Now, about Vasquez...
- Thread starter MassachusettsKingsFan
- Start date
Uh no. its actually essential for any player that isn't an elite athlete. Steph Curry driving is exponentially more dangerous than Tyreke Evans. Defenses know Tyreke's one and only goal. Curry on the other hand can pull up for the midrange shot, has an array of floaters, or can get to the rim, or can dish to open players from all the attention he gets. Guys like Tony Parker and Steve Nash would be easy to guard if you knew their goal is to get all the way to the rim. They HAD to develop those floaters, tear drops, midrange jumpers. Name me an all star that doesn't have elite athletic ability whose only offense is getting all the way to the rim?
Amusing? I think your ignorance of the evolution of NBA basketball is amusing. Are you seriously claiming that having a mid range game isn't an incredibly valuable skill? That must be why Geoff Petrie and Mitch Richmond spent time personally with Tyreke last summer to help him improve his mid range game. If Tyreke had a mid range game he would be an absolute superstar.
Last edited:
Great post. And, BTW, LeBron became unguardable when he developed his midrange shot. Now it's a lot easier for him to attack the basket, because defenses know they can't just let him shoot from outside. Right now, Tyreke, in a playoff series against an elite defense, would struggle to get his points. If he wants to get better he needs to develop an outside shot, or at least a floater.
Ha.
Haha.
Hahaha.
Actually stupid statements like this get less amusing with each retelling.
I am trying to track the source of the stubborn stupid, but its hard. I think you read a book or something and got stuck conflating its theory with reality, but its possible its just been some particularly stupid announcer who did you in. is it your testimony then, and your cohorts, that if Stephen Curry, or Tony Parker, or whoever, were talented enough that they could reach the rim on every attempt that they would instead CHOOSE not to, because that would make them too predictable and throwing up flip shots is actually BETTER than getting to the rim? Think carefully and realize that every single player in the NBA would look at you like you'd grown a second head if you suggested that. You are arguing that Shaq really would have been better off with a midrange game than all those predictable attacks at the rim. You are arguing nonsense.
Oh and BTW, you are also arguing this:
Mr. "Dangerous", Stephen Curry drives into the lane:
At Rim: 1.2 of 2.1att 59.2% conversions
3-9ft: 0.5 of 1.1att 41.4%
------------------------
1.7 makes
Mr. "Unfortunately Predictable", Tyreke Evans
At Rim: 3.8 of 6.0att 63.2% conversions
3-9ft: 0.4 of 1.4att 27.0%
-----------------------------
4.2 makes
Your logic needs work. This is logic: a works better than b. Therefore a is better than b. This is you: I know b is better than a, so it just is.
Haha.
Hahaha.
Actually stupid statements like this get less amusing with each retelling.
I am trying to track the source of the stubborn stupid, but its hard. I think you read a book or something and got stuck conflating its theory with reality, but its possible its just been some particularly stupid announcer who did you in. is it your testimony then, and your cohorts, that if Stephen Curry, or Tony Parker, or whoever, were talented enough that they could reach the rim on every attempt that they would instead CHOOSE not to, because that would make them too predictable and throwing up flip shots is actually BETTER than getting to the rim? Think carefully and realize that every single player in the NBA would look at you like you'd grown a second head if you suggested that. You are arguing that Shaq really would have been better off with a midrange game than all those predictable attacks at the rim. You are arguing nonsense.
Oh and BTW, you are also arguing this:
Mr. "Dangerous", Stephen Curry drives into the lane:
At Rim: 1.2 of 2.1att 59.2% conversions
3-9ft: 0.5 of 1.1att 41.4%
------------------------
1.7 makes
Mr. "Unfortunately Predictable", Tyreke Evans
At Rim: 3.8 of 6.0att 63.2% conversions
3-9ft: 0.4 of 1.4att 27.0%
-----------------------------
4.2 makes
Your logic needs work. This is logic: a works better than b. Therefore a is better than b. This is you: I know b is better than a, so it just is.
that was far from a great post.
One of the things that keeps me coming back to this site is trying to keep such illogical nonsense from gaining a foothold.
