WildWolf2813 wrote:I hope they fall as far as possible so they can draft Aaron Nesmith. I'm more and more convinced that if this team is gonna prove they're cursed, do it by taking the best shooter by far in this draft and see how they can ruin him.
They wanna be Houston North so bad? Go get the best shooter who is already used to shooting threes in volume. The rest will take care of itself.
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I think it's a huge stretch to call Aaron Nesmith the best shooter in the draft based on 14 games last season. Let's pump the brakes. His numbers in that sample size were astounding, but he also shot 33.7-percent from three with volume in 32 games his freshman season. Sure, he averages out to 41.0-percent, but can the real Nesmith please stand up? Which player is he? Do we have enough data to proclaim him as the best shooter? My gut feeling is no.
His mechanics are flawless. Hes going to be a great shooter in the NBA. Splitting hairs over whether he is the best in the class at this point seems silly. He's definitely a shooter and we will always need shooting, especially if Rosas' pride necessitates undue playing time for Culver.
Maybe, but it's not a definite for me. I need more than 14 games of productivity before I feel comfortable saying any player will be great at anything, especially when there's a larger sample size of them being subpar at said thing. And when discussing who the Wolves should take with a top-seven pick, I think it's important that we split as many hairs as we can in the process. This franchise absolutely needs to hit on this pick.
WildWolf2813 wrote:I hope they fall as far as possible so they can draft Aaron Nesmith. I'm more and more convinced that if this team is gonna prove they're cursed, do it by taking the best shooter by far in this draft and see how they can ruin him.
They wanna be Houston North so bad? Go get the best shooter who is already used to shooting threes in volume. The rest will take care of itself.
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I think it's a huge stretch to call Aaron Nesmith the best shooter in the draft based on 14 games last season. Let's pump the brakes. His numbers in that sample size were astounding, but he also shot 33.7-percent from three with volume in 32 games his freshman season. Sure, he averages out to 41.0-percent, but can the real Nesmith please stand up? Which player is he? Do we have enough data to proclaim him as the best shooter? My gut feeling is no.
His mechanics are flawless. Hes going to be a great shooter in the NBA. Splitting hairs over whether he is the best in the class at this point seems silly. He's definitely a shooter and we will always need shooting, especially if Rosas' pride necessitates undue playing time for Culver.
Maybe, but it's not a definite for me. I need more than 14 games of productivity before I feel comfortable saying any player will be great at anything, especially when there's a larger sample size of them being subpar at said thing. And when discussing who the Wolves should take with a top-seven pick, I think it's important that we split as many hairs as we can in the process. This franchise absolutely needs to hit on this pick.
Nothing is definite in this process. We drafted Kat for his defensive potential as I remember it. I think Wolves fans have seen that in history. I agree we have to hit. I think Nesmith is going to be a hit if he can stay healthy, especially at where he is likely going to be picked somewhere around 10 as I see it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 didn't know till this morning the draft lottery was today so I was surprised also. I had just recently saw when the draft was going to happen! lol
I do agree with Cool it probably matters less in this draft where you land but like it was said I'd rather peick sooner rather than later if I had the ultimate choice. The advantage to drafting later is saving some salary which is not a totally small thing.
WildWolf2813 wrote:
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.
Lip if we get #1 why not think even bigger!?! Is there a good established young player we could put together a package for (other than Devin Booker)? I have no idea who is running the Knicks in terms of their actual basketball decisions. I'd guess Thibs is going to have a worthwhile say...although I would guess most team's head coaches probably have a little more say than some people realize.
One advantage of having another 1st round pick this year is I would guess we could flip it for one in next year's draft so we would have one. There will be a team that falls in love with a guy in this draft and wants him and maybe give up a future pick to do so. Who knows maybe the Wolves could trade up to get someone that's REALLY solid and get maybe even a decent 2nd rounder next year thrown in. Or maybe we trade that 2nd pick for a decent young vet.
Lets say Rosas did something like you suggested and also went into asset collection mode. Lets just say...Hypothetically would drafting Toppin with say #6 make some sense? I mean he is ready to play and don't expect him to put up some nice offensive numbers right away? Wouldn't to some extent he fit what the wolves want to do? We don't have a guy next to Towns and yes the defensive pairing of those guys could be a disaster...but if Toppin was a scoring stud...he would have value...to get a different piece to the roster. Who knows maybe Toppin develops into something really great. I'm not expecting that but its not impossible. Just throwing out ideas based on your #1 dreams!!!! =)
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Tonights lottery is about as insignificant as i can recall. Where you land doesn't really matter, picking the right guy does. And I have no idea who the right guy is.
I 100% understand where you are coming from. Still think it's important to be able to select your guy at 1 or having the better asset to trade.
I do think though a lot of fans are going to be pissed on draft night because the mocks are going to be way off
IF I had the choice I would rather pick in the top 3 than 5 or after but yeah. Of course one thing to consider is picking lower will save some sort of amount of salary every year. Probably not a big deal but its a small advantage...especially if you don't really believe in anyone super strongly in the top 7 or so guys.
