What's new
By:
Filters

Collin Sexton SZN

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.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've thought about this as well. Keyonte's defense would have to get unfathomably better than it is right now to be able to pair him with Sexton successfully.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The other thing is if you did acquire someone that fit with Sexton as a backcourt mate... its likely they fit with Key as they have some of the same issues on defense.
 
I’m sorry but Keyonte has a LONG way to go before even being discussed like he is. He’s inefficient and he’s not a good defender at all.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think he actually could be a main piece for a star trade if one came available.
 
Elizah Huge said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
infection said:
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.
Click to expand...
This

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
infection said:
The idea that as minutes and touches go up, efficiency and performance decline. Yes.
Click to expand...

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:

NBA stats show that, for all players, as the player uses more possessions, his efficiency decreases.
Click to expand...

Find more here:

NBA STATS | Usage Rate in Basketball Explained

Usage rate aka usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.
www.nbastuffer.com www.nbastuffer.com
 
Tremendous Upside said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.

I just posted a huge response and it refreshed and the above is the only thing saved, so I’m not going to repost it but the bottom line is thinking jumping usage a few points is going to be the difference between efficiency and an inefficient chucker is pretty silly (I know you and others haven’t said that specifically but it’d have to at least partially be the argument for that to be a concern). Go ahead and run the numbers with liberal estimates on how much his efficiency would have to tank in that additional usage (or minutes, speaking to the larger argument) to be able to have a sizable impact. Diminishing returns, sure, but how much? Go ahead and run those numbers and you’ll see that the weighting of it all will make it largely irrelevant.
 
infection said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the Millsap Doctrine?
 
People think Keyonte's value is really high? I'd be surprised if he's valued at an unprotected 1st round pick to other GMs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top