star, but the coaching staff seemed to have reservations last season about using him extensively because of his lack of prior high level competition. If that is the case, then he needs to find a mentor this summer to teach him what he needs to know. There is no doubt that Faulds will be an impact player at Columbia, but he will need help from Meisner, Tape and some others. Hopefully, Brumant and maybe Sica or Andrew P will help. Finally, I feel Hunter is better suited to play up front than in the backcourt. Hunter and Hanson could contribute more next year as forwards than guards.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-20-17 07:58 AM - Post#228816    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

Maybe the deepest, but "best" is going to be tough when three other teams return First-Team All-Ivy guys (Harvard - Aiken, Princeton - Stephens, Yale - Mason) with solid talent around them. The Ivy League will be exceedingly talented next year, so it takes way more than it ever has before to have the best backcourt. I also think that Columbia is going to struggle defensively with no real rim protectors and a (potentially) small backcourt.

No doubt, there's a lot of talent there, but even if Columbia can finish ~150 nationally, that might not be good enough to be favored to finish top four. I'd want to feel good about touching the Top 100 to also feel good about making the Ivy Tourney. Next year is going to be nuts.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-20-17 08:36 AM - Post#228817    
    In response to mrjames

Tape can be a legitimate rim protector if he learns how to stay out of foul trouble and gains some weight and muscle. One huge question mark is going to be Castlin. If he is 100% he could be a difference maker for us.


 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
04-20-17 12:14 PM - Post#228822    
    In response to mrjames

Your points about the strengths of the other teams are well taken, and it's undeniable that, thus, the League will be stronger than ever in recent and more distant memory (I go back to '71-72).

Tape demonstrated flashes of unusual athleticism for a big. Our fortunes will in part depend on whether he stays static, in terms of development, gets better or gets worse. But even if he just remains static or improves, he and Faulds, an acknowledged defender who played against good competition in the Lansing area, should between the two of them be able to protect the rim for us.

A bigger question for me is the 4 slot. If Meisner is healthy we will be in good shape both offensively and defensively at that position, but that's an if, and we're thin there.

I presume that Smith will hold down the 1. He has more than shown that he can hold his own there. The addition of three players who are all good shooters, rebounders and who are athletic, and, thus, better defenders than we were last year, namely, Hanson, Bibbs and Stefanini, will either force our upper classmen to improve significantly over the summer or surrender PT to those newcomers. Now as always it's impossible to predict who will take how much time to adjust to D1 and college life in general, but it's reasonable to expect that at least one or two of them will contribute to an overall team improvement.

And this brings us to the key question, and one noted by Mr. James, namely, defense. We have to be able to learn how to play good man. Zone is OK for a change of pace, but unless you can bring in the kind of extraordinary length and agility that Saracuse used to bring in, zone can't be a staple. We have not yet demonstrated that we can play good man. I think that we may be able to do that next year, but that's obviously the biggest "if."

 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1386

Reg: 02-14-06
04-20-17 10:34 PM - Post#228829    
    In response to Dr. V

Great assessment by Dr. V to which I would simply add that I would not be surprised if all five of the incoming freshman eventually make a major impact. on Columbia basketball. Regarding defense, I agree with Dr. V and Mr. James that defense is a major concern, but I feel that Columbia will be a much better defensive team next year because of the athleticism of the incoming group, specially Tai Bibbs. I think he is going to be a standout player on both sides of the ball.

 
RicDA 
Pre-Frosh
Posts: 1

Reg: 04-20-17
04-21-17 03:58 AM - Post#228833    
    In response to Dr. V

Hello everyone, I'm Riccardo, the author of that report on Stefanini (thank you for reading it!). There's one thing that I want to clarify: Gabriele didn't grow 3 inches during the last year, as someone may think. Some websites still list him as a 6-1 (others, 6-3) but we, as Italhoop, started to list him as a 6-4 since last october: these are the measurements they took in Columbia when Stefanini visited for the first time, as the player himself told us back then.

 
Sagatius 
Freshman
Posts: 9

Age: 69
Reg: 11-17-15
04-21-17 07:58 AM - Post#228835    
    In response to Dr. V

Tape has shown that he has the natural talent to be a dominant player in the Ivy League. He can be the difference maker, in terms of how far Columbia is able to go in the League.

To reach his potential, he will need to put many hours into his game over the summer, including playing with top-flight competition. It will be interesting to see how far he is able to progress.

