Tyreke is Lebron of PGs

[Bricklayer]

Nobody is saying he should stop. Are you saying if Tyreke plays 2 guard, then hes going to become a black hole in the offense? Nobody is saying that. What im saying is, let him play in the 2 position, and the passing / playing with his teammates will naturally develop.

Like the others mentioned, the Cavs never went to game six of the finals, they were however swept 4-0 by the Spurs in their only visit in the finals. I dont know what their record is. I base my opinion on what i see, and the Nuggets had an offensive system that incorporated the entire team and allowed them to play off of each other, which means room for improvement and development. That was not what i saw with the Cavs. There are alot of intangibles that simple records or stats wont show.

It doesn't matter what you call Tyreke, he is going to be the ball diominant guard. That means no silly fantasies of Steve Nash or whoever playing the other spot. The other guard is NOT going to be dominating the ball. He's going to be a support player. A supplemental ball handler there to help grease the offense. Tyreke is never, nor should we ever want him to be, an off the ball guy. There's a name for off the ball players: support players. Roleplayers. Whatever. So once you admit the obvious, that even if you move Tyreke to "SG" he's going to be a "SG" like a Dwayne Wade who is almost every way effectively the PG, all that is left is figuring out what other characteristics you want that guard playing next to Tyreke to have. You want him to be able to handle and pass a little, sure, but you also want him to be able to shoot from outside when he's open and critically, to defend. And ideally, always ideally, you would want him to be bigger than Tyreke to sustain the Reke kills the opposing PG dynamic.

Its not going to be a traditional old school dominate the ball PG. It can't given Reke's abilities. Once that's off the board why would you want the supplemental ballhandler to be a small guy with defensive issues rather than a larger player who gives us mismatch advantages and can form a dominant defensive backcourt?

 

[Lockehead]

Well Wade is a bit smaller than Tyreke at 6'4 which gives him the mobility of a point guard and allows him to facilitate the offense somewhat similar to a pure point. Whereas Tyreke is a bit large. I dont see him being encompassing the PG qualities that Wade does given his large size. But i do imagine him being the most ball dominant, as he is by far our #1 scoring option.

You are right, if we want to keep the mismatch of Reke matched up with the other PG, we're going to have another guard who is matched up with the opposing SG. Thats where things get a bit complicated. That would require Reke to play PG, which is the area where i have large doubts about. My suggestion is that we get a smaller point guard who can play reasonable defense and distribute the ball. It is true that we will lose the Tyreke vs opposing PG mismatch, but Tyreke vs opposing SG is still going to be a mismatch - weve seen how much a problem Tyreke is to an entire defense, theres no reason to think he will lose his threat against a single SG. "Scoring Tyreke" vs a SG, is more of a mismatch, than "Playmaker Tyreke" vs smaller PG. Thats the way I see it. I see Playmaker Tyreke as less of a mismatch because, his talent is not being used, his abilities are being split towards playmaking, and less towards what he is best at. I see Scoring Tyreke vs SG more of a mismatch, because then he can go all out which i dont think any of us has really seen him do.

If we were to pair Tyreke with a larger guard, then for all intents and purposes Tyreke is no longer playing PG, but he will still be matched up with the PG which will give us that great mismatch. All thats left to figure out is what kind of qualities we want in that larger guard. Is that what youre suggesting?

 

[ZZ-TOP]

It doesn't matter what you call Tyreke, he is going to be the ball diominant guard. That means no silly fantasies of Steve Nash or whoever playing the other spot. The other guard is NOT going to be dominating the ball. He's going to be a support player. A supplemental ball handler there to help grease the offense. Tyreke is never, nor should we ever want him to be, an off the ball guy. There's a name for off the ball players: support players. Roleplayers. Whatever. So once you admit the obvious, that even if you move Tyreke to "SG" he's going to be a "SG" like a Dwayne Wade who is almost every way effectively the PG, all that is left is figuring out what other characteristics you want that guard playing next to Tyreke to have. You want him to be able to handle and pass a little, sure, but you also want him to be able to shoot from outside when he's open and critically, to defend. And ideally, always ideally, you would want him to be bigger than Tyreke to sustain the Reke kills the opposing PG dynamic.

Its not going to be a traditional old school dominate the ball PG. It can't given Reke's abilities. Once that's off the board why would you want the supplemental ballhandler to be a small guy with defensive issues rather than a larger player who gives us mismatch advantages and can form a dominant defensive backcourt?

I completely agree with your first paragraph.
To that question that ends your writing, I will answer with some questions.
Why does Wade has Aroyo, or Bryant has Fisher?
Maybe you see something that Phil Jackson or Spoelstra don't?
Is it possible that having another SG alongside Evans brings more trouble in ball handling, offense organization and speed, than benefits from mismatches and having a dominant defensive backcourt? By the way, are you calling Garcia - Evans a dominant defensive backcourt? Really?

Ron Harper would make perfect pair with Tyreke, but he isn't available.
So till Kings don't find someone that plays like him, Beno should do.

 

[mac]

I completely agree with your first paragraph.
To that question that ends your writing, I will answer with some questions.
Why does Wade has Aroyo, or Bryant has Fisher?
Maybe you see something that Phil Jackson or Spoelstra don't?
Is it possible that having another SG alongside Evans brings more trouble in ball handling, offense organization and speed, than benefits from mismatches and having a dominant defensive backcourt? By the way, are you calling Garcia - Evans a dominant defensive backcourt? Really?

Ron Harper would make perfect pair with Tyreke, but he isn't available.
So till Kings don't find someone that plays like him, Beno should do.

Well we have yet to see whether the Heat will have success with Arroyo. Defensively, we need an upgrade on Beno. Offensively, Wade can play with a smaller Arroyo and Bryant with the smaller Fisher because Wade and Bryant are better jump shooters. Better outside shot = no need to have a size advantage as much. A good outside shot allows Wade and Bryant to beat smaller guys posting up but beat bigger guys with their quickness and ability to just pull up once they get around the defender a little.

Also, the Heat don't have to worry so much about opponents matching up their defensive specialist (who is usually a 2 or 3) on Wade, because they also have Lebron, so opponents have to pick their poison. For us, we need a SG-sized complement to Tyreke. That way, say we play the Lakers. Artest goes on Tyreke, which would leave Kobe and Fisher to guard our SG and SF. Someone is going to have a size advantage somewhere, and especially so if we play a certain 6'11 SF that has currently been left so long on the bench he's attracting flies.

