Random Thoughts following 2 back 2 back blowouts

[The Hammer]

I'm going on record as stating that I think The_Jamal doesn't know a gosh darn thing about the game of basketball.

Whew. I feel so much better having gotten that off my chest.

And no, I'm not going to provide a single thing to back that up. All the evidence is laid out before us.

 

[Sac.1989]

How we address this dilemma will see us finish the season with everytaking notice or it will see us combust. We've had enough and we can all see the light. The balls will bounce our way regardless of our position. GP will find something in any case but the issue here is we need to get roles set and a system in place whilst this team is still young

 

[treach1976]

=
Jimmer is still shooting terrible... 4-12 total and 1-6 3pt shots. had 9 total pts and 3 TO's in the 2 games... he was a +10 today and a -3 against bos.
=

Not worried about Jimmer's shot whatsoever.... This sample size is way to small to say he is shooting terribly. Two of those 3's fall and suddenly it's a great shooting game (not to mention that one of those 3's was from 30+ feet as the final bell expired..... one of those, "let's avoid a shot clock violation in a blow out" situations.

People are always talking about streaky shooters, etc..., but all shooting is streaky - (unless your shots are limited to dunks or layups like a lot of big men). Check out this blog that references work done in the 80's by two Cornell psychologists who analyzed player shooting.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/03/the_illusion_of_streaks.php

 

[Mass]

Not worried about Jimmer's shot whatsoever.... This sample size is way to small to say he is shooting terribly. Two of those 3's fall and suddenly it's a great shooting game (not to mention that one of those 3's was from 30+ feet as the final bell expired..... one of those, "let's avoid a shot clock violation in a blow out" situations.

People are always talking about streaky shooters, etc..., but all shooting is streaky - (unless your shots are limited to dunks or layups like a lot of big men). Check out this blog that references work done in the 80's by two Cornell psychologists who analyzed player shooting.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/03/the_illusion_of_streaks.php

+1

I am not worried about Jimmer's shooting. We know he can shoot, no doubt about it. And we all know that shooters have those days (and weeks) when they can't buy a bucket. I don't know if I'm the only one here, but I think that yesterday Jimmer played quite well, better than his last games. He was more confident with the ball, he had some good passes and also a couple of steals. Nothing to get excited about, but I'm sure with him it's going to be a step-by-step process, and yesterday was a step in the right direction.

BTW, I read the article on that blog, and I completely disagree. Shooting is not like flipping a coin, it's about confidence. You gain confidence hitting shots, and I do believe that hot and cold streaks exist. I also believe that the people who wrote that article and made that study never touched a basket ball.

 

[Goo]

Since when this board turn into realgm?

Why some people wanted to throw Reke under the bus but not others?

I think some members will be very happy if we trade Reke to Boston for their 2 1st rounders, I personally rather trade IT for a 1st or vet player(3, 4 or 5).

I got the impression that people want to start IT for the next 10years, OMG.

Reke has not improve since yr 1? Really?

Now I feel better.

 

[Kingster]

first thought is no Evans.... yup our supposedly 2nd best player out and the ball movement has looked the best it has all year? coincidence ??? hmm ....

even tho the wins were against old or injured teams...
Jimmer is still shooting terrible... 4-12 total and 1-6 3pt shots. had 9 total pts and 3 TO's in the 2 games... he was a +10 today and a -3 against bos.

Salmons has been very steady, along with Greene

Greene's only misses today... 3'pt shots and he missed 4 out of 5... maybe its time for him to step up a few feet and finally get over the 3 ball... he actually showed some balanced abilities this year in spurts. he could recharge his career if he lets go of the whole 3 ball chucking problem...

Thomas is a stud...looking better as time goes on... great all around PG with an amazing motor...

and finally MT ! with Evans out has really stepped it up with his energy... looks faster and is really filling it up on the stat sheets ... a ton of steals, pts, a few boards and even as hard as it is to believe assists!!!

anyway i'll end it how i started... Evans has been out... sure the teams we beat are super flawed... but... the ball movement has been great and we are blowing weaker teams out like we should...

have to wonder about the Evans factor here...

