Ongoing draft/lottery discussion [OPEN SPOILERS]
- Thread starter hrdboild
- Start date
I'd say that's definitely a component of of increased ball movement and more assists, decreased turnovers and improved team defense.
And while I definitely agree that some guys just have a much better feel for the game I disagree to an extent that "you either have it or you don't".
I was surprised Stauskas struggled so much in the regular season because he really showed me good BBIQ in the summer league. Good decision making and productive movement with and without the ball. I think it was just the increase in size/speed/strength in the NBA that overwhelmed him somewhat. But ultimately I think he'll be fine. He DOES understand the game. Ben on the other hand has the athleticism but lacks the feel. But a large part of that is that McLemore starting playing organized basketball when he was 14 or 15 and Stauskas started playing when he was 6. A large part of it is just being comfortable and understanding your role.
I liken it to grammar for writers and music theory for musicians. They are things you really should have mastery of to be good at your craft and require a lot of study but in the end the goal is to internalize them so that you can simply write or simply play and have them be a part of your ability to express yourself. Likewise with understanding decision making in basketball. If you're thinking instead of reacting it's going to make everything slower. The goal is to internalize things so you can play freely.
I don't know that Ben will ever look completely natural on the court. Part of that is lack of experience and part of that (IMO) is his temperament. But I DO think that when he has his role better defined for him and he works hard at knowing what to do in different situation he'll be a much improved (and higher BBIQ) player.
And while I definitely agree that some guys just have a much better feel for the game I disagree to an extent that "you either have it or you don't".
I was surprised Stauskas struggled so much in the regular season because he really showed me good BBIQ in the summer league. Good decision making and productive movement with and without the ball. I think it was just the increase in size/speed/strength in the NBA that overwhelmed him somewhat. But ultimately I think he'll be fine. He DOES understand the game. Ben on the other hand has the athleticism but lacks the feel. But a large part of that is that McLemore starting playing organized basketball when he was 14 or 15 and Stauskas started playing when he was 6. A large part of it is just being comfortable and understanding your role.
I liken it to grammar for writers and music theory for musicians. They are things you really should have mastery of to be good at your craft and require a lot of study but in the end the goal is to internalize them so that you can simply write or simply play and have them be a part of your ability to express yourself. Likewise with understanding decision making in basketball. If you're thinking instead of reacting it's going to make everything slower. The goal is to internalize things so you can play freely.
I don't know that Ben will ever look completely natural on the court. Part of that is lack of experience and part of that (IMO) is his temperament. But I DO think that when he has his role better defined for him and he works hard at knowing what to do in different situation he'll be a much improved (and higher BBIQ) player.
Last edited:
One element of BBIQ is passing ability. With passing, you either have it or you don't. You either see the court and react quickly and pass the ball accurately or you don't. If you don't have that vision-reaction ability you just have to play much more conservatively so you don't make the stupid play. We have a lot of the latter kind of players. I think music is a good example, but I come to a different conclusion than you apparently. I'm a "mechanic" when it comes to playing the guitar. My nephew, on the other hand, is a prodigy. I will never come close to his stratosphere when it comes to playing. He "sees the floor" and I see "the man in front of me." (I hate him.
) Same holds for a guy with the IQ for basketball. Some guys are like Jason Thompson and it takes him nearly 4 years to know that his hands are not totally vertical (90 degrees) to the floor when he's guarding his man, more like 45 degrees. Some, on the other hand, are like Sauce and have an intuitive feel for the game.
I think Karl recognizes what can be taught and what can't be taught, and I believe that FO discussions with Karl will definitely touch on those players that are "beyond redemption" and those he believes have a future with this team. I also believe that BBIQ is going to be a major factor in their draft decision. I doubt they are going to draft someone who doesn't have the ability to deal with steep learning curve. Karl had enough of that kind of frustration last year; he doesn't want to add to it.
) Same holds for a guy with the IQ for basketball. Some guys are like Jason Thompson and it takes him nearly 4 years to know that his hands are not totally vertical (90 degrees) to the floor when he's guarding his man, more like 45 degrees. Some, on the other hand, are like Sauce and have an intuitive feel for the game. I think Karl recognizes what can be taught and what can't be taught, and I believe that FO discussions with Karl will definitely touch on those players that are "beyond redemption" and those he believes have a future with this team. I also believe that BBIQ is going to be a major factor in their draft decision. I doubt they are going to draft someone who doesn't have the ability to deal with steep learning curve. Karl had enough of that kind of frustration last year; he doesn't want to add to it.
I think some of us are not making a distinction between talent, experience, physical abilities, fundamentals, coachability and work ethic. We're using the blanket statement of BBIQ when one or multiple areas are lacking.
