Advanced Stats (IT, Tyreke, Thornton, and Jimmer) from Aykis of SactownRoyalty

[Gary]

I pay to see games at Arco and I have. I don't want to see Evans a PG anymore. If the coach starts him there because he's changed, that's fine with me. But I had to watch him "run the team" for far too many games to try him again.

Same.. I was pulling my hair out at the start of the season. That Indiana game was just atrocious (even though we won). You could totally read the body language of the players on the floor. They were always moving SOOO slow because it was like they knew if something was going to happen it was going to take 20 seconds. Made me mad going to those games I don't pay to get mad. I would play slots if I wanted to lose money and get mad, not go to a supposedly "entertaining" Kings game. They already have my deposit for next seasons tickets too GRRRRRR... If they cannot cancel it and give me my money back I will reverse the charge at the bank.

 

[vikinginferno]

I absolutely love it when rabid player fans can't control themselves and go so far overboard to prove that their guy is THE guy. IT is a good player who, if the team ownership doesn't totally sabotage the roster, should have a good season next year and for a number of years after that. He is not, however, the future of our franchise. That poor shooting big man is worth about a dozen Isaiah Thomas - and this is from someone who loves IT and what he brings to the Kings. You continually shoot yourself in the foot and, in the process, alienate a lot of KINGS fans with your obvious player bias. It's about the name on the front, dude, not the name on the back. Look at it another way - if Geoff Petrie hadn't taken IT at the 60 he most likely wouldn't even be playing right now. And if it wasn't for that "mediocre supporting cast," he would most likely have spent most of his rookie year buried at the end of the bench.

This need to crucify one player in order to elevate your own favorite player (and it's not just you who does it) got old back in the days of Peja and Webber. It takes a TEAM to play this game. We should be more worried about getting some complementary players for IT, Evans and Cousins. That's where our real problem lies.

Oh, the hypocrisy...

 

[mac]

Same.. I was pulling my hair out at the start of the season. That Indiana game was just atrocious (even though we won). You could totally read the body language of the players on the floor. They were always moving SOOO slow because it was like they knew if something was going to happen it was going to take 20 seconds. Made me mad going to those games I don't pay to get mad. I would play slots if I wanted to lose money and get mad, not go to a supposedly "entertaining" Kings game. They already have my deposit for next seasons tickets too GRRRRRR... If they cannot cancel it and give me my money back I will reverse the charge at the bank.

So you'd rather watch us continue to be a bottom 5 team in the league despite adding yet another "ROY candidate", and with Cuz dominating every game? Heck I don't care if Evans or ANYONE pounds the ball for 23 seconds before taking a shot every possession if our record actually improves.

 

[Gary]

So you'd rather watch us continue to be a bottom 5 team in the league despite adding yet another "ROY candidate", and with Cuz dominating every game? Heck I don't care if Evans or ANYONE pounds the ball for 23 seconds before taking a shot every possession if our record actually improves.

No I would rather we be competitive and win!!! Sadly we were neither at the start of the year.

 

[Spike]

And we were neither at the end of the year, too. In fact, I'd say we took backwards steps in terms of long-term development.

With the way management is running things, we really need to develop both Evans and Cousins. That means the ball needs to be in Evans's hands. That means we need a coach with structure, someone who is going to build this team for the long haul. Can you not even acknowledge that Evans was a pretty good distributor and all around player prior to Smart deciding it was more important to chase points over long-term development? This is our one shot. It has to be with Evans and Cousins, and they need to be developed. They need to lose together, so that they can win together.

Tell me - who are the Maloofs going to bring in to take us to the next level? Salmons? Hayes? They said they would spend for talent - maybe they meant they would spend our talent.

 

[Kingster]

Sigh...You want IT's starting numbers? How about general trends.

Pre-All Star: 11-22
Post All-Star: 11-22

Pre-All Star Home/Road: 12/21
Post-All Star Home/Road: 21/12

What more do you need? We had the chance to do way better against an easier schedule, and yet, we did the same. How about this?

vs. LAL, OKC, SA (Teams still in the hunt in the West)

with Evans at PG: 3-0
without Evans at PG: 1-6

(Note that the win against the Lakers was actually against the LA D-Fenders.)

