Anybody still think Buddy should come off the bench?

Sac.1989

Sac.1989

Starter
#31
#31
VF21 said:
Can't overlook Joerger's part in this.
Click to expand...
Fate had it's part too with Bogi's injury to start the season.

Joerger realistically had no choice, unless you consider starting Shump or Yogi ahead of Buddy an option.

Credit when it's due, he took his chance with both hands and showed up those in the organization who thought of him as a 6th man by chasing Lavine
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#37
#37
Buddy is a success almost entirely because of his work ethic. He wasn't a super talent going into college and athletically he's average for his position but it just goes to show you what an intense motor and will to succeed can do for a player. He's the hardest worker on the team and a harder worker than just about everyone in the NBA.

Would also be nice if guys like Justin Jackson and Ben McLemore saw Buddy's work ethic and applied it. Not saying they're lazy because no indications they are but we hear all the time about how Buddy is the first one on the practice floor hours early, he's shooting hundreds of 3's before and after games, etc. Why aren't they out there with him?
 
P

ppine

Starter
#39
#39
sergmatt said:
Buddy is a success almost entirely because of his work ethic. He wasn't a super talent going into college and athletically he's average for his position but it just goes to show you what an intense motor and will to succeed can do for a player. He's the hardest worker on the team and a harder worker than just about everyone in the NBA.

Would also be nice if guys like Justin Jackson and Ben McLemore saw Buddy's work ethic and applied it. Not saying they're lazy because no indications they are but we hear all the time about how Buddy is the first one on the practice floor hours early, he's shooting hundreds of 3's before and after games, etc. Why aren't they out there with him?
Click to expand...
I think your whole post is nonsense. Plenty of players work really hard and never get a chance to play in college. Plenty of pro players work really hard and never get to start. Buddy leads the Kings because he has talent combined with out working everyone.
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#40
#40
ppine said:
I think your whole post is nonsense. Plenty of players work really hard and never get a chance to play in college. Plenty of pro players work really hard and never get to start. Buddy leads the Kings because he has talent combined with out working everyone.
Click to expand...
Ok......

If he had so much obvious talent why wasn't he a lottery pick after his freshman or sophomore season? He wasn't a highly touted lottery talent early in his college career. He worked his ass off to become one and become what he is now. That's a compliment to him if you can't figure it out.

Ben McLemore is more athletic and was a much more touted prospect and yet Buddy is a vastly superior player. Why? Because of mental toughness and work ethic that exceeds that of most players. Plenty of players don't work as hard as Buddy Hield. Some do but not very many.
 
Last edited:
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#42
#42
Buddy as the legit solid starter rejiggers the equation for the front office. Bogs is now a sub coming off the bench. Add to the equation: Kings are looking for another higher caliber point guard to sub for Fox. Which would move Bogs to a sub as a shooting guard (with some good playmaking ability). Such a move would take the playmaking burden off of Bogs and hopefully provide him with more open shots. It also may re-configure how Kings' management sees the hierarchy of Kings' players.

It's just possible that in the eyes of Kings' management Bogdanovic might be at the very outer perimeter of "the core," not firmly within "the core."
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#43
#43
ParniValjak said:
I disagree with this to a degree. His ball handling and visions has improved a great deal since his rookie season. The rest of his game is pretty much the same but he is now not big a liability handling the ball as he was and his visions has definitely improved a great deal where is now able to set up his team mates a lot better than he has in the past.

In terms of his shooting, its pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

True, but it's really more of a transition thing than pure improvement. He had these skills in college. Now he's able to use them in game.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#44
#44
kingsfan1984 said:
Buddy is very different than Mitch. Not similar at all really
Click to expand...
It's always hard to compare players of today with that of the iso era. The game was so much more physical and players had to be smarter about what they did back then. I do think Buddy wouldn't have faded as much as some stars of today if he were playing in that era.
 
2

206Fan

All-Star
#47
#47
I think the argument has always boiled down to Buddy vs. Bogdan at SG. Both players have their strengths and bring different things to the table, but Buddy's improvements as a shooter/scorer and defender has ended any discussions. We've got 2 starting SGs on this roster. Great problem to have
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#48
#48
ppine said:
Okay why was IT the last player taken in the NBA draft and then competed for the league's most valuable player?
Because it takes time for some players to develop their potential, that's why.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's really the story behind IT. IT was taken last in the draft because he was too short, and nobody thought he could continue doing what he was doing. He was a three-year college player, and he was a scorer right out of the gate at Washington. He improved his efficiency over three years to where he put up a PER of 22.9 the year he left for the draft (and don't forget Gus Johnson's infamous "Cold Blooded!" game winner). If a 6'2" PG had put up the numbers IT did in college, he would have been a top-5 pick, easy.

