DeAaron Fox - meeting expectations?
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Yeah me too but aren’t you exaggerating OKC’s success?
2016-17: our in first round
2015-16: conference finals
2014-15: nothing.
We are getting off target but Russ isn’t ever winning anything unless he gets a pass first guard to pair with him. Even then he is so ball dominant OKC stands no chance. Last year OKC was dead last in passes per game and much of that sits at the feet of Russ.
2016-17: our in first round
2015-16: conference finals
2014-15: nothing.
We are getting off target but Russ isn’t ever winning anything unless he gets a pass first guard to pair with him. Even then he is so ball dominant OKC stands no chance. Last year OKC was dead last in passes per game and much of that sits at the feet of Russ.
Want to sig bet on this year? Russ made it on the back of Durant who tired of him and fled to teammates that pass the ball. Warriors are always in the top 5 in passes per game and have three guys in top 25 adjusted assists including Durant. And yes Russ is high but passing to a guy at the last second when you know you can’t score and passing to a teammate in their best position to score are two different things.
http://stats.nba.com/players/passing/?sort=AST_ADJ&dir=1
http://stats.nba.com/players/passing/?sort=AST_ADJ&dir=1
Last edited:
Curry is one of many players who pass the ball on the Warriors. In adjusted assists Green is 7, Currey is 10, and Durant is 24. It’s not that Curry is score first it’s that everyone on the Warriors except Klay is pass first. That’s why the Warriors lead the league in team assists and it’s not even close: 30.6 versus 26.3. Meanwhile OKC is 25th because Russ dominates the ball.
Meanwhile Portland is dead last in team assists because neither guard passes the ball.
Meanwhile Portland is dead last in team assists because neither guard passes the ball.
I don't know why we're discussing the relative merits of Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook anyway. I watched a ton of Westbrook games in college... young Fox is not anything like young Russ. He's actually got a better chance of being Chris Paul except that his personality is totally different, so probably not. There are no easy comparisons. Who thought Westbrook would go full Big O and average a triple double for a season? Nobody. Who predicted CP3 would be the best PG in the league for a decade? Nobody. De'Aaron is going to carve his own path here. He's not going to look like anyone but himself.
Honestly I think one of his best comparisons right now is a bigger and more athletic Ish Smith. Not a sexy comparison, but their games are pretty similar. Ish Smith is a good passer but not phenomenal, ok rebounder for his size, and is a good scorer who takes most of his shots from within the 3 point line. He's also really quick. In his best season in Philadelphia he averaged 15/4/7/1.3. His per 36 numbers this season are 16/4/6.5/1. What separates them is Ish Smith being undersized and not as good of a defender, but I think their offensive games are really close.
Fox is already a good defender. He has the ability to "stay in front of people." With some more experience he could become one of the best defensive guards in the League. Bogdan does not have the quickness but is extremelly strong for a guard. He recognizes what is happening and makes good decisions on defense. They can play on both sides of the ball and are complimentary guards.
He's going to have to develop moves to be able to get by guys. He's too easily stymied in the half court because he has no go to moves. I think he's so used to being able to just blow by guys due to his speed that he never really developed a tight handle for off the dribble moves because he didn't have to. Now that he's in the NBA and he can't just run around guys, he's finding it difficult to create anything in the half court.
The issues for me is Fox’s decision making. I expected him to be shooting challenged but not to be such a poor decision maker.
Fox went 4-9 for shots in the lane. The Lakers defense repeatedly collapsed in the lane when Fox drove and not once did he kick the ball out to open 3 point shooters.
As a result the Kings not named Fox only attempted 22 3-point shots despite shooting 55% from 3. In contrast the Lakers attempted 38 3-point shots. That play is just pee poor point guard play. Fox has one of the worst offensive ratings of all rookies and the above is one reason why. If you want to pin the Lakers loss on anyone put it on Fox.
Fox went 4-9 for shots in the lane. The Lakers defense repeatedly collapsed in the lane when Fox drove and not once did he kick the ball out to open 3 point shooters.
As a result the Kings not named Fox only attempted 22 3-point shots despite shooting 55% from 3. In contrast the Lakers attempted 38 3-point shots. That play is just pee poor point guard play. Fox has one of the worst offensive ratings of all rookies and the above is one reason why. If you want to pin the Lakers loss on anyone put it on Fox.
great post from Blob, but Isaiah thomas didn't have any weaknesses in your opinion? 
he has a nice
grocery list of em, IMO.
he has a nicegrocery list of em, IMO.