Take all the numbers you want, all the shooting percentages, but with the ball in Evans's hand regardless of position (for you, Gary) we are competitive, with the opportunity to dominate, against the big boys. Without the ball in his hands...well, we see what that looks like. We run a lot, we score a lot of useless points, and the opposing team goes ABA old school on us and sees if they can give their home fans free tacos.

According to that line of thinking, Cousins is a very poor basketball player, near the bottom of the league. After all, what has his record been during his entire tenure as a King? It's a very simplistic way of looking at things.

This whole thing about the "Tyreke needs the ball in his hands" needs clarification. The ball in his hands getting a pass while moving without the ball? The ball in his hands 30 feet from the basket running the offense? The ball in his hands on pick and rolls? The ball in his hands on fast breaks? The ball in his hands in the corner? Tyreke's performance is highly variable, depending on where exactly he gets the ball. Saying he needs the ball in his hands as a general proposition avoids this fact and is unrealistic and simplistic. Tyreke's highest efficiency, BY FAR, is when he receives the pass while cutting on the move. It's nearly twice that of when he is in isolation. Tyreke is highly inefficient at the 3 point line, much more efficient on breaks and getting layups. The focus of the argument needs to be narrowed considerably to when and where Tyreke should get the ball.

 

[Spike]

The focus of the argument needs to be narrowed considerably to when and where Tyreke should get the ball.

Only if you enjoy splitting hairs in an attempt to try and shoehorn an effective argument. I kept it simple because it really is simple. The team was no better off with IT running the show. You're being intentionally obtuse by trying to use Cousins in this argument, as we know that the discussion is about the style of play with Evans at the point vs. IT at the point. Very clearly, it is not any better with IT, and based on how our season turned out, I can make an argument for how it was worse. In fact, I already have before.

 

[Kingster]

Only if you enjoy splitting hairs in an attempt to try and shoehorn an effective argument. I kept it simple because it really is simple. The team was no better off with IT running the show. You're being intentionally obtuse by trying to use Cousins in this argument, as we know that the discussion is about the style of play with Evans at the point vs. IT at the point. Very clearly, it is not any better with IT, and based on how our season turned out, I can make an argument for how it was worse. In fact, I already have before.

It's not a question of splitting hairs. it's just getting some nuance in the argument. I don't think you can isolate the IT or the Tyreke variables in the crucible. There were a lot of other factors in the mix - new coach, young team, poor defensive execution, lousy bench, lack of length, no 3, etc. To isolate IT as the cause is just oversimplification.

By the way, normally I'm unintentionally obtuse...

 

[The_Jamal]

Only if you enjoy splitting hairs in an attempt to try and shoehorn an effective argument. I kept it simple because it really is simple. The team was no better off with IT running the show. You're being intentionally obtuse by trying to use Cousins in this argument, as we know that the discussion is about the style of play with Evans at the point vs. IT at the point. Very clearly, it is not any better with IT, and based on how our season turned out, I can make an argument for how it was worse. In fact, I already have before.

Wins and Losses when talking about an individual player are about as valuable at evaluating a baseball pitcher's win/loss record. They both have no control whether the game is a win or loss. IT could drop 40 points, 20 assists, 20 rebounds, and 10 steals and our team could still lose. He could also have 5 points 2 assists 3 rebounds 6 turnovers on 2-10 shooting and us still win. The same goes for Reke, Cousins, and the rest of the team. Basketball is a team sport and until we learn that it is not won by individuals, we will never be any good

 

[mac]

Wins and Losses when talking about an individual player are about as valuable at evaluating a baseball pitcher's win/loss record. They both have no control whether the game is a win or loss. IT could drop 40 points, 20 assists, 20 rebounds, and 10 steals and our team could still lose. He could also have 5 points 2 assists 3 rebounds 6 turnovers on 2-10 shooting and us still win. The same goes for Reke, Cousins, and the rest of the team. Basketball is a team sport and until we learn that it is not won by individuals, we will never be any good

But the whole point is that Tyreke doesn't make anyone better, doesn't create for anyone else and makes poor passes, while with IT everyone gets their shots and love him to bits, and he is instrumental in running our top notch offensive scheme that is the cause of our winning record. In other words, we supposedly play much better as a team with IT controlling the ball and running all our plays.

