Player Performances So Far

I tweaked my formula so that missed FGs don't hurt as much...which helps Carlino because he has decided to once again to be a chuckster. He's a great passer. Imagine how many APG he could have if he could turn some of those missed FGs into assists?


BYU PER 2013-11-16.PNG

I'm not sure if you should lesson the missed FG penalty, a missed FG is essentially a turnover unless BYU gets the rebound.

Why does everyone feel the need to prop up Carlino. He is streaky, and selfish at times. That results in poor shot selection and shooting out of rhythm - and can be contagious.



I have no issue with him trying to make a play when the team needs him to make a play. Rushing deep outside shots early in the shot clock when patience has shown that someone will usually get open for a better shot - maybe even himself, is a different story.



Maybe big leads and weak opponents contribute to him losing focus like that. Maybe trying to be the guy with Haws out was a factor. he needs to realize, he already is the guy. He is the guy that needs to figure out how to get as many as or more assists than Kyle Collinsworth every single game. Perhaps ISU will bring out the best in Matt. He played very well vs Stanford, iirc.

On Carlino, I like he is aggression going to the basket. Even if he gets a little out of control he finishes several plays and puts a lot of pressure on the D.



It would be better if he could see how the defense is going to react and setup other players more but we need his scoring.



If he has a his feet set I am okay with the deep 3's. I don't like him shooting jumpers off the dribble normally.

In my previous posts some people claimed Carlino was ranked too low so I tweaked the formula. They said he was pushing the tempo and didn't mind the missed shots. Now others are saying he should indeed be penalized for missed shots. Easy enough to fix. I've been tracking it with 3 formulas: #1 minus 1 per missed FG/FT; #2 no penalty for missed FG/FT; #3 minus 0.75 per missed FG/FT. I typically use #1, but for this post I used #3.



I think Carlino goes by the slogan: Every shot you don't take is a missed shot.

byufan4ever wrote:
In my previous posts some people claimed Carlino was ranked too low so I tweaked the formula. They said he was pushing the tempo and didn't mind the missed shots. Now others are saying he should indeed be penalized for missed shots. Easy enough to fix. I've been tracking it with 3 formulas: #1 minus 1 per missed FG/FT; #2 no penalty for missed FG/FT; #3 minus 0.75 per missed FG/FT. I typically use #1, but for this post I used #3.



I think Carlino goes by the slogan: Every shot you don't take is a missed shot.

I prefer formula 1. There is an argument to be made about the tempo, but a missed shot hurts the team and I think a too quick missed shot hurts more.

I like Carlino's aggressiveness. I think he gets some unfair criticism. Are there areas for improvement, certainly as with every player. But, I wouldn't trade him for any BYU PG of the past that isn't named Jimmer - though I do think Carlino is a better PG than Jimmer.



Hard to get on the teams' 2nd leading scorer, 2nd leader in assists, and someone averaging more rebounds per game than Mika (think about that for a second).



He does seem to force things at times. I have a few theories as to why:

1 - This team shoots horribly from the arc (Carlino included). So rather than kick it out to the open shooter, Carlino figures he'll try for the shot as there's a better chance he makes it than the open shooter.

2 - He's trying to draw the foul.

3 - Game plan this year seems to be take it hard to the rim. It's not only Carlino driving to the lane with reckless abandonment - KC, Bartley, Winder, Halford, etc. are all guilty of it too. Carlino just has the ball in his hands more often than the others.

4 - Carlino is a selfish teammate. Course, the fact he's averaging 5+ assists per night and is one of BYU's leaders in assists would indicate otherwise. The great Jimmer averaged fewer assists/game than Carlino



If Carlino took just half as many shots from the arc as he does, his shooting percentage would be on par with Jimmer's shooting percentage. Considering Carlino rebounds better and distributes the ball better than Jimmer ever did, plus plays better defense, I think Carlino's stats are actually pretty impressive. Just cut out the number of 3s...

I like Carlino's aggressiveness also, I think he does get some unfair criticism but I also think he gets unfairly defended against legitimate criticism sometimes.



