The Marvin Bagley thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kings_of_California

Kings_of_California

Starter
#1
#1
The other Bagley thread got locked and there's no current thread dedicated to perhaps the most important player in regards to our future. I figured we can use a general Marvin Bagley thread to discuss our guy.

I know he just recently returned from injury, but how do you think he's done so far and where do you see his progression going?

He's shown his offensive skills and his rebounding has been good, both of which should only get better with time. But I think we can all agree his defense is poor. He doesn't possess the strength to defend 4s and 5s, and he needs to improve his defensive IQ in general.

Any chance he turns into more of a SF than a F/C? He's a string bean and if he can't add bulk I just don't see long-term success at PF/C. I do t personally want to see him at SF but there are question marks.

I'm confident he can be a 20/10 guy with ease, it's just a matter of how much more he can be.
 
Last edited:
gunks

gunks

Hall of Famer
#4
#4
Hopefully this thread doesn't get ugly/locked like the last one, because I dig the idea of a dedicated Bagley conversation! A lot of good posts tend to get buried in old game threads and the conversation dies with them.

As far as my current opinion on Bags goes: Sky high potential with a lot of really scary question marks that put his floor in the basement. Bigs take a while to develop and he's coming in raw as hell. I don't think we'll know what we have until year 3.

I recall a few games from last season where Bagley looked like a future unstoppable 1st option. I wouldn't mind one of those soon, it would help with morale around these parts!

And I think he's going to be a PF going forward. Doesn't have the build of a 5, or the skills of a 3. His shooting will come along though. He's already good for a 3pter per game.
 
C

Cojc

Bench
#5
#5
I see him as a power forward myself with a few uninterrupted years he may we hope learn team defense and the other intangible parts of the game.

What I saw last year was a skilled player but raw. He made darn good progress during the season and should continue to progress this season.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#7
#7
BLNINJA #81 said:
He's the type of player that makes no one better. He may elevate his game, get 20/10 and all that, but until he makes everyone around him better, he'll be just another Rudy Gay of the beanpole PF/C variety. A right hand and defense would also help. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Well, that's more than just a tad harsh. Dang...
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#10
#10
VF21 said:
Well, that's more than just a tad harsh. Dang...
Click to expand...
Harsh yes but it could end up being the truth. Fortunately he's so raw and has room to develop that it doesn't have to be the truth...... but it's very plausible he could go down that path.

We've seen other big men in the league in recent times that get their points and rebounds but they don't win because they dont do the things that the winning players do. The numbers they do put up end up being hollow numbers.

For a big man these days in the modern NBA in order to being a quote "winning player" that means outstanding defense (Gobert), creating offense and stretching floor (Jokic), or ideally do both (Anthony Davis).

The only scenario I can see Bagley being a winning player while not playing much defense and not passing the ball, is if he gets those points and rebounds up to an extreme number like 25 PPG and 13 RPG.

20/10 just doesn't cut it anymore if you don't do anything else well. Again he has time to develop these other skills. The Kings better hope he does.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#11
#11
sergmatt said:
Harsh yes but it could end up being the truth. Fortunately he's so raw and has room to develop that it doesn't have to be the truth...... but it's very plausible he could go down that path.

We've seen other big men in the league in recent times that get their points and rebounds but they don't win because they dont do the things that the winning players do. The numbers they do put up end up being hollow numbers.

For a big man these days in the modern NBA in order to being a quote "winning player" that means outstanding defense (Gobert), creating offense and stretching floor (Jokic), or ideally do both (Anthony Davis).

The only scenario I can see Bagley being a winning player while not playing much defense and not passing the ball, is if he gets those points and rebounds up to an extreme number like 25 PPG and 13 RPG.

20/10 just doesn't cut it anymore if you don't do anything else well. Again he has time to develop these other skills. The Kings better hope he does.
Click to expand...
That's an entirely different statement than what I quoted. BIG DIFFERENCE between might end up and "He's the type of play THAT MAKES NO ONE BETTER".

