I mean, I've literally never seen somebody break their leg like this without getting rolled up on, which I assume is what happened? Or somebody just fell on her leg while she was getting blocked? Like, I suppose it's possible that she just planted *really* wrong, but it's hard to imagine a leg break like this resulting from just pure strength mismatch.
On the one hand, it sounds like she's the one who turned up the intensity on the drill. On the other hand, Hill seems like an enormous sleazebag. I shrug my shoulders.
Sure, good players make money, and facilitating NIL money is definitely part of having good players. There's the question of where you try and direct scarce NIL funds, and Michigan seems to put a relative emphasis on retaining/attracting more proven players vs. bringing in prospects. It seems to be working!
No disrespect to anyone, but I'm not sure we need the "many perceive" qualifier for Edwards's off year. His productivity fell off a cliff, and I have to assume he could improve his NFL contract outlook if he came back and returned to anywhere near his 2022 form.
Between Mullings and Hall, I don't know how many carries we have for a third THUNDER back, but there's gonna be some regretful safeties next year however those carries shake out.
I think you're right about favoring passing attacks (though it would be interesting to see success rates split out by offense/defense and passing/running).
More generally, though, I think it's useful to think about the exact way that the metric is biased. It's a binary measure of whether teams have successful or unsuccessful plays, meaning that you don't get extra credit for having *really* successful plays (and you don't get extra demerits for having really unsuccessful plays). So teams that see a disproportionally high number of really positive plays (chunk runs, pick-6s, etc.) and disproportionally low numbers of really negative plays (taking sacks, giving up coverage-bust touchdowns, etc.) are going to be underrated by this metric relative to their "true" performance.
It's pretty easy to think of ways that a team can control the game on both sides while coming out even on a metric like this:
Offensively: You throw relatively few passes, meaning you miss out on a lot of high-percentage 5-to-10-yard plays that count as a Success here. And you grind out yards and scores on the ground through a lot of 2/3-yard runs, a few really big chunk runs, and few negative plays. The end result is a winning number of long drives and scores, but relatively few plays that count as a Success.
Defensively: You give up a lot of modest gains on the ground, but you rarely bust, and you make a lot of drive-wrecking negative plays. Again, meaning that your defense gives up a good number of Successful plays, but still gets a winning number of stops.
This sounds a lot like how Michigan played against Penn State, and how they're built to play against good teams generally.
If you kick the can down the road, the game is even more over if you fail the second one. You want to know as early as possible whether you're going to need two additional scores or one. If you find out after the first touchdown with 2 minutes left, it's bad news, but you at least have 2 minutes of desperation time. If you find out after the second touchdown with, say, 15 seconds left, your window for victory is much smaller.
To the extent that we've run a lot of vanilla and predictable run calls, I think the staff has earned the benefit of the doubt that it's more about not putting stuff on film than it is about having a poorly schemed run game.
That said, I'm not convinced that the dip in production is all about scheme. Just going on my own novice eye and the UFRs and other analysis here, it really does seem like neither the backs nor the line are producing quite as much as last year's versions would have.
I get the noteworthy aspect, and I'm here reading it. For objectively obnoxious characters like this, though, you might opt for a screen grab and not a clickable widget going forward.
Conferences used to be a core part of college football landscapes. Now they're just loose federations of teams that want to schedule each other and negotiate TV contracts together. And if other Big Ten schools don't want to schedule a Harbaugh-coached team, I'd be fine with giving them their wish.
I think it's reasonable to expect referees at this level to be able to hold the information from multiple angles in their head simultaneously. While it might be rare to get a single angle that shows exactly where the ball is when it crosses the sideline plane, there were definitely angles that showed *when* the ball crossed the plane, and there were other angles that showed how far forward the ball was throughout the process. A good ref ought to be able to combine these streams of information and make the "indisputably" correct call.
A couple of side rants:
Even if the refs weren't ready to overturn the 1st down call, they should have moved the ball forward -- it was clear from individual camera angles that the spot on the field was way short. And there's a big functional difference between 4th & 36 inches and 4th & 5 inches.
