I know who you are, it's very telling you are trying to deflect by bringing up another poster. Own it, my guy.
Rather than trying to compare KPJ to other players, I think a quick look at his draft profile says quite a bit. All of the concerns that were there 3.5 years ago, such as shot selection, decision making, free throw shooting, turnovers, maturity level... those all still exist. They are still issues that have continued to plague him well into his pro career. That's why I am for an extension at the right price and why I don't think the Rockets believe they need to go into the $20M territory that many fans seem to want them to. Even if he were to have a breakout year, it will still only have been one year. And it will have been for a bad team without much incentive to win. Because he is still a bit of an enigma, I am not convinced that he will be the big target for teams trying to take the next step. It seems like an awfully big gamble, though it only takes one desperate GM to make it. I do think it's hard to make comparisons for KPJ to know what approach teams will take. He's a starting PG... for a team that's been the worst in the league two years running He has a 50 point game... but a 15 point negative gap between offensive and defensive ratings He's got the best catch-and-shoot 3pt%... but he is a career sub-replacement level player For every positive, there is a pretty significant negative. And for each player we compare him to that has already received a large salary, there is usually something significantly different about them, as well. Is there a good comparison for him when you consider age, experience, draft position, NBA success, production, etc.?
I don't take team negatives as a knock on any Rocket player, they are all so young that any team stat is rendered irrelevant. DD
Lol. You talked all type of trash about Jalen. You're always wrong, but worse, you're a liar and a hypocrite
Most of the players we have compared him to have the same issues and the real question is has he improved on those thing not if he has eliminated every one of them. The Mavericks just traded a 1st for a guy who has the same issues and is even older and has been in the NBA longer yet you got people in this very thread claiming he does not have much value. The Jazz and the Hawks just gave players with the same issues big contract extensions. What is significantly different from the players that people are comparing him too? This should be interesting if you actually reply.
I'm not a C Wood fan but he was much, much better than Porter last year. Better in nearly every statistical category. All the advanced numbers favor Wood in that comparison. The offense scored more, and the defense gave up less, with Wood on the floor compared to Porter. The Mavs want to win now, and they needed a big. Bigs that can shoot 50% from the field and 39% from 3 are rare. Guards with slash lines of 41%/37%/64%, less rare. Wood is a present value player, KPJ is all about potential for the future.
I am not debating if he was much better, my point was the things the poster was saying why he should not get paid for, players get paid while having those issues all the time and some of them have worse issues. Yes they are less rare, that's not the point, the point is do they still get paid? Are you really using a stat that could be construed as Wood being a better defensive player than Porter? I am not out on Wood just making a point of comparison.
If you are interested in the numbers here you can read more about "Pythagorean expectation" but the TLDR version is that you can take a teams point differential and calculate their total wins pretty accurately. The rockets had a -8.5 differential last year, which gives them a pythagorean expectation of 20.5 wins, and they won 20. Memphis was +5.7 which gave them a pythagorean expectation of 55.76 wins, and they won 56 games. Obviously it's not perfect, there are outliers, one example is Phoenix who had a +7.5 differential which puts their expectation at 59.86, and they won 64 games. But in general it is a pretty good metric. The reason I bring it up is because we can use this to get a pretty good estimate on what that 72 points over 82 games actually means. If your team scores an extra 72 games over the course of the season, according to this formula, that will translate to ~2.5 extra wins. In terms of a single player, that is a pretty meaningful improvement. I'm not really trying to get into a debate on the accuracy of pythagorean expectation, so if you want to discard it I won't argue with you. But it is a pretty good and accurate way to measure this kind of thing. And I think one player making an improvement that computes to ~2.5 wins in a season is pretty good.
You actually are hopeless. The best 3PT% shooting team last season is 37.9%, 33.9% (4% drop) would drop the rank from 1st place to 27th place. Do you genuinely think that this is not a significant difference, or are you really this clueless?
We need more teachers like you! Tell you students to join CF. Their first assignment will be making sense to jiggyfly about shooting percentage. Guarantee their math will improve.
lol when i taught stats, my problems were about draymond flopping and other anti warriors stuff (i live in the bay area)
