Payton Pritchard drafted #26 overall

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Yes, this is what I preach relentlessly on what “upside” really is. Sure you’ll always have your one-offs like a Nash and a Curry but it’s annoying to hear people say things like “Look at Nash!”……yeah, and for every Nash are 100 who don’t ever exceed their low ceiling based on their physical limitations.
There's a difference between not having the upside to be elite & not having the ability to improve at something. & I don't think anyone here has used Nash as PP's upside?

My biggest issue with the nested quote is the part about it being "silly" to expect improvement. Improvement should always be expected - up to the individual cap.

PP's cap on passing & particularly defense are low. But he has not reached those caps & expecting him to move toward his caps from his 1st to 2nd year is not remotely silly, even if expecting him to suddenly get good at those things would be.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
I think he hasn't developed the skills that he can if he hits his upside on them because he's played in the NBA for 1 season.

I think it's kinda pointless to say "well I'll never be above average at something, I'll just stop working on it."

He has the shooting skill that will keep him in the league. He needs to be not atrocious at the other stuff to earn playing time.

Every skill is a continuum, & getting better at stuff is always a good thing.
I don't think it's an issue of "above average". PP might get slightly better, he just won't be meaningfully better at any the things you're talking about. Like meaningfully as in noticeable to the performance of the overall team. The shooting is great, it's fun to roll out, and he could become an even better shooter to further add to his value, but he's limited to below average in these other areas because of his physical profile. It's not just that's 6'1" or not very long... it's also that he's not fast or quick, he's not a leaper, and he's not strong. A player like this needs something to hang their hat on - like FVV is strong as ox so he doesn't get abused on switches despite his size. He doesn't need to be RWB, he just needs an NBA level physical trait - PP has none.

Marcus Smart's growth is a terrible comp for him because MS is 6'3", long, strong, and pretty athletic. He has a ton of physical tools that Payton doesn't have and can't add.

PP's cap on passing & particularly defense are low. But he has not reached those caps & expecting him to move toward his caps from his 1st to 2nd year is not remotely silly, even if expecting him to suddenly get good at those things would be.
How do you know he hasn't reached those caps already? He's 23 and there's a reason that players with his profile aren't drafted and don't really stick around in the NBA. It's fair to assume that this level of play, barring higher shooting % or volume, is about what we can expect from him. And that's fine, it'll keep him in the league for some time , but this idea that the standard should be that "improvement should always be expected" doesn't scan because, more often than not, players don't improve.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
The vast majority of NBA players, who are actual NBA players, improve over their rookie season, regardless of their age during their rookie season. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement?

I'm not even a big PP guy & thought it wasn't a very good pick due to his lack of upside. But I have to push back on the notion that he is:

A) Capped at what he showed his rookie year:; and

B) If he gets better at passing & defense it doesn't matter.

Like let's use video game #s for fun - even though it's been about 20 years since I regularly played NBA video games.

If PP is a 40 passer & a 20 defender now, maybe if he works super hard & smart, he can become a 50 & a 30, those things still matter.

Whether that's putting an extra pass or 2 in a better spot for a teammate to finish at a slightly higher %, or 1 less turnover every couple games, or making opponents take slightly lower % shots on average, these things add up & make a large difference overall in his relative value.

Yes, he's in the league because of his shooting skill, but if he was a 0 at everything else, he couldn't play ever. The further he gets from 0 at everything else, the more he can play.

No, he does not have a huge upside. Yes, he can improve & be a more useful NBA player even without improving his shot.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,570
There's a difference between not having the upside to be elite & not having the ability to improve at something. & I don't think anyone here has used Nash as PP's upside?
Tons of people were using FVV, which seems incredibly optimistic. FVV is an exception, not a rule. It's like when people compare other players to Jimmy Butler.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Tons of people were using FVV, which seems incredibly optimistic. FVV is an exception, not a rule. It's like when people compare other players to Jimmy Butler.
That seems like a weird comp for lots of reasons. But yeah, there was no real reason to believe FVV would become FVV, even though he was less capped athletically.

