Pre-camp power rankings

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I'm just saying they both sucked their first year. They were both injured thier second and CJ became a star in his third. Details can be spun many ways, but the end result is CJ was not thought of as a star or even a starter his first year. 9.0 per and 5.7 Per. Not that far off.

My point (the part you originally quoted) was that C.J. did not go from historically bad to breakout star over the course of a single off season. First, he was never historically bad.

Second, over the last month of his second season, he was averaging 15 ppg (after Wes went down) and scored 26, 18 and 33 coming off the bench in the final three games of the MEM series. C.J. was already on his way to becoming good prior to the off season before his breakout season.

And yes, there is a very significant difference between PER = 5.7 and PER = 9.0 (and for the record, C.J.'s PER did not jump from 9.0 to 17.7 in a single season, it went from 9.0 to 13.1 to 17.7). Every year, there are about 15 - 20 players that play > 1000 minutes with a PER in the 9.0 range, but in the last 10 years, there have only been three players that played at least 1000 minutes and posted a PER worse than Exum's 5.7. The difference between PER = 5.7 and PER = 9.0 is the difference between historically bad and a below average role player.

In fact, if I go back 20 years, I can't find a single player who played over 1000 minutes with a PER less than 7.0 that later became a star, or even an above average player. The closest I can find is Draymond Green, but even his improvement, was much more gradual. Similar to C.J. his PER has increased every year. He went from 7.1, to 12.7 to 16.4 to 19.3. Again no single off season jump from awful to great.

If Exum breaks out this season, it will be unprecedented. Like I said in my first post, Exum may eventually breakout, but it's highly unlikely it happens in 2016-17.

BNM
 
I'm just saying they both sucked their first year. They were both injured thier second and CJ became a star in his third. Details can be spun many ways, but the end result is CJ was not thought of as a star or even a starter his first year. 9.0 per and 5.7 Per. Not that far off.

Also, just one other note, C.J, was not injured his second year, at least not significantly. He missed 14 games due to injury. Exum missed the entire season.

BNM
 
My point (the part you originally quoted) was that C.J. did not go from historically bad to breakout star over the course of a single off season. First, he was never historically bad.

Second, over the last month of his second season, he was averaging 15 ppg (after Wes went down) and scored 26, 18 and 33 coming off the bench in the final three games of the MEM series. C.J. was already on his way to becoming good prior to the off season before his breakout season.

And yes, there is a very significant difference between PER = 5.7 and PER = 9.0 (and for the record, C.J.'s PER did not jump from 9.0 to 17.7 in a single season, it went from 9.0 to 13.1 to 17.7). Every year, there are about 15 - 20 players that play > 1000 minutes with a PER in the 9.0 range, but in the last 10 years, there have only been three players that played at least 1000 minutes and posted a PER worse than Exum's 5.7. The difference between PER = 5.7 and PER = 9.0 is the difference between historically bad and a below average role player.

In fact, if I go back 20 years, I can't find a single player who played over 1000 minutes with a PER less than 7.0 that later became a star, or even an above average player. The closest I can find is Draymond Green, but even his improvement, was much more gradual. Similar to C.J. his PER has increased every year. He went from 7.1, to 12.7 to 16.4 to 19.3. Again no single off season jump from awful to great.

If Exum breaks out this season, it will be unprecedented. Like I said in my first post, Exum may eventually breakout, but it's highly unlikely it happens in 2016-17.

BNM

I had to stop at historically bad. sorry but how are guys in their first and second seasons..."Historically bad". Lol.

Sorry. I love your posts but this one, and again, I'm not disagreeing, but I think the comparisons could be made based on the PER you listed from thier rookie to now. 2 years later.
 
I had to stop at historically bad. sorry but how are guys in their first and second seasons..."Historically bad". Lol.

Sorry. I love your posts but this one, and again, I'm not disagreeing, but I think the comparisons could be made based on the PER you listed from thier rookie to now. 2 years later.

That guy who couldn't hit a shot for like the first ten games of his career was historically bad... I can't remember his name, it was like a couple of years ago. He played in the East, was touted as the next big starter for... Cleveland? Detroit? Philly? Somewhere out there. And he bombed out SO SPECTACULARLY nobody even remember who he is.
 