I absolutely hate that "indisputable" is the standard for video review. Take the information you have, consult with the ref that made the call on the field, and make the final call that you think is correct based on the preponderance of evidence. The analogy to criminal standards of evidence is dumb; try to get as many calls right as possible.
Jacking off on a zoom call is an intensely, viscerally sexual act. Willfully imposing such an act on people without their consent is Bad, and I'm sure it's legally actionable in all sorts of contexts.
Also, Jesus Christ, I legitimately struggle to understand how people think something like this is OK. It's *awful* to impose yourself sexually on a sexual assault survivor, whose whole relationship to you is premised on using her status to advocate against sexual misconduct, and whose income relies to a substantial extent on your patronage and the patronage of your professional network. To even approach gray areas of consent in this kind of situation is both wildly unethical and mind numbingly stupid.
But why neg speculation, especially when informed by actual expertise and consisting of some modest and logically coherent line of reasoning? Like, if you're looking for airtight reporting of fact, maybe don't visit a football message board in early June.
The more instructive comparison is by year in the league. Poole's second year was his age-21 season, JR's second year was age-20, so they were close in terms of just biological development. Poole was clearly the better player at that stage, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he bests JR's breakout third season this year.
And you're conflating twitchiness with athleticism. JR was obviously the much more explosive athlete, but Poole really is more fluid with his movements. He creates more for himself and others off the bounce, and he's actually a much more effective finisher -- his 0.743 field goal percentage at the rim last year is much better than anything Smith put up at any point in his career, and he's getting to the rim at a comparable rate as Smith was at the same stage.
Smith was a far more *explosive* athlete, but I think Poole looks more fluid in his movements. Physically, Poole is almost a cross between JR and Steph. Along those lines, Poole has a smoother handle and is better at creating for himself and others. If you compare them at the same stage in their careers, Poole shoots a lot better from 2, has higher usage, has a much better assist rate and a lower turnover rate. I really think that Poole is shaping up to be a better and better-rounded player.
And Brooks is a covid 5th year at that, having played 27+ games in each of his previous four years. Truly a rare amount of experience to have in the backcourt. He could be an honorary Purdue 8th Year Combo Forward.
Juzang was absolutely amazing down the stretch last year, but UCLA needed him to be, and a lot of the shots he was hitting felt pretty non-repeatable. I would expect UCLA to over-perform last year's regular season but under-perform last year's tournament, and having them in the top 5 feels like a stretch.
The chances of actually losing a fumble are probably vanishingly small either way. A couple advantages I can think of to shotgun: 1) less likely that your quarterback takes a cheap shot, and 2) somewhat related, if you're right on the edge of being able to kneel it clock-wise, a shotgun formation probably makes it easier for the QB to stall for a couple beats and then kneel, without putting himself or the ball at risk.
Yeah, it definitely wasn't a great route -- wherever he was supposed to break, Henning still drifted after his cut, which definitely exacerbated the underthrow. But the throw was there to make, and it'd be really nice if McNamara would make it.
That last third down pass to Henning was an awful throw either way. McNamara released the ball after Henning's break, so it wasn't just that he was throwing it to where he expected Henning to be. And he left it 5+ yards short. Maybe he was just gun shy and wanted to err on the side of not throwing a pick 6, but that should have been an easy completion.
I have no idea how all these guys would be evaluated otherwise. But covid disruptions mean there's certain to be a lot more noise than usual in player rankings. And that translates to a lot more randomness in how class averages look right now. Probably good advice anyway, but this is an especially good year to chill out and see how guys look when they get on campus.
A chance to prove you're healthy, show real production with an established quarterback (?), and get a little NIL cash seems a lot more appealing than a ton of draft uncertainty with a likely practice squad outcome.
Still devasting for Bell, and I feel terrible for him, but it's also a bit of a blessing that this happened so early in the year -- if all goes well, he can definitely be full speed to start next season.
This actually applies to two different Louisianas: LSU and LA Lafayette, neither of whom deserve to hang onto their top-25 statuses. Good chance LSU gets replaced by UCLA in the rankings, but Lafayette represents a genuine vacancy.
I'd like to introduce you to a little concept called "Bayesian updating". New data are new data, and small updates are still updates! And if your win probability against Washington is the same as it was 48 hours ago, I'd gently suggest that you revise your model.