Also, I kinda think FVV is overrated, but that's neither here nor there.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,996
How do you know he hasn't reached those caps already? He's 23 and there's a reason that players with his profile aren't drafted and don't really stick around in the NBA. It's fair to assume that this level of play, barring higher shooting % or volume, is about what we can expect from him. And that's fine, it'll keep him in the league for some time , but this idea that the standard should be that "improvement should always be expected" doesn't scan because, more often than not, players don't improve.
Players with his profile do get drafted all the time - in the bottom of the first round. Which is where Pritchard (#26) was drafted.

Many such players don't stick. Pritchard may not, but there may yet be some improvements to be had that make him a useful bench piece for many teams.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Story checks out...

'17 #26 Caleb Swanigan 45% 3p shooter in 2nd & final year at Purdue.

'18 #26 Landry Shamet 44% 3p shooter in 3 seasons at Wichita State.

'19 #26 Dylan Windler 43% 3p shooter at Belmont in his age 22 senior year.

'21 #26 Bones Hyland 40% 3p shooter at VCU, now 21.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,807
There's a difference between not having the upside to be elite & not having the ability to improve at something. & I don't think anyone here has used Nash as PP's upside?

My biggest issue with the nested quote is the part about it being "silly" to expect improvement. Improvement should always be expected - up to the individual cap.

PP's cap on passing & particularly defense are low. But he has not reached those caps & expecting him to move toward his caps from his 1st to 2nd year is not remotely silly, even if expecting him to suddenly get good at those things would be.
I agree that it’s “silly” to not expect some improvement in certain areas. The issue with Pritchard is that being so close to his ceiling based off of his physical limitations in critical areas that even those small improvements won’t have a huge impact on his future projection. I disagree with that scout who has him potentially starting on 15 teams with said improvement.
 
Last edited:

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
The vast majority of NBA players, who are actual NBA players, improve over their rookie season, regardless of their age during their rookie season. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement?
Look at Pritchard's draft class: https://www.nba.com/news/2020-nba-draft-results-picks-1-60 How many of those players will stall out at their current state or even fall out of the league in the next couple of years? 70-80% of the 2nd round and 40-50% of the first would be conservative estimates. That is about what happened to 2016 class (picked at random): https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html More often than not, players don't improve because improving typically requires an incredible combination of basketball intelligence and physical skill.

If you want to say that teams spending draft picks on players that they don't think are NBA players and therefore should be exempted from your "actual NBA player" caveat, then I guess you're right. Otherwise, I wouldn't even call that statement controversial, I'd say it's statistically incorrect.

I appreciate your video game analogy, so if you want to stick with - if it's on a scale to 100 and PPs shooting is an 80 while his defense is a 30 and his passing is a 40, if he bumps all those up ten points, he's much improved but because he's in the top 10% of all shooters in the NBA. He still sucks at the other stuff to a point that marginal increases don't matter.

Story checks out...
What checks out? That those other players are all bigger and/or faster and/or stronger than PP? Better comps would be Nico Mannion and Ty Jerome though, I'd argue their point guard skills are all greater than PPs (though he's a better shooter). I'll admit that I dabbled in hyperbole when I said they "don't get drafted" so I'll change it to "rarely drafted"

Edit: clarity
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,996
Beyond Desmond Bane (a huge screw up by Ainge, IMO), are there any players drafted after Pritchard that have a higher "likely achievable" ceiling (aka, ignoring the FVV vs. Pritchard comparisons)? Will there be more than 1 or 2 that stay for a second contract with their current team?
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
21,031
where I was last at
My sense of PP is that he will use this off-season and his first real camp to work his ass off to improve his PG offensive skills, figure out how to enhance the Js, learn his teammates game, and become a decent defender using quickness to compensate for lack of size. A 3 pt assassin who can spread the floor, can pass and gives an honest effort at D can be a very valuable asset and leave a lot of money to his grand children. He's not a starting PG, but I wouldn't rule it out.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,807
My sense of PP is that he will use this off-season and his first real camp to work his ass off to improve his PG offensive skills, figure out how to enhance the Js, learn his teammates game, and become a decent defender using quickness to compensate for lack of size. A 3 pt assassin who can spread the floor, can pass and gives an honest effort at D can be a very valuable asset and leave a lot of money to his grand children. He's not a starting PG, but I wouldn't rule it out.
1. I think most of last years rookie class will work hard this offseason with a year of knowledge and his team trainers workout program to follow.

