Is Jimmer in Smart's Doghouse?

[Capt. Factorial]

What this tells me is that Jimmer is our second best SG, and a slightly better scorer than IT or Brooks.

I'm not sure many would argue with that assessment.

The point really was that Liam tried to buff up Jimmer by pointing to per-36 stats, A/T, and TS% -- without actually looking at the stats! As it turns out, yes Jimmer is a scorer first (and we knew that), but he's not better than our other guys at anything else per-36. In fact, he ranks last among the group that Liam suggested he would compare well against. The only other area where Jimmer comes out OK is TS%, but he's a clear second and doesn't have a huge separation over IT/Tyreke.

In the end, if you're going to point at stats to make an argument, you'd better have a good idea what the stats actually say, or you'll end up looking silly.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'm not sure many would argue with that assessment.

The point really was that Liam tried to buff up Jimmer by pointing to per-36 stats, A/T, and TS% -- without actually looking at the stats! As it turns out, yes Jimmer is a scorer first (and we knew that), but he's not better than our other guys at anything else per-36. In fact, he ranks last among the group that Liam suggested he would compare well against. The only other area where Jimmer comes out OK is TS%, but he's a clear second and doesn't have a huge separation over IT/Tyreke.

In the end, if you're going to point at stats to make an argument, you'd better have a good idea what the stats actually say, or you'll end up looking silly.

In this case any of the "advanced" stats don't say much anyway. Like all of their breed they can't take into account role, time stats were put up, or any of the rest. Advanced stats will tell you Aaron Brooks and Jimmer have nearly identical TS% to Kyrie Irving too. Most advanced stats have the primary purpose of exalting three point chuckers and good free throw shooters. Used wrongly, which they almost inevitably are, they will tell you many many stupid things.

You of course know this -- my comment was general.

 

[bajaden]

I am more inclined to say that if Jimmer doesn't start well, he quickly gets jerked and we don't see him again. This cuts out the opportunity for him to get settled into the game and find his stroke. If he does well, he stays in. He's on a short leash.

Yeah, both Jimmer and Thornton are the type of players that sometimes need to take several shots before they get into a grove. Actually, most players that are scorers are that way. I remember many games when Peja went 1 for 8 in the first half, and then hit 7 of 8 in the second half. The key, is to feed them once they get hot. If a player is a 42% shooter from the three, he'll usually hit that average in most games if given enough shots. But if you put him in the game, and he goes 1 for 4, and then you jerk him for the rest of the game, his stat line isn't going to look that good.

In last nights game, Thornton couldn't hit a thing in the first half, and scored almost all his points in the second half. If he hadn't played in the second half, he would have had a miserable night. Still wasn't that good going 4 for 12.

 

[bajaden]

You're right, this fun IS fun!

Per-36 points: Jimmer (19.6), Tyreke (17.6), Thomas (17.4), Brooks (14.0). Chalk one up for Jimmer.
Per-36 assists: Thomas (4.8), Brooks (4.1), Tyreke (3.7), Jimmer (3.4). Oops. Sad face for Jimmer.
Per-36 rebounds: Tyreke (5.7), Brooks (2.9), Thomas (2.6), Jimmer (2.5). Uh-oh. Another Jimmer sad face.
Per-36 steals: Tyreke (1.6), Brooks (1.0), Thomas (1.0), Jimmer (0.9). The sad faces keep coming!
Assist-to-TO: Thomas (1.85), Brooks (1.78), Tyreke (1.48), Jimmer (1.42). Gee, I sure hope Jimmer can pull himself up at the end!
True Shooting%: Brooks (.571), Jimmer (.559), Thomas (.556), Tyreke (0.551). Well, I guess that's something.

So, per minute Jimmer is basically our worst guard on the season. Hey, I'd like to see him do great but right now it's not really happening.