IMHO it just seems like some around here (speaking in general terms) are just way too anxious to write Bagley off, almost like they're hoping he fails instead of hoping he succeeds. Again, just my humble opinion.
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#12
#12
VF21 said:
That's an entirely different statement than what I quoted. BIG DIFFERENCE between might end up and "He's the type of play THAT MAKES NO ONE BETTER".
Click to expand...
Right now that is a true statement though. The way he's playing right now he doesn't make anybody better. Of course we're not basing his entire career or future off the right now (essentially less than a season total) but if he doesn't make significant improvements in areas I mentioned earlier than that statement will continue to stay true.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#13
#13
sergmatt said:
Right now that is a true statement though. The way he's playing right now he doesn't make anybody better. Of course we're not basing his entire career or future off the right now (essentially less than a season total) but if he doesn't make significant improvements in areas I mentioned earlier than that statement will continue to stay true.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'd just like to see people wait a little longer before they toss him aside. ;)
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#14
#14
VF21 said:
Fair enough. I'd just like to see people wait a little longer before they toss him aside. ;)
Click to expand...
Kinda agree but the nature of this forum and really what drives sports discussion in general is pronostication.

Only natural on a big talent like Bagley that also has some big flaws in his game. People are going to predict wildly different outcomes for him.
 
L

Livinthedream

All-Star
#15
#15
sergmatt said:
Harsh yes but it could end up being the truth. Fortunately he's so raw and has room to develop that it doesn't have to be the truth...... but it's very plausible he could go down that path.

We've seen other big men in the league in recent times that get their points and rebounds but they don't win because they dont do the things that the winning players do. The numbers they do put up end up being hollow numbers.

For a big man these days in the modern NBA in order to being a quote "winning player" that means outstanding defense (Gobert), creating offense and stretching floor (Jokic), or ideally do both (Anthony Davis).

The only scenario I can see Bagley being a winning player while not playing much defense and not passing the ball, is if he gets those points and rebounds up to an extreme number like 25 PPG and 13 RPG.

20/10 just doesn't cut it anymore if you don't do anything else well. Again he has time to develop these other skills. The Kings better hope he does.
Click to expand...
What if he averages 24/12? Garbage still?

I remember when people on here said McLemore was no good for us unless he shot 37% or above from 3. He shot 38% that year and folks were like yeah but.....

There are no perfect players. If you're looking to find deficiencies in someone's game, you will find it. Arbitrary, shifting and ambiguous measurements hurts a posters credibility though. Especially when they spend most of their time hating on one player.

Too many people parading opinions as if they're facts. Too many player comparisons. He must be Jokic or AD or Giannis to be valuable lacks vision. There were no one exactly like those players until they came along. Those players also needed coaches/organizations who gave them the start and freedom to learn on the job.
 
Last edited:
Kings_of_California

Kings_of_California

Starter
#16
#16
If we were winning and trending up like last year there wouldn't be anywhere near as much lack of enthusiasm regarding Bagley. There was a lot of positivity last year and everyone was at times in awe at some of the things Marvin did. There was excitement on this board, I'm certain of that.

Losing makes fans look at everything in a much more negative light. I'm sure as heck not rooting for him to fail, that would be asinine. He's still got plenty of potential and plenty of risk.
 
J

jellyfish

Bench
#17
#17
Livinthedream said:
What if he averages 24/12? Garbage still?

I remember when people on here said McLemore was no good for us unless he shot 37% or above from 3. He shot 38% that year and folks were like yeah but.....

There are no perfect players. If you're looking to find deficiencies in someone's game, you will find it. Arbitrary, shifting and ambiguous measurements hurts a posters credibility though. Especially when they spend most if their time hating on one player.

Too many people parading opinions as if they're facts. Too many player comparisons. He must be Jokic or AD or Giannis to be valuable lacks vision. There were no one exactly like those players until they came along. Those players also needed coaches/organizations who gave them the start and freedom to learn on the job.
Click to expand...
Mclemore is still crap still can't dribble/low IQ one season shooting the ball well does not change that he's still a limited player not worthy of a lottery pick. Everything that was said about him still stands other than he started shooting at a level which he should have a long time ago.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#18
#18
jellyfish said:
Mclemore is still crap still can't dribble/low IQ one season shooting the ball well does not change that he's still a limited player not worthy of a lottery pick. Everything that was said about him still stands other than he started shooting at a level which he should have a long time ago.
Click to expand...
So what did Ben do to you? Run over your puppy?
 
