2016-17 Rookie Watch thread

[bobbeaver]

Dario Saric is making a strong case. He's definitely gotten better as the season has progressed. If he can ball out for another month, he'll take the award easily.

29 pts 7 reb 5 ast 2 stl 1 blk 50% shooting 43% 3 pt
I think he can ball out lol Its a shame he didnt reach 30 tonight he could have easily.

[Walmart]

I think Dunn will do better than Smart in the NBA as he has better court vision.

Pretty preposterous claim considering Smart is an essential contributor to an upper-level NBA team whereas Dunn has barely shown any glimpses of NBA talent so far. And both are basically the age, too, by the way. (Smart being 12 days older.)

That's fine I think it's preposterous to compare ages of two guys when one guy has had the opportunity to develop with major minutes in the NBA for two more seasons.

[Patsfan1081]

Which is fine, but who on god's green earth believes Jaylen Brown is going to sustain that 40.7% number from three? Answer: Nobody

47% since the allstar break actually. But who's counting.

You able to count the whole 6 game sample size you're citing too?

It's nice that he's playing well right now, but the point still stands.

You sound really sour for no reason. Brown has been playing well for a while, unlike many rookies though he had to earn his minutes. Per 36 is a terrible way to judge players though, Brown has had a higher ts% than everyone outside of Brogdan on that list, and what's more impressive is he's been playing well in meaningfully minutes with the starters. No one is labeling him a future all star or anything, just sharing that's he been playing well. Seems petty to hate on the kid for whatever reason you have.

[skones]

47% since the allstar break actually. But who's counting.

You able to count the whole 6 game sample size you're citing too?

It's nice that he's playing well right now, but the point still stands.

You sound really sour for no reason. Brown has been playing well for a while, unlike many rookies though he had to earn his minutes. Per 36 is a terrible way to judge players though, Brown has had a higher ts% than everyone outside of Brogdan on that list, and what's more impressive is he's been playing well in meaningfully minutes with the starters. No one is labeling him a future all star or anything, just sharing that's he been playing well. Seems petty to hate on the kid for whatever reason you have.

Seems as if you're being over sensitive to the point than anything else. The guy struggled from distance in college and he struggled throughout the start of this season. He's shot well since the break, but he's not a knock down guy. There will be a regression to the mean. I don't think that's "hate." I think that's logic based on track record.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

[skones]

Anyway, Saric struggled early playing off the ball with Embiid in the mix. He's been great with the ball in his hands. He may not put up the raw numbers Simmons will in his career, but I think he'll be more essential to wins. It'll be interesting to see what happens between the two. I think Philly may end up having to make a decision and move one of them eventually. They're both best suited in similar facilitating point forward roles.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

[JoeyOtis]

I knew Ingram was a project, but I didn't know he was that much of a project. The moat disappointing part of his game was his lack of aggression. He just to go through the motions.

[Froob]

You able to count the whole 6 game sample size you're citing too?

It's nice that he's playing well right now, but the point still stands.

You sound really sour for no reason. Brown has been playing well for a while, unlike many rookies though he had to earn his minutes. Per 36 is a terrible way to judge players though, Brown has had a higher ts% than everyone outside of Brogdan on that list, and what's more impressive is he's been playing well in meaningfully minutes with the starters. No one is labeling him a future all star or anything, just sharing that's he been playing well. Seems petty to hate on the kid for whatever reason you have.

Seems as if you're being over sensitive to the point than anything else. The guy struggled from distance in college and he struggled throughout the start of this season. He's shot well since the break, but he's not a knock down guy. There will be a regression to the mean. I don't think that's "hate." I think that's logic based on track record.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

Shooting 35% from 3 for the season. Not bad. His shot is nearly as raw as everybody had thought. People probably shouldn't have labeled him a bust on draft day before seeing him hit the floor.

[skones]

You sound really sour for no reason. Brown has been playing well for a while, unlike many rookies though he had to earn his minutes. Per 36 is a terrible way to judge players though, Brown has had a higher ts% than everyone outside of Brogdan on that list, and what's more impressive is he's been playing well in meaningfully minutes with the starters. No one is labeling him a future all star or anything, just sharing that's he been playing well. Seems petty to hate on the kid for whatever reason you have.

Seems as if you're being over sensitive to the point than anything else. The guy struggled from distance in college and he struggled throughout the start of this season. He's shot well since the break, but he's not a knock down guy. There will be a regression to the mean. I don't think that's "hate." I think that's logic based on track record.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

Shooting 35% from 3 for the season. Not bad. His shot is nearly as raw as everybody had thought. People probably shouldn't have labeled him a bust on draft day before seeing him hit the floor.