He played decent position defense to the extent his height and physicality allowed trying to beat his opponent to preferred spot.
Besides that he came into the league as a complete player.
He shot 58% TS year after year and did a great job of collapsing the defense to him and finding the open man.
This was an underrated aspect to his game early in his career.
By the way, a player who compiled one of the GREATEST statistical seasons for the Celtics cannot have a grocery list of weaknesses.
That assessment and statistical proof does not jive.
Here's my post was a long long long time ago (Feb 20, 2012!!
) . a few months into his rookie season. Damn time flies.
POST: How Great Can Isaiah Thomas Be? By Blob Feb 20, 2012
When a rookie enters the NBA, it is typically easy to identify his area for growth. For DeMarcus, it was conditioning and attitude. For Tyreke, it was his jumper and an optimal position. For Jimmer, it is adjusting to the speed of the game and a diminished, playmaking role.
Identifying an area for improvement for Isaiah Thomas proves somewhat more challenging.
As a Kings fan, this is genuine cause for excitement.
If I were to offer quick summation of Isaiah Thomas' strengths and weaknesses, the admittedly bias tally would look like this:
Plusses:
* Speed
* Leadership
* Confidence
* Passing
* Shooting range (i.e. effortless 3-point stroke.)
* Lefty (i.e. unorthodox style proves uncustomary to defenders)
* Pesky Defender (on-ball, off-ball)
* Midrange Game (i.e. pull-up jumper, one-footer floater)
Minuses:
* Size
The positives outweigh the negatives 8 to 1, but it gets even better, long-suffering Kings fans. The sole negative is a strength in disguise.
Being limited in stature, and according to Draft Express, Isaiah measured out at 5’8" and ¾ without shoes, or listed at 5’10" with shoes, which makes him the second shortest player ever drafted into the NBA throughout their measurement history (about 20 years, second only to Nate Robinson who measured one inch shorter), and would seem to be serious impediment to long-term success.
Yet lack of height is a detriment only when it is not compensated through favorably comparable strength, which enables a player to his hold position defensively, beat a player to ideal spot on both ends, play through contact, including the nudges and shoves that throw a lesser player off balance (see Pooh Jeter).
A skilled player that happens to be small, but sturdy in stature has a lower center of gravity, can turn the corner more readily on relatively slow-footed ‘bigs’, split double teams with less space needed, and find passing angles amid outstretched limbs with more regularity.
In short, being short in stature is an invitation to create havoc all over the court, if you can command your space amidst the tallest of timber.
In four games as a new starting PG, Isaiah Thomas is staking his claim with authority (19.5 PPG, 6.5 assists, 4 rebounds, 51% FGs, and only 2.25 TOs in 34.5 MPG).
Diminutive in size, yet sizable in impact.
So there you have it. Lack of height is a strength in camouflage. Hence, Isaiah Thomas has no weakness.
New York has Linsanity. Sacramento has….Thomawesomeness?!? (Hey, they can’t all be gems.)
OK, wait, give me a break Blob, quit being an unapologetic homer…Isaiah is shooting 41%, and the team is 1-3 with him as a starter.
Aren’t you going overboard in your unadulterated praise?
Look, a player with special ability jumps off the TV screen. (At least it does mine, revealing of truth and wisdom. I can’t speak for yours, and you know who you are)
Isaiah looks ready to make an impact before he checks into the game. The look on his face definitively says "Put me in the game, coach. No, seriously. Put me in. What are you waiting for? Uh, like now, duh.". Isaiah seems perpetually happy. If you were in a place you knew you belonged, knew you could excel, knew you could succeed to considerable effect, you’d be apt to smile too.
Isaiah had the distinct look of a legitimate NBA player since his clutch play as a Washington Husky, during casual pick-up games during the extended lockout, including the Bench Mob Classic. The last four games as a starter are a continuation of the rationally expected.
Ultimately, lack of height is not a deterrent. It is a chip on the shoulder to spur achievement.
The question thus becomes: How good great can Isaiah Thomas be?
Isaiah Thomas reminds me of Denver Nugget Ty Lawson. Bad-ass and ready to bring it. A sense of belonging, a commitment to force tempo, and no hesitancy to take (and make) a big shot. Able to deliver, and leave defenders grasping at air.
