Zach Collins in January

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Wizard Mentor said:
I don't want to speak for someone else, but I think that's just the point. Hindsight isn't 20/20 when you're a Zags fan and your idea is "always get the Zags guy." In fact, hindsight does you no good at all.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but people are the same way with former Ducks. There's bias but you're also educated on that player by way of being a fan.
 
MickZagger said:
Unfortunately the daily grind of the NBA while being an insulin dependent diabetic was too much to handle.
Click to expand...

It was clear that Morrison was an emotional wreck when he broke down crying while the last game of his college career was still winnable. Anything he didn't overcome after that was just an excuse for weaknesses he had already shown.
 
mook said:
Interesting. If you expand it out to anybody under 24 this year, he's 27th. Every hyped young player in the league is on the list above him. Maybe I'm starting to fall back in love with Collins.

Also, today I learned Giannis is only 23. Fuck, man. That guys is going to be tearing up the league for forever.
Click to expand...

Well, my stat wasn't completely random. I looked at a couple of rookie rankings online and thought "they're (mostly) all playing on bad teams." So, I thought
I'd look at +/- which should rate some of those rookies lower, and sure enough, they do.
 
mook said:
Interesting. If you expand it out to anybody under 24 this year, he's 27th. Every hyped young player in the league is on the list above him. Maybe I'm starting to fall back in love with Collins.

Also, today I learned Giannis is only 23. Fuck, man. That guys is going to be tearing up the league for forever.
Click to expand...

That's not really an individual stat. It's HIGHLY team dependent.

Look where Donovan Mitchell (101), Kyle Kuzma (136), Devin Booker (152) and Lauri Markannen (154 of 157) are on that list. Do you really believe Booker and Markannen are the 6th worst and 4th worst players under 24 in the entire league? Their ratings are a reflection of the fact that they are both playing big minutes on shitty teams.

BNM
 
MickZagger said:
CJ. But, its not that wide of a margin. Olynyk is one of the most versatile big men in the league.
Click to expand...

Olynyk is a decent player, but he is a career 6th/7th man. Nothing wrong with that, but C.J. is a significantly above average starter at a position that is in high demand due to a current shortage of quality players at that position.

The whole can Dame and C.J. coexist argument has been beaten to death, but the fact is, whether we keep him, or trade him, we're lucky to have C.J. He has significantly more value, both on the court and as a trading piece than Olynyk.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
...we're lucky to have C.J. He has significantly more value, both on the court and as a trading piece than Olynyk.
Click to expand...
If we'd had Olynyk, would we have been less likely to re-sign Meyers? If so, does that make up the gap in value between KO and CJ?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If we'd had Olynyk, would we have been less likely to re-sign Meyers? If so, does that make up the gap in value between KO and CJ?
Click to expand...
No. It's not about the differential between bench players. Basketball, with only five players on the floor at a time, is about having the best player. In this hypothetical, that's CJ, and it's not close.

:cheers:
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If we'd had Olynyk, would we have been less likely to re-sign Meyers? If so, does that make up the gap in value between KO and CJ?
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to play that game, if we had Olynyk, would we have drafted Collins?

Regardless, if we had Olynyk today, he'd be redundant and not fill a position of need. We have others who can play back up 4 and 5 just fine. We don't have anyone else who could fill C.J.'s role as a significantly above average SG.

BNM
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If we'd had Olynyk, would we have been less likely to re-sign Meyers? If so, does that make up the gap in value between KO and CJ?
Click to expand...
The first part of your question is kind of interesting. I think if we'd had both Olynyk and Meyers, the Blazers would have either shown Meyers the door; or they would have developed Meyers as a center in the first place. And we probably wouldn't have traded for Vonleh?
 
BBert said:
The first part of your question is kind of interesting. I think if we'd had both Olynyk and Meyers, the Blazers would have either shown Meyers the door; or they would have developed Meyers as a center in the first place. And we probably wouldn't have traded for Vonleh?
Click to expand...

And we might have kept Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and not traded for Plumlee (and Connaughton), which means no Nurk, and if we'd kept Hollis-Jefferson, we might not have matched Crabbe.... It just goes on and on.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
And we might have kept Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and not traded for Plumlee (and Connaughton), which means no Nurk, and if we'd kept Hollis-Jefferson, we might not have matched Crabbe.... It just goes on and on.
Click to expand...

So you are saying Olynyk is a Chinese butterfly?
 
Boob-No-More said:
And we might have kept Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and not traded for Plumlee (and Connaughton), which means no Nurk, and if we'd kept Hollis-Jefferson, we might not have matched Crabbe.... It just goes on and on.

BNM
Click to expand...
OK I'm done, or my head is gonna esplode.
 
Scalma said:
So we’ve reached the stage where Kelly Olynyk is in the same ballpark as CJ?

CJ is better, and more valuable, and yes, by a wide margin. The fuck?
Click to expand...

Its not as clear cut as people would think. Look at the advanced stats. CJ is better, cut its not by a huge margin.
 
MickZagger said:
Its not as clear cut as people would think. Look at the advanced stats. CJ is better, cut its not by a huge margin.
Click to expand...