Couldn't help but think about the Tyreke contributing factor also when it came to ball movement. Hard to say though on that one. Salmons and MT are buying in to moving the ball more; maybe Tyreke will too. Salmons doesn't seem to dribble, dribble, dribble as much as in the past. MT is actually passing the ball some, though not to Jimmer (I wonder if MT got the ball at the half court line if he would pass to a wide open Jimmer under the basket?) Coach mentioned that the trade deadline weighed on a lot of the guys minds, and maybe there was something personal going on with MT that affected his game. It will be interesting to see when Tyreke comes back how it goes. That's the best ball movement I've seen on the Kings since the Vlade-Web era. There was one 'round the key passing sequence that was reminescent of Vlade to Web to Christie to Bibby to Peja....for three! This team started the beginning of the year with huge question marks surrounding assist to turnovers and their lack of ball movement. At least with respect to passing the ball they seemed to have....turned the corner.

As far as IT goes, I just love to watch the guy play. He's changed this team for the better, no doubt. He's made quite a few "wow" passes this year, made 5 consecutive 3 pointers in a game, taken games over, played D, gotten steals, and provided leadership. And what I like is he's getting to games 2 1/2 hours before tipoff to work on his game. THAT's what I want to hear. Putting in the 2.5 hrs before games + talent = WINNER. It would be great if other players would do that. (Jimmer also is doing that, so kudos to him).

 

[ESP47]

Please. CAN IT be a starter wiht his numbers? Sure. 14.5pts 3.1reb 4.9ast in just a shade over 30 min? Sure.

But those are not numbers that DEMAND he be a starter (and they have sunk after his fast start). He is a good player. And notably he's being played in a system built better for his performance than that of the better players on hsi team. But its like the Beno situation. He's a good player, but not a star. Hence his role is determined by whatever works best for the team. It doesn't take a genius to see that a high energy 5'9" (maybe) PG with shoot first tendencies is a CLASSIC change of pace guard off the bench, and not so classic as a high level team in contention sort of starter. Jerry likes to babble on about how great Spud was, but I'll tell you how great Spud was: he won less than 40% of his games as a starting PG, got us to 1 playofff series, where we won 1 game. Tyus Edney was not the answer either. And the odds are let's jsut say pretty damn good that neither will IT be. Even being good enough to be considered as a potential 6th man is a considerable accomplishment in itself, but he has all the markers and you don't typically care as much about a 6th man's D.

Let's just say my "lame argument" is roughly as "lame" as decades of NBA history can make it.

Lets not forget you're talking about the last pick in the draft....during his rookie year.

You don't think it's possible that his points and assists can go up as he gains experience? Most point guards don't come out guns blazing with 15pts and 8ast in their rookie year.

If he's getting 14pts and 5ast during his rookie year on a team that can't shoot...then chances are this guy is probably going to turn out to be a solid player. I'm not saying he's going to be a Nash or CP3, but 15pts and 8ast with solid shooting percentages doesn't seem out of the realm here.

He might not be a pure pass first PG, but he doesn't take many dumb shots. Most of his shots are either open 3's, stop and pop shots at the FT line, or nice takes to the basket where he's shown a knack for using his off hand to keep the ball away from defenders.

Plus we haven't even scratched the surface of his defense, which has been a pleasant surprise with his lack of size.

 

[Arkitect]

+1

I am not worried about Jimmer's shooting. We know he can shoot, no doubt about it. And we all know that shooters have those days (and weeks) when they can't buy a bucket. I don't know if I'm the only one here, but I think that yesterday Jimmer played quite well, better than his last games. He was more confident with the ball, he had some good passes and also a couple of steals. Nothing to get excited about, but I'm sure with him it's going to be a step-by-step process, and yesterday was a step in the right direction.

BTW, I read the article on that blog, and I completely disagree. Shooting is not like flipping a coin, it's about confidence. You gain confidence hitting shots, and I do believe that hot and cold streaks exist. I also believe that the people who wrote that article and made that study never touched a basket ball.

Study after study has shown that streaky shooting is not a real thing. I have 3 books on probability on my bookshelf that all say the same thing. Jump shooting is a common example that is used to describe a very well known problem with human psychology. We just have a terrible time understanding probability. As an example flip a coin 100 times. Most people would think that the order would be something like:

HHTHTTHTHTTTHTH

but in reality it is more like this:
HHHHHTHTTTTTHHH

So "streaky" shooting is just an artifact of probability much the same way I can get 6 heads in a row.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Study after study has shown that streaky shooting is not a real thing. I have 3 books on probability on my bookshelf that all say the same thing. Jump shooting is a common example that is used to describe a very well known problem with human psychology. We just have a terrible time understanding probability. As an example flip a coin 100 times. Most people would think that the order would be something like:

HHTHTTHTHTTTHTH

but in reality it is more like this:
HHHHHTHTTTTTHHH

So "streaky" shooting is just an artifact of probability much the same way I can get 6 heads in a row.