I had to stop at historically bad. sorry but how are guys in their first and second seasons..."Historically bad". Lol.

When you start 41 games, play over 1800 minutes and have one of the worst seasons statistically in the history of the league, you are by definition, historically bad. That's true whether you're a rookie or a 10-year veteran. Of course, the 19-year old rookie has a lot bigger chance of improving, but that does not change the fact that Exum's rookie year was historically bad. Even if he breaks out and becomes a 15 time all star, his rookie year was, and will always remain, historically bad. It's done, it's over, it's in the history books, it was BAD.

Sorry. I love your posts but this one, and again, I'm not disagreeing, but I think the comparisons could be made based on the PER you listed from thier rookie to now. 2 years later.

So, you think Exum, who missed his entire second season with a major knee injury, improved as much as C.J. did his second season, and is poised to make a similar 3rd year leap? Based on what exactly? You think he's going to go from being a PER = 5.7 player to averaging 20 ppg and being one of the three of four best players at his position, simply because he's a year older?

I'm sorry, I think I may be totally misunderstanding what you mean by:

"I think the comparisons could be made based on the PER you listed from thier rookie to now. 2 years later."

Unless you actually believe Exum will jump from PER = 5.7 to anywhere near PER = 17.7.

My whole point was to refute the notion that somehow getting Exum back will help the Jazz make the leap from lottery team to HCA n the West. I went back 20 years and couldn't find a single player that jumped from PER = 5.7 to even PER = 15.0 from one season to the next. And technically, because he missed all of last year, this will be Exum's second season. Even if you want to stretch and call his his third season, I can't even find single player who went from PER = 5.7 to PER = 15.0 from year 1 to year 3.

If Exum does any of these things, it will be an historic accomplishment.

BNM
 
When you start 41 games, play over 1800 minutes and have one of the worst seasons statistically in the history of the league, you are by definition, historically bad. That's true whether you're a rookie or a 10-year veteran. Of course, the 19-year old rookie has a lot bigger chance of improving, but that does not change the fact that Exum's rookie year was historically bad. Even if he breaks out and becomes a 15 time all star, his rookie year was, and will always remain, historically bad. It's done, it's over, it's in the history books, it was BAD.



So, you think Exum, who missed his entire second season with a major knee injury, improved as much as C.J. did his second season, and is poised to make a similar 3rd year leap? Based on what exactly? You think he's going to go from being a PER = 5.7 player to averaging 20 ppg and being one of the three of four best players at his position, simply because he's a year older?

I'm sorry, I think I may be totally misunderstanding what you mean by:

"I think the comparisons could be made based on the PER you listed from thier rookie to now. 2 years later."

Unless you actually believe Exum will jump from PER = 5.7 to anywhere near PER = 17.7.

My whole point was to refute the notion that somehow getting Exum back will help the Jazz make the leap from lottery team to HCA n the West. I went back 20 years and couldn't find a single player that jumped from PER = 5.7 to even PER = 15.0 from one season to the next. And technically, because he missed all of last year, this will be Exum's second season. Even if you want to stretch and call his his third season, I can't even find single player who went from PER = 5.7 to PER = 15.0 from year 1 to year 3.

If Exum does any of these things, it will be an historic accomplishment.

BNM

I knew I could goad you into a couple more well informed psts. :)
 
That guy who couldn't hit a shot for like the first ten games of his career was historically bad... I can't remember his name, it was like a couple of years ago. He played in the East, was touted as the next big starter for... Cleveland? Detroit? Philly? Somewhere out there. And he bombed out SO SPECTACULARLY nobody even remember who he is.

Joel Freeland? Victor Claver?

Freeland started his NBA career going 1-18. I remember feeling sorry for him his rookie year. And, its not like they were 18-foot jumpers, they were all bunnies right around the basket and he simply couldn't make ANYTHING.

And then, whenever Claver missed a shot, which was most of the time, we'd get to hear Mike Barrett remind us for the 100th time what a GREAT shooter Claver was in practice.

