Like if you were really trying to build around Sexton and make moves based off that, you would deal Keyonte if there was a team out there who really wanted him above the value you paid for him.
Like if you were really trying to build around Sexton and make moves based off that, you would deal Keyonte if there was a team out there who really wanted him above the value you paid for him.
Building around Sexton doesn't mean getting rid of everything that doesn't fit per se. Key and any other player we draft are all on a wait and see type of program.Like if you were really trying to build around Sexton and make moves based off that, you would deal Keyonte if there was a team out there who really wanted him above the value you paid for him.
That’s literally what I said though. That type of player is few and far between. If Garland became available sure, who else? Trae? The list is pretty short.I mean not really. There's a difference between making moves through the lens of "Does this maximize or fit with Sexton" and just making good moves.
If the Jazz can get a 6'3 PG who is more traditional (shoots off the dribble, can be a top PNR player, etc) and he's of similiar quality to Sexton (ie, Darius Garland type) then yeah, you move on from Sexton. I would assume the Jazz hope Keyonte is that as they have prioritized fast-tracking his development with minutes.
Sure, I get that, but Keyonte's value is going to be high now and have the potential for drop off if he doesnt follow through on the promising start to his career. If the goal was 100% build around Sexton, you would look to capitalize off that value when it will be tough to keep that value given you're now focused around Sexton's development.Building around Sexton doesn't mean getting rid of everything that doesn't fit per se. Key and any other player we draft are all on a wait and see type of program.
I think he actually could be a main piece for a star trade if one came available.Sure, I get that, but Keyonte's value is going to be high now and have the potential for drop off if he doesnt follow through on the promising start to his career. If the goal was 100% build around Sexton, you would look to capitalize off that value when it will be tough to keep that value given you're now focused around Sexton's development.
It's really not that short.That’s literally what I said though. That type of player is few and far between. If Garland became available sure, who else? Trae? The list is pretty short.
I don't think his value is super high. He can still play 20+ minutes a night and be fine while also increasing his value.Sure, I get that, but Keyonte's value is going to be high now and have the potential for drop off if he doesnt follow through on the promising start to his career. If the goal was 100% build around Sexton, you would look to capitalize off that value when it will be tough to keep that value given you're now focused around Sexton's development.
I mean, of course that is what's going to happen because the plan is not to build around Sexton.I don't think his value is super high. He can still play 20+ minutes a night and be fine while also increasing his value.
Yeah… that’s pretty obvious.It's really not that short.
The point is if you're building around Sexton you're no longer looking to add any other smallish guard.
Keyonte does not have to be moved to build around Sexton so yeah this comment doesn’t make sense.I mean, of course that is what's going to happen because the plan is not to build around Sexton.
ThisI always like these arguments where we take something that’s true and apply it in a context that stretches the concept completely beyond recognition. It’s like saying that it’s true that water puts out fire, therefore keep a loaded squirt gun in your house to fight a house fire. The idea that as minutes and touches go up, efficiency and performance decline. Yes. Does it completely fall off a cliff? Sexton has a 55.3% eFG% this year in 24.2 mpg. If he were to see, say, 30 mpg (a 24% increase in minutes), what do you think his eFG% would drop to in those additional 6 minutes? 52%? 50%? 40%? 5%? Even give that a generous drop off and then weight that for the minutes played and come back and tell me what his overall eFG% still is. I’ll wait if anyone is willing to actually run those numbers. If you won’t actually run those estimates to get a scale on off-repeated truisms like “efficiency drops with minutes and attempts,” then don’t make the lazy argument or you look like a guy putting out fires with squirt guns — technically true but completely meaningless.
But, better yet, even though he’s 55.3% eFG% in 24.2 mpg this year, as a starter he’s got an eFG% of 58.5% this year in 27.8 mpg.
This is also a variant of “the plan is always right” theory, where a guy who gets little burn at some point in time but explodes later, is told that since they’re now exploding, it’s because the developmental approach to bring along slowly worked. But if they don’t get burn and don’t get an opportunity, you say, “of course, they never amounted to anything and that’s why they never got time, and it was justified.” This variant is “person X is doing this well because they’re NOT getting more time and we should stick with the plan because the plan is why we’re seeing the good results.”
It’s an endless loop that justifies conservative approach in every scenario. Player playing well in limited minutes? It’s because the minutes are limited. Coach would play them if it were real. Player playing bad in limited minutes? Of course, that’s why they’re not getting minutes. Coach isn’t playing them because they don’t play good.
The idea that as minutes and touches go up, efficiency and performance decline. Yes.
NBA stats show that, for all players, as the player uses more possessions, his efficiency decreases.
It’s an idea that’s kicking around a lot on the board and not specifically your post. But, in any case, go through the same exercise. If you kicked his usage up a few percentage points, go ahead and give a liberal estimate of how much that drops off.No. Don't know where you pulled that from. We're talking about usage rate. You "use" a possession with a field goal attempt, a free throw attempt, or a turnover. A player may play all 48 minutes and have a **** ton of touches, but still maintain a very low usage. And:
I always like these arguments where we take something that’s true and apply it in a context that stretches the concept completely beyond recognition. It’s like saying that it’s true that water puts out fire, therefore keep a loaded squirt gun in your house to fight a house fire. The idea that as minutes and touches go up, efficiency and performance decline. Yes. Does it completely fall off a cliff? Sexton has a 55.3% eFG% this year in 24.2 mpg. If he were to see, say, 30 mpg (a 24% increase in minutes), what do you think his eFG% would drop to in those additional 6 minutes? 52%? 50%? 40%? 5%? Even give that a generous drop off and then weight that for the minutes played and come back and tell me what his overall eFG% still is. I’ll wait if anyone is willing to actually run those numbers. If you won’t actually run those estimates to get a scale on off-repeated truisms like “efficiency drops with minutes and attempts,” then don’t make the lazy argument or you look like a guy putting out fires with squirt guns — technically true but completely meaningless.
But, better yet, even though he’s 55.3% eFG% in 24.2 mpg this year, as a starter he’s got an eFG% of 58.5% this year in 27.8 mpg.
This is also a variant of “the plan is always right” theory, where a guy who gets little burn at some point in time but explodes later, is told that since they’re now exploding, it’s because the developmental approach to bring along slowly worked. But if they don’t get burn and don’t get an opportunity, you say, “of course, they never amounted to anything and that’s why they never got time, and it was justified.” This variant is “person X is doing this well because they’re NOT getting more time and we should stick with the plan because the plan is why we’re seeing the good results.”
It’s an endless loop that justifies conservative approach in every scenario. Player playing well in limited minutes? It’s because the minutes are limited. Coach would play them if it were real. Player playing bad in limited minutes? Of course, that’s why they’re not getting minutes. Coach isn’t playing them because they don’t play good.