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

[Kingster]

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.

I think you're overly fixated on Tyreke vs. IT. It's not a competition. Tyreke isn't the point guard and IT isn't the 2 guard. I don't think it's either/or. I don't think IT and Cousins are going to freeze Tyreke out. I don't think there is any evidence supporting that. Far from it. They are both good passers and that should help getting Tyreke the ball in the spots he needs the ball. I just think that it's limiting to the design of the offense to have a guard who can't shoot outside. And I use the word, guard, because I do think he'll be playing at the 2 guard next year, that's if he's here next year. (It's an entirely different discussion about Smart playing Tyreke at the 3 last year).

I think Tyreke probably has a higher potential ceiling that IT, but really they play different positions, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. I wouldn't want Tyreke playing point guard, and I wouldn't want IT playing the 2 guard. Also, it's not just about ceiling or performance, it's about fit. In particular, IT fits better with Cousins. I don't see Tyreke fitting very well if he doesn't have the outside shot. Yes, he could fit quite nicely in a supporting role, but not in a "star" capacity, that is unless he gets that outside shot.

Tyreke has a huge summer ahead of him. Whatever he did these past summers he better do differently. Otherwise, the outcome is going to be the same.

 

[Spike]

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.

From your lips to the Front Office's ears...

Here's the bigger issue: poor coaches will deliver poor results. Mediocre coaches will deliver mediocre results. Good coaches will deliver good results...etc. You can replace "coaches" with "management", "teachers", whatever, and the story is still the same. So far we've had poor coaches - what has the end result been? Many talk about individual players having to "show pride and get better" but the main learning is done during the season playing against real competition. That is where if the Maloofs really want this low-budget youth-heavy team to shine, they need to bring in someone with the expertise and willingness to teach. I thought they could have lucked into it early in the year when Smart was talking about "teaching players", but later it became more of the same, regardless with any player, when his response was always "he needs to shoot more."

You don't learn to become a better player by just shooting more. You have a coach who goes over situations, analyzes information and relays it productively. You call out plays, so that the young players know how to handle situations. You keep calling out the plays. You keep telling them what to do. You don't just wave your arm in a "faster faster" motion. (We've all seen that from Smart.)

You would see dramatically different results with a different coach with a coherent gameplan. I feel like we do have the raw talent to make a big leap - we just need the right coach to put the players in a position to succeed. It all doesn't rely on Evans suddenly learning a jump shot. Good God, he's 20-5-5 without it.

 

[The_Jamal]

I think you're overly fixated on Tyreke vs. IT. It's not a competition. Tyreke isn't the point guard and IT isn't the 2 guard. I don't think it's either/or. I don't think IT and Cousins are going to freeze Tyreke out. I don't think there is any evidence supporting that. Far from it. They are both good passers and that should help getting Tyreke the ball in the spots he needs the ball. I just think that it's limiting to the design of the offense to have a guard who can't shoot outside. And I use the word, guard, because I do think he'll be playing at the 2 guard next year, that's if he's here next year. (It's an entirely different discussion about Smart playing Tyreke at the 3 last year).

I think Tyreke probably has a higher potential ceiling that IT, but really they play different positions, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. I wouldn't want Tyreke playing point guard, and I wouldn't want IT playing the 2 guard. Also, it's not just about ceiling or performance, it's about fit. In particular, IT fits better with Cousins. I don't see Tyreke fitting very well if he doesn't have the outside shot. Yes, he could fit quite nicely in a supporting role, but not in a "star" capacity, that is unless he gets that outside shot.

Tyreke has a huge summer ahead of him. Whatever he did these past summers he better do differently. Otherwise, the outcome is going to be the same.