The Effort Police

The Effort Police

Starter
#21
#21
VF21 said:
So what did Ben do to you? Run over your puppy?
Click to expand...
Oh, come on. How many times have you yourself said similar things about Ben McLemore? Everyone knows you don't like Ben. Does it not apply now that there's apparently an argument using him to prop up Bagley?

Livinthedream said:
What if he averages 24/12? Garbage still?

I remember when people on here said McLemore was no good for us unless he shot 37% or above from 3. He shot 38% that year and folks were like yeah but.....

There are no perfect players. If you're looking to find deficiencies in someone's game, you will find it. Arbitrary, shifting and ambiguous measurements hurts a posters credibility though. Especially when they spend most of their time hating on one player.

Too many people parading opinions as if they're facts. Too many player comparisons. He must be Jokic or AD or Giannis to be valuable lacks vision. There were no one exactly like those players until they came along. Those players also needed coaches/organizations who gave them the start and freedom to learn on the job.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how this is an argument in Bagley's favor. Ben McLemore shot 38% and at no point has he been a good NBA player. 38% from 3 or whatever is often used as a benchmark to determine that an NBA player is worth their salt. If you can have an arbitrary stat like that which everyone likes and still not be very good, does that mean you can put up another darling stat like 20/10 and not be very good?
 
L

Livinthedream

All-Star
#22
#22
The Effort Police said:
Oh, come on. How many times have you yourself said similar things about Ben McLemore? Everyone knows you don't like Ben. Does it not apply now that there's apparently an argument using him to prop up Bagley?



I'm not sure how this is an argument in Bagley's favor. Ben McLemore shot 38% and at no point has he been a good NBA player. 38% from 3 or whatever is often used as a benchmark to determine that an NBA player is worth their salt. If you can have an arbitrary stat like that which everyone likes and still not be very good, does that mean you can put up another darling stat like 20/10 and not be very good?
Click to expand...
This really proves my point. I used Ben as an example of when people said he will be valuable when he reaches that goal. He reaches it and then they say he sucks still. If you don't like a player, there is nothing he will do that will be good enough. So setting a bar is pointless. They'll just focus on the next thing they don't like about him.

I mention Ben's name and people go nuts.
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#23
#23
Livinthedream said:
What if he averages 24/12? Garbage still?
Click to expand...
It'd be better than 20/10 but not as good as 25/13. Garbage no, but if he's still awful defensively and doesn't pass the ball/play within the offense then it's still not going to lead to a lot of winning.

Livinthedream said:
I remember when people on here said McLemore was no good for us unless he shot 37% or above from 3. He shot 38% that year and folks were like yeah but.....
Click to expand...
I'm sure there were additional caveats to the 37%. The "yeah but" is valid if he doesn't do anything else well. A lot more to winning basketball than just scoring points.

Livinthedream said:
There are no perfect players. If you're looking to find deficiencies in someone's game, you will find it. Arbitrary, shifting and ambiguous measurements hurts a posters credibility though. Especially when they spend most if their time hating on one player.
Click to expand...
While technically true there are some that are pretty damn close to being perfect. Giannis and Lebron are nearly perfect but irregardless who said anything about being "perfect" in relation to Bagley? He has massive flaws in his game that need to be fixed and/or developed. To argue otherwise is just being blissfully ignorant. As I've already said he could very well fix the flaws and develop his overall game. Hopefully he does but he has actually do it (it's not a given that he will).

