I feel awful for Gardner. Three offensive coordinators, the position change, a shaky oline, the poor guy seems like he never had the chance to really develop or learn the way most QBs do. I'd bet that if he had gone to a program with more stability he would have turned out to be a hell of a college QB, but unfortunately that just hasn't been the case here.
The Suns are one of the more exciting teams in the league, Stauskas and McGary both seem like they'd be pretty good fits there, could always use more shooting, and McGary's rebounding would be much needed. I'd love to be able to watch a few of my favorite college players play alongside the guy in my avatar.
They're very different players. Morrison was a ball dominant, mediocre efficiency, high volume guy who was a solid jump shooter but not special in that regard. McDermott doesn't need the ball to be effective, is an absolutely elite jumpshooter, and is much more versatile on the whole offensively than Morrison was.
Defense will be an issue. I don't expect his post game to translate super effectively, and his finishing might be an issue against bigger players. But his shooting isn't going anywhere, and he's special in that regard, hard to see him not being an effective off ball scorer in the NBA. If that's worth the defensive issues is another conversation, but I think you can do much worse in the mid 1st.
Leonard isn't a terrible comp, though GR3 hasn't shown the rebounding or defensive acumen there, but offensively there's some similarities. I don't think he gets to that level, but I think that's essentially his upside.
Green was a much better shooter coming into the league, on a whole different level as an athlete, and you never had to ask him twice to shoot (outside of that year in Indy).
Ariza...maybe. I think he could have a similar level of impact in the league, though Ariza was more of a lanky long defender whereas the hope with GR3 is that he'll be able to body up guys like LeBron.
Agreed that it's certainly overestimated by most. At the same time, Gelman notes in the comment section that for some guys the variance can be much higher than others (claiming that on average, the swing might be 2% points, but for some could be as high as 20%). It seems like a lot of people have taken "the average effect of any so called hot hand is small" to mean "the hot hand doesn't exist." It's essentially impossible to prove the latter, while there's plenty of data supporting the former.
I saw Gerald Green drop 25 points in a quarter against the Thunder earlier this season. It sure is hard to consider that as just some random variance.
Not a clue, I haven't read that paper yet, only saw a talk regarding it. A just total off the top of my head guess would be that free throws are such an isolated, out of rhythm event that they may not be prone to such swings. Wouldn't surprise me to hear someone say that they might over think at the line when they're "hot," which could offset that impact.
The thing with all of these types of studies is that there's so, so many dependent variables that it's really hard to control for things. This type of stuff always seems to start off with an implied assumption, and often there's no way to prove that assumption. I'm a pretty big analytics guy, hell it's what I'd like to do professionally, but I think anyone who forgets about the human side of things is doing a great diservice to themselves.
Regarding basketball, there was a paper on this at the Sloan conference this year that made a pretty easy to understand argument.
A player who is hot is:
-More likely to hit shots of the same difficulty.
-More likely to take more difficult shots.
The effect essentially balances out and hides the underlying "hotness." So a hot player may make an uncontested 3 at a 45% rate instead of his usual 40% rate, but he's more likely to settle for a worse shot precisesly because he (or his teammates, or his coach) senses that he's hot.
Making comparisons with Caris seems odd, because he's frankly unlike really anyone I've seen at an NBA level. His skill set is sort of at odds with itself. He's a very good ball handler who can get where he wants on the court, but he's a poor shooter off the dribble, his finishing inside isn't anything special, and his playmaking ability as a passer isn't either.
I see the appeal, he's got a ton of upside, and if he can improve on his finishing, playmaking, or shooting off the dribble he becomes incredibly dangerous, but at this very moment his greatest strength isn't optimally complemented by his other skills.
I tend to agree that the degree and "getting better is easier in college" things are overstated, but the latter does have some truth to it. The thing about being an NBA player is that you play a lot of games. And game days are dedicated to one thing and one thing only, being ready to play. You don't spend game days trying to improve, you're not lifting weights on a game day, you're simply trying to keep yourself loose and ready to go. You spend more days traveling, and spend far fewer practicing as a team than a college team does (NBA teams can go weeks between full practices).
Getting playing time makes up for a lot of that, as there's nothing more valuable in a young player's development than playing, but if you're stuck ot the bench it can be tough to actually have a ton of time to dedicate to getting better during the season.
Now I don't think that's a good enough reason to pass up making millions of dollars, but just want to point out that there is some truth to the whole college developmental thing.
Did it though? There's no reason to believe Morris or Harris staying for another year would have convinced NBA talent evaluators to somehow overlook their faults. By the time both of those guys left, they were largely established commodities, there weren't a ton of question marks with either. I think both were relatively smart to leave while there was a good shot at NBA money on the table, even if only 2nd round money.
Glenn and Mitch are much different, I do think they both could answer a lot of questions with another season. I think Mitch should come back, Glenn is a bit trickier, as another year is one more year removed from the "raw potential" label and one year closer to "finished product". Seeing as his suposid upside is his #1 draw from an NBA standpoint, it might make sense for him to go now while teams still like him from a projectability stand point.
I think we can survive Glenn leaving, but Mitch going would leave a ton of question marks going forward. Rolling with Walton, Caris, Irvin, Chatman, and Spike getting all of the 1/2/3 minutes I think can and would work out pretty solidly.
Totally agree, my point is mainly that those one dimensional types tend to go late 1st early 2nd in a deep draft. I think McGary has some more upside than a typical late 1st round pick, but his health status likely offsets that for a lot of teams.
As for the all-around solid guy vs the great at one thing guy, the all around guy is certainly riskier, but can pay off with a guy like Hardaway Jr. when one of their skills hits that next level, or can totally flame out.
I tend to agree. Love McGary as a college player, but from a pro perspective, I thought the biggest key for him this year was showing that he could hit a mid range shot (and free throw) reliably. He didn't show a ton of that early on, and since of course he's been injured. If I were grading him from a NBA stand point:
Pros:
Terrific finisher.
Quality rebounder.
NBA ready body.
Great motor all around.