Exactly. Wade, Kobe, Rose, Westbrook were all the same way as Tyreke is now until they learned to hit a mid-range jumper. I fully expect Tyreke to take that same sort of leap into stardom once he can add that consistency to his jumper

 

[Uncia03]

I think you're overly fixated on Tyreke vs. IT. It's not a competition. Tyreke isn't the point guard and IT isn't the 2 guard. I don't think it's either/or. I don't think IT and Cousins are going to freeze Tyreke out. I don't think there is any evidence supporting that. Far from it. They are both good passers and that should help getting Tyreke the ball in the spots he needs the ball. I just think that it's limiting to the design of the offense to have a guard who can't shoot outside. And I use the word, guard, because I do think he'll be playing at the 2 guard next year, that's if he's here next year. (It's an entirely different discussion about Smart playing Tyreke at the 3 last year).

I think Tyreke probably has a higher potential ceiling that IT, but really they play different positions, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. I wouldn't want Tyreke playing point guard, and I wouldn't want IT playing the 2 guard. Also, it's not just about ceiling or performance, it's about fit. In particular, IT fits better with Cousins. I don't see Tyreke fitting very well if he doesn't have the outside shot. Yes, he could fit quite nicely in a supporting role, but not in a "star" capacity, that is unless he gets that outside shot.

Tyreke has a huge summer ahead of him. Whatever he did these past summers he better do differently. Otherwise, the outcome is going to be the same.

If management came out and said, "We think Tyreke is an elite scorer. We are going to bring in a PG to handle the PG duties, which will then free up Tyreke to focus more on scoring." I think the expectation would be that Tyreke would end up scoring more points since he doesn't have to worry about the PG spot and he is free to focus on scoring.

The problem is, we brought in a PG in IT, and Tyreke's involvment in the offense and his scoring declined.

So you have to make the issue about IT vs. Tyreke, because bringing IT in had a negative impact on Tyreke's game.

Now the main thing you have to consider is why was Tyreke's involvement and productivity in decline. I think there are a couple of potential reasons:
1.) It's a product of bringing in another ball-dominant player who takes away from Tyreke's touches. So any PG who is going to handle the ball will negatively impact Tyreke's ability to impact the game.
2.) It's a product of IT being unable to integrate Tyreke into the offense.
3.) It's a product of Tyreke being told by the coach to stand in the corner and wait for the ball while playing the SF position.

I will say this again. I like IT and am happy that we have him.

I do not know the specifics as to why bringing him into the line-up hurt Tyreke so much, but to say that there isn't any evidence that IT and Cousins would freeze Tyreke out of the offense is to simple ignore what was on the court for the latter half of the season.

And I'm not saying that anyone is doing anything on purpose, and to the 3 points I listed above, it could be a combination of all three or just a single primary issue.

The fault could lie completely on coach Smart who told Tyreke to stand in the corner and wait to get the ball. That would be horrible coaching, because Tyreke isn't going to be effective in catch-and-shoot situations from the corner, but that could have been the direction.

The fault could lie completely on Tyreke who didn't know where to be on the court when he did not have the ball, though it would then got back to Coach Smart to teach him what to do in these unfamiliar situations.

You keep on mentioning the fact that Tyreke might not be here next year. I don't mind seeing him traded, but only if we bring back equal talent, which I would be surprised if we do. So if we end up trading him because he currently doesn't have a reliable jumpshot, and we don't get equal value out of the trade, it would be a blunder of tremendous magnitude.

The last thing I'm going to question is the notion that Tyreke isn't a good fit with Cousins until he gets a reliable jumpshot. I just don't believe that is the case. Cousins has a great game at the high post, which opens things for Tyreke's driving, and if the defense is packed in to prevent Tyreke's driving, it makes things easier for Cousins to operate in the high-post.
Getting a reliable jumpshot is what is needed to take Tyreke's game to the next level, but even if Tyreke isn't able to quite get that jumper down, but improves in the other aspects of his game, that doesn't diminish him down to simply a 'support' player.

If we actually had a competent coach who could actually teach a half-court offense, I don't have any hesitation in saying that such a coach could have put together a structured offense last season which would have maximized Tyreke and Cousin's offensive skills while minimizing their weaknesses. We don't have that coach, and because of that, we're now talking about whether Tyreke will be/should be on the team next season.