Ty Lawson is the starting PG of a plus .500 team. He has a PER of 18.2. He averages 15/6/3 on 47% shooting.
Can Isaiah be this good someday? Or better? I think he can.
Again, according to Draft Express, Lawson and Thomas are comparable physically and athletically.
At first, the comparison seems slanted unfavorably. Ty Lawson measures 2 inches taller (5’10".25 vs. 6’0".25). But guess what, long-suffering Kings fans? Isaiah has a wingspan 1 inch greater than Ty Lawson (6.1".75 vs. 6’0".75) Isaiah ranks better in agility (10.49 vs. 10.98), and in terms of speed they are virtually even (full court sprint: 3.14 seconds vs. 3.12 seconds). Isaiah concedes nothing to Lawson in any other strength or hops measure.
The conclusion is obvious. There is nothing physically or athletically to prevent Isaiah from being a player as accomplished as Ty Lawson.
Next question: How does this happen?
(1) Continue to nurture advantageous relationship with Coach Smart. (Edit: Ha-ha)
Gaining continued alliance with head coach will pay immeasurable dividends. Heeding words of the man who decides playing time will work to your favor, assuring minutes upon the court to spur growth for balance of the season, whether in victory or defeat. Do best to execute strategy, balancing shot distribution fairly, and playing time will be yours.
(2) Improve shooting percentage over 40%. (Edit: Done and Done).
Isaiah has the quickness to get himself open for looks. His penetration, crossover and step back are tough to defend against most formidable of opponents. Now, make your shots at slightly higher rate. Isaiah has picture perfect form on his jumper. He has a smooth release, and excellent balance. This bodes well to an elevated shooting percentage near 45% FGs with increased playing time, rookie wall withstanding.
(3) Slow down the best guards in the league.
Isaiah likes to pick up near half-court. He likes to get physical. He likes to fight through picks. Keep doing this. Use your strength, quickness and footwork to harass non-stop.
Cue the post-game ice bath.
(4) Involve as many of your teammates as much as possible.
The Kings have a roster of underachievers not named Tyreke, DeMarcus or Marcus. The more that Isaiah can do to generate easy baskets for struggling teammates, the more he can jump start a subset of teammates who need facilitated assistance.
How good great can Isaiah Thomas be?
As good great as a 5' 8" and ¾ player without an identifiable weakness can be.
/QUOTE]
When a rookie enters the NBA, it is typically easy to identify his area for growth. For DeMarcus, it was conditioning and attitude. For Tyreke, it was his jumper and an optimal position. For Jimmer, it is adjusting to the speed of the game and a diminished, playmaking role.
Identifying an area for improvement for Isaiah Thomas proves somewhat more challenging.
As a Kings fan, this is genuine cause for excitement.
If I were to offer quick summation of Isaiah Thomas' strengths and weaknesses, the admittedly bias tally would look like this:
Plusses:
* Speed
* Leadership
* Confidence
* Passing
* Shooting range (i.e. effortless 3-point stroke.)
* Lefty (i.e. unorthodox style proves uncustomary to defenders)
* Pesky Defender (on-ball, off-ball)
* Midrange Game (i.e. pull-up jumper, one-footer floater)
Minuses:
* Size
The positives outweigh the negatives 8 to 1, but it gets even better, long-suffering Kings fans. The sole negative is a strength in disguise.
Being limited in stature, and according to Draft Express, Isaiah measured out at 5’8" and ¾ without shoes, or listed at 5’10" with shoes, which makes him the second shortest player ever drafted into the NBA throughout their measurement history (about 20 years, second only to Nate Robinson who measured one inch shorter), and would seem to be serious impediment to long-term success.
Yet lack of height is a detriment only when it is not compensated through favorably comparable strength, which enables a player to his hold position defensively, beat a player to ideal spot on both ends, play through contact, including the nudges and shoves that throw a lesser player off balance (see Pooh Jeter).
A skilled player that happens to be small, but sturdy in stature has a lower center of gravity, can turn the corner more readily on relatively slow-footed ‘bigs’, split double teams with less space needed, and find passing angles amid outstretched limbs with more regularity.
In short, being short in stature is an invitation to create havoc all over the court, if you can command your space amidst the tallest of timber.
In four games as a new starting PG, Isaiah Thomas is staking his claim with authority (19.5 PPG, 6.5 assists, 4 rebounds, 51% FGs, and only 2.25 TOs in 34.5 MPG).
Diminutive in size, yet sizable in impact.