Cons:
Limited back to the basket game.
Questionable jumpshot.
Not a great rim protector.
If you look around the league for guys like Mitch, most of them are third bigs who do well on the glass but are a bit one dimensional. I think he has some considerable upside if he can figure out the mid range game reliably, perhaps have a David Lee type impact, but I wouldn't bank on him getting there. I'd happily take a flier on him in the 20s even with the back issue, but in an especially deep draft I can certainly understand him sliding to the 2nd.
Eh, you shouldn't be allowed to get off that easy. The last time this was being discussed here, you were spewing a bunch of stuff about KCP being superior statistically to Burke, shooting everyone else's opinion down due to "ignoring statistics." You tried to make it about everyone else being emotional over Burke, and acted like you were the rational, analytical one in the thread. In the mean time, your argument was unequivacally wrong, both then and even more clearly now.
It seems you've finally come around though, so welcome to the side of logic and reason.
The worst part about the Burke block is because it was so high profile, everyone thinks that was the only bad call, and are quick to make the argument that it didn't cost Michigan the game, ignoring that the entire rest of the game was horribly officiated in Louisville's favor. Hancock with the foul that was inexplicably switched off of him (and would have fouled him out), the over the back that pushed Caris out of bounds on that last rebound (we would have had the ball down 3 on the last possessoin), the other bazillion calls that were missed on Hancock, bleh.
At some point I charted out the whole game as objectively as I could, marking down ever foul called and not called, and it wasn't even remotely close. It easily resulted in a 10+ point swing. Fuck everything about the refs that game.
Alright TheLastHoke, here's a pretty compelte statistical breakdown of what we know about both players so far in their NBA time, since you keep saying the stats are telling a different story than what most are saying here:
KCP
Defensively
Team defense improves 8.8 points per 100 possessoins while KCP is on the court. How much of this has to do with Stuckey being a terrible defender, and that Pope is coming off the bench and likely facing inferior offensive units because of it, is debatable. That's why adjusted plus minus exists, but it's far too early in the season (and in their careers) for APM to hold any weight.
He's holding opponents to a sub 13 PER and just under 50 eFG%. The eFG% is actually subpar, but he does a nice job of preventing FTAs, and forces a good number of turnovers it appears.
Synergy has him as a .93 PPP defender, which is a decent bit below average (256th in the NBA). He's been excellent fighting through screens to contest shots, and does a good job in PnR defense, but those sample sizes are too small to draw definite conclusions. Again, overall, Synergy doesn't think he's anything special.
His dRtg is 109, but dRtg is a pretty useless stat that is more closely tied to your defensive rebounding stats and your team's defense than your actual defensive performance. I'm just putting this here in case someone else tries to reference individual dRtg one way or another.
Offensively
2.1 points worse with KCP on the court. Again, same caveats as defensive +/- apply.
72% of his makes are assisted. As you'd suspect the vast majority of his offense is created by others for him.
His 1.4 FTA per 36 leave a lot to be desired compared to his college numbers. That's partially because of his role, but still, that was the number one thing I was keeping an eye on with him in his transition to the NBA, and so far it hasn't translated.
45.7% TS% is pretty terrible, especially when considering his role as mostly a spot up shooter. But, small sample size, wouldn't be too concerned yet.
3.6 rebounds per 36, 1.4 assists, he isn't exactly filling up the box score in that regard.
3.5% TO%, this is AMAZING. I don't think I've ever seen someone with that low of a turn over rate, even in a spot up shooting role, really impressive from a rookie.
104 oRtg. All of his offensive struggles shooting the ball essentially get off set by his tremendously low turnover rate. Unlike individual dRtg, individual oRtg is termendously useful, and tells you a lot about how efficient a player is with the possessions they use.
.88 PPP according to Synergy. Tells us pretty much the same thing as oRtg, but their methods are different. This ranks 208th in the NBA.
15.3 usage rate, which tells us, as expected, that he isn't exactly the focal point of the offense. As a result, his 9.4 PER, which is directly tied to usage, is unimpressive.
Early Conclusion: Defensive signs are positive, offensively he's shown close to nothing of note outside of his low turnover rate. He hasn't had much of an opportunity, so it isn't time to panic in that regard, but offensively I'm a bit discouraged based on his reputation coming out of college.
Burke
Defensively:
Team defense is 6.3 points worse with Burke on the court per 100 possessions.
He's holding opponents to a 15.9 PER. This is below average. He's allowing guys to get inside too much (33% of their FGA are inside), and it seems opponents target him as someone to attack (their usage rate is above average against Burke, though part of that is the nature of the PG position). Opponents also get to the line a good bit against Burke. This is according to 82games.com.
Synergy has Burke as a .84 PPP against defender, which is 138th in the NBA and a good bit above average. You may wonder how Synergy and 82games.com could differ so greatly, and which one to put more stock in. My understanding is that 82games.com does their defensive tracking via play by play data, and assumes that the PG on one team is guarding the other team's PG. As we know, switches occur frequently, some teams mix in the occasional zone, and often things don't line up so nicely. Synergy actually tracks every play individually and matches guys up properly, so I'd be far more confident in citing Synergy defensive stats than 82games.
His dRtg is 113. Again, this is mostly useless, and dependent on the Jazz being an awful defensive team as a whole.
Offensively:
11.4 points better with Burke on the court per 100 possessions.
33% of his shots are assisted, as you can imagine, he's creating most of his own offense. This is a bit high compared to some PGs actually, so he isn't in full ball domination mode.
2.3 FTA per 36 isn't overly impressive, but also was expected to be low. 21% of his shots are coming inside (he converts these a slightly subpar 57%), which is actually twice as often as Chris Paul, so it seems safe to say that the concern with his ability to get inside has mostly been answered. Still could stand to finish a bit better, but it hasn't been nearly the issue it was expected to be.
48.9 TS% is in that Brandon Jennings range of bad, but is largely due to his 40.5 eFG% on jumpers, a number that I'd be shocked to see lower than 45% come the end of the year (with his TS% around league average).