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
04-21-17 10:53 AM - Post#228850    
    In response to RicDA

Thank you, Riccardo, for that correction (given that Stefanini had been listed at 6'1 in various places and then you listed him as 6'4", I thought he had grown between the beginning of his junior year and his senior year), but, more importantly, thank you for such an outstanding report!

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
04-21-17 10:57 AM - Post#228851    
    In response to Sagatius

I think that you are spot on about Tape.

One of many things that encourages me about Faulds coming in is that he and Tape should both benefit from having to compete against each other in practice every day--although that is separate from the work Tape needs to do on his own and in individual workouts now and over the summer.

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1476

Reg: 10-09-09
04-21-17 11:18 AM - Post#228853    
    In response to Sagatius

I too am optimistic, for the all the reasons listed above. The one thing that gives me pause is the curious resemblance between the reasons for our optimism last year and next. Last year, we thought that given all the players who had at least some experience, enough would step up so that the decline in the program would not be as steep as many thought. It's true Castlin went down, which thinned out the pool, but still the decline was sharper than most of us anticipated. Next year, we will again have multiple options--most particularly, three or four recruits who in the aggregate probably constitute the highest rank group we've had in many years. Since I dread the notion of deja vu all over again, i.e. yet another season where we fight and lose out to Penn for fourth place, I hope that next year we deviate on the upside as much as last year we deviated on the down.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-22-17 07:03 AM - Post#228868    
    In response to cc66

Two factors last year: Castlin was potnetially our best player. A few of the preseason writeups on the team made note of the fact that this Was going to be his breakout year. Second, my optimism was based upon my belief that Petrasek would have a dominant year; while he had a good year and from time to time was excellent, he fell short of my expectations. What more or less saved our season was the upward trajectory of the very excellent Mike Smith, who as a pure PG is going to be a great player for us.


 
florida lion 
Pre-Frosh
Posts: 2

Age: 68
Reg: 04-21-17
04-22-17 01:55 PM - Post#228872    
    In response to Chet Forte

I was very optimistic at the beginning of the Ivy season and we got off to a good start. Then it seemed like Mike Smith moved forward while the others stood still (although it was good to watch Conor Voss play well in his last year). There were a couple of games we would have won if we just made a key free throw or two. But hope springs eternal. The incoming class looks great, we should be pretty good next season.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
04-22-17 02:31 PM - Post#228873    
    In response to mrjames

Well, this does lead directly to a discussion of the top back courts. Princeton went undefeated and returns an Ivy first teamer and defensive player of the year (Stephens) plus an honorable mention PG (Cannady). I'd take them over Columbia right now, and my guess is that will be true until they graduate.

Yale returns an Ivy first teamer too, plus a 2nd teamer in Oni (and then a plus scorer in Copeland and a plus defender in Phils). They seem ahead as well.

Harvard was much better than Columbia this past year, and their best player was probably Aiken.

So I guess I'm of the opinion that Columbia isn't top 3 in backcourt next year. But we'll see.

I also think that Columbia's backcourt recruits, while good, would rank behind those coming in for Princeton, Harvard, and Penn. The players have different skill sets (Harvard and Princeton don't have any PGs coming in), of course, and recruiting is far from certain. But I wouldn't presume that Columbia catches up significantly based on what is coming in at the other guard spot.

 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1386

Reg: 02-14-06
04-22-17 08:15 PM - Post#228875    
    In response to SomeGuy

Whether or not they are better than the other schools' recruits, the point is that these new Lions are the first recruits of Coach Engles and a definite upgrade from the past. At least two of the newcomers, Fauls and Bibbs, are likely to start immediately and the other three are almost certain to be in the rotation. It seems to me that Engles got the guys he wanted to make his system go.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 3067

Reg: 02-04-06
04-23-17 06:21 PM - Post#228878    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

Stephens is more of a small forward, really, even though he can guard the backcourt positions. But head-to-head I still like Bell paired with Cannady better than Smith with anybody I've seen for Columbia (especially defensively), although if Smith somehow gets even better than he was toward the end of last season that could change.

Yale's pool of guards is scary offensively if you add back Mason being anywhere near how good he was two seasons ago. Harvard is hard to predict, but the Bryce Aiken Story will be fascinating next year--can he play as a true point guard without losing his scoring edge?--and if he pulls that off alongside any of his plausible running mates that'll be an excellent offensive backcourt as well.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-23-17 08:09 PM - Post#228879    
    In response to SRP

As a pure PG Smith really had a remarkable year, in terms of PPG, assist to turnover ratio, steals, minutes played and intangibles. And as a pure PG, I would take him over any returning PG. and he has ice water to n his veins: he is fearless.