Olynyk isn't even a starter. He's a very good bench player, but that's all he is. He's playing a career high 23 MPG. His career average is 21 MPG. His impact is limited by his role and his minutes. Just looking at his advanced stats and saying he's almost as good as C.J. seriously overrates his total contribution to his team. Meyers fucking Leonard has some pretty impressive advanced stats this year. Big deal. He barely plays.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
That's not really an individual stat. It's HIGHLY team dependent.

Look where Donovan Mitchell (101), Kyle Kuzma (136), Devin Booker (152) and Lauri Markannen (154 of 157) are on that list. Do you really believe Booker and Markannen are the 6th worst and 4th worst players under 24 in the entire league? Their ratings are a reflection of the fact that they are both playing big minutes on shitty teams.

BNM
Click to expand...
You got my point!!!!!
and then.... you didn't.

The rookie rankings are heavily biased toward teams rookies with high usage on crappy teams.
So, yes THOSE stats are HIGHLY team dependent. So, I made up another stat that might also be team dependent,
but not really, since the Blazers are almost middle-of-the-road in the west. And what do you know,
Collins looks good.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
You got my point!!!!!
and then.... you didn't.

The rookie rankings are heavily biased toward teams rookies with high usage on crappy teams.
So, yes THOSE stats are HIGHLY team dependent. So, I made up another stat that might also be team dependent,
but not really, since the Blazers are almost middle-of-the-road in the west. And what do you know,
Collins looks good.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually replying to you, I was replying to Mook, who took your list and expanded it to include all players under 24. For anyone who didn't already understand the team impact on plus/minus stats, that expanded list makes it even more obvious that the quality of the team is much more of a factor that the quality of the individual player for this particular statistic.

Collins pretty much falls in about the middle of the Blazers in Net Points. He is 6th of 14 players at +44. Connaughton has the highest Net Points at +112 and Harkless is last at -86.

So, not bad for a rookie. Like Connaughton, Collins' Net Points are a function of which other guys he's paying with and the quality of the opposition (other teams' second units), but at least he's having an overall positive impact. Which is a good thing for a rookie.

BNM
 
Wizard Mentor said:
You got my point!!!!!
and then.... you didn't.

The rookie rankings are heavily biased toward teams rookies with high usage on crappy teams.
So, yes THOSE stats are HIGHLY team dependent. So, I made up another stat that might also be team dependent,
but not really, since the Blazers are almost middle-of-the-road in the west. And what do you know,
Collins looks good.
Click to expand...

And what is that new made-up stat?
 
Boob-No-More said:
I wasn't actually replying to you, I was replying to Mook, who took your list and expanded it to include all players under 24. For anyone who didn't already understand the team impact on plus/minus stats, that expanded list makes it even more obvious that the quality of the team is much more of a factor that the quality of the individual player for this particular statistic.

Collins pretty much falls in about the middle of the Blazers in Net Points. He is 6th of 14 players at +44. Connaughton has the highest Net Points at +112 and Harkless is last at -86.

So, not bad for a rookie. Like Connaughton, Collins' Net Points are a function of which other guys he's paying with and the quality of the opposition (other teams' second units), but at least he's having an overall positive impact. Which is a good thing for a rookie.

BNM
Click to expand...
Can you hook me up with some net +/- per 48? Seems more appropriate to me.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
Can you hook me up with some net +/- per 48? Seems more appropriate to me.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

http://www.82games.com/1718/1718POR.HTM

The "On" column shows the team's Net Points per 48 minutes while the player was on the floor.

But even this is going to be a function of the 9 other players on the floor. Unless you really believe Pat Connaughton is our best player.

What this really shows is our bench has been really good this year. Connaughton, Napier, Davis and Collins have the four highest Net/48 on the team. Solid contributions from all, but they are also primarily playing against the other teams' bench players.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Here you go:

http://www.82games.com/1718/1718POR.HTM

The "On" column shows the team's Net Points per 48 minutes while the player was on the floor.

But even this is going to be a function of the 9 other players on the floor. Unless you really believe Pat Connaughton is our best player.

What this really shows is our bench has been really good this year. Connaughton, Napier, Davis and Collins have the four highest Net/48 on the team. Solid contributions from all, but they are also primarily playing against the other teams' bench players.

BNM
Click to expand...

Which is why I've been saying our depth is plenty good to be more than a middle of the pack team, with two all-star caliber players. The whole is less than the sum of the parts.
 
Final January Stats:
35/75=.467 FG%
12/29 = .414 3FG%
2-3= 67% FT%

I'm feeling like he could average these numbers over the rest of the season.

12 Ast/8 Blk/14 TO in 284 minutes
could use some work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Natebishop3
Zach Collins Defense
2 3
Replies
63
Views
8K
dviss1
dviss1
Wizard Mentor
Zach Collins Post-ASG
6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
15K
Boob-No-More
Boob-No-More
ABM
Zach Collins: MIP?
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
James lamphear
J
Natebishop3
The Official "Start Zach Collins" Thread
3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
12K
riverman
riverman
Freshtown
A turning point in Zach Collins’ career
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Propagandist
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top