 

[Mal]

"Thornton or IT for a defender who can shoot (Batum/Dudley) or pass (Iggy) this team will not be in bad shape."

Really? Move IT for what and for whom. He's the best value in the NBA. Where are you going to get a point guard? Evans is certain NOT the answer. So, if you trade the best value at point in the NBA. There are still rules about salary for salary in trades, unless it's for a draft pick...and there are no point guards in the upcoming draft you are guaranteed to be better than Thomas.

Sacramento needs a shot blocker and another perimeter shooter to make up for the poor shooting of Evans.

Evans should NEVER be handling the ball the majority of the time. He's a momentum killer.

 

[VF21]

From your lips to the Front Office's ears...

Here's the bigger issue: poor coaches will deliver poor results. Mediocre coaches will deliver mediocre results. Good coaches will deliver good results...etc. You can replace "coaches" with "management", "teachers", whatever, and the story is still the same. So far we've had poor coaches - what has the end result been? Many talk about individual players having to "show pride and get better" but the main learning is done during the season playing against real competition. That is where if the Maloofs really want this low-budget youth-heavy team to shine, they need to bring in someone with the expertise and willingness to teach. I thought they could have lucked into it early in the year when Smart was talking about "teaching players", but later it became more of the same, regardless with any player, when his response was always "he needs to shoot more."

You don't learn to become a better player by just shooting more. You have a coach who goes over situations, analyzes information and relays it productively. You call out plays, so that the young players know how to handle situations. You keep calling out the plays. You keep telling them what to do. You don't just wave your arm in a "faster faster" motion. (We've all seen that from Smart.)

You would see dramatically different results with a different coach with a coherent gameplan. I feel like we do have the raw talent to make a big leap - we just need the right coach to put the players in a position to succeed. It all doesn't rely on Evans suddenly learning a jump shot. Good God, he's 20-5-5 without it.

Best post I've read today! (And I read pretty much all of them.)

 

[Glenn]

After a brief bit of sanity inserted by bajaden, it is ignored and we have gone back to the same topic.

 

[Glenn]

From your lips to the Front Office's ears...

Here's the bigger issue: poor coaches will deliver poor results. Mediocre coaches will deliver mediocre results. Good coaches will deliver good results...etc. You can replace "coaches" with "management", "teachers", whatever, and the story is still the same. So far we've had poor coaches - what has the end result been? Many talk about individual players having to "show pride and get better" but the main learning is done during the season playing against real competition. That is where if the Maloofs really want this low-budget youth-heavy team to shine, they need to bring in someone with the expertise and willingness to teach. I thought they could have lucked into it early in the year when Smart was talking about "teaching players", but later it became more of the same, regardless with any player, when his response was always "he needs to shoot more."

You don't learn to become a better player by just shooting more. You have a coach who goes over situations, analyzes information and relays it productively. You call out plays, so that the young players know how to handle situations. You keep calling out the plays. You keep telling them what to do. You don't just wave your arm in a "faster faster" motion. (We've all seen that from Smart.)

You would see dramatically different results with a different coach with a coherent gameplan. I feel like we do have the raw talent to make a big leap - we just need the right coach to put the players in a position to succeed. It all doesn't rely on Evans suddenly learning a jump shot. Good God, he's 20-5-5 without it.

So let's hire a better coach. There are actually several available that are better than Smart. Should be simple.

 

[Spike]

So let's hire a better coach. There are actually several available that are better than Smart. Should be simple.

Glenn, I know it should be. You know it should be. The American people know it should be. Unfortunately, even with the availability of coaches with a track record of developing players, the FO continues to go for cheapest option available. If the Maloofs are truly serious about building a contender, then they need to show it by getting that coach, and then getting out of the way. I'm not even picky on the coach. I'd prefer McMillan, but really, anyone with a history of developing talent would be great. Nellie-ballers need not apply.

