What's new
By:

Do you think our FO has Ace, Tre and VJ ranked 3-5?

fishonjazz said:
Strange post.
Click to expand...

Pelton and other models have VJ and Kon rated as the 2nd and 3rd best players in the draft, Fears and Maluach as mid first guys, and Tre and Ace as late first, early second guys. Tre and Ace are disliked by models due to their lack of steals, assists, rebounds (for Tre), and free throws.

Ace and Tre are still ranked much higher than Cody Williams last year (who was ranked as the 92nd best player in the draft by Pelton) though.
 
HadAnEffectHere said:
Pelton and other models have VJ and Kon rated as the 2nd and 3rd best players in the draft, Fears and Maluach as mid first guys, and Tre and Ace as late first, early second guys. Tre and Ace are disliked by models due to their lack of steals, assists, rebounds (for Tre), and free throws.

Ace and Tre are still ranked much higher than Cody Williams last year (who was ranked as the 92nd best player in the draft by Pelton) though.
Click to expand...
Oh I thought you were simply talking about stats and when I look at the players stats I see something different than your post did.
 
Last edited:
HadAnEffectHere said:
Pelton and other models have VJ and Kon rated as the 2nd and 3rd best players in the draft, Fears and Maluach as mid first guys, and Tre and Ace as late first, early second guys. Tre and Ace are disliked by models due to their lack of steals, assists, rebounds (for Tre), and free throws.

Ace and Tre are still ranked much higher than Cody Williams last year (who was ranked as the 92nd best player in the draft by Pelton) though.
Click to expand...
and we should keep in mind these models are FAR from foolproof. both bailey and johnson compare favorably with a guy like devin booker in those areas - stls, assists, rebounds, free throws, etc.

one of the reasons they are far from foolproof and one reason we should be careful to judge any 18/19 year old on these things as if they are finished products is that guys improve. they change. they develop skills and attributes at 25 they didn't have at 18/19. they play different roles. they are coached differently. Booker's assist rate and FT rate in college were alarmingly low. NBA Devin Booker has had several 6/7 assist per game seasons. he gets to the FT line a lot.

he's just one example of many who have shown skills at the NBA level that were bad at the college level.

if they are a scorer, i'll take my chances because those are the guys who become stars - i'll take my chances they will develop in other areas. if they didn't show scoring chops in college they won't be a scorer at the nba level.
 
Last edited:
seattlejazzfan said:
and we should keep in mind these models are FAR from foolproof. both bailey and johnson compare favorably with a guy like devin booker in those areas - stls, assists, rebounds, free throws, etc.

one of the reasons they are far from foolproof and one reason we should be careful to judge any 18/19 year old on these things as if they are finished products is that guys improve. they change. they develop skills and attributes at 25 they didn't have at 18/19. they play different roles. they are coached differently. Booker's assist rate and FT rate in college were alarmingly low. NBA Devin Booker has had several 6/7 assist per game seasons. he gets to the FT line a lot.

he's just one example of many who have shown skills at the NBA level that were bad at the college level.

if they are a scorer, i'll take my chances because those are the guys who become stars - i'll take my chances they will develop in other areas. if they didn't show scoring chops in college they won't be a scorer at the nba level.
Click to expand...

It's about 50/50 if we're talking about guys 3-8. The two best remaining in the playoffs did not score big in college. Neither did Booker who you're using to invalidate the models.

BTW, idk why you're assuming the models assume they don't change. The whole point of the model is to predict how they change lol.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
and we should keep in mind these models are FAR from foolproof. both bailey and johnson compare favorably with a guy like devin booker in those areas - stls, assists, rebounds, free throws, etc.

one of the reasons they are far from foolproof and one reason we should be careful to judge any 18/19 year old on these things as if they are finished products is that guys improve. they change. they develop skills and attributes at 25 they didn't have at 18/19. they play different roles. they are coached differently. Booker's assist rate and FT rate in college were alarmingly low. NBA Devin Booker has had several 6/7 assist per game seasons. he gets to the FT line a lot.

he's just one example of many who have shown skills at the NBA level that were bad at the college level.

if they are a scorer, i'll take my chances because those are the guys who become stars - i'll take my chances they will develop in other areas. if they didn't show scoring chops in college they won't be a scorer at the nba level.
Click to expand...

I don't have much opinion on the draft models, but Tre's lack of rebounding and free throws do make me nervous.

Booker was rated badly in large part because Cal forced KAT to play inside (next to WCS!) and gave the Harrison Twins (two of the worst shooters and players I have had the misfortune of watching) a green light. This meant that there was basically no space whatsoever and no touches for Booker.