So there you have it. Lack of height is a strength in camouflage. Hence, Isaiah Thomas has no weakness.
New York has Linsanity. Sacramento has….Thomawesomeness?!? (Hey, they can’t all be gems.)
OK, wait, give me a break Blob, quit being an unapologetic homer…Isaiah is shooting 41%, and the team is 1-3 with him as a starter.
Aren’t you going overboard in your unadulterated praise?
Look, a player with special ability jumps off the TV screen. (At least it does mine, revealing of truth and wisdom. I can’t speak for yours, and you know who you are
)Isaiah looks ready to make an impact before he checks into the game. The look on his face definitively says "Put me in the game, coach. No, seriously. Put me in. What are you waiting for? Uh, like now, duh.". Isaiah seems perpetually happy. If you were in a place you knew you belonged, knew you could excel, knew you could succeed to considerable effect, you’d be apt to smile too.
Isaiah had the distinct look of a legitimate NBA player since his clutch play as a Washington Husky, during casual pick-up games during the extended lockout, including the Bench Mob Classic. The last four games as a starter are a continuation of the rationally expected.
Ultimately, lack of height is not a deterrent. It is a chip on the shoulder to spur achievement.
The question thus becomes: How good great can Isaiah Thomas be?
Isaiah Thomas reminds me of Denver Nugget Ty Lawson. Bad-ass and ready to bring it. A sense of belonging, a commitment to force tempo, and no hesitancy to take (and make) a big shot. Able to deliver, and leave defenders grasping at air.
Ty Lawson is the starting PG of a plus .500 team. He has a PER of 18.2. He averages 15/6/3 on 47% shooting.
Can Isaiah be this good someday? Or better? I think he can.
Again, according to Draft Express, Lawson and Thomas are comparable physically and athletically.
At first, the comparison seems slanted unfavorably. Ty Lawson measures 2 inches taller (5’10".25 vs. 6’0".25). But guess what, long-suffering Kings fans? Isaiah has a wingspan 1 inch greater than Ty Lawson (6.1".75 vs. 6’0".75) Isaiah ranks better in agility (10.49 vs. 10.98), and in terms of speed they are virtually even (full court sprint: 3.14 seconds vs. 3.12 seconds). Isaiah concedes nothing to Lawson in any other strength or hops measure.
The conclusion is obvious. There is nothing physically or athletically to prevent Isaiah from being a player as accomplished as Ty Lawson.
Next question: How does this happen?
(1) Continue to nurture advantageous relationship with Coach Smart. (Edit: Ha-ha)
Gaining continued alliance with head coach will pay immeasurable dividends. Heeding words of the man who decides playing time will work to your favor, assuring minutes upon the court to spur growth for balance of the season, whether in victory or defeat. Do best to execute strategy, balancing shot distribution fairly, and playing time will be yours.
(2) Improve shooting percentage over 40%. (Edit: Done and Done).
Isaiah has the quickness to get himself open for looks. His penetration, crossover and step back are tough to defend against most formidable of opponents. Now, make your shots at slightly higher rate. Isaiah has picture perfect form on his jumper. He has a smooth release, and excellent balance. This bodes well to an elevated shooting percentage near 45% FGs with increased playing time, rookie wall withstanding.
(3) Slow down the best guards in the league.
Isaiah likes to pick up near half-court. He likes to get physical. He likes to fight through picks. Keep doing this. Use your strength, quickness and footwork to harass non-stop.
Cue the post-game ice bath.
(4) Involve as many of your teammates as much as possible.
The Kings have a roster of underachievers not named Tyreke, DeMarcus or Marcus. The more that Isaiah can do to generate easy baskets for struggling teammates, the more he can jump start a subset of teammates who need facilitated assistance.
How good great can Isaiah Thomas be?
As good great as a 5' 8" and ¾ player without an identifiable weakness can be.
/QUOTE]
Why would Ryan West float a rumor of #5 and #10 for #2 if he wanted Fox?
All they had to do was take Fox.
A GM is paid to ignore to the collective will of the masses.
Remember when Geoff Petrie was booed off the stage for taking Peja instead that kid from Syracuse who amounted to nothing?
Ignoring what the fans want and doing what is best for the franchise is why the GM makes the big bucks.
Magic and whats-his-face bet on Lonzo Bust becoming a great player and better than De'Aaron and so far that is looking like a losing bet.