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-23-17 09:41 PM - Post#228880    
    In response to Chet Forte

Unless Makai has some real, residual issues from the injury, he's the best returning PG in the league. His third comp from his soph season was to Damian Lillard's soph season. I'd rather have Bryce than Mike, though you could make some arguments there. It's hard to argue anyone over Makai, though...

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
04-23-17 09:52 PM - Post#228881    
    In response to mrjames

Couldn't Morgan end up playing point for Cornell this year, too? Could be a very crowded field for best point guard in the league.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-23-17 10:05 PM - Post#228882    
    In response to SomeGuy

Yeah - and I guess I was trying too hard to fit to "true" point because Mike Smith really isn't a true point either. We have a lot of guys who could hold the ball a lot but aren't going to crack 30% on Assist Rate, like a pure point like Siyani would. Morgan, potentially Cannady, if Antonio Woods ever comes back, along with Mason and Aiken. Lead guard will indeed be competitive.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-24-17 06:36 AM - Post#228884    
    In response to mrjames

When Columbia played Harvard this year, how did Smith vs. Aiken play out? I know that we split two very tough games, but Imcan't recall if they guarded each other.


 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 12:17 PM - Post#228887    
    In response to Chet Forte

I don't recall whether they guarded each other, but the combined stats from the two CU-H games, which CU and H split 65-62 (CU) and 78-72 (H), were:

Minutes: Smith 71, Aiken 60.
Pts: Smith 18, Aiken 18.
Assists: Smith 12, Aiken 9.
TOs: Smith 7, Aiken 7
Steals: Smith 3, Aiken 0

In terms of Ivy stats, Smith was # 6 re points with 14.7, and Aiken tied for 8th with 13.4. Re assists, Smith was 6th in the League with 3.5 and Aiken 8th with 2.9.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-24-17 12:42 PM - Post#228888    
    In response to Dr. V

Thanks Dr. V. Very interesting. While I admit that I am not objective, Smith is also an exceptional ball handler.


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Stefanini
04-24-17 01:05 PM - Post#228889    
    In response to Chet Forte

Counting stats don't really tell you all that much. What matters more is efficiency and usage.

For the season, Bryce had the sixth-highest efficiency nationally amongst frosh with 28% usage or higher (nationally only about 130 players total used 28% or more of possessions). For the season, his shot rate was up over 29%, which is a similarly high rate to his usage. His eFG% was just over 50% for the year though his TS% was up over 56% because of his strong free-throw shooting.

Mike was a little behind in all of those metrics, but still played quite well for the year, especially for a freshman. His usage and shot rate were 24 and 26%, respectively, which indicates a central role in the offense - not quite carrying it, but certainly a big-time contributor. His eFG% and TS% were 46 and 51, respectively, which you'd like to see rise a bit next year.

What's more is that Mike was only a KP MVP in 2 games last season, whereas Bryce was in 5. That indicates more of an ability to take over a game - essentially a "where's the ceiling" metric, versus more of those season-long averages above.

Finally, looking at Win Shares, Bryce was fifth amongst frosh with 2.5, whereas Mike was eighth with 2.0.

Mike had a freshman season that would have won ROY easily back in the 2000s and even in some of the 2010 years. But he might not have even made an All-Rookie First Team last year (Brodeur, Oni, Aiken would have been locks, from there, it'd be Mike, Towns, Bruner, Lewis, Bassey) - that's how crazy last year's class was. IF this league can just stay healthy and not lose any stars in the annual Sept-Nov bloodbath, this should be a Top 10 league next year.

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1343

Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 03:09 PM - Post#228893    
    In response to mrjames

Maybe I'm too much of a dinosaur to fully understand and appreciate what you're trying to say, but something doesn't add up. Head to head, Smith's and Aiken's stats were roughly even, though Smith's assists and steals were higher (those don't count in the new BB math anymore?).

For the year, Aiken's scoring average was a little higher, 14.5 to 13.6, but in League, Smith's was higher, 14.7 to 13.4. You say those don't count for much? OK. But how do shooting percentages not matter? Smith's for the season were FG % 401, 3-pt % 382 and FT % 821. Aiken's were FG % 392, 3-pt % 345 and FT % 876. How does that trianslate into Aiken having had a better season? (And that's what we're measuring, right? Not future ceiling height or whatever.)