BNM
 
Joel Freeland? Victor Claver?

Freeland started his NBA career going 1-18. I remember feeling sorry for him his rookie year. And, its not like they were 18-foot jumpers, they were all bunnies right around the basket and he simply couldn't make ANYTHING.

And then, whenever Claver missed a shot, which was most of the time, we'd get to hear Mike Barrett remind us for the 100th time what a GREAT shooter Claver was in practice.

BNM

No this was an Eastern Conference guy, who was a starter.

EDIT: Not a starter. Anthony Bennett for Cleveland. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bennean01/gamelog/2014

...LOL and he had a PER of 6.9 that year. So maybe 5.7 IS historically bad! :lol:
 
Yep. Stuckey had a really bad start a couple of seasons ago as well.
Just looked it up. Rodney Stuckey started the 2012 season with 1 for 23 shooting. And given that Stuckey is really only good for volume scoring, it was pretty bad.
 
Unless you actually believe Exum will jump from PER = 5.7 to anywhere near PER = 17.7.

My whole point was to refute the notion that somehow getting Exum back will help the Jazz make the leap from lottery team to HCA n the West. I went back 20 years and couldn't find a single player that jumped from PER = 5.7 to even PER = 15.0 from one season to the next. And technically, because he missed all of last year, this will be Exum's second season. Even if you want to stretch and call his his third season, I can't even find single player who went from PER = 5.7 to PER = 15.0 from year 1 to year 3.

If Exum does any of these things, it will be an historic accomplishment.

BNM

PER is the wrong stat to judge Exum. What makes him a great fit for the Jazz is his defense. His potential reminds me of Conley, who took a while to become solid in this league.
 
Today ESPN released their win total prediction for all 30 teams. It lists (in order from most to least projected wins) Golden State, San Antonio, Utah, clippers, rockets, and thunder all as winning more games than us this season.

According to this list Utah will finish 3rd in the west with 47.6 wins. We are listed at 44.5. Somehow the higher "ranked" Grizzlies are predicted to win 39.4 games which falls short of the Denver Niggets' 40.4.

TLDR- ESPN is full of Utah Jazz **** riders who will do whatever they can to cover their bases and save face. Even if it means going back and editing their draft board 2 years later.
 
Gobert was a different story. 33-28 with and 7-14 without. So, if Gobert is healthy and can return to his preinjury form, it should help UTA in 2016-17.

That's the main one I was after. They were looking like an up-and-comer with him healthy.
 
Surely, last year's injuries to their key players have to be factored in?



I tend to think the national media has this one right. Napier is unlikely to have any impact. Turner and Ezeli are major question marks, in my opinion. One is a non-PG ball handler with limited offense, the other has equally limited offense but can never stay healthy. Both are solid defenders, but will they be able to contribute enough there to stay on the floor? I'd say it's 50/50.

As for retaining our most important free agents, that's a mixed blessing. We didn't lose talent like the summer prior, but we didn't resolve the issue of redundancies at every position. Dame and CJ, Crabbe and Harkless (remove Henderson, insert Turner), Harkless and Aminu, Plumlee and Davis. It's nice to have depth, but with two of every position without clear cut starter talent, I feel we're destined to be pretty good but not great. But, we spent money this summer like the team is destined for greatness.

I agree we could some consilidation trading but I think both Ezeli and Turner are excellent players. Great Defenders, extremely smart (basketball-wise and otgerwise) and very team players.
I agree we may be too deep and leave too much of our talent on the bench but also that we have an aboundance of talented players, most of them just entering their prime
 
Yeah, when is that going to happen? In 2016-17? Because that's what these preseason predictions are talking about. Sure, he's just entering his 3rd season, like C.J. was last year, but I don't see him breaking out like C.J. did. Hood played 3600 minutes in his first two seasons. C.J. played 1450. Hood made mild improvements from season 1 to season 2. C.J. has shown significant improvement every year he's been in the league. I doubt Hood will ever be a star, but if he is someday, I don't see that day being the 2016-17 season.



