Jarrett Jack

[Chris Mullin]

Current Rating: 77
Suggested Rating: 83

Jarrett Jack has been having a really nice year so far for the Nets. His shooting %'s are not very efficient but he is doing a lot more than scoring. He is rebounding very well for a PG, and currently ranks #6 overall in the NBA in assists per game.

While Jack is not shooting efficiently from the floor this season his career shooting percentages over 10 seasons in the NBA are 44.1% - 34.6% - 85.6%

Jack's current numbers compared to a few other PGs with similar current numbers:

77 - Jarrett Jack - 13.2 ppg / 4.4 rpg / 7.3 apg / 1.1 spg - FG: 39.7% / 3FG: 30.7% / FT: 89.1% - PER: 15.2

86 - Mike Conley - 15.2 ppg / 2.8 rpg / 5.9 apg / 1.4 spg - FG: 41.2% / 3FG: 35.3% / FT: 86.8% - PER: 19.0

85 - Derrick Rose - 14.4 ppg / 3.3 rpg / 5.1 apg / 0.6 spg - FG: 38.6% / 3FG: 24.6% / FT: 72.2% - PER: 10.5

85 - Goran Dragic - 11.7 ppg / 3.4 rpg / 5.3 apg / 1.1 spg - FG: 45.4% / 3FG: 28.2% / FT: 71.0% - PER: 13.2

86 - Jeff Teague - 15.7 ppg / 2.7 rpg / 5.9 apg / 1.3 spg - FG: 42.1% / 3FG: 37.5% / FT: 84.9% - PER: 18.2

83 - Jrue Holiday - 12.7 ppg / 2.1 rpg / 4.4 apg / 0.9 spg - FG: 44.3% / 3FG: 41.5% / FT: 79.7% - PER: 17.9

[Chris Mullin]

If Jack isn't worthy of an increase in the eyes of the GMs here then a couple of the above PGs probably need to be decreased IMO

[Kevin Hollis]

Sorry, but there is no way I can vote Jack that high. 78.

[Brian Scalabrine]

Super super inefficient. I think he's a chucker. 79

[Walt Frazier]

That FG and 3PT% is really gross. Assists are impressive, rebounds well, steals are notable. How's his defense these days?

The assists and rebounds and steals make me want to go 80+ but those %'s keep me in check. 80 tops, right now.

[Chris Mullin]

I understand the concerns about his %'s.

But everyone is cool with Derrick Rose being rated an 85 even though Jack is superior to him in every statistical category except he averages 1 less PPG? Dragic is good at an 86 even though Jack is superior to him in every category except shooting %'s but Jack is 18% points higher from the free throw line? Jack has a higher Player Efficiency Rating than the both of them.

I don't argue those 2 players have been better in the past than Jack but I thought ratings were supposed to reflect how players are currently playing and not based off of past accomplishments. I thought legacy votes are bad for the league

[Kevin Hollis]

This kind of is the opposite of the star factor that Adam Collins presented. We all know what jack is and this play won't continue for the season.

[Kevin Hollis]

If people rate jack in the 80s, then this league is fucked up.

[Deleted]

Bruh tyreke put up 18-6-6 last year with better %s and everyone told me I was stupid for wanting him to be over 81.

Soooo.

77

[Jeremiah Hill]

Jack is having a great season because everyone in Brooklyn doesn't care so he gets to do whatever. Its actually kind of freed up his game tbh. BUT

Conley:84
Rose:79
Dragic:83
Teague:85
Holiday:81

[Chris Mullin]

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

[Walt Frazier]

Jan 2, 2016 17:52:16 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

Only one person has voted no increase so far.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2016 17:52:16 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

This is the problem with stock watch, this type of attitude causes massive rating inflation. You know he isnt this good, you know the point guards you posted up arent that good... so you increase your guy? No, make the threads to decrease the other guys. We can't have 66 guards in this league with an 80+ rating just because they start somewhere in the NBA.

[Chris Mullin]

Jan 2, 2016 18:08:13 GMT @riogho said:

Jan 2, 2016 17:52:16 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

This is the problem with stock watch, this type of attitude causes massive rating inflation. You know he isnt this good, you know the point guards you posted up arent that good... so you increase your guy? No, make the threads to decrease the other guys. We can't have 66 guards in this league with an 80+ rating just because they start somewhere in the NBA.

You're 100% right Adam.

Live and learn

[Kevin Hollis]

Jan 2, 2016 18:08:13 GMT @riogho said:

Jan 2, 2016 17:52:16 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

This is the problem with stock watch, this type of attitude causes massive rating inflation. You know he isnt this good, you know the point guards you posted up arent that good... so you increase your guy? No, make the threads to decrease the other guys. We can't have 66 guards in this league with an 80+ rating just because they start somewhere in the NBA.