2. I don’t think anyone is underselling his potential value to this team or his future earnings once he’s outside of his rookie deal.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Look at Pritchard's draft class: https://www.nba.com/news/2020-nba-draft-results-picks-1-60 How many of those players will stall out at their current state or even fall out of the league in the next couple of years? 70-80% of the 2nd round and 40-50% of the first would be conservative estimates.
Of the players who had rookie years as good as PP? Which is like 8-12 guys depending on what metric you use. I would expect most to improve.

That is about what happened to 2016 class (picked at random): https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2016.html More often than not, players don't improve because improving typically requires an incredible combination of basketball intelligence and physical skill.
Can you give me some examples from this list of players who had solid rookie seasons & then haven't improved at all since?

If you want to say that teams spending draft picks on players that they don't think are NBA players and therefore should be exempted from your "actual NBA player" caveat, then I guess you're right. Otherwise, I wouldn't even call that statement controversial, I'd say it's statistically incorrect.
We aren't dealing with that kind of lack of information, though. We have a 1-year sample size.

The question of whether PP was going to be an NBA caliber player worthy of drafting is different from the question of now that we have drafted him & he has played a pretty good season, will he get better at anything besides shooting?

Obviously they thought they were drafting NBA players and were simply wrong. The key to your argument is if there is a large sample of players who looked like players in their 1st year, but then simply never improved. I would be surprised if that's the case.

I appreciate your video game analogy, so if you want to stick with - if it's on a scale to 100 and PPs shooting is an 80 while his defense is a 30 and his passing is a 40, if he bumps all those up ten points, he's much improved but because he's in the top 10% of all shooters in the NBA. He still sucks at the other stuff to a point that marginal increases don't matter.
I disagree with this statement because no matter how good of a shooter he is, he still has to do the other stuff. It's not like he can come in as a designated shooter so improving in any aspect matters because they are things he has to do as an NBA basketball player.

What checks out? That those other players are all bigger and/or faster and/or stronger than PP? Better comps would be Nico Mannion and Ty Jerome though, I'd argue their point guard skills are all greater than PPs (though he's a better shooter). I'll admit that I dabbled in hyperbole when I said they "don't get drafted" so I'll change it to "rarely drafted"

Edit: clarity
CC's comment about the type of player drafted at 26. All those guys are limited upside players who shot 3s well & played at least 2 years of college.

I think players like PP are basically always drafted & it's just a matter of when.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Ben Simmons?
Lol I'm writing a post about this right now. & yup, I think he's going to be the best example from that draft. He's a pretty unique individual, though (& technically he didn't even play in his 1st year).
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Skimming through the '16 draft I think Ben Simmons is the best example of this lol, but he's pretty unique.

Maybe Marquess Chriss? He's tripled his assist rates & improved his defense & all advanced stats from rookie year to '19-'20 season with Warriors. He basically just played a lot of minutes his rookie year for some reason.

Mayyyybe Skal? He's also almost doubled his assist rate & improved his defense metrics, though.

Umm...Cheick Diallo? Doubled his assists.

Yeah, I guess I don't see anything here that shows that a player won't improve over their rookie year?
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
I guess TLC's a decent example. I would argue he was never a promising NBA player, but his career has been very flat.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
Yeah, I guess I don't see anything here that shows that a player won't improve over their rookie year?
Who is saying that? Look at my original post if you want. The guys who improve most often have better physical tools than Payton. I'm not sure what would make you then compare his trajectory to any of the high upside, athletic players you're naming - it's the exact opposite point. Has Malcom Brogdon gotten appreciably better since his rookie year? He's had more opportunity, but he's still pretty much just Malcom Brogdon because he came in as an older, finished product without a ton of physical upside. Is Malcom Brogdon a bad player because he didn't make huge leaps after his rookie year? No. If Payton Pritchard continues to play like he did his rookie year, is he a worthwhile bench player to have? Yes. And if Payton Pritchard were 6'5" and played defense like Brogdon, we'd have a great starting point guard.