I can't think of any other PG from the past 15 years that I'd trade him for, except obviously Jimmer. But I still think that Jimmer had a way of making his teammates better that Carlino has yet to truly develop.

Gunk. As you stated? Cut the three in half and Carlino is fine. I add this. True as long as he cuts the right half out - like the one Saturday, where he signaled something to a back court teaate as he brought the ball down, dishex off early to that teammate, then ran deep inside and curled back out to the top of the key, took a pass, and immediately did a 180, jumped and fired early in the shot clock when that play was not needed. And, Carlino does not have the super long 3 Jimmer range. Cut those out, too.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

hawkwing wrote:
I like Carlino's aggressiveness also, I think he does get some unfair criticism but I also think he gets unfairly defended against legitimate criticism sometimes.



I can't think of any other PG from the past 15 years that I'd trade him for, except obviously Jimmer. But I still think that Jimmer had a way of making his teammates better that Carlino has yet to truly develop.

This.

Cougarbib wrote:
Why does everyone feel the need to prop up Carlino. He is streaky, and selfish at times. That results in poor shot selection and shooting out of rhythm - and can be contagious.



I have no issue with him trying to make a play when the team needs him to make a play. Rushing deep outside shots early in the shot clock when patience has shown that someone will usually get open for a better shot - maybe even himself, is a different story.



Maybe big leads and weak opponents contribute to him losing focus like that. Maybe trying to be the guy with Haws out was a factor. he needs to realize, he already is the guy. He is the guy that needs to figure out how to get as many as or more assists than Kyle Collinsworth every single game. Perhaps ISU will bring out the best in Matt. He played very well vs Stanford, iirc.

And this.



He killed it vs Baylor in his coming out party then crashed it a bunch of times after. He can be all or nothing. But was better vs Mesa at the rim when his outside shot wasn't working. He should have just stopped 3s. Didnt need them and missed them with tired legs anyway. It's a bad night when the only Three of 21 was from one of the worst shooters on the team.

Gunk is right though about best PG not named Jimmer. I don't mind some of his reckless shots at the rim. It's the long, quick, contested, pull up jumpers that suck. He still can be a little selfish, it has an effect on this team. I saw a little less selfishness, extra passes, vs Mesa and that is good. But this team is going to need post scoring, and if they haven't fed the man-child, he will not be as effective when needed.

You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

So where did you get lost. Sounds like you agree that he had a decent game vs Stanford. And if he played like that every game, we will not lose many. Problem is that he does not. If he just gets sloppy with big leads or vs weak teams, we may survive most of those lapses.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Carlino's aggression is his greatest asset. Last season it sometimes appeared to be a glaring weakness because we needed him to be perfect to beat good teams since he was it after BD and TH. This year, with the depth we seem to have, Carlino's mistakes as a result of his aggression will be far less apparent.



Count me worried though about the 3 ball. I really hope last game was a fluke, but to shoot that way at home makes me think we'll blow a game or two this year that we shouldn't.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

Carlino had only a decent game against Stanford because of his 7 TOs. He had a lot of positives in that game, but 7 TOs hurts.



I love how people are willing to overlook all flaws in a player if he can do one thing: score. I like Carlino, but his stats show that he his a high volume low percentage shooter. Generally, he's a great passer with lots of assists, but against Stanford he had 3 assits to 7 turnovers. Is that what you want your PG doing every game?

byufan4ever wrote:

You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

Carlino had only a decent game against Stanford because of his 7 TOs. He had a lot of positives in that game, but 7 TOs hurts.



I love how people are willing to overlook all flaws in a player if he can do one thing: score. I like Carlino, but his stats show that he his a high volume low percentage shooter. Generally, he's a great passer with lots of assists, but against Stanford he had 3 assits to 7 turnovers. Is that what you want your PG doing every game?

The fact is it takes talent to score and/or create shots for role players.



The ability to get into the paint or create a shot is valuable.



Sometimes the best you can get is a volume shooter. They often make good college players. Great scorers are able to combine volume with efficiency.