4.3 rebounds per 36, 6.2 assists, solid as a distributor so far if unspectacular.
9.1% TO%, which for any PG is a pretty big deal, and for a rookie PG is historically good.
107 oRtg. Much like KCP, the low turnover rate really helps, and in Burke's case the assists do as well. This is right around league average, which again, for a rookie is impressive.
.88 PPP according to Synergy, same as KCP.
23.0% usage rate, so he's using a pretty big chunk of Utah's possessions and doing so rather efficiently (as based on his oRtg and Synergy PPP.
Early Conclusion: Defense is a mixed bag, with Synergy liking him quite a bit, but 82games feeling differently. I'd probably interpret it as being mildly positive at this point, but that's mainly because I don't put much if any stock into raw +/-, so to each their own. Offensively he's actually doing a better job of scoring inside than I expected, and the only issue he's really had is getting his jumper to fall. Anyone who expects that to continue, based on his historically great ability to hit jumpers off the dribble in college, is bordering on insane. The turnver rate is very, very encouraging early on, the assist rate is solid, and all in all it's hard to find much to complain about offensively outside of the struggles with his jumper.
Arguing that KCP has been better than Burke is....questionable to say the least. I guess you can talk up his defensive impact, but the Pistons have the 20th best defense in the league, despite a whole host of defensive talent in Smith/Drummond, so just how big of an impact is he having? I agree, the eye test says he's a good defender, and I expect him to continue to be one, but you're greatly overestimating the impact he's had on that side of the court. If you replace KCP with a replacement level player, how many fewer games have the Pistons won at this point? Look at the record of the Jazz with and without Burke, pretty easy to see the type of impact he's had.
You also referenced WS/48 earlier, which with such a small sample size of minutes borders on irrelevent, as shown by the fact that Burke shot significantly past KCP in that metric after last night's game.
Argue that KCP made sense with the Jennings/Smith plan (which was a shitty plan to begin with, but oh well), sure, but to argue that KCP has been the more productive player to this point is a joke.
The analytics aren't wrong, but you're only looking at one, not the whole picture. Even going into last night, Burke's oRtg of 103 was hovering around league average despite an absolutely dreadful TS%.
A short sighted person might say he's been struggling to play well, but I'd argue his first 15 games in the NBA are about as encouraging as they could be despite his shooting struggles. Does anyone really think he'd continue to shoot that poorly, is there any reason to believe he'd be that inept of a scorer in the NBA? The rest of his game has translated as well as anyone could have hoped, his turn over rate is historically low for a rookie PG (and among the best in the league amongst all PGs), he's creating off the dribble successfully, and while he's still not very good at finishing inside, he isn't have a problem getting in the paint off the dribble.
Even with the shooting struggles, Burke looks to be on track to be one of the top 3 players from this draft. No reason to be anything but excited about the way he's looked as an NBA player.
I'm not totally sure what guys expect from GR3. He's never had the ability to really create off the dribble, and most guys don't just magically develop that in one offseason. If a guy gets to college and can't create off the dribble, don't ever expect him to. It can happen, but it's incredibly rare. For that reason, I've always been pretty pessimistic about GR3 in that first or second option role. He reminds me a bit of Kawhi Leonard, and like Michigan fans, Spurs fans have been waiting for Kawhi to show the ability to create for himself. Mind you that's a generous projection, dependent on GR3 continuing to make strides with his jumper, and if you're an NBA team I think you'd have to be thrilled if GR3 reached that level.
Stauskas, unlike Robinson, has the benefit of having an elite level NBA skill, and that's incredibly valuable. Guys like Korver stick around for ages because at the end of the day, it's always nice to have a guy who can hit the 3 ball consistently over 40%. The improved ability to get inside and finish is incredibly promising as well. If you were to compare him to a pro right now, I think Klay Thompson is the closest match skillset wise, though I wouldn't expect Stauskas to get to that level of total scoring.
McGary I really don't know. He HAS to get the mid range jumper down and figure things out at the free throw line, other wise he's nothing more than an energy guy. I don't know if he ever develops real back to the basket ability, he's a quality finisher around the hoop but it's unlikely he ever creates much for himself. Defensively he has a good bit of upside due to his athleticism and size, though it'd be nice if he were a bit more prolific of a shot blocker.
I would expect Stauskas to be the most useful player out of the gate of the three.
I have an apartment I'm looking to fill a room in, and seeing as I'm in the process of considering posting the room's availability on craigslist, I figure I could do a whole lot worse than a fellow Wolverine. Email me at n.repole (at) gmail.com if you're legitimately looking for a place in the greater Boston area.
It should have been a first down. If it makes you (or anyone else) feel better though, we probably would have just ran the ball three times for a grand total of three yards, so it probably didn't change the outcome. The missed blatant hold on one of PSU's early touchdowns and the weak PI call haunt me more than the lack of a first down there. If those things go our way, maybe we win.
Either way, win or lose, the thing that bothers me most about this game is Fitz stat line. It's absolutely inconceivable how any coach allows that stat line to happen. Oh, the first 20 runs netted us 20 yards? Lets try seven more times!
That call doesn't get made a lot because the ref isn't typically so on top of the play. Most of the time they won't see that hand on the back turning the receiver a bit, it's why DBs do it so often (especially on slants), but when it's directly in front of them you can expect it to get called.
Definitely a break though, that type of thing isn't called all the time, regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be.
He reminds me a bit of Deion Branch who was drafted in the 2nd round, though I think coming out of college Branch had a bit more top end speed/quickness. In his prime though, Branch was mainly a shifty guy who ran great routes, had great hands, and blocked well despite his 5'9 frame. He did that on the outside as well, like Gallon thus far in college, not in the slot.
Get him with a QB who really values precise route running and good hands over pure size/speed and I think Gallon's got a quality NFL future. Like Branch in Seattle though, if he doesn't end up in the right system or with the right QB, goings could be pretty rough.
The Jags should consider giving Braylon a call, pretty sure Hennebot still spends the first three seconds after a snap checking to see if Braylon's open despite him not being on the field.