I'll do cartwheels if he noticeably improves his weaknesses because that's like an actual playoff rotation player if he does and you can remind me in a year that I'm wrong. In all likelihood, it's not going to happen.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Who is saying that? Look at my original post if you want. The guys who improve most often have better physical tools than Payton. I'm not sure what would make you then compare his trajectory to any of the high upside, athletic players you're naming - it's the exact opposite point. Has Malcom Brogdon gotten appreciably better since his rookie year? He's had more opportunity, but he's still pretty much just Malcom Brogdon because he came in as an older, finished product without a ton of physical upside. Is Malcom Brogdon a bad player because he didn't make huge leaps after his rookie year? No. If Payton Pritchard continues to play like he did his rookie year, is he a worthwhile bench player to have? Yes. And if Payton Pritchard were 6'5" and played defense like Brogdon, we'd have a great starting point guard.

I'll do cartwheels if he noticeably improves his weaknesses because that's like an actual playoff rotation player if he does and you can remind me in a year that I'm wrong. In all likelihood, it's not going to happen.
Every other player besides those I named either got significantly better after their rookie year or had a terrible rookie year. This is your sample, not mine.

TLC is literally the only guy who had a not completely awful rookie season who hasn't at least gotten better at passing/defense.

But yeah, Brogdon had a good rookie year, & has used his increased usage to shoot more, but his assist % is slightly up & turnover % is way down since then. I think it's safe to say he has improved as a passer/ball handler, even if his defense hasn't gotten statistically better as he's taken on a higher usage.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Like Kris Dunn isn't a legit NBA player, but he was drafted early & came into the NBA at 22 as a supposed finished project. He increased his assist % from 19.4 to 33.3 while decreasing his turnover % from 20.8 to 17.3 from s1 to s2.

NBA players improve at these things, even the limited athletes.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Buddy Hield was 24 his rookie year & has improved from 3.2 assists/100 to 5.1 while decreasing his turnovers (marginally).

Granted, he still sucks at defense.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
Every other player besides those I named either got significantly better after their rookie year or had a terrible rookie year. This is your sample, not mine.
You said that the vast majority of players improve. You qualified that as "actual NBA players" - to me that means players NBA scouts looked at and said "I think I think that guy can play in the NBA" and then a team drafts them. Your definition of this is guys who are established starters and rotation players? So in my sample, most players don't improve, some have bad rookie years and go on to do good stuff in the league and some have good rookie years and go on to do good stuff... most of them wash out at some point, though. In your sample, yes these players improve more often by definition.

The sample list of these kinds of players are limited because it's really hard to make it in the NBA without athleticism. Guys who aren't that athletic and small for their position but then have a decent rookie year - Jalen Brunson, Tyus Jones - they don't grow much if at all. And there aren't a ton of them lying around. Yes, they're contributors, and having Jalen Brunson on your team is great, but there's no upside to mine.

And again, Kris Dunn has nothing to do with what I'm saying because he's pretty big for a PG and athletic. He's not climbing two mountains at once - skill AND NBA size/speed.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
This was my statement...

The vast majority of NBA players, who are actual NBA players, improve over their rookie season, regardless of their age during their rookie season. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement?
I think I'm pretty clearly ruling out immediate flameouts from that category & am referring to players situated similarly to PP who were rotation or rotation adjacent players as rookies. To the extent that I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

We have a year of evidence that tells us what type of player it makes sense to compare PP to. The type of player who has a competent season rookie season seems to almost universally improve passing/defense.

None of this means I thought PP was a good pick at the time or has some amazing future, but I think he can/will improve his passing a decent amount & should improve at least a little on defense.