Here are the truths of this topic:
-- getting to the rim is good
-- having flip shots is good
-- however, getting to the rim > having flip shots
The flip shot is the shot you develop when you are not good enough to get to the rim. It is a counter, something you resort to, not a preference. There is not a player in the NBA who hits flip shots better than they hit layups. But if they can't get to the rim for those layups, then yes, a flip is the next best option.
Only is topsy turvy completely misunderstanding the point land does having a flipshot then make you graeter than guys who get to the rim. Having a flipshot makes you greater than guys who a) don't get to the rim AND b) don't have a flipshot. It does NOT make you greater than guys who a) get to the rim and b) therefore don't need the flipshot.
getting to rim > having a flipshot > neither getting to rim nor having a flipshot
There's some seriously messed up determinative logic floating around in this thread. Self serving too of course.
One of the things that keeps me coming back to this site is trying to keep such illogical nonsense from gaining a foothold.
Here are the truths of this topic:
-- getting to the rim is good
-- having flip shots is good
-- however, getting to the rim > having flip shots
The flip shot is the shot you develop when you are not good enough to get to the rim. It is a counter, something you resort to, not a preference. There is not a player in the NBA who hits flip shots better than they hit layups. But if they can't get to the rim for those layups, then yes, a flip is the next best option.
Only is topsy turvy completely misunderstanding the point land does having a flipshot then make you graeter than guys who get to the rim. Having a flipshot makes you greater than guys who a) don't get to the rim AND b) don't have a flipshot. It does NOT make you greater than guys who a) get to the rim and b) therefore don't need the flipshot.
getting to rim > having a flipshot > neither getting to rim nor having a flipshot
There's some seriously messed up determinative logic floating around in this thread. Self serving too of course.
He improved as a spot up shooter. I've never seen him hitting a floater. I believe in 4 years you should have seen some more improvements, if a player is going to become a decent shooter. But, there are players that just don't develop a good shot. Iguodala, Rondo, Wallace. Sometimes it happens. I don't know if Reke in 3 years will be the next Steph Curry, but it's easier for me that his ceiling as a shooter is Iggy.
wait, you insist that the evolution of the NBA goes towards more emphasis on the midrange game? seriously? haven't you been paying attention these last few years? the midrange shot has become the worst shot in all of basketball, whereas the best offensive teams rely mostly on paint points, going to the frew throw line and open threes. you know, the things Tyreke is actually good at. as far as this "he became predictable" thing goes, it has been noted by countless others, but since it apparently still bears repeating: so what? teams still couldn't stop him. he shot 63% there, which is absolutely elite for guards shooting so many of their shots there. now set him up in an actual basketball system, space the floor properly, get rid of all the chuckers stealing his possessions and even if he doesn't improve a lick from what he was last year, he's still going to look like a much better player, easily worth paying 11M a year for.
disagreed on both counts. LeBron became absolutely unstoppable once he developed a postgame and Tyreke is nowhere near as ignorable on offense as Allen or Prince were for Memphis, simply because he has developed and is still developing an increasingly reliable standstill three. once he gets that over 35%, which might be as soon as next season, looking at his improvement rate there, he will absolutely have to be guarded there. as far as the floater thing goes, it's a bit double-edged, yeah, it might improve the at-rim percentage slightly, but you also rarely get fouled shooting a floater. I'd much rather he'd look for contact more and went to the line at a rate similar to his rookie season and developed his post game more. the latter might've been helped by simply getting him back to playing PG, another reason that I'm ticked off we didn't match this contract.
now getting back to Vasquez: I like the guy, make no mistake, but I'm still rather apprehensive about him. he was in a ball-dominant point guard's paradise last year and in pretty much the complete antithesis to what the Kings were. for much of the year he had only roleplayers around him, no one on the team outside of him could create any offense. it got to the point where they tried to milk Fropez for points by posting him up. what those roleplayers could do, however, is make shots, once put in a position to do so. Anderson was making threes at a near historic level for much of the season, Davis and Aminu were catching lobs and finishing very well and nobody was encouraged to play outside of himself, either, as Monty Williams had roles carved out for every player to near perfection (something every outside observer of the team has pointed out). NO is also fairly notorious for inflating the assist totals of their point guards, as has been mentioned in the other thread, all of which tells me that anybody expecting Vasquez to replicate what he did last season here might be in for a bit of a disappointment. unless of course we really get rid of most of our guard rotation and don't expect boogie to run the offense for big stretches anymore.