PER is heavily influenced by usage. Practically anyone who dominates the ball at the rate Jennings does can put up an above average PER. Go look at Antoine Walker's career PERs, and yet practically no one from the advanced analytics crowd will come by and say "there's a guy who helped a team win." On the flip side, RAPM doesn't seem to think too fondly of Jennings, and his TS% of 51% is awful for a guy who shoots that much.
There's some hope for him if he ever figures out the difference between a good and a bad shot, because he does do a solid job of not turning the ball over and distributing. But when he puts up a jumper, which he does really, realy often, it's bad news.
In the right situation, I think Jennings is capable of being useful. But I can't think of a situation worse for him than Detroit, where he's going to be depended on to space the floor (since no one else on the team can shoot) and create far more offense than he should be relied on for.
EDIT: That isn't to say Knight's any better of a player by the way. I don't think he ends up any more than a 7th man at best to be honest, but that doesn't change that comitting to Jennings as the PG of this team is a mistake, compounded further by trying to turn Josh Smith into a SF.
This line of thinking would be acceptable if the Pistons were anywhere close to good. But when you're a lottery team, you don't draft to win now.
None of the Pistons backcourt options are good enough to justify passing up the BPA at #8, and if Burke's available at #8, he's definitely going to be the BPA. The only two players the Pistons should be building anything around are Monroe and Drummond, everyone else should simply be looked at as potential trade bait.
The primary concern has pretty much always been about the offensive system that would be put into place under Hoke, and abou tthe viability of MAN BAWL on a national scale.
That said there were some people concerned that Hoke wasn't a "sexy" enough hire and wouldn't be able to recruit on an elite level, but clearly that wasn't a justified concern.
"Name one guy that went from being a good shooter to great?"
Michael Redd.
It's not aobut going from good to great though, or from one arbitrary state to another, but simply put shooting is something that has a tendency to improve dramatically after a player's amateur career, and the ability to create off the dribble doesn't.
Jason Kidd became a quality three point shooter.
Kawhi Leonard become a knock down 3 point shooter out of basically no where.
Thabo Sefolosha did the same.
Chris Bosh developed a corner 3 point shot.
LeBron turned it from a weakness to a strength.
The NBA is full of guys who entered the league with questionable jumpshots but eventually turned into quality shooters. Finding a guy who came in without the ability to create for himself off the dribble and developed that ability while in the pros is near impossible.
One of the easiest skills to develop, really? I'd argue the complete opposite, it's incredibly rare to see a guy come into the league with a shaky handle and really tighten it up. Guys can improve their ball security in general, but typically someone who can't create off the dribble consistently in college isn't going to do so in the pros.
On the plus side, one of the things that is likely to improve for a guy like Hardaway is his jumpshot. Right now it's raw, he's a streak shooter who has solid form but hasn't produced the best results. Those are the types of guys who can take a big step forward and become reliable knock down shooters. To me, Hardaway's career goes as far as his jumpshot takes him, as he doesn't really have any tools that stand out as elite, and that's the one thing that has a shot at developing to that point. Refining his game defensively would help a good bit as well.
The problem is guys who go to Europe don't get a ton of playing time because the system there is so different and teams are so comitted to playing guys with experience. Brandon Jennings didn't get to play a ton of minutes in Italy, teams didn't get much of a chance to really evaluate him. He lucked out in getting drafted relatively high still, but it's a HUGE risk as a prospect to go over to Europe.
For most guys, thanks to the one and done rule, the only real option is to go to college if they want to actually be evaluated properly. And yes it's the NBA rule, I'm not blaming the NCAA, I'm blaming the NBA.
At the end of the day, these elite players come to school and the value they receive in return is far, far below what they would if they were allowed to enter the draft. A lot of guys do get a great deal, the guys who get scholarships while they don't really produce money for the University, and those are the guys who should be thankful. But let's not act like we're doing Shabazz or Nerlens Noel or whomever any favors by forcing them to go to school for one or two or three years.
Obviously anyone who understands that player's are essentially forced into giving up a huge financial opportunity is cleary an idiot I guess. Burke and McGary both would have chosen to be here this year regardless of if they could have entered the draft, a guy like Shabazz Mouhamed didn't.
Shabazz would have gone top 3 last year, now he's struggling to stay in the top 10 AND lost a year of salary in the millions of dollars. But I'm sure he's really happy he got his one year of tuition at UCLA.
The one and done rule is a joke, the system should be closer to baseball's. Let guys enter straight out of highschool, or require two years of college.
Efficiency wise he's good, but not dominant. He's an ok rebounder but not great. Defensively he doesn't do a ton to stand out. He profiles as the exact type of guy you love to have on a college team but probably doesn't do anything well enough to be a huge asset on the next level. Very few players get to be go to scorers in the NBA...
A bit confused as to how Burke would jump in projections after the last week or few weeks even. If anything I feel like he's been a bit exposed against some elite defenses.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the guy, I think he'll make a damned good NBA player, but watching him settle for contested 3s and struggle to get into the lane these past few games wouldn't make me feel any better about his chances to be an elite NBA guard. From a scouting stand point I'd have the same, if not more, concerns as I would have had a month ago.
They're all somewhat flawed from an NBA standpoint. (EDIT: I mean that in that they're all unlikely to become genuine NBA superstars)
Burke - Size is somewhat of an issue, and defesively he leaves a good bit to be desired. On the offensive end, though he does a good job of running an offense, he isn't the most creative passer you'll ever see. I expect him to be a solid starter, but I don't really see him being a star on the NBA level. I'd say it's a whole lot more likely that he ends up being a Mike Conley caliber player than he ends up being Chris Paul.
Robinson - Doesn't handle the ball especially well, wouldn't expect him to be a guy who ever really creates for himself. I don't know how much room for improvement he has in that regard (ball handling is one of those things that's REALLY hard to greatly improve). How good he is in the NBA will largely hinge on how much he improves his jumpshot. He's a solid set shooter from three, but his jumpshot in general is pretty average. He's not a guy who's going to hit jumpers off screens, or pull up for a contested mid range jumper off the dribble. I could very well see a Gerald Wallace type career, though Robinson isn't that caliber of shot blocker.