But I'd argue that the ability of Bell, Corum, Haskins, et al to make plays is pretty widely known, and that the season really hinges on how well we shore up our weak spots. Revsine is probably right that Ronnie Bell isn't going to be a Heisman candidate, but we all already know that, and it's not what's going to make the difference between 5 and 10 wins.
I'm not familiar with Revsine's or Packer's commentary, so I might be unfair here...but this feels pretty lazy. It seems clear that the ability of this team to compete in the 1b tier of the Big Ten rests on the viability of weak position groups -- DT, CB, green QB. But it's a lot harder to parachute in and comment informatively on that than it is to just say "no one jumped out to me."
Middleton and Kirilenko are very different players. I don't see Franz being as wildly disruptive on defense as AK-47 (who, at his peak, was truly generational), and I don't see him being an elite shot maker like Middleton. But he's likely to be a very good defender who can add some value on offense -- the kind of guy who can profitably slot into a playoff rotation.
It's easy to fall into hyperbole with late-lottery projections. But getting a Thaddeus Young type at 9 is a win, and that's the sort of comp that I like for Franz.
Wait, when was this golden age of MMA respectfulness? Rampage, Koscheck, Ortiz, etc. The sport has always been filled with egregious pricks because it, uh, kind of selects for that.
You're definitely misremembering some things about mid-80s defenses. Barry McCockiner trolling notwithstanding, there were definitely some UPS drivers getting rotation minutes in that era who would be very fortunate to make a G League roster today.
Given that he's reportedly vaccinated -- and thus unlikely to experience prolonged illness -- and that the Suns won't be scheduled to start their next series for another week or so, I really don't think this is a huge deal for them. Maybe he misses a game or two, which would definitely hurt, but my money is still very much on the Suns to make it out of the West.
The Kawhi news is legitimately huge -- on a day off, they went from being plausible favorites to win it all to being unlikely to make it out of the conference semifinals. Pretty extraordinary on the grand scale of Woj Bombs.
If a stadium usher shared his opinion about the details of obscene acts that my mom engages in, I don't think the University's status as a government entity would protect him. Not sure how this is different in any relevant legal sense.
The most interesting aspect of this to me is the extent to which internet communities tend to vastly overestimate the broader relevance of their own little discourses. You see this on Twitter all the time, where there will be some intensely scrutinized Topic of the Week in a given subgraph that will barely be a blip on the radar for other Twitter users and completely incomprehensible to people not on the app.
The background assumption among Board users that the Board is a primary part of this website (an assumption that I also fall into) seems like a classic example of this.
I think Nets have to be the favorite to win it all, but wouldn't be shocked if Bucks take the series -- they match up as well as anyone with Jrue and Giannis, and if they get hot, they can keep pace.
As far as the Knicks/Hawks series goes, all due respect to how well Trae's played offensively, but the Knicks have been absolutely awful. Randle has probably cost himself tens of millions with this performance, and it's inexplicable how little they've done to exploit Trae on the other end. As much as Randle's been exposed, I think we're also seeing Thibs as a guy who tops out at getting guys to give max effort in the regular season. Terrible coaching performance in this series.
He was the best shooting PG in the conference and it wasn't close.
Disagree on this. I think I weigh shot volume a lot more heavily than you do, and Smith just shot a really low volume. In that context, Bohannon hitting 44% of his *6.7* 3pt attempts per game stands out a lot more than Smith hitting 51% of his 2.6 attempts per game -- in terms of what it says about individual shooting ability, in terms of how it impacts the game, and in terms of how readily it can be replaced by another high-level grad transfer. Further context: Smith wasn't even in the top 25 in 3 point makes per game in conference.
Smith's percentage is obviously impressive. But his shooting really wasn't impacting games to nearly the extent that other lead guards were, and it's not a stretch to think that Jones can have a similar impact.
I like the Z comparison better. Loved Darius Morris, but he was never particularly explosive. Collins has a twitchiness to his game that I'm not sure we've seen at point guard. Another physical comp might be skinnier Carsen Edwards? His ability to dunk in traffic/non-breakaway situations is really uncommon in sub-6-footers.