Which is booned by his recent hot streak. 30% before the break, 46.7% after on double the attempts? As I said, regression is highly likely.

[cl2117]

Brown's shooting will absolutely regress a bit, it's going to fluctuate up and down repeatedly for the next couple years as he continues to develop. The real question is where it ends up, but none of us know that, so the best you can do right know is take this run as an encouraging sign that he can do it for stretches. It's just a matter of whether that develops into something consistent (like it did with Butler and Bradley) or if he stays streaky like many of the multitude of other athletic wings that came before him.

The real base for Jaylen's current offense is his inside game. He's got a great post-up game and been really adept at getting guys pinned under the basket and using his size for easy buckets. Between that and his slashing he's got a really solid offensive floor that will allow him to be a roleplayer as long as his athleticism is with him.

He's got to work on his shot, his handles and his defense. If 1/3 come along really well he's a fringe starter/6th man piece. If 2/3 come along he's a legit starter on a good team and if he gets all 3 he's a star. At the moment he's mediocre with a ton of upside in each area. If he can get elite in any one area he'll be stud.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Seems as if you're being over sensitive to the point than anything else. The guy struggled from distance in college and he struggled throughout the start of this season. He's shot well since the break, but he's not a knock down guy. There will be a regression to the mean. I don't think that's "hate." I think that's logic based on track record.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

Shooting 35% from 3 for the season. Not bad. His shot is nearly as raw as everybody had thought. People probably shouldn't have labeled him a bust on draft day before seeing him hit the floor.

Which is booned by his recent hot streak. 30% before the break, 46.7% after on double the attempts? As I said, regression is highly likely.

Which was largely due to his cold streak in December and the first half of January. How can you dismiss one (larger) sample away from mean as a hot streak while accepting the other (smaller) sample away from his mean as an indication of who he truly is as a shooter? Seems like you're selectively choosing here.

[skones]

Shooting 35% from 3 for the season. Not bad. His shot is nearly as raw as everybody had thought. People probably shouldn't have labeled him a bust on draft day before seeing him hit the floor.

Which is booned by his recent hot streak. 30% before the break, 46.7% after on double the attempts? As I said, regression is highly likely.

Which was largely due to his cold streak in December and the first half of January. How can you dismiss one (larger) sample away from mean as a hot streak while accepting the other (smaller) sample away from his mean as an indication of who he truly is as a shooter? Seems like you're selectively choosing here.

How is it selectively choosing if there's a pretty substantial track record here? It seems as if Celts fans don't want to hear the reality of the player and are clinging to the belief that he's some how become a 40% shooter.

November: 33.3%
December: 30.8%
January: 26.3%
February before the break: 25%

That's not being selective, that's three and a half months of legitimate NBA data that indicates the last month is a complete outlier. Your question is dishonest. I don't know how you can accuse me of extrapolating a smaller sample size when I'm actually taking the larger one (69 attempts vs. 30). If I want even more data, I can go back to his freshman season at Cal where he had a 29.4% mark from deep. His struggles at the stripe in both college and the NBA don't help his case either.

[millslapper]

As more and more 3s will be shot, we will have to watch more and more streaks, hot or cold, thats another evolution of the game.

Big thing here is not to overrate them.

[SmartWentCrazy]

How is it selectively choosing if there's a pretty substantial track record here? It seems as if Celts fans don't want to hear the reality of the player and are clinging to the belief that he's some how become a 40% shooter.

November: 33.3%
December: 30.8%
January: 26.3%
February before the break: 25%

That's not being selective, that's three and a half months of legitimate NBA data that indicates the last month is a complete outlier. Your question is dishonest. I don't know how you can accuse me of extrapolating a smaller sample size when I'm actually taking the larger one (69 attempts vs. 30). If I want even more data, I can go back to his freshman season at Cal where he had a 29.4% mark from deep. His struggles at the stripe in both college and the NBA don't help his case either.

You are manipulating the data. For whatever the reason, you're intentionally removing games from February to further manufacture a point. If I remove 2 games in December, he shot 50% that month. 3 games in January? 36%. It works both ways, yet, for whatever the reason, you selectively choose to disregard any positive movement from his mean as a fluke, and conclude that negative movement from his mean is reflective of who he is.

He's shooting 35.4% on the year. That's likely who he is. Just as he shot poorly to start, this hot phase has been his 'regression to the mean'. I don't know why you're ridiculously try to assert elsewise by bending his statistics, but it makes no sense. You're arbitrarily removing data to make an incorrect point.

[skones]

How is it selectively choosing if there's a pretty substantial track record here? It seems as if Celts fans don't want to hear the reality of the player and are clinging to the belief that he's some how become a 40% shooter.

