Kennedy Chandler's future? [drafted No.38 to Memphis]

#76
#76
cncchris33 said:
I knew someone would bring up the number comparison, but you do realize Garland's stats you quoted are over a 5-game period before he tore his left meniscus, right? Against the likes of Winthrop, USC, Alcorn State, Liberty, and Kent State. Those should be taken with a huge grain of salt, but your comparison to Chandler's numbers calculate out over almost an entire season (26 games).

For comparison, Kennedy Chandler's number over his first 5 games, against significantly better competition (UTM, ETSU, Villanova, UNC, TN Tech), no less, are as follows...

FG%
KC 48.1%
DG 53.7%

2-pt FG%
KC 44.7%
DG 58.1%

3-pt FG%
KC 56.3%
DG 47.8%

FT%
KC 100%
DG 75%

TS%
KC 60.8%
DG 65.7%

EFG%
KC 56.5%
DG 63.9%

Those still predominantly favor Garland (difference in competition has to figure in, somewhere), but Chandler has a clear lead in both 3-pt FG% and FT%, and the other numbers are much closer than your figures.

Point being, their respective stats can't really tell the story because Garland only played in five games against garbage competition.

It has to be something else. Maybe the NBA clearly values that extra inch or two more than I'd imagine. Or maybe they fell in love with the mystery of Garland as a player and his potential where Chandler seems to have exposed himself in contrast. It's why I would highly recommend someone like Shaedon Sharpe to jump to the NBA if someone is guaranteeing him a spot in the lottery.
Click to expand...
And Chandler’s stock was at an all time high after those initial 5-6 games, remember?? Then his shot fell off from there pretty much the rest of the way and his stock has fallen, Garland never had that drop off, fair or not. I don’t know what Garland shot in workouts, or if he even did at all, but if he shot the ball well and it lined up as evidence supporting those numbers weren’t a fluke then more legitimacy was probably put into them. Again, after a couple weeks Chandler was being talked about as Top 10-15, remember the $1,000 bet that was placed early on this year? It’s been a sample size dragging down his % across the board that has directly coincided with his slide down draft boards.

Edit: read a couple NBA scout takes on Garland coming out of Vandy and the words “elite shooter”, “great jump shot”, “elite NBA 3pt range” were all used…I don’t think you’ll see any scout saying similar right now for KC. Again, fair or not due to sample size, his shot was looked at as light years ahead of how Chandler’s currently is.
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
Don't believe the stats ... they are for geeks like me ... Let's do an 'eye' test ...
When I think elite shooter on TN ... the closest thing, ... my pick would be Santi ... at this time.
Great jump shoot ... nobody on the TN team grabs me!
elite NBA range ... my current pick would be Santi ... and I am certainly NOT confident ... that he is elite from NBA range.
Just more fodder for the grist mill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pimo1 and chuckiepoo
#78
#78
bleedingTNorange said:
And Chandler’s stock was at an all time high after those initial 5-6 games, remember?? Then his shot fell off from there pretty much the rest of the way and his stock has fallen, Garland never had that drop off, fair or not. I don’t know what Garland shot in workouts, or if he even did at all, but if he shot the ball well and it lined up as evidence supporting those numbers weren’t a fluke then more legitimacy was probably put into them. Again, after a couple weeks Chandler was being talked about as Top 10-15, remember the $1,000 bet that was placed early on this year? It’s been a sample size dragging down his % across the board that has directly coincided with his slide down draft boards.

Edit: read a couple NBA scout takes on Garland coming out of Vandy and the words “elite shooter”, “great jump shot”, “elite NBA 3pt range” were all used…I don’t think you’ll see any scout saying similar right now for KC. Again, fair or not due to sample size, his shot was looked at as light years ahead of how Chandler’s currently is.
Click to expand...
My point being that I don't believe any NBA scout based their draft grade and made their determination on Garland based on that 5-game mini sample. So, those numbers are not the reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan and chuckiepoo
#79
#79
cncchris33 said:
My point being that I don't believe any NBA scout based their draft grade and made their determination on Garland based on that 5-game mini sample. So, those numbers are not the reason.
Click to expand...
So if his numbers were half of those % across the board he still gets drafted in the same spot? I disagree completely.
 
