Hawes Future Great or Bust

  • Thread starter Thread starter sactownfan
  • Start date Start date
However, in the Lakers triangle, Shaq regularly averaged b/n 3-4 assists per game and Pau averaged 3.5 on LA last season.

Shaq also got 200 assists a season at Miami, and Gasol got up to 4.6 APG in Memphis. I think those are more characteristics of the players than the offense.

But, as VF says, maybe we won't even play anything which strictly qualifies as the Triangle. I'm going to reserve any conclusions (about whether we need passing from a C) for a later date.
 
the title of this thread is "hawes future great or bust" and i never said he was a bust i only gave my opinion.

And I gave mine. Chill out. It's called sarcasm, and used when appropriate.

Your statement was presented more as fact than opinion. Revisit it and maybe think about your presentation a bit. I think you will see the reason for my response.

Y'all are getting overly worked up over one preseason game about Hawes and ignoring how well he played last year. Just silly.
 
Shaq also got 200 assists a season at Miami, and Gasol got up to 4.6 APG in Memphis. I think those are more characteristics of the players than the offense.

But, as VF says, maybe we won't even play anything which strictly qualifies as the Triangle. I'm going to reserve any conclusions (about whether we need passing from a C) for a later date.


In particular given Reggie's shaky job security, any long term idea of matching personnel to system is fairly impossible at this point. In reality its Geoff's desires which predominate there, and to a certain degree I think he even makes it tough on his coaches by constantly streaming to them a certain type of personnel which he favors, but which maybe does not work with how his coaches would like to play.
 
Shaq also got 200 assists a season at Miami, and Gasol got up to 4.6 APG in Memphis. I think those are more characteristics of the players than the offense.

But, as VF says, maybe we won't even play anything which strictly qualifies as the Triangle. I'm going to reserve any conclusions (about whether we need passing from a C) for a later date.
When the Triangle offense was first originated, it was designed to be built around a good passing center. Phil Jackson adjusted the offense to fit his personnel on his teams over the years (another design of the offense). The whole point of the Triangle offense is motion and passing (very similar to the Princeton offense); but, it is also designed to be flexible based of the players available.
 
From the looks of this game so far...I think Hawes heard us.

Anyone ready to go back to the opinion that he is at the very least destined to be a good role player on a team?

I'm tired of the total bust talk.
 
Hawes looks GRRRRR... ATE! LOL! well keep in mind that the sonics(LOL) don't have a big center or imposing center... but yeah looking calm on offense, and alright on def.
 
Does wonders when someone isn't in foul trouble eh?

Not that I am saying this one game will prove it the other way around that the "bust" people but I don't think you can write him in/out just yet.
 
From the looks of this game so far...I think Hawes heard us.

Anyone ready to go back to the opinion that he is at the very least destined to be a good role player on a team?

I'm tired of the total bust talk.

But, but......then we aren't one of the cool kids writing him off after one bad preseason game! :p
 
Hawes

Hawes is only 20 years old and has to have time to grow up some players are 28 when they are only 20 others are 18 when they are 20. Players mature at different rates look at Lebron when he came into the game he looked 30 years old so does Portlands oden. When I was in the third grade we had a kid who was sent home to shave yes the third grade. I was in the army by the time I had to start shaving everyday.
 
If he can play like he did tonight on a consistent basis hitting those outside shots and being agressive towards the basket, he will be far from a bust.
 
Shaq also got 200 assists a season at Miami, and Gasol got up to 4.6 APG in Memphis. I think those are more characteristics of the players than the offense.

But, as VF says, maybe we won't even play anything which strictly qualifies as the Triangle. I'm going to reserve any conclusions (about whether we need passing from a C) for a later date.

Telemachus bascially said it a few posts up, butthe Triangle is a motion offence that functions best with a good passing big man. King of chicken and the egg with Shaq and Gasol who are good passers. The biggest point though is that Jackson adapted the O to fit his personnel. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a motion O designed for non-passing big men.

You are right though. I think we play a hybrid. Will encompass some of the motion and read and react elements of the triangle. However, do we even have a single triangle expert on our coacing staff?
 
Anything is basketball that is within the rules. And nothing is overrated that works. And in any contact sport, he who can knock the other guy on his *** almost always works.



Yet if you saw Hakeem play at all you would realize that there was not a man on the planet that could chase him from the post, not even Shaq. He had a little jumper, would use it a few times a game, but NO player ever made him use it. Nobody ever made Hakeem go "oh, guess I can't post this guy, time to run outside and chuck a jump shot."

Jump shooting is easy and lazy. It is a giveup shot unless you are really tremendous at it. Its a shot every single member of this board can take. If you're a big with a post game, and Spencer has shown flashes of it, post game >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump shot. More difficult (only atiny fraction of this board likely has any real ability in the post), more sophisticated, causes far more problems for the opposition -- we in fact saw that ourselves in the Portland game as Oden crunched us inside, our defense had to collapse to stop him, and then all of a sudden all of their perimeter guys were open to drain threes. But its hard work, and it takes dedication (like many things in life). If you just give up on it and quit at the first sign of resistance, then its never going to amount to much, and likely neither are you.

