Sanogo putting up big numbers

[McLovin]

Are you aware that there are currently two rookies in the NBA over 7' with 8'+ wingspans chucking 3's? The three-happy era isn't ending unless they change the distance.
Height isn't passed over, the problem is there are plenty of 6'7"+ guys that are super athletic and can shoot and defend all over the floor. At 'just' 6'9" Sanogo is closer to wing size than he is to the successful interior centers like Jokic, Embid or even Valanciuinus.

But are they chucking cutters?

 

[Waquoit]

Adama is in a good spot. He's shown what he can do playing hoop at a level above college. He will make a lot of money playing basketball.

 

[TerryBoyz]

I've asked before and I'll ask again. Can Sanogo develop into a Paul Milsap type player?

Only if playing with clingan at the same time.

 

[aceboon]

He’s a smaller version of Drummond, who is much more athletic. It’s hard to believe he takes his place barring a trade.

They aren't similar at all, Drummond never had a post up/back to the basket game like Sanogo did, also not as adept at finishing under the rim like Sanogo. Drummond is bigger and more explosive vertically, although that has declined with his age and weight fluctuation.

 

[Hunt for 7]

They are different players. To guard Sanogo in the post you have to be very long and have some muscle. But again this is just not how they play the game. I don’t like it, but look a Mitchell Robinson from the Knicks. That’s what they are lookin for in centers. They have to run well, have great feel for the pick and roll on offense, be long and quick enough to guard the pick and roll on defense. If you happen to be great shooter like AD, Joel and I am sure I missing once or two others. But on the positive note SJ is going to play at the next level. He is perfect to guard a stretch four on defensive and his jumping ability is ++. I am not even talking about how high he jumps. I will get some grief for this but I am just going to say it. He just may be the quickest jumper we have ever had. It like he starts to jump and the next thing you see is the ball being slammed through the rim. It’s really astonishing how quickly he gets up. No wonder DH was recruiting him hard. Right now SJ is looking like an off the charts athlete who is learning how to play. He only started a few years ago. So we may have him for another year but if he continues on his current trajectory I could see him going late first round early second.

 

[UCLJ0211]

I've asked before and I'll ask again. Can Sanogo develop into a Paul Milsap type player?

Good comp, maybe a little Zach Randolph too?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I've asked before and I'll ask again. Can Sanogo develop into a Paul Milsap type player?

Maybe more like Bobby Portis?

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Maybe more like Bobby Portis?

Portis is too versatile. I was think poor man’s Al Jefferson.

 

[Hunt for 7]

10 years from now we will look back with disbelief at an era of basketball where height was passed over so teams could have more marginal guards crowd each other on the perimeter chucking 3 attempts.

All sports go through change so I agree. The changed baseball back to more of is original version this year and the game was easier to watch. More action. Football is constantly evolving. Now you can’t hit the quarterback imagine how good Steve Young would have been playing with the new rules. Not sure how basketball will change but it will. Maybe they will widen the court so the corner three is not the closest three point shot. Who knows but I liked the old style of basketball.

 

[The Yakk]

10 years from now we will look back with disbelief at an era of basketball where height was passed over so teams could have more marginal guards crowd each other on the perimeter chucking 3 attempts.

Are you aware that there are currently two rookies in the NBA over 7' with 8'+ wingspans chucking 3's? The three-happy era isn't ending unless they change the distance.
Height isn't passed over, the problem is there are plenty of 6'7"+ guys that are super athletic and can shoot and defend all over the floor. At 'just' 6'9" Sanogo is closer to wing size than he is to the successful interior centers like Jokic, Embid or even Valanciuinus.

It is not "height" that is being passed over, it is "dominance in the paint."

Players like Sanogo will get you 2 pts at the basket at a high level of efficiency, and will grab most of the rebounds. It is ridiculous that NBA teams do not value that.

 

[auror]

Sanogo's issue in the NBA (and in the draft process) is not and has never been offense. It's defense. If he dominated the paint on defense, he'd be in the league on a regular basis.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

10 years from now we will look back with disbelief at an era of basketball where height was passed over so teams could have more marginal guards crowd each other on the perimeter chucking 3 attempts.

Nah, we'll be beaming with pride that we were on the same board as the guy who figured this out. If I didn't think we were so worthy, I'd be telling you that we're not worthy. What a world.

And until you sort of went back for needless seconds, you opened up something good with "Neptuned." Give it a chance to ripen on its own. If he's the guy you say he is, you'll get more from slowing down with the self-acknowledgement. Show a little faith...

