What's new
By:

Aaron Gordon 4th on Jazz Big Board behind Wiggins, Parker, Exum

Here's the thing about Gordon and why I feel he's valuable at #5: he does everything but shoot well because he's gotten by on his athleticism vs. anything else. That won't happen at this level if you want to draw a paycheck.

If you draft Gordon, maybe he never develops much of an offensive game and is a 10-12 PPG guy. However, what you will have will be a potential perennial 1st All-NBA Defense player who will create havoc, grab boards, hustle, etc. which is something he already prides himself on and is the hardest thing to try and teach.

People seem to forget how unique AK was prior to his max contract. AK isn't a 25 PPG guy. However, if you take the pressure off of him to fill up the scoreboard, he will help your team win.

I think Gordon is the 2014 version of AK/Matrix; someone who can have a long career in the NBA doing all the little things well to help your team reach the next level. If he doesn't develop an offensive game, he's still a defensive stalwart. If he can develop a jumper, you suddenly have something a little more special and your true #1 guy.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
A huge jump for him would be 60%. Few ever make that kind of jump, and even Favors shoots better then that. As a wing, Gordon needs to make a mind blowing improvements that seem reserved for the greats like Malone. Love how people just brush this aside for Gordon and blast others for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bah, it is much easier to get from 42% to 65% than from 70% to 80%. Nobody is ever expecting Gordon to get to 85%, just to 70%. That is entirely doable and it sounds like he knows that it is important and is getting advice from the right people. The best thing that will happen for him is actually getting a defined role within an offense. At Arizona he filled in whatever was needed. He won't do that in the NBA. As for his midrange, I'm not sure we want him working on that part of his game just yet. Extend his three point shooting to the left hand part of the court, work on free throws, and developing one post up move would make him a huge success as a rookie and well worth a top 5 pick. Those are easier action items than: completely develop a three point shot, improve defensive intensity, and improve court vision. Other than Smart, I just cant see how picking anybody else at 5 is justified.
 
Avery said:
Here's the thing about Gordon and why I feel he's valuable at #5: he does everything but shoot well because he's gotten by on his athleticism vs. anything else. That won't happen at this level if you want to draw a paycheck.

If you draft Gordon, maybe he never develops much of an offensive game and is a 10-12 PPG guy. However, what you will have will be a potential perennial 1st All-NBA Defense player who will create havoc, grab boards, hustle, etc. which is something he already prides himself on and is the hardest thing to try and teach.

People seem to forget how unique AK was prior to his max contract. AK isn't a 25 PPG guy. However, if you take the pressure off of him to fill up the scoreboard, he will help your team win.

I think Gordon is the 2014 version of AK/Matrix; someone who can have a long career in the NBA doing all the little things well to help your team reach the next level. If he doesn't develop an offensive game, he's still a defensive stalwart. If he can develop a jumper, you suddenly have something a little more special and your true #1 guy.
Click to expand...

I agree although he'll never be a #1 go to option to get a score at the end of the game (I happen to think that is really overated... just run your flippin offense). AK was disruptive and when motivated was special. The frustration was he was sensitive, wanted to be a jump shooter, and I never got the impression he loved basketball. I liked AK... Imagine if AK was a world class a**-kicker. I think Gordon will be that.

Vonleh may be Bosh. I don't hate him. I wish he had a good coach and I wish he had shot twice as many jumpers so we had a decent sample size to project him. I'll be happy with either one.
 
How are you going to win if you have a guy shooting 42% from the line? Even 70% isn't good enough. His lack of shooting ability pretty much guarantees that he will be benched at the end of games.
 
I don't think you even need to get to 70% to be honest. Anything above like 55% is enough to punish the other team for fouling. It hurts more in the college game where they do the 1 and 1 stuff. With that being said at the end of games the higher miss chance could keep him off the floor, or from touching the ball much at the end of games.

The worry is that he ends up like Andris Biedrins and the misses make him avoid contact and he gets so messed up mentally you just cant play him.