Let me ask you this. How much of how he's being used has to do with some of his poor stats. For instance, Both Brooks and IT are always the lead guards when in the game, which means they tend to have the ball in their hands far more than Jimmer does when he's in the game. This last game is more of an example of how Jimmers assists might go up, if he's the lead guard on the floor. He has a better chance to create plays for other people. he had 4 assists last night in 14 minutes. Not earth shattering, but he could have had 7 assist if shots had been made. Point is, he was making good decisions and on occasion, helping to create for a teammate. If his assists were to go up, then so would his assist to turnover ratio, because is turnovers per minutes played is one of the best on the team.

I'll certainly give you the rebounding per 36. I doubt Jimmer will ever be a good rebounder, but I can name you a lot of good PG's in the league that aren't good rebounders. Anyway, thats my 2 cents for what its worth.

 

[treach1976]

Let me ask you this. How much of how he's being used has to do with some of his poor stats. For instance, Both Brooks and IT are always the lead guards when in the game, which means they tend to have the ball in their hands far more than Jimmer does when he's in the game. This last game is more of an example of how Jimmers assists might go up, if he's the lead guard on the floor. He has a better chance to create plays for other people. he had 4 assists last night in 14 minutes. Not earth shattering, but he could have had 7 assist if shots had been made. Point is, he was making good decisions and on occasion, helping to create for a teammate. If his assists were to go up, then so would his assist to turnover ratio, because is turnovers per minutes played is one of the best on the team.

I'll certainly give you the rebounding per 36. I doubt Jimmer will ever be a good rebounder, but I can name you a lot of good PG's in the league that aren't good rebounders. Anyway, thats my 2 cents for what its worth.

I feel like the only way to really see the comparison would be if Smart were to give Jimmer Starter minutes like IT currently has and Brooks had earlier this year. Having said that, it's not happening anytime soon. Even though Jimmer seems to have leaped AB in the rotation for a couple of games, if IT went down my money would be on Brooks as the starter. In fact, the funny thing about Jimmer's play time is that even when he's the first back-up for a starter, he doesn't get a start when a player goes out. He gets more minutes of course, but I think Smart is settled on Jimmer off the bench no matter the situation. I'm convinced that if you had Reke / IT / Brooks all out, you would still have MT at the SG position and probably Salmons at PG to start (didn't that happen this year?).

 

[Padrino]

I feel like the only way to really see the comparison would be if Smart were to give Jimmer Starter minutes like IT currently has and Brooks had earlier this year. Having said that, it's not happening anytime soon. Even though Jimmer seems to have leaped AB in the rotation for a couple of games, if IT went down my money would be on Brooks as the starter. In fact, the funny thing about Jimmer's play time is that even when he's the first back-up for a starter, he doesn't get a start when a player goes out. He gets more minutes of course, but I think Smart is settled on Jimmer off the bench no matter the situation. I'm convinced that if you had Reke / IT / Brooks all out, you would still have MT at the SG position and probably Salmons at PG to start (didn't that happen this year?).

indeed, however, jimmer fredette is clearly the biggest ball-handling liability of the bunch, which likely accounts for keith smart's insistence on playing jimmer as either a backup PG or SG. either way, i continue to be amazed by the amount of handwringing that occurs at kf.com over which mediocre midget guard deserves preferential status in the absurdity of smart's "rotation."

 

[bajaden]

indeed, however, jimmer fredette is clearly the biggest ball-handling liability of the bunch, which likely accounts for keith smart's insistence on playing jimmer as either a backup PG or SG. either way, i continue to be amazed by the amount of handwringing that occurs at kf.com over which mediocre midget guard deserves preferential status in the absurdity of smart's "rotation."

In my case, its not handringing. Its about who might be the most complimentry player at the PG position. You know, someone that might actually be out there trying to make his teammates better. Now if IT can play the way he did last night, most nights, then I don't have a problem with him. All Brooks is, is a midget SG. Not saying he doesn't have the ability to create, he just chooses not to. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Jimmer is our saviour. I just think that since the season is pretty much shot to hell, why not find out what he's actually capable of as a lead guard, instead of giving him 10 minutes a game and letting him stand on the right or left wing waiting for someone to pass him the ball.