also, his defense *will* be a problem. in NO, they had two actual shotblockers to cover for him, once his lack of foodspeed was exposed by quicker guards. a luxury that he won't have here, nothing even close to it. add to that, that at least for stretches of the season, NO could hide him on two guards, thanks to Eric Gordon's presence, a luxury, again, that we don't have and it spells trouble, seeing as how I don't see anybody capable of guarding point guards on this team anymore.
disagreed on both counts. LeBron became absolutely unstoppable once he developed a postgame and Tyreke is nowhere near as ignorable on offense as Allen or Prince were for Memphis, simply because he has developed and is still developing an increasingly reliable standstill three. once he gets that over 35%, which might be as soon as next season, looking at his improvement rate there, he will absolutely have to be guarded there. as far as the floater thing goes, it's a bit double-edged, yeah, it might improve the at-rim percentage slightly, but you also rarely get fouled shooting a floater. I'd much rather he'd look for contact more and went to the line at a rate similar to his rookie season and developed his post game more. the latter might've been helped by simply getting him back to playing PG, another reason that I'm ticked off we didn't match this contract.
now getting back to Vasquez: I like the guy, make no mistake, but I'm still rather apprehensive about him. he was in a ball-dominant point guard's paradise last year and in pretty much the complete antithesis to what the Kings were. for much of the year he had only roleplayers around him, no one on the team outside of him could create any offense. it got to the point where they tried to milk Fropez for points by posting him up. what those roleplayers could do, however, is make shots, once put in a position to do so. Anderson was making threes at a near historic level for much of the season, Davis and Aminu were catching lobs and finishing very well and nobody was encouraged to play outside of himself, either, as Monty Williams had roles carved out for every player to near perfection (something every outside observer of the team has pointed out). NO is also fairly notorious for inflating the assist totals of their point guards, as has been mentioned in the other thread, all of which tells me that anybody expecting Vasquez to replicate what he did last season here might be in for a bit of a disappointment. unless of course we really get rid of most of our guard rotation and don't expect boogie to run the offense for big stretches anymore.
also, his defense *will* be a problem. in NO, they had two actual shotblockers to cover for him, once his lack of foodspeed was exposed by quicker guards. a luxury that he won't have here, nothing even close to it. add to that, that at least for stretches of the season, NO could hide him on two guards, thanks to Eric Gordon's presence, a luxury, again, that we don't have and it spells trouble, seeing as how I don't see anybody capable of guarding point guards on this team anymore.
I actually disagree with this. Ben McLemore is a rookie, but he is also one of the most athletic players for his size in the entire league. All the foot speed you could want. Great defensive potential there, and he's shorter than Vasquez. Teams rarely have a PG and an SG that can light you up, and I see no issue putting McLemore on the faster, more potent scorer.
Will he succeed at this job from day 1? maybe. Maybe not. He is a rookie, after all, but Eric Gordon is no defensive stopper, either. He's fine on that end, but if he can do it .. if so many other SG's can do it, McLemore will be able to do it someday.
Will he succeed at this job from day 1? maybe. Maybe not. He is a rookie, after all, but Eric Gordon is no defensive stopper, either. He's fine on that end, but if he can do it .. if so many other SG's can do it, McLemore will be able to do it someday.
well, yeah, someday maybe that kind of presupposes that Vasquez is the point guard of the future, though, which I won't quite buy into yet. right now, I'm feeling hella uncomfortable telling my 20 year old rookie to check the Pauls, Irivings, Westbrooks, Roses and so on and so forth this league will throw in his way. nevermind that it's not even a given that McLemore is going to start from day one or that we still haven't gotten anywhere close to getting a good helpside defender to alleviate some of the stress our increasingly porous perimeter d is going to be put on. things could of course change with roster movements still to come and if we acquire a shotblocker in the mold of Bogut/Asik, I'll be a lot less worried. even a good defender at the SF would help me sleep easier, but as of yet our guard rotation consists of exclusively terrible defenders and a rookie with no track record whatsoever. Malone surely has his work cut out for him there.
Most of the recent champions have had top 50 all time players. It is what it is. I have wanted Chalmers since college, and I feel that he could be a 15/8 guy on the right team. He is fitting in perfectly in Miami and he does what they ask him to do, not to mention his 40% 3pt shots when needed which is a huge plus. He also plays defense.