"Elite" is overstating things a bit. Smith's .418 average was great...but on under three (mostly wide open) looks a game. In terms of both individual scoring efficiency and his gravitational effect on defenses, not hard to imagine Jones being in the same ballpark. Chaundee and especially Livers are the bigger shooting losses, but it's reasonable to expect Houstan to pick up a lot of slack there. And I really don't think that Wagner was any more of a shooting threat last year than Johns is likely to be this year.
I agree about Brooks's floater, and also think he has some room to grow with respect to getting threes up off the bounce and drawing contact/getting to the line. Despite shooting 40% from 3 and 90% from the line, he had just an OK true shooting percentage last year (.557), and it's because his 2pt % was so-so (work on that floater!), he didn't get a ton of threes off, and he almost never got to the line. All of that can be improved given the tools that he has.
SF real estate does not cost what it does because of parking requirements. You've already got people packed in there cheek and jowl. It costs a mint because Sil Valley is awash in money and SF is super cool. Making things cheaper for developers just means more profit for developers.
This is off-base. You're right that high demand factors into absurd housing costs in the Bay, but it's only half the equation; constrained supply is the other. And parking minimums are absolutely a big part of that supply constraint. Making housing cheaper to produce isn't just some giveaway to developers -- it also means that more (often times a lot more) housing gets built on the margins. Just one example: curtailing parking minimums has been the biggest factor in the multi-decade housing boom in downtown Los Angeles, as it enabled the adaptive reuse of a lot of previously vacant/under-used financial buildings downtown, which under prior parking requirements had been essentially undevelopable.
Addendum: I haven't listened to him as much this year because the Raptors are such a trash fire, but Jack Armstrong is fantastic. I'm sure it'd get old if I tuned in more, but GET THAT GAAAHBAGE OUTTA HERE in a crazed Brooklyn falsetto is top notch as far as catch phrases go.
It's honestly hard to think of really good analysts even on the regional League Pass broadcasts. Kelenna Azubuike with the Warriors and Alaa Abdelnaby with the Sixers stand out as pretty good, and of course Walt Clyde Frazier is a legend. Sarah Kustoc with the Nets might legitimately be my favorite -- she and Ian Eagle are great together. But I'm not sure any of the above would be a big step up over Jackson or Hill, let alone Van Gundy or Doris Burke.
I think this is the biggest thing -- whatever Baldwin feels about a brighter college spotlight, he's doing his dad a huge solid. And if I'm a small-market team drafting a guy with the potential to be a franchise cornerstone, it's definitely a plus if that guy has shown a willingness to pass up on bigger stages/bigger markets out of loyalty to people he's close to.
Recent Comments
I mean, I've literally never seen somebody break their leg like this without getting rolled up on, which I assume is what happened? Or somebody just fell on her leg while she was getting blocked? Like, I suppose it's possible that she just planted *really* wrong, but it's hard to imagine a leg break like this resulting from just pure strength mismatch.
On the one hand, it sounds like she's the one who turned up the intensity on the drill. On the other hand, Hill seems like an enormous sleazebag. I shrug my shoulders.
Sure, good players make money, and facilitating NIL money is definitely part of having good players. There's the question of where you try and direct scarce NIL funds, and Michigan seems to put a relative emphasis on retaining/attracting more proven players vs. bringing in prospects. It seems to be working!
Between Mullings and Hall, I don't know how many carries we have for a third THUNDER back, but there's gonna be some regretful safeties next year however those carries shake out.
I think you're right about favoring passing attacks (though it would be interesting to see success rates split out by offense/defense and passing/running).
More generally, though, I think it's useful to think about the exact way that the metric is biased. It's a binary measure of whether teams have successful or unsuccessful plays, meaning that you don't get extra credit for having *really* successful plays (and you don't get extra demerits for having really unsuccessful plays). So teams that see a disproportionally high number of really positive plays (chunk runs, pick-6s, etc.) and disproportionally low numbers of really negative plays (taking sacks, giving up coverage-bust touchdowns, etc.) are going to be underrated by this metric relative to their "true" performance.
It's pretty easy to think of ways that a team can control the game on both sides while coming out even on a metric like this:
This sounds a lot like how Michigan played against Penn State, and how they're built to play against good teams generally.