 

[ZZ-TOP]

Well we have yet to see whether the Heat will have success with Arroyo. Defensively, we need an upgrade on Beno. Offensively, Wade can play with a smaller Arroyo and Bryant with the smaller Fisher because Wade and Bryant are better jump shooters. Better outside shot = no need to have a size advantage as much. A good outside shot allows Wade and Bryant to beat smaller guys posting up but beat bigger guys with their quickness and ability to just pull up once they get around the defender a little.

So, you are saying that if Tyreke was a more complete player (with consistent outside shot) it would not matter who plays alongside? Are you saying that Evans is a problem and is not all that? You won't make many friends here.

I guess there are two ways out of this:
1. Find someone that reminds of Ron Harper that will cower Rekes flaws.
2. Forcing Reke to upgrade his game.

I personally would like no. 2.
It would make him a formidable player, THE BEST, now he is just one of the best.

 

[Bricklayer]

Well Wade is a bit smaller than Tyreke at 6'4 which gives him the mobility of a point guard and allows him to facilitate the offense somewhat similar to a pure point. Whereas Tyreke is a bit large. I dont see him being encompassing the PG qualities that Wade does given his large size. But i do imagine him being the most ball dominant, as he is by far our #1 scoring option.

You are right, if we want to keep the mismatch of Reke matched up with the other PG, we're going to have another guard who is matched up with the opposing SG. Thats where things get a bit complicated. That would require Reke to play PG, which is the area where i have large doubts about. My suggestion is that we get a smaller point guard who can play reasonable defense and distribute the ball. It is true that we will lose the Tyreke vs opposing PG mismatch, but Tyreke vs opposing SG is still going to be a mismatch - weve seen how much a problem Tyreke is to an entire defense, theres no reason to think he will lose his threat against a single SG. "Scoring Tyreke" vs a SG, is more of a mismatch, than "Playmaker Tyreke" vs smaller PG. Thats the way I see it. I see Playmaker Tyreke as less of a mismatch because, his talent is not being used, his abilities are being split towards playmaking, and less towards what he is best at. I see Scoring Tyreke vs SG more of a mismatch, because then he can go all out which i dont think any of us has really seen him do.

If we were to pair Tyreke with a larger guard, then for all intents and purposes Tyreke is no longer playing PG, but he will still be matched up with the PG which will give us that great mismatch. All thats left to figure out is what kind of qualities we want in that larger guard. Is that what youre suggesting?

I think you are getting too hung up on arbitray labels like "point guard". There is no such thing as a "point guard" or a "shooting guard" in absolute sense. Its just a collection of traits that you expect to find in one of the players on the floor. Whoever has those traits, or has more of those traits than any other player, is pretty much your point guard. You can call anybodu you want your "point guard", you can call your 300lb center your "point guard" if it floats your boat, but if he plays like Shaq its an empty title and somebody else on your team is probably the player wiht more "point guard" traits.

And here is one of those traits, basically the sine qua non without which a player does not even have a chance to play like a PG: ball dominance. All the other traits commonly associated with "point guardness" -- ball handling, passing, run the offense etc. etc. -- all depend upon ball dominance. You can't run the offense wihtout the ball. You can't pass without the ball. Steve Nash probably dominates the ball more than any other player in the league (maybe CP3), he has to in order to do all the point guardy things he does. If he has the ball 80% of the time to be Steve Nash as we know him, he could not be Steve Nash, could not truly be his team's "point guard" if he only had the ball 30% of the time.

So, I am sure you can see where this is going -- Tyreke is going to dominate the ball more than any other player on the team. If that is true, then he is effectively going to be the only player on the team who HAS A CHANCE to be the point guard. At best you are going to have an uneasy collegeesque power sharing arrangement the way we do now with Reke and Beno. You are NEVER going to have an arrangement where the other guard dominates the ball himself 70% or 80% of the time and Reke just catches and shoots. Once you realize that, the next step is basically trying to find which potential backcourt partner with supplemental ballhandler/point guard traits, has the most/best NON-point guard traits as well. In other words, you know that whoever plays there is not going to be able to play fulltime PG/ball dominator. So what you are looking for is a player with good enough skills to play parttime PG/ball dominator, which is all that is going to be required, AND who has as many non-PG traits as possible. A pure point is wasted since he is not going to get to handle the ball enough to practice his craft. You need somebody who excels at things that do not require ball dominance, but with sufficient PG skills to help out when the chance to dominate the ball does arise. Beno has been an ok fit in the role, but he really is too much of a pure PG with all the limitations and drawbacks that implies -- he is neither rebounder, nor defender, nor physical, and this year even his long range shooting has disappeared. He brings the supplemental PG skills to the table, which is the base for what we need, but nothing more.

It should be noted BTW that a more coherent offense with plays being run requiring multiple passes and moving bodies would go a long way to keeping people involved even if Reke is the PG initiating things. The stagnation is not because of Reke's skills, or lack thereof, so much as it is because rather than running plays we far too frequently just say Reke, here's the ball, make something happen. Everybody does that with their studs down the stretch of tight games -- that's where having an overwhelming player makes all the difference. But if you run that as your base offense for an entire game, as has been mentioned in the LeBron thread it leads to stagnation (not to mention putting enormous pressure on that superstar to make basically everythign happen). We don't need to go there. And indeed in the future may not even have a temptation if Cousins pans out. At that point then you could hae Reke dominating the ball 50%+ of the time, Cousins getting the ball in the post 25% of the time, and there would be even less time/call for a pure G.

 

[mac]

So, you are saying that if Tyreke was a more complete player (with consistent outside shot) it would not matter who plays alongside? Are you saying that Evans is a problem and is not all that? You won't make many friends here.

I guess there are two ways out of this:
1. Find someone that reminds of Ron Harper that will cower Rekes flaws.
2. Forcing Reke to upgrade his game.

I personally would like no. 2.
It would make him a formidable player, THE BEST, now he is just one of the best.

