Winter is Here: Welcome Dario Saric

[TTP]

I've already admitted many times that he's been better than I expected and I'm happy he is because it's good for the team. There's not a single person in the world that's going to be right about every prospect. What does that have to do with my argument about 3 point shooting projections?

If player shows no improvement, than you can say that basing expectations on past results is realistic. But what if he worked hard on his shooting and actually improved? What if he's future 38+% shooter? He's young and improving, and basing every projection only on past results without calculating experience and better shot mechanics, better shot selection etc. is perhaps not the best way to do it. You even bet that he won't be a 37% 3pt shooter this season because you expected him to get worse because of past results.

My discussion with bob was during the middle of the current season and factored in his season to date results as well. I didn't ignore his European production. They just aren't as relevant for a number of reasons. For one, they're played in a completely different environment with different rules. There's obviously going to be less correlation to his expected future NBA production than his results to date in the NBA. We have countless examples of college and European stats not translating. For another, he barely had any sample in that 50/40/90 season. You're bringing up that he shot 40.3% from 3 in his final Euroleague season but it was a sample size of 72 attempts. That's basically nothing. The people that bring up a 40% 3 point percentage over a 72 attempt sample are likely the same people overreacting to month long hot and cold streaks. Dario shot 30.6% over 62 attempts the previous season, a similarly meaningless sample size. That means he shot 35.8% over the two seasons, which isn't too different from where I projected him going forward in the NBA a few months ago.

You wrote this:

After considering that he's a better shooter now than a year ago, I'd probably forecast him to be closer to a 35% shooter from 3 going forward.

In order for me to forecast him as a 38% shooter going forward, I'd probably want to see his career average somewhere around 36.5%, which means he'd need to be shooting ~45% so far this season and somewhere around 41-42% at the end of the year.

Right now, he's at 40 % for this season. If it stays that way, we can expect him to be 37-38% 3pt shooter going forward, and that's great.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, I get where you're coming from, I just think that you disregard potential improvement too much in your calculations. Mirotic, for example, was well known and respected shooter in Europe. Saric was not, he's more like Kawhi Leonard, 1 out of many players that actually improves shooting while already in the NBA.

I certainly think he's improving and never disputed that. He's a better shooter now than he was last year and I factor that in when making a projection by weighting the more recent year more. That said, I don't think there's huge precedent for a player going from a likely mediocre/below average shooter to 38-40% that quickly. I think it's far more likely we're just dealing with small sample fluctuations for a high variance statistic.

As far as shot selection, that's hard to say. In theory, he should be getting better opportunities because our offense is better this year, but he's also likely covered a bit tighter this year as defenders are respecting his shot more. Looking at nba.com's numbers, 54.0% of his 3PA this year are wide open and 41.2% open compared to 61.6% wide open last year and 32.8% open. More of his attempts were wide open last year, but he's getting a pretty comparable amount of open plus wide open. He's also taking a similar amount of 3s per 36 and his percentage of corner 3s is similar across both years. Seems like his shot selection has been pretty similar across both seasons.

For your last point, let's assume Player A has a track record of being a good shooter and Player B does not have the same track record and reputation, and both players post the same results where they had a poor season 1 result and a great season 2 result. If you had to choose one to be the better shooter going forward, you'd certainly take the guy with the better track record. It's just much more likely that season 1 is the fluke season for the great shooter and season 2 is the fluke season for the shooter without that reputation. Note that I'm not saying that Dario shooting well is a fluke. I'm saying that I disagree with the logic that Dario's lack of shooting history makes it more likely that his incredible results are sustainable and less likely variance.

As for the Kawhi Leonard analogy, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that someone is the outlier.

[TTP]

He is a better player and prospect than Mirotic.

He might be a better prospect than Mirotic but I don't think he's a better player now.

Mirotic has a huge track record of being a significant on-court positive. He basically carried the Bulls out of the tank race this year before they traded him. They were 14-11 when he played and 10-34 without him. Tremendous on/off splits every year since he entered the league.

[TTP]

I think that a lot of people don't account for people improving in their projections so they will make arguments about how a player is currently playing, and project that out to the horizon. So if a player is a negative today then they will always be a negative. There is no statistical argument that can account for Saric going from a -2 OBPM last year to a positive 1.9 OBPM this year. I mean you could explain that improvement today, but last year the statistics didn't predict it.