The people who wrote those books on probability have probably never picked up a coin. /sarc

 

[Kingster]

If the problem is that Isaiah, Tyreke, and Thornton cannot play together then benching Thornton is certainly not the answer.

Again, that is if I'm under the impression that those guys cannot play together, which I don't think we have the answer to just yet.

For those who seem obsessed with moving Thornton to the bench because the current starting unit doesn't work .. James Harden? that guy plays crunch time with the Westbrook and Durant. Jason Terry? Same thing. If they can't play together they can't play together. Moving Marcus to the bench doesn't solve anything.

The biggest problem right now is that Thomas, Evans, and Thornton are our best 3 players that aren't 'bigs' and even that would be ok if it was close, but it isn't. They are the best by a large margin.

Isaiah is the one that really threw a very small wrench in our future. He's playing too well to bench, but benching Thornton or Evans over some of our other scrub guard/forwards is just dumb. If Isaiah keeps this up, then we'll have to do something (and I'm thinking a trade may be the only solution if he does keep it up) but we have the rest of the season to evaluate that. I stand by my argument that Isaiah would make a much more natural bench player than Thornton, but like I said ... we have the rest of the season to figure out where these guys should land in the rotation.

We can't bench Thornton or Evans. And it's not Keith Smarts fault that he doesn't. It's not about having the 'balls' to do something like that ... Westphal was too much of a ******* to Cousins and lost him. Smart would be a fool to tell Evans or Thornton they've been benched, because neither guy deserves it.

I don't think IT has going to the bench in his plans, Mass. Like I said many games ago: little IT is a big boulder dropped into the pond; it's going to be interesting to see the ripple effects. Interesting points about Harden and Terry.

 

[ppine]

Ease up girls. The Kings have looked like professionals in the last 2 outings. Try focusing on what is right with this team for a change.

 

[gatoradeSD]

Donte needs more playing time just for that dunk alone

 

[Kingster]

I have a random thought or two...

Some Kings fans around here would find something to criticize about the Larry O'Brien trophy should it ever find its way to Sacramento.

I simply do not understand the need/desire of some to continually address Tyreke Evans as though he is nothing more than a fluke, someone who apparently bluffed his way into the NBA and fooled everyone into picking him as Rookie of the Year.

We have a YOUNG team that is just now starting to find a way to play like a team instead of that group of guys who happened to stumble across a box of matching uniforms on a street corner. We have a coach who is working hard to find out their strengths and weaknesses. A coach who some seem to conveniently forget came into this with no training camp, a predecessor who really mucked up the works AND who had to try and develop said team on the road for a large part of the first half of the shortened season.

People also seem to forget that a team has 13 players, some of whom have major roles and some of whom may be the current incarnation of Mateen Cleaves. EACH player has a role to play, however, and a successful team is built with a balance of stars and roleplayers.

There is room on our team for Evans, Thornton and IT. When we get an adequate SF, perhaps Smart will be better able to determine what role each of them should play - knowing that said role is not cast in concrete. One of the things that made the Spurs so dangerous for a number of years was the use of players like Manu, who could start or come off the bench and be equally devastating.

Tyreke Evans isn't perfect but he certainly isn't the cancer/ballhog/fraud some of you seem hellbent on labeling him. He's a Sacramento King, and personally some of the garbage posted about him almost makes me sick to my stomach.

Those are my random thoughts.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tyreke_evans/career_stats.html

So there are the stats. Compare Yr 1 to Yr 3. What do you think?

 

[bajaden]

Couldn't help but think about the Tyreke contributing factor also when it came to ball movement. Hard to say though on that one. Salmons and MT are buying in to moving the ball more; maybe Tyreke will too. Salmons doesn't seem to dribble, dribble, dribble as much as in the past. MT is actually passing the ball some, though not to Jimmer (I wonder if MT got the ball at the half court line if he would pass to a wide open Jimmer under the basket?) Coach mentioned that the trade deadline weighed on a lot of the guys minds, and maybe there was something personal going on with MT that affected his game. It will be interesting to see when Tyreke comes back how it goes. That's the best ball movement I've seen on the Kings since the Vlade-Web era. There was one 'round the key passing sequence that was reminescent of Vlade to Web to Christie to Bibby to Peja....for three! This team started the beginning of the year with huge question marks surrounding assist to turnovers and their lack of ball movement. At least with respect to passing the ball they seemed to have....turned the corner.