There are two essential unique things a big man, and only a big man, can bring that can key a good team -- dominant rebounding/shotblocking/interior defense on one end of the court, and dominant post play on the other (there are no dominant rebounding/shotblocking/interior defense guards, and have only been a handful of dominant post guards -- it has to come from your bigs, or nto at all). Spencer will never be a dominant rebounder/shotblocker/interior defender. That already sets him apart from guys like Hakeem, Robinson, or Ewing, who could have been 10ppg scorers and still been key centerpieces for their teams. So he HAS to utilize that post ability or all you have is another softie. This fascination of his with emulating Brad Miller is unnerving. Brad Miller has never won anything, nor will he as a starting center. He can't do those big man things. You can find better models in Vlade, Smits, Arvydas (who were unfortunately all bigger and stronger than Spencer). All those guys had face up jumpers, would break them out with some regularity. But they also all loved the post, and would establish that first and do their real damage there. That's where they became tough guards, and where they could create spacing for their perimeter players.


you made some good points there :D glad to add additional knowledge to the game...

i was just speculating how raw and pure brute wont work in the long run in the game.. athletic freaks with no post moves will tend to fade in their careers, after certain parts of their bodies deteriorate... heres to hoping hawes has a sturdy body and can toughen up a bit to take some banging inside...

well after todays game i think we can say the bust or great is up in the air... well see im really excited about this season
 
I dont think he's going to be a bust....But he isnt going to be great either.

I'm with Brick. I want the Kings to get a real big. Not one of these versitile finesse guys that Petrie is so madly in love with. I think the closest thing to a real big we have on the Kings is Sheldon, but unfortunately he lacks in the height and athletic departments. If he was a little bit taller and a lot more athletic we'd be set (then again we wouldnt have gotten him for Bibby if that was the case).

People are getting all excited over Hawes dropping 21 on OKC....But the dude didnt really board all that well (7), had zero blocks, and no FT attempts. He shot a good percentage but still... I dont want a C taking 3's. I want a C dominating the paint.

We'll see how well Spencer does against a REAL center in Bynum when we play the Lakers.
 
Seven boards in 28 minutes is right on the one board per four minutes played pace Hawes has been on so far in his career, whether as a starter or in limited minutes. One reb/4 min is about par for a solid-to-good rebounding big man. As you drop below that towards one reb/5 min you find the weak rebounders (see Mikki), and as you approach one reb/3 min you find the elite rebounders of which there are few (see Camby and Howard).

One reb/4 min given starters minutes puts you in the top twenty rebounders in the league. That's about the base that Hawes is starting from, and watching him it's obvious that he can improve on his rebounding consistency. He's never going to look like an animal on the boards, but if he can just reduce those periods where he's invisible on them, he could approach if not crack the top dozen or so rebounders in the league. That's not too bad.
 
People are getting all excited over Hawes dropping 21 on OKC....

Overweighting a single preseason game is a bad idea, whether it was his good game or his crap game. Here's his preseason cumulative average, which is a bit more meaningful...

28.2 minutes / 12.5 pts / 46.1% FG (6/13) / 6.5 reb / 1.0 asst / 2.0 TO / 1.0 stl / 0.0 blk / 1.5 blks against
 
Seven boards in 28 minutes is right on the one board per four minutes played pace Hawes has been on so far in his career, whether as a starter or in limited minutes. One reb/4 min is about par for a solid-to-good rebounding big man. As you drop below that towards one reb/5 min you find the weak rebounders (see Mikki), and as you approach one reb/3 min you find the elite rebounders of which there are few (see Camby and Howard).

One reb/4 min given starters minutes puts you in the top twenty rebounders in the league. That's about the base that Hawes is starting from, and watching him it's obvious that he can improve on his rebounding consistency. He's never going to look like an animal on the boards, but if he can just reduce those periods where he's invisible on them, he could approach if not crack the top dozen or so rebounders in the league. That's not too bad.
I think that Hawes biggest problem rebounding right now is that he NEVER boxes out. In fact, the only players on the Kings that I have noticed boxing out are Jason Thompson and Sheldon Williams. I wish they would teach it to Hawes and Miller.
 
Overweighting a single preseason game is a bad idea, whether it was his good game or his crap game. Here's his preseason cumulative average, which is a bit more meaningful...

28.2 minutes / 12.5 pts / 46.1% FG (6/13) / 6.5 reb / 1.0 asst / 2.0 TO / 1.0 stl / 0.0 blk / 1.5 blks against

Instead of looking at the 2 preseason games, why don't you look at his production as a starter last year?

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=573524&postcount=31
 
Instead of looking at the 2 preseason games, why don't you look at his production as a starter last year?

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=573524&postcount=31


that however could be almost as deceptive, just in that that was the classic April starting pattern. Remember that just the year before Justin Williams had averaged 7pts 9rebs down the April stretch for us, and every year many players on poor teams will suddenly step up with eye popping numbers. Some of them are flashing a hint of their future potential. Some of them are just flashes in the pan taking advantage of the season's garbagetime. I would hope that Spencer is more of the former, but those late season starts are somewhat shaky evidence to base that on.
 