McGary - He's big, he's mobile, and he has a great motor. There will always be room in the NBA for guys like that. But he's not going to be a shot blocker/defensive game changer on the next level, and he isn't going to create for himself on offense. He really needs to work on developing a reliable mid range jumper.
Hardaway - Skill set wise, he has pretty much everything you want from an NBA wing. Solid size, he can shoot off screens, off the dribble, or while set. Solid finisher. Handles the ball decently, rebounds, passes. The problem for him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well, and unless you're a superstar, it's hard to stick in the NBA if you don't have a specialized skill. If he improves his jumpshot he'll stick.
Stauskas - For the same reason Hardaway might struggle to stick on the next level, I think Stauskas makes it. His shooting combined with solid size and a pretty well polished offensive game makes it likely he finds a role somewhere. Defense will be a big question mark of course, but if he can consistently shoot 40%+ from 3 in the NBA he'll find a home.
These are all 19-21 year old kids though, so of course none of them are finished products. A lot of how they fare on the NBA level will have to deal with the situations they're drafted in, the coaching the receive, and how their development is directed.
I hate that Denard was in an offense that was less than ideal for him these past two seasons, it's led to a lot of people feeling like a Michigan without Denard is a Michigan capable of winning more games (which right or wrong, sucks). That isn't a knock on Hoke or Borges, it's not easy to entirely rewrite your system for a guy, I just can't help but feel like we missed out on a couple Heisman-type seasons from Denard (health withstanding).
Recent Comments
I feel awful for Gardner. Three offensive coordinators, the position change, a shaky oline, the poor guy seems like he never had the chance to really develop or learn the way most QBs do. I'd bet that if he had gone to a program with more stability he would have turned out to be a hell of a college QB, but unfortunately that just hasn't been the case here.
The Suns are one of the more exciting teams in the league, Stauskas and McGary both seem like they'd be pretty good fits there, could always use more shooting, and McGary's rebounding would be much needed. I'd love to be able to watch a few of my favorite college players play alongside the guy in my avatar.
They're very different players. Morrison was a ball dominant, mediocre efficiency, high volume guy who was a solid jump shooter but not special in that regard. McDermott doesn't need the ball to be effective, is an absolutely elite jumpshooter, and is much more versatile on the whole offensively than Morrison was.
Defense will be an issue. I don't expect his post game to translate super effectively, and his finishing might be an issue against bigger players. But his shooting isn't going anywhere, and he's special in that regard, hard to see him not being an effective off ball scorer in the NBA. If that's worth the defensive issues is another conversation, but I think you can do much worse in the mid 1st.
Leonard isn't a terrible comp, though GR3 hasn't shown the rebounding or defensive acumen there, but offensively there's some similarities. I don't think he gets to that level, but I think that's essentially his upside.
Green was a much better shooter coming into the league, on a whole different level as an athlete, and you never had to ask him twice to shoot (outside of that year in Indy).
Ariza...maybe. I think he could have a similar level of impact in the league, though Ariza was more of a lanky long defender whereas the hope with GR3 is that he'll be able to body up guys like LeBron.
Agreed that it's certainly overestimated by most. At the same time, Gelman notes in the comment section that for some guys the variance can be much higher than others (claiming that on average, the swing might be 2% points, but for some could be as high as 20%). It seems like a lot of people have taken "the average effect of any so called hot hand is small" to mean "the hot hand doesn't exist." It's essentially impossible to prove the latter, while there's plenty of data supporting the former.
I saw Gerald Green drop 25 points in a quarter against the Thunder earlier this season. It sure is hard to consider that as just some random variance.
Not a clue, I haven't read that paper yet, only saw a talk regarding it. A just total off the top of my head guess would be that free throws are such an isolated, out of rhythm event that they may not be prone to such swings. Wouldn't surprise me to hear someone say that they might over think at the line when they're "hot," which could offset that impact.
The thing with all of these types of studies is that there's so, so many dependent variables that it's really hard to control for things. This type of stuff always seems to start off with an implied assumption, and often there's no way to prove that assumption. I'm a pretty big analytics guy, hell it's what I'd like to do professionally, but I think anyone who forgets about the human side of things is doing a great diservice to themselves.
EDIT: Here's a link to the actual paper by the way.
Regarding basketball, there was a paper on this at the Sloan conference this year that made a pretty easy to understand argument.
A player who is hot is:
-More likely to hit shots of the same difficulty.
-More likely to take more difficult shots.
The effect essentially balances out and hides the underlying "hotness." So a hot player may make an uncontested 3 at a 45% rate instead of his usual 40% rate, but he's more likely to settle for a worse shot precisesly because he (or his teammates, or his coach) senses that he's hot.
Making comparisons with Caris seems odd, because he's frankly unlike really anyone I've seen at an NBA level. His skill set is sort of at odds with itself. He's a very good ball handler who can get where he wants on the court, but he's a poor shooter off the dribble, his finishing inside isn't anything special, and his playmaking ability as a passer isn't either.
I see the appeal, he's got a ton of upside, and if he can improve on his finishing, playmaking, or shooting off the dribble he becomes incredibly dangerous, but at this very moment his greatest strength isn't optimally complemented by his other skills.
I tend to agree that the degree and "getting better is easier in college" things are overstated, but the latter does have some truth to it. The thing about being an NBA player is that you play a lot of games. And game days are dedicated to one thing and one thing only, being ready to play. You don't spend game days trying to improve, you're not lifting weights on a game day, you're simply trying to keep yourself loose and ready to go. You spend more days traveling, and spend far fewer practicing as a team than a college team does (NBA teams can go weeks between full practices).
Getting playing time makes up for a lot of that, as there's nothing more valuable in a young player's development than playing, but if you're stuck ot the bench it can be tough to actually have a ton of time to dedicate to getting better during the season.