#80
#80
bleedingTNorange said:
And Chandler’s stock was at an all time high after those initial 5-6 games, remember?? Then his shot fell off from there pretty much the rest of the way and his stock has fallen, Garland never had that drop off, fair or not. I don’t know what Garland shot in workouts, or if he even did at all, but if he shot the ball well and it lined up as evidence supporting those numbers weren’t a fluke then more legitimacy was probably put into them. Again, after a couple weeks Chandler was being talked about as Top 10-15, remember the $1,000 bet that was placed early on this year? It’s been a sample size dragging down his % across the board that has directly coincided with his slide down draft boards.

Edit: read a couple NBA scout takes on Garland coming out of Vandy and the words “elite shooter”, “great jump shot”, “elite NBA 3pt range” were all used…I don’t think you’ll see any scout saying similar right now for KC. Again, fair or not due to sample size, his shot was looked at as light years ahead of how Chandler’s currently is.
Click to expand...

I’m still about 50% confident I’m gonna win that bet.
 
#82
#82
bleedingTNorange said:
So if his numbers were half of those % across the board he still gets drafted in the same spot? I disagree completely.
Click to expand...
Why such an exaggeration? Of course shooting 25% from the field against that level of opponent would be cause for concern of some sort. But if Garland had Chandler’s numbers thru 5 games, I don't think it would dramatically affect his draft stock. No one is making a snap judgement on that much of a difference on shooting percentages based on a 5 game sample size.
 
#83
#83
cncchris33 said:
Why such an exaggeration? Of course shooting 25% from the field against that level of opponent would be cause for concern of some sort. But if Garland had Chandler’s numbers thru 5 games, I don't think it would dramatically affect his draft stock. No one is making a snap judgement on that much of a difference on shooting percentages based on a 5 game sample size.
Click to expand...

Nobody is making a snap judgement on 5 games, but Garland was seen as an elite shooter and showed just that in his 5 game sample size. So there wasn't anything to discredit what scouts already believed.

Chandler on the other hand has had enough games where scouts can question his ability in certain areas. Now if he ends the season on the tear he has been on the last few games, then you can overlook the mid-season struggles.
 
#84
#84
Vols8086 said:
Nobody is making a snap judgement on 5 games, but Garland was seen as an elite shooter and showed just that in his 5 game sample size. So there wasn't anything to discredit what scouts already believed.

Chandler on the other hand has had enough games where scouts can question his ability in certain areas. Now if he ends the season on the tear he has been on the last few games, then you can overlook the mid-season struggles.
Click to expand...
Well, that's essentially what I was saying in the first place. He wasn't drafted where he was because he played well in 5 games against garbage competition. Those five games only reinforced the belief in his potential.

I guess I'd argue that similarly, Chandler has been exactly what he was believed to be, as well. Never known as an elite shooter, he's proven to be an adequate shooter over a full season. High-level athlete, great ball-handler and on-ball defender. Still, his stock seems to be slipping from what it was in the preseason despite being as advertised.
 
#85
#85
cncchris33 said:
Why such an exaggeration? Of course shooting 25% from the field against that level of opponent would be cause for concern of some sort. But if Garland had Chandler’s numbers thru 5 games, I don't think it would dramatically affect his draft stock. No one is making a snap judgement on that much of a difference on shooting percentages based on a 5 game sample size.
Click to expand...
He had a rep for being a good shooter, his early numbers backed that up…that’s a big contrast from Chandler, and then add in the additional height, not sure you think it’s more than that. Again, Chandler early in the season was shooting well and his stock was higher than it is now, it’s pretty much that simple.
 
#86
#86
cncchris33 said:
Well, that's essentially what I was saying in the first place. He wasn't drafted where he was because he played well in 5 games against garbage competition. Those five games only reinforced the belief in his potential.