 

[Glenn]

Glenn, I know it should be. You know it should be. The American people know it should be. Unfortunately, even with the availability of coaches with a track record of developing players, the FO continues to go for cheapest option available. If the Maloofs are truly serious about building a contender, then they need to show it by getting that coach, and then getting out of the way. I'm not even picky on the coach. I'd prefer McMillan, but really, anyone with a history of developing talent would be great. Nellie-ballers need not apply.

Sad, isn't it?

 

[Kingster]

If management came out and said, "We think Tyreke is an elite scorer. We are going to bring in a PG to handle the PG duties, which will then free up Tyreke to focus more on scoring." I think the expectation would be that Tyreke would end up scoring more points since he doesn't have to worry about the PG spot and he is free to focus on scoring.

The problem is, we brought in a PG in IT, and Tyreke's involvment in the offense and his scoring declined.

So you have to make the issue about IT vs. Tyreke, because bringing IT in had a negative impact on Tyreke's game.

Now the main thing you have to consider is why was Tyreke's involvement and productivity in decline. I think there are a couple of potential reasons:
1.) It's a product of bringing in another ball-dominant player who takes away from Tyreke's touches. So any PG who is going to handle the ball will negatively impact Tyreke's ability to impact the game.
2.) It's a product of IT being unable to integrate Tyreke into the offense.
3.) It's a product of Tyreke being told by the coach to stand in the corner and wait for the ball while playing the SF position.

I will say this again. I like IT and am happy that we have him.

I do not know the specifics as to why bringing him into the line-up hurt Tyreke so much, but to say that there isn't any evidence that IT and Cousins would freeze Tyreke out of the offense is to simple ignore what was on the court for the latter half of the season.

And I'm not saying that anyone is doing anything on purpose, and to the 3 points I listed above, it could be a combination of all three or just a single primary issue.

The fault could lie completely on coach Smart who told Tyreke to stand in the corner and wait to get the ball. That would be horrible coaching, because Tyreke isn't going to be effective in catch-and-shoot situations from the corner, but that could have been the direction.

The fault could lie completely on Tyreke who didn't know where to be on the court when he did not have the ball, though it would then got back to Coach Smart to teach him what to do in these unfamiliar situations.

You keep on mentioning the fact that Tyreke might not be here next year. I don't mind seeing him traded, but only if we bring back equal talent, which I would be surprised if we do. So if we end up trading him because he currently doesn't have a reliable jumpshot, and we don't get equal value out of the trade, it would be a blunder of tremendous magnitude.

The last thing I'm going to question is the notion that Tyreke isn't a good fit with Cousins until he gets a reliable jumpshot. I just don't believe that is the case. Cousins has a great game at the high post, which opens things for Tyreke's driving, and if the defense is packed in to prevent Tyreke's driving, it makes things easier for Cousins to operate in the high-post.
Getting a reliable jumpshot is what is needed to take Tyreke's game to the next level, but even if Tyreke isn't able to quite get that jumper down, but improves in the other aspects of his game, that doesn't diminish him down to simply a 'support' player.

If we actually had a competent coach who could actually teach a half-court offense, I don't have any hesitation in saying that such a coach could have put together a structured offense last season which would have maximized Tyreke and Cousin's offensive skills while minimizing their weaknesses. We don't have that coach, and because of that, we're now talking about whether Tyreke will be/should be on the team next season.

Actually, after IT came in as pg, Tyreke's shooting percentage went up. So Tyreke actually became more efficient, not less, in the offense. (I'll take your word for it that his overall scoring went down). He began moving without the ball a lot more, and his shooting efficiency in moving without the ball was nearly double when he was in isolation situations. I haven't seen any stats on what Tyreke's overall efficiency was before and after the position change. Moving Tyreke to the 3 was much more impactful on defense, but that's another story.