& I believe that those incremental improvements absolutely matter. Anything he does to improve scoring when he is on offense & decrease scoring when he is on defense makes him a more valuable player. I don't really see the counterargument?
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,746
around the way
Disagree on Smart’s vision which is important in this discussion. His vision at Ok State wasn’t only good it was exceptional. This was a strength of his entering the league and only had to slow the game down (overused but important term) for him to become an effective passer against NBA level defenders. So this ability was already there……while certain parts of Pritchard’s game never will be such as closing out on shooters due to his physical limitations.
I loved college Marcus as much as anyone and was ecstatic when he fell to our pick.

Not sure why you think that his vision was good in college. For a guy who had his hands on the ball like all of the time, he put up nothing for assists in two years. Usage rate close to 30%, 17ppg, 4.5 assists. He averaged 3 steals and 4.5 assists and 6 rebounds.

My memories of Marcus at OK State was a ball dominant 3. That was a long time ago, and I'm getting fucking old. He did it all, but passing was probably the weakest part of his game.

His first two years in the NBA had assist percentages around 16%, which is great for an emerging wing, but would have put him in the Kevin Huerter, Joel Embiid, Kelly Olynyk group this year.

Agreed that he ticked up as soon as the game slowed down for him, but I think that he deserves credit for developing it. "Garbage" was an overstatement, but "not close to a point guard" isn't. He got better.

We agree that PP has built in ceiling due to size and maybe athleticism. But marginal improvements are possible, and I expect his vision to improve with good coaching and mentoring.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,807
Like Kris Dunn isn't a legit NBA player, but he was drafted early & came into the NBA at 22 as a supposed finished project. He increased his assist % from 19.4 to 33.3 while decreasing his turnover % from 20.8 to 17.3 from s1 to s2.

NBA players improve at these things, even the limited athletes.
You keep naming these players who have or are in the process of playing themselves out of the league while citing metrics showing that they have improved since their rookie year. Lol.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
You keep naming these players who have or are in the process of playing themselves out of the league while citing metrics showing that they have improved since their rookie year. Lol.
Then PP improving year over year is pretty safe, right?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,807
Then PP improving year over year is pretty safe, right?
I’m not sure how players playing themselves out of the league equates to improving but ok. No, I don’t expect Pritchard to be out of the league…….I expect marginal improvement that will allow him to maintain his minutes on someone else’s second unit on his second NBA contract.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
I’m not sure how players playing themselves out of the league equates to improving but ok. No, I don’t expect Pritchard to be out of the league…….I expect marginal improvement that will allow him to maintain his minutes on someone else’s second unit on his second NBA contract.
Dunn was a y1 to y2 comparison only. I think he broke down physically after an awful y1 & non-awful 2nd & 3rd year.

The 3 + ND guys usually get overpaid by someone else.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,570
I’m not sure how players playing themselves out of the league equates to improving but ok. No, I don’t expect Pritchard to be out of the league…….I expect marginal improvement that will allow him to maintain his minutes on someone else’s second unit on his second NBA contract.
A player can improve and still not be good enough for the NBA. It's not a hard follow.

Yabu is better today than he was with the C's. He's still not an NBA player.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
3,098
I don't see strength as an issue for Pritchard, who's solidly built and isn't afraid to battle inside.
Yeah, it really isn't. To their credit, the scouts in that article recognized that he's strong and scrappy.