 

[pshn80]

According to that line of thinking, Cousins is a very poor basketball player, near the bottom of the league. After all, what has his record been during his entire tenure as a King? It's a very simplistic way of looking at things.

This whole thing about the "Tyreke needs the ball in his hands" needs clarification. The ball in his hands getting a pass while moving without the ball? The ball in his hands 30 feet from the basket running the offense? The ball in his hands on pick and rolls? The ball in his hands on fast breaks? The ball in his hands in the corner? Tyreke's performance is highly variable, depending on where exactly he gets the ball. Saying he needs the ball in his hands as a general proposition avoids this fact and is unrealistic and simplistic. Tyreke's highest efficiency, BY FAR, is when he receives the pass while cutting on the move. It's nearly twice that of when he is in isolation. Tyreke is highly inefficient at the 3 point line, much more efficient on breaks and getting layups. The focus of the argument needs to be narrowed considerably to when and where Tyreke should get the ball.

Agree. I do think Evans is part of making the team better and improving our record but not at point gurard. The "before and after" discussions lead me no where. We need to improve play. I really don't see starting Evans at PG is going to improve team play. The end of season showboating of our new starting SF, Outlaw, was the most intriguing thing going. Start the year with that lineup until you find a more plausable way to go.

We have some of out big guns on this site wanting to start Evans at PG. It would almost be worth doing it to make or break the idea. But NO, don't do it.

 

[DesertFox]

I think the whole PG/SG thing is overrated anyway. Evans should handle the majority (less than his rookie but more than this year) of the possessions, but next to an off the ball perimeter shooter who can make good decisions when he needs to handle the ball. A good portion of great teams didn't have true point guards, like the Bulls, 80's Celtics, Heat, etc. They had a stud wing, a guy who can hit threes, and another wing who can distribute.

I can sort of see why the team jumped on Jimmer, as he fits that (except he needs to learn how to dribble) description pretty well. Too bad there's already 3 guards on this team better than him. If they can move Thornton or IT for a defender who can shoot (Batum/Dudley) or pass (Iggy) this team will not be in bad shape.

 

[Uncia03]

This whole thing about the "Tyreke needs the ball in his hands" needs clarification. The ball in his hands getting a pass while moving without the ball? The ball in his hands 30 feet from the basket running the offense? The ball in his hands on pick and rolls? The ball in his hands on fast breaks? The ball in his hands in the corner? Tyreke's performance is highly variable, depending on where exactly he gets the ball. Saying he needs the ball in his hands as a general proposition avoids this fact and is unrealistic and simplistic. Tyreke's highest efficiency, BY FAR, is when he receives the pass while cutting on the move. It's nearly twice that of when he is in isolation. Tyreke is highly inefficient at the 3 point line, much more efficient on breaks and getting layups. The focus of the argument needs to be narrowed considerably to when and where Tyreke should get the ball.

When you're talking about play-off basketball and you're in the gritty closing quarter of a game and everything has tightened up then there are two ways to run an offense.
1.) Star Offense: You have a player or players who have the ability to alter or even break a defense to either get a shot for themselves or an easy look for a team-mate.
2.) Team Offense: You have a well-oiled machine of an offense which utilizes great screening, off-ball-movement, and ball-movement to find seams in the defense to exploit for an open look.

You really need to be either dominant at one offense or the other, or have a really good mixture of the two in order to be successful.

Now the Star Offense is dependent on having players who have the ability to alter or break down a defense. Those are the types of players you go looking for in the draft. We currently are lucky enough to have 2 players who can grow into that role in Tyreke and DeMarcus.

The Team Offense is dependent on having a good coach who can teach the offense while keeping the players accountable to the offense, as well as having the right personnel, and as important the time to grow on the court to develop chemistry.