Parker sees the floor VERY well and while he's not typically a pass first PG he does give it off to Duncan to work the post or Ginobili to create for himself or others. Lakers of course had Kobe and Shaq. Two of the top 50 all time players if I am not mistaken. Indiana is a mystery. I am not sure how they do it but I assume it would have been the same as the Evans/Iggy deal here. George/Hill are two players that have good handles so I assume Reke/Iggy could have worked like that.
Curry is just scary talented. I watched a TON of Warrior games this year, and the way that guy is on offense just amazes me to no end. He can see the floor like a top tier PG and can score and handle like a top tier SG.
Parker sees the floor VERY well and while he's not typically a pass first PG he does give it off to Duncan to work the post or Ginobili to create for himself or others. Lakers of course had Kobe and Shaq. Two of the top 50 all time players if I am not mistaken. Indiana is a mystery. I am not sure how they do it but I assume it would have been the same as the Evans/Iggy deal here. George/Hill are two players that have good handles so I assume Reke/Iggy could have worked like that.
Curry is just scary talented. I watched a TON of Warrior games this year, and the way that guy is on offense just amazes me to no end. He can see the floor like a top tier PG and can score and handle like a top tier SG.
I have to agree with jcwkings here. Going on what we have to judge them on at this point. Curry is best at shooting the outside shot, so that opens up his drive to the hoop. Tyreke who is world class at driving to the hoop but is often ineffective WHEN IT MATTERS at the end of games because the defenses stack the paint. Those numbers you present Brick are averages. I have watched every Kings game and I have witnessed what defenses do to Tyreke. Heck I watched Shane Battier take him out of a game a couple seasons ago, Shane Battier!
I do think different coaching and a different cast of players around Tyreke can improve his game. But that did not happen here in Sacto. What has happened is that Tyreke is with NO. He plans to ink the deal he verbally agreed to. Good for Tyreke. He is going to make $11,000,000 a year, NICE. I wish Tyreke was still a King but he is not. It is what it is.
The Kings did get Grevis Vasquez and a bunch of salary space in this sign and trade. Grevis is scheduled to earn $2,150,188 in 2013/2014. Tyreke is going to make over 5 times as much as Grevis.
Tyreke was Blue Chip coming into College and into the NBA draft. Grevis was the 28th pick in the 2010 draft. Heck Brick we all know Tyreke is the better player and most of us wish he was still a King.
So moving forward I'm glad Grevis is a King. I'm hoping Pete, Vivek and Malone can get us Kings Fans excited by assembling a team that will compete and win.
KB
First of all were you just mocking Shane Battier's defense??? How old are you? I mean that seriously. If you're only like 13 or 14 maybe I can see you not realizing this, but Shane Battier was All Defense worthy during those years famous for torturing Kobe. If you're older...maybe I am missing the joke. In any case, Battier was widely considered a Top 5 defender at the time, and maybe the smartest of all of them. Him torturing a rookie Reke was hardly some indictment. He tortured everybody remotely in his size class.
Secondly, jcwkings' point, which was ASININE, is that Curry is more dangerous than Evans ON THE DRIVE. There is not a single player, scout, or executive in the NBA who would support such nonsense. I just put numbers to it. Curry is a superior offensive player because of his ridiculous outside bombing -- he took over a dozen long jumpers a game last year, nearly 8 of them threes. That's his game. Trying to compare his to the basket game to Reke's is moronic. They aren't even on the same planet.
Secondly, jcwkings' point, which was ASININE, is that Curry is more dangerous than Evans ON THE DRIVE. There is not a single player, scout, or executive in the NBA who would support such nonsense. I just put numbers to it. Curry is a superior offensive player because of his ridiculous outside bombing -- he took over a dozen long jumpers a game last year, nearly 8 of them threes. That's his game. Trying to compare his to the basket game to Reke's is moronic. They aren't even on the same planet.
I didn't want Evans to be traded if they had another ball handler to help Reke out. I actually thought they would match the 11mil. Anyhow, It's not about one side getting what they want and the other side getting screwed over. At least I don't see it that way. I see the new FO and owner wanting to take the team in a different direction. I put faith in the notion that we'll be a better team this year. While we have lost a very good ball player we might actually be better since the team wasn't fitting with him.
