Everything Juancho Hermangomez

[Primer]

So now we love the small samples?

Look, absolutely, they might decide he has just as much upside as Brooks. They won't do so based on 50 shot attempts. This is all I'm saying.

More upside than Brooks, also currently better than Brooks.

0.350 3P% and good rebounding is perfectly fine for 15th man, and I only mentioned the small most recent sample because you implied Brooks has upside and Juancho doesn't.

If he shoots his career average, or exactly what he shot last season, great.

If he shoots as well as he did in Utah, even better.

[DanH]

Upside would be his shooting performance with Utah last season.

17 games playing 17.5 minutes per game shooting 0.438 3P% on 2.8 3PA.

Seems like in the right situation his shooting can excel.

He's also a pretty good rebounder, whereas Armoni doesn't really bring anything else to the table.

So now we love the small samples?

Look, absolutely, they might decide he has just as much upside as Brooks. They won't do so based on 50 shot attempts. This is all I'm saying.

[Primer]

Brooks doesn't have a meaningful career average at the NBA level. He has a 33% success rate over 70 games. And a 39% success rate over about the same sample size in the G-League.

They aren't picking that final roster spot based on small sample shooting. They'll be evaluating who they think is a better shooter (with all context considered) and picking that guy. Maybe that's Juancho! I'd have no issue with it if so. I don't however think it's like some obvious choice where one guy is a dominating shooter and the other couldn't hit water from a boat. The only thing Juancho really has is his mediocre shooting has a bigger sample, which is a knife that cuts both ways - if they want mediocrity in that skillset, it gives him the edge, if they are hoping for upside (something they basically always go for with these end of roster spots, just ask Isaac Bonga and Sam Dekker) it hurts him.

Upside would be his shooting performance with Utah last season.

17 games playing 17.5 minutes per game shooting 0.438 3P% on 2.8 3PA.

Seems like in the right situation his shooting can excel.

He's also a pretty good rebounder, whereas Armoni doesn't really bring anything else to the table.

[DanH]

Really parsing hairs to argue 0.348 isn't 0.350.

He shot his career average last season.

That's a lot better than Brooks career average and a lot better than Brooks shot last season.

That's all he needs to be to win the final roster spot over Brooks.

Brooks doesn't have a meaningful career average at the NBA level. He has a 33% success rate over 70 games. And a 39% success rate over about the same sample size in the G-League.

They aren't picking that final roster spot based on small sample shooting. They'll be evaluating who they think is a better shooter (with all context considered) and picking that guy. Maybe that's Juancho! I'd have no issue with it if so. I don't however think it's like some obvious choice where one guy is a dominating shooter and the other couldn't hit water from a boat. The only thing Juancho really has is his mediocre shooting has a bigger sample, which is a knife that cuts both ways - if they want mediocrity in that skillset, it gives him the edge, if they are hoping for upside (something they basically always go for with these end of roster spots, just ask Isaac Bonga and Sam Dekker) it hurts him.

[Primer]

He hasn't cleared 35% for three full seasons. Don't see why that would be the expectation, that career average is being buoyed by early career success he hasn't seen since. If you are bringing him in as a shooter, a guy who will be around the 33-35% mark isn't actually what you want at all.

Really parsing hairs to argue 0.348 isn't 0.350.

He shot his career average last season.

That's a lot better than Brooks career average and a lot better than Brooks shot last season.

That's all he needs to be to win the final roster spot over Brooks.

[DanH]

Based on the sample of his 6 year NBA career, 297 games, and 4655 minutes. That's a really good sample size if you ask me.

He's also not extremely inconsistent. Here are his 3P% by season.

16-17 0.407
17-18 0.280
18-19 0.365
19-20 0.341
20-21 0.327
21-22 0.348

Im seeing one down year in his 2nd season when he only played 25 games and took 50 3PA, by far the lowest of any year he's been in the NBA, and also 5 years ago.

Seems pretty reasonable to expect his career 0.351 3P% because he's right around there 5 out of 6 seasons.

He hasn't cleared 35% for three full seasons. Don't see why that would be the expectation, that career average is being buoyed by early career success he hasn't seen since. If you are bringing him in as a shooter, a guy who will be around the 33-35% mark isn't actually what you want at all.

[Primer]

He is? Based on what sample? Juancho has a sample of 700 3's in his NBA career. He's averaged out to 35% on those attempts. But is extremely inconsistent. In any case, even 700 3's is not at the threshold of 3PT% becoming truly predictive. So if the team thinks Brooks' form looks better or believes in his shooting talent more, or has better insight into what sort of threes he takes and how that might impact success rate (Brooks has been assisted on fewer of his threes over his career, and takes a lot more above the break vs corner threes), I would hardly hold it against them to make the bet on Brooks instead.

Meanwhile, Juancho's season to season success or lack thereof on threes is wild. He was gangbusters (44%) to end the year in Utah (on less than 50 total attempts), but the prior season shot like 33% on a much larger sample, the year before that 34%. If they think Juancho's true shooting talent is closer to those previous two seasons and Brooks has the upside of a 40% shooter, even having a chance Brooks can put up true floor spacing shooting is worth a lot more than a solidly below average shooter. And Brooks has over his short career put up nearly twice as many threes per minute compared to Juancho, and taking a lot of threes is actually proven to be better for spacing than making them on lower volume.