 

[dennismenace]

There are plenty of 6'7 guys that are athletic. You could have stopped there. What does a 5th 3 point shooter do if he is shooting in the low 30's? That player is not really a threat from deep, and is crowding the perimeter for better shooters. A 5th 3 point shooter is just another body on the outside that makes defensive rotations easier and takes shots away from better shooters.

You don't space the floor by swinging the ball around the perimeter to people who start 25 feet from the basket. You space the floor by going inside/out. But a drive to the basket is a lower percentage play than a post-up by an above average interior player. The post-up enables easier kick outs to good shooters for high percentage, facing the basket catch-and-shoot 3's. The analytics will catch up, and there will be interior play again, instead of these ridiculous 5 out offenses that a simple 2-3 zone can shut down.

The fact that the Celtics were able to get Porzingis, one of the best big men of his generation, for an undersized, aging headcase that couldn't shoot like Marcus Smart goes to show just how badly some teams misunderstand the data, and how a GM like Stevens can outsmart other executives, at least for a few years.

Does this mean that all along Jim Boehim has been ahead of his time?

Jim Boeheim on Syracuse’s 2-3 zone: ‘We don’t have another defense’

Syracuse’s flagship 2-3 zone defense continues to get torched. What’s happened?

www.nunesmagician.com

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Does this mean that all along Jim Boehim has been ahead of his time?

Jim Boeheim on Syracuse’s 2-3 zone: ‘We don’t have another defense’

Syracuse’s flagship 2-3 zone defense continues to get torched. What’s happened?

www.nunesmagician.com

Look at Spoelstra's Heat in the Covid bubble. They destroyed the Bucks and beat the Celtics out of primarily a 2-3 zone designed to stop 3 point shooters. A lot of teams play matchup zones or man-to-man's that switch on all perimeter screens (and therefore play a lot like matchup zones).

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It is not "height" that is being passed over, it is "dominance in the paint."

Players like Sanogo will get you 2 pts at the basket at a high level of efficiency, and will grab most of the rebounds. It is ridiculous that NBA teams do not value that.

That is exactly right. The biggest problem with the current version of NBA analytics is that it does not take into account that every event in a basketball game has a direct impact on the next event in the basketball game. In football or baseball, everything stops after every play and the players set up again. There are some variables, such as down and distance in football or players on base in baseball that change the probability of the next event, but each play is a discrete event with its own calculatable probability.

Play is continual in basketball, and even when it stops, such as for a free throw or a ball out of bounds, play starts up again pretty quickly. Very few models take into account things like offensive rebounds, which are the highest probability shot an offensive team can have, but are also events dependent on the play right before it. Depending on the dataset, a short range miss will result in an offensive put-back opportunity about 40% of the time. So a 55% inside shooter missing his shot had a 40% chance of getting the shot and getting a 60% scoring opportunity. The datasets are varied, but a missed 3 pointer only results in an offensive rebound about 25% of the time, and that is rarely a putback opportunity. So a 33% 3 point shooter and a 50% interior 2 point shooter are not actually equivalent, because if you look at the probability of the next event, the interior player has a much higher probability of creating a scoring opportunity even if he misses than a 3 point shooter.

I would also make the case that drives to the basket are lower probability plays than a pass to an interior player, both in the likelihood of the player scoring from the same spot on the floor, and the quality of shot that the action of getting the ball to the interior in a drive vs. a pass creates when that player kicks the ball out.

I think that as basketball incorporates continuous probability analysis into its models, there will be changes in what is considered a good shot and the type of players that will be considered analytically attractive. I think the game will come around to players like Sanogo again.

 

[Dogdeacon]

That is exactly right. The biggest problem with the current version of NBA analytics is that it does not take into account that every event in a basketball game has a direct impact on the next event in the basketball game. In football or baseball, everything stops after every play and the players set up again. There are some variables, such as down and distance in football or players on base in baseball that change the probability of the next event, but each play is a discrete event with its own calculatable probability.

I think that as basketball incorporates continuous probability analysis into its models, there will be changes in what is considered a good shot and the type of players that will be considered analytically attractive. I think the game will come around to players like Sanogo again.

A decent theory but NBA teams have way more stats and data then you do and they are doing what they are doing. Plus facts are the post-up moves and skills aren't favored, taught or practiced now in favor of the glory of shooting 3's. Teams can exploit this, Nova guards all having post-up games comes to mind.

It drives many of us crazy that its all 3s and the 5-out offenses are too proliferate. Yet we still have 1-2 players stepping out of bounds every NBA game b/c maximizing the spacing by keeping defenders as far out of the paint as possible is more important than those 1 or 2 TO's.
Equally offensive rebounding is totally de-emphasized b/c NBA teams have determined the risk of easy fast-break points is too great so that math is something like 40% offensive rebound x 70% 2pter < 60% defensive rebound x 50% x (35% x 3 + 55% x 2) = scoring that too much easier in transition.