I have to admit that the offensive trio of Cousins, Vasquez and McLemore projects to be pretty damn exciting. They fit together. I'm most interested to see how PDA addresses our defensive needs and just how well Coach is able to make these guys play defense. We still have nice pieces to trade and lots of cap space. I expect to see another move by the FO in the coming days and weeks.
what team, exactly? do you mean that seemingly random assortment of mediocre misfits and chuckers assembled by geoff petrie, each of whom was given a green light by a moronic head coach? seriously?
i hear all of this nonsense from various posters about "new directions" and "fitting with the team," but it's completely devoid of context or perspective. so let me provide a little of both: if demarcus cousins is at the top of this team's food chain, then who among the remaining kings is even truly worthy of note? whose style of play was most likely to clash with tyreke evans going forward? marcus thornton? isaiah thomas? jimmer fredette? if this new regime valued those three lesser talents over tyreke evans, then it's doomed from the start. now, we certainly have no idea what an evans/mclemore backcourt would have accomplished together, and we'll never know, but on paper it's deadly, particularly on the defensive side of the ball... y'know, that part of the game where the kings need to make the greatest strides if they want to win more than 25-30 games ever again...
i guess i'm not willing to drop the "in PDA we trust" line just yet, particularly given his inability to keep a sizable offer to andre iguodala on the table long enough for him to say either "yes" or "no" (unlike many, i find it to be a weak play, like a guy who won't propose to his girlfriend because he fears the rejection), or pull the trigger on the obvious follow-up move by re-signing tyreke evans. PDA looks scared to spend money on useful talent, and i'm just praying he doesn't get desperate with all of that vaunted cap space so many of you are [pre-maturely] celebrating...
i remain wholly unconvinced that we're a better team as of this moment, and given the significant obstacles that this front office will have to overcome for the remainder of this offseason, i am certainly not convinced that "we'll be a better team this year." fortunately, the "addition by subtraction" model applies in one sense: the removal of the maloofs, petrie, and smart will account for improvement simply because the highest levels of the organization will no longer be engaged in a game of self-sabotage. if malone is even half as worthy as advertised, i expect him to squeeze more wins from a team with demarcus cousins at its center, regardless of who DMC is surrounded with...
that said, it's gonna take a whole helluvalot more than DMC alone to push this team toward the playoffs, and given his defensive weaknesses, i am not pleased to be staring down the barrel of yet another season in which both the 1 and the 5 are below average on that side of the ball. the now-pipedream of evans/mclemore/iguodala would have more than adequately compensated for demarcus' defensive deficiencies, but vasquez/mclemore/? is considerably less potent on defense, particularly since the remaining free agents that might satisfy that question mark (matt barnes, andre kirilenko) are no longer as appealing in the absence of tyreke evans. in order to build a winner with a starting backcourt of vasquez and mclemore, you have to swing for the fences on a SF who can ably get to the rim, because demarcus cousins, as infinitely talented as he is, can't carry the team entirely by himself yet...
what happens when DMC gets into foul trouble? are you gonna rely on the rookie? do you really think that grievis vasquez (he of 43% shooting from the field) is gonna make up the difference? do you count on marcus thornton's streakiness? if the answers are "no," then who out there is PDA going to realistically acquire that brings an elite scoring skillset to the table, while also playing defense consistently above par? you need at least two star talents, or at least two talents with star potential. demarcus is one. who is the other?
oh, and for those of you who believe that mclemore is the other, do you honestly believe that demarcus cousins is interested in waiting around for him to develop into a star while the losses pile up? and then there's the problem of determining whether or not ben mclemore is even ready to start yet, which is a concern worth noting. i think he'll be an effective, if unspectacular starter in his rookie season, but if it turns out he's not ready to start on a team that needs to get closer to 40 wins this season, then it's just another hole to fill on a roster full of them (and one that could have been sufficiently occupied by tyreke evans, by the way)...