I don't think it's clear cut one way or the other, which is all I'm really saying here. It's a camp battle. I can lean to one guy and you to another and we can be happy to disagree on who it should be, but ultimately if there was really a clear choice they'd have just not signed so many guys (to these sorts of deals anyway).

Based on the sample of his 6 year NBA career, 297 games, and 4655 minutes. That's a really good sample size if you ask me.

He's also not extremely inconsistent. Here are his 3P% by season.

16-17 0.407
17-18 0.280
18-19 0.365
19-20 0.341
20-21 0.327
21-22 0.348

Im seeing one down year in his 2nd season when he only played 25 games and took 50 3PA, by far the lowest of any year he's been in the NBA, and also 5 years ago.

Seems pretty reasonable to expect his career 0.351 3P% because he's right around there 5 out of 6 seasons.

[Hotshot]

He's competing for the 15th spot on the roster. He's likely not going to see any significant minutes. Literally the back-up to the back-up.

This is why the backup of the backup does not have to score much but play without making many mistakes when his number is called. That means if you have the open shot, you better make the open shot. If you are late to your defensive assignments or make stupid fouls or make careless turnovers you are going to get the hook really fast under Nurse.

[LJ2]

He's competing for the 15th spot on the roster. He's likely not going to see any significant minutes. Literally the back-up to the back-up.

[Hotshot]

Juancho's has also been very unplayable in the playoffs thus far & is turning 27 years old so the ceiling is quite limited.

[DanH]

Juancho is a better shooter than Brooks. So if we need to add another shooter he's the clear choice.

He is? Based on what sample? Juancho has a sample of 700 3's in his NBA career. He's averaged out to 35% on those attempts. But is extremely inconsistent. In any case, even 700 3's is not at the threshold of 3PT% becoming truly predictive. So if the team thinks Brooks' form looks better or believes in his shooting talent more, or has better insight into what sort of threes he takes and how that might impact success rate (Brooks has been assisted on fewer of his threes over his career, and takes a lot more above the break vs corner threes), I would hardly hold it against them to make the bet on Brooks instead.

Meanwhile, Juancho's season to season success or lack thereof on threes is wild. He was gangbusters (44%) to end the year in Utah (on less than 50 total attempts), but the prior season shot like 33% on a much larger sample, the year before that 34%. If they think Juancho's true shooting talent is closer to those previous two seasons and Brooks has the upside of a 40% shooter, even having a chance Brooks can put up true floor spacing shooting is worth a lot more than a solidly below average shooter. And Brooks has over his short career put up nearly twice as many threes per minute compared to Juancho, and taking a lot of threes is actually proven to be better for spacing than making them on lower volume.

I don't think it's clear cut one way or the other, which is all I'm really saying here. It's a camp battle. I can lean to one guy and you to another and we can be happy to disagree on who it should be, but ultimately if there was really a clear choice they'd have just not signed so many guys (to these sorts of deals anyway).

[Primer]

Is it strong cognitive dissonance to believe in larger samples over smaller ones? He's been a ~40% three point shooter in the G-League for years, was a ~40% three point shooter in college... Scattered samples in the NBA having mixed results and a 4 game summer league sample should hardly turn anyone's head on that.

Brooks hasn't earned any particular admiration. We're talking about a 15th guy. He's just very much a reasonable choice for that spot, just like the other guys are (though honestly I'd very much prefer we don't keep Wilson). Bit of a double standard there with Wilson, when has he shown he can rebound at the NBA level? Playing PF and C he's put up something like a 13% total rebounding rate over the past few years in the NBA, which would put him right in line with Khem Birch last season. Yay.

Wilson put up a 77% TS% last year for the Raps! In 4 games. Previous three years of real NBA play (120 games) he managed a sparkling 50.5% TS%, in spite of half his shots coming from three and another quarter at the rim.

Any of these end of bench guys are going to have massive holes in their games. Brooks the same as any of them. But I think it's a little odd to write him off when he really does look like he could potentially help address the one glaring need they currently have extremely limited depth in - if a shooter goes down, the whole team will struggle, we saw that last year as well. Otto already helps with that, one more shooter in the regular rotation, but depth beyond him is still a big question mark.

Juancho is a better shooter than Brooks. So if we need to add another shooter he's the clear choice.

[DanH]

It just seems like a strong cognitive dissonance to argue Brooks is a spot up shooter we're interested in when he's only shot absolutely freaking terribly for us, including at the lowest level possible in summer league. If we're in on a guy who has 1 skill, he better be damn good at that one skill, not one of the worst in the league.

I'd take Wilson over Brooks too, he's at least shown he can do what we would want out of him. Rebound and score efficiently at the basket.

Brooks real stats are terrible, his advanced stats are terrible, what has he done to earn such admiration from you?

Is it strong cognitive dissonance to believe in larger samples over smaller ones? He's been a ~40% three point shooter in the G-League for years, was a ~40% three point shooter in college... Scattered samples in the NBA having mixed results and a 4 game summer league sample should hardly turn anyone's head on that.

