thedoper wrote:To touch on the sample size issue, Nesmith basically took the same number of FTs and 3pts as Vassell in half as many games. Vassell's performance in terms of statistical validity is as suspect as a sample size.
Nesmith's 14-game run was undoubtedly impressive in a vacuum, but are we to not question his 59-175 (33.7-percent) three-point production just a season prior? Why are we ignoring that? How can you be so vehemently sure that he's the player you paint him out to be versus the player he's been over the course of more games?
With that said, players absolutely improve over the summer, and the jump from freshman to sophomore is nothing to scoff at, but I'm more skeptical myself. I think he'll be a decent shooter at the next level, but I'm very much pumping the brakes on any ideas that portray him as a Buddy Hield or comparable type shooter. And I'm not saying anyone here has made that comparison. I just can't confidently say he's a better shooter than some other prospects in this class.
I'm not ignoring that. I'm not vehement about anything. I said he has great looking form on his shot, and agree with the belief that he is the best shooter coming out of College. I think he should and will go 10+ in the draft and hope he slips to our second pick. I am just pointing out that his sample size last season is exactly the same as Vassell's with better stats. It is only a statement of fact. I am enthusiastic that he responded so amazingly with a larger share of the offense, but I am worried about his injury and wouldn't take him higher than 10.
The problem I'm having here is that it's not apples to apples. The sample size for Nesmith being an above average shooter is 14 games. That's about two months of production, or roughly half a season. There are also 32 games that paint him out to be inconsistent or subpar in this very aspect of the game. Vassell, on the other hand, was consistently good over the course of his 30-game campaign. That carries more weight with me.
Don't get me wrong. I think Nesmith is a worthwhile prospect. I have question marks with him, though. The main one being just how good of a shooter is he, and which campaign of his -- freshman vs. sophomore -- is a more accurate depiction of his ability.
The sample size for Vassell is on much fewer shot attempts per game as a secondary element of the offense. What factor the separate instances (33 v 14 games) have on the stats is debatable, but as an aggregate Nesmith took more 3s last year at a higher percentage, and 2 fewer FTs at a much high percentage than Vassell did in twice as many games. From a pure statistical perspective both have question marks based on sample size. I think there may be an impact on the seperate instances in this situation in terms of consistency, but Vassell has statistical questions based on his small number of attempts in each of his seasons. He is by no means a volume shooter. It's not apples to apples, Nesmith was the primary scorer for a short amount of time. Vassell has been a second or 3rd option during his college career.
Shooting aside isn't there a supposed difference in terms of what the players can do in other areas? Isn't Vassell supposed to be a guy that can REALLY defend? Neismith I would guess is farther along as a scorer based on his 14 games...which one matters most? which will improve in various areas?
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I rarely do the college draft game. But for future bragging stakes... Haliburton.
[Note: I toyed with Brandon Clarke with guarded commentary last year, but never went all-in publicly. I'm going all in on a guy I've barely watched play. Either I get to shove it in people's faces... or I'm wrong like almost everybody else who picked somebody who wasn't the best player. Good odds!]
I'll join you on this bandwagon Abe...or is this more of a Toyota Prius thats pretty quiet unless we want to blow our horns?
thedoper wrote:To touch on the sample size issue, Nesmith basically took the same number of FTs and 3pts as Vassell in half as many games. Vassell's performance in terms of statistical validity is as suspect as a sample size.
Nesmith's 14-game run was undoubtedly impressive in a vacuum, but are we to not question his 59-175 (33.7-percent) three-point production just a season prior? Why are we ignoring that? How can you be so vehemently sure that he's the player you paint him out to be versus the player he's been over the course of more games?
With that said, players absolutely improve over the summer, and the jump from freshman to sophomore is nothing to scoff at, but I'm more skeptical myself. I think he'll be a decent shooter at the next level, but I'm very much pumping the brakes on any ideas that portray him as a Buddy Hield or comparable type shooter. And I'm not saying anyone here has made that comparison. I just can't confidently say he's a better shooter than some other prospects in this class.
I'm not ignoring that. I'm not vehement about anything. I said he has great looking form on his shot, and agree with the belief that he is the best shooter coming out of College. I think he should and will go 10+ in the draft and hope he slips to our second pick. I am just pointing out that his sample size last season is exactly the same as Vassell's with better stats. It is only a statement of fact. I am enthusiastic that he responded so amazingly with a larger share of the offense, but I am worried about his injury and wouldn't take him higher than 10.
The problem I'm having here is that it's not apples to apples. The sample size for Nesmith being an above average shooter is 14 games. That's about two months of production, or roughly half a season. There are also 32 games that paint him out to be inconsistent or subpar in this very aspect of the game. Vassell, on the other hand, was consistently good over the course of his 30-game campaign. That carries more weight with me.