Last year one side of of the argument looked at Saric's production and decided that he wasn't that good, and should be traded before other teams realized it, and the other side argued that he was a young player with a track record of rapid improvement in challenging environments over the last 5 years. It is the discounting of the ability for a player to improve that always bothers me in these situations.

Sometimes players DON'T improve as in the case with Okafor, but other times they do. What has happened with Saric should humble the statistical arguers, and make them realize that the statistics describe a certain amount of what a player is today, but have very little bearing on where a player will be tomorrow so we should all have open minds.

You're acting like the other side of the argument thinks that players can't improve or that they think they're always going to be right with projections.

If your argument is that sometimes statistics are wrong and guys can still improve despite statistical evidence to the contrary, I don't think anyone would dispute that. That doesn't mean you just hold on to everyone that has a chance to improve though (essentially every prospect). A good GM has to make huge decisions with limited information and he has to accept that he's going to be wrong at times either through action or inaction. You can make a mistake by giving up on a player too early or you can make a mistake by waiting too long on a player for improvement and not getting any value back. The key is to be right more often than wrong.

Okafor, MCW, and Dario each had something in common following their rookie seasons - they all likely had market value that exceeded their production following their rookie seasons, mostly due to inflated, low efficiency, counting stats. I was on board with trading all 3 ASAP to capitalize on that value gap. Value diminishes quickly in the NBA as teams gain more information and rookie contracts move closer to expiration. In the long run, I think it's a pretty strong strategy to move players like that and being wrong about some of them shouldn't change that.

[TTP]

I've said this a lot in this thread, but he's a good reminder that upside doesn't necessarily equal athleticism.

Athleticism has always been pretty overrated, especially on the defensive end. Shooting, production, wingspan, effort, and anything that falls under the umbrella of BBIQ are all far more important, as are probably many other things.

[TTP]

That was my biggest qualm with statisticians and haters.

You shouldn't lump these together. Using statistics to support a bearish opinion of a player doesn't make someone a hater.

[TTP]

I'm not only who went at you about him, so that proves that you rub others in wrong way as well and now , since your comments are always little bit ambiguous, you now trying to change narrative.

All it proves is that there are a lot of Saric fans that don't like when the player they like receives criticism. It's worth mentioning that my most vocal opposition (you and bob) both seem to be European and possibly Croatian?

What about my comments is ambiguous and what narrative am I trying to change?

[bobbeaver]

That was my biggest qualm with statisticians and haters.

You shouldn't lump these together. Using statistics to support a bearish opinion of a player doesn't make someone a hater.

I lump em in if they are both equally culpable and dont , to my mind, observe the whole situation from the whole perspective and growth tendencies. I put them together only depending on the occasion it is deserved otherwise ofc not. But this was that kind of a situation.

[Ericb5]

I think that a lot of people don't account for people improving in their projections so they will make arguments about how a player is currently playing, and project that out to the horizon. So if a player is a negative today then they will always be a negative. There is no statistical argument that can account for Saric going from a -2 OBPM last year to a positive 1.9 OBPM this year. I mean you could explain that improvement today, but last year the statistics didn't predict it.

Last year one side of of the argument looked at Saric's production and decided that he wasn't that good, and should be traded before other teams realized it, and the other side argued that he was a young player with a track record of rapid improvement in challenging environments over the last 5 years. It is the discounting of the ability for a player to improve that always bothers me in these situations.

Sometimes players DON'T improve as in the case with Okafor, but other times they do. What has happened with Saric should humble the statistical arguers, and make them realize that the statistics describe a certain amount of what a player is today, but have very little bearing on where a player will be tomorrow so we should all have open minds.

You're acting like the other side of the argument thinks that players can't improve or that they think they're always going to be right with projections.

If your argument is that sometimes statistics are wrong and guys can still improve despite statistical evidence to the contrary, I don't think anyone would dispute that. That doesn't mean you just hold on to everyone that has a chance to improve though (essentially every prospect). A good GM has to make huge decisions with limited information and he has to accept that he's going to be wrong at times either through action or inaction. You can make a mistake by giving up on a player too early or you can make a mistake by waiting too long on a player for improvement and not getting any value back. The key is to be right more often than wrong.

