Knight vs. Kanter: lessons from previous drafts

[Fishsticks]

Empirical evidence? Analysis?

No offense, but this entire post is bullsh*t. You are trying to predict how well a player will turn out based on his draft number and position. That's ludicrous. There are so many variables here, and to statistically analyze a player simply through comparison with other players according to position and draft order is...well, idiotic.

You cannot figure out whether the Jazz should take Kanter by looking at how Kwame Brown or Nikoloz Tskitishvili have panned out because there is no constant between those players. Good grief.

Ok einstein, provide your otherworldy reasoning on why we should take kanter. History repeats itself and this is a historical perspective. Dont be a douche.

 

[Fishsticks]

I struggle to figure out how Kanter is any riskier or any more of a project than Knight.

Knight is anything but a guarantee. And he's anything but a finished project with his very raw PG skills.

You cant be serious. Dude, you have a body of work to evaluate knight and he got better each game. We have so little to look at from kanter that it amazes me that anyone is so high on him. My struggles are with understanding the love for kanter without anything substantial to justify it.

 

[bat]

I struggle to figure out how Kanter is any riskier or any more of a project than Knight.

Knight is anything but a guarantee. And he's anything but a finished project with his very raw PG skills.

His pg skills aren't that raw. He's young, and they need to improve, but for a freshman I'd say his skills are as good or better than they need to be to translate to the next level. He'll figure it out with time.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Ok einstein, provide your otherworldy reasoning on why we should take kanter. History repeats itself and this is a historical perspective. Dont be a douche.

Well history may repeat itself, but it's not pre-determined. To the extent it repeats itself, it's probably because human nature doesn't really change much over time. People generally don't learn from mistakes, either theirs or others. JimLes has a point, looking at past draft trends doesn't in any way imply a specific outcome in this case--Kanter is unique and not the necessarily the duds of drafts past. What it does illustrate, however, is that GMs appear to consistently make similar errors in their evaluation of bigs, possibly at a rate significantly higher than guards. If true, there is probably a reason for it. My guess is that it is at least partially explained by the sentiment expressed in an earlier post--bigs are important, and we may not get the chance again, so let's roll the dice on someone we know who is a project but who may just come up big (you know, high risk high reward kind of stuff). GMs are probably less likely to roll the dice like that on guards or other players. Is there something of potential value in here for KOC? I think so. What does it mean in practice? I don't know enough about Kanter to have a good feel for it. I just hope that KOC does.

 

[The Thriller]

Ok einstein, provide your otherworldy reasoning on why we should take kanter. History repeats itself and this is a historical perspective. Dont be a douche.

Because Knight isn't a true PG?
Because we already have Harris?
Because Knight is developing PG skills?
Because Knight turns the ball over more than Ostertag?
Because Kanter is 6 foot 11, 260 lbs?
Because Kanter has post skills?
Because Kanter most likely would allow us to trade Millsap (a very hot commodity right now)?
Because Kanter has the potential to be a 20 and 10 guy?
Because our frontline is small?
Because good PGs can be found at any point in nearly every draft while good bigs are very difficult to find?

Do you need any more?

I understand why we take Knight. And honestly, I wouldn't be upset really. I totally understand.

I just don't understand why the pro-Knight group feel that Kanter isn't the BPA? Why is Kanter sooooooooooooooooo much more of an unknown? Why is Kanter sooooooooooo much more of a project? I don't get it. Knight is anything but a proven player. He's anything but a polished PG.

 

[JimLes]

Who said I think we should take Kanter? I believe we should take a little known former Auburn player named Andre Malone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbK44DitSWs

Why? Empirical evidence based on statistical analysis of historical trends. In the past 35 years, players with the surname Malone have proved to be a slam dunk when drafting.

