New 2021 Commit - Kaiden Rice, grad transfer

[Deleted]

That is an interesting site. I'd have to check out their full methodology, but after a quick glimpse at it...

For our guys, these were the percentiles for their PPP metric (ie how "good" were the shots they chose to take for producing the most points?):

Wahab - 67th
Bile - 60th
Carey - 35th
Blair - 30th
Pickett - 23rd
DHarris - 7th

It's pretty clear they subscribe to the theories (numbers?) that say shoot it at the rim or from behind the arc... and not anywhere else unless you're wide open. They also factor in open-ness of looks, which generally means better teams are gonna get cleaner looks (see Creighton, Nova).

To tie it back to Kaiden -- I think he'll oblige from 3.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2021 14:02:59 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 20, 2021 12:43:41 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Exactly, the types of shots matter. Using context free stats to try and say what a player is or is not may paint a false picture. It doesn't tell me what he shot in catch and shoot, off the dribble, in corner threes, contested, non contested etc. There's not a college site that maps 3 point attempts, but a college coach might have that info, or pay someone to track it. The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that.

shotquality.com/

There is a relatively new website, Shot Quality, which some colleges use, that tracks this information. I am not going to drop the money necessary to get their content, but it's intriguing. Georgetown really should subscribe to something like this if they don't already.

Looks solid, but there's a few of them. I know a lot of coaches use this site to map shots and track a players performance in the scenarios I laid out above.

shottracker.com/coaches

[Deleted]

[the_way]

Apr 20, 2021 15:33:38 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

I like him already. He gets it.

[professorhoya]

Apr 20, 2021 14:02:59 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 20, 2021 12:43:41 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Exactly, the types of shots matter. Using context free stats to try and say what a player is or is not may paint a false picture. It doesn't tell me what he shot in catch and shoot, off the dribble, in corner threes, contested, non contested etc. There's not a college site that maps 3 point attempts, but a college coach might have that info, or pay someone to track it. The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that.

shotquality.com/

There is a relatively new website, Shot Quality, which some colleges use, that tracks this information. I am not going to drop the money necessary to get their content, but it's intriguing. Georgetown really should subscribe to something like this if they don't already.

Low percentage
High volume shooter
Lower level competition

The way you describe him I imagine we're getting this guy:

Kaiden Sharpshooter Rice

[augustusfinknottle]

He told the “Post and Courier” “he will study sports management at Georgetown”. Is that a course or major now?

[SSHoya]

Apr 20, 2021 20:15:56 GMT -5 augustusfinknottle said:

He told the “Post and Courier” “he will study sports management at Georgetown”. Is that a course or major now?

Masters program. And can be completed online which is great because of all the travel time for the team. Rodney Pryor majored in this as a grad transfer.

... Earned his degree from Robert Morris in organizational leadership ... Enrolled in the sports industry management program in Georgetown's School of Continuing Studies.

guhoyas.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/rodney-pryor/513

In Georgetown University's online Master of Professional Studies in Sports Industry Management program, you will study with an unrivaled faculty of professionals who are currently leaders in organizations throughout the sports industry, including the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Washington Nationals, Monumental Sports & Entertainment, Octagon, and the NFL Players Association.

scsonline.georgetown.edu/programs/masters-sports-industry-management

[hoyaguy]

Apr 20, 2021 21:02:56 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Apr 20, 2021 20:15:56 GMT -5 augustusfinknottle said:

He told the “Post and Courier” “he will study sports management at Georgetown”. Is that a course or major now?

Masters program. And can be completed online which is great because of all the travel time for the team. Rodney Pryor majored in this as a grad transfer.

