McLemore played 25 minutes and got off 5 shots. One shot every 5 minutes. Most of the time he was on the court with IT. If we are going to waste the skills of McLemore, what was the point in drafting him? IT has to make the next mental step in his game and that is to realize that there are people on the court better than he is and he should be trying to figure out how to get them involved. Isn't that the job of a PG; to get people involved? His job is to make the team function at its optimal level and not simply to provide energy and run around dribbling like mad and hoping he can get off a shot before he is forced to pass it. This is hyperbole but far closer to the truth than I like.
[Game] Warriors @ Kings - 10/23/13 - pre-season
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
1) Do you really want to go there?
2) Quit making excuses. That's not how this works. Kid can't dribble at all. Worse, dribbling is not a skill you typically improve dramatically by the time you reach the NBA. People making excuses for him are if anything just doing him a disservice, just as they do for Jimmer. When you have this limitation on a basketball court, you need help from your coaches and teammates, you can't just take care of yourself out there. You are a dependent on system and smarts. Tyreke can take care of himself. IT can take care of himself. But there are no 1-4 flats you can run with Ben. Ben is going to need screens, schemes, and passers who know where to look for him. The sooner the excuses end and the scheming begins, the sooner you can get the most out of him.
2) Quit making excuses. That's not how this works. Kid can't dribble at all. Worse, dribbling is not a skill you typically improve dramatically by the time you reach the NBA. People making excuses for him are if anything just doing him a disservice, just as they do for Jimmer. When you have this limitation on a basketball court, you need help from your coaches and teammates, you can't just take care of yourself out there. You are a dependent on system and smarts. Tyreke can take care of himself. IT can take care of himself. But there are no 1-4 flats you can run with Ben. Ben is going to need screens, schemes, and passers who know where to look for him. The sooner the excuses end and the scheming begins, the sooner you can get the most out of him.
Apart from times in the last game, we've been using him pretty well. Using his off the ball movement and speed to get him open with screens. That's going to be his bread and butter, especially for his first few years.
The problem is very few seem to be realistic about him. It's either "he could be a superstar" or "he's strictly a shooter". There's nothing wrong having an uber-athletic wing who gets out on the break, doesn't demand the ball, and knocks down his shots. Helps even more when he fits into a system designed around Cuz and actively looks to get him the ball. Not everyone can be a superstar, all good teams need players like Ben. Yes he has limitations, but as long as he doesn't try to do too much, it shouldn't be a major problem. He's a 20 year old kid, the same as every other 20 year old kid the expectations should be realistic but we shouldn't really sell him short either. He's not going to be the saviour, but he can be an important part of our team going forward. Ball-handling is a difficult skill to improve late on but it is possible, it depends how much time and work he puts in. He's never going to be able to create off the dribble like Tyreke or any other of the elite guards who are elite one-on-one. But he can become less of a liability, with the ability to take it to the rim off of fakes and jabs.
The upcoming draft may just give us a shot at our number 2 option if we get lucky.
The problem is very few seem to be realistic about him. It's either "he could be a superstar" or "he's strictly a shooter". There's nothing wrong having an uber-athletic wing who gets out on the break, doesn't demand the ball, and knocks down his shots. Helps even more when he fits into a system designed around Cuz and actively looks to get him the ball. Not everyone can be a superstar, all good teams need players like Ben. Yes he has limitations, but as long as he doesn't try to do too much, it shouldn't be a major problem. He's a 20 year old kid, the same as every other 20 year old kid the expectations should be realistic but we shouldn't really sell him short either. He's not going to be the saviour, but he can be an important part of our team going forward. Ball-handling is a difficult skill to improve late on but it is possible, it depends how much time and work he puts in. He's never going to be able to create off the dribble like Tyreke or any other of the elite guards who are elite one-on-one. But he can become less of a liability, with the ability to take it to the rim off of fakes and jabs.
The upcoming draft may just give us a shot at our number 2 option if we get lucky.