For example, players named Malone have a 67% chance of being an MVP and on average provide you with 1.7 MVP trophies.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of being All-Stars and on average will be selected for an ASG 9.3 times. To put that into perspective, Scottie Pippen was a 7-time All-Star.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of living in Salt Lake City and playing in Utah. Hundred percent, baby. No Rony Seikalys or Derek Harpers here.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of playing in conference finals, 67% of playing in the NBA finals, and 33% chance of winning a ring AND being the finals MVP.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of averaging 20PPG in at least 6 seasons.
Players named Malone have a 67% chance of being in top 10 of all time in points AND rebounds.
Players named Malone have a 0% chance of having a first name that is difficult to pronounce.

How the hell do we not take Andre Malone based on past trends?

 

[sepanol]

The only teams who can afford to go after high risk/high rewards bigs are the ones that get high lottery picks year after year (Minnesota, the Wizards, the Clippers).

I completely disagree here, we are the ones to take big risk becuz this is our only top 5 pick for long long yrs, mabe ever im not sure. And we will never be a team like clippers minny or whatever so we will probably not get such a high pick (we didnt even get this pick naturally but from someother team by a trade)

We can find a player like knight in another draft, or free agency, we arent completely weak in free agencies as many think, but we cant find a franchise player with a trade or free agency. If Kanter turns out to be the player of his full potential, he will be franchise player, in contrary, Knight will not be. Im more than happy if we get both of them, but for the 3rd pick only, i wouldnt make that choice just becuz its more of a sure thing

 

[Fishsticks]

Its so hard for me at least to call kanter bpa when there is no evidence he can even play 30 games in a row at a high level. Thats just one of many reasons for me. There is just not a body of work to evaluate. The risk is too high for me.

 

[Fishsticks]

Who said I think we should take Kanter? I believe we should take a little known former Auburn player named Andre Malone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbK44DitSWs

Why? Empirical evidence based on statistical analysis of historical trends. In the past 35 years, players with the surname Malone have proved to be a slam dunk when drafting.

For example, players named Malone have a 67% chance of being an MVP and on average provide you with 1.7 MVP trophies.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of being All-Stars and on average will be selected for an ASG 9.3 times. To put that into perspective, Scottie Pippen was a 7-time All-Star.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of living in Salt Lake City and playing in Utah. Hundred percent, baby. No Rony Seikalys or Derek Harpers here.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of playing in conference finals, 67% of playing in the NBA finals, and 33% chance of winning a ring AND being the finals MVP.
Players named Malone have a 100% chance of averaging 20PPG in at least 6 seasons.
Players named Malone have a 67% chance of being in top 10 of all time in points AND rebounds.
Players named Malone have a 0% chance of having a first name that is difficult to pronounce.

How the hell do we not take Andre Malone based on past trends?

This is just ****ing asinine.

 

[sepanol]

You cant be serious. Dude, you have a body of work to evaluate knight and he got better each game. We have so little to look at from kanter that it amazes me that anyone is so high on him. My struggles are with understanding the love for kanter without anything substantial to justify it.

With substantial to justify, are u looking for 10 yrs nba experience?
None of these players are proven. Look how was oden in ncaa and how did he end up here?
Koufos as well. I still think he is a very good player, but somehow he couldnt improve himself in his sophomore yr in nba,, when he was supposed to improve himself the most but he went backwards.
There r lots of determinants to make a good player, skills, work ethic, health......
If u look at some videos of Kanter at least, u will understand his skills
About work ethic n health we will see.
But noone can convince me knight is more skilled, so right now, kanter is the best player available
If we pick knight with the reason of being best fit available or surest thing available, its much more logical

 

[Fishsticks]

Ultimately we will have to wait until the season begins to continue this debate as you and i have far different perspectives. Btw, oden is a terrible example to argue your point.

 

[JimLes]

This is just ****ing asinine.

As asinine as the original post. The choice between Kanter and Knight is simple. Pick the player you believe is better and will do more for the Jazz. It's not "pick the player based on prior draft patterns."