He had a chance last night to be the lead guard, and although he keeps being accused of being a chucker, he certainly wasn't one last night. he took 4 shots, and one, a three pointer he had to take because the clock was running down. He's being several million dollars a year, so why not find out what he's got. He got a chance last night, and we won the game despite his being in the game, and maybe, at least to some extent, because he was in the game.

 

[Padrino]

In my case, its not handringing. Its about who might be the most complimentry player at the PG position. You know, someone that might actually be out there trying to make his teammates better. Now if IT can play the way he did last night, most nights, then I don't have a problem with him. All Brooks is, is a midget SG. Not saying he doesn't have the ability to create, he just chooses not to. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Jimmer is our saviour. I just think that since the season is pretty much shot to hell, why not find out what he's actually capable of as a lead guard, instead of giving him 10 minutes a game and letting him stand on the right or left wing waiting for someone to pass him the ball.

He had a chance last night to be the lead guard, and although he keeps being accused of being a chucker, he certainly wasn't one last night. he took 4 shots, and one, a three pointer he had to take because the clock was running down. He's being several million dollars a year, so why not find out what he's got. He got a chance last night, and we won the game despite his being in the game, and maybe, at least to some extent, because he was in the game.

i suppose that's the difference between myself and many other posters here: i do not believe that anyone in the kings' stable of guards is a stabilizing force in the starting lineup, save perhaps john salmons (you certainly would not have heard that from me prior to the start of the season). i've beaten this drum often enough, but a guard like beno udrih is much more complimentary next to tyreke evans than the kings' corps of midget gunners. sure, there's the outside chance that starting jimmer over thomas or brooks or thornton would result in a net positive for the chemistry of the starting unit, but i find such a move wanting as a long-term solution. so, to me, the offseason is the time to address the disease, rather than the symptoms, and hopefully there will be a new ownership group in sacramento prepared to take on the challenge of tackling this mess of a roster...

 

[rainmaker]

In my case, its not handringing. Its about who might be the most complimentry player at the PG position. You know, someone that might actually be out there trying to make his teammates better. Now if IT can play the way he did last night, most nights, then I don't have a problem with him. All Brooks is, is a midget SG. Not saying he doesn't have the ability to create, he just chooses not to. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Jimmer is our saviour. I just think that since the season is pretty much shot to hell, why not find out what he's actually capable of as a lead guard, instead of giving him 10 minutes a game and letting him stand on the right or left wing waiting for someone to pass him the ball.

He had a chance last night to be the lead guard, and although he keeps being accused of being a chucker, he certainly wasn't one last night. he took 4 shots, and one, a three pointer he had to take because the clock was running down. He's being several million dollars a year, so why not find out what he's got. He got a chance last night, and we won the game despite his being in the game, and maybe, at least to some extent, because he was in the game.

Where we disagree, is not that Jimmer is less of a chucker than IT or Brooks, which I think he is, but that he'd be better as a complimentary player at the PG position as the primary ballhandler. I don't think he would, but I also wouldn't be against starting him.

IMO, Jimmer is best when handling the ball maybe 30% of the time, and playing off Reke, who's show more of an inclination to set him up than any other guards on this team. He also spaces the floor for Reke/Cuz better than IT/Brooks. While Brooks is a decent shooter, IT is horrible. But as the main ballhandler, I don't think Jimmer would be put in a position to be successful. His ballhandling has improved, but he still has trouble setting up the offense and rarely penetrates and kicks to anyone.

But as a PG who handles less than Reke, and more plays off him? I'd be willing to try it. One thing Jimmer won't do is prevent Reke/Cuz from getting into a rhythm, which IT does nightly. Even when his assist numbers are decent he's still dominating the ball to such a point those two can't get in a rhythm. What we've seen in the short stretches Reke/Jimmer have played together, is if you put Reke up top with a live dribble looking to attack, and put Jimmer on a wing and Reke attacks that side, Jimmer's man can't come off and help without the opponent paying for it, leaving a wider lane for Reke to attack, and if/when Jimmer's man does come off to help, Reke has been more than willing to hit Jimmer. Cuz also gets more room to operate and doesn't have to worry about doubles coming from the wing as much when we've ran a Jimmer/Reke/Salmons trio, rare as its been. We have wider lanes to attack and better spacing when Jimmer is out there.