There's a reason Lonzo Bust returned to bench role after he healed. The Lakers are ROLLING with Ingram and Randle initiating.
I love those guys as players, two players we could have had in exchange for Boogie if Vlade did not have fear of the phones!
Jerry was gushing about Randle and Ingram last night and rightfully so. They are ballers. They are potent and dynamic scoring threats whereas Lonzo Bust is looking to launch his unguarded let-him-have-it three point shot or pass the ball.
He's not the driving or scoring threat of De'Aaron or for that matter Ingram or Randle.
If the Lakers were smart they would trade Lonzo Bust before his trade value diminishes.
I don't think he has a lot of trade value, but I would anticipate his trade value will only diminish unless he becomes a 40% shooter from deep.
As I have said ad nauseum, that qualifier can apply to any guard! That is, if your shot goes in you magically become a better player!
Astonishingly insightful, I know
All they had to do was take Fox.
A GM is paid to ignore to the collective will of the masses.
Remember when Geoff Petrie was booed off the stage for taking Peja instead that kid from Syracuse who amounted to nothing?
Ignoring what the fans want and doing what is best for the franchise is why the GM makes the big bucks.
Magic and whats-his-face bet on Lonzo Bust becoming a great player and better than De'Aaron and so far that is looking like a losing bet.
There's a reason Lonzo Bust returned to bench role after he healed. The Lakers are ROLLING with Ingram and Randle initiating.
I love those guys as players, two players we could have had in exchange for Boogie if Vlade did not have fear of the phones!
Jerry was gushing about Randle and Ingram last night and rightfully so. They are ballers. They are potent and dynamic scoring threats whereas Lonzo Bust is looking to launch his unguarded let-him-have-it three point shot or pass the ball.
He's not the driving or scoring threat of De'Aaron or for that matter Ingram or Randle.
If the Lakers were smart they would trade Lonzo Bust before his trade value diminishes.
I don't think he has a lot of trade value, but I would anticipate his trade value will only diminish unless he becomes a 40% shooter from deep.
As I have said ad nauseum, that qualifier can apply to any guard! That is, if your shot goes in you magically become a better player!
Astonishingly insightful, I know
Why would Ryan West float a rumor of #5 and #10 for #2 if he wanted Fox?
All they had to do was take Fox.
A GM is paid to ignore to the collective will of the masses.
Remember when Geoff Petrie was booed off the stage for taking Peja instead that kid from Syracuse who amounted to nothing?
Ignoring what the fans want and doing what is best for the franchise is why the GM makes the big bucks.
Magic and whats-his-face bet on Lonzo Bust becoming a great player and better than De'Aaron and so far that is looking like a losing bet.
There's a reason Lonzo Bust returned to bench role after he healed. The Lakers are ROLLING with Ingram and Randle initiating.
I love those guys as players, two players we could have had in exchange for Boogie if Vlade did not have fear of the phones!
Jerry was gushing about Randle and Ingram last night and rightfully so. They are ballers. They are potent and dynamic scoring threats whereas Lonzo Bust is looking to launch his unguarded let-him-have-it three point shot or pass the ball.
He's not the driving or scoring threat of De'Aaron or for that matter Ingram or Randle.
If the Lakers were smart they would trade Lonzo Bust before his trade value diminishes.
I don't think he has a lot of trade value, but I would anticipate his trade value will only diminish unless he becomes a 40% shooter from deep.
As I have said ad nauseum, that qualifier can apply to any guard! That is, if your shot goes in you magically become a better player!
Astonishingly insightful, I know
All they had to do was take Fox.
A GM is paid to ignore to the collective will of the masses.
Remember when Geoff Petrie was booed off the stage for taking Peja instead that kid from Syracuse who amounted to nothing?
Ignoring what the fans want and doing what is best for the franchise is why the GM makes the big bucks.
Magic and whats-his-face bet on Lonzo Bust becoming a great player and better than De'Aaron and so far that is looking like a losing bet.
There's a reason Lonzo Bust returned to bench role after he healed. The Lakers are ROLLING with Ingram and Randle initiating.
I love those guys as players, two players we could have had in exchange for Boogie if Vlade did not have fear of the phones!
Jerry was gushing about Randle and Ingram last night and rightfully so. They are ballers. They are potent and dynamic scoring threats whereas Lonzo Bust is looking to launch his unguarded let-him-have-it three point shot or pass the ball.
He's not the driving or scoring threat of De'Aaron or for that matter Ingram or Randle.
