Justin Champagnie, & it's about time!

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[gambitx777]

This is definitely a feel good story! Man we are really lucky we could be the Mavs or the hornets let's give thanks on this day that we may not be good yet but our front office is competent!

Sent from my SM-S926U1 using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

What a great kid! Hope he's with us his whole career.

[gambitx777]

Every one loves this kid.

Sent from my SM-S926U1 using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

Justin closed the season by reminding us of just how good he is.

In game 82 vs the Bulls, the young man turned 16 shots into 27 points.

Don't sleep on this kid; he's part of our core.

[DCZards]

Justin closed the season by reminding us of just how good he is.

In game 82 vs the Bulls, the young man turned 16 shots into 27 points.

Don't sleep on this kid; he's part of our core.

No…can’t sleep on Champagnie. He’s a baller and has shown that he’s an important piece going forward. He’s quietly emerging as a Josh Hart-type player.

[closg00]

Justin closed the season by reminding us of just how good he is.

In game 82 vs the Bulls, the young man turned 16 shots into 27 points.

Don't sleep on this kid; he's part of our core.

No…can’t sleep on Champagnie. He’s a baller and has shown that he’s an important piece going forward. He’s quietly emerging as a Josh Hart-type player.

Hopefully we'll find a trade for Corey

[AFM]

Watch on YouTube

who is this guy

[dobrojim]

And to have such a player basically just fall in your
lap is so #unwizards

[payitforward]

And to have such a player basically just fall in your
lap is so #unwizards

But altogether characteristic of the way OKC finds players. 13 guys played 500+ minutes for OKC this year. 8 of them were either late R2 picks or undrafted. They played 60+% of all OKC's minutes. Thunder won 68 games.

That's management skill & effort rather than guys falling in their lap!

We're in a new Wiz-world now!

[dobrojim]

And to have such a player basically just fall in your
lap is so #unwizards

But altogether characteristic of the way OKC finds players. 13 guys played 500+ minutes for OKC this year. 8 of them were either late R2 picks or undrafted. They played 60+% of all OKC's minutes. Thunder won 68 games.

That's management skill & effort rather than guys falling in their lap!

We're in a new Wiz-world now!

I was thinking more about draft assets expended.
JC is the type of player you typically would hope
to get using a draft pick. And they didn't have to.

[payitforward]

And to have such a player basically just fall in your
lap is so #unwizards

But altogether characteristic of the way OKC finds players. 13 guys played 500+ minutes for OKC this year. 8 of them were either late R2 picks or undrafted. They played 60+% of all OKC's minutes. Thunder won 68 games.

That's management skill & effort rather than guys falling in their lap!

We're in a new Wiz-world now!

I was thinking more about draft assets expended.
JC is the type of player you typically would hope
to get using a draft pick. And they didn't have to.

Yep!
My point was only that it was a matter of smarts not simple luck!

[dobrojim]

I'm still trying to figure out how at his size he
gets so many boards. He is reminiscent of Hart
at probably a fraction of the salary. He's what?
Maybe 6-6.

If Drew Gooden were here he'd say it's want to
and I'd add a dose of savvy to that.

[payitforward]

Occurs to me to wonder....

What do you think Champagnie's upside is?

I.e. if he reaches his potential (depending on what you think that is) who might be the closest comparable player?

[AFM]

A better Josh Hart

Edit- I scroll up and both Zards and Jim said the same thing

Ultimate upside would be Andre Igoudala

[payitforward]

Josh Hart is a tremendous player. If Justin becomes "better" than him, he'll have become a star in the league -- & I won't be surprised to tell the truth.

There's not much difference between their productivity right now, though Hart was slightly better on the year. Talking about two extremely good players here.

