Peter Jok

Draft talk all year round

Moderators: Marcus, Ruzious

ALL HAIL
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,474
And1: 1,213
Joined: Dec 27, 2005

Peter Jok 

Post#1 » by ALL HAIL » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:22 pm

Peter Jok is another in a long line of senior ball players who are disrespected on mock drafts because they're not nineteen years old and filled with intangible potential.

Someone tell me why I don't see him anywhere on many of the mocks I read.

For those that don't know, Peter Jok is a pure shooting SG (picture perfect release and square up) with athleticism and high IQ.

Why is Luke Kennard (who I like) listed as a top twenty pick, but Jok can't even crack top sixty?
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,349
And1: 1,072
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#2 » by doordoor123 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:27 pm

Another guy really good who is massively overlooked for his age is Jamel Artis. I'm pretty sure someone is going to take him in the second round and be really happy with him. If he goes undrafted I'll be really upset. Off topic about older players, but Marcus Keene is getting super overlooked too. I have faith that he is going to look deserving of a first round selection when he makes it in the NBA. This guy is better and more translatable than any of the smaller guards last year. Really has flashes of Ty Lawson with a jump shot.
paulbball
Starter
Posts: 2,157
And1: 1,992
Joined: Jun 30, 2016
   

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#3 » by paulbball » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:49 pm

Jok's stats look good with progression through 4 years. Despite being 23 and born in Sudan, his age probably isn't flubbed unlike his fellow countryman Thon Maker.

Jamal Artis, I wouldn't touch. Seems to regressed (relative to peers) since his sophomore year at Pitt.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,349
And1: 1,072
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#4 » by doordoor123 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:19 pm

paulbball wrote:Jok's stats look good with progression through 4 years. Despite being 23 and born in Sudan, his age probably isn't flubbed unlike his fellow countryman Thon Maker.

Jamal Artis, I wouldn't touch. Seems to regressed (relative to peers) since his sophomore year at Pitt.


How has he regressed? He has been consistent with slight changes to his numbers, but none of them bad. Every year he has had a higher and higher usage, but continues to put up solid numbers. The only bad thing that went up was his turnovers, but he also ran the offense at times. He has a great mid-range game which translates, solid shooting stroke from deep, he can handle the ball really well, and he's a big strong defender. I don't see him not translating well and you can't convince me otherwise. The only knock is his age, he's 24. And I don't even think you're looking at his stats because his shot has improved every year.

Jok also knows perfect English so he's very familiar with the US, much like Maker.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,349
And1: 1,072
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#5 » by doordoor123 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:25 pm

ALL HAIL wrote:Peter Jok is another in a long line of senior ball players who are disrespected on mock drafts because they're not nineteen years old and filled with intangible potential.

Someone tell me why I don't see him anywhere on many of the mocks I read.

For those that don't know, Peter Jok is a pure shooting SG (picture perfect release and square up) with athleticism and high IQ.

Why is Luke Kennard (who I like) listed as a top twenty pick, but Jok can't even crack top sixty?


I think the argument is that Kennard is a better passer and he's much younger (who says his IQ can't improve more?) What he has over him is his athleticism, but he's also not an amazing athlete and his IQ is high, but not game-changing high.
paulbball
Starter
Posts: 2,157
And1: 1,992
Joined: Jun 30, 2016
   

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#6 » by paulbball » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:29 pm

doordoor123 wrote:
paulbball wrote:Jok's stats look good with progression through 4 years. Despite being 23 and born in Sudan, his age probably isn't flubbed unlike his fellow countryman Thon Maker.

Jamal Artis, I wouldn't touch. Seems to regressed (relative to peers) since his sophomore year at Pitt.


How has he regressed? He has been consistent with slight changes to his numbers, but none of them bad. Every year he has had a higher and higher usage, but continues to put up solid numbers. The only bad thing that went up was his turnovers, but he also ran the offense at times. He has a great mid-range game which translates, solid shooting stroke from deep, he can handle the ball really well, and he's a big strong defender. I don't see him not translating well and you can't convince me otherwise. The only knock is his age, he's 24. And I don't even think you're looking at his stats because his shot has improved every year.


WS, WS/40, BPM , eFG, FTR, PER, Reb%, AST% have all either plateaued, gotten worse or have materially increased. It is 'good' that he has kept his advanced stats up despite marginal increase in usage rate. College players typically get better as they get older. His development seems to be completely explainable by age.

Look at Buddy Hield's career trajectory. Marginal improvement every year like Artis, but during his senior season, his offensive stats broke through the roof.

And look at his estimated shooting splits through 4 year: https://hoop-math.com/Pittsburgh2017.php

They have not gone up much at all. Creating more shots on his own now, but once again this goes back to the first paragraph.

edit: Buddy's senior season was quite something. Iso-shot-jacking extraordinaire: https://hoop-math.com/Oklahoma2016.php Disclaimer, I was never high on Buddy regardless of his stats.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,349
And1: 1,072
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#7 » by doordoor123 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:14 pm

paulbball wrote:
doordoor123 wrote:
paulbball wrote:Jok's stats look good with progression through 4 years. Despite being 23 and born in Sudan, his age probably isn't flubbed unlike his fellow countryman Thon Maker.