McLemore will probably be similar to Beal in his rookie year, has good leaping ability and can shoot the rock well. Beal is all ready showing signs of improved ball handling in his second year, so it's a progress for sure. I'm not going to say they are going to be controlling the ball like yo-yo's but as long as you see progress year in and year out, then I don't see why it's out of the question.
I agree that this draft would be perfect for us to get our second option, however, the Kings just aren't lucky enough in the draft to get into the top 3 where we have a better chance to get a franchise changer and I doubt we will be bad enough to warrant us a top 3 pick. I can see 6-8 though, good thing this is supposed to be one of the best drafts of the decade loaded with superstar and all-star potential players.
I doubt we'll be at the bottom of the league either, probably in the 8-12 range, closer to the latter. Which is draft limbo, and likely won't get us that 2nd option unless we completely get lucky. And we know we won't move up, we'll be lucky if teams don't jump ahead of us.
That said, we could always package the pick with someone for a proven player. Or in this draft, there is the possibility that someone falls to us, or we just draft well and we'll get a good player.
That said, we could always package the pick with someone for a proven player. Or in this draft, there is the possibility that someone falls to us, or we just draft well and we'll get a good player.
Who is making excuses? I never said he was a great ballhandler. But saying he can't handle the ball at all? Come on, why does every thing on this forum have to be to the extreme? I expect more from you. And, I've never agreed with you that you can't improve ballhandling once you reach puberty. You'll get better at just about anything if you practice enough. There are exceptions of course. You can either run fast or you can't. You can either jump high or you can't. Those type of things your born with! But you don't come out of the womb dribbling a basketball. Its a learned skill, just like shooting the ball. Now if your hand/eye coordination sucks, then you might be in trouble. Now where we agree, is on how to use McLemore. You run screens, give and goes, back door cuts etc. You take advantage of his athleticism and willingness to move without the ball.
Not being a great ballhandler might limit you in some areas, but as I pointed out, Kevin Martin never created for himself, and Reggie Miller wasn't much of a threat to take you off the dribble, but both were very good scorers, and they're just two examples out of many. I'd also like to point out, that while many gave IT credit for shutting down Curry in the 4th quarter, how many took note that a large part of the time, McLemore guarded Curry, who always has trouble when being guarded by taller more athletic players. Now I'm not implying that McLemore is a potential superstar, what I'm saying is that you don't always have to point out the obvious flaw that were all aware of. I don't know why were talking about McLemore anyway. Its obvious that IT is the star of this team. Yeah, I know, a cheap shot..
Not being a great ballhandler might limit you in some areas, but as I pointed out, Kevin Martin never created for himself, and Reggie Miller wasn't much of a threat to take you off the dribble, but both were very good scorers, and they're just two examples out of many. I'd also like to point out, that while many gave IT credit for shutting down Curry in the 4th quarter, how many took note that a large part of the time, McLemore guarded Curry, who always has trouble when being guarded by taller more athletic players. Now I'm not implying that McLemore is a potential superstar, what I'm saying is that you don't always have to point out the obvious flaw that were all aware of. I don't know why were talking about McLemore anyway. Its obvious that IT is the star of this team. Yeah, I know, a cheap shot..
Not so cheap. I think Smart put a lot of effort into making an NBA guard out of IT at the expense of others. IT is fighting for a check and will do whatever it takes to get that next contract. In the NBA, the number of points scored are valued the most when it comes to writing checks. Not saying that is correct but that it seems to be a fact. IT needs to learn how to have a complete PG game and that means to pass. It is not only to pass but when you get the ball, have a mind set that is more "what can I do that benefits the team" more than "what can I do to score." I hope Malone is a good teacher but perhaps IT needs to get his next contract before he will be open to learning the complete skills of a PG.
Yesterday IT was 5-13 but scored 21 pts. Is that good or bad?
Yesterday IT was 5-13 but scored 21 pts. Is that good or bad?