Perhaps most importantly, at least to this dinosaur, Smith's assist to TO ratio was 95/48; Aiken's was 71/63. How in the world does that get washed out in the new stats? And lastly, Smith had 29 steals to Aiken's 21.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 03:26 PM - Post#228894    
    In response to Dr. V

FG% is a misleading stat. Because Aiken took a much higher percentage of his shots as threes than Smith did, you'd expect his FG% to be lower. Once you adjust for the 3-point shot (eFG%), Aiken's eFG is ~4 pp higher.

Assist-to-turnover tells some of a story, but really misses the bigger point - namely that the two aren't related stats. What we care about more are the independent rates: What percent of the team's baskets that you didn't score while you were on the floor did you have an assist on and what percent of your used possessions were used by you turning the ball over.

Since Aiken used a higher percentage of possessions, you'd expect him to have more turnovers. Aiken's TO Rate was 18.8 percent, which is pretty good for a ball-dominant freshman (better than Siyani's was). Smith's was SUPERB at just under 14%. If he keeps that up, that's extremely valuable.

Their assist rates were pretty much equal: 22.1% for Aiken, 22.8% for Smith.

Their steal rates were essentially equivalent, due to the difference in numbers of oppt poss faced based on different playing time.

Rates are extremely important, as is adjusting for the three-point shot. When you do that, Smith's only real advantage over Aiken was his extreme stinginess with turnovers, while Aiken got the better of shooting and usage. That's why Aiken's efficiency for the year was slightly better than Smith's even at a higher usage rate.

 
Stuart Suss 
Masters Student
Posts: 830

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 03:48 PM - Post#228895    
    In response to mrjames

This debate is why, for reasons of clarity and transparency, I prefer to use the individual efficiency statistics.

Of the 60 players who were on the court for 140 or more minutes during the 14 regular season league games, Bryce Aiken ranked 52 and Mike Smith ranked 53 in Adj WS. The main difference is shooting efficiency. Mike Smith was a high volume shooter who made only one-third of his two point shots, 47 for 141. Mike's good assist and turnover numbers could only partially make up for that negative.

If you sort the spreadsheet to rank players by WS/40, to see who performed best on a "per 40 minute" basis, the underrated player on the Columbia roster was Lukas Meisner who ranked 4th in the entire league.

(Please note that since the column headings are on Row 1, the number 1 ranked player appears on Row 2, the number 2 ranked player on Row 3, etc . . .)


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 07:01 PM - Post#228898    
    In response to Stuart Suss

Any metric that has Bryce and Mike ranked 52nd and 53rd out of 60 qualified Ivy players is a pretty terrible metric. I have Bryce at 15 in win shares and Mike at 25. Bryce was 10 in hands on buckets and Mike was 3rd. Even in PER, which penalizes non-rebounds big time, they're 22nd and 26th.

On no planet were they 52nd and 53rd out of 60.

 
Tiger69 
PhD Student
Posts: 1984

Reg: 11-23-04
04-24-17 08:04 PM - Post#228900    
    In response to mrjames

Couldn't help but notice how many Tigers were in top 19 (5). Well, we were 16-0.😄 That might have had something to do with it. Also, in those 3-4 games where we were nearly upset because one or two players were being effectively controlled by good defense, some other team player always came through. Perhaps Harvard had to lean too heavily on Aiken. What little I saw of him, he seem to suffer from "freshmanitis" which, I'm sure that he'll get over. Lucky for Harvard that Chambers was around to calm him down this season. Next year he'll be on his own.

 
Stuart Suss 
Masters Student
Posts: 830

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 09:05 PM - Post#228902    
    In response to Tiger69

If you do not like the WS (Win Score) rankings, please direct your complaints to Dave Berri. He devised the weightings for the individual metrics, not me. In league games, on a per 40 minute basis, the top ranked player in conference games was Zena Edosomwan. This is consistent with Mike James’ frequent complaint that Zena was underutilized. So, the WS must not be a totally flawed evaluative method.

The WS places considerable weight on rebounding. Forwards and centers tend to score higher than guards. It also punishes inefficient shooting. Bryce ranked 48th and Mike ranked 58th in effective FG%. Neither player put himself on the foul line that much. Looking at True FG%, Bryce ranked 46th and Mike ranked 57th. So, if you are going to overcome those rankings, and you do not play at a position that produces a lot of rebounds, you better make up the shooting numbers with low turnovers. Mike Smith succeeded. He committed 25 turnovers in 477 minutes, ranking 16th. Bryce committed 36 turnovers in 404 minutes, ranking 54th.

