Following potential 2015 draftees

[RandyForRubio]

and those best post defenders were what 19 years old? Just because Kaminsky did well in college against players that had a huge age difference doesn't mean he's going to translate in the NBA. We've seen players that were great college players and then not work out in the NBA.

The better defender, Trill, is 4 months younger than Kaminsky. Care to try again?

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't think u can judge McDermott's first year really. Injury really set him back

Not only that-- Thibs is weird with some of his younger players. Doesn't play Snell-- but plays Jimmy 40mpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 848]

I just want Frank Cuz it would be awesome to have him on the Jazz. I'd probably even grab his jersey.

Also, Frank/Gobert lineups would be freaking awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doublea]

The better defender, Trill, is 4 months younger than Kaminsky. Care to try again?

I would be pretty afraid of taking WCS too because of his age.

 

[Carbon13]

I'd say there are at least a dozen people on this board who understand the game better than Locke. There are guys who haven't been around for a while like Kenwood and Billy Shelby that understand things with the CBA that Locke is clueless about. Just wait until the next article he writes on the offseason, where he exposes himself pretty badly. Like I said, Locke understands numbers and how certain patterns might affect things, but his overall knowledge of the game is limited. Of course, you have to have a good understanding of the game yourself to be able to pick up on that, so I understand why some people disagree.
.
I do find it pretty humorous that Locke admits he hates the college game and doesn't watch it, and yet some people still believe he's the authority on all things b-ball. Looking at data can help you assess players, but I don't know how anyone can put too much faith in someone who doesn't watch the players.

Im sure there are other knowledgeable people. Maybe i havent noticed them. To that i apologize. Thanks for the veiled insult about my basketball knowledge. Lol

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Anyways, whats the consensus around here on the black John Turturro - Cameron Payne??

I think he's a better prospect than Trey, for sure his feel for the game is superior. his shooting mechanics are the closest you will find to Steph's in this draft, super quick release. I got a chance to see his last few full games because I follow this type of ****, and was very impressed with the way he interprets the defense, definite starter potential IMO, I'd take him over Tyus Jones or Jerian Grant.

I like him just just can't have another pg project right now. I like him more than grant and jones... But I really don't like those guys.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I'd say there are at least a dozen people on this board who understand the game better than Locke. There are guys who haven't been around for a while like Kenwood and Billy Shelby that understand things with the CBA that Locke is clueless about. Just wait until the next article he writes on the offseason, where he exposes himself pretty badly. Like I said, Locke understands numbers and how certain patterns might affect things, but his overall knowledge of the game is limited. Of course, you have to have a good understanding of the game yourself to be able to pick up on that, so I understand why some people disagree.
.
I do find it pretty humorous that Locke admits he hates the college game and doesn't watch it, and yet some people still believe he's the authority on all things b-ball. Looking at data can help you assess players, but I don't know how anyone can put too much faith in someone who doesn't watch the players.

I like Locke, but I've seen him shoot a jump shot. Guy has not played much basketball in his life. He's passionate and he's gotten some calls right. His reasons for not liking frank smack of following one rule and ignoring all other data and that's why I think its short sighted. Analytics models that account for age all like Frank.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I like Locke, but I've seen him shoot a jump shot. Guy has not played much basketball in his life. He's passionate and he's gotten some calls right. His reasons for not liking frank smack of following one rule and ignoring all other data and that's why I think its short sighted. Analytics models that account for age all like Frank.

Started one thought and digressed a bit... I don't know if you can have a complete understanding of basketball unless you've played a bit.

 

[stitches]

Started one thought and digressed a bit... I don't know if you can have a complete understanding of basketball unless you've played a bit.

I think you can. There's nothing that prevents the dorks of the world to understand and reason about a game. It might help having played, but I don't think it disqualifies you if you haven't. In general I hate arguments from authority, there's no single authority in basketball who will get absolutely everything right and every argument should be judged on its own merits.

The argument Locke makes in that podcast(that Kaminsky is the risky pick) is incredibly weak. He makes several huge leaps and distorts logic to reach that conclusion. Even to begin with - you need to know what one means when they say "risky" pick. To me risky pick in the context of the draft is one that entails a huge discrepancy between floor and ceiling, where the prospect is much closer to his floor right now and there is high chance of him not getting close to his ceiling. It also involves expectations. If you draft Frank expecting him to be a super-star that's a high risk pick, simply because the chance of that happening is close to 0. If you draft him expecting to be a great rotational player - then I don't think that's much of a risk at all. For me Frank is one of the lowest risk pick, simply because when you draft him you know what you are getting for the most part and you don't really expect him to ever become a star in the league(at least I don't).

At the same time - the question still stands - do we draft a most likely long-term backup player in the lottery? And is that a good strategy for drafting in the lottery in the situation we are in right now? I can see both sides, but if we get the chance to choose between Turner and Kaminsky, I know I wouldn't be choosing Kaminsky, simply because I can see Turner pushing Favors and Gobert down the road, while I can't really see Kaminsky doing it(I think if we draft him he's going to be our long-term 3d-4th big).