You show a very high level of maturity in your posts. I can bet with you that most of these posters you are referring to do not think that Evans is on the level of Kobe and LeBron and all at the moment. He has so much to work on, like you said, but the point is he has the potential to be the best. Anyone who thinks that Evans right now is a good outside shooter is either not very observant or Jerry Reynolds.

What I'm saying is that as Tyreke adds to his game, who he plays alongside will matter less. However, if possible you still try to get as big an advantage as you can. I mean, if the Lakers and Kobe could somehow swap Derek Fisher for Manu Ginobili you think they wouldn't do it? But Fisher knows the system, and plays the role they need him to well enough for them to win a championship so they don't need that added advantage. Of course I'm not making an entirely accurate comparison because Kobe and Tyreke are rather different players (even at Tyreke's best he will be a different player from Kobe. More size and strength, more craftiness, less quickness and most probably not as much of an outside threat). The point is, given Tyreke's strengths getting said SG would provide the team with an added advantage.

Yes, I'm also saying that Evans is a problem and is not all that. But at the same time, I'm saying the guy is barely into his second season, still has a lot to learn, is on a team without much veteran leadership and talented mentors, but has the potential to be one of the league's best superstars. All players have things to work on in their games, even seasoned veterans. Working on new things and improving old skills is the sign of a good player. Just look at Kobe, he realised he was ageing, wasn't going to beat guys off the dribble so much anymore. So, he went and worked on his post game. But players skills can only bring that much success to a team. The coaches need to know how to make good use of their personnel. If Kobe has an awesome post game to make up for his loss of quickness and strength, but Phil says no, I don't care I'm playing you outside and we're not going to feed you the ball in the post then what's the use? Which is what guys are saying about Tyreke - you can't pin the blame of him not moving the ball and the offense being stagnant and all solely on his shoulders. It also has to do with guys not moving, the coach not being stricter with the offense, the team being young and inexperienced etc!

Your "solutions" to the 'problem' pretty much display your narrow-mindedness. You say it as if 1) Finding someone that fits with Tyreke will cause him not to improve and 2) Tyreke isn't going to improve his game, and we can somehow flick a switch and see his FG% increase by 0.5% a game till he's shooting 18/20 on 3 point FGs every game. For the team to be as good as we want it to be, Tyreke has to step it up, and he will as he continues to work on his game. What I think he lacks is the supporting "infrastructure". He needs someone who he can really work on his game with or at least a veteran guard, just like Cousins needs a good big man coach. The Kings have placed Garcia in this so-called veteran leader role, but really, do you want Garcia, who has never been on a winning team, who is a streaky player who still makes huge mistakes teaching our young superstar how to be a better basketball player? I'm fine with Garcia, Udoka, whoever we've had recently as a leader in terms of keeping the team together, encouraging guys, helping them integrate into the league. But as far as playing basketball goes, I don't think Udoka and Garcia and even Beno make very credible mentors. But I digress. Back to the main topic, the team needs Tyreke to step it up but at the same time should try to get someone to complement him.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Exactly. The real issue is that there's only one basketball. If Tyreke is passing off to a teammate and then cutting and spotting up (ie running the offense) than his talents are being wasted. Similarly if someone else is passing off to a teammate and Tyreke is cutting and spotting up than his talents are being wasted. He needs the ball to be effective.

I promised myself I wouldn't bring up this name ever again, but I'm going to do it anyway. A lot of the reason people were upset we went with Tyreke over Rubio was that Rubio was billed as a pure playmaker while Tyreke is a ball dominant scorer. Pure playmakers always come with the potential to make average teammates appear better than they are. Plus ball movement is exciting, if not always effective. Now that we've seen how effective Tyreke can be, you could look around the league and see that most of the elite teams are led by a ball dominant scorer and you could then make the decision that you're happy we have one on our team. Our you could continue to bemoan the lack of pretty basketball. As long as we're losing anyway, there's reason to think pretty basketball would be an improvement right?

I don't see a lot of people around here lately arguing for Rubio over Tyreke, and that's not why I brought it up. I do see a lot of confusion over what the best way to use Tyreke's skills would be and it seems to me, perhaps I'm wrong, that there's a bias in favor of passing playmakers instead of scoring playmakers at PG. Let's say we do get that mythical perfect playmaker to team up with Tyreke. Who knows maybe Kahn would trade him for Carl Landry and a second round pick. What happens when Tyreke has the ball? Rubio is not a shooter. He would be wasted. And when Rubio has the ball, Tyreke would be wasted. Two playmakers seems like a great idea in theory, but only if they have off-the-ball skills which compliment each other.

We know that Tyreke is an effective scorer with the ball in his hands. He was as a 19 year old, and he's going to continue to get better. We know that he's a match up nightmare for any PG in the league. I think the conclusions we can draw from this are pretty obvious, but I'll leave it open to interpretation.

Championship offenses win by moving the ball and having multiple go-to options that complement each other. That's been the case for the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls. One player doesn't dominate the ball while everyone else plays off his game. I think you're confusing high volume scorer with ball dominant scorer. Just because a player is a high volume scorer, that does not mean he needs to dominate the ball in order to be effective. Kobe doesn't need to dominate the ball, he may dominate it at times, but he's perfectly capable of playing within an offensive set and being effective without the ball, or setting up his teammates. Besides, it really isn't a bias towards a pure playmaker anyway, because you could make a similar argument with Chris Paul, who is as ball dominant as they come. However, I think if you're going to be led by a ball dominant player, I'd rather them have a better mix of passing/scoring like Nash or Paul, rather than someone like Iverson, so the offense doesn't become as stagnant.

You're actually doing a better job at making the argument against Tyreke being "the man" than you are for us allowing him to just let him dominate the ball. Saying he's so ineffective without being able to pound the ball is not a boost in favor of letting him do whatever he wants with the ball, but rather a weakness on his part that should be corrected. Personally, I wouldn't want our best player to be so limited, and I wouldn't want that limitation to force us into an unsuccessful team offense.

This whole thing is not about what's better for Tyreke's stats, it's about what's best for the future of this team, and that should be aimed at winning championships, not Evans having individual success. If we want Evans to be a truly great player, then he needs to learn how to be effective within a team offense, and he's not going to learn that by letting him pound the ball 24/7, while the rest of the team waits for him to kick it out. That's an exaggeration, but I think you get my point.