As far as IT goes, I just love to watch the guy play. He's changed this team for the better, no doubt. He's made quite a few "wow" passes this year, made 5 consecutive 3 pointers in a game, taken games over, played D, gotten steals, and provided leadership. And what I like is he's getting to games 2 1/2 hours before tipoff to work on his game. THAT's what I want to hear. Putting in the 2.5 hrs before games + talent = WINNER. It would be great if other players would do that. (Jimmer also is doing that, so kudos to him).

Intelligent, well thought out, nonconclusive, patient, and spot on.. Well done!

 

[Spike]

As an example flip a coin 100 times. Most people would think that the order would be something like:

HHTHTTHTHTTTHTH

but in reality it is more like this:
HHHHHTHTTTTTHHH

Whoah there, hoss. It could just as easily go:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTH
or
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT

You're talking about theoretical vs. experimental.

Sure, you can assume that a jump shot will either go out, or go in, but then logically shouldn't every shooter be a 50% shooter? Also, all players have different motions, no one is exact. Trying to quantify this data is generally a fool's errand, done by those who need to find something to do for their masters. I say this as a math guy, for what it's worth. You're certainly well within your rights to disagree with me.

 

[Kingster]

Please. CAN IT be a starter wiht his numbers? Sure. 14.5pts 3.1reb 4.9ast in just a shade over 30 min? Sure.

But those are not numbers that DEMAND he be a starter (and they have sunk after his fast start). He is a good player. And notably he's being played in a system built better for his performance than that of the better players on hsi team. But its like the Beno situation. He's a good player, but not a star. Hence his role is determined by whatever works best for the team. It doesn't take a genius to see that a high energy 5'9" (maybe) PG with shoot first tendencies is a CLASSIC change of pace guard off the bench, and not so classic as a high level team in contention sort of starter. Jerry likes to babble on about how great Spud was, but I'll tell you how great Spud was: he won less than 40% of his games as a starting PG, got us to 1 playofff series, where we won 1 game. Tyus Edney was not the answer either. And the odds are let's jsut say pretty damn good that neither will IT be. Even being good enough to be considered as a potential 6th man is a considerable accomplishment in itself, but he has all the markers and you don't typically care as much about a 6th man's D.

Let's just say my "lame argument" is roughly as "lame" as decades of NBA history can make it.

So who exactly are the stars? It's not like we have All-Stars on this team. Or are you just making the guys you like "stars" and the guys you don't non-stars? Clever, that. Just keep minimizing IT. Maybe in a couple of years you'll buy in. After everybody else has figured it out. The little guy has really screwed up the plan, hasn't he? You wanted that big powerful pg and instead got a 5'9" midget. The little guy came in and just pushed the big guy to the 3, like a sack of potatoes. We've heard it all now: He's too small, he's a bench guy, he's a Bobby Jackson type, "Is the Run Over?". But IT keeps playing. And the more he plays, the more he cements that point guard position as his. I've got to hand it to IT. He really does a number on people's brains.

 

[Bricklayer]

So who exactly are the stars? It's not like we have All-Stars on this team. Or are you just making the guys you like "stars" and the guys you don't non-stars? Clever, that. Just keep minimizing IT. Maybe in a couple of years you'll buy in. After everybody else has figured it out. The little guy has really screwed up the plan, hasn't he? You wanted that big powerful pg and instead got a 5'9" midget. The little guy came in and just pushed the big guy to the 3, like a sack of potatoes. We've heard it all now: He's too small, he's a bench guy, he's a Bobby Jackson type, "Is the Run Over?". But IT keeps playing. And the more he plays, the more he cements that point guard position as his. I've got to hand it to IT. He really does a number on people's brains.

Oh stop it.

Very few things are more pathetic than people on the internet trying to pump up their guys and taunt to feed their own egos. As if you had anything to do with it. And again somewhat bizarrely with this notion that IT is just locking down a position with such amazingly stellar play. Indeed 12.5pts 4ast this month are just lockdown numbers let me tell ya. Combined with our .750 play since he took...oh wait.