I agree 100%. This is the major problem with the ratings being inflated. It's always easier to increase ratings in this league than decrease, that is why I am usually very conservative in my ratings. I do think those point guards mentioned  need to be looked at and revised.

[Jeremiah Hill]

Yeah, being worried about decreasing other GMs players over the fear that they may try and come back at your players or just overall respect is dumb.
A. People already went after one of your players pretty hard.
B. Who cares. If the player is actually as good as their rating people will vote no change.

I could have gotten real butt hurt when James Kay decided to go and put in raises for my players even though he knows I'm tanking. But whatever.

[James Kay]

Jan 2, 2016 17:52:16 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

Don't think anyone's calling you an idiot....

but Jack is 32 years old. Are you alleging he's made a serious improvement in his game? Or is he just getting a lot of playing time on the Nets?

Look at the thread on Reggie Jackson - he's having a better season than every point guard you listed, yet people are being conservative with him also.

Agreed that some of the PGs you listed need decreases. I think Rose needs to go down like 5 points, Conley maybe 1-2 points, Teague 1-2 points, Dragic 2-3 point, and Holiday... he's coming off injury and still looks decent.


For Jack I will say 80

[James Kay]

Jan 2, 2016 18:22:22 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

Yeah, being worried about decreasing other GMs players over the fear that they may try and come back at your players or just overall respect is dumb.
A. People already went after one of your players pretty hard.
B. Who cares. If the player is actually as good as their rating people will vote no change.

I could have gotten real butt hurt when James Kay decided to go and put in raises for my players even though he knows I'm tanking. But whatever.

HAHA I thought you would've called me out sooner on that... I did that just to mess with you

Although, those ratings were legitimate - your team is shaping up pretty well, IMO. Might need to start a thread for Jokic soon... jk!

[Chris Mullin]

Jan 2, 2016 18:27:49 GMT James Kay said:

Jan 2, 2016 17:52:16 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I am not an idiot fellas, although it seems some of you might think I am at this point.

I suggested a rating for Jack after comparing his numbers to several PGs that are currently rated in the mid 80's. Jack's numbers are very similar and in some cases better than a few of those mid 80's PGs.

Perhaps starting threads to lower a couple of them would have been the smarter thing to do, but honestly I would rather start a thread to get an increase for one of my players than start a thread to decrease another GMs players.

If you don't think he serves to be rated similar to those guys thats fine, but he should at least see some rating increase for his play so far this year.

Don't think anyone's calling you an idiot....

but Jack is 32 years old. Are you alleging he's made a serious improvement in his game? Or is he just getting a lot of playing time on the Nets?

Look at the thread on Reggie Jackson - he's having a better season than every point guard you listed, yet people are being conservative with him also.

Agreed that some of the PGs you listed need decreases. I think Rose needs to go down like 5 points, Conley maybe 1-2 points, Teague 1-2 points, Dragic 2-3 point, and Holiday... he's coming off injury and still looks decent.


For Jack I will say 80

I'm not saying that hes made drastic improvement at age 32, IMO he's had pretty consistent production over his 10 year career though when hes gotten to play minutes similar to what hes playing now. His playing time is up some this year for the Nets but he's only playing about 4 minutes per game more this season than his career average. The Nets aren't very good which has led to an increase in his shot attempts which has also led to a decrease in his shooting %'s because he is taking more difficult shots than he has in the past.

However, he is averaging career highs in rebounds and assists so I do think there has been improvement in those areas. He currently ranks #6 overall in the NBA in assists and the fact that hes not on a very good team is impressive to me as we all know in order to get assists you need teammates to make shots.

As Adam stated, I didn't handle it the proper way. Do I think Jack should get an increase, yes. Should he be as high as I suggested, no. As I previously stated the correct thing to do would've been to propose lowering some of the other PGs and that's my fault for not going about it that way.

Jack in the 80 range in comparison to Jeremiah's proposed ratings for the above mentioned PGs is pretty spot on IMO. I will not make the same mistake moving forward.

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

78 ^^

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Jan 2, 2016 15:25:27 GMT Chris Mullin said:

I understand the concerns about his %'s.

But everyone is cool with Derrick Rose being rated an 85 even though Jack is superior to him in every statistical category except he averages 1 less PPG? Dragic is good at an 86 even though Jack is superior to him in every category except shooting %'s but Jack is 18% points higher from the free throw line? Jack has a higher Player Efficiency Rating than the both of them.

I don't argue those 2 players have been better in the past than Jack but I thought ratings were supposed to reflect how players are currently playing and not based off of past accomplishments. I thought legacy votes are bad for the league

Numbers alone do not tell the story. 

I never read that one. 

[Jeremiah Hill]

Doesn't matter now.

espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14492404/jarrett-jack-brooklyn-nets-season-torn-acl-meniscus

[Sam Bowie]

LOL?