2018 Annual JazzFanz Current Players NBA Draft

[Coach Ellis]

in this kind of competition, it might make sense to draft a player with a single elite skill, versus one who is overall balanced skill set. Having an elite defender on the bench may be situationally useful in a 7 game series with concentrated talent. So I kinda like this pick, homerism aside

Also, this is a draft where projection is critical. O’Neale will be a solid rotation guy moving forward, and the Jazz have the best player developmental staff in the league.

With his NBA body and elite defense, he’s a consistent jump shot away from being a star 6th man for the Jazz. I think he’ll get the same shot that (two other players who have not been drafted yet) got as the first wing off the bench - I expect that he’ll make more of the opportunity than they did.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

I’ve seen too many analytical stats that favor the wrong players, that I don’t trust them at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it was Rgiss, I don’t recall, but someone made an argument that the jazz should sign Okafor, after some backlash the poster put up his defensive analytical numbers and compared them to Gobert, and the numbers favored Okafor. Think it was a few days to a week ago. That’s an example of the numbers leading you off a cliff. Give a damn reason why you like a guy not ****ing numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elizah Huge]

What do you expect from a bunch of die-hard Jazz fans who not only love the team and watch them every night but like to talk about them in forums in their spare time?

At this point 8 Jazz players have been drafted in the top-100. It’s bound to happen. Are they the best picks at the spot they are taken? Half and half.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

What do you expect from a bunch of die-hard Jazz fans who not only love the team and watch them every night but like to talk about them in forums in their spare time?

At this point 8 Jazz players have been drafted in the top-100. It’s bound to happen. Are they the best picks at the spot they are taken? Half and half.

OMG!! Hadn’t realized that many from the jazz had been picked. I can only think of five that have been picked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elizah Huge]

OMG!! Hadn’t realized that many from the jazz had been picked. I can only think of five that have been picked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More than any other team by far even the Warriors have only had 5 players drafted.

 

[gandalfe]

More than any other team by far even the Warriors have only had 5 players drafted.

Is it really a surprise, tho?

 

[Coach Ellis]

More than any other team by far even the Warriors have only had 5 players drafted.

Warriors have 6.

Durant, Curry, Thompson, Green, Cousins and Iggy.

Jazz were the deepest team in the league last year, stayed intact in the offseason AND every player drafted is 27 years old or younger.

Mitchell, Gobert, Favors, Jingles, Rubio, Crowder, Exum and O’Neale. . .

Depending on how you project O’Neale and Exum, that doesn’t feel that far off tbh. It also helps that some of us have to wait 20+ picks before we get another selection, so there’s more justification on reaching at this point.

 

[gandalfe]

Warriors have 6.

Durant, Curry, Thompson, Green, Cousins and Iggy.

Jazz were the deepest team in the league last year, stayed intact in the offseason AND every player drafted is 27 years old or younger.

Mitchell, Gobert, Favors, Jingles, Rubio, Crowder, Exum and O’Neale. . .

Depending on how you project O’Neale and Exum, that doesn’t feel that far off tbh. It also helps that some of us have to wait 20+ picks before we get another selection, so there’s more justification on reaching at this point.

I took 3 of them. Gobert was maybe a tiny bit high, maybe 3 or 4 spots, but not that much of a stretch, if any. Crowder, I felt I just needed a banger/glue guy. And Exum is poised to finally realize his potential.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Maybe it was Rgiss, I don’t recall, but someone made an argument that the jazz should sign Okafor, after some backlash the poster put up his defensive analytical numbers and compared them to Gobert, and the numbers favored Okafor. Think it was a few days to a week ago. That’s an example of the numbers leading you off a cliff. Give a damn reason why you like a guy not ****ing numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was me and you completely misunderstood the discussion.

No one claimed he was better than Gobert, no one said he should start, no one showed stats that said he was a better defender than Gobert. I only said he could be worth the risk on a minimum contact and see what the development staff could do with him as an end of the bench guy.

Someone said he was a ball stopper and a black hole and I showed that he passed the ball more than our bigs.

So that's a terrible example and wrong.

Numbers are great and take out your bias. They are not everything, but helpful.

And at the end of the day stats are more accurate than whatever personal feelings you have.

The real problem is you misunderstand most of the discussions about them.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

@Rubashov is OTC

 

[Elizah Huge]

Warriors have 6.

Durant, Curry, Thompson, Green, Cousins and Iggy.

Jazz were the deepest team in the league last year, stayed intact in the offseason AND every player drafted is 27 years old or younger.

Mitchell, Gobert, Favors, Jingles, Rubio, Crowder, Exum and O’Neale. . .

Depending on how you project O’Neale and Exum, that doesn’t feel that far off tbh. It also helps that some of us have to wait 20+ picks before we get another selection, so there’s more justification on reaching at this point.

Ha! I forgot about Cousins.

 

[silesian]

I’ve seen too many analytical stats that favor the wrong players, that I don’t trust them at all.

unfortunately, a categorical dismissal for that sort of reason is misguided. No analyst worth their salt looks at one stat to reach a conclusion about one player versus another. That is called "turning off your brain." You can't even say "player X has more PPG, therefore he is a better scorer." Because context matters.

Instead, good analysts view stats in context -- in combination with other stats, testing hypotheses with empirical facts, and watching basketball. If you see a guy who seems to do little things right that helps the team win, but do not show up on standard box score, check out RPM and other plus/minus. Do they support your hypothesis? If so your hypothesis is strengthened. If not, are there other ways the guy is hurting your team that offset the positive things he is doing? People look at Gobert and see a game changing defender. DRPM backs this up. People looked at Hayward and believed that he was a solid defender and DRPM said he was consistently mediocre. Do you conclude he is mediocre and stop thinking? Of course not. This is where analysis STARTS, not ENDS. So you ask why? You watch games more closely. Are things he is doing on defense shutting down his cover but are his rotations inferior? Does he miss boxouts and does this lead to easy baskets that hurt his team? Are you biased in a way that affects your point of view? Or is the statistic misleading for certain types of players? Why might that be? Think, test, rethink, retest. it's a cool process.

By thinking and viewing a set of statistics and observations, you build insight. Give it a shot!