You say that like it's a good thing. Exum was spectacularly horrible, downright historically bad, his rookie season. He wasn't just the worst player to start at least half of his team's games, by a wide margin, he was also the worst player in the league to play at least 1000 minutes, also by a wide margin. I get that he was very young and making the transition to starting NBA point guard is tough for young players. But here's the thing, he'll also be very young this season - and he's coming back from a serious injury. Like Hood, he has great size for his position, and may eventually develop into a star player, but I don't see that happening in 2016-17. In fact, I see any minutes Exum plays in 2016-17 as a net negative THIS YEAR. Any minutes he gets this season will be for development purposes, as a long term investment in the future, not for immediate help.



Favors is damn solid, He will be again this year, like he was last year (when UTA won 40 games) and like he was the year before (when UTA won 38 games). He'll get his 18/9, like he did last year and the year before. And, like I said, that's damn solid performance from the PF position. But, going into his 7th season in the league, with over 11,000 minutes of playing time under his belt, I don't see where any improvement comes from that takes UTA from lottery to HCA in the West. Favors will be just as good as he has been, but I don't see him improving enough to make a huge difference in their record. This isn't a Jermaine O'Neal situation where Favors is suddenly going to breakout. Favors is what he is, which is damn good, but he played more minutes his rookie year than Jermaine did his first three seasons combined. Very good player who has reached his ceiling, or pretty close to it.

Gobert also is what he is, at this point. He's a great rim protector with a very limited offensive game. He actually regressed a bit in 2015-2016 (his per-36 numbers and shooting percentages were all down across the board), but that can probably be blamed on his injuries. If healthy, he should return to his 2014-15 form, when UTA won 38 games. Again, I'm not seeing any huge improvement here that would take this team from lottery to HCA.

And, maybe that's the problem in general. When was the last time a UTA player had a breakout season. Who was the last UTA player to make an all star team? They've had quite a few lottery picks the last several years, both their own and ones acquired via trade. How many of those lottery picks have justified their draft position? It seems like they are more likely to draft someone that doesn't pan out and they give up on before their rookie contracts up than they are to draft a future all star. Gordon Hayward seems to be their only lottery pick in the last 10 years that has developed into a solid player, and he was drafted six years ago. In the mean time, we have drafted Dame and C.J. who have both easily exceeded their draft positions. Maybe UTA doesn't draft well, or maybe they just don't have good player development personnel. In either case, their players seem to plateau at a fairly young age and don't show much future improvement. Maybe that will change in 2016-17, but if it does, it will be the first time since the Jerry Sloan era.

And, it is this lack of development of their young players that caused UTA to bring in veterans like Joe Johnson, Boris Diaw and George Hill to try to get them to finally get back to the post season for the first time in six years.

BNM

Rodney Hood is gonna be a star this year, he's gonna breakout and actually already did. He was the biggest reason they started to win more games after the all star break.
Exum I was very impressed with at the McDonalds game, suggested we should trade Aldridge for a pick and select him, was ridiculed for this back then. He did disappoint his rookie year but so did CJ and many great players, Since then he was injured for very long. He's far from a sure thing to live up to his billing but it still could happen
 
Rodney Hood is gonna be a star this year, he's gonna breakout and actually already did. He was the biggest reason they started to win more games after the all star break.

But UTA didn't win more games after the all star break. Their record before the break was 26-26. After the break, they were 14-16.

And, Hood's number after the all star break were down slightly from before the break.

Rodney Hood 2015-16:
Pre-All Star Break: 31.4 MPG, .423 FG%, .361 3FG%, .879 FT%, .549 TS%, 14.9 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 2.6 APG
Post-All Star Break, 33.4 MPG, .414 FG%, .354 3FG%, .814 FT%, .530 TS%, 13.9 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 2.8 APG

After the break his shooting percentages were down across the board, in spite of playing 2 more MP, his scoring average dropped, but his RG and APG were up ever so slightly. I see nothing in those numbers that says star or breakout. To me, they look like below average numbers for an NBA starter.