Jamal Artis, I wouldn't touch. Seems to regressed (relative to peers) since his sophomore year at Pitt.


How has he regressed? He has been consistent with slight changes to his numbers, but none of them bad. Every year he has had a higher and higher usage, but continues to put up solid numbers. The only bad thing that went up was his turnovers, but he also ran the offense at times. He has a great mid-range game which translates, solid shooting stroke from deep, he can handle the ball really well, and he's a big strong defender. I don't see him not translating well and you can't convince me otherwise. The only knock is his age, he's 24. And I don't even think you're looking at his stats because his shot has improved every year.


WS, WS/40, BPM , eFG, FTR, PER, Reb%, AST% have all either plateaued, gotten worse or have materially increased. It is 'good' that he has kept his advanced stats up despite marginal increase in usage rate. College players typically get better as they get older. His development seems to be completely explainable by age.

Look at Buddy Hield's career trajectory. Marginal improvement every year like Artis, but during his senior season, his offensive stats broke through the roof.

And look at his estimated shooting splits through 4 year: https://hoop-math.com/Pittsburgh2017.php

They have not gone up much at all. Creating more shots on his own now, but once again this goes back to the first paragraph.

edit: Buddy's senior season was quite something. Iso-shot-jacking extraordinaire: https://hoop-math.com/Oklahoma2016.php Disclaimer, I was never high on Buddy regardless of his stats.


That is fair, but is it statistically proven that players without marginal change from year to year don't translate? Because I would argue it's dependent on how he plays rather than his statistics. I take some stock in statistics, but I also think how the guy plays really matters. For instance Buddy had advanced skills in terms of how he got his shot off and he had great form. So far he has translated and may not have reached his ceiling yet. He also has a good wingspan, solid size for his position and moves pretty well. He was never going to be the handler he was and the defender he was, but overall I'd say he was a success. In the same way I could see Artis being a success. For a big forward he has a great handle, he shares the ball, if he's in a pinch he could figure it out off the dribble, he could post up and he's a good one on one defender. I also think he wasn't coached well and could be used in different ways.

My issue with stats is that it doesn't show the unpredictable stuff, like how he could be used differently. I said the same thing about Myles Turner and Skal Labissiere, but everyone thought I was crazy. I'll stand by Artis. Even if he goes to the D-League I don't think he'll be there for very long and expect him to be on a roster next year. If his wingspan is shorter than I think it could be a bit harder for him, but I really think he's underrated.

BTW Nik Stauskas improved a lot year by year and he was a big disappointment for me even though he should have a solid career.
Chi town
RealGM
Posts: 16,490
And1: 3,179
Joined: Aug 10, 2004

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#8 » by Chi town » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:56 am

Like Jok. Think he's Danny Green 2.0. Good 3D potential and he's a solid passer.
Chuck Everett
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,887
And1: 4,067
Joined: May 28, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:
   

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#9 » by Chuck Everett » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:22 am

I love Jok. He's going to be picked higher than people think once he begins working out I believe.
zzaj
Head Coach
Posts: 6,309
And1: 1,798
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
 

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#10 » by zzaj » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:06 pm

He just turned 23 so I think that'll limit his draft stock in workouts. I could see the Spurs taking him and turning him into what we all expect him to be--a decent 3&D, system guy.

If I'm Jok, I take guaranteed money overseas rather than a non-guaranteed contract. He could make star player money across the pond.
User avatar
retrobro90
Senior
Posts: 639
And1: 297
Joined: Jan 21, 2017
 

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#11 » by retrobro90 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:18 am

[url][/url]

I think his ceiling is more than just a 3&D guy tbh. Guy has some vision especially out of the PnR. Could see him playing at least spot minutes at the 3 too given his length.
AlfieJaegar
Freshman
Posts: 62
And1: 2
Joined: Apr 16, 2017

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#12 » by AlfieJaegar » Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:44 am

He won the 3 PT contest this year.He might be old but he is Nba ready imo.

Sent from my E6603 using RealGM mobile app
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,349
And1: 1,072
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#13 » by doordoor123 » Mon May 1, 2017 5:33 am

I think Jok is more of a 3/4 in the NBA. He has the size and NBA shooting guards will be too quick for him. Nothing special, but I think he could be a decent backup for a team.
Chuck Everett
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,887
And1: 4,067
Joined: May 28, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:
   

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#14 » by Chuck Everett » Sat May 6, 2017 3:34 pm

I noticed that Jok was included on the combine list. I believe he is going to push himself up to a late first rounder or early 2nd (simply due to his age). I think him and Thornwell have NBA level skills on the wing.
doordoor123
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,349
And1: 1,072
Joined: Jul 23, 2013

Re: Peter Jok 

Post#15 » by doordoor123 » Sat May 6, 2017 8:43 pm

Chuck Everett wrote:I noticed that Jok was included on the combine list. I believe he is going to push himself up to a late first rounder or early 2nd (simply due to his age). I think him and Thornwell have NBA level skills on the wing.


23 year olds never go in the first round and the fact that this draft is super deep with young players who have a lot of upside, I doubt either of them go in the first round. You could talk me into Thornwell for his tournament run, but even that is a stretch.

Return to NBA Draft