... Earned his degree from Robert Morris in organizational leadership ... Enrolled in the sports industry management program in Georgetown's School of Continuing Studies.

guhoyas.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/rodney-pryor/513

In Georgetown University's online Master of Professional Studies in Sports Industry Management program, you will study with an unrivaled faculty of professionals who are currently leaders in organizations throughout the sports industry, including the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Washington Nationals, Monumental Sports & Entertainment, Octagon, and the NFL Players Association.

scsonline.georgetown.edu/programs/masters-sports-industry-management

That whole thing is actually really smart by the school since it’s low cost to them and low commitment for the players like you said for the all of travel they do and is relevant to what many want to do after playing pro or college. Also I think read somewhere that we have (or had) the most sports franchise owners than any other university (my info might be dated or misremembered) so it’s relevance tracks. I wonder if any players took on a different masters like an MBA (Carey would’ve had the chance since he graduated at his previous school) or any other degree

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 20, 2021 22:59:30 GMT -5 hoyaguy said:

Also I think read somewhere that we have (or had) the most sports franchise owners than any other university (my info might be dated or misremembered) so it’s relevance tracks.

I don't think so. Ted Leonsis may be the only alumnus with an active ownership interest in the four major sports. The owners from the past such as the Williams family (Cincinnati Reds), Dan Reeves (LA Rams), Bill Bidwill (STL/PHX Cardinals), the Briggs family (Det. Tigers), Bill Shea and Edward Bennett Williams (minority partners in the Redskins), Michael Heisley (Memphis Grizzlies), et al. are all gone, and Frank McCourt sold out of the Dodgers a decade ago.

Any others?

[EtomicB]

Apr 20, 2021 12:43:41 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Apr 19, 2021 20:43:23 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

I mentioned Jenkins because I was asked @ what percentage would I consider a player a "3pt specialist".

I agree that there are players who will have their % is dragged down by the types of shots they're getting but I think you'd admit that taking a lot of 3's off the bounce is a recipe for disaster.

Hard for me to see a coach pushing for that regardless of how quickly they want the shots to go up...

I'm not at all saying that he's not gonna be a useful player for Gtown, I'm just saying his stats aren't what I would label as a sharpshooter or specialist as others have...

Your view that he'll be a spacer in the offense I agree with completely...

Exactly, the types of shots matter. Using context free stats to try and say what a player is or is not may paint a false picture. It doesn't tell me what he shot in catch and shoot, off the dribble, in corner threes, contested, non contested etc. There's not a college site that maps 3 point attempts, but a college coach might have that info, or pay someone to track it. The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that.

You really don't believe that 4 years(794 attempts) of stats is enough to make a judgment on what a player has been during their college career?

[rockhoya]

Apr 21, 2021 8:14:06 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Apr 20, 2021 12:43:41 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Exactly, the types of shots matter. Using context free stats to try and say what a player is or is not may paint a false picture. It doesn't tell me what he shot in catch and shoot, off the dribble, in corner threes, contested, non contested etc. There's not a college site that maps 3 point attempts, but a college coach might have that info, or pay someone to track it. The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that.

You really don't believe that 4 years(794 attempts) of stats is enough to make a judgment on what a player has been during their college career?

That is not what he/she is saying. Stats are level one thinking, there are several levels beyond that. You have to interpret the stats.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Apr 21, 2021 9:41:14 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

Apr 21, 2021 8:14:06 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

You really don't believe that 4 years(794 attempts) of stats is enough to make a judgment on what a player has been during their college career?

That is not what he/she is saying. Stats are level one thinking, there are several levels beyond that. You have to interpret the stats.

Yes and no. Yaboy said, "The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that." Really, what this boils down to is saying that his overall stats aren't telling the whole story because Ewing plans to use him differently. At a very detailed level, this is saying in part that his overall stats aren't fully telling the story though a sub-set does (stats in roles similar to how Ewing plans to use him). And, it's true that unless you have access to Shot Tracker or something like that, it's hard to know that.

But, it's important to remember Occum's razor. Sometimes, the most simple conclusion is the best one. To EtomicB's point, if the guy is shooting 35% career, or below, it's very unlikely that no matter what situation is in, his shooting will be significantly better. It could certainly improve with different usage and being in a different system, and I hope it does.

I think one of the disconnects is that those of us who take a more stat-based approach tend to use those stats as a way of evaluating possible or probable outcomings. But, none of us are saying that past stats are perfect predictor of future results. But, they are definitely a guide, and when they are based on a big sample size (like 4 years of playing, versus say 1 year as a freshman), their predictive value is stronger.

