What's new
By:

Jackpotting Around Podcast: Episode 37 - Keandre Ashley of Hoop Intellect

Elizah Huge

Elizah Huge

Respect All, Fear None
Contributor
2024 Award Winner
Keandre Ashley, the founder of Hoop Intellect joins the guys to discuss his thoughts on the 2025 NBA Draft.

Ace Bailey, VJ Edgecombe, or Tre Johnson?

Who should the Jazz target at 5 and 21?

Who has surprising upside? What second-round players could be available? Plus much more!

Subscribe to the Hoop Intellect Youtube Channel:

www.youtube.com

Hoop Intellect

NBA Draft Scouting + Film Breakdowns & other NBA related content Follow Me On Twitter @HoopIntelllect & On Instagram @HoopIntellect Check out HoopIntellect.com
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

Spotify:


View: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4453R7K1gSj3RZbRI2RYOV?si=oWA2_ooeR6mUwwINT2X1lg


Apple Podcasts:


View: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jackpotting-around-a-utah-jazz-podcast/id1728148741?i=1000710445663
 
KqWIN said:
@Elizah Huge @Handlogten's Heros

What is upside and how are we determining who has it?
Click to expand...
If you can jump high or have a big wingspan... honestly I think people think athletic attributes and also ability "to get their own bucket" when they are saying that. Not a diss... but I think that is the narrow general definition when I see people put a limited upside on a guy. Keandre talked about false limitations with a guy like Haliburton and I loved it.
 
The reason I ask what "upside" means is because I think we’re often talking about different things. I get why someone might say Ace has the most upside—but is that just saying he has the most room to improve? If he has a longer list of things to work on, does that automatically mean he can reach a higher level? And how to we incorporate the realism aspect of this? I’ve come to really dislike the ceiling/floor framework because it puts an arbitrary cap on something we can’t actually know. I don't really think the situation where everything goes perfectly right or wrong is that meaningful.

I’d rather expand how we think about upside. It’s not just one thing—it depends on the goal. Upside to do what? If you asked who has the best chance to become a top-50 player, that might be a different answer than who could become a top-20 player. Ceiling/floor thinking kind of touches on that, but I don’t like how it implies there’s a fixed limit or that one player inherently has more “potential,” whatever that really means. For me I'd rather focus about the paths/scenarios that would be required to reach a certain level.
 
when i think about upside, i think about a few things:

god given talent: height, length, athleticism
youth
shooting/scoring potential - have they shown the ability - even if not consistently efficient - to create their own shot, do they have good mechanics. iow, even if the shooting numbers aren't great now, based on their mechanics they have potential to be very good
production - ideally they would have shown they can produce at least a reasonable level

imo, if they have those four things, they probably have a lot of "upside", a "high ceiling", etc.

to be clear, that's just how i view it. doesn't mean that's how it is or has to be or it's set in stone, just that when i think of dudes with upside, that's what i tend to look at.
 
KqWIN said:
The reason I ask what "upside" means is because I think we’re often talking about different things. I get why someone might say Ace has the most upside—but is that just saying he has the most room to improve? If he has a longer list of things to work on, does that automatically mean he can reach a higher level? And how to we incorporate the realism aspect of this? I’ve come to really dislike the ceiling/floor framework because it puts an arbitrary cap on something we can’t actually know. I don't really think the situation where everything goes perfectly right or wrong is that meaningful.

I’d rather expand how we think about upside. It’s not just one thing—it depends on the goal. Upside to do what? If you asked who has the best chance to become a top-50 player, that might be a different answer than who could become a top-20 player. Ceiling/floor thinking kind of touches on that, but I don’t like how it implies there’s a fixed limit or that one player inherently has more “potential,” whatever that really means. For me I'd rather focus about the paths/scenarios that would be required to reach a certain level.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. It should just be which of these guys has the most potential to help a team win games at a high level? I think it should have some probability applied to it as well.
 
For me:

Defense and shooting potential= Floor (what keeps someone on an NBA floor)
Self Creation/Creation for Other Potential = Ceiling/Upside (what typically separates star players)
 
Last edited:
Handlogten's Heros said:
I agree with this. It should just be which of these guys has the most potential to help a team win games at a high level? I think it should have some probability applied to it as well.
Click to expand...

You can you can get even more granular than that and talk about what kind of role they play into that. Upside/Potential is just too broad of a term to use on it's own.

The idea that we can know a range player a player fits into is flawed. Even if we knew could somehow know the exact range, the probabilities at different points across that range are what really matter. I have a pretty set range range in my head for Tre, for example, and I have a hard time seeing him break out of that range. But I don't want to put this cap on him by saying he has a low ceiling or say he has a high ceiling because in the 100th percentile of outcomes he does.
 
Great idea to have Keandre on your podcast. I agree with everything he said about VJ and would pick him over Tre and Ace as well. His answer to the question about which players after #20 could become All-Stars was interesting.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
when i think about upside, i think about a few things:

god given talent: height, length, athleticism
youth
shooting/scoring potential - have they shown the ability - even if not consistently efficient - to create their own shot, do they have good mechanics. iow, even if the shooting numbers aren't great now, based on their mechanics they have potential to be very good
production - ideally they would have shown they can produce at least a reasonable level

imo, if they have those four things, they probably have a lot of "upside", a "high ceiling", etc.

to be clear, that's just how i view it. doesn't mean that's how it is or has to be or it's set in stone, just that when i think of dudes with upside, that's what i tend to look at.
Click to expand...
This
 
Tre and Kon both have massive defensive concerns in the NBA, but Kon's are slightly more worrying to me. I don't know if this guy can defend much at all in the NBA.

I don't have very strong feelings on Tre vs. Kon vs. Ace vs. Fears. Very whatever feeling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top