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I struggle to figure out how Kanter is any riskier or any more of a project than Knight.

Knight is anything but a guarantee. And he's anything but a finished project with his very raw PG skills.

That's not my point. (And I agree, by the way.)

My point is that the selecting, and taking a big risk on a big for the primary reason that 'the opportunity may not come again' is poor reasoning.

 

[Fishsticks]

As asinine as the original post. The choice between Kanter and Knight is simple. Pick the player you believe is better and will do more for the Jazz. It's not "pick the player based on prior draft patterns."

I agree with you here. I do think that the historical perspective was if nothing else interesting.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Ultimately we will have to wait until the season begins to continue this debate as you and i have far different perspectives. Btw, oden is a terrible example to argue your point.

I'm not sure if this was directed to me.

But I would say that Oden was a bad pick. Passing on a unique talent like Durant because an opportunity like Oden may not come again, was poor reasoning. Durant was always the better, more dynamic player, even had Oden not been injury prone.

But we can agree to disagree. No biggie.

 

[The Thriller]

I'm not sure if this was directed to me.

But I would say that Oden was a bad pick. Passing on a unique talent like Durant because an opportunity like Oden may not come again, was poor reasoning. Durant was the better, more dynamic player, even had Oden not been injury prone, Durant was always the better player.

This makes even less sense in a league that is more and more wing and PG driven.

But we can agree to disagree. No biggie.

Look at Porty.

They already had Roy, didn't they? Why would they have wanted another wing? That would have been like the Jazz drafting John Wall when they had Duron last year. Why draft another player to hog the ball away from your already established franchise player?

The Oden pick wasn't all that bad. And lets be honest, Durant is overrated. Just look @ what he did in the playoffs. Play him just a tad physically and he falls apart. He's nothing more than a taller Ray Allen. Good. But Durant needs to become nastier and develop a game other than chucking 3s and doing that retarded flop sweep. When the refs call that, he gets to the FT line. When they don't, he ends up looking like a dumbass and wasting a possession.

I was disappointed in Durant this year. Thought he'd take the next step. Instead, he's still soft, one dimensional, and too predictable. Needs to take the next step and become a great player instead of a great chucker.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I agree with you here. I do think that the historical perspective was if nothing else interesting.

And I disagree that the original post was asinine. I think it was an interesting perspective implying that GMs tend to overvalue 'bigs' relative to 'smalls.' Not that it necessarily has direct relevant to Kanter, which is I think what you're driving at. But again it may. I think it's a legit question for KOC to ask, "Are we possibly overvaluing Kanter because he's a big?" The answer may be no, but it's still something that I think he should ask himself.

 

[MattMan]

It's not "pick the player based on prior draft patterns."

While I agree with you, KOC seems to have players that they historically missed out on posted up on the walls to remind them of massive misses by teams. I think BPA to them will trump draft patterns, but Jazz brass have repeatedly said they look at the past to help them decide who to pick for the present and future.

While I feel Jazznik's post is a tad close minded, he makes great points and does a great job to make his argument.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I agree with you here. I do think that the historical perspective was if nothing else interesting.

And I disagree that the original post was asinine. I think it was an interesting perspective implying that GMs tend to overvalue 'bigs' relative to 'smalls.' Not that it necessarily has direct relevant to Kanter, which is I think what you're driving at. But again it may. I think it's a legit question for KOC to ask, "Are we possibly overvaluing Kanter because he's a big?" The answer may be no, but it's still something that I think he should ask himself.

 

[Fishsticks]

I'm not sure if this was directed to me.

But I would say that Oden was a bad pick. Passing on a unique talent like Durant because an opportunity like Oden may not come again, was poor reasoning. Durant was always the better, more dynamic player, even had Oden not been injury prone.

But we can agree to disagree. No biggie.

No it was to sepanols explanation of players good in college but busts in the nba. I too would have taken durant, but and injury free oden would not be a bust.