To me, the big question with him is defense: guarding quicker guys and players shooting over him. He'll have to play smarter to overcome physical limitations, sure. Questions have been raised about the passing/vision, but he made some nice passes near the basket last year and had some big assist games in summer league. I think a big problem last year was the Celts were often running an ISO offense, so he'd pass the ball and never see it again. Under Ime, hopefully that changes.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
I believe that those incremental improvements absolutely matter. Anything he does to improve scoring when he is on offense & decrease scoring when he is on defense makes him a more valuable player. I don't really see the counterargument?
In the post you're responding to, I cited Jalen Brunson and Tyus Jones, guys who are pretty good comps for him (and for the billionth time, it's pretty f'ing hard to find comps for Payton). Neither have them have improved incrementally to the point that it mattered for the teams they were on and I'd argue that's because of their physical profiles. They came into the league pretty fully baked and they'll probably stick around for a while because they came in as pretty good players. That, to me, is the likely outcome for Payton. I would even go as far to compare him to Grant, a far different player with different skills who is likewise undersized for his position, below average athlete, and didn't show incremental improvement in his game from year 1 to year 2. If you want to pretend like that is not a counterargument, then you and I have different definitions of the word.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,157
north shore, MA
Disagree on Smart’s vision which is important in this discussion. His vision at Ok State wasn’t only good it was exceptional. This was a strength of his entering the league and only had to slow the game down (overused but important term) for him to become an effective passer against NBA level defenders. So this ability was already there……while certain parts of Pritchard’s game never will be such as closing out on shooters due to his physical limitations.
I think Marcus always had a point guard's vision and passing ability; what he didn't have when he came into the league was an NBA-ready handle. He improved tremendously, unlike, say, Avery Bradley. Now, I think his best position is the point.

Pritchard, on the other hand, already has an elite handle, which has me doubting whether he'll ever be above average as a passer. Guys sometimes get better at this, like Jaylen, but Jaylen Brown is a complete outlier in terms of his rate of improvement at pretty much everything. Still, if Pritchard's likely the next Derek Fisher, that has a lot of value on a good team that needs to space the floor around ball handling wings. He's also flashed the ability to get to the rim on occasion in a way I don't ever remember Fisher doing, so maybe there's a chance for him to be more than a shooter.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
In the post you're responding to, I cited Jalen Brunson and Tyus Jones, guys who are pretty good comps for him (and for the billionth time, it's pretty f'ing hard to find comps for Payton). Neither have them have improved incrementally to the point that it mattered for the teams they were on and I'd argue that's because of their physical profiles. They came into the league pretty fully baked and they'll probably stick around for a while because they came in as pretty good players. That, to me, is the likely outcome for Payton. I would even go as far to compare him to Grant, a far different player with different skills who is likewise undersized for his position, below average athlete, and didn't show incremental improvement in his game from year 1 to year 2. If you want to pretend like that is not a counterargument, then you and I have different definitions of the word.
Jalen Brunson was significantly better & more efficient in year 3 than he was in year 1. His assists dropped back down after spiking in year 2. I'm guessing more Luka minutes, but he's definitely improved.

Tyus Jones has also increased his efficiency, passing, TOV%, & definitely his defense.

Grant was bad his rookie year & then got fat. If PP gets fat, I agree he won't improve. Otherwise? All indications are that he will improve, albeit in a more linear & unexciting manner than someone like the Jays.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
Jalen Brunson was significantly better & more efficient in year 3 than he was in year 1. His assists dropped back down after spiking in year 2. I'm guessing more Luka minutes, but he's definitely improved.
Jalen Brunson is more efficient because he's shooting better. I never ruled out Payton shooting better, I actually noted that it's the most likely area for him to improve. And if you watched Brunson in the playoffs, you saw a guy who was overwhelmed by the level of competition because he hasn't improved enough in the other areas of his game. He's in his age 25 season, so this is probably it for him.

I'll put it this way: If you're in a car race and everyone is going 100 MPH, an incremental improvement of 2 miles is very, very important. That's why Tatum just getting slightly better in certain areas means so much, and same with Jaylen. If you're going 50 MPH in that race, an incremental improvement of 2 miles is very unimportant because people are blowing by you regardless. That's the situation a player like Payton is in because of his physical tools. Like, in a vacuum it could be considered improvement, and maybe he'll be even better next summer league or he'll score 100 points in an amateur game, but in comparison to real elite NBA athletes he's probably not going to be meaningfully better. There's no amount of work Payton can put in to not get swallowed up by Davion Mitchell.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Jalen Brunson is more efficient because he's shooting better. I never ruled out Payton shooting better, I actually noted that it's the most likely area for him to improve. And if you watched Brunson in the playoffs, you saw a guy who was overwhelmed by the level of competition because he hasn't improved enough in the other areas of his game. He's in his age 25 season, so this is probably it for him.