If the Lakers were smart they would trade Lonzo Bust before his trade value diminishes.
I don't think he has a lot of trade value, but I would anticipate his trade value will only diminish unless he becomes a 40% shooter from deep.
As I have said ad nauseum, that qualifier can apply to any guard! That is, if your shot goes in you magically become a better player!
Astonishingly insightful, I know
You wonder. I shudder.
Its not a rocket science. If a prospect does not have elite athleticism, he better have elite basketball skills if he wants a career in the NBA.
In the case of Stephan Curry for example, he compensates for being an average athlete by having brilliant handling and shooting skills.
In the case of Boggy, the guy is spectacular at shoot or dish, swish or assist. He is not a high flyer but he is a cerebral assassin.
With enough size and length to compete against the leapers and brutes.
In the case of Frank Mason, the guy has fundamentals and footwork on point to compensate for being 5'9".
His size is an advantage in a way because his low center of gravity allow him to get into the nooks and crannies.
In the case of Donovan Mitchell, the guy tested out as extraordinary as an athlete with solid fundamental and space creating ability.
In the case of Ball, his athleticism is questionable along with his scoring ability. This was highly forecastable. No surprise.
His struggle is not a surprise. His rebounding as a PG is stellar. Thats about it. A PG who can rebound.....yawn.
Its not a rocket science. If a prospect does not have elite athleticism, he better have elite basketball skills if he wants a career in the NBA.
In the case of Stephan Curry for example, he compensates for being an average athlete by having brilliant handling and shooting skills.
In the case of Boggy, the guy is spectacular at shoot or dish, swish or assist. He is not a high flyer but he is a cerebral assassin.
With enough size and length to compete against the leapers and brutes.
In the case of Frank Mason, the guy has fundamentals and footwork on point to compensate for being 5'9".
His size is an advantage in a way because his low center of gravity allow him to get into the nooks and crannies.
In the case of Donovan Mitchell, the guy tested out as extraordinary as an athlete with solid fundamental and space creating ability.
In the case of Ball, his athleticism is questionable along with his scoring ability. This was highly forecastable. No surprise.
His struggle is not a surprise. His rebounding as a PG is stellar. Thats about it. A PG who can rebound.....yawn.
Last edited:
His only weakness was closing out on shooters. And this is because he is 5'9".
He played decent position defense to the extent his height and physicality allowed trying to beat his opponent to preferred spot.
Besides that he came into the league as a complete player.
He shot 58% TS year after year and did a great job of collapsing the defense to him and finding the open man.
This was an underrated aspect to his game early in his career.
By the way, a player who compiled one of the GREATEST statistical seasons for the Celtics cannot have a grocery list of weaknesses.
That assessment and statistical proof does not jive.
Here's my post was a long long long time ago (Feb 20, 2012!!) . a few months into his rookie season.
Damn time flies.
He played decent position defense to the extent his height and physicality allowed trying to beat his opponent to preferred spot.
Besides that he came into the league as a complete player.
He shot 58% TS year after year and did a great job of collapsing the defense to him and finding the open man.
This was an underrated aspect to his game early in his career.
By the way, a player who compiled one of the GREATEST statistical seasons for the Celtics cannot have a grocery list of weaknesses.
That assessment and statistical proof does not jive.
Here's my post was a long long long time ago (Feb 20, 2012!!
) . a few months into his rookie season.Damn time flies.
Well advanced stats are pretty favorable to Lonzo Ball despite his scoring short comings so far.
On the other hand, they are extremely unkind to Fox and they project him to have high bust potential. I don't think people realize how far he has to go to even become an average player. To become a franchise player? He's basically going to have to climb Mt. Everest.
On the other hand, they are extremely unkind to Fox and they project him to have high bust potential. I don't think people realize how far he has to go to even become an average player. To become a franchise player? He's basically going to have to climb Mt. Everest.
That's odd because the Eye Test tells me Fox plays well. Defenses change the way they defend the Kings by keying on Fox. Fox is also a good defender.
These advanced stats, what are they telling you in specifics? I'm not that familiar with them. Is there a site that defines them?
I found NBA Advanced Stats For Dummies --> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-dummies-how-to-understand-the-new-hoops-math
These advanced stats, what are they telling you in specifics? I'm not that familiar with them. Is there a site that defines them?
I found NBA Advanced Stats For Dummies --> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-dummies-how-to-understand-the-new-hoops-math