What people appear to be falling in love with with Sauce is simply fundamentals. There is a technical aspect to running the pick and roll or to making an entry pass to the post. Those skills are crucial, but they can be taught and learned. Sauce has solid fundamentals and technical skills. He can anticipate plays because he knows what should happen based on experience. With the right size and work ethic, it will keep him in the league if he hits his open shots. It's not necessarily overwhelming talent.
Someone who has been playing ball for only a few years total and can drop 20 or even 30 on an NBA team has natural talent. The fundamentals can be refined if the player has work ethic, physical abilities, coachability and the right environment.
You have to be careful not to throw away talent with a potentially high ceiling in favor of a player who has fundamentals but can be overwhelmed physically.
To bring it back on topic, it's why I hesitate with the WCS pick. I know WCS would be great for us, but if Winslow or Mudiyah is available are we passing on talent in favor of a fundamentally sound player with a ceiling?
What people appear to be falling in love with with Sauce is simply fundamentals. There is a technical aspect to running the pick and roll or to making an entry pass to the post. Those skills are crucial, but they can be taught and learned. Sauce has solid fundamentals and technical skills. He can anticipate plays because he knows what should happen based on experience. With the right size and work ethic, it will keep him in the league if he hits his open shots. It's not necessarily overwhelming talent.
Someone who has been playing ball for only a few years total and can drop 20 or even 30 on an NBA team has natural talent. The fundamentals can be refined if the player has work ethic, physical abilities, coachability and the right environment.
You have to be careful not to throw away talent with a potentially high ceiling in favor of a player who has fundamentals but can be overwhelmed physically.
To bring it back on topic, it's why I hesitate with the WCS pick. I know WCS would be great for us, but if Winslow or Mudiyah is available are we passing on talent in favor of a fundamentally sound player with a ceiling?
One element of BBIQ is passing ability. With passing, you either have it or you don't. You either see the court and react quickly and pass the ball accurately or you don't. If you don't have that vision-reaction ability you just have to play much more conservatively so you don't make the stupid play. We have a lot of the latter kind of players. I think music is a good example, but I come to a different conclusion than you apparently. I'm a "mechanic" when it comes to playing the guitar. My nephew, on the other hand, is a prodigy. I will never come close to his stratosphere when it comes to playing. He "sees the floor" and I see "the man in front of me." (I hate him.) Same holds for a guy with the IQ for basketball. Some guys are like Jason Thompson and it takes him nearly 4 years to know that his hands are not totally vertical (90 degrees) to the floor when he's guarding his man, more like 45 degrees. Some, on the other hand, are like Sauce and have an intuitive feel for the game.
I think Karl recognizes what can be taught and what can't be taught, and I believe that FO discussions with Karl will definitely touch on those players that are "beyond redemption" and those he believes have a future with this team. I also believe that BBIQ is going to be a major factor in their draft decision. I doubt they are going to draft someone who doesn't have the ability to deal with steep learning curve. Karl had enough of that kind of frustration last year; he doesn't want to add to it.
) Same holds for a guy with the IQ for basketball. Some guys are like Jason Thompson and it takes him nearly 4 years to know that his hands are not totally vertical (90 degrees) to the floor when he's guarding his man, more like 45 degrees. Some, on the other hand, are like Sauce and have an intuitive feel for the game. I think Karl recognizes what can be taught and what can't be taught, and I believe that FO discussions with Karl will definitely touch on those players that are "beyond redemption" and those he believes have a future with this team. I also believe that BBIQ is going to be a major factor in their draft decision. I doubt they are going to draft someone who doesn't have the ability to deal with steep learning curve. Karl had enough of that kind of frustration last year; he doesn't want to add to it.
I think the former can be taught to some extent though some guys will always be better at it than others. But a big part of that sort of passing attack is being unselfish and buying into the game plan. In that regard I don't have any worries about Nik or Ben or Collison. I definitely worry about Gay's willingness to adhere to team basketball. Cuz too but not as much. He'll do what helps the team win. And Thompson is (1) just not a good passer and (2) occasionally a guy that wants to take a shot regardless.
The latter is somewhat of a gift. It gets honed by playing a lot of basketball but some guys just have a sense for what's going on around them just like quarterbacks who can feel pressure coming and just take a step away from it to buy enough time for a throw where other guys (Kaepernick comes to mind) don't seem to have that feel and occasionally turn right into defenders.
I definitely believe some people simply have higher aptitudes for things. Some of it is physical advantages and some of it is mental makeup. But everyone can improve with work. And unfortunately practice only gets you so far. Game action is really what helps with improvement and learning to react when it matters and when things aren't as clean as in practice.