November: 33.3%
December: 30.8%
January: 26.3%
February before the break: 25%

That's not being selective, that's three and a half months of legitimate NBA data that indicates the last month is a complete outlier. Your question is dishonest. I don't know how you can accuse me of extrapolating a smaller sample size when I'm actually taking the larger one (69 attempts vs. 30). If I want even more data, I can go back to his freshman season at Cal where he had a 29.4% mark from deep. His struggles at the stripe in both college and the NBA don't help his case either.

You are manipulating the data. For whatever the reason, you're intentionally removing games from February to further manufacture a point. If I remove 2 games in December, he shot 50% that month. 3 games in January? 36%. It works both ways, yet, for whatever the reason, you selectively choose to disregard any positive movement from his mean as a fluke, and conclude that negative movement from his mean is reflective of who he is.

He's shooting 35.4% on the year. That's likely who he is. Just as he shot poorly to start, this hot phase has been his 'regression to the mean'. I don't know why you're ridiculously try to assert elsewise by bending his statistics, but it makes no sense. You're arbitrarily removing data to make an incorrect point.

You're not making any sense. What exactly am I manipulating? The split was pre break and post break, in which case, I'm not removing anything, I'm actually sticking to the data sets.

When a 10 game sample size, on double the volume, raises your season percentages a full 5 percent, it's a statistical outlier. That means that that 35% is not a "likely who he is" scenario. That's just mathematics and probability. That's not bias, that's not manipulation, that's fact.

[bobbeaver]

Anyway, Saric struggled early playing off the ball with Embiid in the mix. He's been great with the ball in his hands. He may not put up the raw numbers Simmons will in his career, but I think he'll be more essential to wins. It'll be interesting to see what happens between the two. I think Philly may end up having to make a decision and move one of them eventually. They're both best suited in similar facilitating point forward roles.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

Well he struggled but sometimes he didnt. He was extremely streaky and most importantly he was learning the NBA game, and changing how he plays the game. He didnt attack the basket, or was timid doing it and relayed on his shot too much back than. He evolved greatly during the year. Even with Embiid on the court in the middle of the year he started to make huge plays and lead the team and put up much better numbers much more regularly. You could see the trajectory going up with or without Embiid. And mostly because he learnt how to attach the basket and be very aggressive about it (earlier he had bad stats at finishing around the rim).
But with that said he skyrocketed when he got the keys to the kindgdom and still going up, but again because he knows how to attack the rim without athleticism (while his shot wasnt there). And you can see the growth and consistency still going up. In Feb when he broke out he had around 20pt games alot, in this week alone he had two nearly 30 pt games. That goes especially for assists, which are going up alot. Rebounds are steady now around 9 avg since Feb.
It is a matter of getting the consistancy to his shot and efficiency going up now even higher at finishing at the rim. With that it looks like he will be 20+avg scorer.
My point is that he is smart and developing fast and if Simmons is atleast half as smart (and pans out as player he is promised to be) as Saric they will (both) learn to play together on and off the ball , feeding off each other. That goes for Embiid aswell. IF they can be a real team Brown can actually change the game for Sixers and play atypical basketball, and actually help all three get better and easier numbers. And i think he has the brains and vision to do it.

[SmartWentCrazy]

You're not making any sense. What exactly am I manipulating? The split was pre break and post break, in which case, I'm not removing anything, I'm actually sticking to the data sets. I'm not arbitrarily removing anything.

You're including half months as an item in your favor, yet inconsistently applying the metric. The facts are he has months of:

33.3%
30.8%
26.3%
45.5%
40%

You conclude that 44 of his 99 shots are less indicative of who he is as a shooter than 32 (December and January) of his shots. I think that everything balances out, and he's somewhere in between, in the 33-36% range. You're arbitrarily concluding that his average is falsely inflated and he's truly a sub 30% 3 point guy (which is why you went for half of feb and referenced college).

When a 10 game sample size, on double the volume, raises your season percentages a full 5 percent, it's a statistical outlier. That means that that 35% is not a "likely who he is" scenario. That's just mathematics and probability. That's not bias, that's not manipulation, that's fact.

He has 24 games where he didn't attempt a 3. He has 39 where he does. You're removing 25% of the relevant games arbitrarily. I don't know what else to tell you.

[skones]

You're not making any sense. What exactly am I manipulating? The split was pre break and post break, in which case, I'm not removing anything, I'm actually sticking to the data sets. I'm not arbitrarily removing anything.

