What's new
By:

Kanter and Nike Hoop Summit History

colton said:
If Kanter had scored 15 pts in the game, that would be much more meaningful.
Click to expand...

Use any criteria you want to define who you think did well against top HS guys. The conclusion is the same: doing well means nothing when it comes to NBA success or even making NBA 3d string roster.


colton said:
No one is arguing that it automatically does. It's just ONE data point which should be analyzed when evaluating him. But what you seem almost to be arguing is that having success in that game somehow proves that Kanter is going to be a bust.
Click to expand...

That "ONE data point" is the centerpiece of entire evaluation. The only time Kanter played against somewhat decent competition. If you put this "ONE data point" in perspective, as I just did, you are left with nothing to project the guy top 3. That does not mean he is bust, but it does make him a HUGE risk at top 3, without appropriate reward justification. Much like a lottery ticket.
 
margodydek said:
Borat, I don't think all the Kanter supporters are on his bandwagon as a result of the NHS. I think that is definitely something that we all looked at and were wowed by his numbers. BTW, one of the things that gets lost in the shuffle of that game was the fact that the kid only played 22 min. Anyways, back to my point, I would have to say that the reason that most of us like Kanter is that he looks and feels like a guy that is going to translate. This is why I am very much against Valanciunas. Sure he put up good numbers in Europe, but the guy just does not look like he's going to translate very well when he comes over (I could easily be wrong). I think when people see Kanter they see a 6'11" guy who's got a great body, good work ethic (as evidenced by his combine numbers) looks to be an above average to elite rebounder, has a very solid jumpshot out to 20 ft, and has a decent low post game. Combine all that with the fact that he's 19 and it doesn't seem too far fetched to see him going early in the lottery. Do we know he's going to be great? No. But the only result of him not playing last year is the fact that he is now harder to evaluate.
Click to expand...

You bring up interesting point about Jonas V. That's one thing that makes me feel better about Kanter: the fact he compared well against Jonas in juniors, and Jonas is doing OK in senior League now. However, this could be very easily attributed to the fact Jonas developed well, while getting playing time against tough competition, while Kanter not only didn't play for a year, he couldn't even practice with the team for nearly all year. But the thing here is, Jonas is nowhere near a star or impact player in Europe, like Dirk, Peja, AK, Parker, Gasol were at young age before they were picked. He is a decent guy, gets 7ppg, struggles on defense, fouls way too much. He does not dominate, like the other guys I mentioned did. So, Jonas is nowhere near a solid #3 pick either.
 
Per 48 stats for Nike Hoop Summit players that scored 25 points or more:

Code: 
30+ points

Wayne Ellington   59.52 pts (68.75 FG%),  5.76 reb ( 0.00 off)
Tyler Hansbrough  59.52 pts (66.67 FG%), 19.20 reb (17.28 off)
Casey Jacobson    53.14 pts (71.43 FG%),  1.71 reb ( 0.00 off)
Dirk Nowitzki     52.80 pts (50.00 FG%), 22.40 reb ( 3.20 off) *int
Enes Kanter       68.00 pts (61.90 FG%), 26.00 reb (16.00 off) *int

25-30 points

Harrison Barnes   44.68 pts (52.94 FG%), 11.59 reb ( 3.31 off)
Josh Smith        39.27 pts (66.67 FG%),  8.73 reb ( 1.45 off)
Al Harrington     39.00 pts (52.63 FG%), 13.50 reb ( 4.50 off)

A few thoughts:

-Only Nowitzki and Kanter were on the international team. Judging by the USA's 10-3 record against the world team, it is probably safe to assume that the USA players are generally better than the international players, and that, as a result, a player would probably have an easier time achieving good stats playing for team USA than he would if he were playing for the World team. This makes both Nowitzki's and Kanter's stats that much more impressive, because they were playing against the USA, not for the USA. Compare, for example, Wellington's competition with Kanter's competition.

-Tyler Hansbrough scored 15 of his 31 points at the line.

-Nowitzki scored 19 of his 33 points at the line.

-Enes scored 8 of his 34 points at the line.

-Kanter's rebounding in the Euro U18 (27.75 per 48) might not be entirely meaningless.
 