I guess I'd argue that similarly, Chandler has been exactly what he was believed to be, as well. Never known as an elite shooter, he's proven to be an adequate shooter over a full season. High-level athlete, great ball-handler and on-ball defender. Still, his stock seems to be slipping from what it was in the preseason despite being as advertised.
Click to expand...
The bolded was what was expected, his shot has been worse than expected, especially FT%, thus his stock has dropped.
 
#87
#87
bleedingTNorange said:
The bolded was what was expected, his shot has been worse than expected, especially FT%, thus his stock has dropped.
Click to expand...
I disagree on his shot being worse than expected. It was his one knock coming out of high school. FT shooting, I'd agree on. It's been worse. But his outside shot has been about as advertised (33.3% from 3). Not great, but adequate, which is what he has been.
 
#88
#88
cncchris33 said:
I disagree on his shot being worse than expected. It was his one knock coming out of high school. FT shooting, I'd agree on. It's been worse. But his outside shot has been about as advertised (33.3% from 3). Not great, but adequate, which is what he has been.
Click to expand...
Well he shot 40% from deep for Team USA in World Cup Games and shot 50% from deep as a senior for Sunrise Christian, so I’m guessing that while there were some question about how it would translate scouts were expecting/hoping for better than 33%. I was grouping his “shot” as everything together, even if you say his 3pt % is as expected his FT% is much worse than expected thus cumulatively making his shooting numbers worse than expected.
 
#89
#89
KC listed 48th on SI NBA top-80 big board, no other Vols listed:

NBA draft: Ranking the top 80 prospects in 2022 - Sports Illustrated

48. Kennedy Chandler, PG, Tennessee | Freshman
Height: 6' 0" | Weight: 170 | Age: 19 | Last rank: 33
Chandler faces an uphill climb to being more than an NBA backup as an undersized point guard with an iffy jump shot. To his credit, he generally makes the most of what he has, utilizing his speed, quickness and vision to facilitate offense and attack the paint, and playing with a willingness to defend and pressure the ball. It’s simply a tough proposition to invest early draft capital in developing non-star guards who are far away as shooters, and Chandler may fall into that bucket, which coupled with his stature makes him an acquired taste. He’s a good passer, but relies a bit too much on his speed to create angles, and not likely to improve much from a physical standpoint. He’ll have to really hone his jumper to have a legitimate chance at sticking in a long-term role.
 
#90
#90
Volprofch05 said:
KC listed 48th on SI NBA top-80 big board, no other Vols listed:

NBA draft: Ranking the top 80 prospects in 2022 - Sports Illustrated

48. Kennedy Chandler, PG, Tennessee | Freshman
Height: 6' 0" | Weight: 170 | Age: 19 | Last rank: 33
Chandler faces an uphill climb to being more than an NBA backup as an undersized point guard with an iffy jump shot. To his credit, he generally makes the most of what he has, utilizing his speed, quickness and vision to facilitate offense and attack the paint, and playing with a willingness to defend and pressure the ball. It’s simply a tough proposition to invest early draft capital in developing non-star guards who are far away as shooters, and Chandler may fall into that bucket, which coupled with his stature makes him an acquired taste. He’s a good passer, but relies a bit too much on his speed to create angles, and not likely to improve much from a physical standpoint. He’ll have to really hone his jumper to have a legitimate chance at sticking in a long-term role.
Click to expand...
I get he’s small. I still see no way he’s the 48th best NBA player in this draft
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy14 and cncchris33
#91
#91
Things in that scout you never saw mentioned with Garland…

“undersized point guard with an iffy jump shot”

“non-star guards who are far away as shooters”

“have to really hone his jumper to have a legitimate chance at sticking in a long-term role.”
 