This isn't 3D chess. Ewing doesn't have some magic sauce where he takes guys who struggled and then suddenly improved them because he used them differently. Statistically, most of the guys we have recruited as transfers have largely been consistent with their past stats, or in some cases, worse. Of course, improvements are possible and do happen, as well. But, most of the time, a guy who has played 4 years of college basketball isn't going to be significantly different in his 5th year.

[professorhoya]

Apr 21, 2021 12:39:19 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 21, 2021 9:41:14 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

That is not what he/she is saying. Stats are level one thinking, there are several levels beyond that. You have to interpret the stats.

Yes and no. Yaboy said, "The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that." Really, what this boils down to is saying that his overall stats aren't telling the whole story because Ewing plans to use him differently. At a very detailed level, this is saying in part that his overall stats aren't fully telling the story though a sub-set does (stats in roles similar to how Ewing plans to use him). And, it's true that unless you have access to Shot Tracker or something like that, it's hard to know that.

But, it's important to remember Occum's razor. Sometimes, the most simple conclusion is the best one. To EtomicB's point, if the guy is shooting 35% career, or below, it's very unlikely that no matter what situation is in, his shooting will be significantly better. It could certainly improve with different usage and being in a different system, and I hope it does.

I think one of the disconnects is that those of us who take a more stat-based approach tend to use those stats as a way of evaluating possible or probable outcomings. But, none of us are saying that past stats are perfect predictor of future results. But, they are definitely a guide, and when they are based on a big sample size (like 4 years of playing, versus say 1 year as a freshman), their predictive value is stronger.

This isn't 3D chess. Ewing doesn't have some magic sauce where he takes guys who struggled and then suddenly improved them because he used them differently. Statistically, most of the guys we have recruited as transfers have largely been consistent with their past stats, or in some cases, worse. Of course, improvements are possible and do happen, as well. But, most of the time, a guy who has played 4 years of college basketball isn't going to be significantly different in his 5th year.

What's his true impact though. Can you put it in your stat computer?
He hit 4 3pters each game.

Isn't the whole point of a 3pt that you shoot a lower percentage but it's worth more points than a higher percentage 2 pter?

[professorhoya]

Apr 21, 2021 12:39:19 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 21, 2021 9:41:14 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

That is not what he/she is saying. Stats are level one thinking, there are several levels beyond that. You have to interpret the stats.

Yes and no. Yaboy said, "The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that." Really, what this boils down to is saying that his overall stats aren't telling the whole story because Ewing plans to use him differently. At a very detailed level, this is saying in part that his overall stats aren't fully telling the story though a sub-set does (stats in roles similar to how Ewing plans to use him). And, it's true that unless you have access to Shot Tracker or something like that, it's hard to know that.

But, it's important to remember Occum's razor. Sometimes, the most simple conclusion is the best one. To EtomicB's point, if the guy is shooting 35% career, or below, it's very unlikely that no matter what situation is in, his shooting will be significantly better. It could certainly improve with different usage and being in a different system, and I hope it does.

I think one of the disconnects is that those of us who take a more stat-based approach tend to use those stats as a way of evaluating possible or probable outcomings. But, none of us are saying that past stats are perfect predictor of future results. But, they are definitely a guide, and when they are based on a big sample size (like 4 years of playing, versus say 1 year as a freshman), their predictive value is stronger.

This isn't 3D chess. Ewing doesn't have some magic sauce where he takes guys who struggled and then suddenly improved them because he used them differently. Statistically, most of the guys we have recruited as transfers have largely been consistent with their past stats, or in some cases, worse. Of course, improvements are possible and do happen, as well. But, most of the time, a guy who has played 4 years of college basketball isn't going to be significantly different in his 5th year.

For example lets say he shoots 40% when only shooting making 1 3pter.
But shoots 34% when making 4 3pters.

Which would be preferable.

[rhw485]

Apr 21, 2021 12:39:19 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 21, 2021 9:41:14 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

That is not what he/she is saying. Stats are level one thinking, there are several levels beyond that. You have to interpret the stats.

Yes and no. Yaboy said, "The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that." Really, what this boils down to is saying that his overall stats aren't telling the whole story because Ewing plans to use him differently. At a very detailed level, this is saying in part that his overall stats aren't fully telling the story though a sub-set does (stats in roles similar to how Ewing plans to use him). And, it's true that unless you have access to Shot Tracker or something like that, it's hard to know that.