John Hollinger and his PER do not weigh rebounding as heavily as does Dave Berri. Hollinger does not punish inefficient shooting; arguably, he rewards high volume shooting without regard to efficiency. In my chart the GS (Game Score) is Hollinger’s PER (without the norming to a league average). In the Adjusted GS, Mike Smith ranks 16th and Bryce Aiken ranks 22nd, although both rank lower on a per 40 minute basis (Bryce 28th, Mike 35th).

This whole debate turns on how much you want to reward (or punish) a high volume, low efficiency shooter. My friend, Mike, you should analyze the numbers, not engage in what you used to criticize as malleable heuristics.


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4601

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-24-17 09:51 PM - Post#228903    
    In response to Stuart Suss

Not a huge fan of limiting sample for linear weights models - and I see that you're using Ivy-only stats. You get a very different story for Bryce and Mike if you use full-year numbers. Also those don't take into account the usage rates, which are extremely important context for efficiency.

Linear weights models can turn the box score stats into something a little more useful as a first-blush approximation, but stopping there misses some very important context that can be picked up via other metrics both derived off the box score and those derived off the play-by-play feeds. It's rather humorous that the specific Ivy-only slice via the linear weights models is so penal specifically to Mike and Bryce, but it's certainly an inaccurate view of their value from the 2016-17 season.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-24-17 10:14 PM - Post#228904    
    In response to mrjames

Mike's two point % was adversely affected by his inability to shield the ball as he went in for layups. His shot was blocked with regularity. When he learns how to protect the ball in close and shoot at a higher angle his two point percentage will improve.


 
hoopsfan 
Masters Student
Posts: 507

Reg: 12-26-04
04-25-17 10:51 AM - Post#228914    
    In response to mrjames

Smith and Aiken are both very talented, and they clearly have different styles of play.

In comparing them however unless the analytics factor in the talents of their team mates I am not sure how accurate a comparison can be. For example, Aiken had: Corey Johnson to pass to, who shoots .40+ from 3; Chambers, a 4 time all-Ivy player to set an example; and Seth Towns, who will make a boat-load of money some day.

While Harvard wasn't a very good offensive team, it had more weapons than Columbia which impacted how often Mike Smith shot and his assist rate, at least. I'm not defending him per se because he needs no defense. He has has proven himself as has Aiken. I just think we should acknowledge who they played with in making any comparison.

 
Stuart Suss 
Masters Student
Posts: 830

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
04-25-17 11:18 AM - Post#228915    
    In response to hoopsfan

Does box score analytics diminish the value of Mike Smith because his teammates missed shots and deprived him of assists? Or does box score analytics diminish Bryce Aiken because his teammates scored points and Siyani Chambers had assists each of which would otherwise have gone to Bryce?

 
hoopsfan 
Masters Student
Posts: 507

Reg: 12-26-04
04-25-17 06:39 PM - Post#228919    
    In response to Stuart Suss

Well good point. I'm not sure and I am not sure how one would know, although I would not be shocked if there is a way to look at this analytically.

My impression is that playing on worse teams hurts most of your numbers and playing on better teams helps them. Again, I could be wrong and I am not a student of metrics much beyond the box score. But take Maodo Lo for example: his numbers in the year Mullins and Rosenberg were out are very close to his numbers when they returned - except his assists were up from 65 to 98 as he had better players to pass to. The point is that having better players around him did not hurt his numbers and even helped his assists.



 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4127

Reg: 11-22-04
04-25-17 08:04 PM - Post#228921    
    In response to hoopsfan

Lo was a weird case -- his ORAT and PER dropped senior year despite better players around him. Intuitively, those types of stats should improve with stronger options (better shots for Lo, doesn't have to create everything himself, easier matchups), and counting stats should drop (other guys taking away possessions).

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1786

Reg: 03-02-08
04-25-17 08:15 PM - Post#228922    
    In response to SomeGuy

Lo had several games as a junior which were off the charts, Princeton where he went for almost 40, and the second Harvard game, when he embarrassed Wes Saunders, the best defender in the IL that year, for 30 plus. I think his less dominant senior year was the result of having better talent around him. I think it was in his personality to defer to his teammates when they were as good as Mullins, Rosie, etc. And in fact, I remember being frustrated by his play during his senior year, when he should have taken games over in crunch time and didn't seem to want to do so. Nonetheless he was still one of only two unanimous first team All Ivy selections.


 
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

3943 Views




Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.106 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 06:34 AM
Top