It's a safe call that Tyreke's touches went down when he no longer was the point guard. I think that's exactly why Smart made that move - he didn't want Tyreke to literally have as many touches and he wanted IT to have more. If the goal is to maximize Tyreke's touches, then sure, leave him at point guard. Every time Tyreke dribbles the ball or receives a pass, I'd call that a touch, and I would agree he didn't dribble as much at the 3 as at the 1. That normally happens. So, that's not IT's call. That's Smart's call. Now if you think that Tyreke should be handling the ball more than IT, we can agree to disagree on that. As far as I'm concerned, Tyreke is a lot more effective in being the recipient of passes, not initiating action in a half court setting. That's why I think the change was made to move Tyreke from the 1, that and the absence of a 3 on this team. Could Smart have devised a better offense to incorporate Cousins, IT and Tyreke? Possibly. But like I've said before, it was a mid-season coaching change and a compressed schedule. Without a legit 3, that's a difficult challenge for a lot of coache's. We will never know what this team would have done with Coach Pop or Coach Karl. Safe to say, they'd be better, though, if only because their reputation and credibility would preecede them, and with a young team that can go a long ways.

Regarding compatibility with Cousins, yes, if you wanted to relegate Cousins to a high post center, it would be Tyreke-compatible. The question is: Do you? And my answer is: No, you don't. I want Cousins to play inside and outside and not be forced to play primarily outside because he doesn't have a guard that can shoot. Moreover, I want a guard who can run a pick and roll with Cousins. IT is excellent at doing that, while Tyreke isn't. Also, I want a guard that Cousins can kick the ball to for an outside shot if he's double-teamed inside; Tyreke doesn't afford that option; IT does.

Regarding the possibility of a trade involving Tyreke, the reason I bring it up is because this entire discussion is predicated on Tyreke continuing with the team next year. Yet there have been smoke signals that Tyreke may not be with the team next year, so that's something to keep in mind. And yes, if we trade him, of course I hope we get a King's ransom. Who wouldn't?

 

[swisshh]

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.

Hey. I tried reason.

But coming back to the Tyreke at PG argument is beyond reason.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Hey. I tried reason.

But coming back to the Tyreke at PG argument is beyond reason.

People disagree with your argument. The fact that you "tried reason" now excuses your claiming that anyone who disagrees has "ceased to be a Kings fan"?

Sorry, I'm not buying.

 

[Uncia03]

Actually, after IT came in as pg, Tyreke's shooting percentage went up. So Tyreke actually became more efficient, not less, in the offense. (I'll take your word for it that his overall scoring went down). He began moving without the ball a lot more, and his shooting efficiency in moving without the ball was nearly double when he was in isolation situations. I haven't seen any stats on what Tyreke's overall efficiency was before and after the position change. Moving Tyreke to the 3 was much more impactful on defense, but that's another story.

It's a safe call that Tyreke's touches went down when he no longer was the point guard. I think that's exactly why Smart made that move - he didn't want Tyreke to literally have as many touches and he wanted IT to have more. If the goal is to maximize Tyreke's touches, then sure, leave him at point guard. Every time Tyreke dribbles the ball or receives a pass, I'd call that a touch, and I would agree he didn't dribble as much at the 3 as at the 1. That normally happens. So, that's not IT's call. That's Smart's call. Now if you think that Tyreke should be handling the ball more than IT, we can agree to disagree on that. As far as I'm concerned, Tyreke is a lot more effective in being the recipient of passes, not initiating action in a half court setting. That's why I think the change was made to move Tyreke from the 1, that and the absence of a 3 on this team. Could Smart have devised a better offense to incorporate Cousins, IT and Tyreke? Possibly. But like I've said before, it was a mid-season coaching change and a compressed schedule. Without a legit 3, that's a difficult challenge for a lot of coache's. We will never know what this team would have done with Coach Pop or Coach Karl. Safe to say, they'd be better, though, if only because their reputation and credibility would preecede them, and with a young team that can go a long ways.

Regarding compatibility with Cousins, yes, if you wanted to relegate Cousins to a high post center, it would be Tyreke-compatible. The question is: Do you? And my answer is: No, you don't. I want Cousins to play inside and outside and not be forced to play primarily outside because he doesn't have a guard that can shoot. Moreover, I want a guard who can run a pick and roll with Cousins. IT is excellent at doing that, while Tyreke isn't. Also, I want a guard that Cousins can kick the ball to for an outside shot if he's double-teamed inside; Tyreke doesn't afford that option; IT does.