But, it's important to remember Occum's razor. Sometimes, the most simple conclusion is the best one. To EtomicB's point, if the guy is shooting 35% career, or below, it's very unlikely that no matter what situation is in, his shooting will be significantly better. It could certainly improve with different usage and being in a different system, and I hope it does.

I think one of the disconnects is that those of us who take a more stat-based approach tend to use those stats as a way of evaluating possible or probable outcomings. But, none of us are saying that past stats are perfect predictor of future results. But, they are definitely a guide, and when they are based on a big sample size (like 4 years of playing, versus say 1 year as a freshman), their predictive value is stronger.

This isn't 3D chess. Ewing doesn't have some magic sauce where he takes guys who struggled and then suddenly improved them because he used them differently. Statistically, most of the guys we have recruited as transfers have largely been consistent with their past stats, or in some cases, worse. Of course, improvements are possible and do happen, as well. But, most of the time, a guy who has played 4 years of college basketball isn't going to be significantly different in his 5th year.

I'm generally in the pro stats camp.  I think this board suffers a bit from spewing out O-rating and ignoring usage rate and context.  That's not exactly what's being done here, but it's getting pretty close.

The most obvious type of change you'd expect Kaiden Rice to go through...is VERY similar to Don Carey's last year:

Siena sophomore year
38% on 4.8 attempts per game
O-rating of 99.3 on Usage of 20.6

Georgetown junior year
44% on 3.4 attempts per game
O-rating of 109 on Usage of 14.9

Basically everything you'd expect with jump up in competition but to a lower role.  Attempts down, usage down, percentage up, presumably with the quality of shot going up w Carey getting more corner catch and shoot 3s and not having to force as much offense.

Now this doesn't mean Kaiden Rice is going to have the exact same trajectory, but you simply can't ignore the most obvious comp that literally happened last year.

To your Occam's Razor point, without getting any detailed stats that shows what he does on catch and shoot 3s vs. off dribble 3s, I don't know how you can say what is more likely to happen if the mix of shots changes. If he's taking the same quality of shot at Gtown, yes I 100% agree there is no reason to think he does any better here and would most likely do worse against better defense. 

Just based off the highlight video that shows his makes, I can only imagine the misses were of similarly difficult quality.

[professorhoya]

Apr 21, 2021 13:06:56 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Apr 21, 2021 12:39:19 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Yes and no. Yaboy said, "The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that." Really, what this boils down to is saying that his overall stats aren't telling the whole story because Ewing plans to use him differently. At a very detailed level, this is saying in part that his overall stats aren't fully telling the story though a sub-set does (stats in roles similar to how Ewing plans to use him). And, it's true that unless you have access to Shot Tracker or something like that, it's hard to know that.

But, it's important to remember Occum's razor. Sometimes, the most simple conclusion is the best one. To EtomicB's point, if the guy is shooting 35% career, or below, it's very unlikely that no matter what situation is in, his shooting will be significantly better. It could certainly improve with different usage and being in a different system, and I hope it does.

I think one of the disconnects is that those of us who take a more stat-based approach tend to use those stats as a way of evaluating possible or probable outcomings. But, none of us are saying that past stats are perfect predictor of future results. But, they are definitely a guide, and when they are based on a big sample size (like 4 years of playing, versus say 1 year as a freshman), their predictive value is stronger.

This isn't 3D chess. Ewing doesn't have some magic sauce where he takes guys who struggled and then suddenly improved them because he used them differently. Statistically, most of the guys we have recruited as transfers have largely been consistent with their past stats, or in some cases, worse. Of course, improvements are possible and do happen, as well. But, most of the time, a guy who has played 4 years of college basketball isn't going to be significantly different in his 5th year.

I'm generally in the pro stats camp.  I think this board suffers a bit from spewing out O-rating and ignoring usage rate and context.  That's not exactly what's being done here, but it's getting pretty close.