 

[mr. moustache]

Championship offenses win by moving the ball and having multiple go-to options that complement each other. That's been the case for the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls. One player doesn't dominate the ball while everyone else plays off his game. I think you're confusing high volume scorer with ball dominant scorer. Just because a player is a high volume scorer, that does not mean he needs to dominate the ball in order to be effective. Kobe doesn't need to dominate the ball, he may dominate it at times, but he's perfectly capable of playing within an offensive set and being effective without the ball, or setting up his teammates. Besides, it really isn't a bias towards a pure playmaker anyway, because you could make a similar argument with Chris Paul, who is as ball dominant as they come. However, I think if you're going to be led by a ball dominant player, I'd rather them have a better mix of passing/scoring like Nash or Paul, rather than someone like Iverson, so the offense doesn't become as stagnant.

You're actually doing a better job at making the argument against Tyreke being "the man" than for us allowing him to just let him dominate the ball. Saying he's so ineffective without being able to pound the ball is not a boost in favor of letting him do whatever he wants with the ball, but rather a weakness on his part that should be corrected. Personally, I wouldn't want our best player to be so limited, and I wouldn't want that limitation to force us into an unsuccessful team offense.

This whole thing is not about what's better for Tyreke's stats, it's about what's best for the future of this team, and that should be aimed at winning championships, not Evans having individual success. If we want Evans to be a truly great player, then he needs to learn how to be effective within a team offense, and he's not going to learn that by letting him pound the ball 24/7, while the rest of the team waits for him to kick it out. That's an exaggeration, but I think you get my point.

Good point. The Lakers two recent championships were won with Kobe NOT dominating the ball. The Celtics last championship was won without anyone dominating the ball. Rondo and Pierce take turns at time dominating the ball, but Allen and Garnett do get touches outside set shots. The Spurs championship teams didn't have a player dominating the ball. The Pistons championship team didn't have a player dominating the ball. What championship winning team in the last 20 years did it will one ball dominant player? Wade's Heat I think would qualify, Jordan's Bulls obvioulsy qualify.

Anyway, I think the Heat's recent championship is probably the best blueprint for a Tyreke led team. Get to the line a million times a game, feed a beast in the post, kick out to shooters that are defenders. OR, have a sophisticated offense predicated on ball sharing and defense, then ISO Tyreke during endgame of close games. #1 is obviously easier to achieve than #2, but #2 has a better track record since Jordan.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Good point. The Lakers two recent championships were won with Kobe NOT dominating the ball. The Celtics last championship was won without anyone dominating the ball. Rondo and Pierce take turns at time dominating the ball, but Allen and Garnett do get touches outside set shots. The Spurs championship teams didn't have a player dominating the ball. The Pistons championship team didn't have a player dominating the ball. What championship winning team in the last 20 years did it will one ball dominant player? Wade's Heat I think would qualify, Jordan's Bulls obvioulsy qualify.

Anyway, I think the Heat's recent championship is probably the best blueprint for a Tyreke led team. Get to the line a million times a game, feed a beast in the post, kick out to shooters that are defenders. OR, have a sophisticated offense predicated on ball sharing and defense, then ISO Tyreke during endgame of close games. #1 is obviously easier to achieve than #2, but #2 has a better track record since Jordan.

Triangle offense Jordan is not someone who dominates the ball. For the most part, they ran the triangle to perfection and shared the ball. Sure, Jordan went on spurts like Kobe does, but he was perfectly capable of playing within the triangle. Both Pippen and Jordan could play off each other, despite both of them being better with the ball in their hands. They moved the ball, they didn't just drive and dish out, and they didn't take turns either.

I don't think the heat championship is a reliable blueprint. Wade got so freaking lucky with those calls.

 

[Lockehead]

I think you are getting too hung up on arbitray labels like "point guard". There is no such thing as a "point guard" or a "shooting guard" in absolute sense. Its just a collection of traits that you expect to find in one of the players on the floor. Whoever has those traits, or has more of those traits than any other player, is pretty much your point guard. You can call anybodu you want your "point guard", you can call your 300lb center your "point guard" if it floats your boat, but if he plays like Shaq its an empty title and somebody else on your team is probably the player wiht more "point guard" traits.

And here is one of those traits, basically the sine qua non without which a player does not even have a chance to play like a PG: ball dominance. All the other traits commonly associated with "point guardness" -- ball handling, passing, run the offense etc. etc. -- all depend upon ball dominance. You can't run the offense wihtout the ball. You can't pass without the ball. Steve Nash probably dominates the ball more than any other player in the league (maybe CP3), he has to in order to do all the point guardy things he does. If he has the ball 80% of the time to be Steve Nash as we know him, he could not be Steve Nash, could not truly be his team's "point guard" if he only had the ball 30% of the time.

So, I am sure you can see where this is going -- Tyreke is going to dominate the ball more than any other player on the team. If that is true, then he is effectively going to be the only player on the team who HAS A CHANCE to be the point guard. At best you are going to have an uneasy collegeesque power sharing arrangement the way we do now with Reke and Beno. You are NEVER going to have an arrangement where the other guard dominates the ball himself 70% or 80% of the time and Reke just catches and shoots. Once you realize that, the next step is basically trying to find which potential backcourt partner with supplemental ballhandler/point guard traits, has the most/best NON-point guard traits as well. In other words, you know that whoever plays there is not going to be able to play fulltime PG/ball dominator. So what you are looking for is a player with good enough skills to play parttime PG/ball dominator, which is all that is going to be required, AND who has as many non-PG traits as possible. A pure point is wasted since he is not going to get to handle the ball enough to practice his craft. You need somebody who excels at things that do not require ball dominance, but with sufficient PG skills to help out when the chance to dominate the ball does arise. Beno has been an ok fit in the role, but he really is too much of a pure PG with all the limitations and drawbacks that implies -- he is neither rebounder, nor defender, nor physical, and this year even his long range shooting has disappeared. He brings the supplemental PG skills to the table, which is the base for what we need, but nothing more.