The Star Offense is what has the most success in the NBA, and I think it is easier to implement because it just requires that you have the right player(s). The Team Offense is harder to put together in our 'fast-food' culture, because you have to have the right coach, the backing of the coach by the FO, and the patience to give it the couple years of on-court development of chemistry before you start seeing success.

Now it's not an Either/Or thing but more of a sliding scale where you have the ultimate 'Team' offense on one side and the Ultimate 'Star' offense on the other, and most teams who are ultimately going to have success will lean more towards one.

The first two years with Tyreke we basically saw the offense completely catered to letting Tyreke 'go do his thing', with-out installing much of an offense beyond that.
This last year under Smart we seemed to go away from either strategy and tried to play junk-style 'easy buckets' offense, which has no chance of working at the elite levels.

We need both Tyreke and Cousins to be players who are put in positions on offense to bend or break a defense on a consistant basis.
In addition, we need a coach to implement some semblance of a half-court Team Offense, because both Tyreke and Cousins are too young/inexperienced to go the Star route all on their own. They may get there eventually, but we need a Team Offense to help smooth that transition.


I will say it again. I'm not against IT being the PG, but only if it serves to help foster a Team Offense while at the same time helping both Tyreke and Cousins to groom their Star game. If either Tyreke or Cousins gets marginalized then I want no part of IT as PG. I also want to mention that if Tyreke plays PG and marginalizes Cousins in the offense, then I want no part of that either. Going forward we have to make certain that both players are put in a position to consistently bend the defense and grow into their Star game.

 

[pshn80]

I think the whole PG/SG thing is overrated anyway. Evans should handle the majority (less than his rookie but more than this year) of the possessions, but next to an off the ball perimeter shooter who can make good decisions when he needs to handle the ball. A good portion of great teams didn't have true point guards, like the Bulls, 80's Celtics, Heat, etc. They had a stud wing, a guy who can hit threes, and another wing who can distribute.

I can sort of see why the team jumped on Jimmer, as he fits that (except he needs to learn how to dribble) description pretty well. Too bad there's already 3 guards on this team better than him. If they can move Thornton or IT for a defender who can shoot (Batum/Dudley) or pass (Iggy) this team will not be in bad shape.

When you say that we need a distributor and Evans in the back court then I agree we don't really have a problem here in working together for this team. And it is hard for me and us, I think, to remember that things change with time and experience. Evans is maturing and will continue to do so. And as he does he will learn to handle the ball better and with more diversity, he will shoot a little better, and he will continue learning how to contribute while not handling the ball so much.

The makeup of the back court three positions is still an open question because we haven't tried the winning combo at all or for more than a few games. We tried a 1-2-3 of Evans, Thornton, Salmons for a good (bad) run. Didn't work for a lot of reasons. We have never tried starters of Thomas, Evans, Salmons. We've had it with Outlaw for Salmons for a bit. But it will be a new ball game no matter what lineup we field next year and it cerainly needs to be.

 

[swisshh]

Everyone who wants Tyreke back at PG or primary ball handler has ceased to be a Kings fan and has traversed over to the side of Kobe-envy, where Tyreke stands in as the superstar ball hungry player that legitimizes them and their team as cool.

 

[mac]

Everyone who wants Tyreke back at PG or primary ball handler has ceased to be a Kings fan and has traversed over to the side of Kobe-envy, where Tyreke stands in as the superstar ball hungry player that legitimizes them and their team as cool.

Well if it gets us 5 championships with only a season or two out of the playoffs I'm all for it. But of course, posters like you have seen a future where Tyreke never improves. All us "Tyreke at PG, people who are no longer Kings fans" want is for Smart to find a way to utilise Evans to the best of his abilities. We were seeing some good progress at PG, which is why we would like Smart to try him at PG again for a while, coaching and teaching him to be a better PG. But if Smart puts Evans at SG and we achieve good results then we won't look back and insist that Tyreke plays PG. Seeing as Evans was put at SF, and we didn't achieve good results however, it is not surprising that we want him at PG (where he was showing improvement) or SG, whichever helps us to win more games. And again, the whole point is that Tyreke was showing improvement at PG under Smart before he was moved to SF.