And honestly the music analogy works there too. I definitely improved sitting at home working on scales and modes and learning songs by ear so I could play along with stuff I liked but I didn't really get good until I started playing with other people and learning to listen to everyone around me and react accordingly.
And the poker games have begun.
Knicks Considering Willie Cauley-Stein At No. 4
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/237973/Knicks-Considering-Willie-Cauley-Stein-At-No-4
Increasing the value of the earlier picks even more so. If you think a player may fall to 5 or 6 because of this, or if you want WCS. Going to be much more of this before draft day most likely.
Knicks Considering Willie Cauley-Stein At No. 4
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/237973/Knicks-Considering-Willie-Cauley-Stein-At-No-4
Increasing the value of the earlier picks even more so. If you think a player may fall to 5 or 6 because of this, or if you want WCS. Going to be much more of this before draft day most likely.
The concern over calling Stauskas the 6th man is justified. Maybe 6th man isn't the right word; he just needs to be a contributor to a pick and roll offense by the 2nd unit. McCallum/Miller, Stauskas, Casspi, JT, WCS don't look like they would blow leads; they don't have Kings era Sessions or the beefy but puny Landry.
Could Mudiay fall to the Kings at #6?
Chad Ford
(1:29 PM)
Yes. I think his spots are Lakers at 2, Philly at 3, Knicks at 4 or Kings at 6. I've had a few teams suggest to me he could slide further, but I think that's being planted as more of a scare tactic to get him to workout more places. The one hesitation on the Kings. Who is making the decisions there with this pick? Pete D'Alessandro? Vlade Divac? George Karl? Every time I talk to someone there I get a slightly different story. And I had someone from the Kings pass along this nugget in Chicago. That the front office wanted to take Elfrid Payton at No. 8. last year but were overruled by ownership, who wanted Nik Stauskas. Now, that could be classic CYA from the front office. Payton was who they should've taken and now, a year later, they're making the case. But if that's true, than Vivek may be the person who is ultimately deciding who they draft. In short, it's really hard to have a good feel what's happening in Sacramento. So many voices.
Chad Ford
(1:29 PM)
Yes. I think his spots are Lakers at 2, Philly at 3, Knicks at 4 or Kings at 6. I've had a few teams suggest to me he could slide further, but I think that's being planted as more of a scare tactic to get him to workout more places. The one hesitation on the Kings. Who is making the decisions there with this pick? Pete D'Alessandro? Vlade Divac? George Karl? Every time I talk to someone there I get a slightly different story. And I had someone from the Kings pass along this nugget in Chicago. That the front office wanted to take Elfrid Payton at No. 8. last year but were overruled by ownership, who wanted Nik Stauskas. Now, that could be classic CYA from the front office. Payton was who they should've taken and now, a year later, they're making the case. But if that's true, than Vivek may be the person who is ultimately deciding who they draft. In short, it's really hard to have a good feel what's happening in Sacramento. So many voices.
yep strong competition from NY and Orlando for WCS which is a real shame. He fits us better then anyone
http://www.slamonline.com/nba/repor...ley-stein-with-no-4-pick/#RJstxKfVBdPT60Rr.97
http://www.slamonline.com/nba/repor...ley-stein-with-no-4-pick/#RJstxKfVBdPT60Rr.97
Well, I already gave you my prediction... Winslow and Cauley-Stein go 4,5 in some order. They're both great athletes with bankable skills on defense. Those types of players have been going way higher than pre-draft mocks rank them for the last 7 or 8 years. They're seen as more sure things, and probably are.
One of them will probably have to go. Can't have both because we can't rely on either of them. Ben has had 2 seasons (!) to get his act together, and while making some strides, he was the worst starting SG in the league for 2 straight years. We need someone else, anyone else really. I prefer to keep Nik as he has a much more well rounded game.
If WCS is off the board, I am trading the pick if I am the Kings. There really isn't anyone else I want to take (unless Russell slides by some grace of God). Now, who/what we would trade the pick for is a completely different story. There are the Nuggets, which we are still ever so attached to in regards to rumors, possibly the Heat (Dragic? - most likely a no), Mason Plumlee (I hope not - not for #6), and who knows what else will pop up from here to draft day. Regardless, WCS would be a great fit, and while I understand you go for best talent, in this case it wouldn't work for us. Why draft a SG/SF? We can't rely on a rookie SG yet again, nor do we need a SF since we have Rudy.