I'll put it this way: If you're in a car race and everyone is going 100 MPH, an incremental improvement of 2 miles is very, very important. That's why Tatum just getting slightly better in certain areas means so much, and same with Jaylen. If you're going 50 MPH in that race, an incremental improvement of 2 miles is very unimportant because people are blowing by you regardless. That's the situation a player like Payton is in because of his physical tools. Like, in a vacuum it could be considered improvement, and maybe he'll be even better next summer league or he'll score 100 points in an amateur game, but in comparison to real elite NBA athletes he's probably not going to be meaningfully better. There's no amount of work Payton can put in to not get swallowed up by Davion Mitchell.
He's more efficient mostly because he's getting better shots.

& it's not a race, it's a skill game. If you turn the ball over 10% less, your team shoots more & scores more points. If you set your teammates up for better shots, they score more points. If you make it a bit harder for a guy to score on you so they score 66% instead of 75%, that matters.

Yes, Tatum improving matters more because he is expected to carry more & plays more so an incremental change impacts the team more.

NBA rotation players improve after their rookie year pretty much universally. No matter how limited their upside. Improvement matters.

You can hate PP & never expect him to be better than a 10th man, but at the same time expect incremental gains in assists, turnover rates, defense & scoring efficiency even without his actual shot improving.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
399
You can hate PP & never expect him to be better than a 10th man, but at the same time expect incremental gains in assists, turnover rates, defense & scoring efficiency even without his actual shot improving.
Lol dude I don't hate PP. I think it's great he's going to contribute good shooting for cheap. I like his energy, too. I just don't expect him to be more than that, and I definitely don't expect him to be on the Celtics for contract #2 unless it's close to the minimum. We're getting the good years out of him now.

Plus, with Schroeder in the fold, Jay King is predicting that PP gets 6 minutes a game next season. If that's anywhere close to being true, this is entirely a theoretical exercise because he's losing PT to better, more physically advanced players and if he hasn't improved enough to beat them out, then yes, his incremental improvement does not matter to the Boston Celtics in the grand scheme of an NBA season or playoffs.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,807
NBA rotation players improve after their rookie year pretty much universally. No matter how limited their upside. Improvement matters.
Except they don’t improve universally. How many rookies played in their first year and were out of the league by their 5th-6th season? You continue on about how improvement is universal nonetheless.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Except they don’t improve universally. How many rookies played in their first year and were out of the league by their 5th-6th season? You continue on about how improvement is universal nonetheless.
Those players still mostly got better - just not better enough to actually be decent NBA players. The vast majority of rookies are negative players who get run due to the hope for future upside.

Someone can improve from very negative to pretty negative & still have their career end due to the realization that they're getting capped out at a negative player.

Do you have any example of players who actually had a positive rookie year whose career was over within 6 years outside catastrophic injury?
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Lol dude I don't hate PP. I think it's great he's going to contribute good shooting for cheap. I like his energy, too. I just don't expect him to be more than that, and I definitely don't expect him to be on the Celtics for contract #2 unless it's close to the minimum. We're getting the good years out of him now.

Plus, with Schroeder in the fold, Jay King is predicting that PP gets 6 minutes a game next season. If that's anywhere close to being true, this is entirely a theoretical exercise because he's losing PT to better, more physically advanced players and if he hasn't improved enough to beat them out, then yes, his incremental improvement does not matter to the Boston Celtics in the grand scheme of an NBA season or playoffs.
That was a royal "you". I don't like short guards & am super excited about our new roster construction. You might like him more than me. We are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether he will improve in those areas.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
By VORP, of the 25 2020 draftees who played at least 700 minutes last season, PP was 1 of 9 who were at 0.1 or better. 13 had a negative VORP, & 3 were 0.0.

& that's of the selection of players who were actually good enough to get some minutes. Overall with no minutes restrictions the breakdown is 14/30 (with 11 guys at 0.0 & 5 guys including Madar who didn't play a single minute).