Edit: Really, a simple set to run which would be more effective than half the crap we run, is say put Jimmer spotted up on the right wing, below the elbow, Reke up top handling, JT on the left box and Salmons spotted on the left wing farther towards the corner. Cuz comes up and sets a screen on the right side, and you have a Reke/Cuz pick & roll with the floor properly spaced. They'd have room. Reke comes off the screen and either has a lane to the hoop as Jimmer's man stays home, it's switched putting the big on Reke, small on Cuz, so Reke either hits Cuz rolling or if that's not there he backs it out as Cuz dives to right box with a small on him, gets it to Cuz(obvious mismatch), or when coming off the screen Jimmers man helps and you hit Jimmer for a quick, good look at a three. Or Reke gets cut off by the big, or small fights through, defender dives to stop Cuz role and he spots up for a 16 footer above the left elbow. You can run that through and have JT flash in the post or Cuz draws Salmons' man if they load up and and a quick swing to the corner for an open look by Salmons. Hit Cuz above the left elbow then Reke goes and screens Jimmer's man as he curls either for a jumper or a runner in the lane, which is a good shot for him. Could run another similar set with similar options with the right side cleared for a Reke/Cuz pick & roll and Jimmer at the top of the key.

There's numerous variations off that set but I think you get the point. We have most of the floor cleared out for a two man game between our best players and Jimmer spotted on that side, not only providing spacing and a lane, but someone who should be able to make the other team pay for sagging off and closing down that lane. And you run it over and over and take what the defense gives you. However they react gives you another option. A good option because the spacing forces the defense to move. What we normally see is IT just dribbling, then feeding Cuz or JT in the high post and they just iso with everyone watching, or we run Reke/MT/Salmons/even Outlaw off a simple screen and just watch as they iso. Or It comes off a single screen, passes to someone on the wing, then iso. IT's TERRIBLE.<-----it's terrible, not Isaiah

What I'd like is not much different than a set Boston would run repeatedly with Rondo/KG and either Allen/Pierce spotted to Rondo's right.

Of course, that requires a different coach.

 

[sqwalk]

^^^Yes, I agree with this. Now why can't Smart figure this out?

 

[t-rex]

Not what the numbers say -- Jimmer's PT peaked in Dec when both Thornton and Reke were down, but his shooting percentages fell off after the hot start, and they just kept going down this month. He's shooting .415 again.

The thing is, his 3pt shooting has been consistent, and so have his FTs. The rest of his game has gone south though, and some of it may have been as teams readjusted to new and improved Jimmer. And here's the fallout -- early season Jimmer was making an argument that hey, I can be a rotation player. Ever since then Jimmer looks like a shooting situation/foul game specialist.

I'm not a jimmer homer but even the most objective Kings fan who have to disagree with this assessment. I still think your either Keith Smart or his agent. Get over your Jimmer gets too much credit and I hate the fact the Kings have him on the roster. He probably has more upside than 90% of the roster. We just won't see it with Coach Dumb at the helm. There is light at the end of the tunnel though. His regime will be over soon.

 

[UK_King]

I think you'd have to be willfully ignoring things if you don't think Jimmers court vision and passing has improved this year. Is he the new Nash, no, but he's definitely improved to the point where i think it'd be interesting to see him get a proper run with Tyreke at the point.

Maybe it all goes backwards with big minutes but we don't know till we have a look.

 

[bajaden]

I think you'd have to be willfully ignoring things if you don't think Jimmers court vision and passing has improved this year. Is he the new Nash, no, but he's definitely improved to the point where i think it'd be interesting to see him get a proper run with Tyreke at the point.

