What's new
By:

Aaron Gordon 4th on Jazz Big Board behind Wiggins, Parker, Exum

How are you going to win if you have a guy shooting 42% from the line? Even 70% isn't good enough. His lack of shooting ability pretty much guarantees that he will be benched at the end of games.
 
I don't think you even need to get to 70% to be honest. Anything above like 55% is enough to punish the other team for fouling. It hurts more in the college game where they do the 1 and 1 stuff. With that being said at the end of games the higher miss chance could keep him off the floor, or from touching the ball much at the end of games.

The worry is that he ends up like Andris Biedrins and the misses make him avoid contact and he gets so messed up mentally you just cant play him.

Another player who improved his shot is Trevor Ariza shot 50% free throws and 24% from 3 in his 1 year at UCLA. Compared with Gordon of 42% free throws and 35% from 3.
I guess you could always look negative and find 100 players who never learned to shoot and never made it.
 
habibadobe said:
I don't think you even need to get to 70% to be honest. Anything above like 55% is enough to punish the other team for fouling. It hurts more in the college game where they do the 1 and 1 stuff. With that being said at the end of games the higher miss chance could keep him off the floor, or from touching the ball much at the end of games.

The worry is that he ends up like Andris Biedrins and the misses make him avoid contact and he gets so messed up mentally you just cant play him.

Another player who improved his shot is Trevor Ariza shot 50% free throws and 24% from 3 in his 1 year at UCLA. Compared with Gordon of 42% free throws and 35% from 3.
I guess you could always look negative and find 100 players who never learned to shoot and never made it.
Click to expand...

Finding a handful of players with double digit % increases and saying Gordon will do the same is fallacy. It is a fact, that most players don't have large bumps in shooting or FT percentages. Yes, outliers exist, but you don't use an outlier to make general assumptions. Based on averages, Gordon will not have a huge increase in FT/shooting %. Yes, it may happen, but if you draft him you do it because you think his other abilities outweight his shooting ineffectiveness. (And a poor shooting SF at#5 better have a lot of other great skills).

The top 10 teams in the league all shot 77% or better. We were ranked 22nd at 74.7. The Jazz, as a team, are at a disadvantage compared to most opponents. Giving minutes to players with even lower FT%s will only magnify the disadvantage at the FT line.
 
I think that order is probably fair.

Wiggins, Parker, Exum, Gordon, Vonleh.

I still have huge question marks around Exum, and I do believe Parker will do just fine at the next level. The gap across the top 4 is not as huge as some people make it out. Some posters here are already inferring that in 15 years Wiggins will be in the GOAT talk? Yeah... wishful thinking. He has a LONG ways to go, just like all others.

I'll be happy with any of those 5 players. Of them, Vonleh is the one I want the least. I'll stick with Favors and be happy.
 
JAZZGASM said:
Finding a handful of players with double digit % increases and saying Gordon will do the same is fallacy. It is a fact, that most players don't have large bumps in shooting or FT percentages. Yes, outliers exist, but you don't use an outlier to make general assumptions. Based on averages, Gordon will not have a huge increase in FT/shooting %. Yes, it may happen, but if you draft him you do it because you think his other abilities outweight his shooting ineffectiveness. (And a poor shooting SF at#5 better have a lot of other great skills).

The top 10 teams in the league all shot 77% or better. We were ranked 22nd at 74.7. The Jazz, as a team, are at a disadvantage compared to most opponents. Giving minutes to players with even lower FT%s will only magnify the disadvantage at the FT line.
Click to expand...

Can you prove the first paragraph please. Not being a jerk just wanted some research and couldn't find any. From what I can tell on the few players I looked up a ten percent increase is perfectly normal... 20-25 percent increase is the outlier based on the players I looked at.
 
Lol that 70% isn't good enough. Let's pass on everyone except stauskas.
 
I just can't justify drafting a "hustle" guy at #5 in the draft. If we pick him there we have to do so believing he'll be a two-way player eventually.

I really hope it's Exum at 5, but if we're going to go big I shade towards Vonleh over Randle or Gordon.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Can you prove the first paragraph please. Not being a jerk just wanted some research and couldn't find any. From what I can tell on the few players I looked up a ten percent increase is perfectly normal... 20-25 percent increase is the outlier based on the players I looked at.
Click to expand...

