2017 NBA Draft Thread

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
How does he compare with Jaylen?
Better numbers at pretty much everything except getting to the line, with a big advantage in TS%, and assist, steal and block rates, while turning the ball over less. He's also more highly regarded on the defensive end. He's a much better college player than Brown was. Though he is old for a freshman- he's only a couple of months younger than Jaylen.
 

rhopkins2323

New Member
Mar 14, 2010
111
They are pretty similar. To add to DannyD, He seems more explosive/athletic than Brown.

Plays on a much better team so that likely makes it easier getting higher quality shots. Would have been interesting if JB played with a better team.
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
780
And do they duplicate each other? Or is Brown a 2/3 while Jackson a 3/4?
Both look too thin/small to play the four to me. They both look like wings now - but I don't understand why either cannot play the small-four if they build enough strength to body up / box out bigger folks. Heck - look at what smart can do in stretches.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
Chad Ford 10 minutes ago:
One long-time NBA GM to me just now: "There are 3, maybe 4, No. 1 picks in this draft -- Markelle Fultz, Lonzo Ball and Josh Jackson for sure. Maybe Jayson Tatum too. All of those guys have star potential. " Jackson certainly made his case today with an elite performance against Michigan State. He's the best two-way player in the draft.
As a Spartan fan who admittedly has not watched much of Josh Jackson I have to say I was impressed. Looked a little over amped early going against a couple good friends in Bridges and Winston. Once he settled down he was a beast. Bridges was playing decent D and some of Jackson's moves were unguardable. In particular the step back three he pulled on Bridges from the wing was impressive. The only defense on that was to hope he missed.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
I still just dont understand how Josh Jackson is going to get shots in the NBA. He cant shoot very well, he does not have great handles, and his usage does not suggest he is creating a lot of his own shots at Kansas. A top pick should not be someone whos role in an NBA offense is sitting in the corner.
 

southshoresoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,249
Canton MA
I still just dont understand how Josh Jackson is going to get shots in the NBA. He cant shoot very well, he does not have great handles, and his usage does not suggest he is creating a lot of his own shots at Kansas. A top pick should not be someone whos role in an NBA offense is sitting in the corner.
Did you watch the second half last night? Thats literally all he did was get his own shot 1 on 1 in a variety of ways.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I still just dont understand how Josh Jackson is going to get shots in the NBA. He cant shoot very well, he does not have great handles, and his usage does not suggest he is creating a lot of his own shots at Kansas. A top pick should not be someone whos role in an NBA offense is sitting in the corner.
He has a 27.2% usage rate. That's comparable to C.J. McCollum, Gordon Hayward and Giannis. Guys who can't get their own shot are like Jae Crowder (16.8% usage).

I don't want Jackson cause his FT% is so terrifying, but I don't think shot creation is the concern.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I still just dont understand how Josh Jackson is going to get shots in the NBA. He cant shoot very well, he does not have great handles, and his usage does not suggest he is creating a lot of his own shots at Kansas. A top pick should not be someone whos role in an NBA offense is sitting in the corner.
This is the Ball argument as well but neither of these kids are one-dimensional scorers. Jackson's vision and passing is a decade ahead of his age, his focus and intensity is an intangible that you do have to be concerned about with other kids. He's asked to score more in college so we don't see the vision and passing consistently at Kansas but he's as good a passing wing as I've seen in a long time. Jackson is a complete all-around player. The qualms about his shooting have been put to sleep as he's connected on 3-pointers at a 43.8% rate since conference play began.

Jackson is very active on both ends of the floor. The "sitting in the corner" thing is more of a function of the Kansas offense that caused people to be critical of Andrew Wiggins as well.......and since he's entered the league Wiggins been among the leagues best shot creators and in the Top-7 in FTA during both of his seasons even at the ridiculous ages of 19 and 20.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
This is the Ball argument as well but neither of these kids are one-dimensional scorers. Jackson's vision and passing is a decade ahead of his age, his focus and intensity is an intangible that you do have to be concerned about with other kids. He's asked to score more in college so we don't see the vision and passing consistently at Kansas but he's as good a passing wing as I've seen in a long time. Jackson is a complete all-around player. The qualms about his shooting have been put to sleep as he's connected on 3-pointers at a 43.8% rate since conference play began.

