What's new
By:

Following potential 2015 draftees

ONE LOVE said:
DL also said the following about RISK:


- Risk - many times risk is negative, but many time the right thing to do for your club is to take the riskiest proposal possible


- But Locke said in his podcast that Kaminsky is the RISKIEST DRAFT PICK


SO DOESN'T THIS MEAN DL COULD POTENTIALLY STILL PICK KAMINSKY???????? DIDN'T LOCKE JUST TRY TO PULL A FAST ONE ON US???????
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Catchall said:
I'm not sure the interview linked with DL have the comments that Locke was referring to.
Click to expand...

Irregardless if you follow the logic - Locke just contradicted himself there.


- DL willing to take riskiest route.


- Locke said Kaminsky is riskiest pick


- Therefore it follows logic that DL would be willing to take Kaminsky.


QED
 
ONE LOVE said:
DL also said the following about RISK:


- Risk - many times risk is negative, but many time the right thing to do for your club is to take the riskiest proposal possible


- But Locke said in his podcast that Kaminsky is the RISKIEST DRAFT PICK


SO DOESN'T THIS MEAN DL COULD POTENTIALLY STILL PICK KAMINSKY???????? DIDN'T LOCKE JUST TRY TO PULL A FAST ONE ON US???????
Click to expand...
Please stop.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Irregardless if you follow the logic - Locke just contradicted himself there.


- DL willing to take riskiest route.


- Locke said Kaminsky is riskiest pick


- Therefore it follows logic that DL would be willing to take Kaminsky.


QED
Click to expand...


Dude, you're mixing up what DL said. The "risk" DL referred to in his podcast referred to young players for whom less information is available. The players with 3 or 4 years worth of track record are the ones that are less risky. DL said that sometimes that sometimes the best option for the organization is to take the 'riskiest' pick.
 
Catchall said:
Dude, you're mixing up what DL said. The "risk" DL referred to in his podcast referred to young players for whom less information is available. The players with 3 or 4 years worth of track record are the ones that are less risky. DL said that sometimes that sometimes the best option for the organization is to take the 'riskiest' pick.
Click to expand...

That's not what Locke said though. Locke said Kaminsky is a riskier pick than the guy with 1 year experience.


And Locke made it clear he got that info from DL.
 
orangello said:
Why didn't Frank play more minutes? Why we're his minutes limited?

I think that's the point Locke is making. Frank wasn't playing at such a level that he was forced to play heavy minutes as a freshman or sophomore in college. Then in his junior year he started getting heavy minutes. At that point he had 2 years learning the system and he was one of the older players in the conference.

I'm not saying Locke is right but when your come back is that his PER was good in limited minutes you sound completely defeated IMO.
Click to expand...

Are bigs generally late developers? Yes or No?
Favors didn't have a breakout season until now, his 5th year in the league and at 23 years old.
 
To continue from my previous post:

In running some more ratios (standing reach/height, wingspan/height), a couple more conclusions:

The only very strong outlier I found was Connaughton's standing reach to height ratio. Makes me think that the gaming-the-measurement/mismeasurement possibility is higher.

The next closest thing to an outlier is Kaminsky's wingspan/height ratio. I suspect this is caused by a skinny frame, long neck, and shortish arms (his standing reach to height ratio was also rather low, though not uniquely so). So it's true that he has short arms for his height, even if his height gives him passable, though not optimal, absolute reaches.

A few players (certainly not all) with very high wingspan/height ratios seem a bit prone to low reach/wingspan ratios for some reason (Oubre, RHJ, Ashley, S. Johnson, J. Anderson). Must be long necks/heads and very broad shoulders. Good for playing wing defense and seeing over the top -- somewhat less desirable for playing interior defense, keeping hands high on shots (both offensively/defensively).
 
Catchall said:
I'm not sure the interview linked with DL have the comments that Locke was referring to.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it was, though if anyone has more info, please let me know. I like Locke, but he has a tendency to read into things (maybe based on other knowledge he has -- or just because it's a pretty common thing to do for most of us).

I think he's just down on the idea of Kaminsky.

EDIT: check the Locked on Jazz timeline: https://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/

Locke heard the DJ & PK interview, wrote some thoughts about it, then elaborated on those thoughts on the air (the podcast that Catchall referred to a couple of pages back).
 
Last edited:
idiot said:
To continue from my previous post:

In running some more ratios (standing reach/height, wingspan/height), a couple more conclusions:

The only very strong outlier I found was Connaughton's standing reach to height ratio. Makes me think that the gaming-the-measurement/mismeasurement possibility is higher.

The next closest thing to an outlier is Kaminsky's wingspan/height ratio. I suspect this is caused by a skinny frame, long neck, and shortish arms (his standing reach to height ratio was also rather low, though not uniquely so). So it's true that he has short arms for his height, even if his height gives him passable, though not optimal, absolute reaches.

A few players (certainly not all) with very high wingspan/height ratios seem a bit prone to low reach/wingspan ratios for some reason (Oubre, RHJ, Ashley, S. Johnson, J. Anderson). Must be long necks/heads and very broad shoulders. Good for playing wing defense and seeing over the top -- somewhat less desirable for playing interior defense, keeping hands high on shots (both offensively/defensively).
Click to expand...

His standing reach is average for a center, it's his weight that is more of a concern to me. At 7'1" and 231 lbs that's a high center of gravity and would get tossed around inside. If he can't make it as a stretch PF, then ya, there is some bust potential.
 
idiot said:
Pretty sure it was, though if anyone has more info, please let me know. I like Locke, but he has a tendency to read into things (maybe based on other knowledge he has -- or just because it's a pretty common thing to do for most of us).

I think he's just down on the idea of Kaminsky.

EDIT: check the Locked on Jazz timeline: https://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/

Locke heard the DJ & PK interview, wrote some thoughts about it, then elaborated on those thoughts on the air (the podcast that Catchall referred to a couple of pages back).
Click to expand...

So is this again a case of Locke reading into something that isn't there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top