It should be noted BTW that a more coherent offense with plays being run requiring multiple passes and moving bodies would go a long way to keeping people involved even if Reke is the PG initiating things. The stagnation is not because of Reke's skills, or lack thereof, so much as it is because rather than running plays we far too frequently just say Reke, here's the ball, make something happen. Everybody does that with their studs down the stretch of tight games -- that's where having an overwhelming player makes all the difference. But if you run that as your base offense for an entire game, as has been mentioned in the LeBron thread it leads to stagnation (not to mention putting enormous pressure on that superstar to make basically everythign happen). We don't need to go there. And indeed in the future may not even have a temptation if Cousins pans out. At that point then you could hae Reke dominating the ball 50%+ of the time, Cousins getting the ball in the post 25% of the time, and there would be even less time/call for a pure G.

I am not supporting the need of a ball dominant play maker type of point guard. You can have one who is able to distribute the ball to those who are in a position to score, keep the offense alive by making passes, and shoot the 3 if needed, without having to dominate the ball maybe even 30% of the time. Sure he is going to be the one bringing the ball up the court, but if you can measure his ball dominance based on the seconds used on the shot clock, he is not going to be the most ball dominant. There is no reason to think that if Tyreke isnt the one playing point guard that he wont dominate the ball. What i imagine is Tyreke getting in position, maybe in the high post, PG feeds him the ball as soon as he is in position. Since Tyreke is our #1 scoring option, you can bet that he is going to be the most ball dominant. You can even throw Cousins in there once we have a PG who can distribute the ball to him. With as much talent, and young legs, as we have, we do not need a ball-dominant playmaker.

On the stagnation of the offense, i believe that Tyreke does play a part in that, but it is not entirely his fault. Now, Tyreke as of now enjoys being the ball dominant play maker. The thing is, he's not very good at it - he doesnt have the natural instincts, nor the physical capabilities (small size - mobility), to be good at making plays or getting the entire team involved. How often do we hope for Tyreke to move the ball around, but he just kills 1/2 of the shot clock, then makes a pass? This is because hes trying to do two things at once (make plays, and look for his own bucket) and thats where his fault in the stagnant offense is. The other reason, is the fact that we have decided to surround Tyreke with the role players in the 2 and 3 spot to hit the open 3. If youre role is to hit the open 3, then you are not going to have the desired ball movement / team oriented offense that you want to have. You can even argue that the 4 and 5 spot are sometimes made into role players around Tyreke, where their role is to put in the garbage tip ins, or dunks, instead of being real post up threats. And in clutch situations, if you have a team of role players, then you are basically forced to have Tyreke as the go to guy. So i do believe that Tyreke is the reason for the stagnant offence that we have been seeing, but it is not entirely his fault as the coaching staff and rotations play their part also.

 

[hrdboild]

Championship offenses win by moving the ball and having multiple go-to options that complement each other. That's been the case for the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls. One player doesn't dominate the ball while everyone else plays off his game. I think you're confusing high volume scorer with ball dominant scorer. Just because a player is a high volume scorer, that does not mean he needs to dominate the ball in order to be effective. Kobe doesn't need to dominate the ball, he may dominate it at times, but he's perfectly capable of playing within an offensive set and being effective without the ball, or setting up his teammates. Besides, it really isn't a bias towards a pure playmaker anyway, because you could make a similar argument with Chris Paul, who is as ball dominant as they come. However, I think if you're going to be led by a ball dominant player, I'd rather them have a better mix of passing/scoring like Nash or Paul, rather than someone like Iverson, so the offense doesn't become as stagnant.

You're actually doing a better job at making the argument against Tyreke being "the man" than you are for us allowing him to just let him dominate the ball. Saying he's so ineffective without being able to pound the ball is not a boost in favor of letting him do whatever he wants with the ball, but rather a weakness on his part that should be corrected. Personally, I wouldn't want our best player to be so limited, and I wouldn't want that limitation to force us into an unsuccessful team offense.

This whole thing is not about what's better for Tyreke's stats, it's about what's best for the future of this team, and that should be aimed at winning championships, not Evans having individual success. If we want Evans to be a truly great player, then he needs to learn how to be effective within a team offense, and he's not going to learn that by letting him pound the ball 24/7, while the rest of the team waits for him to kick it out. That's an exaggeration, but I think you get my point.

Yes but there's a pretty key difference between how Kobe scores most of his points (jumpshots and/or freethrows off jumpshots) and how Tyreke scores most of his points (layups and/or freethrows off layups). Having Tyreke play off the ball and fire away is not going to improve the offense in any way. That would be ignoring what Tyreke does well and instead forcing him to rely on what he does poorly. I suppose that could improve his shooting game in the long run, but why would you want to take an elite one-on-one slasher and make him into a jump shooter? Even if you look around the league and see a lot of round pegs, that doesn't mean you should take your square peg and try to pound it into a round hole.

I think there's two different arguments going on here. One is about what the best way to use Tyreke is and the other is what the best way to win a championship is. It seems like you're responding mostly to one comment I made, which was admittedly poorly justified in my first post:

Now that we've seen how effective Tyreke can be, you could look around the league and see that most of the elite teams are led by a ball dominant scorer and you could then make the decision that you're happy we have one on our team. Our you could continue to bemoan the lack of pretty basketball.

So let me elaborate that point. You mentioned Kobe Bryant and suggested he is a volume scorer and not a ball dominant scorer. While it is true that the Lakers have a lot of options in their offense, most of them start with Kobe initiating the offense. Kobe leads the team in assists and usage %. Runner-up is Pau Gasol. Not surprising. You've got a ball dominant guard and a playmaking big man.

Let's move on to Miami. Usage % says Dwayne Wade has a slight edge on Lebron as the primary playmaker but Lebron has a ton more assists. It's tough to classify Lebron, but I think most people would agree he's playing the role of a ball dominant scorer even if he's doing it from the small forward position (hence the Lebron of PGs comparison). Runner up is Chris Bosh, another big man with some playmaking ability. Carlos Arroyo is near the bottom of the list in usage % and Chalmers is only playing in garbage time.

Boston is going to be an exception obviously because Rondo is their primary playmaker (to the tune of a record setting assist season so far) and he's not a scorer. The disparity is reflected in the usage % anomaly. With both Miami and LA the players which lead the team in assists (and scoring) also lead the team in usage %. Ball dominant guards. With Boston Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen all have a higher usage % than Rondo since they're the ones finishing plays. This is probably the ideal you're talking about with a team that has multiple options in the defense. Boston is also a team with four hall-of-fame players on their roster this season. Perhaps five if Rondo eventually makes it in. That'd be nice to have, but it's not really a repeatable model for success.