Like Jimmer jockers or Casspi jockers or just any number of people rather pathetically conflating their heroes accomplishments with their own, IT jockers are both unrealistic and threaten to make what shoudl be a feel good story into something repulsive by making it about themselves.

And yes, for the non-baskeball saavy we have 3 fullsized easy to see potential 20pt scorers on this team. Realistically only 2 of whom will be so in any given year. Two of those players are special talents the like of which you just don't see very often. None of them are 5'9". That IT looks like he could have a long term role amongst them should be a considerable honor and acheivement. But no, not when somebody has gone off the player centric deep end and tied their ego to a guy. Then they become more deluded and selfish than the guy himself.

You wanted that big powerful pg and instead got a 5'9" midget. The little guy came in and just pushed the big guy to the 3, like a sack of potatoes.

SMH

 

[Section 101]

Like Jimmer jockers or Casspi jockers or just any number of people rather pathetically conflating their heroes accomplishments with their own, IT jockers are both unrealistic and threaten to make what shoudl be a feel good story into something repulsive by making it about themselves.

Funny you leave off the Evans jockers.

 

[bajaden]

Well, here are my random thoughts on the matter. I've said before, we have talent on the team, but some of it doesn't fit well together. Now you can take one approach, and say, the coach needs to find a plan that makes it all work. That his game plan should be designed to play to the strengths of his core players. So lets say, that you five very good players, but one of them stands out as the best. Four of them thrive in a running, pass the ball style of game, but the best player is better in a slow down the ball, and let me create my shot style of game.

Now my hypo is simplistic I know, buts thats sort of where we're at. How the franchise reacts to that problem, will determine the immediate future of the team. I agree that Tyreke isn't best suited for the SF position, and apparently the powers that be, have decided he's not the future PG of this team. That leaves one position. SG! And that creates a problem. Thornton isn't the kind of guy, that goes quietly to the bench when he believes he's earned his position. You know what? Neither am I, so I understand. Personally, I'll play just as hard. But having had that happen to me in my life, I couldn't help having some resentment.

Now I'm not a mind reader, so I can't say for sure how Thornton would react, or how it might affect his play. But the only other answer, if you accept my premise, is to trade one of them. Which one you ask? Well, thats a tough one. Which of the two is the most talented? Realize, that being the most talented doesn't always mean that your the most effective. Derrick Coleman was one of the most talented PF's to ever come into the NBA, but he wasn't the best PF in the NBA once here.

It would be easy to say right now, that the team is playing extremely well without Tyreke, and therefore, he becomes expendable. Well here's an abstract thought for you. The team is playing very well without Lebron James, or Wade, or Michael Jordan, so we wouldn't need any of those players either. Extreme you say! Of course, but here's my point. How good can Tyreke be? Yeah, I know some of you are so knowledgable, that its just black and white. Unfortunately, I don't share your abilities. I can see what he can be, but I'm not sure he can see it. And I'm also not sure I'm ready to give up on him.

So here's where I'm at. Nothing is going to happen until after july 1st, other than the draft. On parting for the summer, I would tell Tyreke that he's going to play SG next year, and I want him to come back with a midrange jumpshot. No excuses! I would tell Thornton, he's going to come off the bench backing up Tyreke, but he'll still get his minutes, and I'll do everything I can to lobby for him earning the 6th man award as long as he does his part. And if he's not OK with that, then I would try and find another team that wants him. SG's are a dime a dozen in the NBA, unless your name is Wade or Kobe.

During the summer, if someone comes and makes me an offer for either of them that I think would benefit the team, then I do the deal. To my mind, there's only one untouchable player on this team, and we all know who that is. I had reservations about IT longterm, but so far, he's proven the ability to adapt, and change his game. So I think I can live with the tandem of IT and Fredette going forward. Both players bring something a little different to the game, and both should improve in time. Now if Chris Paul wakes up one morning with the revelation that he needs to play for the Kings, I'm OK with that. Sorry Jimmer!