Some of them are just flashes in the pan taking advantage of the season's garbagetime. I would hope that Spencer is more of the former, but those late season starts are somewhat shaky evidence to base that on.

And preseason is more indicative of quality play?

I would put more stock into a set of regular-season games than a couple pre-season....
 
Instead of looking at the 2 preseason games, why don't you look at his production as a starter last year?
http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=573524&postcount=31

I looked at his last year's production earlier in the thread. The main reason I mentioned the average of his first 2 preseason games was because it was a whole lot like his average for last year's regular season games. That's not to say that the numbers won't change over time, but I think that consistent per-minute stats over 71 games (+ 2 preseason) can give a pretty good idea of where a player stands at the moment.

As for starting versus non-starting, should it make a big difference? If he plays 28 minutes, he should get 28 minutes worth of stats. I don't usually worry about starter status unless I suspect that a player suffers from KT/Salmons syndrome. And if that's the case, it's not flattering.
 
From the looks of this game so far...I think Hawes heard us.

Anyone ready to go back to the opinion that he is at the very least destined to be a good role player on a team?

I'm tired of the total bust talk.

Agreed. I thought Spencer has responded very well the last two games. Yeah, it's just preseason, but he has a nice shooter's touch and has been more aggressive in getting rebounds. I dont think he will be great or a bust, but he could be one of the better centers (top half to top 1/3rd) in the league in a few years.
 
As for starting versus non-starting, should it make a big difference? If he plays 28 minutes, he should get 28 minutes worth of stats. I don't usually worry about starter status unless I suspect that a player suffers from KT/Salmons syndrome. And if that's the case, it's not flattering.
Yes! It makes a difference. Basketball has a lot to do with playing in the flow of the game or getting a good rhythm. That is always easier for a starter because they play longer stints on the court. A bench player tends to play in shorter spurts, which makes it harder to get into an offensive rhythm.
There are always exceptions to this rule, but they are rare players.
 
Yes! It makes a difference. Basketball has a lot to do with playing in the flow of the game or getting a good rhythm. That is always easier for a starter because they play longer stints on the court. A bench player tends to play in shorter spurts, which makes it harder to get into an offensive rhythm.
There are always exceptions to this rule, but they are rare players.

Agreed, partially. Most players will play a little better per minute when they're getting more minutes per game, whether starting or not. That was why I said 28 minutes, because bringing up Hawes' stats in games where he played, say, 25+ minutes might mean a bit more than just his starting games; then you'd have about twice as big a statistical base to work with. But I see no reason to eliminate the non-starting games in which he played a lot of minutes unless you're hoping to skew the numbers by only looking at 6 or 8 games which may have been atypical.

There's also no reason to look at his starting numbers unless you have Geoff and Reggie's personal guarantees that he's going to become our starting C. I suspect that he may, but right now he's a bench guy, and it's possible that he always will be, so it makes sense to apply a reasonably neutral standard.
 
Last edited:
The occasional difficulty with just taking bench guys' games where they play a lot of minutes is that in most cases the REASON that they are playing a lot of minutes is because they are having a good game. So it becomes reinforcing -- a bench guy is playing well, then he gets 25-30 minutes. If he;s not, he gets yanked after 10-12. So you just look at the 25+ min games, and you are basically looking at his best games.

Which is not to say that it means nothing -- just that there are assorted difficulties with all those type of projections.
 
The occasional difficulty with just taking bench guys' games where they play a lot of minutes is that in most cases the REASON that they are playing a lot of minutes is because they are having a good game. So it becomes reinforcing -- a bench guy is playing well, then he gets 25-30 minutes. If he;s not, he gets yanked after 10-12. So you just look at the 25+ min games, and you are basically looking at his best games.

Which is not to say that it means nothing -- just that there are assorted difficulties with all those type of projections.
I think this is main reason we like to look at what players did while in a starting role. These are the games where they got extended minutes based on their need to fill a role, not on how well they are playing that day. It tends to give you a more realistic look at how that player will perform when given extended minutes on a regular basis.
 
The occasional difficulty with just taking bench guys' games where they play a lot of minutes is that in most cases the REASON that they are playing a lot of minutes is because they are having a good game. So it becomes reinforcing -- a bench guy is playing well, then he gets 25-30 minutes. If he;s not, he gets yanked after 10-12. So you just look at the 25+ min games, and you are basically looking at his best games.

In many cases, I'd agree. But with Reggie and Spencer, that was not the case. His average game, as a 25+ minute bench player:

25.6 minutes / 8.25 pts / 41.7% FG / 66.7% FT / 4.25 reb / 1.5 asst / 2.0 TO / .75 stl / 1.0 blk

None of those games were any earlier than the last week in February, so I think they're about as relevant to his current state as were starting games played soon after. And, for the most part, they were pretty tepid games.
 
Back
Top