 

[Bricklayer]

Everyone who wants Tyreke back at PG or primary ball handler has ceased to be a Kings fan and has traversed over to the side of Kobe-envy, where Tyreke stands in as the superstar ball hungry player that legitimizes them and their team as cool.

Yeah, think you've got that a little reversed there friend. You and your little group of cultists have long hated on, and I do mean hated on in a ridiculously in unfair fashion, a major component of the Kings because of artifical outside playing style constraints that you introduce, because they are more improtant to you than the Kings are.

 

[Spike]

Well if it gets us 5 championships with only a season or two out of the playoffs I'm all for it. But of course, posters like you have seen a future where Tyreke never improves. All us "Tyreke at PG, people who are no longer Kings fans" want is for Smart to find a way to utilise Evans to the best of his abilities. We were seeing some good progress at PG, which is why we would like Smart to try him at PG again for a while, coaching and teaching him to be a better PG. But if Smart puts Evans at SG and we achieve good results then we won't look back and insist that Tyreke plays PG. Seeing as Evans was put at SF, and we didn't achieve good results however, it is not surprising that we want him at PG (where he was showing improvement) or SG, whichever helps us to win more games. And again, the whole point is that Tyreke was showing improvement at PG under Smart before he was moved to SF.

There you have it. Well said.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Everyone who wants Tyreke back at PG or primary ball handler has ceased to be a Kings fan and has traversed over to the side of Kobe-envy, where Tyreke stands in as the superstar ball hungry player that legitimizes them and their team as cool.

At this point the whole "Tyreke" argument has officially devolved into a religious schism where fanatics on either side simply declare their opponents infidels. Fan-tastic.

 

[Uncia03]

At this point the whole "Tyreke" argument has officially devolved into a religious schism where fanatics on either side simply declare their opponents infidels. Fan-tastic.

I really think at this point it's because people are bored.
You're right in that no amount of arguing is going to sway someone from their position at this point in time.
So people are throwing out things to discuss, and in this case a very inflammatory statement that has no basis in reality, just for a reaction to keep up some level of activity.

If we were fighting for our lives in the 1st round of the playoffs right now, I would hope that we wouldn't still be having this sort of discussion.

 

[Spike]

How soon before we reach Godwin's Law?

 

[Kingster]

When you're talking about play-off basketball and you're in the gritty closing quarter of a game and everything has tightened up then there are two ways to run an offense.
1.) Star Offense: You have a player or players who have the ability to alter or even break a defense to either get a shot for themselves or an easy look for a team-mate.
2.) Team Offense: You have a well-oiled machine of an offense which utilizes great screening, off-ball-movement, and ball-movement to find seams in the defense to exploit for an open look.

You really need to be either dominant at one offense or the other, or have a really good mixture of the two in order to be successful.

Now the Star Offense is dependent on having players who have the ability to alter or break down a defense. Those are the types of players you go looking for in the draft. We currently are lucky enough to have 2 players who can grow into that role in Tyreke and DeMarcus.

The Team Offense is dependent on having a good coach who can teach the offense while keeping the players accountable to the offense, as well as having the right personnel, and as important the time to grow on the court to develop chemistry.

The Star Offense is what has the most success in the NBA, and I think it is easier to implement because it just requires that you have the right player(s). The Team Offense is harder to put together in our 'fast-food' culture, because you have to have the right coach, the backing of the coach by the FO, and the patience to give it the couple years of on-court development of chemistry before you start seeing success.

Now it's not an Either/Or thing but more of a sliding scale where you have the ultimate 'Team' offense on one side and the Ultimate 'Star' offense on the other, and most teams who are ultimately going to have success will lean more towards one.

The first two years with Tyreke we basically saw the offense completely catered to letting Tyreke 'go do his thing', with-out installing much of an offense beyond that.
This last year under Smart we seemed to go away from either strategy and tried to play junk-style 'easy buckets' offense, which has no chance of working at the elite levels.