So in closing, these conversations are fun, interesting, and also worthless. Because our total impact on the team is zero. Oh, and by the way, I'm not much of a stats guy. Don't get me wrong. I like seeing how many rebounds a player has, or what his shooting percentage is. But stats don't show you how much a player actually impacts a game like your eye's do. And please don't bore me with the +/- thing. Too much of that depends on who your playing with at the time. I have problems with the TS% as well, but rather than start another argument, I'll just let that one go. Other than to say, if I take 10 shots, and I make 5 of them, I'm shooting 50%. Thats a percentage based on cold hard numbers. Fairly accurate I think. I'm sure some will disagree...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Whoah there, hoss. It could just as easily go:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTH
or
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT

No, of course it couldn't if we're talking about a fair coin (which we were). Those are highly unlikely scenarios, and while they can happen by chance they will happen very rarely. Arkitect's point is that we intuitively believe that mid-length runs ought to be uncommon, but that intuition is wrong. Mid-length runs happen all the time in chance scenarios, and we shouldn't attribute "hot" or "cold" to them.

Sure, you can assume that a jump shot will either go out, or go in, but then logically shouldn't every shooter be a 50% shooter?

No, of course not. There's no difficulty in creating a simulated "coin" that has a shooting percentage of 45.2% or whatever any given player's long term %age is.

Also, all players have different motions, no one is exact. Trying to quantify this data is generally a fool's errand, done by those who need to find something to do for their masters. I say this as a math guy, for what it's worth. You're certainly well within your rights to disagree with me.

I'm not sure what different shot motions have to do with anything here. I will note my disagreement with the sentiment that an attempt to determine whether "hot" or "cold" streaks actually exist is a fool's errand. I believe it is quite a valid thing to look at.

 

[gunks]

Late to the party.

IMHO the improved ball movement isnt so much a result of no Reke, as it is a result of no Reke/Thornton. Offense is a bit smoother with only one ball dominator to worry about (I guess 2, counting IT), and I think we'd see similar results if Thornton was out and Reke was playing in these games. The two guys just dont fit AT ALL.

I'm also an advocate of moving MT to the bench and Reke back to the 2, but as was pointed out by other posters...The two would still log heavy minutes together on the court, so its an iffy solution at best.

I really just dont think the two can coexist, one will have to be moved eventually before we can take the next step as a team. Reke would net more assets in a trade, but he's also a way more rounded player than MT and plays far better defense. I'd like to see us "sell high" on Marcus this summer, but that'll never happen.

 

[Kingster]

Oh stop it.

Very few things are more pathetic than people on the internet trying to pump up their guys and taunt to feed their own egos. As if you had anything to do with it. And again somewhat bizarrely with this notion that IT is just locking down a position with such amazingly stellar play. Indeed 12.5pts 4ast this month are just lockdown numbers let me tell ya. Combined with our .750 play since he took...oh wait.

Like Jimmer jockers or Casspi jockers or just any number of people rather pathetically conflating their heroes accomplishments with their own, IT jockers are both unrealistic and threaten to make what shoudl be a feel good story into something repulsive by making it about themselves.

And yes, for the non-baskeball saavy we have 3 fullsized easy to see potential 20pt scorers on this team. Realistically only 2 of whom will be so in any given year. Two of those players are special talents the like of which you just don't see very often. None of them are 5'9". That IT looks like he could have a long term role amongst them should be a considerable honor and acheivement. But no, not when somebody has gone off the player centric deep end and tied their ego to a guy. Then they become more deluded and selfish than the guy himself.



SMH

I'l tell you what's pathetic. Labelling IT as a "role player". That's a good one. Then parallelling IT with Casspi and Jimmer. That's a good one too. If he's a Casspi maybe we'll trade him sometime soon, hugh? And if he's a Jimmer, maybe he can get some spot minutes. And calling it "bizzare" that people think that IT is cementing the position of point guard? Have you watched the games lately? Yeah, I know it's bizarre for you. You make that perfectly clear virtually every day on this board that those who believe IT is a good point guard for this team are just bizarre and that he doesn't belong as an NBA starter in this league. We get it.

 

[Arkitect]

Whoah there, hoss. It could just as easily go:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTH
or
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT

You're talking about theoretical vs. experimental.

Sure, you can assume that a jump shot will either go out, or go in, but then logically shouldn't every shooter be a 50% shooter? Also, all players have different motions, no one is exact. Trying to quantify this data is generally a fool's errand, done by those who need to find something to do for their masters. I say this as a math guy, for what it's worth. You're certainly well within your rights to disagree with me.