If WCS is off the board, I am trading the pick if I am the Kings. There really isn't anyone else I want to take (unless Russell slides by some grace of God). Now, who/what we would trade the pick for is a completely different story. There are the Nuggets, which we are still ever so attached to in regards to rumors, possibly the Heat (Dragic? - most likely a no), Mason Plumlee (I hope not - not for #6), and who knows what else will pop up from here to draft day. Regardless, WCS would be a great fit, and while I understand you go for best talent, in this case it wouldn't work for us. Why draft a SG/SF? We can't rely on a rookie SG yet again, nor do we need a SF since we have Rudy.
We had Peja Stojakovic when we drafted Jason Williams (7th overall) over Paul Pierce. Williams was a nice player but Pierce has played 17 seasons and averaged 20, 6, and 4 for his career. He's made 10 All Star games, won an NBA Finals MVP award and will be in the Hall of Fame. That's why you draft a SG/SF. If you can get a HOF player in the draft at any position, all other considerations are irrelevant.
Who are we even talking about here? What HOF level talent are we discussing at #6, because I am quite confused. In regards to Paul Pierce, no one knew he would become as great as he did, but using him as an explanation for "that's why you draft a SG/SF" doesn't really do anything for me. There are great examples for any position. The problem is, in this draft, after the first few picks, it is up in the air of who goes where and when.
K
Its a 'turrible' argument. No SF ran the floor and fit so well with the team that was eventually built from trading J DUB for bibby. Pierce needs the ball in order to be effective, Peja didnt. And if you draft Pierce while having Peja to develop you probably never end up with Bibby. Hindsight is not 20/20 here. J DUB put butt in the seats and got us national exposure, lest people forget that. Bibby elevated that flash into substance. None of that happens if you draft Pierce.
How many championships did Williams/Bibby and Stojakovic win for us? I'm not so sure we couldn't have used a 10 time All Star at SF and found a PG some other way.
This is really simple, you're making it way more complicated than it is. It's not a terrible argument simply because you don't understand it.
(1) Sac.Kings said we have no need for a rookie SG or SF so we should disregard prospects who play those positions.
(2) We had no need for a rookie SF in 1999 either so we passed on a prospect who ended up having an incredible career, far surpassing anyone in the Sacramento era of the Kings. That was a huge draft miss.
(3) Nobody knows who in this draft will have a Hall of Fame career, if anyone. If I told you right now that Player X will be a hall of famer you would draft him right? Regardless of position.
Therefore, disregarding prospects for positional purposes is a poor draft strategy. The goal is to get the best player in the draft on your team. If you're ruling out players without even evaluating them, you're shooting yourself in the foot. There will be prospects on the board at #6 this year who could have Hall of Fame careers. Plenty of great players have been drafted at 6 or lower. This year's MVP was. Anybody saying we need to trade the pick if 5 particular players are already gone is flat out wrong. Somebody drafted 6 or lower this year is going to make multiple All Star games, I guarantee you.
This is really simple, you're making it way more complicated than it is. It's not a terrible argument simply because you don't understand it.
(1) Sac.Kings said we have no need for a rookie SG or SF so we should disregard prospects who play those positions.
(2) We had no need for a rookie SF in 1999 either so we passed on a prospect who ended up having an incredible career, far surpassing anyone in the Sacramento era of the Kings. That was a huge draft miss.
(3) Nobody knows who in this draft will have a Hall of Fame career, if anyone. If I told you right now that Player X will be a hall of famer you would draft him right? Regardless of position.
Therefore, disregarding prospects for positional purposes is a poor draft strategy. The goal is to get the best player in the draft on your team. If you're ruling out players without even evaluating them, you're shooting yourself in the foot. There will be prospects on the board at #6 this year who could have Hall of Fame careers. Plenty of great players have been drafted at 6 or lower. This year's MVP was. Anybody saying we need to trade the pick if 5 particular players are already gone is flat out wrong. Somebody drafted 6 or lower this year is going to make multiple All Star games, I guarantee you.
The Knicks suck.. Orlando was always a likely destination.
If Ben doesn't improve to at least starter material, his value will be at an all time low and we'd be stuck with another problem.
I don't know that we can move forward with McLempre and Stauskas as our SGs. I think we seriously need to look for a starting SG this off season.
I'd swap 6+Landry+Ben for 12 and Burks. Burks is making 9m next season which equals Landry and Ben.
We'd still have around 9million for free agency.
If Ben doesn't improve to at least starter material, his value will be at an all time low and we'd be stuck with another problem.
I don't know that we can move forward with McLempre and Stauskas as our SGs. I think we seriously need to look for a starting SG this off season.
I'd swap 6+Landry+Ben for 12 and Burks. Burks is making 9m next season which equals Landry and Ben.
We'd still have around 9million for free agency.