i hear all of this nonsense from various posters about "new directions" and "fitting with the team," but it's completely devoid of context or perspective. so let me provide a little of both: if demarcus cousins is at the top of this team's food chain, then who among the remaining kings is even truly worthy of note? whose style of play was most likely to clash with tyreke evans going forward? marcus thornton? isaiah thomas? jimmer fredette? if this new regime valued those three lesser talents over tyreke evans, then it's doomed from the start. now, we certainly have no idea what an evans/mclemore backcourt would have accomplished together, and we'll never know, but on paper it's deadly, particularly on the defensive side of the ball... y'know, that part of the game where the kings need to make the greatest strides if they want to win more than 25-30 games ever again...
i guess i'm not willing to drop the "in PDA we trust" line just yet, particularly given his inability to keep a sizable offer to andre iguodala on the table long enough for him to say either "yes" or "no" (unlike many, i find it to be a weak play, like a guy who won't propose to his girlfriend because he fears the rejection), or pull the trigger on the obvious follow-up move by re-signing tyreke evans. PDA looks scared to spend money on useful talent, and i'm just praying he doesn't get desperate with all of that vaunted cap space so many of you are [pre-maturely] celebrating...
i remain wholly unconvinced that we're a better team as of this moment, and given the significant obstacles that this front office will have to overcome for the remainder of this offseason, i am certainly not convinced that "we'll be a better team this year." fortunately, the "addition by subtraction" model applies in one sense: the removal of the maloofs, petrie, and smart will account for improvement simply because the highest levels of the organization will no longer be engaged in a game of self-sabotage. if malone is even half as worthy as advertised, i expect him to squeeze more wins from a team with demarcus cousins at its center, regardless of who DMC is surrounded with...
that said, it's gonna take a whole helluvalot more than DMC alone to push this team toward the playoffs, and given his defensive weaknesses, i am not pleased to be staring down the barrel of yet another season in which both the 1 and the 5 are below average on that side of the ball. the now-pipedream of evans/mclemore/iguodala would have more than adequately compensated for demarcus' defensive deficiencies, but vasquez/mclemore/? is considerably less potent on defense, particularly since the remaining free agents that might satisfy that question mark (matt barnes, andre kirilenko) are no longer as appealing in the absence of tyreke evans. in order to build a winner with a starting backcourt of vasquez and mclemore, you have to swing for the fences on a SF who can ably get to the rim, because demarcus cousins, as infinitely talented as he is, can't carry the team entirely by himself yet...
what happens when DMC gets into foul trouble? are you gonna rely on the rookie? do you really think that grievis vasquez (he of 43% shooting from the field) is gonna make up the difference? do you count on marcus thornton's streakiness? if the answers are "no," then who out there is PDA going to realistically acquire that brings an elite scoring skillset to the table, while also playing defense consistently above par? you need at least two star talents, or at least two talents with star potential. demarcus is one. who is the other?
oh, and for those of you who believe that mclemore is the other, do you honestly believe that demarcus cousins is interested in waiting around for him to develop into a star while the losses pile up? and then there's the problem of determining whether or not ben mclemore is even ready to start yet, which is a concern worth noting. i think he'll be an effective, if unspectacular starter in his rookie season, but if it turns out he's not ready to start on a team that needs to get closer to 40 wins this season, then it's just another hole to fill on a roster full of them (and one that could have been sufficiently occupied by tyreke evans, by the way)...
Last edited:
No doubt Battier was one of the best defenders of his era. The point is he shut Tyreke down because Tyreke's game was one dimensional.
As for jcwkings post here it is:
"Uh no. its actually essential for any player that isn't an elite athlete. Steph Curry driving is exponentially more dangerous than Tyreke Evans. Defenses know Tyreke's one and only goal. Curry on the other hand can pull up for the midrange shot, has an array of floaters, or can get to the rim, or can dish to open players from all the attention he gets. Guys like Tony Parker and Steve Nash would be easy to guard if you knew their goal is to get all the way to the rim. They HAD to develop those floaters, tear drops, midrange jumpers. Name me an all star that doesn't have elite athletic ability whose only offense is getting all the way to the rim?"
jcwkings point is that due to Curry's COMPLETE GAME the defense can't line up in the paint to stop his drive.
How many times has Tyreke been stopped on a drive? If he had a better outside shot or mid-range game he would be a much better player. How can you not agree with that???
Answer me this Brick. 15 seconds to go, Curry with the ball or Tyreke with the ball. Who is going to score the winning basket???
