The Case for being extremely patient with Trae Young's development

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

Now fifty games into his rookie season, it is arguable whether Young has lived up to his lofty expectations thus far.

When simply looking at Trae Young’s per game numbers, it would appear as if he is having a phenomenal year. Young is averaging 16.9 points per game to go along with 7.5 assists and 3.2 rebounds. He has certainly shown flashes of greatness, most notably in a recent stretch of games. He has been noticeably more aggressive heading to the basket as of late, which has led to the rookie’s recent success. Trae now seems more comfortable on both sides of the ball, and it will continue to do wonders for his confidence.

Young has put up great numbers lately and his per game stats are impressive, but he is very inefficient. For the season, the former Oklahoma guard is shooting just 31.1 percent from deep and 41.1 percent overall. He has no problem taking threes that are quite far away from the line, even when tightly guarded. Trae definitely has the shot-making ability to bury deep triples on occasion, but it is a tough shot for him or anyone not named Stephen Curry to make consistently. Also, the rookie forces floaters in the lane even if they are well defended or a very tough shot. Taking off-balance floaters and contested long threes will not help to raise Trae Young’s field goal percentage.

[High 5]

That article reads like a lazy RealGM post.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

I like this best:

Taking off-balance floaters and contested long threes will not help to raise Trae Young’s field goal percentage.

Written as if to suggest this is all he has been doing while we have all been watching Young's FG% and 3pt% significantly rise over the last two months.

[Jamaaliver]

That article reads like a lazy RealGM post.

Written as if to suggest this is all he has been doing while we have all been watching Young's FG% and 3pt% significantly rise over the last two months.

Yeah, I like the visual, but it's clearly an article thrown together in a matter of minutes to meet a deadline.

[EazyRoc]

I like this best:

Taking off-balance floaters and contested long threes will not help to raise Trae Young’s field goal percentage.

Written as if to suggest this is all he has been doing while we have all been watching Young's FG% and 3pt% significantly rise over the last two months.

SIGNIFICANTLY. He’s 43% FG/36% 3pt since December. Which isn’t great but isn’t what I would consider inefficient. It’s respectable for a PG. Even more so for a rookie PG.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

I like this best:

Taking off-balance floaters and contested long threes will not help to raise Trae Young’s field goal percentage.

Written as if to suggest this is all he has been doing while we have all been watching Young's FG% and 3pt% significantly rise over the last two months.

SIGNIFICANTLY. He’s 43% FG/36% 3pt since December. Which isn’t great but isn’t what I would consider inefficient. It’s respectable for a PG. Even more so for a rookie PG.

Agreed. A .554% TS% since December is really good for a rookie PG.

Compare that to lottery pick PG rookies like:

Lonzo Ball .444% TS%
De'Aaron Fox .478% TS% (.547% TS% this season)
Dennis Smith .473% TS%
Jamal Murray .518% TS%
D'Angelo Russell .507% TS%
Devin Booker .535% TS% (if you consider him a point which I don't)
Marcus Smart .491% TS%
MCW (ROY) .480% TS%
Damian Lillard .546% TS%
Kyrie Irving .566% TS%
Kemba Walker .464% TS% (yikes)

For the entire season, Trae is at .523% TS% which still looks pretty good against other lottery rookie PGs in recent years.

[shakes0]

with Lin gone does this mean my dream of Trae playing all 48 minutes per game is going to come to fruition?

[DarthTater]

with Lin gone does this mean my dream of Trae playing all 48 minutes per game is going to come to fruition?

Why run him into the ground in a meaningless season? A small framed guy like Trae will wear out quickly. We don't need to risk a big injury to him.

[Jamaaliver]

Trae working to justify his 'Rising Stars' inclusion and solidify his All Rookie 1st Team selection:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[Jamaaliver]

Abridged excerpt from The Athletic

License to Drive: Best and worst rim attackers in the NBA this season

Five Worst Drivers This Season

5. Trae Young, Atlanta Hawks — 17.1 drives per game, points 44.6 percent of the time

Atlanta Hawks rookie Young comes in as the fifth worst driver on this list because he just doesn’t score all that often. Not being able to crack 50 percent on these is pretty bad, but it seems more forgivable with Young figuring things out as he goes. The biggest problem for Young on a lot of these is he just doesn’t quite have the angles and the body control most veterans possess.

He has the fourth highest pass percentage (46.4 percent) and the third highest assist rate (13.5 percent). But the Hawks need him to become much more of a threat to score around the basket to suck the defense into the paint and create better passing opportunities for him and his teammates. Young also has the second highest turnover rate (9.6 percent), only behind John Wall (10.8 percent), who is done for the season.

Young's three biggest problems on drives to the rim come from exposing the ball too much, not creating separation/space to avoid shot blockers, and hunting contact that leads to wild shots. The first two are easy enough techniques to correct. Young has to time his steps better and put his body into the shot blockers in order to create the timing and space he needs for layups. In terms of turnovers, Young just has to tuck the ball better and not be so loose with his gather when he’s going up for shots.

As for hunting contact, not a lot of young guys get the benefit of a friendly whistle. Young usually drives a little too recklessly to get the calls he’s seeking. He needs to concentrate more with getting quality shots than finding contact to sell. Even in his improved play over the last month or so, Young still struggles getting to the rim. It will come with time, but it’s a glaring issue for him as a rookie.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[hawkmanreturns]

Read on Twitter

I think the dramatic drop in performance during November is as close as Trae is going to get to hitting the "Rookie wall".