Maybe it all goes backwards with big minutes but we don't know till we have a look.

Jimmer career so far is almost a mirror image of Nash's. Not saying he going to be Nash, but it took Nash about 5 years to become Nash, and in his first two years, he didn't do much of anything. Like Jimmer, Nash came into the league with the reputation of being a good shooter, and like Jimmer, no one was quite sure what to do with him his first couple of years, and like Jimmer, Nash was on the bench behind a couple of other PG's, one of them being our current Mayor, along with Jason Kidd and Sam Cassell. So, like Jimmer, Nash didn't get a lot of playing time.

It wasn't until his third year when he was traded to the Mav's, that he was able to take over the lead guard position. And even then, he only put up average numbers. Around 7 or 8 pts a game and around 5 assists a game. And like Jimmer, there were times in Nash's career, where his 3pt average mirrored, or was better than his total FGP. Simply because he wasn't good at finishing at the basket. I'm not saying that Jimmer will turn out to be the next Steve Nash, but I'am saying that no one knew that Nash would turn out to be what he is today. And thats why you don't give up on players too early, or make kneejerk projections on their future based on just what you see today.

 

[macadocious]

And I would argue that Jimmer plays better D than Nash. He just doesn't get team D yet.

EDIT: Neither does this whole team, but thats a different convo

 

[Bricklayer]

The Nash comparison only get more comical the more we see of Jimmer.

I mean please stop. Its like after a second year of struggle people are going to double down now on the comparisons that just should never have been made in the first place.

In the first two years of their careers, Steve Nash and Jimmer Fredette averaged almost exactly the same number of minutes. 16.7 for Nash, 16.8 for Jimmer. They both rarely started -- 11 games for Nash, 7 so far for Jimmer. So roles and minutes/opportunities are very similar. Both were 4 year college guys, so same age.

So given that let me per 36 the two guys to clarify:

Jimmer 16.3pts (.397 .380 .883) 2.4reb 3.4ast 0.9stl 0.1blk 2.2TO
S.Nash 13.9pts (.451 .416 .847) 3.4reb 6.1ast 1.3stl 0.1blk 2.5TO

One of those guys doesn't have a clear position, what he's got is a skill (shooting). The other one is clearly a young PG who could dribble circles around the first one. Let me add in the per 36 of two other guys who somewhat distrurbing get lumped with Jimmer (alas there is undeniably a racial element to these comparisons at some point):

MPrice 16.3pts (.476 .436 .863) 2.8reb 6.4ast 1.3stl 0.1blk 2.7TO
JStock 11.4pts (.482 .154 .789) 3.0reb 10.8ast 2.8stl 0.2blk 3.3TO

Again, all those comparison guys there had a clear positon tat they coulkd efficiently and effectively run form the beginning.


I think Jimmer needs to go and commit a crime of some sort. Steal a little old lady's social security check or something. Its about the only way to snap the significant percentage of the fanbase who cheers louder for Jimmer than they do any other King out of their daze and get them to put the same eyes on Jimmer that they do IT, or Brooks, or just whoever.

 

[Padrino]

The Nash comparison only get more comical the more we see of Jimmer.

I mean please people.


Jimmer needs to go and commit a crime of some sort. Steal a little old lady's social security check or something. Its about the only way to snap the significant percentage of the fanbase who cheers louder for Jimmer than they do any other King out of their daze and get them to put the same eyes on Jimmer that they do IT, or Brooks, or just whoever.

indeed. i've long held the very unpopular opinion that a particular contingent of kings fans have cemented the chip on their shoulder, have bought into the silly 'us v. the world' nonsense of sacramento's small town mentality, and have decided that their favorite players will always be the good boys, the nice guys, the ones that don't cause any trouble. there's no other way to explain the distaste that so many had for chris webber while he was 25-and-10'ing the kings into contention, or the sheer lack of acknowledgment of demarcus cousins' potential from that same contingent, and no other way to explain their rabid, frothing support of the jimmer fredettes and isaiah thomases of the nba. all we hear from certain parts of the fanbase is that 'reke can't shoot, 'reke can't shoot (in the meantime he's proving them all wrong by sticking jump shot after jump shot), but hell, ricky rubio can't shoot his way out of a paper bag, yet so many of those same kings fans are still bitter that geoff petrie picked tyreke over rubio, another nice guy, pretty boy wunderkind that causes a certain kind of fan to wet themselves the minute he touches the ball. i suppose i'll just never understand the desire of some kings fans to run their best players out of town, and shield lesser players from criticism...