Last edited:
somebody said:
Per 48 stats for Nike Hoop Summit players that scored 25 points or more:

Code: 
30+ points

Wayne Ellington   59.52 pts (68.75 FG%),  5.76 reb ( 0.00 off)
Tyler Hansbrough  59.52 pts (66.67 FG%), 19.20 reb (17.28 off)
Casey Jacobson    53.14 pts (71.43 FG%),  1.71 reb ( 0.00 off)
Dirk Nowitzki     52.80 pts (50.00 FG%), 22.40 reb ( 3.20 off) *int
Enes Kanter       68.00 pts (61.90 FG%), 26.00 reb (16.00 off) *int

25-30 points

Harrison Barnes   44.68 pts (52.94 FG%), 11.59 reb ( 3.31 off)
Josh Smith        39.27 pts (66.67 FG%),  8.73 reb ( 1.45 off)
Al Harrington     39.00 pts (52.63 FG%), 13.50 reb ( 4.50 off)

A few thoughts:

-Only Nowitzki and Kanter were on the international team. Judging by the USA's 10-3 record against the world team, it is probably safe to assume that the USA players are generally better than the international players, and that, as a result, a player would probably have an easier time achieving good stats playing for team USA than he would if he were playing for the World team. This makes both Nowitzki's and Kanter's stats that much more impressive, because they were playing against the USA, not for the USA. Compare, for example, Wellington's competition with Kanter's competition.

-Tyler Hansbrough scored 15 of his 31 points at the line.

-Kanter's rebounding in the Euro U18 (20+ per/35) might not be entirely meaningless.
Click to expand...

Someone could also infer that if as you said, the Euro team isn't as good as the US team that Kanter might have been the Euro team's main option offensively which gave him more chances than a US play who was on an offensively stacked team as far as players go. There's arguments for both sides.
 
trigg3r said:
Someone could also infer that if as you said, the Euro team isn't as good as the US team that Kanter might have been the Euro team's main option offensively which gave him more chances than a US play who was on an offensively stacked team as far as players go. There's arguments for both sides.
Click to expand...
It may be true that the World team gave Enes attempts, but everyone gave him rebounds, and the USA defense gave him 61.9 FG%. Also, Harrison Barnes had more FGA than Kanter in that game.
 
somebody said:
It may be true that the World team gave Enes attempts, but everyone gave him rebounds, and the USA defense gave him 61.9 FG%. Also, Harrison Barnes had more FGA than Kanter in that game.
Click to expand...

I agree that what Kanter did in this game is impressive. What it doesn't change though is the fact that doing well against US team in this game means absolutely nothing when it comes to NBA success or even making a 3d string on NBA team.
 
Borat said:
I agree that what Kanter did in this game is impressive. What it doesn't change though is the fact that doing well against US team in this game means absolutely nothing when it comes to NBA success or even making a 3d string on NBA team.
Click to expand...
Apparently, by your logic, a player can score 1,532 points and dunk from half-court in a Nike Hoop Summit (NHS) game and it will mean "absolutely nothing" when it comes to the NBA.

You have to clearly establish, in an objective, non-biased way, why a 1,532 point NHS game would mean something in the NBA and why a 34 point 13 rebound game would not—unless, that is, you really do think a 1,532 point NHS game would mean nothing in the NBA. I assume you do not.
 
Last edited:
Borat said:
That "ONE data point" is the centerpiece of entire evaluation. The only time Kanter played against somewhat decent competition. If you put this "ONE data point" in perspective, as I just did, you are left with nothing to project the guy top 3.
Click to expand...
In this year's draft there MIGHT be safer options but I don't think they are better options. Kanter's size, fat%, etc. all speak well of him. His performance in the NHS is actually a strong argument in favor of drafting Kanter, and saying that this should be a deterrent to drafting him is actually quite insane.

The strongest deterrent to drafting Kanter I've found is Kosta Kofous' U18 stats. This, not the NHS, is what gives me pause.

