The 2025 Rookie Class

Post #21 » by **nate33** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:03 pm

Stolen from 76ciology on the GB:

WizarDynasty · Post #22 » by **WizarDynasty** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:38 pm

Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

doclinkin · Post #23 » by **doclinkin** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 2:04 pm

Too bad Will Riley tweaked his thumb and stayed out. Only Zikarsky and Sion James played fewer minutes. He did look skilled in the minutes he was available. Skinny and overmatched on defense but poised and picking his spots on offense.

payitforward · Post #24 » by **payitforward** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 5:51 pm

WizarDynasty wrote:Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

Actually, PER does not look good on low volume. Unless you shoot @33% or lower, your PER rises with every extra shot you take. PER looks better on high volume than low.

In any case, I'm pretty sure no one takes PER seriously enough any more that it leads them astray.

I'm also pretty sure NBA FG%'s do NOT trend down significantly over the length of the season, as you seem to suggest.

Teams make mistakes, b/c this isn't an exact science, & mistakes are inherent at every level.

OTOH, with far more resources available to them than are available to you or me, I'm quite sure that teams make far fewer mistakes than you do. Or than I do.

Post #25 » by **nate33** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 7:17 pm

payitforward wrote:
WizarDynasty wrote:Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

Actually, PER does not look good on low volume. Unless you shoot @33% or lower, your PER rises with every extra shot you take. PER looks better on high volume than low.

In any case, I'm pretty sure no one takes PER seriously enough any more that it leads them astray.

I'm also pretty sure NBA FG%'s do NOT trend down significantly over the length of the season, as you seem to suggest.

Teams make mistakes, b/c this isn't an exact science, & mistakes are inherent at every level.

OTOH, with far more resources available to them than are available to you or me, I'm quite sure that teams make far fewer mistakes than you do. Or than I do.

The best thing about PER is that it is seasonally adjusted so that the league average PER every year is 15. It makes it very useful to compare players of different eras. But, yeah, PER's weakness is that it does seem to reward high volume, low efficiency shooters (though I recall Hollinger refuting that criticism somehow due to some statistical magic in the seasonal adjustment).

At any rate, PER and WS/48, being purely box score metrics, do not capture the elements of good play that box scores don't track: things like positional defense, off ball gravity, shot deterrence, and ball movement. That's why RAPM, BPM and EPM, which incorporate elements of plus/minus metrics are generally better overall stats.

doclinkin · Post #26 » by **doclinkin** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 8:54 pm

nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:
WizarDynasty wrote:Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

Actually, PER does not look good on low volume. Unless you shoot @33% or lower, your PER rises with every extra shot you take. PER looks better on high volume than low.

In any case, I'm pretty sure no one takes PER seriously enough any more that it leads them astray.

I'm also pretty sure NBA FG%'s do NOT trend down significantly over the length of the season, as you seem to suggest.

Teams make mistakes, b/c this isn't an exact science, & mistakes are inherent at every level.

OTOH, with far more resources available to them than are available to you or me, I'm quite sure that teams make far fewer mistakes than you do. Or than I do.

The best thing about PER is that it is seasonally adjusted so that the league average PER every year is 15. It makes it very useful to compare players of different eras. But, yeah, PER's weakness is that it does seem to reward high volume, low efficiency shooters (though I recall Hollinger refuting that criticism somehow due to some statistical magic in the seasonal adjustment).

At any rate, PER and WS/48, being purely box score metrics, do not capture the elements of good play that box scores don't track: things like positional defense, off ball gravity, shot deterrence, and ball movement. That's why RAPM, BPM and EPM, which incorporate elements of plus/minus metrics are generally better overall stats.

Pretty sure wiz’nasty was talking about Per36 numbers, mentioned in the chart. Because in that case yeah sometimes a low volume low minutes guy can stand out in a small sample size.

Post #27 » by **nate33** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 10:01 pm

doclinkin wrote:Pretty sure wiz’nasty was talking about Per36 numbers, mentioned in the chart. Because in that case yeah sometimes a low volume low minutes guy can stand out in a small sample size.

Sure. You can't compare a 12 mpg guy with a 36 mpg guy on a per 36 basis and assume it will hold up.