Tre and Ace got as many touches as they want, but Tre had bad teammates so he's tough to evaluate. Kon had more limited touches, but he had literally the best situation in recent NBA Draft history (he basically played next to the college version of Prime LeBron and Gobert with elite shooters all around them). It's tough to evaluate, but it will just be interesting to see who the Jazz go with as the analytics models have such wildly differing opinions.

I have Tre as #3 in this class, but a weak #3 who should go around 6-7 usually. Just would like to see any metrics where it showed him being able to physically hang. His skillset is perfect though and he seems like a really smart person.
 
KqWIN said:
It's about 50/50 if we're talking about guys 3-8. The two best remaining in the playoffs did not score big in college. Neither did Booker who you're using to invalidate the models.

BTW, idk why you're assuming the models assume they don't change. The whole point of the model is to predict how they change lol.
Click to expand...
you're putting words in my mouth. it's not about big scoring numbers - it's about scoring ability - booker was absolutely a scorer. booker's numbers weren't huge because he played bench minutes - but he averaged 30 ppg per 100. SGA's weren't huge because scoring was spread out on that team, but he was the second leading scorer on that kentucky team on 49/40/80 shooting splits. scoring was probably his greatest strength.

if you think Shai, Haliburton, Brunson or Siakam didn't show excellent scoring chops in college, you weren't paying attention. honestly the idea that any of those guys didn't show major scoring ability is laughable. they were all effective and efficient.
 
SGA was an OK scorer, but his jumpshot was so broken that most people projected him to be a defensive specialist more than anything. Just one of the worst jumpers I've seen in the last decade. Completely fixed it, obviously.

Donovan Mitchell is probably the worst recent college scorer who turned into a great NBA scorer. Terrible efficiency on fairly low volume and was compared mostly to Avery Bradley out of college.

Haliburton's scoring was also just OK.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
you're putting words in my mouth. it's not about big scoring numbers - it's about scoring ability - booker was absolutely a scorer. booker's numbers weren't huge because he played bench minutes. SGA's weren't huge because scoring was spread out on that team, but he was the second leading scorer on 49/40/80 shooting splits.

if you think Shai, Haliburton, Brunson or Siakam couldn't or didn't score in college, you weren't paying attention. honestly the idea is laughable.
Click to expand...

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was just alluding to the general concept that guys often improve their scoring in the NBA. You said that this does not happen, so I just offered a countering opinion that it is something that improves. I couldn’t possibly know who you’re subjectively and retroactively labeling as a scorer. With the benefit of hindsight, I bet you have great accuracy in assigning who did and did not have scoring chops. Scoring chops is a vague term and I could not really even tell you if I did or did not think players had them because I don't know what that means. I prefer to use a more concrete standard to make my point. History shows that lower usage players in this draft range go on to become stars at roughly the same rate as higher usage ones. In other words, guys do often score more in the NBA.

And just so I'm clear, the best two I referred to are Shai and Hali. Both grew their offensive games immensely when they got to the league and are prime examples of players increasing their scoring load once they got in the pros. I think scoring is absolutely something that can be developed in the NBA.
 
KqWIN said:
These are the Pelton stats only projections btw:

Kon (2)
VJ (4)
Fears (20)
Ace (27)
Tre (30)
Maluach (37)
Click to expand...
I didnt know too much about this model so started working backwards.

Skipped 2024 cause who tf knows.. 2023 looked rough and I couldnt continue after seeing his 2022 stat model placing Banchero 35th and JDub 59th.

Some people have too much free time.
 
I don't know everything about Pelton's model, but my intuition says that 1) Pelton's model is probably underrating Tre's shooting and 2) Tre is a player that models will just generally dislike.

1) Pelton seems to project shooting based on the standard shooting indicators (3FG%, volume, FT%). Tre's numbers are good, but his volume is high, but not out of this world. If you looked at his tankathon 3FG% projection which uses the same factor, it's very good but also comparable to very good shooters in previous drafts. What separates Tre from the others is that the degree of difficulty of his shots seems higher. That is really only caught in 3FG volume, but his volume is not as high as his degree of difficulty might suggest. So he's probably a little underrated in that aspect.

He also incorporates high school 3FG% which wasn't great. I don't have great opinions on how much that factors in or how much it should (if at all).