We need both Tyreke and Cousins to be players who are put in positions on offense to bend or break a defense on a consistant basis.
In addition, we need a coach to implement some semblance of a half-court Team Offense, because both Tyreke and Cousins are too young/inexperienced to go the Star route all on their own. They may get there eventually, but we need a Team Offense to help smooth that transition.


I will say it again. I'm not against IT being the PG, but only if it serves to help foster a Team Offense while at the same time helping both Tyreke and Cousins to groom their Star game. If either Tyreke or Cousins gets marginalized then I want no part of IT as PG. I also want to mention that if Tyreke plays PG and marginalizes Cousins in the offense, then I want no part of that either. Going forward we have to make certain that both players are put in a position to consistently bend the defense and grow into their Star game.

I think more than anything Tyreke needs to improve his outside shot, which has nothing to do with IT. Until he gets that outside shot, he's not a star, and he will continue to marginalize himself. Whether he gets that outside shot is a total unknown at this point. Some guys do it and some guys don't. So, if I'm the coach I'm not developing an offense around star Tyeke Evans, because that's a false premise, a potential house of cards, a 50-50 shot. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet on the combination of pg IT and center Cousins, who do seem sympatico and don't have a huge hole in their games. I'd definitely involve Tyreke in the offense, not as a guy sitting at the 3 point line, but a guy who was given rules to play by - don't shoot 3 point shots, move without the ball, pressure the opposing team on fast breaks, press guys with his dribble to below the free throw line and take an intermediate jump shot, and be a constantly excellent defensive player. If Tyreke showed he had an outside shot, and he was playing like a star, then as a coach I'd adjust the offensive design accordingly.

 

[Uncia03]

I think more than anything Tyreke needs to improve his outside shot, which has nothing to do with IT. Until he gets that outside shot, he's not a star, and he will continue to marginalize himself. Whether he gets that outside shot is a total unknown at this point. Some guys do it and some guys don't. So, if I'm the coach I'm not developing an offense around star Tyeke Evans, because that's a false premise, a potential house of cards, a 50-50 shot. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet on the combination of pg IT and center Cousins, who do seem sympatico and don't have a huge hole in their games. I'd definitely involve Tyreke in the offense, not as a guy sitting at the 3 point line, but a guy who was given rules to play by - don't shoot 3 point shots, move without the ball, pressure the opposing team on fast breaks, press guys with his dribble to below the free throw line and take an intermediate jump shot, and be a constantly excellent defensive player. If Tyreke showed he had an outside shot, and he was playing like a star, then as a coach I'd adjust the offensive design accordingly.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue then.

No-one argues that Tyreke needs to work on his jumpshot, and it's clear that a consistent jumpshot will take his game to a whole new level. But if you decide that you're going to build the offense around IT and Cousins then you're going to lose Tyreke, because he'll find somewhere else to play where his talents will be utilized.

You say 50-50 chance that he'll get a jumpshot down, but he's younger than IT, and IT showed incredibly dramatic improvements in his 3pt shot from his college days to his rookie season.

I think the simple fact is that the Sacramento Kings have never had a talent like Tyreke Evans, and it appears that many don't have the patience to see him develop.

Again, I'm not advocating a 'Tyreke or Bust' situation. If Tyreke can be moved for a superior player, or if in a couple of years he still hasn't developed the jumpshot he needs to take his game to the next level, then you do something about it. But it's far to early to even think about moving away from him considering how dominant he is with-out the reliable jumpshot and how dominant he will be if he gets it figured out.

One other thing I should mention.
If IT was on the Kings and had the year he had and Tyreke was on the Timberwolves and had the 3 seasons he had, and the Timberwolves called me up to trade their Tyreke Evans for our IT, I would do it in a heartbeat.

You can disagree with my stance regarding a trade, but I don't consider IT remotely on the same level as Tyreke, and I watched IT play at Washington and am incredibly pleased that he had as good a rookie season as he did, but I'm not going to sit quietly if Tyreke is marginalized in favor of IT. IT just does not bring enough to make other teams scared of him, whereas teams still have to gameplan to stop Tyreke.

 

[VF21]

How soon before we reach Godwin's Law?