 

[auror]

That is exactly right. The biggest problem with the current version of NBA analytics is that it does not take into account that every event in a basketball game has a direct impact on the next event in the basketball game. In football or baseball, everything stops after every play and the players set up again. There are some variables, such as down and distance in football or players on base in baseball that change the probability of the next event, but each play is a discrete event with its own calculatable probability.

Play is continual in basketball, and even when it stops, such as for a free throw or a ball out of bounds, play starts up again pretty quickly. Very few models take into account things like offensive rebounds, which are the highest probability shot an offensive team can have, but are also events dependent on the play right before it. Depending on the dataset, a short range miss will result in an offensive put-back opportunity about 40% of the time. So a 55% inside shooter missing his shot had a 40% chance of getting the shot and getting a 60% scoring opportunity. The datasets are varied, but a missed 3 pointer only results in an offensive rebound about 25% of the time, and that is rarely a putback opportunity. So a 33% 3 point shooter and a 50% interior 2 point shooter are not actually equivalent, because if you look at the probability of the next event, the interior player has a much higher probability of creating a scoring opportunity even if he misses than a 3 point shooter.

I would also make the case that drives to the basket are lower probability plays than a pass to an interior player, both in the likelihood of the player scoring from the same spot on the floor, and the quality of shot that the action of getting the ball to the interior in a drive vs. a pass creates when that player kicks the ball out.

I think that as basketball incorporates continuous probability analysis into its models, there will be changes in what is considered a good shot and the type of players that will be considered analytically attractive. I think the game will come around to players like Sanogo again.

All NBA internal shot quality models take into account variable offensive rebound chance, I guarantee you. They have historical data, player movement and tracking data. The models aren't perfect, but you're way underestimating what teams have. I mean if they don't, they can just buy a ShotQuality subscription (which does include that). But there's a reason that site is college emphasizing, because most colleges don't have full analytics teams.

The problem is that it's a lot harder to get offensive rebounds in the NBA vs. College. The guys defensively rebounding are all beasts. This is why most NBA teams decided it wasn't worth the tradeoff vs. transition defense. It honestly feels like you're the one not taking into account the continual nature of basketball. Optimizing for offensive rebounding reduces your transition defense, and NBA teams with their fast and fluid athletes are absolutely lethal in transition if you're not prepared defensively.

In certain matchups, offensive rebounding can swing a game or series, but that's pretty rare.

 

[Inyatkin]

Porzingis is one of the best big men of his generation. That's why he's on his fourth team at age 28. I'm smarter than every GM.

 

[Stinger92860]

He’s a college coaching legend, doesn’t need any money, and recruiting is more of a grind than ever before. If anything I’d expect more and more coaches to prefer the NBA or retire early like Jay Wright.

After watching Nova last night I was thinking how long before they beg Jay to come back.

 

[Scrutineer]

I am stunned he hasn't come back to college basketball at some point.

Maybe when you're almost 60 you don't want to be chasing after the kids you'll need to keep your job, and now add in the need to raise money to buy kids.
Plus he's paid $6M per year now so if a school wanted him badly enough they'd have to pony up at the Calipari and Self level. I wonder if DePaul could come up with some major cash?

 

[The Yakk]

A decent theory but NBA teams have way more stats and data then you do and they are doing what they are doing.

All NBA internal shot quality models take into account variable offensive rebound chance, I guarantee you. They have historical data, player movement and tracking data. The models aren't perfect, but you're way underestimating what teams have. I mean if they don't, they can just buy a ShotQuality subscription (which does include that). But there's a reason that site is college emphasizing, because most colleges don't have full analytics teams.

No question the NBA has access to better stats than we do. But I doubt every team employs the best people to interpret those stats and act on them. There is still room for innovators.

There are probably 4 or 5 actual thinking organizations in the NBA, and 25 copycats. Same in baseball.

The problem is that it's a lot harder to get offensive rebounds in the NBA vs. College. The guys defensively rebounding are all beasts.

That's Sanogo! So he does have value after all!

 

[Scrutineer]

He's aware, he just knows more than all the NBA GMs and coaches. Probably all the college coaches, too

Wow. So you're saying we're fortunate to have him on the Yard?

 

[The Yakk]

Sanogo's issue in the NBA (and in the draft process) is not and has never been offense. It's defense. If he dominated the paint on defense, he'd be in the league on a regular basis.

Yeah, possibly true.