[Jamaaliver]

^and on that note...

Read on Twitter

It’s nearly March, and Hawks rookie Trae Young, good for much of the season, is getting even better. The league countered Young after his hot start, and he countered that counter. Young is on the come this late in the season, a development that debunks one of the pre-draft knocks on him.

The worry was that Young’s slight frame may not hold up against the NBA’s bigger, physically mature players. The narrative was that the grind of the 82-game schedule may be too much for a player who is (not quite) 6-foot-2 and (maybe) 175 pounds.

Well, Young has played in all 61 Hawks games. His 1,854 minutes played ranks second to Collin Sexton among rookies.

Hawks coach Lloyd Pierce gave Young offensive freedom while gradually increasing his minutes through the season, and that plan appears to be paying off.

[Jamaaliver]

I still don't fully understand this metric --

Metrics 101: Exposing the NBA's Least Valuable Shooters

6. Trae Young, Atlanta Hawks: Minus-56.154




3-10 Feet Value Added: minus-2.135

11-16 Feet Value Added: minus-4.464

17-Plus Feet Two-Pointers Value Added: minus-11.058

Three-Pointers Value Added: minus-38.497

Even though Trae Young has gradually improved throughout his rookie campaign and is now playing much better offensive basketball for the Atlanta Hawks, he got off to quite the ice-cold start while making the transition to the sport's highest level. His early-season numbers are still dragging down the totality of his efforts.

Dating back to his final game of 2018—a 16-point performance against the Indiana Pacers during which he went 4-of-6 on his treys—Young has taken 6.5 triples per game and drilled 37.7 percent of them. That still can't match what he did during his record-setting freshman season at Oklahoma, but it would be good for a score of 10.697 in our three-point category, placing this former Sooner well within the green.

And yes, that underscores how unabashedly awful he was before that midseason turning point.

Prior to that aforementioned loss in Indianapolis, Young was taking an even five attempts per game from downtown and hitting just 26.1 percent of them. His value "added" would've checked in at minus-49.193 at that stage of the season—worse than all but two players have fared up to this deeper point of the campaign.

Fortunately, rookie seasons are supposed to be more about progress than pure production.

Bleacher Report

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

I still don't fully understand this metric --

I believe it looks at his FG% in each range and assigns positive or negative values based on how it compares to a league average shooter at those distances. So 40% from 3-10 feet will produce a very negative number while 40% from 3pt range will produce a highly positive number.

[High 5]

I still don't fully understand this metric --

I believe it looks at his FG% in each range and assigns positive or negative values based on how it compares to a league average shooter at those distances. So 40% from 3-10 feet will produce a very negative number while 40% from 3pt range will produce a highly positive number.

It's just based on points per shot. Someone who shoots 50% from 3-10 feet scores 1 point per shot. The league average is 39.9% which is 0.789 points per shot. 1 - 0.789 = 0.211 and then you multiply that by the player's number of attempts to get their "score." Someone who shoots under 39.9% will have a negative score.

I don't know how useful it is, but it is interesting to look at.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

I still don't fully understand this metric --

I believe it looks at his FG% in each range and assigns positive or negative values based on how it compares to a league average shooter at those distances. So 40% from 3-10 feet will produce a very negative number while 40% from 3pt range will produce a highly positive number.

It's just based on points per shot. Someone who shoots 50% from 3-10 feet scores 1 point per shot. The league average is 39.9% which is 0.789 points per shot. 1 - 0.789 = 0.211 and then you multiply that by the player's number of attempts to get their "score." Someone who shoots under 39.9% will have a negative score.

I don't know how useful it is, but it is interesting to look at.

What you just described about the positive or negative number being driven by how far people shoot above or below league average from a given distance is aligned with the approach I described. Multiplying by number of shots gives you a volume dimension I didn't describe. Thanks for the addtional detail.

[jayu70]

I believe it looks at his FG% in each range and assigns positive or negative values based on how it compares to a league average shooter at those distances. So 40% from 3-10 feet will produce a very negative number while 40% from 3pt range will produce a highly positive number.

It's just based on points per shot. Someone who shoots 50% from 3-10 feet scores 1 point per shot. The league average is 39.9% which is 0.789 points per shot. 1 - 0.789 = 0.211 and then you multiply that by the player's number of attempts to get their "score." Someone who shoots under 39.9% will have a negative score.

I don't know how useful it is, but it is interesting to look at.

What you just described about the positive or negative number being driven by how far people shoot above or below league average from a given distance is aligned with the approach I described. Multiplying by number of shots gives you a volume dimension I didn't describe. Thanks for the addtional detail.

Sounds like more useless stats I don't care to understand.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

It's just based on points per shot. Someone who shoots 50% from 3-10 feet scores 1 point per shot. The league average is 39.9% which is 0.789 points per shot. 1 - 0.789 = 0.211 and then you multiply that by the player's number of attempts to get their "score." Someone who shoots under 39.9% will have a negative score.

I don't know how useful it is, but it is interesting to look at.

What you just described about the positive or negative number being driven by how far people shoot above or below league average from a given distance is aligned with the approach I described. Multiplying by number of shots gives you a volume dimension I didn't describe. Thanks for the addtional detail.

Sounds like more useless stats I don't care to understand.

It seems like a very rough number but having a shorthand for whether a player is better than average and some weighting for volume seems like it has some use. If you show up as highly negative from a particular region of the floor, that probably means you are taking wayyy too many shots from a distance that you are just not very good at.