My guess is very, very shortly.

 

[bajaden]

I guess I'm a little confused on the issue of Tyreke. Most of my confusion comes from the fact that he's an issue at all. I can understand that different people have different prespectives, and therefore differences. But its the degree of those differences that I don't understand. Everything is black and white, either/or, he's great or he's horrible. He's a point guard, he's not a point guard! One side only see's what Tyreke can do, the other what he can't do.

Now I apologize for being totally inclusive here, but from afar, thats how these discussions look. So let me tell you who I respect in these discussions. I respect those that see the whole picture, and from the point of view of whats best for the team, and not personal bias, one way or the other. Believe me, I understand that personal bias certainly has its influence, so maybe total objectivity is too much to ask. But bear with me.

Uncia03 brought up a what if. What if Tyreke was on another team, in this case, the T Wolves. How would you view him then? I mean, the other guys player always seems to look better doesn't he? I mean Ilyasova looks real good to me right now, and I bet I could find some Bucks fans that would love to get rid of him for some inane reason. I bet some of them would trade Ilyasova for Tyreke in a heartbeat. Not suggesting that, by the way. All they would see is that Tyreke won ROY, and that his stats look good. Plus he's only 22 years old. And, its hard to argue with that logic.

I'm not suggesting that Tyreke is the perfect player. He's not! He has holes in his game. But he does things with a basketball that would make Curly Neal stand up and take notice. He has rare skills that you would love Jimmer to have. Yeah, I know, Jimmer can shoot the ball. Which puts him in a class with around 150 other players in the league. What Tyreke can do with a basketball is limited to just a few players in the league. And thats what makes him so special, and frustrating at the same time.

Now you can call him a one trick pony if you want, but its still a hell of a trick. So the key word here is patience. He's still a very young player, who I think just now is realizing he has to make changes in his game. You can argue he should have realized that sooner, but I personally prefer not to live in the past of woulda, coulda, shoulda. As far as the PG issue goes, its not an issue for me. I could care less what position he plays as long as he's on the floor. My perference is SG, because he'll still handle the ball, and it free's him from the responsibilies that come with being a PG. And hopefully next season he'll be a SG that can shoot.

Tyreke doesn't have to be a superstar on the national stage, but he does have to be one of the stars of our team, and there is a difference. He has made improvements to his game. They don't stand out the same way hitting 4 threes in a row does, but they make him an overall better player. He is a fundamentally better player today than he was as a rookie. I've said before, that in judging a player, you'll find what your looking for if you look with bias. If your looking for mistakes, you'll find them, and the opposite is true. I suggest trying to step back and be objective in your analysis. Its simply not black or white.

 

[Tyndel]

It doesn't really matter who or where they are on the floor if we don't have a good solid 1/2 court offensive gameplan and system and instead just let someone freewheel it we will never get the production we should out of our young players. And that's totally ignoring the defensive side as we do so often...

 

[The_Jamal]

I guess I'm a little confused on the issue of Tyreke. Most of my confusion comes from the fact that he's an issue at all. I can understand that different people have different prespectives, and therefore differences. But its the degree of those differences that I don't understand. Everything is black and white, either/or, he's great or he's horrible. He's a point guard, he's not a point guard! One side only see's what Tyreke can do, the other what he can't do.

Now I apologize for being totally inclusive here, but from afar, thats how these discussions look. So let me tell you who I respect in these discussions. I respect those that see the whole picture, and from the point of view of whats best for the team, and not personal bias, one way or the other. Believe me, I understand that personal bias certainly has its influence, so maybe total objectivity is too much to ask. But bear with me.

Uncia03 brought up a what if. What if Tyreke was on another team, in this case, the T Wolves. How would you view him then? I mean, the other guys player always seems to look better doesn't he? I mean Ilyasova looks real good to me right now, and I bet I could find some Bucks fans that would love to get rid of him for some inane reason. I bet some of them would trade Ilyasova for Tyreke in a heartbeat. Not suggesting that, by the way. All they would see is that Tyreke won ROY, and that his stats look good. Plus he's only 22 years old. And, its hard to argue with that logic.