Borat said:
That does not mean he is bust, but it does make him a HUGE risk at top 3,
Click to expand...
He isn't a HUGE risk. He's a risk though, we agree on that. But who would you choose at 3? Knight? Not a premium position.
Where does Kanter fall on your draft board? Remember, this year is weak so maybe he's typically someone that would go say 8th or 9th but the Jazz have to take the 3rd best prospect THIS YEAR, and that might be Kanter.

To totally disregard his NHS performance would be folly. To use it as a reason to pass on him is just not smart.
 
Where would DeMarcus Cousins be on everyone's draft board this year? Many of us were pining for Cousins last year but according to PKM, Kanter is the superior player. Didn't Josh Harrelson claim this too?
 
BENTLEY said:
Where would DeMarcus Cousins be on everyone's draft board this year? Many of us were pining for Cousins last year but according to PKM, Kanter is the superior player. Didn't Josh Harrelson claim this too?
Click to expand...
Just my guess, but if Cousins were in this draft he'd probably go 3 or 4. It would be us deciding between him and Kanter. I would have guessed Minnesota picking Cousins at 2 but they passed him up in last years draft at pick #4 for Wesley Johnson.

The Jazz, under Jerry Sloan, were always big on players being fit. It would be tough for them to pick between the larger Cousins with the bigger track record but with 16.4 % body fat, and the slightly smaller, more mysterious, but much more fit Kanter at 5.9 (?) % body fat. It would probably come down to workouts, but that aside we'd probably pick Cousins. Just a guess.
 
Just to be clear, I didn't say I thought Kanter was better. I said Kanter out played Cousins head-to-head, in a pick-up game. I do feel they're pretty equal in talent with Kanter having FAAAAR better work ethic and teammate qualities. Josh, on the other hand, did in fact say Kanter was the best he's played against, by far.

I'd say if Cousins was in this draft, he'd be taken between 1 and 4. There were character concerns last year .. if that carried over to this year, he drops to 3 or 4. If he disproved the myth before draft day .. he'd likley go #1.
 
Seriously, Irving, Williams, Kanter.
Who else at 3?

Some opt for Knight before Kanter. I disagree but even so, is there anyone else you'd take before Kanter?
 
somebody said:
Apparently, by your logic, a player can score 1,532 points and dunk from half-court in a Nike Hoop Summit (NHS) game and it will mean "absolutely nothing" when it comes to the NBA.

You have to clearly establish, in an objective, non-biased way, why a 1,532 point NHS game would mean something in the NBA and why a 34 point 13 rebound game would not—unless, that is, you really do think a 1,532 point NHS game would mean nothing in the NBA. I assume you do not.
Click to expand...

Enough with delusional fantasies. This was just 1 game, and doing well there does not at all translate to even making NBA roster. Should we dismiss it completely? No, it's something interesting to consider, but, looking at the facts, it does have very little value when it comes to NBA projection. Just like some international junior MVP or a pick-up game that PKM saw. All that info combined is just not worth that much, don't you get it? The risk here is enormous and does not justify giving up such huge asset as #3 pick. Not when you have someone like Knight, Irving, or Williams as the alternative, who also have sky high potential and a serious resume in their portfolio.
 
Last edited:
PKM said:
Did you NOT understand Borat's posts? Does he need to explain it AGAIN??!?!?

It's okay, Borat, they can't all be winners ..







;)
Click to expand...

True that... It must be the pick-up game you mentioned. No one else has that jewel of an accomplishment on their resume.
 
Borat said:
The risk here is enormous and does not justify giving up such huge asset as #3 pick. Not when you have someone like Knight, Irving, or Williams as the alternative, who also have sky high potential and a serious resume in their portfolio.
Click to expand...

So in essence you're saying Irving, Williams, Knight > Kanter.
Plenty on here agree with you, without having to claim the NHS means nothing.
 
BENTLEY said:
So in essence you're saying Irving, Williams, Knight > Kanter.
Plenty on here agree with you, without having to claim the NHS means nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but now that we saw the facts about the best thing on Kanter's resume, the NHS game, not translating to NBA success at all, I am just surprised so many people are willing to gamble such an asset as #3 pick away on a hunch, and are "convinced" the guy with no resume is the best choice over people who have high ceiling AND great resume to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top