Then he got the NBA and put up numbers right from day one. He had a PER of 17.6 as a rookie. Sure, he got better over his first six years in the league before getting hurt, but it's not like he was a dud to start and had to develop. He was already a great player when he got to the NBA, and he didn't get drafted #60 because he had to develop his potential. He got drafted #60 because he's 5'9" and nobody believed he would translate to the next level.
 
hrdboild

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#49
#49
Capt. Factorial said:
I don't think that's really the story behind IT. IT was taken last in the draft because he was too short, and nobody thought he could continue doing what he was doing. He was a three-year college player, and he was a scorer right out of the gate at Washington. He improved his efficiency over three years to where he put up a PER of 22.9 the year he left for the draft (and don't forget Gus Johnson's infamous "Cold Blooded!" game winner). If a 6'2" PG had put up the numbers IT did in college, he would have been a top-5 pick, easy.

Then he got the NBA and put up numbers right from day one. He had a PER of 17.6 as a rookie. Sure, he got better over his first six years in the league before getting hurt, but it's not like he was a dud to start and had to develop. He was already a great player when he got to the NBA, and he didn't get drafted #60 because he had to develop his potential. He got drafted #60 because he's 5'9" and nobody believed he would translate to the next level.
Click to expand...
That old "physical limitation" issue has caused a lot of players to be under-drafted and a lot of other players with perfect size but suspect skillsets to be picked way too early. Somehow teams keep making those kinds of mistakes though.

As a general comment... I also wouldn't feel bad if I were in the "Bogdan is the starter" camp before Buddy's breakout this season because those people weren't wrong either. Bogdan is great! He's good enough to start on this team right now (and sometimes does) but Buddy took his game up to All-Star level and that caught most of us by surprise. It also puts all those past positional "battles" (Ben McLemore vs. Nik Stauskas, Omri Casspi vs Donte Greene, Marcus Thornton vs. Isaiah Thomas, Jason Thompson vs everyone else, and on and on) into perspective. We sure wasted a lot of time and energy arguing about things that weren't worth the effort!
 
Dime Dropper

Dime Dropper

All-Star
#50
#50
Capt. Factorial said:
I don't think that's really the story behind IT. IT was taken last in the draft because he was too short, and nobody thought he could continue doing what he was doing. He was a three-year college player, and he was a scorer right out of the gate at Washington. He improved his efficiency over three years to where he put up a PER of 22.9 the year he left for the draft (and don't forget Gus Johnson's infamous "Cold Blooded!" game winner). If a 6'2" PG had put up the numbers IT did in college, he would have been a top-5 pick, easy.

Then he got the NBA and put up numbers right from day one. He had a PER of 17.6 as a rookie. Sure, he got better over his first six years in the league before getting hurt, but it's not like he was a dud to start and had to develop. He was already a great player when he got to the NBA, and he didn't get drafted #60 because he had to develop his potential. He got drafted #60 because he's 5'9" and nobody believed he would translate to the next level.
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't disagree with your post overall, I don't think the bold is true. Every year there's big PGs that put up numbers just as good as IT's at Washington, if not better, and they don't go top 5. Admittedly I'm kind of nit-picking though.
 
S

sergmatt

Bench
#51
#51
ppine said:
Okay why was IT the last player taken in the NBA draft and then competed for the league's most valuable player?
Because it takes time for some players to develop their potential, that's why.
Click to expand...
See Capt. Fictorial's post who summed it up perfectly. Thomas went dead last in the draft almost entirely because of his height (or lack thereof). There was also concern that he is a score-first PG that didn't see the floor well. While basically true that isn't a desirable trait in any point guard let alone a 5' 9" one.

Everyone knew he was a great scorer and fierce competitor at Washington but I don't think anybody knew just how much heart he had and how that would translate at the next level. It also helped that IT carries this massive chip on his shoulder that helped fuel his success.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#52
#52
Dime Dropper said:
Whilst I don't disagree with your post overall, I don't think the bold is true. Every year there's big PGs that put up numbers just as good as IT's at Washington, if not better, and they don't go top 5. Admittedly I'm kind of nit-picking though.
Click to expand...
I might have been a little overenthusiastic on that. There's about a 5% chance I'll go back later and try to justify my overenthusiasm and a 95% chance I'll just use mod power to delete it and then deny it ever happened. Screenshot it now!
 
B

burekijogurt

Starter
#53
#53
206Fan said:
I think the argument has always boiled down to Buddy vs. Bogdan at SG. Both players have their strengths and bring different things to the table, but Buddy's improvements as a shooter/scorer and defender has ended any discussions. We've got 2 starting SGs on this roster. Great problem to have
Click to expand...
we have not seen Bogdan at SG this year so we dont know! ;). joking of course but that is the other thread. Buddy has been tremendous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.