Regarding the possibility of a trade involving Tyreke, the reason I bring it up is because this entire discussion is predicated on Tyreke continuing with the team next year. Yet there have been smoke signals that Tyreke may not be with the team next year, so that's something to keep in mind. And yes, if we trade him, of course I hope we get a King's ransom. Who wouldn't?

I'm just going to make two small comments here:
1.) The great thing about Cousins is his versatility. He can play both the in the low post and the high post, and in order to be truly great he's going to have to incorporate both (with my preference being more low-post than high-post play) into his offensive arsenal.
Playing Cousins on the low-post with Evans on the court is not an oil-and-water thing and to say that in the situations where Cousins is supposed to work the low post cannot work when Evans is on the court is simplifiying the issue to the extent that it doesn't make sense.

2.) It's just me, but it sounds as if you'd basically trade Tyreke for Klay Thompson or Kevin Martin. Both those players will always be better with moving off the ball and shooting.
Sure Tyreke made strides this season moving off the ball, but you don't play a player like him major minutes to move with-out the ball and shoot jumpers.
His elite skill is the ability to bend/break a defense with his phenominal ball-handling and driving skills. If you're not going to utilize those skills, he will leave the organization for one who values those skills, or he will be traded.
If we traded Tyreke for a Kevin Martin/Klay Thompson type player who is a support player then in my opinion it's a horrible mis-use of talent.

 

[Kingster]

I'm just going to make two small comments here:
1.) The great thing about Cousins is his versatility. He can play both the in the low post and the high post, and in order to be truly great he's going to have to incorporate both (with my preference being more low-post than high-post play) into his offensive arsenal.
Playing Cousins on the low-post with Evans on the court is not an oil-and-water thing and to say that in the situations where Cousins is supposed to work the low post cannot work when Evans is on the court is simplifiying the issue to the extent that it doesn't make sense.


2.) It's just me, but it sounds as if you'd basically trade Tyreke for Klay Thompson or Kevin Martin. Both those players will always be better with moving off the ball and shooting.
Sure Tyreke made strides this season moving off the ball, but you don't play a player like him major minutes to move with-out the ball and shoot jumpers.
His elite skill is the ability to bend/break a defense with his phenominal ball-handling and driving skills. If you're not going to utilize those skills, he will leave the organization for one who values those skills, or he will be traded.
If we traded Tyreke for a Kevin Martin/Klay Thompson type player who is a support player then in my opinion it's a horrible mis-use of talent.

I'll make it short.

Tyreke and Cousins are not optimum; Tyreke lessens Cousins versatility, which is a major strength of his. It may not be oil and water but it isn't a soluble solution either.

I don't like Martin: I do like Klay Thompson.

The scenarios going foward, ranked according to my wish list:

1) Tyreke gets a jump shot, moves to the 2 guard, is talked about next season as a future All-Star. Which precludes the risk of a trade.

2) If Tyreke doesn't get a jump shot, then Kings trade him for quality value (e.g. Favors, Klay Thompson, Mr. X); with any luck in ping pong balls you could then have a power forward shot blocker and an outside shooting 2, which makes this a coherent team, and maybe not too coincidentally satisfies Petrie's goals for a lengthy shot blocker and 3 point shooting.

3) Tyreke at the 2 without a jump shot. That scenario is ambiguous and risky. The risk is he doesn't integrate into the Kings offense and he marginalizes himself. Or, looked at another way, Smart doesn't integrate him. Either way, it's not good for Kings or Tyreke.

4) Trade Tyreke for peanuts, possibly because he Maloofs can't afford him.

 

[DesertFox]

The thing is, Tyreke doesn't even need to be come a good shooter. If he can be close to average from mid range and just give up on attempting 3's he can be very productive.