Now I don't think that's a good enough reason to pass up making millions of dollars, but just want to point out that there is some truth to the whole college developmental thing.
Did it though? There's no reason to believe Morris or Harris staying for another year would have convinced NBA talent evaluators to somehow overlook their faults. By the time both of those guys left, they were largely established commodities, there weren't a ton of question marks with either. I think both were relatively smart to leave while there was a good shot at NBA money on the table, even if only 2nd round money.
Glenn and Mitch are much different, I do think they both could answer a lot of questions with another season. I think Mitch should come back, Glenn is a bit trickier, as another year is one more year removed from the "raw potential" label and one year closer to "finished product". Seeing as his suposid upside is his #1 draw from an NBA standpoint, it might make sense for him to go now while teams still like him from a projectability stand point.
I think we can survive Glenn leaving, but Mitch going would leave a ton of question marks going forward. Rolling with Walton, Caris, Irvin, Chatman, and Spike getting all of the 1/2/3 minutes I think can and would work out pretty solidly.
Totally agree, my point is mainly that those one dimensional types tend to go late 1st early 2nd in a deep draft. I think McGary has some more upside than a typical late 1st round pick, but his health status likely offsets that for a lot of teams.
As for the all-around solid guy vs the great at one thing guy, the all around guy is certainly riskier, but can pay off with a guy like Hardaway Jr. when one of their skills hits that next level, or can totally flame out.
I tend to agree. Love McGary as a college player, but from a pro perspective, I thought the biggest key for him this year was showing that he could hit a mid range shot (and free throw) reliably. He didn't show a ton of that early on, and since of course he's been injured. If I were grading him from a NBA stand point:
Pros:
Terrific finisher.
Quality rebounder.
NBA ready body.
Great motor all around.
Cons:
Limited back to the basket game.
Questionable jumpshot.
Not a great rim protector.
If you look around the league for guys like Mitch, most of them are third bigs who do well on the glass but are a bit one dimensional. I think he has some considerable upside if he can figure out the mid range game reliably, perhaps have a David Lee type impact, but I wouldn't bank on him getting there. I'd happily take a flier on him in the 20s even with the back issue, but in an especially deep draft I can certainly understand him sliding to the 2nd.
Tennessee is ranked 7th by Kenpom, Mercer 81st. I'll take my chances with Mercer.
That said, confident in the Beilein v Tennessee matchup.
Eh, you shouldn't be allowed to get off that easy. The last time this was being discussed here, you were spewing a bunch of stuff about KCP being superior statistically to Burke, shooting everyone else's opinion down due to "ignoring statistics." You tried to make it about everyone else being emotional over Burke, and acted like you were the rational, analytical one in the thread. In the mean time, your argument was unequivacally wrong, both then and even more clearly now.
It seems you've finally come around though, so welcome to the side of logic and reason.
The worst part about the Burke block is because it was so high profile, everyone thinks that was the only bad call, and are quick to make the argument that it didn't cost Michigan the game, ignoring that the entire rest of the game was horribly officiated in Louisville's favor. Hancock with the foul that was inexplicably switched off of him (and would have fouled him out), the over the back that pushed Caris out of bounds on that last rebound (we would have had the ball down 3 on the last possessoin), the other bazillion calls that were missed on Hancock, bleh.
At some point I charted out the whole game as objectively as I could, marking down ever foul called and not called, and it wasn't even remotely close. It easily resulted in a 10+ point swing. Fuck everything about the refs that game.
sorry, double post.
Alright TheLastHoke, here's a pretty compelte statistical breakdown of what we know about both players so far in their NBA time, since you keep saying the stats are telling a different story than what most are saying here:
KCP
Defensively
Offensively
Early Conclusion: Defensive signs are positive, offensively he's shown close to nothing of note outside of his low turnover rate. He hasn't had much of an opportunity, so it isn't time to panic in that regard, but offensively I'm a bit discouraged based on his reputation coming out of college.
Burke
Defensively:
Offensively:
Early Conclusion: Defense is a mixed bag, with Synergy liking him quite a bit, but 82games feeling differently. I'd probably interpret it as being mildly positive at this point, but that's mainly because I don't put much if any stock into raw +/-, so to each their own. Offensively he's actually doing a better job of scoring inside than I expected, and the only issue he's really had is getting his jumper to fall. Anyone who expects that to continue, based on his historically great ability to hit jumpers off the dribble in college, is bordering on insane. The turnver rate is very, very encouraging early on, the assist rate is solid, and all in all it's hard to find much to complain about offensively outside of the struggles with his jumper.
Arguing that KCP has been better than Burke is....questionable to say the least. I guess you can talk up his defensive impact, but the Pistons have the 20th best defense in the league, despite a whole host of defensive talent in Smith/Drummond, so just how big of an impact is he having? I agree, the eye test says he's a good defender, and I expect him to continue to be one, but you're greatly overestimating the impact he's had on that side of the court. If you replace KCP with a replacement level player, how many fewer games have the Pistons won at this point? Look at the record of the Jazz with and without Burke, pretty easy to see the type of impact he's had.
You also referenced WS/48 earlier, which with such a small sample size of minutes borders on irrelevent, as shown by the fact that Burke shot significantly past KCP in that metric after last night's game.
Argue that KCP made sense with the Jennings/Smith plan (which was a shitty plan to begin with, but oh well), sure, but to argue that KCP has been the more productive player to this point is a joke.
The analytics aren't wrong, but you're only looking at one, not the whole picture. Even going into last night, Burke's oRtg of 103 was hovering around league average despite an absolutely dreadful TS%.
A short sighted person might say he's been struggling to play well, but I'd argue his first 15 games in the NBA are about as encouraging as they could be despite his shooting struggles. Does anyone really think he'd continue to shoot that poorly, is there any reason to believe he'd be that inept of a scorer in the NBA? The rest of his game has translated as well as anyone could have hoped, his turn over rate is historically low for a rookie PG (and among the best in the league amongst all PGs), he's creating off the dribble successfully, and while he's still not very good at finishing inside, he isn't have a problem getting in the paint off the dribble.