Brooks hasn't earned any particular admiration. We're talking about a 15th guy. He's just very much a reasonable choice for that spot, just like the other guys are (though honestly I'd very much prefer we don't keep Wilson). Bit of a double standard there with Wilson, when has he shown he can rebound at the NBA level? Playing PF and C he's put up something like a 13% total rebounding rate over the past few years in the NBA, which would put him right in line with Khem Birch last season. Yay.

Wilson put up a 77% TS% last year for the Raps! In 4 games. Previous three years of real NBA play (120 games) he managed a sparkling 50.5% TS%, in spite of half his shots coming from three and another quarter at the rim.

Any of these end of bench guys are going to have massive holes in their games. Brooks the same as any of them. But I think it's a little odd to write him off when he really does look like he could potentially help address the one glaring need they currently have extremely limited depth in - if a shooter goes down, the whole team will struggle, we saw that last year as well. Otto already helps with that, one more shooter in the regular rotation, but depth beyond him is still a big question mark.

[Primer]

Svi was a lot better than Brooks? There's more to life than shooting. Svi was a disaster every time he stepped on the court, with by far the worst net rating of anyone playing significant minutes on the team. There's no upside to keeping Svi, and I sure hope they wouldn't do so to avoid paying out his guarantee. At least we don't know if Brooks can be useful (he showed minor signs of it last year), we know Svi is bad.

Also, Brooks played backup PG for us? By what measure, height? Brooks basically never initiated offence, he was used as a spot up shooter. He guarded opposing guards, sure, but with our defence he guarded everybody at some point.

Brooks is not an on ball creator. Dowtin is. They play very different potential roles. Of course, neither would be planned to play any role at all, but if Scottie/Pascal goes down with an injury, I agree Dowtin will get that shot. If Gary does, I think Brooks would be the more useful piece to try.

Now, of course there is plenty of debate to be had over Juancho vs Brooks. Juancho is in theory a more established shooter (though his year to year splits from 3 are hilarious, swinging wildly from 20-something to 40-something percent). But Brooks has a similar track record, just shorter (38% the year before last), which could be a benefit rather than a hindrance, you can argue Juancho is more likely to be set in his shooting ways.

Comes down to what they want. If they want another 6'9 guy, obviously Juancho has the edge, especially if they are looking for shooting (vs a guy like DJ Wilson). But with Champagnie on board in a bigger body 3+D role, maybe they want something different from the extra spot.

It just seems like a strong cognitive dissonance to argue Brooks is a spot up shooter we're interested in when he's only shot absolutely freaking terribly for us, including at the lowest level possible in summer league. If we're in on a guy who has 1 skill, he better be damn good at that one skill, not one of the worst in the league.

I'd take Wilson over Brooks too, he's at least shown he can do what we would want out of him. Rebound and score efficiently at the basket.

Brooks real stats are terrible, his advanced stats are terrible, what has he done to earn such admiration from you?

[DanH]

Brooks played backup PG for us last season. Same position Dowtin will play for us.

Brooks also stunk it up for the Raptors last season.
0.278 3pt, 0.289 FG
So bad with team at nba level and bad with team at summer league level. Not a good spot up shooter.


Dowtin is a 25 year old vet, he was signed to play minutes with the big team. Using the 2 way on him was just good use of roster space since he was eligible for a 2 way.

I'll concede Brooks is still fighting for the final roster spot, but I put his chances very low of getting it, largely due to the Dowtin signing, and largely due to him performing poorly every chance he's had. Svi was a lot better than Brooks and I don't see us cutting a fully guaranteed Svi to make room for Brooks.

Pretty sure the last spot is going to Juancho, who was proven to be a good shooter at the NBA level.

Svi was a lot better than Brooks? There's more to life than shooting. Svi was a disaster every time he stepped on the court, with by far the worst net rating of anyone playing significant minutes on the team. There's no upside to keeping Svi, and I sure hope they wouldn't do so to avoid paying out his guarantee. At least we don't know if Brooks can be useful (he showed minor signs of it last year), we know Svi is bad.

Also, Brooks played backup PG for us? By what measure, height? Brooks basically never initiated offence, he was used as a spot up shooter. He guarded opposing guards, sure, but with our defence he guarded everybody at some point.

Brooks is not an on ball creator. Dowtin is. They play very different potential roles. Of course, neither would be planned to play any role at all, but if Scottie/Pascal goes down with an injury, I agree Dowtin will get that shot. If Gary does, I think Brooks would be the more useful piece to try.

Now, of course there is plenty of debate to be had over Juancho vs Brooks. Juancho is in theory a more established shooter (though his year to year splits from 3 are hilarious, swinging wildly from 20-something to 40-something percent). But Brooks has a similar track record, just shorter (38% the year before last), which could be a benefit rather than a hindrance, you can argue Juancho is more likely to be set in his shooting ways.

Comes down to what they want. If they want another 6'9 guy, obviously Juancho has the edge, especially if they are looking for shooting (vs a guy like DJ Wilson). But with Champagnie on board in a bigger body 3+D role, maybe they want something different from the extra spot.