You certainly don't need me to tell you about the draft. And while I agree that its unlikely you'll get a superstar in the 8 to 12 range, your very likely to get a very good player there this year. Willie Cauley-Stein springs to mind. Maybe even Joel Embiid. And while neither is likely to be a star, both have the potential to become great shotblockers. You might not have a chance at Wiggins or Parker at SF, but your likely to have a shot at James Young, who scouts are raving about right now. I'd be very reluctant to trade my pick for a veteran player, unless it was a no brainer. The idea that you can acquire a very good young player in the draft for a very cheap price for 4 years is hard to pass up.
Just about every team out there that has a good player they want to trade wants a 1st round pick in return. I think were going to see less and less of 1st round picks being traded. The penalties for being over the cap, and especially the luxury cap are too severe. The days of a team like Miami signing three stars like Wade, Lebron, and Bosh are probably over. And the odds of that team staying together are very very slim.
Just about every team out there that has a good player they want to trade wants a 1st round pick in return. I think were going to see less and less of 1st round picks being traded. The penalties for being over the cap, and especially the luxury cap are too severe. The days of a team like Miami signing three stars like Wade, Lebron, and Bosh are probably over. And the odds of that team staying together are very very slim.
Well 5 of 13 isn't good shooting. Getting to the line saved his game, and you can't count on that every night. Your not always going to get the calls. The biggest problem is that he took the highest number of shots on the team except for Patterson, who also took 13 shots, and shot the ball about as well as IT. Difference was, Patterson took almost all of his shots within the flow of the offense, and most were good shots. He just missed most of them.
Here's the thing, I really like IT! My points have nothing to do with personal feelings about him, but have everything to do with his game. He could be very very good, if he alters his game. I just don't know if he's wired that way. Our problem last season on offense was one on one play. IT was a large part of that. Thornton was another culprit last year. Put Thornton and IT on the floor together, and if your out there with them, your not likely to touch the ball. As a result, when guys like Johnson, and Outlaw did get the ball in their hands, they shot it, because they didn't know if they were going to get another chance. It became every man for himself.
Strangely enough, I thought Tyreke made a huge effort to play team ball. Don't get me wrong, he had his moments where he put blinders on, but you know what, if anyone was going to go one on one off the dribble, I'd pick Tyreke to do it. Not excusing his lapses, but he was the most talented player out there off the dribble. The result of Tyreke trying to play team ball with a bunch of players that were out for themselves added up to less shots for him and fewer points.
But back to the point. IT has the ability to get into the paint just about anytime he wants. That's a great talent, and for a PG, its an advantage. It causes the defense to collapse toward the middle and opens up shots for teammates. But all that's wasted if he doesn't pass the ball. Yeah, it looks great when hits all those layups, or gets to the line instead, and as I said, if its Iverson you want, then IT is perfect. Fun to watch etc. Personally, I was never a fan of Iverson. That's just not the kind of basketball I like to watch, and it seldom wins championships. But if that's what you like, not you literally, then your a happy camper.
Here's the thing, I really like IT! My points have nothing to do with personal feelings about him, but have everything to do with his game. He could be very very good, if he alters his game. I just don't know if he's wired that way. Our problem last season on offense was one on one play. IT was a large part of that. Thornton was another culprit last year. Put Thornton and IT on the floor together, and if your out there with them, your not likely to touch the ball. As a result, when guys like Johnson, and Outlaw did get the ball in their hands, they shot it, because they didn't know if they were going to get another chance. It became every man for himself.
Strangely enough, I thought Tyreke made a huge effort to play team ball. Don't get me wrong, he had his moments where he put blinders on, but you know what, if anyone was going to go one on one off the dribble, I'd pick Tyreke to do it. Not excusing his lapses, but he was the most talented player out there off the dribble. The result of Tyreke trying to play team ball with a bunch of players that were out for themselves added up to less shots for him and fewer points.