 

[bajaden]

The Nash comparison only get more comical the more we see of Jimmer.

I mean please people.


Jimmer needs to go and commit a crime of some sort. Steal a little old lady's social security check or something. Its about the only way to snap the significant percentage of the fanbase who cheers louder for Jimmer than they do any other King out of their daze and get them to put the same eyes on Jimmer that they do IT, or Brooks, or just whoever.

I saw Nash play quite a bit in his second year in the NBA. After one of the games, I turned to my son, and said he'll never amount to anything in this league. I don't know how much you saw Nash early in his career, but he was nothing to write home about, and to be honest, About the only thing better that Nash could do when he came into the league, was handle the ball a little bit better, but he was hardly the ballhandler he is today. Once again, the only comparison I'm making is the beginning of their careers. I'm not saying that Jimmer is the next Nash. But if he can just become 70% of what Nash is, he's a keeper.

The question is, who is our PG of the future. If he's not currently on the team, then were wasting time with the group we have. I don't like Brooks next to Tyreke. You talk about chuckers. Brooks is the worse of the bunch. He ignores open shooters on the wing, and many times ignores post players that have fought for position. Instead, he'll use the post player as a screen to get to the basket. After a while, the post player, who is putting in all the work gets a little tired of watching someone else get all the results. IT is better than Brooks, but also has the tendecy to become superman at times. Jimmer comes the closest to having a PG mentality, but at this point, we have little idea if he's capable of running a team on a regular basis, whether it be starting or as the backup.

Personally, I think if he is capable, he'd be the perfect player next to Tyreke, because he'll get the ball to Tyreke, and he'll also help spread the floor to help open up the middle. Fredette isn't a selfish player, and I'm not sure you can say that about Brooks and IT.

 

[sdballer]

I saw Nash play quite a bit in his second year in the NBA. After one of the games, I turned to my son, and said he'll never amount to anything in this league. I don't know how much you saw Nash early in his career, but he was nothing to write home about, and to be honest, About the only thing better that Nash could do when he came into the league, was handle the ball a little bit better, but he was hardly the ballhandler he is today. Once again, the only comparison I'm making is the beginning of their careers. I'm not saying that Jimmer is the next Nash. But if he can just become 70% of what Nash is, he's a keeper.

The question is, who is our PG of the future. If he's not currently on the team, then were wasting time with the group we have. I don't like Brooks next to Tyreke. You talk about chuckers. Brooks is the worse of the bunch. He ignores open shooters on the wing, and many times ignores post players that have fought for position. Instead, he'll use the post player as a screen to get to the basket. After a while, the post player, who is putting in all the work gets a little tired of watching someone else get all the results. IT is better than Brooks, but also has the tendecy to become superman at times. Jimmer comes the closest to having a PG mentality, but at this point, we have little idea if he's capable of running a team on a regular basis, whether it be starting or as the backup.

Personally, I think if he is capable, he'd be the perfect player next to Tyreke, because he'll get the ball to Tyreke, and he'll also help spread the floor to help open up the middle. Fredette isn't a selfish player, and I'm not sure you can say that about Brooks and IT.

I probably watched Nash as a young player more than anyone on this board and while you are right that he rarely showed any of the glimpses of the player he eventually became, there were frankly not that many similarities between him and jimmer. They were both poor defenders and at times looked a bit lost by the nba pace/style but Nash demonstrated strong court vision and the ability to play the pg position. That is a massive difference that if jimmer can't solve will be a huge obstacle in his career.