KB
As for jcwkings post here it is:
"Uh no. its actually essential for any player that isn't an elite athlete. Steph Curry driving is exponentially more dangerous than Tyreke Evans. Defenses know Tyreke's one and only goal. Curry on the other hand can pull up for the midrange shot, has an array of floaters, or can get to the rim, or can dish to open players from all the attention he gets. Guys like Tony Parker and Steve Nash would be easy to guard if you knew their goal is to get all the way to the rim. They HAD to develop those floaters, tear drops, midrange jumpers. Name me an all star that doesn't have elite athletic ability whose only offense is getting all the way to the rim?"
jcwkings point is that due to Curry's COMPLETE GAME the defense can't line up in the paint to stop his drive.
How many times has Tyreke been stopped on a drive? If he had a better outside shot or mid-range game he would be a much better player. How can you not agree with that???
Answer me this Brick. 15 seconds to go, Curry with the ball or Tyreke with the ball. Who is going to score the winning basket???
KB
i don't think anybody argues that tyreke wouldn't be a better player with a mid-range game or an outside shot that continues to improve. but it is, indeed, quite ludicrous to believe that stephen curry's drive is more dangerous than tyreke's. despite playing in 17 fewer games than curry last season (and at 7 fewer minutes per game than curry), tyreke more than doubled curry's amount of shot attempts at the rim, while shooting at the rim at a better percentage. that is a deadly drive, when a player can get to the rim and score at the rim at will, entirely despite how the defense responds. who cares if the defense lines up in the paint to stop his drive if they can't stop his drive? he still scores at the rim more frequently and at a better percentage than damn near every other guard in the nba, all the while keeping his turnovers down. failing to understand the value in this skillset is to fail to understand the excellence of any great rim attacker, and kings fans are poorer for their evaluative skills because of it...
also, i dunno about the last fifteen seconds, but, as far as measured clutch statistics are concerned (last five minutes of game), tyreke is a better shooter by field goal percentage than curry. their effective field goal percentage is nearly identitcal. but 'reke also scores off assists a full 30% less in the clutch than stephen curry does, so you know 'reke doesn't have to wait for the ball to be swung his way in order to score in the clutch. conventional wisdom says curry, but the stats bear out that tyreke is a better clutch player by a slim margin...
also, i dunno about the last fifteen seconds, but, as far as measured clutch statistics are concerned (last five minutes of game), tyreke is a better shooter by field goal percentage than curry. their effective field goal percentage is nearly identitcal. but 'reke also scores off assists a full 30% less in the clutch than stephen curry does, so you know 'reke doesn't have to wait for the ball to be swung his way in order to score in the clutch. conventional wisdom says curry, but the stats bear out that tyreke is a better clutch player by a slim margin...
Last edited:
1) sigh. some of your points make me wonder if you have misunderstood the nature of the debate. You are arguing several different things.
people have selective vision. I get that. But selectively ignoring statistics is not so cool.
Tyreke. Shoots BETTER on his drives than does Stephen Curry, he takes more, makes more (by a factor of about 2). He also turns the ball over less (no stats on where the turnovers occur). So, given those FACTS, how exactly is lil Stephen Curry more effective driving to the hoop than Tyerke? Answer: he's not. Not even close.
This is all backwards logic. Reasoning, or no even bothering to reason, form an underlying assumption. I have decided floaters are better than drives. --> Therefore someone with a floater must be more effective than someone who drives to the rim. --> Therefore I don't care what the numbers say, it is so. *** backwards. The numbers tell you exactly the opposite. So does logic, an understanding of basketball, and just plain common sense.
2) your second point is the point jsw should have been arguing, except there's no argument. Not one human being on the planet disagrees that Tyrke, or pretty much any basketball player, wouldn't be better if he diversified his game. But just because he would be better if he added even MORE, that does not in some *** backwards way mean that he's not already effective or valuable. Shaq never learned how to shoot a jumper. To which he would eloquently reply "So the **** what?" There is no versatility scale whereby all players are judged by how many boxes they can tick.