But back to the point. IT has the ability to get into the paint just about anytime he wants. That's a great talent, and for a PG, its an advantage. It causes the defense to collapse toward the middle and opens up shots for teammates. But all that's wasted if he doesn't pass the ball. Yeah, it looks great when hits all those layups, or gets to the line instead, and as I said, if its Iverson you want, then IT is perfect. Fun to watch etc. Personally, I was never a fan of Iverson. That's just not the kind of basketball I like to watch, and it seldom wins championships. But if that's what you like, not you literally, then your a happy camper.
I think you or someone else said it before but with a guy like IT running the point, the team gets disinterested in team ball as the guy who controls the flow of the offense is a me-first player. Pretty soon you stop working off the ball. The team game disintegrates. I doubt that it is in McLemore's DNA to stop working off the ball but how long will it take before disinterest creeps into his game if he shoots only once every five minutes.
That's exactly my point. I've played on a lot of teams, and I don't care if its basketball or volleyball, if you start to feel like your nothing but window dressing, you lose interest. You don't do it intentionally, its just sort of slowly creeps in. To play NBA basketball at a high level, your focus had to be at its peak at all times, especially on the defensive side of the ball. Let a little apathy creep in, and your game starts to deteriorate. You rotate late, or lose your man while he's moving without the ball etc. First and foremost, basketball should be fun to play, and when your not involved, its no longer fun. And if continues too long, you no longer care.
From a shooting point of view, that's a .632 TS%, which is great. As Baja said, that's because he got to the line and hit 9 of 10 FTs. He also had 6 rebounds and 2 steals, which is more than we can ask for. He picked up his defense in the fourth quarter and was really pesky out there. But at the same time, he had 3 assists to 4 TOs, and that's really bad especially for a 28-minutes stint at PG. So it was a mixed bag, but the shooting was good.
Indeed. The big deciding factor is if he could put up those shooting numbers while deferring to Cousins as the lead option. If so, then yes, can be a starting option. If not, bring him off the bench. He hasn't gotten a lot of time with Cousins this preseason, but he's been a willing passer to him when they've played together. IT will be our #2 option, whether he starts or comes off the bench. I think it's also worth nothing that IT's 3 ball won't be nearly as poor as it's been in the preseason. He hovers around a 36%-37% 3pt shooter and I fully expect that to return during the season.
The 4 TO's is too much, but Vasquez had 6 TO's yesterday with 3 ast. If Vasquez is struggling with ball security/setting up the offense, then he's not a better option at PG for us.
The 4 TO's is too much, but Vasquez had 6 TO's yesterday with 3 ast. If Vasquez is struggling with ball security/setting up the offense, then he's not a better option at PG for us.
I'd say no, not anymore. I look at the 4 PG's in the conference finals last year: George Hill, Conley, Parker, Chalmers.
-Hill and Chalmers are not even the 2nd or 3rd most important playmakers for their respective teams and are on the floor to play D, hit the 3, and occasionally create for others.
-Parker is a fantastic playmaker, but he's been the #1 option for SA the last 3-4 years now. Possibly longer. He's a HoF talent because he's been able to find the balance of being a #1 option while not icing out his teammates.
-Conley is a great (and underrated) playmaker as well, but he was another guy who was vitally important to scoring of his team. I'd comfortably say he's a 2nd option for that Memphis team.
Anyway, the point is, the days of the PG who doesn't (or can't) score is dying out. The PG position for a majority of teams is always one of the most vital to scoring points for an offense.
-Hill and Chalmers are not even the 2nd or 3rd most important playmakers for their respective teams and are on the floor to play D, hit the 3, and occasionally create for others.
-Parker is a fantastic playmaker, but he's been the #1 option for SA the last 3-4 years now. Possibly longer. He's a HoF talent because he's been able to find the balance of being a #1 option while not icing out his teammates.
-Conley is a great (and underrated) playmaker as well, but he was another guy who was vitally important to scoring of his team. I'd comfortably say he's a 2nd option for that Memphis team.