But it's better to use per 36 numbers rather than raw stats to compare a 32 mpg guy versus a 38 mpg guy.

I_Like_Dirt · Post #28 » by **I_Like_Dirt** » Mon Jul 21, 2025 11:06 pm

WizarDynasty wrote:Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

This is true but for summer league I think it's a different set of issues. The sample sample size is small for everyone. And then add in that teams get different players to try different things at different times and sit out guys at various times and these kinds of stats aren't super helpful. Summer league is more about seeing if guys can do things their team wants them to or not and then hoping it will translate into a time when teams are more consistently trying to win and the competition is better.

closg00 · Post #29 » by **closg00** » Sat Oct 4, 2025 12:52 pm

Read on Twitter

payitforward · Post #30 » by **payitforward** » Sat Oct 4, 2025 1:22 pm

Still my fave, the guy I'd have picked.

doclinkin · Post #31 » by **doclinkin** » Sat Oct 4, 2025 2:57 pm

Yep. But Tre should be good.

closg00 · Post #32 » by **closg00** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 2:59 am

Looks like a baller

Read on Twitter

Post #33 » by **nate33** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 1:32 pm

I liked Maluach, but I considered him in the tier below the top 5 guys. It was a 5-man draft and we were lucky to land one of the top 5 at #6. I have no regrets about passing on him.

After Sorber was off the board and we traded down from #18 to #21, Jase Richardson was actually the guy I wanted at #21. (I also liked Wolf, but knew he wasn't a Dawkins type of player.) I'm fine with Riley though.

DCZards · Post #34 » by **DCZards** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 3:18 pm

Teams and draftniks soured on Jase Richardson after he measured 6 feet. Big mistake. He should have been a top 15 pick…went 25th.

TheBlackCzar · Post #35 » by **TheBlackCzar** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 3:58 pm

closg00 wrote:
TheBlackCzar wrote:
closg00 wrote:Flagg went 5-of-21 from the field and 0-5 from three, total trash player.

He looked pretty good in game 2....
i believe he's also just 18....

Green font, it was a joke

I figured as far as the sarcasm but thanks for the heads up, I didn't know that's what green font was for.....

closg00 · Post #36 » by **closg00** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 4:48 pm

DCZards wrote:Teams and draftniks soured on Jase Richardson after he measured 6 feet. Big mistake. He should have been a top 15 pick…went 25th.

That stroke he has is sooo smooth

Chocolate City Jordanaire · Post #37 » by **Chocolate City Jordanaire** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 8:49 pm

closg00 wrote:Looks like a baller

Read on Twitter

He will be an All-Star before Tre Johnson will.

Chocolate City Jordanaire · Post #38 » by **Chocolate City Jordanaire** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 8:57 pm

Tankathon uses green arrows and red arrows to point out relative strengths and weaknesses.

Jase Richardson is a green arrows guy.

https://www.tankathon.com/players/jase-richardson

This guy projects to be a star, IMHO.

(Then again, Reed Sheppard looks All-NBA 1st Team on Tankathon).

closg00 · Post #39 » by **closg00** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 11:22 pm

Honorary member of the class since this is his NBA debut, this has been the highlight, but every is talking about his elite passing skills.

Read on Twitter

payitforward · Post #40 » by **payitforward** » Sun Oct 5, 2025 11:46 pm

nate33 wrote:I liked Maluach, but I considered him in the tier below the top 5 guys. It was a 5-man draft and we were lucky to land one of the top 5 at #6. I have no regrets about passing on him....

Fair -- I hadn't even anticipated Tre being on the board at 6. Or, more specifically, I didn't imgine Kon Knueppel going as high as he did. In any case, it's obviously impossible to know who's going to be how good at this early point.

nate33 wrote:...After Sorber was off the board and we traded down from #18 to #21, Jase Richardson was actually the guy I wanted at #21. (I also liked Wolf, but knew he wasn't a Dawkins type of player.) I'm fine with Riley though.

Me too. But I do think Jase Richardson will be a success in the league. Would have been a fine pick.

Every draft is different, obviously. After the top handful, I thought this one was very hard to call....