Rookies overall had a combined -5.4 VORP.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,807
Those players still mostly got better - just not better enough to actually be decent NBA players. The vast majority of rookies are negative players who get run due to the hope for future upside.

Someone can improve from very negative to pretty negative & still have their career end due to the realization that they're getting capped out at a negative player.

Do you have any example of players who actually had a positive rookie year whose career was over within 6 years outside catastrophic injury?
That’s a loaded question bc as you say the vast majority of rookie are not positive contributors. Now if you want to say who are the players who went from small negatives to nobody in the league wanting to sign them 4 years later you could have a laundry list. If you want to call that “improvement” that is a mighty stretch.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
That’s a loaded question bc as you say the vast majority of rookie are not positive contributors. Now if you want to say who are the players who went from small negatives to nobody in the league wanting to sign them 4 years later you could have a laundry list. If you want to call that “improvement” that is a mighty stretch.
But PP is on the list & he's the guy this whole discussion is about?

I'm curious to hear some of this laundry list, though.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,092
Going through the 2015 draft just for the hell of it & stopping at people who are not in the league/barely in the league...

#3 Jahlil Okafor - It's amazing that he had an 18/7 rookie season, playing 30 mpg & now is down to 13 mpg & putting up 5/2. But he was never actually a good basketball player. He's not a bad add for your list, though. But he's still in the league, makes $2.1m & will probably win a ring this year. Mostly just an obsolete player type.

#5 Mario Hezonja - Awful rookie year, continued to be awful. Now playing in Croatia.

#6 WCS - Pretty decent rookie year. His best 2 years were his 3rd & 4th with Sac. Bouncing around now & playing less minutes, but don't think he qualifies. 17 mpg last year.

#7 Emmanuel Mudiay - Disastrous rookie year, became slightly less disastrous, but still bad. Now plays in Lithuania.

#8 Stanley Johnson - Awful rookie year. Has improved to merely bad.

#9 Frank Kaminsky - Good rookie season per VORP (if not by eye test). Has made some improvement since, albeit minor. Assist % has improved from 9 to 15.3% tho.

#10 Justise Winslow (wtf is wrong with this draft) - Bad rookie year. Like WCS, best years by far were 3rd & 4th years. Has basically been injured since.

#12 Trey Lyles - Somehow had a positive VORP (0.1) rookie year in 17.3 mpg. His best seasons have been his 3rd & 5th year.

#17 Rashad Vaughn - Impressively bad rookie year. Better, but bad 2nd & 3rd years. Now playing in Ukraine.

#18 Sam Dekker - Played 6 minutes as a rookie. Was actually pretty good his 2nd year before leaving Houston & bouncing around a bit, then to Russia, Turkey & he signed with the Raptors a month ago. I actually think he could still be a competent NBA player? He hit 45% of his 3s in Turkey last year. Going to go ahead & call my shot on the Dekker Renaissance.

#19 Jerian Grant - Bad rookie year. Better 2nd & 3rd years. Now plays in Italy.

#21 Justin Anderson - Had a positive VORP, but only in 647 minutes. Never seems to have been particularly good. Nom-shooting wing is not a great archetype in modern NBA. Maybe a candidate for your laundry list, though.

#23 RHJ - Another low minute (615) positive VORP without seeking to play particularly well as a rookie. He does not have a particularly useful modern skillset as he can't shoot, at all.

#25 Jarell Martin - Pretty bad rookie season in 380 minutes. Didn't get better from there. Now plays in Australia.

#26 Nikola Milutinov - Drafted by Spurs. 10/9 guy with no range in international ball. Right traded to the Nets recently. Doubt he ever NBA.

#28 RJ Hunter - Not a good basketball player. 315 of his 395 NBA minutes were in his rookie year. Now plays with Martin on the Sydney Kings.

#29 - Chris McCullough 362 of 532 minutes in NBA were rookie year. Now plays professionally in Puerto Rico.

Going to not do the 2nd round for now & do actual work lol.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,559
Magic Johnson improved during his rookie year but he never really got better than his last game that year.