Okafor, MCW, and Dario each had something in common following their rookie seasons - they all likely had market value that exceeded their production following their rookie seasons, mostly due to inflated, low efficiency, counting stats. I was on board with trading all 3 ASAP to capitalize on that value gap. Value diminishes quickly in the NBA as teams gain more information and rookie contracts move closer to expiration. In the long run, I think it's a pretty strong strategy to move players like that and being wrong about some of them shouldn't change that.

I'm saying that there is no such thing as statistical evidence of someone's inability to improve and therefore we shouldn't jump off of a player with talent because they aren't statistical darlings in their first year or two.

I am a firm believer that you can't really evaluate a draft pick for about 3 years, and so I extend a lot of rope to struggling high draft picks in year one or two. Often the statisticians will argue for bailing very early. I think that stats are very contextual and misleading in the first few years. These stats for example severely underrate people like Lonzo Ball, and severely overrate people like Jayson Tatum. For the first few months of this year LOTS of people were arguing that Ball was a bust and Tatum was going to be a star, and they made their arguments based off of their performance in the league to that point.

I am not arguing really that you can't make your mind up about a player early although I wish that people wouldn't do that. I want them to not justify their opinion with stats. Saric shot 31% from 3 last year. The only thing that that meant was that he wasn't a good 3pt shooter that year. You can't argue for his 3pt potential by stating that he only shoots 31% because that implies that he can't shoot 35% or 38% or whatever in the future.

So it is my bias towards patience with prospects, and my optimistic nature that bristles when people make their minds up right away. We don't know how good Dario will be when he stops improving, and given his tremendous track record for improvement over the last 5 years or so, I am extremely optimistic that he will be worth more a year from now than he is currently. So trading him like a hot potato that we need to get rid of is foolish. I made the same argument for Okafor and was wrong, so I'm certainly not saying that patience will always pan out, but patience pans out more than impulsiveness does with young players.

Dario Saric is a very good basketball player. I think he probably ends up as a 6th man type when we are contending, but it isn't out of the question that he continues to play well and ends up as a very good starter in the league.

[Sixerscan]

Is 60+ games of shooting 40% on 5 attempts a game really not sufficient evidence that a guy is a very good 3 point shooter? That's a pretty huge sample size.

[ziggy77]

It would be good to rest Dario for a game or two.

[Bum Adebayo]

I thought Saric wouldn't improve his shooting much due to his flat release, so far it looks I was wrong.

[76ciology]

How good is Dario defensively?

[Sixerscan]

ok

[PhilasFinest]

Dario has been a pleasant surprise this season in terms of shooting the basketball.

I had some serious doubts, but with the 3PT% what it is right now + his FT%, I'm pretty convinced that whatever work he put in on his jumper, has translated. I know some people have doubts on 3PT% and FT% correlating....but most of the elite 3PT shooters, are also elite FT shooters. Its just more evidence that the shot itself is no fluke and its legit.

[tk76]

https://www.crossingbroad.com/2018/03/arc-elbow-and-footwork-brett-brown-details-dario-sarics-sophomore-improvements.html

[tk76]

If Saric's 3 pt shooting is for real (remains 40%), I think Embiid, Simmons, Saric and 2 other starters about the same caliber of quality role player as Saric will be a legit contender in 1-2 years. I'm not sure they even have to find a 3rd superstar level player. Fultz and Cov might be good enough for the starters, and adding quality bench guys should be doable.

But I certainly would not mind them adding in a legit superstar (Lebron, PG13 or Klay in '19.) That would put them right at the Warriors level.

[rzzzzz]

Dario looked like he got his head slammed against the court, after diving for the ball and spiking that amazing pass to Ben. the way he played the rest of the way, i guess the was no need for concussion protocol afterwards. (seriously, this guy is a growing into a monster out there. the heart and soul of this team. now let's just get Embiid back w/o anything major.)

[Black Mage]

There have been a lot of bad takes in this thread on Dario.

Guy has an insane work ethic and it's showing in his growth this year. You just don't bail early on guys who put the work in like he does.

[mithrandir17]

As I said here before, Dario can be the third of our Big 3, ala Kevin Love or Chris Bosh. The 3rd of the Big 3 usually sacrifices alot in his offensive game because the other 2 is so dominating in offense. With Dario, he does not need to do that because that is really his role. And as shown in the game vs NY, he can be the 2nd or 1st option if needed be.

[Kova]

Hustle, grind, IQ, winning mentality = Dario.