Livinthedream said:
Too many people parading opinions as if they're facts. Too many player comparisons. He must be Jokic or AD or Giannis to be valuable lacks vision. There were no one exactly like those players until they came along. Those players also needed coaches/organizations who gave them the start and freedom to learn on the job.
Click to expand...
It's a fact that Bagley is terrible defensively. It's a fact that he doesn't finish well with his right hand. It's a well-educated opinion (if not fact) that he's not a willing passer and doesn't pass out of double teams or converging defenses. Again he could very well fix all of these with time but "what if's of the future" don't speak to the type of player he is right now. As for your alleged comparisons, nobody is saying he needs to be just like Jokic, Giannis or AD. However those names are used when describing someone who does it all (Giannis or AD) or when describing someone who creates offense (Jokic) while still being bad defensively. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you, people generally like to reference other players when acknowledging superior skill-sets. Best case scenario is that a few years from now Bagley's name is a household name like those and is used in conversation on other forums in terms of reference as a great player.
 
The Effort Police

The Effort Police

Starter
#24
#24
Livinthedream said:
This really proves my point. I used Ben as an example of when people said he will be valuable when he reaches that goal. He reaches it and then they say he sucks still. If you don't like a player, there is nothing he will do that will be good enough. So setting a bar is pointless. They'll just focus on the next thing they don't like about him.

I mention Ben's name and people go nuts.
Click to expand...
He reaches that goal and people say he sucks because he... still sucked. There's no big bias against Ben McLemore that you think there is; he's just not a very good player. His flaws are so hideous that it doesn't MATTER that he reached that goal. I think people just assumed the flaws would take care of themselves once he reached the bar, or they wouldn't be so bad it takes away from everything.

You're right that setting an arbitrary bar is pointless, because it won't automatically make him a good player.

It proves the opposite of your point because you used an example of a really bad player who achieved a stat people like which in the end STILL didn't help him become a better basketball player. It diminishes Bagley's biggest claim to fame in counting stats.
 
Last edited:
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#25
#25
The Effort Police said:
Oh, come on. How many times have you yourself said similar things about Ben McLemore? Everyone knows you don't like Ben. Does it not apply now that there's apparently an argument using him to prop up Bagley?



I'm not sure how this is an argument in Bagley's favor. Ben McLemore shot 38% and at no point has he been a good NBA player. 38% from 3 or whatever is often used as a benchmark to determine that an NBA player is worth their salt. If you can have an arbitrary stat like that which everyone likes and still not be very good, does that mean you can put up another darling stat like 20/10 and not be very good?
Click to expand...
Whooooooosh.
 
kingsboi

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#26
#26
Bagley has a lot of work cut out for him for him to justify being taken with the number 2 pick and time will tell if he fills his potential. Until then, he really needs better coordination because he is only relying on athleticism right now to get by and that won't work in the NBA. Two, he has to learn to finish with his off hand because teams are playing his strong hand and when he can't go to that hand, the results are shocking.
 
D

dude12

Hall of Famer
#27
#27
He has to play 30 plus minutes like...now. I don’t by into his defense is terrible. It’s not great, it’s not terrible. i mean, put the guy at PF and play him with Holmes. He and Fox have the ability to be our cornerstones. Elite talent. He already helps others get better shots just by the defense hedging on him. How many guys are capable of that behavior by the defense? Not sure what Walton is waiting for.
 
chief bromden

chief bromden

Starter
#28
#28
With Bagley, I see elite speed and bouncy/jumping ability. His shot looks nice, but it takes a lot of time for him to wind up and get the shot off. Driving into the paint, he often looks rushed with no real moves or skill, relying heavily on athleticism. He's very young, which sounds like a positive, but the windows for these players to develop seem much shorter than they were in the past in terms of team building and player movement. I'm rooting for him because I'm a Kings fan, but I'm not sure what his plusses are beyond his athleticism.
 
NME

NME

Starter
#29
#29
sergmatt said:
The only scenario I can see Bagley being a winning player while not playing much defense and not passing the ball, is if he gets those points and rebounds up to an extreme number like 25 PPG and 13 RPG.
Click to expand...
If he ups his numbers to that level, plus vastly improves his defense, passing and outside shooting, you have roughly Karl-Anthony Towns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.