If you kick the can down the road, the game is even more over if you fail the second one. You want to know as early as possible whether you're going to need two additional scores or one. If you find out after the first touchdown with 2 minutes left, it's bad news, but you at least have 2 minutes of desperation time. If you find out after the second touchdown with, say, 15 seconds left, your window for victory is much smaller.
To the extent that we've run a lot of vanilla and predictable run calls, I think the staff has earned the benefit of the doubt that it's more about not putting stuff on film than it is about having a poorly schemed run game.
That said, I'm not convinced that the dip in production is all about scheme. Just going on my own novice eye and the UFRs and other analysis here, it really does seem like neither the backs nor the line are producing quite as much as last year's versions would have.
I get the noteworthy aspect, and I'm here reading it. For objectively obnoxious characters like this, though, you might opt for a screen grab and not a clickable widget going forward.
Conferences used to be a core part of college football landscapes. Now they're just loose federations of teams that want to schedule each other and negotiate TV contracts together. And if other Big Ten schools don't want to schedule a Harbaugh-coached team, I'd be fine with giving them their wish.
USC's response: It's good he's getting experience playing on a defense that sucks.
I think it's reasonable to expect referees at this level to be able to hold the information from multiple angles in their head simultaneously. While it might be rare to get a single angle that shows exactly where the ball is when it crosses the sideline plane, there were definitely angles that showed *when* the ball crossed the plane, and there were other angles that showed how far forward the ball was throughout the process. A good ref ought to be able to combine these streams of information and make the "indisputably" correct call.
A couple of side rants:
Jacking off on a zoom call is an intensely, viscerally sexual act. Willfully imposing such an act on people without their consent is Bad, and I'm sure it's legally actionable in all sorts of contexts.
Also, Jesus Christ, I legitimately struggle to understand how people think something like this is OK. It's *awful* to impose yourself sexually on a sexual assault survivor, whose whole relationship to you is premised on using her status to advocate against sexual misconduct, and whose income relies to a substantial extent on your patronage and the patronage of your professional network. To even approach gray areas of consent in this kind of situation is both wildly unethical and mind numbingly stupid.
But why neg speculation, especially when informed by actual expertise and consisting of some modest and logically coherent line of reasoning? Like, if you're looking for airtight reporting of fact, maybe don't visit a football message board in early June.
This is like saying that Caleb Houstan is draftable because we've seen similar build guys (Larry Bird, Luka Doncic) really come along in the league.
There are some...differences...between Hunter and Jokic.
Hopefully non-dickish public service announcement: that's not what comeuppance means.
The more instructive comparison is by year in the league. Poole's second year was his age-21 season, JR's second year was age-20, so they were close in terms of just biological development. Poole was clearly the better player at that stage, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he bests JR's breakout third season this year.
And you're conflating twitchiness with athleticism. JR was obviously the much more explosive athlete, but Poole really is more fluid with his movements. He creates more for himself and others off the bounce, and he's actually a much more effective finisher -- his 0.743 field goal percentage at the rim last year is much better than anything Smith put up at any point in his career, and he's getting to the rim at a comparable rate as Smith was at the same stage.
Smith was a far more *explosive* athlete, but I think Poole looks more fluid in his movements. Physically, Poole is almost a cross between JR and Steph. Along those lines, Poole has a smoother handle and is better at creating for himself and others. If you compare them at the same stage in their careers, Poole shoots a lot better from 2, has higher usage, has a much better assist rate and a lower turnover rate. I really think that Poole is shaping up to be a better and better-rounded player.
Juzang was absolutely amazing down the stretch last year, but UCLA needed him to be, and a lot of the shots he was hitting felt pretty non-repeatable. I would expect UCLA to over-perform last year's regular season but under-perform last year's tournament, and having them in the top 5 feels like a stretch.
The chances of actually losing a fumble are probably vanishingly small either way. A couple advantages I can think of to shotgun: 1) less likely that your quarterback takes a cheap shot, and 2) somewhat related, if you're right on the edge of being able to kneel it clock-wise, a shotgun formation probably makes it easier for the QB to stall for a couple beats and then kneel, without putting himself or the ball at risk.