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Im sure there are other knowledgeable people. Maybe i havent noticed them. To that i apologize. Thanks for the veiled insult about my basketball knowledge. Lol

That really wasn't the intent of my post, but kind of hard to make that point otherwise. I'm really not trying to bag on Locke so much as saying that there are some people on this board that are really sharp, and IMO, more knowledgeable about the game.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Im sure there are other knowledgeable people. Maybe i havent noticed them. To that i apologize. Thanks for the veiled insult about my basketball knowledge. Lol

And how would you know one when you saw one? Locke kept insisting Rudy wasn't ready early in the year. "Leave Rudy alone" he said, and let Kanter keep starting despite the horrific front court +/- numbers last year and this year. Whoops! He'll never question the coaching or GM aspects of this team too hard, because he is paid by them, for that reason his interests are not always honest and truthful.

 

[stitches]

And how would you know one when you saw one? Locke kept insisting Rudy wasn't ready early in the year. "Leave Rudy alone" he said, and let Kanter keep starting despite the horrific front court +/- numbers last year and this year. Whoops! He'll never question the coaching or GM aspects of this team too hard, because he is paid by them, for that reason his interests are not always honest and truthful.

I honestly don't think he's doing it because he's getting paid by them, or at the very least it is at the very end of the list of reasons. I think he's doing it mainly because he has some reverence towards them and doesn't want to question their decisions. He's falling victim to what I mentioned above - arguments from authority - well, if Quin is doing it, then it must be right because... he's Quin and I am not. Also, you have to remember he's working with those people, so there is probably not much incentive for him to be confrontational with them. He sees what they are doing and builds a narrative around it to justify the decisions.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think you can. There's nothing that prevents the dorks of the world to understand and reason about a game. It might help having played, but I don't think it disqualifies you if you haven't. In general I hate arguments from authority, there's no single authority in basketball who will get absolutely everything right and every argument should be judged on its own merits.

The argument Locke makes in that podcast(that Kaminsky is the risky pick) is incredibly weak. He makes several huge leaps and distorts logic to reach that conclusion. Even to begin with - you need to know what one means when they say "risky" pick. To me risky pick in the context of the draft is one that entails a huge discrepancy between floor and ceiling, where the prospect is much closer to his floor right now and there is high chance of him not getting close to his ceiling. It also involves expectations. If you draft Frank expecting him to be a super-star that's a high risk pick, simply because the chance of that happening is close to 0. If you draft him expecting to be a great rotational player - then I don't think that's much of a risk at all. For me Frank is one of the lowest risk pick, simply because when you draft him you know what you are getting for the most part and you don't really expect him to ever become a star in the league(at least I don't).

At the same time - the question still stands - do we draft a most likely long-term backup player in the lottery? And is that a good strategy for drafting in the lottery in the situation we are in right now? I can see both sides, but if we get the chance to choose between Turner and Kaminsky, I know I wouldn't be choosing Kaminsky, simply because I can see Turner pushing Favors and Gobert down the road, while I can't really see Kaminsky doing it(I think if we draft him he's going to be our long-term 3d-4th big).

Don't think you have to play at a high level but I do think playing helps you really understand some things. I do think ex NBA players can make some of the worst coaches and GMs. It is really hard to score consistently with big guys in the middle waiting for you... If you've never experienced it even at a much lower level it might be hard to understand. This is why stretch bigs have had a huge impact on offense... You can see it with RPM numbers. You pull the bigs away from the hoop and it makes life easier for everyone.

The other thing that Frank does is get his within the flow of the team concept. He doesn't dominate the ball and honestly I watched him and sometimes thought he was too unselfish or that he moved the ball too fast. I've played enough to know how well a team can perform if the ball moves quickly and freely. Again, it makes everyone better.

I agree with your dissection of lockes argument. Stats, history, and other things like that are important but so is actually looking at the players game. I want Locke to watch the tape and tell me what part of his game won't work in the NBA due to him playing more mature guys. He wasn't a pound it down low guy like Okafor. I actually have more questions about his game translating than Frank's. I think he'll be the better player but there are some significant questions there too.

If Turner was there I can see the case for picking him over Frank... Maybe Oubre too, but I don't think the other guys projected to get to is have more upside than Frank. I don't like the argument that he's a finished product and thus we can't take him in the lottery. I'm not sure Lyles, Portis, or Looney will ever be as good as he is and the guy will continue to get better. Look at DMC... Dude is still improving and he was a 4 year guy and had another 4 or 5 years in the league.

 

[Carbon13]

And how would you know one when you saw one? Locke kept insisting Rudy wasn't ready early in the year. "Leave Rudy alone" he said, and let Kanter keep starting despite the horrific front court +/- numbers last year and this year. Whoops! He'll never question the coaching or GM aspects of this team too hard, because he is paid by them, for that reason his interests are not always honest and truthful.

I agree with you. I mentioned earlier hes not unbiased. If you have ever worked at a company you would understand why. He likes his job and hes the jazz media arm. The good thing is most us can see theough that. What interest does he have devaluing frank? Maybe hes echoing things hes heard from the jazz brass? Who knows...