Utah has Deron Williams as assist leader, leading scorer, and highest usage %. Their usage % is interesting though because it's almost equally split between Williams, Jefferson, and Millsap with CJ Miles also playing a key role off the bench. So that's another team with a varied offense but it's still initiated by a ball dominant scorer. Utah is probably the best example of what this team could be right now with a more balanced offense but you notice their number 2 and 3 options are both big men. This is similar to LA and Miami.

New Orleans looks like a less talented Boston. Chris Paul is the leader in assists and the number 2 scorer. Usage % is evenly split between Paul and West with a lot of role players getting limited minutes with comparatively large usage %. I would think if you gave Chris Paul the types of teammates that Rondo has, he would probably be challenging him for the lead in assists right now. His assist % is a tad higher than Rondo's even (54.5% vs. 54.1%).

San Antonio is a good example of a two guard offense with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili splitting usage %. Parker is by far the leader in assists and the third scorer while Manu is the leading scorer. Duncan is the runner up on usage %. Manu is actually a pretty similar player to Tyreke. Comparing their stats the one huge difference is Manu's 7.8 three point shots attempted to Tyreke's 2. If Tyreke improves his three point shooting enough to be a reliable threat that would dramatically increase his effectiveness off the ball.

It's going to take a long time to go through every team in the league, so I'll just quickly summarize some others...

Chicago has Derrick Rose as assist leader, leading scorer, and highest usage % and there's no close runner up. Dallas looks like Boston and New Orleans (no suprise since they're also lead by a pass first point guard). Atlanta has Joe Johnson as assist leader, highest usage %, and second in scoring to Al Horford.

You could write a thesis trying to cross-reference all these numbers (all from basketball-reference.com) and show how they correlate to winning % but that's not my intention. I just wanted to point out why I came to the conclusion that most of the elite teams have a ball dominant scorer on them. All-Star pass-first PGs are great if you can get them, but so are All-Star playmaking scorers. We don't have the former but we do have the latter. A lot of teams are having success putting the ball in the hands of their leading scorer. Yes we need other options, we desperately need other options, but we'd be best served if those other scorers and playmakers played C, PF and SF. If you really want a pass-first PG that badly, you'd be better off trading Tyreke for one.

 

[Vlade4GM]

My basic point is that we will not succeed if we run an offense that just plays off Evans, you seem to agree with that. So whether that fits with what Evans is or not, that doesn't change what offense it usually takes to win. You can't have a predictable offense, and I think that includes offenses with even multiple options but just take turns going 1-on-1.

I think we're running into a problem here and that's the term "ball dominant." There are degrees in which a player dominates the ball. Yes, most teams are initiated by players that are much better with the ball in their hands, and they usually do have the ball in their hands because they're their best option, that's not what I'm disputing. I think scoring playmakers are great, I have nothing against the idea of a team being led by them as opposed to a pass first playmaker, but the problem is that a scoring playmaker is way too broad of a category. You can't just lump all scoring playmakers together and say they all function the same way. A player like Kobe, who does initiate the offense and does go into bouts of going 1-on-1, he can still make quick moves/decisions, dump it into the post, post up, and move off the ball. The important thing is that Kobe can go 1-on-1 and create scoring opportunities out of nothing, but he can also be a great scorer/playmaker in a set offense. The problem with Tyreke dominating the ball is that he needs to pound the ball in order to create scoring opportunities, which causes stagnation. They're both scoring playmakers, sure, but one functions great with the kind of offense you need to contend for titles, and the other not so much at the moment.

You make good points that we shouldn't ignore what his strengths are, but you're closer to convincing me that Evans is not going to cut it as a no.1 option than you are to convincing me that a Iverson/LeBron set up is the way to go. It's not that I think having a guard with great 1-on-1 ability is bad, it's just that if that's all he's got and he's your cornerstone player, then there's a problem. I'd prefer that he learn other ways to be effective offensively. Can he learn that? I don't know, we'll have to see, but we'll never find out if we don't challenge him to do so.

 

[mr. moustache]

Triangle offense Jordan is not someone who dominates the ball. For the most part, they ran the triangle to perfection and shared the ball. Sure, Jordan went on spurts like Kobe does, but he was perfectly capable of playing within the triangle. Both Pippen and Jordan could play off each other, despite both of them being better with the ball in their hands. They moved the ball, they didn't just drive and dish out, and they didn't take turns either.

I don't think the heat championship is a reliable blueprint. Wade got so freaking lucky with those calls.

Right. I was wrong to say the Bulls didn't have a complex offensive system predicated on ball movement. I *really* started watching basketball with the Kings in 2001 and was making some assumptions based on who knows what.

 

[hrdboild]

My basic point is that we will not succeed if we run an offense that just plays off Evans, you seem to agree with that. So whether that fits with what Evans is or not, that doesn't change what offense it usually takes to win. You can't have a predictable offense, and I think that includes offenses with even multiple options but just take turns going 1-on-1.

I think we're running into a problem here and that's the term "ball dominant." There are degrees in which a player dominates the ball. Yes, most teams are initiated by players that are much better with the ball in their hands, and they usually do have the ball in their hands because they're their best option, that's not what I'm disputing. I think scoring playmakers are great, I have nothing against the idea of a team being led by them as opposed to a pass first playmaker, but the problem is that a scoring playmaker is way too broad of a category. You can't just lump all scoring playmakers together and say they all function the same way. A player like Kobe, who does initiate the offense and does go into bouts of going 1-on-1, he can still make quick moves/decisions, dump it into the post, post up, and move off the ball. The important thing is that Kobe can go 1-on-1 and create scoring opportunities out of nothing, but he can also be a great scorer/playmaker in a set offense. The problem with Tyreke dominating the ball is that he needs to pound the ball in order to create scoring opportunities, which causes stagnation. They're both scoring playmakers, sure, but one functions great with the kind of offense you need to contend for titles, and the other not so much at the moment.