Anyway, the point is, the days of the PG who doesn't (or can't) score is dying out. The PG position for a majority of teams is always one of the most vital to scoring points for an offense.
Well, it depends on the team makeup. Miami does not need a playmaker like a Calderon-Vasquez-Nash-Rubio as Bron and Wade are ISO heavy talents and are better at creating for others than most PG's anyway. Indiana would probably benefit greatly from a PG of that nature as they don't have as many guys who can create.
If I were building a team from scratch, I'd look to no further than Chris Paul or Tony Parker. In other words, a hybrid of being an exceptional scorer and passer. Being able to dominate the game in either facet and having the Bball IQ to know when you need to take a game over and when you need to keep your teammates involved. Both guys have mastered that concept and a big reason why they'll both be in the HoF. The modern day NBA PG has gravitated towards this hybrid concept of scoring and playmaking. I'd bet my left shoe that the starting PG for at least 75% of teams in the NBA are 2nd or 3rd on the team in volume scoring statistics and in many cases, probably 1st for their team. (PPG, FGA, FTA, etc)
We're in a unique position with McLemore as he's in the mold of a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen scorer. In other words, they like to get their shots moving off-ball/coming off screens. And those kind of scorers have history of working very well with pass-first PG's (Mark Jackson with Reggie, Rondo with Ray Allen). So i think the GV-McLemore pairing can be a very, very dangerous one in the future. But as far as short-term implications, can we depend on McLemore to score effectively with 13-15 shots a game that comes with being a #2 option? I'm not so sure.
If I were building a team from scratch, I'd look to no further than Chris Paul or Tony Parker. In other words, a hybrid of being an exceptional scorer and passer. Being able to dominate the game in either facet and having the Bball IQ to know when you need to take a game over and when you need to keep your teammates involved. Both guys have mastered that concept and a big reason why they'll both be in the HoF. The modern day NBA PG has gravitated towards this hybrid concept of scoring and playmaking. I'd bet my left shoe that the starting PG for at least 75% of teams in the NBA are 2nd or 3rd on the team in volume scoring statistics and in many cases, probably 1st for their team. (PPG, FGA, FTA, etc)
We're in a unique position with McLemore as he's in the mold of a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen scorer. In other words, they like to get their shots moving off-ball/coming off screens. And those kind of scorers have history of working very well with pass-first PG's (Mark Jackson with Reggie, Rondo with Ray Allen). So i think the GV-McLemore pairing can be a very, very dangerous one in the future. But as far as short-term implications, can we depend on McLemore to score effectively with 13-15 shots a game that comes with being a #2 option? I'm not so sure.
The clear path to go here...well a problem with the clear path is Marcus Thornton. Speaking of guys who need slapping. Two years ago we had two 20ppg type SGs. All of a sudden we have none. That's a huge blow. He needed to be the #2 in the starting lineup so IT could be the #3 captaining the subs. But he's gone poof. Upset at deferring to Cousins, or being back with Malone, or just whatever, but he's been AWOL preseason. So it puts us in a rough spot. In a PERFECT world you go:
Cousins -- #1 option
Thompson
Mbah a Moute -- #1 defender
Thronton -- #2 option
Vasquez -- general making sure #1 and #2 stay that way
In a Thorntonless world (or limited Thornton world) with a possibly limited Prince you go:
Cousins -- #1 option
Thompson? -- unless you hae Mbah a Moute at SF, then you may need PPat's scoring
Salmons? -- for balhandling help Ben can't provide/and extra offense needed?
McLemore -- spot shooter/spacer. enough to be a #2?
Vasquez -- general making sure #1 stays that way, and helping Ben
with
Hayes
PPat
Outlaw? Mbah?
Thornton
Isaiah
off the bench, hoping that Thornton and PPat can force IT to diversify the offense a little, and the three of them being enough to buy the two defensive roleplayers at C/SF.
But its messy.