Even with the shooting struggles, Burke looks to be on track to be one of the top 3 players from this draft. No reason to be anything but excited about the way he's looked as an NBA player.
I'm here for the posbang.
I'm not totally sure what guys expect from GR3. He's never had the ability to really create off the dribble, and most guys don't just magically develop that in one offseason. If a guy gets to college and can't create off the dribble, don't ever expect him to. It can happen, but it's incredibly rare. For that reason, I've always been pretty pessimistic about GR3 in that first or second option role. He reminds me a bit of Kawhi Leonard, and like Michigan fans, Spurs fans have been waiting for Kawhi to show the ability to create for himself. Mind you that's a generous projection, dependent on GR3 continuing to make strides with his jumper, and if you're an NBA team I think you'd have to be thrilled if GR3 reached that level.
Stauskas, unlike Robinson, has the benefit of having an elite level NBA skill, and that's incredibly valuable. Guys like Korver stick around for ages because at the end of the day, it's always nice to have a guy who can hit the 3 ball consistently over 40%. The improved ability to get inside and finish is incredibly promising as well. If you were to compare him to a pro right now, I think Klay Thompson is the closest match skillset wise, though I wouldn't expect Stauskas to get to that level of total scoring.
McGary I really don't know. He HAS to get the mid range jumper down and figure things out at the free throw line, other wise he's nothing more than an energy guy. I don't know if he ever develops real back to the basket ability, he's a quality finisher around the hoop but it's unlikely he ever creates much for himself. Defensively he has a good bit of upside due to his athleticism and size, though it'd be nice if he were a bit more prolific of a shot blocker.
I would expect Stauskas to be the most useful player out of the gate of the three.
I have an apartment I'm looking to fill a room in, and seeing as I'm in the process of considering posting the room's availability on craigslist, I figure I could do a whole lot worse than a fellow Wolverine. Email me at n.repole (at) gmail.com if you're legitimately looking for a place in the greater Boston area.
It should have been a first down. If it makes you (or anyone else) feel better though, we probably would have just ran the ball three times for a grand total of three yards, so it probably didn't change the outcome. The missed blatant hold on one of PSU's early touchdowns and the weak PI call haunt me more than the lack of a first down there. If those things go our way, maybe we win.
Either way, win or lose, the thing that bothers me most about this game is Fitz stat line. It's absolutely inconceivable how any coach allows that stat line to happen. Oh, the first 20 runs netted us 20 yards? Lets try seven more times!
Why on earth did OSU not use a timeout or two when NW had the ball?
That call doesn't get made a lot because the ref isn't typically so on top of the play. Most of the time they won't see that hand on the back turning the receiver a bit, it's why DBs do it so often (especially on slants), but when it's directly in front of them you can expect it to get called.
Definitely a break though, that type of thing isn't called all the time, regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be.
He reminds me a bit of Deion Branch who was drafted in the 2nd round, though I think coming out of college Branch had a bit more top end speed/quickness. In his prime though, Branch was mainly a shifty guy who ran great routes, had great hands, and blocked well despite his 5'9 frame. He did that on the outside as well, like Gallon thus far in college, not in the slot.
Get him with a QB who really values precise route running and good hands over pure size/speed and I think Gallon's got a quality NFL future. Like Branch in Seattle though, if he doesn't end up in the right system or with the right QB, goings could be pretty rough.
The Jags should consider giving Braylon a call, pretty sure Hennebot still spends the first three seconds after a snap checking to see if Braylon's open despite him not being on the field.
PER is heavily influenced by usage. Practically anyone who dominates the ball at the rate Jennings does can put up an above average PER. Go look at Antoine Walker's career PERs, and yet practically no one from the advanced analytics crowd will come by and say "there's a guy who helped a team win." On the flip side, RAPM doesn't seem to think too fondly of Jennings, and his TS% of 51% is awful for a guy who shoots that much.
There's some hope for him if he ever figures out the difference between a good and a bad shot, because he does do a solid job of not turning the ball over and distributing. But when he puts up a jumper, which he does really, realy often, it's bad news.
In the right situation, I think Jennings is capable of being useful. But I can't think of a situation worse for him than Detroit, where he's going to be depended on to space the floor (since no one else on the team can shoot) and create far more offense than he should be relied on for.
EDIT: That isn't to say Knight's any better of a player by the way. I don't think he ends up any more than a 7th man at best to be honest, but that doesn't change that comitting to Jennings as the PG of this team is a mistake, compounded further by trying to turn Josh Smith into a SF.
For a blog that has a ton of advanced analytics stuff, albeit mostly regarding football, I'm shocked to see a mixed reaction here.
Jennings is a bad player right now. He doesn't help you win games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnHndbNPYi0
Because they were never going to get Rondo for Knight.
This line of thinking would be acceptable if the Pistons were anywhere close to good. But when you're a lottery team, you don't draft to win now.
None of the Pistons backcourt options are good enough to justify passing up the BPA at #8, and if Burke's available at #8, he's definitely going to be the BPA. The only two players the Pistons should be building anything around are Monroe and Drummond, everyone else should simply be looked at as potential trade bait.
"Best ... ever" might be taking things a bit far on reddit.
The primary concern has pretty much always been about the offensive system that would be put into place under Hoke, and abou tthe viability of MAN BAWL on a national scale.
That said there were some people concerned that Hoke wasn't a "sexy" enough hire and wouldn't be able to recruit on an elite level, but clearly that wasn't a justified concern.
"Name one guy that went from being a good shooter to great?"
Michael Redd.
It's not aobut going from good to great though, or from one arbitrary state to another, but simply put shooting is something that has a tendency to improve dramatically after a player's amateur career, and the ability to create off the dribble doesn't.
Jason Kidd became a quality three point shooter.
Kawhi Leonard become a knock down 3 point shooter out of basically no where.
Thabo Sefolosha did the same.
Chris Bosh developed a corner 3 point shot.