#92
#92
bleedingTNorange said:
Things in that scout you never saw mentioned with Garland…

“undersized point guard with an iffy jump shot”

“non-star guards who are far away as shooters”

“have to really hone his jumper to have a legitimate chance at sticking in a long-term role.”
Click to expand...
So, the two things I mentioned as possibilities as for why they are viewed differently by NBA scouts. 👍
 
#93
#93
cncchris33 said:
So, the two things I mentioned as possibilities as for why they are viewed differently by NBA scouts. 👍
Click to expand...
This was your OP, much different tone…
cncchris33 said:
I've long wondered, now, what made Darius Garland the #6 overall pick but has Chandler on the edge of slipping out of the 1st round. Garland is and inch or two taller, but outside of that, I am curious. Similar athleticism. Garland has a slightly better/quicker outside shot, I guess.
Click to expand...

“Slight better shot, I guess” didn’t really sound like you were sure you were even conceding that thought, yet according to scouts the 2 guys shots aren’t even in the same ball park.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
cncchris33 said:
I've long wondered, now, what made Darius Garland the #6 overall pick but has Chandler on the edge of slipping out of the 1st round. Garland is and inch or two taller, but outside of that, I am curious. Similar athleticism. Garland has a slightly better/quicker outside shot, I guess.
Click to expand...

There really wasn’t enough sample size for Garland.

For me, the comparison is Fox. We all watched Fox play. Go compare their stats and advanced stats right now. And think about them from eye test perspective too.

Fox couldn’t shoot a lick. (Still he is only slightly better even now).

To me, they are same effective height (due to wingspan)

I think Chandler can still project as a lottery pick. Just have to see how he finishes the year. Fox opened up a lot of eyes with his huge Sweet 16 game (then promptly laid a stinker in the next one)

But still time for Chandler IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: cncchris33
#95
#95
omghulkhands said:
There really wasn’t enough sample size for Garland.

For me, the comparison is Fox. We all watched Fox play. Go compare their stats and advanced stats right now. And think about them from eye test perspective too.

Fox couldn’t shoot a lick. (Still he is only slightly better even now).

To me, they are same effective height (due to wingspan)

I think Chandler can still project as a lottery pick. Just have to see how he finishes the year. Fox opened up a lot of eyes with his huge Sweet 16 game (then promptly laid a stinker in the next one)

But still time for Chandler IMO
Click to expand...
Fox much better FT shooter and was better from 2 as well, I’m sure scouts projected a bit off his FT%…and while their wingspan isn’t much different scouts still feel much better about a guy who’s 6’3” than a guy who’s 6’, even if wingspans are comparable. Maybe every single person ends up being wrong, all it takes is one GM to want him, but sure seems like everyone has him trending down and the main reason being questions around his shooting.
 
#96
#96
bleedingTNorange said:
Fox much better FT shooter and was better from 2 as well, I’m sure scouts projected a bit off his FT%…and while their wingspan isn’t much different scouts still feel much better about a guy who’s 6’3” than a guy who’s 6’, even if wingspans are comparable. Maybe every single person ends up being wrong, all it takes is one GM to want him, but sure seems like everyone has him trending down and the main reason being questions around his shooting.
Click to expand...

If Fox was better from two, then Chandler is cavernously better from 3. If you’re gonna put so much emphasis on FT% then how about emphasis on the difference in their actual 3 pt shooting percentage?

And Fox is a fine NBA player even though he still is a well below average shooter.
 
#97
#97
Chandler and eigler will be even more lethal if Chandler opts to come back next season and Edwards can be brought along slowly.
 
#98
#98
Chandler had a higher EFG% and lower TS% than Fox which basically translates to, he was better than Fox everywhere but the FT line scoring wise.

I think you’d agree if you had to fix someone’s jumper or free throws, you’d think FT was easier
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#100
#100
omghulkhands said:
If Fox was better from two, then Chandler is cavernously better from 3. If you’re gonna put so much emphasis on FT% then how about emphasis on the difference in their actual 3 pt shooting percentage?

And Fox is a fine NBA player even though he still is a well below average shooter.
Click to expand...
Then I guess Chandler will likely go Top 5 like Fox🤷🏻‍♂️
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top