2) Even if we are certain about Tre's shooting, we must remember that shooting is one of the flimsier things to predict. A model can never be too sure about shooting because it's generally hard to predict, so when a large part of player's case is based on shooting it can make a large part of his case feel unpredictable. This doesn't necessarily seem to be the case with Pelton's model, but I think that's something you see generally with those who attempt to model the draft. Beyond that, his peripheral numbers are extremely low and those are pretty much universally agreed upon as big indicators across the board model wise. So Tre was never likely to be a top 15 player in this context.
 
KqWIN said:
I don't know everything about Pelton's model, but my intuition says that 1) Pelton's model is probably underrating Tre's shooting and 2) Tre is a player that models will just generally dislike.

1) Pelton seems to project shooting based on the standard shooting indicators (3FG%, volume, FT%). Tre's numbers are good, but his volume is high, but not out of this world. If you looked at his tankathon 3FG% projection which uses the same factor, it's very good but also comparable to very good shooters in previous drafts. What separates Tre from the others is that the degree of difficulty of his shots seems higher. That is really only caught in 3FG volume, but his volume is not as high as his degree of difficulty might suggest. So he's probably a little underrated in that aspect.

He also incorporates high school 3FG% which wasn't great. I don't have great opinions on how much that factors in or how much it should (if at all).

2) Even if we are certain about Tre's shooting, we must remember that shooting is one of the flimsier things to predict. A model can never be too sure about shooting because it's generally hard to predict, so when a large part of player's case is based on shooting it can make a large part of his case feel unpredictable. This doesn't necessarily seem to be the case with Pelton's model, but I think that's something you see generally with those who attempt to model the draft. Beyond that, his peripheral numbers are extremely low and those are pretty much universally agreed upon as big indicators across the board model wise. So Tre was never likely to be a top 15 player in this context.
Click to expand...
Even if we just watch him on film... It's pretty clear what Tre's path to success is and it's pretty clear that if he doesn't succeed in that path he will have hard time impacting the game in other ways to justify that type of pick. If he's not primary or at least high level secondary initiator, he seems like a ... bench player.

For the record, again, because people misread what I'm saying when I say that, I do NOT mind any of this. I think taking high upside(whatever that means), even if it's accompanied by risk of completely busting, is a legitimate strategy at this point of the draft and I would be perfectly fine with us selecting him. I just wish people would acknowledge this reality.
 
stitches said:
Even if we just watch him on film... It's pretty clear what Tre's path to success is and it's pretty clear that if he doesn't succeed in that path he will have hard time impacting the game in other ways to justify that type of pick. If he's not primary or at least high level secondary initiator, he seems like a ... bench player.

For the record, again, because people misread what I'm saying when I say that, I do NOT mind any of this. I think taking high upside(whatever that means), even if it's accompanied by risk of completely busting, is a legitimate strategy at this point of the draft and I would be perfectly fine with us selecting him. I just wish people would acknowledge this reality.
Click to expand...

I said this in the other thread, but I feel very confident (probably over confident) in knowing who he is. He's going to be a great shooter, have a tough shot diet, and be a bad defender. We don't know exactly how great he is, but we kind of know where that lands him. At the high end you got borderline all star players and on the low end you've got role players like Hield/Beasley. There's so many of these guys in the league. It's the coldest take in the world, but it really just comes down to if these guys make their shots when it matters. Jamal Murray is some kind of legendary player when he's cooking, but looks totally useless when he's not. Same for McCollum and guys lower in the same archetype. Buddy Hield is Steph Curry until he's Hield again. This archetype will always have questions about their 16 game value IMO.

I actually don't think he's the risky pick at all. If he makes it above this, it means he makes an extraordinary development—and that does happen sometimes! If he is below this, it means he had an extraordinarily bad transition for some reason—unfortunately that happens sometimes too :/
 
stitches said:
Even if we just watch him on film... It's pretty clear what Tre's path to success is and it's pretty clear that if he doesn't succeed in that path he will have hard time impacting the game in other ways to justify that type of pick. If he's not primary or at least high level secondary initiator, he seems like a ... bench player.

For the record, again, because people misread what I'm saying when I say that, I do NOT mind any of this. I think taking high upside(whatever that means), even if it's accompanied by risk of completely busting, is a legitimate strategy at this point of the draft and I would be perfectly fine with us selecting him. I just wish people would acknowledge this reality.
Click to expand...
Ya tre is the guy I want most but it wouldn't be surprising if he ended up just being Malik Beasley.


Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
 
I still think that if there's a guy DA really loves, it's Ace. Trading up for him at #3 or drafting him at #5 makes me a little queasy. I really think we're the wrong situation for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top