There are definitely studies. This is the most recent one I have read on 3-point FG% changes
https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news...ions-can-players-truly-improve-their-shooting

Edit: Also, when you are comparing, make sure they took a similar # of FTs in each year to get a fair comparison.

I can think of a handful of players that have improved over 10%. Webber, Baron Davis, Dale Davis. It is rare.

Here is an article that explains a bit more:
https://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1611
 
JAZZGASM said:
There are definitely studies. This is the most recent one I have read on 3-point FG% changes
https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news...ions-can-players-truly-improve-their-shooting

Edit: Also, when you are comparing, make sure they took a similar # of FTs in each year to get a fair comparison.

I can think of a handful of players that have improved over 10%. Webber, Baron Davis, Dale Davis. It is rare.
Click to expand...


I just looked at a bunch of players... Well over half improved by over 10 percent... I think 10 percent is the expectation with someone is as low as Gordon. That's still not good... I think 20-25 percent is really hopeful but not crazy. A study on 3 point shooting doesn't qualify because the line moves.
 
JAZZGASM said:
Finding a handful of players with double digit % increases and saying Gordon will do the same is fallacy. It is a fact, that most players don't have large bumps in shooting or FT percentages. Yes, outliers exist, but you don't use an outlier to make general assumptions. Based on averages, Gordon will not have a huge increase in FT/shooting %. Yes, it may happen, but if you draft him you do it because you think his other abilities outweight his shooting ineffectiveness. (And a poor shooting SF at#5 better have a lot of other great skills).

The top 10 teams in the league all shot 77% or better. We were ranked 22nd at 74.7. The Jazz, as a team, are at a disadvantage compared to most opponents. Giving minutes to players with even lower FT%s will only magnify the disadvantage at the FT line.
Click to expand...
The onus really is on Derrick Favors to improve. He only shot 67%. Burke and Hayward are both great FT shooters. Burks was just slightly above the team average. Jefferson was at 74% and Kanter at 73%. No one else really mattered since they didn't take enough FT's to push the needle one way or the other.

While many of the top teams were also very good from the line, some were not and vice versa. Miami was only at 76%. Clippers, Houston and Memphis shot WORSE than Utah and GS was pretty close. On the high end, Boston and Minnesota were both Top-10 in percentage.
 
nateboz said:
It's not.
https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/free-throws/sort/freeThrowsAttempted/seasontype/2/position/small-forwards
Do yourself a favor and look for a "Star" that shoots under 70%.
Click to expand...

When did I say he was a star or a small forward. I think his best position is at PF... he will likely play some SF as well.

The argument was that you couldn't play him at the end of games because the other team would foul him intentionally. You said shooting 70% wasn't good enough like the other team would hack him at the end of games if he shot 70%. Statistically that only works if you are a 50% or lower shooter. No coach would purposely foul a 70% free throw shooter.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
When did I say he was a star or a small forward. I think his best position is at PF... he will likely play some SF as well.

The argument was that you couldn't play him at the end of games because the other team would foul him intentionally. You said shooting 70% wasn't good enough like the other team would hack him at the end of games if he shot 70%. Statistically that only works if you are a 50% or lower shooter. No coach would purposely foul a 70% free throw shooter.
Click to expand...

If Aaron was a power he'd have to be a stretch 4. HE CAN'T SHOOT.
Why pick a guy who's 1 weakness is the worst weakness a basketball player could have? #tradethepick
 
I am frankly disappointed that Exum is on the Jazz big top 4 board at all. I had better opinion of Lindsey.
 
nateboz said:
If Aaron was a power he'd have to be a stretch 4. HE CAN'T SHOOT.
Why pick a guy who's 1 weakness is the worst weakness a basketball player could have? #tradethepick
Click to expand...

You don't have to be able to shoot to be a PF.... It helps space the floor. San Antonio started Duncan and Splitter this year and neither of them are good shooters. They had stretch 4s on their rosters though for when it was necessary.

At worst he is Faried. He is likely to become Marion. He could become something more maybe.

Randle can't shoot, we aren't sure if Vonleh can shoot.. he shows the most promise and Smart doesn't shoot. These guys are all flawed... I'll take Gordon's flaws.
 
This. They all have flaws. Gordon's are no worse, and more likely to show improvement than others (JMHO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top