[payitforward]

On the season, here are two players' per 40-minute numbers:

Points -
A: 20.3
B: 14.6

FGAs
A: 14.1
B: 11

FTAs
A: 6.2
B: 2

TS% -
A: 60.5%
B: 61.4%

Defensive Rebounds
A: 6.9
B: 6.4

Offensive Rebounds
A: 1.8
B: 3.0

Assists
A: 4.7
B: 1.6

Turnovers
A: 3.3
B: 1.5

Blocks
A: .6
B: 1

Steals
A: 1.2
B: 1.7

Fouls
A: 2.8
B: 3.0

Who had the better season -- i.e. whose numbers helped his team more?

[nate33]

On the season, here are two players' per 40-minute numbers:

Points -
A: 20.3
B: 14.6

FGAs
A: 14.1
B: 11

FTAs
A: 6.2
B: 2

TS% -
A: 60.5%
B: 61.4%

Defensive Rebounds
A: 6.9
B: 6.4

Offensive Rebounds
A: 1.8
B: 3.0

Assists
A: 4.7
B: 1.6

Turnovers
A: 3.3
B: 1.5

Blocks
A: .6
B: 1

Steals
A: 1.2
B: 1.7

Fouls
A: 2.8
B: 3.0

Who had the better season -- i.e. whose numbers helped his team more?

Player A helped his team more because he maintained high efficiency on much higher usage, allowing less effective teammates to thrive thanks to a lack of defensive attention. It's much easier to be efficient as a low usage role player ignored by defenses. Also, Player A drew a ton of free throws, getting the opposition into foul trouble. And finally, Player A did his work as a starter for 30+ minutes a game against a full scouting report. Player B did his work on a tanking team playing a lot of garbage time late in the season against teams that have never scouted him.

[payitforward]

How do you know player B did his work on a tanking team...? ...Oh yeah, from the thread title I guess... \

[payitforward]

Player A... maintained high efficiency on much higher usage, allowing less effective teammates to thrive thanks to a lack of defensive attention....

You would have to demonstrate the effect as an empirical fact before praising someone for causing it! You'd also have to show that it held true for all (or at least the lion's share) of guys he played with.

I see one guy on A's team who was marginally better than his previous year -- which that had been his rookie year. & the year 2 improvement wasn't something to write home about. & was mostly in increased steals, slightly fewer fouls, & a few more assists. Not inconceivable that A's shooting helped w/ the guy's assists, but....

Actually, the biggest changes on the team were the addition of a very good rookie along with the addition of player A. Their performance alone easily supports the improvement in the team's record from '23-4 to '24-5.

Two other points...

...It's much easier to be efficient as a low usage role player ignored by defenses.... Player A did his work as a starter for 30+ minutes a game against a full scouting report.

...are much sounder. Yet, player B -- though his usage was clearly lower than A's -- played quite a fair number of minutes, & he started many of the games he played in.

...Also, Player A drew a ton of free throws, getting the opposition into foul trouble. And finally, Player B did his work on a tanking team playing a lot of garbage time late in the season against teams that have never scouted him.

But, those same free throws are part of what raised his TS% into the same territory as Player B. So he's getting full credit for them when we compare their scoring efficiency.

Moreover, Player B had a higher 3 pt. % than Player A -- on almost the same number of attempts per 40 minutes. & a significantly *higher* 2pt. % on only @2.6 fewer attempts per 40 minutes.

&, no surprise, you ignore entirely the effect of player B having 40% more offensive rebounds, almost 50% more steals, 65% more blocks, & less than half as many turnovers as player A.

In fact, every 40 minutes player B's team had 4 extra possessions on which to score -- possessions player A would not have given them (i.e. did not give his team). An average NBA team turns 4 possessions into @5 points -- so much for the big difference in the two players' scoring!

Now, having largely eliminated the force of your arguments, let me admit that, at the current point of each of their careers, I'd call player A the more valuable of the two guys! But... if I compare the seasons in which the two guys were the same age, I think that's not at all the demonstrable case. Then again, player A's improvement is in his favor!

In short, what I'd say is that player B has shown that he can be outstanding. Indeed, he's shown that there's reason to think that he might wind up every bit as good as, maybe better than, player A.

QED -- or, in short, a real GM is not a fan. A real GM doesn't have favorites.