Jackson is very active on both ends of the floor. The "sitting in the corner" thing is more of a function of the Kansas offense that caused people to be critical of Andrew Wiggins as well.......and since he's entered the league Wiggins been among the leagues best shot creators and in the Top-7 in FTA during both of his seasons even at the ridiculous ages of 19 and 20.
I don't agree the qualms about his shooting have not been put to sleep. A .580 FT% on 5.6 attempts per game is much more of a red flag about his shooting than a .435 3P% on half the attempts is a green flag. We've been through this before, but it would almost unprecedented for someone like Jackson to become a good shooter. As far as I've seen, it's like Pierce, and that's it. (Correct me if I'm missing someone). I like Jackson - I love the passing at his age, I think he'll be a good defender, but the shooting remains a scare-point for me. If he was as good a free throw shooter as Tatum though, he'd be a pretty sure-fire number one overall for me.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I don't agree the qualms about his shooting have not been put to sleep. A .580 FT% on 5.6 attempts per game is much more of a red flag about his shooting than a .435 3P% on half the attempts is a green flag. We've been through this before, but it would almost unprecedented for someone like Jackson to become a good shooter. As far as I've seen, it's like Pierce, and that's it. (Correct me if I'm missing someone). I like Jackson - I love the passing at his age, I think he'll be a good defender, but the shooting remains a scare-point for me. If he was as good a free throw shooter as Tatum though, he'd be a pretty sure-fire number one overall for me.
I understand this and I am a believer that FT% does play a role in projecting future growth in 3-point FG%.......however when that 3-point shooting has shown dramatic improvement over the course of a season this is a much more reliable indicator as it is actually his 3-point shooting which is showing improvement.

There is also a much longer list than only Pierce. Chris Webber and Karl Malone were both sub-.500 FT% shooters in college who became good to excellent face-up perimeter shooters. In their day, 3-point shooting was discouraged among bigs so we will never truly know how well they would have expanded their range however face-up mid-range shooting was a strength in their games in particular Malone. There are many others off the top of my head Bruce Bowen......we are seeing it right now with Jaylen Brown. Shooting a basketball is one of the most easily improved skills as it's primary function is repetition which can be accomplished with practice as teams now employ coaches specifically toward improving this skill. This was not the case years ago.

We've watched Jackson all season. He's not taking wide open 3's.....he is creating these shots off the dribble and making them at a tremendous rate for 3 months now. Is that luck? Or is that improvement? Last night he showed shot making that was not evident in November or December......mid-range jumper off a crossover, a step-back 3 off the dribble and another deep 2 baseline jumper off the dribble. We are seeing evidence of improvement on these shots.....I don't see how only a slight improvement in a different shot (FT) negates the actual improvement he's shown in the shotmaking on jump shots.

Using FT% as a baseline in projecting these improvement is a valid position......until those improvements have already taken place. I expect his FT% to improve as it does for most 18-19 year olds but his 3-point shooting already has as evidence by his entire freshman season.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
And do they duplicate each other? Or is Brown a 2/3 while Jackson a 3/4?
Brown was something like 225 before this season; Jackson is 205. Brown would be the 3/4; Jackson would be the 2/3.
I still just dont understand how Josh Jackson is going to get shots in the NBA. He cant shoot very well, he does not have great handles, and his usage does not suggest he is creating a lot of his own shots at Kansas. A top pick should not be someone whos role in an NBA offense is sitting in the corner.
This is exactly what the Kaiser guy (who, BTW, desparately needs an editor) that DD posted earlier said - long quote is in spoiler below but there's more at the article.

5) I like Josh Jackson, but we do a disservice to players when we label them “elite”, and they are not elite. Josh Jackson is a borderline Top 10-15 athlete at his position going forward, whose length is already at times a problem at the college level. Just speaking about athleticism, Jackson’s clearly going to be behind Lebron, Kawhi, Giannis, Butler, George, Roberson, Wiggins, Iguodala, Durant, and Anunoby (if he can stick in the league). And while he’s bigger than players like Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Justise Winslow and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, laterally he doesn’t move as well as any of them. That’s not even addressing players coming into the league in the next few years like Michael Porter Jr.

A player like Josh Jackson is going to need at least one elite skill going forward to be a Top 15 or Top 20 player. Because there’s also players like Steph Curry, Chris Paul, Kyle Lowry, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Nikola Jokic, Joel Embiid, Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol, Mike Conley, Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Gordon Hayward, Rudy Gobert, DeAndre Jordan, Draymond Green, LaMarcus Aldridge, Damian Lillard, Ben Simmons, Kristaps Porzingis, and Kyrie Irving that he’s going to be competing against. And any of these guys that you would call a superstar are massively valuable in at least one area of the game. Without exception.

Where is Josh Jackson going to be massively valuable? Energy, competitiveness and well-roundedness are qualities of players like Lebron James, Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant, but they are just part of the package. They aren’t the whole package. These guys do at least a few things extremely, extremely well, like defend or score with extreme efficiency or set up their teammates. I’m not talking about being above average. I’m talking about maybe being the best in the league.