 

[stitches]

Don't think you have to play at a high level but I do think playing helps you really understand some things. I do think ex NBA players can make some of the worst coaches and GMs. It is really hard to score consistently with big guys in the middle waiting for you... If you've never experienced it even at a much lower level it might be hard to understand. This is why stretch bigs have had a huge impact on offense... You can see it with RPM numbers. You pull the bigs away from the hoop and it makes life easier for everyone.

The other thing that Frank does is get his within the flow of the team concept. He doesn't dominate the ball and honestly I watched him and sometimes thought he was too unselfish or that he moved the ball too fast. I've played enough to know how well a team can perform if the ball moves quickly and freely. Again, it makes everyone better.

I agree with your dissection of lockes argument. Stats, history, and other things like that are important but so is actually looking at the players game. I want Locke to watch the tape and tell me what part of his game won't work in the NBA due to him playing more mature guys. He wasn't a pound it down low guy like Okafor. I actually have more questions about his game translating than Frank's. I think he'll be the better player but there are some significant questions there too.

If Turner was there I can see the case for picking him over Frank... Maybe Oubre too, but I don't think the other guys projected to get to is have more upside than Frank. I don't like the argument that he's a finished product and thus we can't take him in the lottery. I'm not sure Lyles, Portis, or Looney will ever be as good as he is and the guy will continue to get better. Look at DMC... Dude is still improving and he was a 4 year guy and had another 4 or 5 years in the league.

Demarre is an outlier. It is a very bad idea judging a prospect based on outliers. Several days ago I posted a list of all senior bigs from the big conferences who have gone to the NBA in the last 10 years. There are some exceptions but by and large there aren't many success stories - Draymond Green(great body, extremely physical, great length), Roy Hibbert(freaky lenght), David Lee...

Of course it is possible he will become a star, but I don't think the chance is very high. And he's definitely not a finished product. I rely on him improving... if he doesn't he won't even be a good rotation big. I think the biggest jump players usually make are when they get to work with pro-coaches and are not limited by NCAA rules or school about the number of hours they can spend on training. I think he still has a jump in his game he can make and he will need that jump in order to stick in the league.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Since when is 21-22 too old to improve? ****, Rudy played professional ball for a number of years and he's still developing at age 22. Obviously his physical stature gives him more room to grow, but why can't Kaminsky be like Ryan Anderson?

This age **** is so played out. Players can still improve. Feels like some people only wanna draft players 20 and under.

 

[Carbon13]

Since when is 21-22 too old to improve? ****, Rudy played professional ball for a number of years and he's still developing at age 22. Obviously his physical stature gives him more room to grow, but why can't Kaminsky be like Ryan Anderson?

This age **** is so played out. Players can still improve. Feels like some people only wanna draft players 20 and under.

I think Frank could be a contributor on a winning team and think he will improve.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I just want Frank Cuz it would be awesome to have him on the Jazz. I'd probably even grab his jersey.

Also, Frank/Gobert lineups would be freaking awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See, I'm starting to get psyched about Gobert / Turner, but I admit we may have to move up to get Turner.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Okay, here's a new take on how the draft shakes out:

T'wolves take Towns to pair with Wiggins.

Lakers take Mudiay to be their PGOTF. They could also go Okafor here.

Sixers take Russell to be their PGOTF.

Knicks take Okafor to be their post scorer. They could also trade the pick.

Magic take Hezonja to be their lead shooter/scorer. They could also go Turner or Porzingis.

Kings take Turner to replace Jason Thompson. Porzingis is too risky for this franchise.

Nuggets take Cauley-Stein as BPA. They could also go with Winslow or Porzingis.

Pistons take Porzingis as BPA. They could also go with Winslow, Oubre or Johnson.

Hornets take Winslow They could also go with Oubre, Johnson or Booker.

Heat take Oubre. They could also go with Johnson.

Pacers take Johnson as BPA. They could also go with Booker.


So the Jazz in this scenario look at Looney, Lyles, Kaminsky and Booker. My guess is that's why Locke is trying to sell us a bit on Looney or Lyles.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Demarre is an outlier. It is a very bad idea judging a prospect based on outliers. Several days ago I posted a list of all senior bigs from the big conferences who have gone to the NBA in the last 10 years. There are some exceptions but by and large there aren't many success stories - Draymond Green(great body, extremely physical, great length), Roy Hibbert(freaky lenght), David Lee...

Of course it is possible he will become a star, but I don't think the chance is very high. And he's definitely not a finished product. I rely on him improving... if he doesn't he won't even be a good rotation big. I think the biggest jump players usually make are when they get to work with pro-coaches and are not limited by NCAA rules or school about the number of hours they can spend on training. I think he still has a jump in his game he can make and he will need that jump in order to stick in the league.

It depends on what you mean by star, but I don't think any of the players we will be picking will be stars... Most stars are picked between 1-5. I also don't think we should avoid a guy who will be a backup... Any position we draft will be a backup.

Based on draft history if we got a guy who was a good rotation player it would be a success. I could see Frank being a very good starter on a contender. It is hard to predict the future obviously but this playoffs has showed the importance of depth. We need another good quality big... I think frank has a very high chance of being that.