 

[mac]

I saw Nash play quite a bit in his second year in the NBA. After one of the games, I turned to my son, and said he'll never amount to anything in this league. I don't know how much you saw Nash early in his career, but he was nothing to write home about, and to be honest, About the only thing better that Nash could do when he came into the league, was handle the ball a little bit better, but he was hardly the ballhandler he is today. Once again, the only comparison I'm making is the beginning of their careers. I'm not saying that Jimmer is the next Nash. But if he can just become 70% of what Nash is, he's a keeper.

The question is, who is our PG of the future. If he's not currently on the team, then were wasting time with the group we have. I don't like Brooks next to Tyreke. You talk about chuckers. Brooks is the worse of the bunch. He ignores open shooters on the wing, and many times ignores post players that have fought for position. Instead, he'll use the post player as a screen to get to the basket. After a while, the post player, who is putting in all the work gets a little tired of watching someone else get all the results. IT is better than Brooks, but also has the tendecy to become superman at times. Jimmer comes the closest to having a PG mentality, but at this point, we have little idea if he's capable of running a team on a regular basis, whether it be starting or as the backup.

Personally, I think if he is capable, he'd be the perfect player next to Tyreke, because he'll get the ball to Tyreke, and he'll also help spread the floor to help open up the middle. Fredette isn't a selfish player, and I'm not sure you can say that about Brooks and IT.

Under a proper coach and system Evans and Jimmer have a set of very complementary skills that would be very potent offensively if developed properly.

 

[bajaden]

I probably watched Nash as a young player more than anyone on this board and while you are right that he rarely showed any of the glimpses of the player he eventually became, there were frankly not that many similarities between him and jimmer. They were both poor defenders and at times looked a bit lost by the nba pace/style but Nash demonstrated strong court vision and the ability to play the pg position. That is a massive difference that if jimmer can't solve will be a huge obstacle in his career.

There's no doubt that Nash is blessed with special talent, but it took him awhile to put it all together. Unlike you, I believe that Fredette has good court vision, and a good feel for the PG position. He just has to learn how to best use it in the NBA. Hopefully in the offseason he'll continue to improve his ballhandling, and add some hesitation moves into his box of tricks. I never said he would be as good as Nash, but I do think he can pretty good. Beno got nothing but criticism when he arrived here, but now, everyone wishes he was back. I think the PG position is the hardest position to learn. It requires a certain mentality. Many players have the skill level, but not that right mentality. I think Jimmer has the right mentality. All he needs to do now is elevate the skill level.. By the way, one of the similarities you left out, is that they were both noted for being great shooters coming out of college.

 

[UK_King]

Jimmer really has surprised me with his court vision tbh.

 

[t-rex]

I think Jimmer needs to go and commit a crime of some sort. Steal a little old lady's social security check or something. Its about the only way to snap the significant percentage of the fanbase who cheers louder for Jimmer than they do any other King out of their daze and get them to put the same eyes on Jimmer that they do IT, or Brooks, or just whoever.

Jealous much? The long-time King fans who resent Jimmer because of the pub he received in college is amazing.

Despite a Rondo-less Celtics tearing the Kings up from start to finish, Jimmer was the only player with a positive +/- It was 10! Brooks? Did you watch the 2nd quarter much less the whole game? Recurring theme throughout the season, the team players better with Jimmer on the floor.

Above all it's more than Jimmer. It's having the best lineup on the floor. If you watched all of the games with your eyes open, you would see that. If you want the same old crappy Kings enjoy the show!

 

[Spike]

By the way, one of the similarities you left out, is that they were both noted for being great shooters coming out of college.

And they're both Canadian.

(No fact checks, please.)

 

[pshn80]

I probably watched Nash as a young player more than anyone on this board and while you are right that he rarely showed any of the glimpses of the player he eventually became, there were frankly not that many similarities between him and jimmer. They were both poor defenders and at times looked a bit lost by the nba pace/style but Nash demonstrated strong court vision and the ability to play the pg position. That is a massive difference that if jimmer can't solve will be a huge obstacle in his career.