3) and your final question is again scattered. I'm not 100% sure, but its like you jumped into an argument without fully getting what the argument was about. At no point in this thread at least has anybody been arguing over whether Curry or Reke is a better offensive player. What jcw tired to do was argue that Curry was a better DRIVING player. So your question of who do I want taking the last shot doesn't make any sense unless you qaulify it the same way. Who do I want taking it overall? Curry, but that's got nothing to do with the stupid debate here. Who do I want taking it if you stipulate its going to be a drive? Tyreke every day and twice on Sundays. He's as big a genius at that as Curry is at shooting jumpers.
people have selective vision. I get that. But selectively ignoring statistics is not so cool.
Tyreke. Shoots BETTER on his drives than does Stephen Curry, he takes more, makes more (by a factor of about 2). He also turns the ball over less (no stats on where the turnovers occur). So, given those FACTS, how exactly is lil Stephen Curry more effective driving to the hoop than Tyerke? Answer: he's not. Not even close.
This is all backwards logic. Reasoning, or no even bothering to reason, form an underlying assumption. I have decided floaters are better than drives. --> Therefore someone with a floater must be more effective than someone who drives to the rim. --> Therefore I don't care what the numbers say, it is so. *** backwards. The numbers tell you exactly the opposite. So does logic, an understanding of basketball, and just plain common sense.
2) your second point is the point jsw should have been arguing, except there's no argument. Not one human being on the planet disagrees that Tyrke, or pretty much any basketball player, wouldn't be better if he diversified his game. But just because he would be better if he added even MORE, that does not in some *** backwards way mean that he's not already effective or valuable. Shaq never learned how to shoot a jumper. To which he would eloquently reply "So the **** what?" There is no versatility scale whereby all players are judged by how many boxes they can tick.
3) and your final question is again scattered. I'm not 100% sure, but its like you jumped into an argument without fully getting what the argument was about. At no point in this thread at least has anybody been arguing over whether Curry or Reke is a better offensive player. What jcw tired to do was argue that Curry was a better DRIVING player. So your question of who do I want taking the last shot doesn't make any sense unless you qaulify it the same way. Who do I want taking it overall? Curry, but that's got nothing to do with the stupid debate here. Who do I want taking it if you stipulate its going to be a drive? Tyreke every day and twice on Sundays. He's as big a genius at that as Curry is at shooting jumpers.
Last edited:
First post in a bunch that talks about Vasquez and his play at PG. if I'm not mistaken that is the purpose of this thread. Evans is gone and Vasquez is here. Can he play PG? Can he help the team? Of course we can't fully answer that because I don't believe our training camp team is in place yet. Some of the group of IT, Jimmer, MT won't be here next season and an unknown or two will join us. Thanks for posting this.
Brick,
Without debating all the points I just think jsw was referring to a players complete game. His one sentence about driving to the hoop taken alone is not true. Tyreke is the best at driving to the hoop. Tyreke will never realize the value of his driving ability until he expands his game and quits relying on the drive so much of the time. It may seem crazy but I think he needs to reduce the usage of the thing he is so incredible at to improve as a player. I like Tyreke and I hope he accomplishes this no matter where he plays.
KB
Without debating all the points I just think jsw was referring to a players complete game. His one sentence about driving to the hoop taken alone is not true. Tyreke is the best at driving to the hoop. Tyreke will never realize the value of his driving ability until he expands his game and quits relying on the drive so much of the time. It may seem crazy but I think he needs to reduce the usage of the thing he is so incredible at to improve as a player. I like Tyreke and I hope he accomplishes this no matter where he plays.
KB
Evans is obviously better at attacking the rim than Curry, but you have to look how it their driving ability affects the rest of the team. When Tyreke drives, everybody knows he's going to the rim due to his lack of pull-up-jumper, so they pack the paint forcing Thompson and Cousins to the perimeter.
You could be right Padrino, the numbers do tell a story.
I was relying on the eyeball test from my fan's perspective. I watched all the Kings games and a lot of Warrior games last season. If either of our Heroes (I think they are both great players) had the ball at the end of the game. I give Curry the edge in this situation because of what I have seen in close games.
With better coaching and better shooters around Tyreke things would be different.
KB
I was relying on the eyeball test from my fan's perspective. I watched all the Kings games and a lot of Warrior games last season. If either of our Heroes (I think they are both great players) had the ball at the end of the game. I give Curry the edge in this situation because of what I have seen in close games.
With better coaching and better shooters around Tyreke things would be different.
KB