The most obvious type of change you'd expect Kaiden Rice to go through...is VERY similar to Don Carey's last year:

Siena sophomore year
38% on 4.8 attempts per game
O-rating of 99.3 on Usage of 20.6

Georgetown junior year
44% on 3.4 attempts per game
O-rating of 109 on Usage of 14.9

Basically everything you'd expect with jump up in competition but to a lower role.  Attempts down, usage down, percentage up, presumably with the quality of shot going up w Carey getting more corner catch and shoot 3s and not having to force as much offense.

Now this doesn't mean Kaiden Rice is going to have the exact same trajectory, but you simply can't ignore the most obvious comp that literally happened last year.

To your Occam's Razor point, without getting any detailed stats that shows what he does on catch and shoot 3s vs. off dribble 3s, I don't know how you can say what is more likely to happen if the mix of shots changes. If he's taking the same quality of shot at Gtown, yes I 100% agree there is no reason to think he does any better here and would most likely do worse against better defense. 

Just based off the highlight video that shows his makes, I can only imagine the misses were of similarly difficult quality.

In his highlights he's shooting turnaround 3pters. He had the green light to shoot any time, any shot at the Citadel.

[s4hoyas]

His value is that he can make long range shots/3s, and that THREAT forces the defense/defender to honor that threat by covering him well away from the basket,
which in turn opens up the driving lanes for others...in that sense he is effective whether he shoots or not...if he is somewhat more selective as to when he shoots, his percentage will likely go up...

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2021 12:39:19 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 21, 2021 9:41:14 GMT -5 rockhoya said:

That is not what he/she is saying. Stats are level one thinking, there are several levels beyond that. You have to interpret the stats.

Yes and no. Yaboy said, "The only thing that matters to me as a coach is what he shot in the situations I plan on using him in and raw stats don't tell you that." Really, what this boils down to is saying that his overall stats aren't telling the whole story because Ewing plans to use him differently. At a very detailed level, this is saying in part that his overall stats aren't fully telling the story though a sub-set does (stats in roles similar to how Ewing plans to use him). And, it's true that unless you have access to Shot Tracker or something like that, it's hard to know that.

But, it's important to remember Occum's razor. Sometimes, the most simple conclusion is the best one. To EtomicB's point, if the guy is shooting 35% career, or below, it's very unlikely that no matter what situation is in, his shooting will be significantly better. It could certainly improve with different usage and being in a different system, and I hope it does.

I think one of the disconnects is that those of us who take a more stat-based approach tend to use those stats as a way of evaluating possible or probable outcomings. But, none of us are saying that past stats are perfect predictor of future results. But, they are definitely a guide, and when they are based on a big sample size (like 4 years of playing, versus say 1 year as a freshman), their predictive value is stronger.

This isn't 3D chess. Ewing doesn't have some magic sauce where he takes guys who struggled and then suddenly improved them because he used them differently. Statistically, most of the guys we have recruited as transfers have largely been consistent with their past stats, or in some cases, worse. Of course, improvements are possible and do happen, as well. But, most of the time, a guy who has played 4 years of college basketball isn't going to be significantly different in his 5th year.

Basically what rhw485 said is my point, but his shots should be different because his role will be different. Primary vs complimentary player. I think you made the same point when you explained why you thought Starks' averages dropped nearly 10% from Junior to Senior year.

Apr 19, 2021 18:41:32 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Yes. A few things:

- No Otto.
- Higher usage.
- More the focal point of the defenses.
- The 2014 team wasn't nearly as good as the 2013 team, so he probably didn't get as many good looks (which is related/similar to the "No Otto" point).

[hoyasaxa2003]

Apr 21, 2021 15:45:05 GMT -5 @yaboynyp said:

Basically what rhw485 said is my point, but his shots should be different because his role will be different. Primary vs complimentary player. I think you made the same point when you explained why you thought Starks' averages dropped nearly 10% from Junior to Senior year.

Yes, I definitely agree on this. Citadel's pacing and style of play is so extreme that I think Rice's efficiency and shooting percentages could definitely go up, especially since he was a major option AND he took a huge number of shots. If Rice was from a system/team that was like ours, it would be much less likely. But, Rice is not going to be taking 250 threes for us next year, regardless of what percentage he shoots.

[DanMcQ]