For comparison, here's C.J.'s post all star numbers:

C.J. McCollum 2015-16:
Post-All Star Break, 34.3 MPG, .459 FG%, .471 3FG%, .875 FT%, .569 TS%, 21.1 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 4.3 APG

One of those players is a breakout star. The other, not so much.

Exum I was very impressed with at the McDonalds game, suggested we should trade Aldridge for a pick and select him, was ridiculed for this back then. He did disappoint his rookie year but so did CJ and many great players, Since then he was injured for very long. He's far from a sure thing to live up to his billing but it still could happen

I'm not labeling Exum a bust, at least not yet. I'm just saying I don't expect a 21-year old who flat out sucked as a rookie to come back from a major knee injury and make a significant positive impact this season. He's still very, very young and has plenty of time to improve, but this will be a development year for Exum. He may show flashes of greatness, but he will also struggle mighty at times, like he did his rookie year.

All these predictions are about the 2016-17 season and I would be shocked if Exum, after his awful rookie year and his subsequent injury, has a breakout season in 2016-17. Of course, that's why UTA gave up a lottery pick to get George Hill. After missing the playoffs six years in a row, they are hungry to make the post season and they know Exum isn't ready to be the starting PG on a Western Conference playoff team. The trade for George Hill was UTA flat out admitting Exum may be their PG of the future, but he's not ready to be their PG of the present.

BNM
 
PER is the wrong stat to judge Exum. What makes him a great fit for the Jazz is his defense. His potential reminds me of Conley, who took a while to become solid in this league.

I agree in principle. Exum's strength is his defensive potential, which is not adequately captured by PER. However, in today's NBA, to be a staring PG (at least a good one), you also need to be able to score, shoot the 3 and run an offense. And, those things are captured in PER and as a rookie, Exum was historically bad in those areas. He's very young and still has a lot of time to improve but that's my point, he needs to improve a LOT in order to make an overall positive impact on his team's record.

I mean look at Ricky Rubio. He's another PG with good length that defends his position well. He is also an elite level distributor, something Exum decidedly isn't at this point. Yet, Rubio struggles in the NBA because he can't shoot worth a shit. Opposing defenses know Rubio can't shoot. He's so bad that under Adleman he was benched in the 4th quarter of any game that was close to winnable. You just can't put the ball in the hands of a guy who isn't a scoring threat with the game on the line. Opposing defenses back off, play the passing lanes, clamp down on everyone else and dare Rubio to shoot.

Rubio = excellent defender + elite passer + horrible shooter = marginal NBA starting PG

So far...

Exum = excellent defender + horrible passer + horrible shooter

He needs to improve significantly to be even below average, and since these predictions are for the 2016-17 season, I don't see the 21-year old Exum making that leap this year after coming back from a serious knee injury. Will he be better this year than he was as a rookie? Hopefully, for his sake. It would be hard to be worse.

BNM
 
I agree we could some consilidation trading but I think both Ezeli and Turner are excellent players. Great Defenders, extremely smart (basketball-wise and otgerwise) and very team players.
I agree we may be too deep and leave too much of our talent on the bench but also that we have an aboundance of talented players, most of them just entering their prime
Relax, man, THIS IS PORTLAND (300-style) - we'll have 3 or 4 guys injured all season :)

We've already got some...
 
Sports are no different from clothing or music; there are fashionable and unfashionable teams. I doubt Portland will ever be a fashionable team; at most, the Blazers get "grunge" respect. That team Out There in the Northwest where it rains.

So the Jazz are flavor of the year? BFG.
I don't worry about fashion in clothing and I sure as fuck don't worry about fashion in NBA teams. Just win, baby.
 
I doubt Portland will ever be a fashionable team; at most, the Blazers get "grunge" respect.
ttl8thgmyi7my1q3d1hu.jpg

snoop_dogg_blazers_brandon_roy.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg


ANNNNNND...
jayne-blazer-5.jpg
 
Its tough to admit. But, lots of crow going on in here. If we make a couple little roster adjustments I think we can be right back in the thick of things next year.
 
My favorite part about this thread is the celebs in Blazers gear!!!

But yeah. Looks like most were wrong about Utah. They seemed to have put the pieces together pretty well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top