That’s not to say I’m betting against Josh Jackson. He has a good chance to be very good. But I’ve yet to say a convincing argument that shows he’s elite at anything besides areas of the game where his contributions will be greatly limited moving forward (advancing the ball in transition, offensive rebounding.) And if those skills don’t exist and are unlikely to exist in the future, we’re just throwing the word “elite” around a guy who looks athletic and hoping it will stick. That’s not going to be particularly fair to him moving forward.

The real question: If Josh Jackson can’t get past Ish Wainright, how is getting by Andre Iguodala? In the argument for Josh Jackson as an elite player, as a primary initiator and not as an off-ball Wing, he’s able to consistently beat Iguodala and James and Kawhi when they defend him. And as an off-ball Wing, he’s going to have to be Lonzo Ball as a passer and a shooter to bring elite value on offense. But he’s not Lonzo Ball.

He sees the floor well in the half-court, but like Kris Dunn, his vision coincides with questionable decision making and turnovers. He might not be Kris Dunn bad, but he’s also not nearly as good as Dunn at breaking opponents down off the dribble, and the passes he sees are very often the result of another player’s creation. Which is to identify why he’s perhaps an excellent player to have on a team but unlikely to be a difference maker.

http://www.deepishthoughts.com/kaisers-draft-notes-initiators-predictive-indicators/

Still, even if Jackson doesn't turn out to be a top 15 player, if he can really hit the three, his borderling elite athleticism, likely ability to defend multiple positions, and high motor make him pretty darn valuable in the NBA, and I'd be more willing to bank on him improving his handles and jump shot than banking on Lonzo Ball to figure out his weaknesses at the NBA level.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Webber played his whole career when the 3 point shot was already a weapon that teams were using regularly, although obviously much less. I really can't get on board with calling him a comp when he finished his career as a sub 30% three point shooter. Webber was also not a particularly effective mid-range shooter either - his career FG% from 10-16 feet for the years when we have data was 35.6%.

Malone likewise was a 27.4% three point guy. Using him a pro-Jackson point seems strange, even if he played before the three point era.

Bruce Bowen was a 69.5% free throw shooter in college - that's a world different than Jackson's 58%.

Brown could end up being a datapoint like Pierce, but he's a TBD at best right now on 105 career three point attempts.

I don't think any of those guys work favorably for Jackson, outside of Brown's TBD.
 

Bob420

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
918
In my day they called it a handle. At what point did people start calling it handles?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
Paul George was a 69.7% FT shooter his freshman year in college and then 90.9% his sophomore year, has been 85% in the pros. Many other guys I randomly checked (Carmelo, Kawhi, Harden) saw a bump of 10-15 percentage points. None of them were as bad as 58%, but I'm somewhat optimistic that Jackson could at least get to non-awful for a SF -- say somewhere in the mid 70s?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I'll give you Avery Bradley. The others (George, Carmelo, Kawhi, Harden) don't quality, as none of them were anywhere near being sub 60% guys. J
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
I'll give you Avery Bradley. The others (George, Carmelo, Kawhi, Harden) don't quality, as none of them were anywhere near being sub 60% guys. J
But the point is that guys can and do improve. Is there reason to think that this applies to guys at 70% but not 60%?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
But the point is that guys can and do improve. Is there reason to think that this applies to guys at 70% but not 60%?
My point wasn't about FT% improvement. My point is how often guys with sub 60% free throw percentages become good three point shooters.

Free throw percentage matters by itself too, but it's much more incremental than three point shooting. With three point shooting, at some point, you just aren't a perimeter threat, and teams don't need to guard you much out there, which causes spacing issues. The same sort of thing can happen with free throw shooting if teams can hack you, but Jackson clears that bar anyway.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Josh Howard hit .583 from the line in his freshman year. Trevor Ariza was something like .504.
These are both good examples too. Howard was an excellent FT% guy (83%) by the time he went to the NBA. He's in the Pierce category (74% by the time he went pro), where the improvement happened in college. Ariza is a good example, even it took him the better part of a decade to figure it out.

Point taken that calling it almost unprecedented was too strong by me. It's still something that gives me a lot of pause with Jackson if you're spending a high pick on him.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
These are both good examples too. Howard was an excellent FT% guy (83%) by the time he went to the NBA. He's in the Pierce category (74% by the time he went pro), where the improvement happened in college. Ariza is a good example, even it took him the better part of a decade to figure it out.

Point taken that calling it almost unprecedented was too strong by me. It's still something that gives me a lot of pause with Jackson if you're spending a high pick on him.