That example was one I did with a real coin to illustrate my point. Not all jump shots have a 50% probability of going in. The probability is weighted but the phenomenon remains the same. Shooting still has all the appearances of being probability based. How else can you explain all of the guys who are full of confidence and have perfect form but still miss wide open shots? And how do you hit shots if you have no confidence? Why do even the best players in the world still shoot less than 40% from 3 on average? Their appears to be a significant level of probability in jump shooting. And if that is true, then it follows that the appearce of streaky shooting would follow from the fact that making or missing of a jump shot has a high level of probability attached to it.

If you accept that jump shooting has a large component of probability attached to it, then streaky shooting is just an artifact from that.

 

[gunks]

Problem with IT is his size.

Dude needs to have a great game every night in order to match the production of whoever he's up against.

IT has definitely been amazing for a last pick though. I see him as a future 6th man type player. Putting up starter like stats off the bench as a pace changer. I hope he sticks with the team for a long time, but 6th man is his role.

He's been averaging 15/5 as a starter though, at 49%. It would be interesting to see what his opponents have averaged.

 

[The_Jamal]

I'm going on record as stating that I think The_Jamal doesn't know a gosh darn thing about the game of basketball.

Whew. I feel so much better having gotten that off my chest.

And no, I'm not going to provide a single thing to back that up. All the evidence is laid out before us.

Personal attacks are now allowed on the board?

good to know

 

[bajaden]

Problem with IT is his size.

Dude needs to have a great game every night in order to match the production of whoever he's up against.

IT has definitely been amazing for a last pick though. I see him as a future 6th man type player. Putting up starter like stats off the bench as a pace changer. I hope he sticks with the team for a long time, but 6th man is his role.

He's been averaging 15/5 as a starter though, at 49%. It would be interesting to see what his opponents have averaged.

Your absolutely right. When your IT's size, you have to live up to different standards. You have to go out and prove everynight that you belong in the league. A couple of bad nights, and immediately everyone will think, thats it, the league had figured him out, and he's done. I think its obvious that IT can play in the league. So the burning question is, can he be a starting PG in the league, or is he going to join the ranks of Nate Robinson, Barea and Bogues, as a change of pace player off the bench?

I'm not willing to commit either way as of yet. Its just too early to tell. But he's looking good so far. While the odd's of being a starting PG in the NBA are against him, lets remember Spud Webb, and the HOF'er Calvin Murphy. Webb was only 5'7" tall, and Murphy 5'9", the exact height of IT. Now I'm not willing to say he'll be as good, or even close to as good as either of them, but I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater either. There's no harm in waiting to find out just how good he can be.

So I don't think its fair to make it an either Tyreke or IT situation. Is Tyreke a better all around player than IT? Some, including myself, would say yes. But is Tyreke a better PG than IT. To my mind, at the moment, the answer is no! So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The elephant in the room is the SG position. And I don't think this is going to be resolved between now and the end of the season. So hopefully, it does get resolved in the offseason.

 

[Goo]

Problem with IT is his size.

Size is the problem, there is only one player in modern NBA successfully over come that limit and taken his team deep into the playoff and that was AI. And AI was 10x the player IT is.

That is why I am so against replacing a 6'5" guy with a 5'9" guy. He is not a PG? Big deal. Hire Brain Shaw and run triangle, problem solve. Can't shoot long bomb? No one in the MJ bull starting lineup can shoot 3s(96-98).

 

[The Hammer]

Personal attacks are now allowed on the board?

good to know

I'm stating my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Not an opinion of you. #rulebook

 

[The_Jamal]

I'm stating my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Not an opinion of you. #rulebook

#hashtagsmakeyoucool

Either way, I'd love to hear why you think I have no basketball knowledge. After all, this is a basketball discussion board where we're supposed to have basketball debates.

 

[The_Jamal]

Size is the problem, there is only one player in modern NBA successfully over come that limit and taken his team deep into the playoff and that was AI. And AI was 10x the player IT is.

That is why I am so against replacing a 6'5" guy with a 5'9" guy. He is not a PG? Big deal. Hire Brain Shaw and run triangle, problem solve. Can't shoot long bomb? No one in the MJ bull starting lineup can shoot 3s(96-98).

No one's asking IT to replace Reke as our franchise player! What we can all agree on I believe is that IT in his 15 games as a starter has been more effective at running PG than Tyreke has shown the ability to do. That can obviously change, but why change what is working with IT? Move Reke to the 2 and let him worry about scoring and being a top-notch defender.

As people have alluded too, the problem exists with Reke and Thornton who demand a good portion of the offense when they are on the floor together (which is most of the time)