Don't get me wrong. I think Nesmith is a worthwhile prospect. I have question marks with him, though. The main one being just how good of a shooter is he, and which campaign of his -- freshman vs. sophomore -- is a more accurate depiction of his ability.
The sample size for Vassell is on much fewer shot attempts per game as a secondary element of the offense. What factor the separate instances (33 v 14 games) have on the stats is debatable, but as an aggregate Nesmith took more 3s last year at a higher percentage, and 2 fewer FTs at a much high percentage than Vassell did in twice as many games. From a pure statistical perspective both have question marks based on sample size. I think there may be an impact on the seperate instances in this situation in terms of consistency, but Vassell has statistical questions based on his small number of attempts in each of his seasons. He is by no means a volume shooter. It's not apples to apples, Nesmith was the primary scorer for a short amount of time. Vassell has been a second or 3rd option during his college career.
Shooting aside isn't there a supposed difference in terms of what the players can do in other areas? Isn't Vassell supposed to be a guy that can REALLY defend? Neismith I would guess is farther along as a scorer based on his 14 games...which one matters most? which will improve in various areas?
Vassell is a more well rounded prospect in my opinion. I think Nesmith will be a great shooter with questions about D and health. I personally don't think either is going to be an all star. I was never trying to assert Nesmith as a better prospect. I was only saying I think he is going to be a great shooter with a clear place in the NBA.
khans2k5 wrote:Holy shit we fucking won the lottery?!?!?!?!
This is why we traded for DLO. Lol the "coverage" I was watching on YouTube got it wrong and had GS with 1 and MN 2. I was pleased just to be 2. Kinda in shock though.
I like the warriors position. With no clear cut number 1 prospect and picking 2nd. They can just pick depending on who is there and fit. Fit wise, wiseman is the best fit for them. The steph/klay/draymond trio has a good 4-5 more years of run as a threat. Wiggins fits perfectly behind the more dominant and celebrated personalities of the big 3. Wiseman skills fits nicely to that team and maybe their biggest need. Both edwards and ball foys their style as well.
lipoli390 wrote:A Bleacher Report blog earlier today ran a mock lottery and the Wolves ended up falling all the way to #7. Given the Wolves typical lottery luck, I wouldn't be surprised if that mock turns out to be prophetic.
But worse than where the Wolves ended up in this mock lottery was the player Bleacher Report selected for the Wolves. They selected Okoro with both Vassell and Haliburton on the board. That seems pretty dumb to me. If the Wolves fall to #7 and Vassell's still available, he should be the pick. He's at least as good as Okoro defensively and a much better than Okoro on the offensive end. I could make a case for taking Haliburton in that situation too. But Okoro? The Wolves need to improve their defense, but they can't afford to add another wing with a broken shot.
My ideal scenario for this year's lottery would be the Wolves rising to #1 and the Knicks staying at #6. I think the Knicks are drooling over the prospect of drafting Ball and the Wolves could probably extract some nice assets from them as part of exchanging #1 for #6. I could see the Knicks giving up their rights to the Mavs' 2021 1st round pick and the Clippers 2020 #27 pick. And the Wolves would still likely be able to draft Vassell, Haliburton, Toppin, or Avdija. At least one of those 4 will likely be available at #6.
My favorite players for the Wolves in this year's draft so far in no particular order except for Okongwu are:
1. Okongwu
2. Vassell
3. Haliburton
4. Avdija
5. Toppin
6. Patrick Williams
7. Jalen Smith
8. Tyrell Terry
9. Kira Lewis
10. Saddiq Bey
11. Paul Reed
12. Josh Green
13. Aaron Nesmith
I don't see what adding a 3rd 1st round pick would do for the Wolves. I don't know how panicked the Knicks would be to go after Ball, especially since the odds don't lend themselves to them getting Ball AND with Thibs on board he might not wanna coach him. I do think Leon Rose would want Ball because he's a CAA guy, but there's plenty of those guys.
I should have mentioned, that I was viewing the #27 pick from the Knicks as a potential asset to deal for players or as a way to move up from #17.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I rarely do the college draft game. But for future bragging stakes... Haliburton.
[Note: I toyed with Brandon Clarke with guarded commentary last year, but never went all-in publicly. I'm going all in on a guy I've barely watched play. Either I get to shove it in people's faces... or I'm wrong like almost everybody else who picked somebody who wasn't the best player. Good odds!]
I'll join you on this bandwagon Abe...or is this more of a Toyota Prius thats pretty quiet unless we want to blow our horns?
I've been on the Haliburton bandwagon for a while. I'd take Okongwu over him or anyone else in this draft for that matter. But Halliburton's right there with a few others I might consider as my second choice. And as time passes between now and October, someone like Haliburton might displace Okongwu at #1 on my board. :)