I'm not suggesting that Tyreke is the perfect player. He's not! He has holes in his game. But he does things with a basketball that would make Curly Neal stand up and take notice. He has rare skills that you would love Jimmer to have. Yeah, I know, Jimmer can shoot the ball. Which puts him in a class with around 150 other players in the league. What Tyreke can do with a basketball is limited to just a few players in the league. And thats what makes him so special, and frustrating at the same time.

Now you can call him a one trick pony if you want, but its still a hell of a trick. So the key word here is patience. He's still a very young player, who I think just now is realizing he has to make changes in his game. You can argue he should have realized that sooner, but I personally prefer not to live in the past of woulda, coulda, shoulda. As far as the PG issue goes, its not an issue for me. I could care less what position he plays as long as he's on the floor. My perference is SG, because he'll still handle the ball, and it free's him from the responsibilies that come with being a PG. And hopefully next season he'll be a SG that can shoot.

Tyreke doesn't have to be a superstar on the national stage, but he does have to be one of the stars of our team, and there is a difference. He has made improvements to his game. They don't stand out the same way hitting 4 threes in a row does, but they make him an overall better player. He is a fundamentally better player today than he was as a rookie. I've said before, that in judging a player, you'll find what your looking for if you look with bias. If your looking for mistakes, you'll find them, and the opposite is true. I suggest trying to step back and be objective in your analysis. Its simply not black or white.

Bravo good sir, you are hands down the best poster on this site. You understand how to evaluate players correctly, you think logically about ways to improve the team that actually make sense, and it's obvious you watch a lot of basketball.

That said, you are 100% right in this never ending Tyreke argument. Here's what we know

-He can get to the rim like very few can in the NBA
-His jump-shot is holding back his offensive game
-He can create for others, just not in the traditional PG sense
-He's an average defender at this point in his career with the potential to be great
-He's an outstanding at rebounding the ball for a guard.

I for one would just like to see Tyreke consistently play the SG position and effectively learn how to ball from that spot. He slowly but surely learned how to cut and move without the ball which made him incredibly efficient for a guard. Once he adds a jumper that he can hit effectively hit at least at a 40% clip, we'll see his elite talent of getting the rim even more pronounced.

 

[bajaden]

Bravo good sir, you are hands down the best poster on this site. You understand how to evaluate players correctly, you think logically about ways to improve the team that actually make sense, and it's obvious you watch a lot of basketball.

That said, you are 100% right in this never ending Tyreke argument. Here's what we know

-He can get to the rim like very few can in the NBA
-His jump-shot is holding back his offensive game
-He can create for others, just not in the traditional PG sense
-He's an average defender at this point in his career with the potential to be great
-He's an outstanding at rebounding the ball for a guard.

I for one would just like to see Tyreke consistently play the SG position and effectively learn how to ball from that spot. He slowly but surely learned how to cut and move without the ball which made him incredibly efficient for a guard. Once he adds a jumper that he can hit effectively hit at least at a 40% clip, we'll see his elite talent of getting the rim even more pronounced.

Well first, thank you! But I'm sure there are many that would disagree with you. You know, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Other than that, I think were in agreement. At least on this subject. Now back to my cervesa!


Edit: Opps, I almost forgot.. Your not bad yourself.

 

[kennadog]

At this point the whole "Tyreke" argument has officially devolved into a religious schism where fanatics on either side simply declare their opponents infidels. Fan-tastic.

ROTFL! Thank you Capt!

 

[Boogie-havoc]

As much as the shooting part is without a doubt Tyreke's weakspot (I mean, when you're a better half/full court shooter then you are a 3 point shooter, let's face it - something is wrong)

- the defensive part is the one thing I just find completely unacceptable and really angry with in his game, and would not hope but expect to see him drastically improve as early as next year.

That is just all about wanting to do it, taking pride in it, and staying focused - and it seems like you need to force him to do it, and it's not something he really wants for himself and that is worrying to me - I mean he talks the talk, but the results show he doesn't really mean it on a consistent basis, which is what you need to do in order to become a good not to say elite defender.