Yeah, it definitely wasn't a great route -- wherever he was supposed to break, Henning still drifted after his cut, which definitely exacerbated the underthrow. But the throw was there to make, and it'd be really nice if McNamara would make it.
That last third down pass to Henning was an awful throw either way. McNamara released the ball after Henning's break, so it wasn't just that he was throwing it to where he expected Henning to be. And he left it 5+ yards short. Maybe he was just gun shy and wanted to err on the side of not throwing a pick 6, but that should have been an easy completion.
The ol Larry David move. Just show up to practice on Monday like nothing happened.
Neither offensive line covering itself in glory thus far.
I have no idea how all these guys would be evaluated otherwise. But covid disruptions mean there's certain to be a lot more noise than usual in player rankings. And that translates to a lot more randomness in how class averages look right now. Probably good advice anyway, but this is an especially good year to chill out and see how guys look when they get on campus.
A chance to prove you're healthy, show real production with an established quarterback (?), and get a little NIL cash seems a lot more appealing than a ton of draft uncertainty with a likely practice squad outcome.
Still devasting for Bell, and I feel terrible for him, but it's also a bit of a blessing that this happened so early in the year -- if all goes well, he can definitely be full speed to start next season.
This actually applies to two different Louisianas: LSU and LA Lafayette, neither of whom deserve to hang onto their top-25 statuses. Good chance LSU gets replaced by UCLA in the rankings, but Lafayette represents a genuine vacancy.
I'd like to introduce you to a little concept called "Bayesian updating". New data are new data, and small updates are still updates! And if your win probability against Washington is the same as it was 48 hours ago, I'd gently suggest that you revise your model.
But I'd argue that the ability of Bell, Corum, Haskins, et al to make plays is pretty widely known, and that the season really hinges on how well we shore up our weak spots. Revsine is probably right that Ronnie Bell isn't going to be a Heisman candidate, but we all already know that, and it's not what's going to make the difference between 5 and 10 wins.
I'm not familiar with Revsine's or Packer's commentary, so I might be unfair here...but this feels pretty lazy. It seems clear that the ability of this team to compete in the 1b tier of the Big Ten rests on the viability of weak position groups -- DT, CB, green QB. But it's a lot harder to parachute in and comment informatively on that than it is to just say "no one jumped out to me."
Middleton and Kirilenko are very different players. I don't see Franz being as wildly disruptive on defense as AK-47 (who, at his peak, was truly generational), and I don't see him being an elite shot maker like Middleton. But he's likely to be a very good defender who can add some value on offense -- the kind of guy who can profitably slot into a playoff rotation.
It's easy to fall into hyperbole with late-lottery projections. But getting a Thaddeus Young type at 9 is a win, and that's the sort of comp that I like for Franz.
Wait, when was this golden age of MMA respectfulness? Rampage, Koscheck, Ortiz, etc. The sport has always been filled with egregious pricks because it, uh, kind of selects for that.
You're definitely misremembering some things about mid-80s defenses. Barry McCockiner trolling notwithstanding, there were definitely some UPS drivers getting rotation minutes in that era who would be very fortunate to make a G League roster today.
Given that he's reportedly vaccinated -- and thus unlikely to experience prolonged illness -- and that the Suns won't be scheduled to start their next series for another week or so, I really don't think this is a huge deal for them. Maybe he misses a game or two, which would definitely hurt, but my money is still very much on the Suns to make it out of the West.
The Kawhi news is legitimately huge -- on a day off, they went from being plausible favorites to win it all to being unlikely to make it out of the conference semifinals. Pretty extraordinary on the grand scale of Woj Bombs.
If a stadium usher shared his opinion about the details of obscene acts that my mom engages in, I don't think the University's status as a government entity would protect him. Not sure how this is different in any relevant legal sense.
The most interesting aspect of this to me is the extent to which internet communities tend to vastly overestimate the broader relevance of their own little discourses. You see this on Twitter all the time, where there will be some intensely scrutinized Topic of the Week in a given subgraph that will barely be a blip on the radar for other Twitter users and completely incomprehensible to people not on the app.
The background assumption among Board users that the Board is a primary part of this website (an assumption that I also fall into) seems like a classic example of this.