You're including half months as an item in your favor, yet inconsistently applying the metric. The facts are he has months of:

33.3%
30.8%
26.3%
45.5%
40%

You conclude that 44 of his 99 shots are less indicative of who he is as a shooter than 32 (December and January) of his shots. I think that everything balances out, and he's somewhere in between, in the 33-36% range. You're arbitrarily concluding that his average is falsely inflated and he's truly a sub 30% 3 point guy (which is why you went for half of feb and referenced college).

When a 10 game sample size, on double the volume, raises your season percentages a full 5 percent, it's a statistical outlier. That means that that 35% is not a "likely who he is" scenario. That's just mathematics and probability. That's not bias, that's not manipulation, that's fact.

He has 24 games where he didn't attempt a 3. He has 39 where he does. You're removing 25% of the relevant games arbitrarily. I don't know what else to tell you.

I included half the month of February (and I'll put it in all caps for you because you seem incapable of recognizing it) BECAUSE THE SPLIT IS BEFORE THE ALL STAR BREAK VS AFTER. That's a pretty plain indicator. I'm not sure where you're getting lost because it's pretty damn straight-forward and stated on the graphic I was replying to. If you want to move the goal posts to the beginning of the month to fit your narrative, that's on you. (Which would be ironic because YOU would be manipulating the data set)

[cl2117]

You're not making any sense. What exactly am I manipulating? The split was pre break and post break, in which case, I'm not removing anything, I'm actually sticking to the data sets. I'm not arbitrarily removing anything.

You're including half months as an item in your favor, yet inconsistently applying the metric. The facts are he has months of:

33.3%
30.8%
26.3%
45.5%
40%

You conclude that 44 of his 99 shots are less indicative of who he is as a shooter than 32 (December and January) of his shots. I think that everything balances out, and he's somewhere in between, in the 33-36% range. You're arbitrarily concluding that his average is falsely inflated and he's truly a sub 30% 3 point guy (which is why you went for half of feb and referenced college).

When a 10 game sample size, on double the volume, raises your season percentages a full 5 percent, it's a statistical outlier. That means that that 35% is not a "likely who he is" scenario. That's just mathematics and probability. That's not bias, that's not manipulation, that's fact.

He has 24 games where he didn't attempt a 3. He has 39 where he does. You're removing 25% of the relevant games arbitrarily. I don't know what else to tell you.

I included half the month of February (and I'll put it in all caps for you because you seem incapable of recognizing it) BECAUSE THE SPLIT IS BEFORE THE ALL STAR BREAK VS AFTER. That's a pretty plain indicator. I'm not sure where you're getting lost because it's pretty damn straight-forward and stated on the graphic I was replying to. If you want to move the goal posts to the beginning of the month to fit your narrative, that's on you. (Which would be ironic because YOU would be manipulating the data set)

Would month on month data not be the most indicative rather than splitting a month because of an arbitrary break for the all-star game?

I think that's the point here. You use full months up until Feb and then stop, which makes sense since it's the all-star break, but is not the best way to determine sample size. And then the fact that excluding time based on that break drastically affects the numbers would further suggest that you look at the months as a whole rather than breaking Feb because of the all-star game, when you don't do that for any other month.

Furthermore given the limited data set since he's not even finished with his rookie year, you'd be best taking the entire set rather than trying to narrow it by any means at all to get the best range of performance.

[skones]

I think that's the point here. You use full months up until Feb and then stop, which makes sense since it's the all-star break, but is not the best way to determine sample size. And then the fact that excluding time based on that break drastically affects the numbers would further suggest that you look at the months as a whole rather than breaking Feb because of the all-star game, when you don't do that for any other month.

Furthermore given the limited data set since he's not even finished with his rookie year, you'd be best taking the entire set rather than trying to narrow it by any means at all to get the best range of performance.

All you need to do, is look at the graphic (ie SINCE THE ALL-STAR BREAK) posted to understand why I used data prior to the all-star break, as I've now stated numerous times, and will not state again.

I had these same arguments about Wiggins last season, and ended up being 100% correct.

[cl2117]

I think that's the point here. You use full months up until Feb and then stop, which makes sense since it's the all-star break, but is not the best way to determine sample size. And then the fact that excluding time based on that break drastically affects the numbers would further suggest that you look at the months as a whole rather than breaking Feb because of the all-star game, when you don't do that for any other month.

Furthermore given the limited data set since he's not even finished with his rookie year, you'd be best taking the entire set rather than trying to narrow it by any means at all to get the best range of performance.

All you need to do, is look at the graphic (ie SINCE THE ALL-STAR BREAK) posted to understand why I used data prior to the all-star break, as I've now stated numerous times, and will not state again.

I had these same arguments about Wiggins last season, and ended up being 100% correct.

I understand why you're making that distinction, I'm just saying that from a statistical point of view that isn't the optimal way to look at it.