Cousins -- #1 option
Thompson
Mbah a Moute -- #1 defender
Thronton -- #2 option
Vasquez -- general making sure #1 and #2 stay that way
In a Thorntonless world (or limited Thornton world) with a possibly limited Prince you go:
Cousins -- #1 option
Thompson? -- unless you hae Mbah a Moute at SF, then you may need PPat's scoring
Salmons? -- for balhandling help Ben can't provide/and extra offense needed?
McLemore -- spot shooter/spacer. enough to be a #2?
Vasquez -- general making sure #1 stays that way, and helping Ben
with
Hayes
PPat
Outlaw? Mbah?
Thornton
Isaiah
off the bench, hoping that Thornton and PPat can force IT to diversify the offense a little, and the three of them being enough to buy the two defensive roleplayers at C/SF.
But its messy.
I like IT. I hope that he learns how to start the offense with pass or shoot on his mind. That isn't the way he is now. He hasn't really had a coach that would develop him as I think Smart encouraged him to do what he is doing. I think changing a mind set is very difficult but part of the key to the Kings' depends on IT beginning to pass; beginning to notice that McLemore is on the court with him. As I think soon Ben will be our starting SG, IT is destined to come off the bench as he is now. That may be OK but I prefer him to be a better PG. I want everyone working to improve and this seems to be a blind spot for IT. If you listen to an interview with GV and IT you notice a subtle and sometimes not so subtle difference in how they see their role. IT is an energizer (interpret as you wish) and GV is a facilitator. Which fits any particular lineup we have on the court? There are places for IT but he is limiting himself and I don't think he knows it. << Just a guess.
Brick: I agree. It's messy. I don't see how Landry helps the mess either so that will remain a head scratcher that will bother me for a long time.
Brick: I agree. It's messy. I don't see how Landry helps the mess either so that will remain a head scratcher that will bother me for a long time.
One would automaticly think that Thornton would be the number 2 option in the starting lineup. However, when Malone was in New Orleans, along with Thornton, he rode the bench a lot. Rumor is that Thornton wasn't very popular with Malone. For two reasons. One being defense, and the other being a black hole on offense. Both very important items to Malone apparently. It is just a rumor, but Malone is a keep it in the locker room guy. He's not going to come out and throw a player under the bus. So who knows.
If true, its likely that McLemore will be starting sooner than later. I do think he can be a viable number 2 option in the right offense, and with a half a season of experience. But in the short term, personal opinion and preference aside, the best thing for McLemore would be to come off the bench for a while. Much easier to adapt to the NBA when your going up against the other teams bench. It would give him a chance to learn, and gain confidence. However, this next game may be a make or break it game for Thornton. It might be a good idea for him to have a very good game, because so far, he's been outplayed by McLemore, despite his mistakes. And yes, he made some glaring one's in the first half of the game on the defensive side of the ball. Most from inexperience.
Some advice for McLemore. When you guarding Curry, don't turn your head to follow the ball when he passes it. It just might be the beginning of a give and go. Ahhh, Jimmer! Same advice.
If true, its likely that McLemore will be starting sooner than later. I do think he can be a viable number 2 option in the right offense, and with a half a season of experience. But in the short term, personal opinion and preference aside, the best thing for McLemore would be to come off the bench for a while. Much easier to adapt to the NBA when your going up against the other teams bench. It would give him a chance to learn, and gain confidence. However, this next game may be a make or break it game for Thornton. It might be a good idea for him to have a very good game, because so far, he's been outplayed by McLemore, despite his mistakes. And yes, he made some glaring one's in the first half of the game on the defensive side of the ball. Most from inexperience.
Some advice for McLemore. When you guarding Curry, don't turn your head to follow the ball when he passes it. It just might be the beginning of a give and go. Ahhh, Jimmer! Same advice.