You make good points that we shouldn't ignore what his strengths are, but you're closer to convincing me that Evans is not going to cut it as a no.1 option than you are to convincing me that a Iverson/LeBron set up is the way to go. It's not that I think having a guard with great 1-on-1 ability is bad, it's just that if that's all he's got and he's your cornerstone player, then there's a problem. I'd prefer that he learn other ways to be effective offensively. Can he learn that? I don't know, we'll have to see, but we'll never find out if we don't challenge him to do so.

I meant to say this before but I got distracted looking up all the stats, but I think your point is a good one and one I would agree with. For this team to even think about contending Tyreke will have to get better, both as a more diverse scorer and as an initiator. He's got one elite skill right now, getting to the rim. He compliments that with rebounding, defense, and a willingness to pass when he gets doubled in the paint. Focusing on his shot in the offseason shows he's aware of some of his weaknesses and is willing to work on them. We should re-visit this 2 years from now and see how much further along he is. I'm not worried about it at all. All signs point to a player who's going to continue getting better for some time.

I think we already saw last season how far Tyreke can carry this team on his own. Hopefully DeMarcus can improve enough to be a legitimate second option bigman in a couple years. That will go a long way. That gives you the inside-outside attack. The other key addition would be a multi-faceted scoring forward either as a free agent signing or another lottery pick. If we get those three options than the talent we already have would look much better slotted around them as role players. Trying to find an efficient offense with this current group is going to be problematic because most of them are not real first, second, or even third options on a good team and the guys who do have that potential (Cousins and Casspi I think) still have a lot of growing up to do.

 

[Lockehead]

i hope this comes out right...I made my replies in bold.

Yes but there's a pretty key difference between how Kobe scores most of his points (jumpshots and/or freethrows off jumpshots) and how Tyreke scores most of his points (layups and/or freethrows off layups). Having Tyreke play off the ball and fire away is not going to improve the offense in any way. It will allow for other players to become scoring options instead of role players. It will remove Tyreke from being the point guard which i predict would improve our spacing, time management, and ball movement. All these suggest the development of a team oriented offense That would be ignoring what Tyreke does well and instead forcing him to rely on what he does poorly. No it doesnt. How would it? You are assuming that because he's not a point guard dominating the ball hes going to end his slashing/ driving game altogether? Tyreke can position himself at the high post, get the ball through a feed, and use his slashing game just as well as he would if he was point. Weve seen this multiple times and to great success this season. I suppose that could improve his shooting game in the long run, but why would you want to take an elite one-on-one slasher and make him into a jump shooter? Once again, you are assuming that he is going to stop his slashing game. If anything, having him play off the ball, and learn to position himself to score (like how kobe has learned to position himself), will make his slashing game that much more dangerous because he will be developing his jumpshot. And any player who knows a thing about offense, knows that the more offensive tools you have, the harder you become to guard. This is why players like Jordan, Kobe, and Carmelo are so hard to defend. Even if you look around the league and see a lot of round pegs, that doesn't mean you should take your square peg and try to pound it into a round hole.

I think there's two different arguments going on here. One is about what the best way to use Tyreke is and the other is what the best way to win a championship is. I think they go hand in hand. For one, Tyreke would be developing as a player, which is what you want. And two, the team would be free to develop without requiring Tyreke to play ball-dominant point guard. It seems like you're responding mostly to one comment I made, which was admittedly poorly justified in my first post:



So let me elaborate that point. You mentioned Kobe Bryant and suggested he is a volume scorer and not a ball dominant scorer. While it is true that the Lakers have a lot of options in their offense, most of them start with Kobe initiating the offense. Kobe leads the team in assists and usage % (Right, and he does it entirely through playing SG). Runner-up is Pau Gasol. Not surprising. You've got a ball dominant guard and a playmaking big man.

If you really want a pass-first PG that badly, you'd be better off trading Tyreke for one. Why exactly? And who says you cant have a pass first pg playing alongside Tyreke?

 

[Prince_XY]

When did the cavs reach game 6 of the NBA finals?

Not a game 6 but swept by the Spurs.

Thanks for correcting the fact. My mistake.

Anyways, the point - is saying the Nuggets are a better team than the Cavs when it was the Cavs who went as far as the NBA Finals is something the poster has to think twice.

 

[Lockehead]

^ I think it was more a testament to how good Lebron as an individual player really is..

 

[Prince_XY]

And we want to develop Evans to be the "Lebron James of PGs" because of that.

I am pretty sure it will work!

 

[KingsCitizen]

I believe several folks here haven't seen/read about those oversized PGs making excellent mismatches on the games. I'll name a few:

1.) Magic Johnson (PG - 6'9") - Probably the most versatile player ever to play in the NBA. Played mostly PG but also played all position in the game from C-SG. A few of those Lakers championship rings came from this guy.
2.) Oscar Robertson (PG - 6'5") - This is about Reke's size and Big-O made records and delivered championship playing in between PG and SG.
3.) Shawn Livingston (PG - 6'7") - Great potential but never made it due to injuries.
4.) Michael Jordan (PG - 6'6") - At his early career Doug Collins played MJ at PG in several games. But this never worked for the team, as he rarely passed the ball when playing at this position.

This sort of list is what I could say as the best to the worst by rank. Magic is what I call mana from heaven. Big-O is what I call a reachable goal for Reke. Livingston is what I call typical bust. And Jordan is what I call why force a SG to be a PG.

 

[Lockehead]

Im not going to compare Tyreke to any of them seeing as how ive never witnessed any of them play, besides Jordan. However i am going to say that the game has changed so much from the time those you listed had played. Size does matter, as the physicality of the game has become so scrutinized.
I think some of you are overplaying this PG mismatch. We can argue that Kobe would had been a mismatch if he had played PG. But would he had developed into the player he is today? And would the Lakers be able to construct a championship level team with Kobe as PG? The thing is Kobe was special because he was so hard to guard. That even if he played SG, he would still be a mismatch that demanded the attention of the defense. We have something special in Tyreke, and i dont think it is being used correctly by having him play PG. And it is also not doing our team any favors.

Let me ask this: What are the positives in having Tyreke play PG, and what are the negatives?

