One was .34 FG% .34 3FG% .72 FT% 21.6 MPG 4.3 PPG 1.3 APG 1.2 TOV 0.8 SPG
Other was .36FG% .34 3FG% .67 FT% 21.2 MPG 5.5 PPG 1.1 APG 0.5 TOV 0.6 SPG
In those stats one doesn't seem much better than the other. To me Thomas is the closest comparison to Jackson in terms of Freshman year.
Also doesn't makes sense to me to knock Tre on not showing too much PG skills when he was the fourth PG on the team
Interesting. Thank you.
How about we look at efficiency stats, though, not just counting stats?
A.) Minutes = 52.1% / PRPG! = 0.8 / ORTG = 105.3 / USG = 12.6% / TS = 50.6% / R% = 10.4% / AST% = 8.2% / TO% = 9.8%
B.) Minutes = 52.2% / PRPG! = -0.1 / ORTG = 88.6 / USG = 12.8% / TS = 48.0% / R% = 9.0% / AST% = 10.2% /
TO% = 24.6%
They are broadly similar except... holy **** B.) turned the ball over a lot. Those turnovers explain all the difference on ORTG and PRPG! between the two.
B.) is Tre Jackson. A.) is Matt Thomas.
That turnover rate makes all the difference. Turnovers are
really bad for your team.
Matt was better as a freshman as a consequence. Matt was a 6th or 7th guy on an NCAA tournament team that year after struggling as a starter. I doubt Tre would have been in the rotation for that team given the better bench options of Naz and Matt.
Plus, look at the two of them. Matt was a high 4* recruit, an elite athlete, and his size projected him as an NBA SG, which he now is. He could guard 1-4 in college with aplomb. Tre is undersized for an NCAA SG but has to play at that position because of his lack of PG skills, and not a particularly fetching athlete. He is just so small.
Tre has the size to guard a 1 and maybe a 2, in comparison.
Matt Thomas projected and grew into our expectations of an elite college SG/SF. If Tre ends up as a good bench gunner, then that would be a good outcome.