Another player who improved his shot is Trevor Ariza shot 50% free throws and 24% from 3 in his 1 year at UCLA. Compared with Gordon of 42% free throws and 35% from 3.
I guess you could always look negative and find 100 players who never learned to shoot and never made it.
 
habibadobe said:
I don't think you even need to get to 70% to be honest. Anything above like 55% is enough to punish the other team for fouling. It hurts more in the college game where they do the 1 and 1 stuff. With that being said at the end of games the higher miss chance could keep him off the floor, or from touching the ball much at the end of games.

The worry is that he ends up like Andris Biedrins and the misses make him avoid contact and he gets so messed up mentally you just cant play him.

Another player who improved his shot is Trevor Ariza shot 50% free throws and 24% from 3 in his 1 year at UCLA. Compared with Gordon of 42% free throws and 35% from 3.
I guess you could always look negative and find 100 players who never learned to shoot and never made it.
Click to expand...

Finding a handful of players with double digit % increases and saying Gordon will do the same is fallacy. It is a fact, that most players don't have large bumps in shooting or FT percentages. Yes, outliers exist, but you don't use an outlier to make general assumptions. Based on averages, Gordon will not have a huge increase in FT/shooting %. Yes, it may happen, but if you draft him you do it because you think his other abilities outweight his shooting ineffectiveness. (And a poor shooting SF at#5 better have a lot of other great skills).

The top 10 teams in the league all shot 77% or better. We were ranked 22nd at 74.7. The Jazz, as a team, are at a disadvantage compared to most opponents. Giving minutes to players with even lower FT%s will only magnify the disadvantage at the FT line.
 
I think that order is probably fair.

Wiggins, Parker, Exum, Gordon, Vonleh.

I still have huge question marks around Exum, and I do believe Parker will do just fine at the next level. The gap across the top 4 is not as huge as some people make it out. Some posters here are already inferring that in 15 years Wiggins will be in the GOAT talk? Yeah... wishful thinking. He has a LONG ways to go, just like all others.

I'll be happy with any of those 5 players. Of them, Vonleh is the one I want the least. I'll stick with Favors and be happy.
 
JAZZGASM said:
Finding a handful of players with double digit % increases and saying Gordon will do the same is fallacy. It is a fact, that most players don't have large bumps in shooting or FT percentages. Yes, outliers exist, but you don't use an outlier to make general assumptions. Based on averages, Gordon will not have a huge increase in FT/shooting %. Yes, it may happen, but if you draft him you do it because you think his other abilities outweight his shooting ineffectiveness. (And a poor shooting SF at#5 better have a lot of other great skills).

The top 10 teams in the league all shot 77% or better. We were ranked 22nd at 74.7. The Jazz, as a team, are at a disadvantage compared to most opponents. Giving minutes to players with even lower FT%s will only magnify the disadvantage at the FT line.
Click to expand...

Can you prove the first paragraph please. Not being a jerk just wanted some research and couldn't find any. From what I can tell on the few players I looked up a ten percent increase is perfectly normal... 20-25 percent increase is the outlier based on the players I looked at.
 
Lol that 70% isn't good enough. Let's pass on everyone except stauskas.
 
I just can't justify drafting a "hustle" guy at #5 in the draft. If we pick him there we have to do so believing he'll be a two-way player eventually.

I really hope it's Exum at 5, but if we're going to go big I shade towards Vonleh over Randle or Gordon.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Can you prove the first paragraph please. Not being a jerk just wanted some research and couldn't find any. From what I can tell on the few players I looked up a ten percent increase is perfectly normal... 20-25 percent increase is the outlier based on the players I looked at.
Click to expand...

There are definitely studies. This is the most recent one I have read on 3-point FG% changes
https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news...ions-can-players-truly-improve-their-shooting

Edit: Also, when you are comparing, make sure they took a similar # of FTs in each year to get a fair comparison.

I can think of a handful of players that have improved over 10%. Webber, Baron Davis, Dale Davis. It is rare.

Here is an article that explains a bit more:
https://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1611
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top