I'm with you on it being a concern, but what do you make of the fact that he's also 39% from 3 and 52% overall this year? Marcus Smart, for reference, was 40% and 29% his freshman year (he did shoot 78% form the line). Clearly JJ has the ability to put the ball in the hoop. Is the FT the mental? If it is, is that a good or a bad thing?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
My point wasn't about FT% improvement. My point is how often guys with sub 60% free throw percentages become good three point shooters.
Mine wasn't to dispute this.....my point was that Jackson already is a better than good 3-point shooter. With every rule there are exceptions and that is what Jackson has already become over these past three months. Once he becomes successful shooting 3's there is no longer a predictive value in his FT%.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Mine wasn't to dispute this.....my point was that Jackson already is a better than good 3-point shooter. With every rule there are exceptions and that is what Jackson has already become over these past three months. Once he becomes successful shooting 3's there is no longer a predictive value in his FT%.
I've never studied this myself, but from what I've seen elsewhere NCAA FT% has predictive power for NBA 3PT% independent of whether someone is a already a good NCAA 3PT shooter. This is why a lot of models were down on Brandon Ingram as a shooter (41% NCAA 3PT%, but a 68% FT%), as well as Winslow (42% NCAA 3PT%, but a 64% FT%). I'll try and find time to look at this question over the weekend to confirm.

I'm with you on it being a concern, but what do you make of the fact that he's also 39% from 3 and 52% overall this year? Marcus Smart, for reference, was 40% and 29% his freshman year (he did shoot 78% form the line). Clearly JJ has the ability to put the ball in the hoop. Is the FT the mental? If it is, is that a good or a bad thing?
My first instinct is that he's a good athlete to get off an open shot in college with some ease, so he can put together a good 3PT%, but won't be able to do that in the NBA.

Smart is probably the worst decent volume 3 point shooter in NBA history for someone with as good a FT% as he has (minimum 3000 minutes, and three attempts per game).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I've never studied this myself, but from what I've seen elsewhere NCAA FT% has predictive power for NBA 3PT% independent of whether someone is a already a good NCAA 3PT shooter. This is why a lot of models were down on Brandon Ingram as a shooter (41% NCAA 3PT%, but a 68% FT%), as well as Winslow (42% NCAA 3PT%, but a 64% FT%). I'll try and find time to look at this question over the weekend to confirm.


My first instinct is that he's a good athlete to get off an open shot in college with some ease, so he can put together a good 3PT%, but won't be able to do that in the NBA.

Smart is probably the worst decent volume 3 point shooter in NBA history for someone with as good a FT% as he has (minimum 3000 minutes, and three attempts per game).
If it helps I made a list on page 7 of this thread of recent pro guys who had college seasons under 70% on FTs and over 40% from 3. Most shot the 3 fine in the NBA.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
If it helps I made a list on page 7 of this thread of recent pro guys who had college seasons under 70% on FTs and over 40% from 3. Most shot the 3 fine in the NBA.
FWIW this is Cellar-Door's list with career NBA three point percentage added

Jay Williams .322
Brandon Ingram .289
Rashad McCants .368
Brandon Rush .402
Jason Kapono .434
Antoine Wright .304
Vince Carter .373
Damion James N/A
Markieff Morris .329
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
A guy has a handle or handles the ball well. He doesn't have handles.
Everything has two handles, one by which it may be borne, the other by which it may not.

-Epictetus

I guess you can improve your love handles. But does that mean they get smaller or bigger or just better?
It means they offer a firmer grip.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
What did LaVar say about LeBron's kid(s)? I also wonder if Lonzo just hires an agent when he comes out and ditches his dad.

"It's going to be hard for [LeBron's] kids because they are going to look at them like, 'You got to be just like your dad,'" LaVar told Chris Broussard this month.

"And after a while, that pressure starts sitting on you like, 'Why do I got to be just like him? What can't I just be me?' And then they are going to be like, 'Aw, you're soft, you're not that good.' Because the expectation is very, very high."
edit: Added quotes.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
So he's only Harden short of pissing off the most important person at each of the major shoe brands only a month or two short of negotiations. Solid move.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
I like Ball but I do think he's flaws are hidden by the good fit of talent around him at UCLA, they hide him a bit defensively with some zones, which plays to his strengths, and he can't go left. Which if he can't fix is killer.
I kind of hope the Lakers get him and that crazy dad. I'm not sure the lakers have the shooting around him to make him look as good. The Russell Ball backcourt though, LIT! FUN!
I mean that could be amazing or it could end up with Russell taping Ball Sr punching him.