LeBron turned it from a weakness to a strength.
The NBA is full of guys who entered the league with questionable jumpshots but eventually turned into quality shooters. Finding a guy who came in without the ability to create for himself off the dribble and developed that ability while in the pros is near impossible.
One of the easiest skills to develop, really? I'd argue the complete opposite, it's incredibly rare to see a guy come into the league with a shaky handle and really tighten it up. Guys can improve their ball security in general, but typically someone who can't create off the dribble consistently in college isn't going to do so in the pros.
On the plus side, one of the things that is likely to improve for a guy like Hardaway is his jumpshot. Right now it's raw, he's a streak shooter who has solid form but hasn't produced the best results. Those are the types of guys who can take a big step forward and become reliable knock down shooters. To me, Hardaway's career goes as far as his jumpshot takes him, as he doesn't really have any tools that stand out as elite, and that's the one thing that has a shot at developing to that point. Refining his game defensively would help a good bit as well.
What makes anyone think they'd have gone higher if they stayed?
The problem is guys who go to Europe don't get a ton of playing time because the system there is so different and teams are so comitted to playing guys with experience. Brandon Jennings didn't get to play a ton of minutes in Italy, teams didn't get much of a chance to really evaluate him. He lucked out in getting drafted relatively high still, but it's a HUGE risk as a prospect to go over to Europe.
For most guys, thanks to the one and done rule, the only real option is to go to college if they want to actually be evaluated properly. And yes it's the NBA rule, I'm not blaming the NCAA, I'm blaming the NBA.
At the end of the day, these elite players come to school and the value they receive in return is far, far below what they would if they were allowed to enter the draft. A lot of guys do get a great deal, the guys who get scholarships while they don't really produce money for the University, and those are the guys who should be thankful. But let's not act like we're doing Shabazz or Nerlens Noel or whomever any favors by forcing them to go to school for one or two or three years.
Obviously anyone who understands that player's are essentially forced into giving up a huge financial opportunity is cleary an idiot I guess. Burke and McGary both would have chosen to be here this year regardless of if they could have entered the draft, a guy like Shabazz Mouhamed didn't.
Shabazz would have gone top 3 last year, now he's struggling to stay in the top 10 AND lost a year of salary in the millions of dollars. But I'm sure he's really happy he got his one year of tuition at UCLA.
The one and done rule is a joke, the system should be closer to baseball's. Let guys enter straight out of highschool, or require two years of college.
I think #3-#9 in this draft is entirely subjective, could definitely see Burke go as high as 3.
#1 and #2 should be locked up with Noel and McLemore though.
Brady + Woodson together in New England.
Make it so.
Efficiency wise he's good, but not dominant. He's an ok rebounder but not great. Defensively he doesn't do a ton to stand out. He profiles as the exact type of guy you love to have on a college team but probably doesn't do anything well enough to be a huge asset on the next level. Very few players get to be go to scorers in the NBA...
A bit confused as to how Burke would jump in projections after the last week or few weeks even. If anything I feel like he's been a bit exposed against some elite defenses.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the guy, I think he'll make a damned good NBA player, but watching him settle for contested 3s and struggle to get into the lane these past few games wouldn't make me feel any better about his chances to be an elite NBA guard. From a scouting stand point I'd have the same, if not more, concerns as I would have had a month ago.
They're all somewhat flawed from an NBA standpoint. (EDIT: I mean that in that they're all unlikely to become genuine NBA superstars)
Burke - Size is somewhat of an issue, and defesively he leaves a good bit to be desired. On the offensive end, though he does a good job of running an offense, he isn't the most creative passer you'll ever see. I expect him to be a solid starter, but I don't really see him being a star on the NBA level. I'd say it's a whole lot more likely that he ends up being a Mike Conley caliber player than he ends up being Chris Paul.
Robinson - Doesn't handle the ball especially well, wouldn't expect him to be a guy who ever really creates for himself. I don't know how much room for improvement he has in that regard (ball handling is one of those things that's REALLY hard to greatly improve). How good he is in the NBA will largely hinge on how much he improves his jumpshot. He's a solid set shooter from three, but his jumpshot in general is pretty average. He's not a guy who's going to hit jumpers off screens, or pull up for a contested mid range jumper off the dribble. I could very well see a Gerald Wallace type career, though Robinson isn't that caliber of shot blocker.
McGary - He's big, he's mobile, and he has a great motor. There will always be room in the NBA for guys like that. But he's not going to be a shot blocker/defensive game changer on the next level, and he isn't going to create for himself on offense. He really needs to work on developing a reliable mid range jumper.
Hardaway - Skill set wise, he has pretty much everything you want from an NBA wing. Solid size, he can shoot off screens, off the dribble, or while set. Solid finisher. Handles the ball decently, rebounds, passes. The problem for him is that he doesn't do anything exceptionally well, and unless you're a superstar, it's hard to stick in the NBA if you don't have a specialized skill. If he improves his jumpshot he'll stick.
Stauskas - For the same reason Hardaway might struggle to stick on the next level, I think Stauskas makes it. His shooting combined with solid size and a pretty well polished offensive game makes it likely he finds a role somewhere. Defense will be a big question mark of course, but if he can consistently shoot 40%+ from 3 in the NBA he'll find a home.
These are all 19-21 year old kids though, so of course none of them are finished products. A lot of how they fare on the NBA level will have to deal with the situations they're drafted in, the coaching the receive, and how their development is directed.
I hate that Denard was in an offense that was less than ideal for him these past two seasons, it's led to a lot of people feeling like a Michigan without Denard is a Michigan capable of winning more games (which right or wrong, sucks). That isn't a knock on Hoke or Borges, it's not easy to entirely rewrite your system for a guy, I just can't help but feel like we missed out on a couple Heisman-type seasons from Denard (health withstanding).
on an even more optimistic note, the B1G is only going to get stronger with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers!
That's one hell of a tackle by Gholston.
poor kid, hard not to feel bad for him there.
It's Mike Kwiatkowski time!
mambo dogface to the banana patch.