 

[KingsCitizen]

Last year, Beno is usually playing off-guard and Reke has been the main ball initiator. So what point are you saying that Reke should not play PG? We've succeeded that last year because I believe most team are not paying much attention to that sequence and this season they will simply abuse Beno on defense after Reke showed his defensive capability. Last season PG's attack Reke simply being the rookie that he was. Now, its beyond that and I believe our team needs to adjust. So that's the point of moving Beno to the bench and having Garcia as SG next to Reke. Garcia is much taller and capable defender than Beno and thus teams will no longer have that option to abuse on the our back court.

The last game seems to show that PW finally gets it and moved Beno to lead the bench mob. Reke clearly has better PG skills than Head. So hopefully, Evans will be back to being the main ball initiator and we should maximize on that. Garcia would probably be a better fit than Head being a bit taller.

 

[DeMoN]

Last year, Beno is usually playing off-guard and Reke has been the main ball initiator. So what point are you saying that Reke should not play PG? We've succeeded that last year because I believe most team are not paying much attention to that sequence and this season they will simply abuse Beno on defense after Reke showed his defensive capability. Last season PG's attack Reke simply being the rookie that he was. Now, its beyond that and I believe our team needs to adjust. So that's the point of moving Beno to the bench and having Garcia as SG next to Reke. Garcia is much taller and capable defender than Beno and thus teams will no longer have that option to abuse on the our back court.

The last game seems to show that PW finally gets it and moved Beno to lead the bench mob. Reke clearly has better PG skills than Head. So hopefully, Evans will be back to being the main ball initiator and we should maximize on that. Garcia would probably be a better fit than Head being a bit taller.

If Evans is our distributor we're going to have trouble finding offense. I think the greatest fix we can get right now is getting a solid TRUE pg. I was hoping we'd get Collison in the offseason. Ty Lawson would be sweet but i doubt Denver gets rid of him.

 

[Asaf]

Last year, Beno is usually playing off-guard and Reke has been the main ball initiator. So what point are you saying that Reke should not play PG? We've succeeded that last year because I believe most team are not paying much attention to that sequence and this season they will simply abuse Beno on defense after Reke showed his defensive capability. Last season PG's attack Reke simply being the rookie that he was. Now, its beyond that and I believe our team needs to adjust. So that's the point of moving Beno to the bench and having Garcia as SG next to Reke. Garcia is much taller and capable defender than Beno and thus teams will no longer have that option to abuse on the our back court.

The last game seems to show that PW finally gets it and moved Beno to lead the bench mob. Reke clearly has better PG skills than Head. So hopefully, Evans will be back to being the main ball initiator and we should maximize on that. Garcia would probably be a better fit than Head being a bit taller.

We've succeeded last year? That myth seems to be going around the board as if people weren't really watching last season. Then again, some people here were just watching the stat sheet looking for Tyreke's 20-5-5...

The truth is that we got off to a good start but once the new decade kicked in we went 11-41. That's a worse winning pace than the 17-win season that came before that. I don't know how anyone could've watched the latter two-thirds of last season and say it was a successful season with a straight face.

 

[Asaf]

If Evans is our distributor we're going to have trouble finding offense. I think the greatest fix we can get right now is getting a solid TRUE pg. I was hoping we'd get Collison in the offseason. Ty Lawson would be sweet but i doubt Denver gets rid of him.

Wait, weren't you the one who was arguing with me that Tyreke should be our LeBron and be the one running the offense?

 

[DeMoN]

Wait, weren't you the one who was arguing with me that Tyreke should be our LeBron and be the one running the offense?

I was arguing against why anyone wouldn't want a Lebron James type offense. Tyreke Evan's may have such an impact on the floor in the future close to it, but i doubt it. If he gets there, than I am all for it. I see Evan's more of a scorer who can make players around him better from getting double teamed and him passing pretty good out of it. Right now, and in the forseeable future, we need a point guard whos is pass first, and can make plays happen other than scoring points.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I was arguing against why anyone wouldn't want a Lebron James type offense. Tyreke Evan's may have such an impact on the floor in the future close to it, but i doubt it. If he gets there, than I am all for it. I see Evan's more of a scorer who can make players around him better from getting double teamed and him passing pretty good out of it. Right now, and in the forseeable future, we need a point guard whos is pass first, and can make plays happen other than scoring points.

He'll never be as good as LeBron, and a LeBron style offense failed for LeBron in the playoffs. It's fundamentally flawed.

 

[KingsCitizen]

We've succeeded last year? That myth seems to be going around the board as if people weren't really watching last season. Then again, some people here were just watching the stat sheet looking for Tyreke's 20-5-5...

The truth is that we got off to a good start but once the new decade kicked in we went 11-41. That's a worse winning pace than the 17-win season that came before that. I don't know how anyone could've watched the latter two-thirds of last season and say it was a successful season with a straight face.

My point if saying we've succedded was Reke being able to silence a lot of critics saying he can't play PG. I've seen games last season and I could say that Reke can compete against any PG in this league.

If you want a pass first PG, you build a team with shooters around him, like Phoenix. Our team is supposed to be build to bully other teams. If you want to bully people, you don't pass around the ball that much. You give that ball to running back with a basketball. Pass first PGs thrive in teams with catch and shoot players around him. So if you get that pass first guard next to Reke, your not utilizing Reke's best quality coz you turn him into a spot-up shooter. Now you give that ball to Reke and let him barrell down people and that's what Reke should be.

 

[swisshh]

Don't mistake Kings land for most people. Most people watched the team last year and still listed a PG as a major need for the team this year precisely because of Tyreke not showing enough signs.

 

[rainmaker]

My point if saying we've succedded was Reke being able to silence a lot of critics saying he can't play PG. I've seen games last season and I could say that Reke can compete against any PG in this league.

If you want a pass first PG, you build a team with shooters around him, like Phoenix. Our team is supposed to be build to bully other teams. If you want to bully people, you don't pass around the ball that much. You give that ball to running back with a basketball. Pass first PGs thrive in teams with catch and shoot players around him. So if you get that pass first guard next to Reke, your not utilizing Reke's best quality coz you turn him into a spot-up shooter. Now you give that ball to Reke and let him barrell down people and that's what Reke should be.

Both San Antonio and the Lakers have bullied teams on offense for the last decade, and they pass the ball beautifully. It's about knowing your opponent,knowing the situation in the game, understanding the flow, and knowing when to go one on one, and when to move the ball.