Jimmer has good court vision and comprehension WHEN he can look up. If he is under any pressure at all, he looks up and someone has stolen the ball. Not a big problem for Nash, ever.

 

[UK_King]

Not really as he has hit people under the basket on wrap around passes, that requires you to be dribbling the ball and be aware of who's there.

Again a lot of his trouble is a symptom of the offense, when he gets the ball looks up and no one is moving or doing anything, it forces him to go into one of them horrible dribble fests.

 

[Hadlowe]

Jealous much? The long-time King fans who resent Jimmer because of the pub he received in college is amazing.

Despite a Rondo-less Celtics tearing the Kings up from start to finish, Jimmer was the only player with a positive +/- It was 10! Brooks? Did you watch the 2nd quarter much less the whole game? Recurring theme throughout the season, the team players better with Jimmer on the floor.

Above all it's more than Jimmer. It's having the best lineup on the floor. If you watched all of the games with your eyes open, you would see that. If you want the same old crappy Kings enjoy the show!

Individual +/- in a game is largely meaningless. Jimmer did one thing well in his stint in that game . . . he deferred to Tyreke and Cousins. Jimmer took four shots and missed three, but he only took four shots in 18 minutes of play. That's pretty deferential for a scorer. In fact, when Tyreke and Brooks were clicking as starters, it's because Brooks played off of Reke.

Those of us who have criticized IT have largely complained that IT does not defer to the superior talent on the team and tries to hero ball his way into the game. Both Brooks and Jimmer play well off of Tyreke and have the ability to create for Tyreke.

 

[upinsmoke]

I strongly bealive good owners and management/coaching would do wonders for every "core" player on the roster. Jimmer can actually start one day. Floor spacers are instrumental with players like Cuz and Evans who do their best work around the basket.
Image if we had our dream owners in place last summer with Batum and Ryan Anderson both FA's.

 

[Hadlowe]

I strongly bealive good owners and management/coaching would do wonders for every "core" player on the roster. Jimmer can actually start one day. Floor spacers are instrumental with players like Cuz and Evans who do their best work around the basket.
Image if we had our dream owners in place last summer with Batum and Ryan Anderson both FA's.

Batum was offered a nuts contract by Minnesota which Portland matched. We weren't getting him even with the best owners.

Ryan Anderson was available, but I still question his fit next to Cousins. Where is the defense? Maybe with Anderson, you can play James Johnson as a starting SF, but that's still not ideal. There's a reason why Anderson looked good next to Dwight Howard and looks good on the court with one of two defensive bigs in Robin Lopez and Mr. Unibrow.

 

[treach1976]

Individual +/- in a game is largely meaningless.

I wouldn't use the term meaningless, rather - needs to be understood in context. In my opinion, it's much more meaningful in one game than it is interpreted over an entire season (which is utterly useless). I think you explained Jimmer's effectiveness pretty well --- he allowed Tyreke and Cousins to get involved. His 4 shots were less about being deferential as a shooter, and more a result of the fact that his guy stuck to him like glue on or off the ball, he rarely had an open look and would likely have taken them if he had. He had that one forced play that looked like he was trying to draw contact along the baseline and shot it off the side of the backboard. You take what the D gives you (something IT hasn't figured out yet).

BTW - I think the D+ grade he got was a little harsh.

 

[upinsmoke]

Batum was offered a nuts contract by Minnesota which Portland matched. We weren't getting him even with the best owners.

Ryan Anderson was available, but I still question his fit next to Cousins. Where is the defense? Maybe with Anderson, you can play James Johnson as a starting SF, but that's still not ideal. There's a reason why Anderson looked good next to Dwight Howard and looks good on the court with one of two defensive bigs in Robin Lopez and Mr. Unibrow.

C'mon man dont backhand Anderson like that me and you both know he is a baller.