I think Nets have to be the favorite to win it all, but wouldn't be shocked if Bucks take the series -- they match up as well as anyone with Jrue and Giannis, and if they get hot, they can keep pace.
As far as the Knicks/Hawks series goes, all due respect to how well Trae's played offensively, but the Knicks have been absolutely awful. Randle has probably cost himself tens of millions with this performance, and it's inexplicable how little they've done to exploit Trae on the other end. As much as Randle's been exposed, I think we're also seeing Thibs as a guy who tops out at getting guys to give max effort in the regular season. Terrible coaching performance in this series.
I'd love for Trimble to come so I can think of him as Jacked Jordan Poole.
Disagree on this. I think I weigh shot volume a lot more heavily than you do, and Smith just shot a really low volume. In that context, Bohannon hitting 44% of his *6.7* 3pt attempts per game stands out a lot more than Smith hitting 51% of his 2.6 attempts per game -- in terms of what it says about individual shooting ability, in terms of how it impacts the game, and in terms of how readily it can be replaced by another high-level grad transfer. Further context: Smith wasn't even in the top 25 in 3 point makes per game in conference.
Smith's percentage is obviously impressive. But his shooting really wasn't impacting games to nearly the extent that other lead guards were, and it's not a stretch to think that Jones can have a similar impact.
I like the Z comparison better. Loved Darius Morris, but he was never particularly explosive. Collins has a twitchiness to his game that I'm not sure we've seen at point guard. Another physical comp might be skinnier Carsen Edwards? His ability to dunk in traffic/non-breakaway situations is really uncommon in sub-6-footers.
"Elite" is overstating things a bit. Smith's .418 average was great...but on under three (mostly wide open) looks a game. In terms of both individual scoring efficiency and his gravitational effect on defenses, not hard to imagine Jones being in the same ballpark. Chaundee and especially Livers are the bigger shooting losses, but it's reasonable to expect Houstan to pick up a lot of slack there. And I really don't think that Wagner was any more of a shooting threat last year than Johns is likely to be this year.
If you date an Instagram "model" and are horrified to then learn that she's selling ass, you at the very least didn't work through all the math.
I agree about Brooks's floater, and also think he has some room to grow with respect to getting threes up off the bounce and drawing contact/getting to the line. Despite shooting 40% from 3 and 90% from the line, he had just an OK true shooting percentage last year (.557), and it's because his 2pt % was so-so (work on that floater!), he didn't get a ton of threes off, and he almost never got to the line. All of that can be improved given the tools that he has.
This is off-base. You're right that high demand factors into absurd housing costs in the Bay, but it's only half the equation; constrained supply is the other. And parking minimums are absolutely a big part of that supply constraint. Making housing cheaper to produce isn't just some giveaway to developers -- it also means that more (often times a lot more) housing gets built on the margins. Just one example: curtailing parking minimums has been the biggest factor in the multi-decade housing boom in downtown Los Angeles, as it enabled the adaptive reuse of a lot of previously vacant/under-used financial buildings downtown, which under prior parking requirements had been essentially undevelopable.
Addendum: I haven't listened to him as much this year because the Raptors are such a trash fire, but Jack Armstrong is fantastic. I'm sure it'd get old if I tuned in more, but GET THAT GAAAHBAGE OUTTA HERE in a crazed Brooklyn falsetto is top notch as far as catch phrases go.
It's honestly hard to think of really good analysts even on the regional League Pass broadcasts. Kelenna Azubuike with the Warriors and Alaa Abdelnaby with the Sixers stand out as pretty good, and of course Walt Clyde Frazier is a legend. Sarah Kustoc with the Nets might legitimately be my favorite -- she and Ian Eagle are great together. But I'm not sure any of the above would be a big step up over Jackson or Hill, let alone Van Gundy or Doris Burke.
I think this is the biggest thing -- whatever Baldwin feels about a brighter college spotlight, he's doing his dad a huge solid. And if I'm a small-market team drafting a guy with the potential to be a franchise cornerstone, it's definitely a plus if that guy has shown a willingness to pass up on bigger stages/bigger markets out of loyalty to people he's close to.
A good time to remember one of the great moments in sound guy history.