Right now we have one great offensive player in Haws and a pair of very good players in KC and Carlino.



7 TO's against Stanford isn't great but okay given 26 point, 5 rebounds and 3 assists on 50% shooting.



If we had a better guard than Carlino, he would be starting. We don't so just ride the rollercoaster.

Haws is a great scorer but not much of a creator.

Qman wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

Carlino had only a decent game against Stanford because of his 7 TOs. He had a lot of positives in that game, but 7 TOs hurts.



I love how people are willing to overlook all flaws in a player if he can do one thing: score. I like Carlino, but his stats show that he his a high volume low percentage shooter. Generally, he's a great passer with lots of assists, but against Stanford he had 3 assits to 7 turnovers. Is that what you want your PG doing every game?

The fact is it takes talent to score and/or create shots for role players.



The ability to get into the paint or create a shot is valuable.



Sometimes the best you can get is a volume shooter. They often make good college players. Great scorers are able to combine volume with efficiency.



Right now we have one great offensive player in Haws and a pair of very good players in KC and Carlino.



7 TO's against Stanford isn't great but okay given 26 point, 5 rebounds and 3 assists on 50% shooting.



If we had a better guard than Carlino, he would be starting. We don't so just ride the rollercoaster.

Haws is a great scorer but not much of a creator.

And thus - I posted that "Carlino played very well Vs Stanford". Perhaps someone else, if anyone at all, said "decent". And then B is B posts that he got lost at "decent". Then a bunch of posts - long ones. Net. Carlino had a good game vs Stanford, and WSU iirc. He played poorly to mediocre in the next two games. Yes. He is our best PG. But, as is typical for BYU, we have a PG who is nit likely to play PG as a starter in the NBA. We do not get many of those at BYU.



Carlino needs to accept and commit to his role. The team will be better if he shoots a lot less 3s.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib wrote:



And thus - I posted that "Carlino played well Vs Stanford". Perhaps someone else, if anyone at all, said "decent". And then B is B posts that he got lost at "decent". Then a bunch of posts - long ones. Net. Carlino had a good game vs Stanford, and WSU iirc. He played poorly to mediocre in the next two games. Yes. He is our best PG. But, as is typical for BYU, we have a PG who is nit likely to play PG as a starter in the NBA. We do not get many of those at BYU.



Carlino needs to accept and commit to his role. The team will be better if he shoots a lot less 3s.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So in the end we agree- we all wish Carlino would cut out 2 or 3 bone-headed plays a game. But his talent and aggression are good things. He just leaves us wanting more.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

BTW. If this post is in response to my post, it really ticks me off when someone misquotes or inaccurately paraphrases me. You might want to pay closer attention to what people actually say before you let your emotions get the BETTER of you. See what I did.



I did not say Carlino "had a decent game vs Stanford". I actuallt said, "Carlino Played Very Well vs Stanford".



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib wrote:

You lost me at "Carlino had a decent game against Stanford."



Without Carlino we don't win that game. Haws was nowhere to be found the first half, and Carlino scored more points halfway into the period (when the refs fouled him out of playing time) than Stanford. If the refs back off then he I have no doubt in my mind he puts up 40 that night. He was certainly on pace to do so.



Carlino is great, bordering on fantastic. He is the motor that makes the offense go. Some of the turnovers that he has currently is because he doesn't have a sure handed Davies running downcourt receiving some of the lob passes (which I am a fan of). Sometimes the statisticians blame the passer of the ball, rather than the receiver of the ball, when it should be the other way around.



Carlino is a special player, and will be key for us to win games and make a deep run this year and next.

BTW. If this post is in response to my post, it really ticks me off when someone misquotes or inaccurately paraphrases me. You might want to pay closer attention to what people actually say before you let your emotions get the BETTER of you. See what I did.



I did not say Carlino "had a decent game vs Stanford". I actuallt said, "Carlino Played Very Well vs Stanford".



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Perhaps you should take better care to quote people in the future yourself. You do after all have a habit of saying people said this or that on only the vaguest recollection.