Isaiah-
PPG/36- 18.7
PER- 17.5
TS%- .574%
eFG%- .509%
FGA/36- 14.1
APG/36- 5.4
Ast%- 24.6%
TOV%- 12.7%
USG%- 23.0
Chalmers-
PPG/36- 11.6
PER- 13.3
TS%- .576%
eFG%- .545%
FGA/36- 9.2
APG/36- 4.8
Ast%- 19.4
TOV%- 17.1
USG%- 16.1
George Hill-
PPG/36- 14.8
PER- 16.6
TS%- .558%
eFG%- .518%
FGA/36- 12.0
APG/36- 4.9
Ast%- 23.4
TOV%- 10.7
USG%- 18.8
Mike Conley-
PPG/36- 15.3
TS%- .549%
eFG%- .497%
FGA/36- 12.3
Ast/36- 6.4
Ast%- 29.4
TOV%- 15.1
USG%- 21
Defensively, it's no question. All 3 guys other than IT are probably top 10 PG defenders. IT would probably struggle to make the top 30 PG defenders in the league
Offensively however, it is a different story. IT more than holds his own and is the best scorer of the bunch. He shoots more, but he's also more efficient at doing so. He's also the best at getting to the FT line. His ast% and APG/36 isn't an outlier from the other guys compared here.
PPG/36- 18.7
PER- 17.5
TS%- .574%
eFG%- .509%
FGA/36- 14.1
APG/36- 5.4
Ast%- 24.6%
TOV%- 12.7%
USG%- 23.0
Chalmers-
PPG/36- 11.6
PER- 13.3
TS%- .576%
eFG%- .545%
FGA/36- 9.2
APG/36- 4.8
Ast%- 19.4
TOV%- 17.1
USG%- 16.1
George Hill-
PPG/36- 14.8
PER- 16.6
TS%- .558%
eFG%- .518%
FGA/36- 12.0
APG/36- 4.9
Ast%- 23.4
TOV%- 10.7
USG%- 18.8
Mike Conley-
PPG/36- 15.3
TS%- .549%
eFG%- .497%
FGA/36- 12.3
Ast/36- 6.4
Ast%- 29.4
TOV%- 15.1
USG%- 21
Defensively, it's no question. All 3 guys other than IT are probably top 10 PG defenders. IT would probably struggle to make the top 30 PG defenders in the league
Offensively however, it is a different story. IT more than holds his own and is the best scorer of the bunch. He shoots more, but he's also more efficient at doing so. He's also the best at getting to the FT line. His ast% and APG/36 isn't an outlier from the other guys compared here.
I don't think anyone would dispute what IT can do offensively. The question is, is that what you want from your PG. And if so, is he your starting PG, or a change of pace PG off the bench. Defensively, he's not that good, but its not for lack of trying. But then Jimmer certainly puts out the effort as well. The truth is, its hard to find a one size fits all PG. Maybe someday McCallum will be that guy. He's probably the best defensive PG on the team. But we need more than that. I still see IT as a nice backup PG, but I'd prefer him to lean a little more toward the pass first line. As I said, I don't think he's wired that way.
Parker does what he does in the flow of the offense. More than half of his scores come off curls after his man has been picked. He will bring the ball up the floor and hand it off to either Duncan at the high post or a wing near the top of the key. Generally, 3 or 4 other players on his team touch the ball in any one possession, and then Parker finishes with a cut into the lane or a floater.
Memphis' offense is less sophisticated because they lack outside shooting other than Conley and Prince. They run inside out mixed with a few pick and rolls. Either way, the bigs are integral to the offense and get plenty of touches.
Rose and Westbrook are the only two point guards I see consistently dribbling out shot clock with any success. For Rose, it's because no one else on the team is anywhere near as competent on offense. For Westbrook, he shares isolation duties with Durant. Chris Paul sets up pick and roll plays all day long with the objective of getting the ball to his teammates to finish.
IT is nowhere near as good as any of those three. If he is going to insist on pick and roll play when he is in the game, he needs to do a better job setting up his teammates, if for no other reason than to force defense out of the lane so he can get more high % shots around the rim.
Memphis' offense is less sophisticated because they lack outside shooting other than Conley and Prince. They run inside out mixed with a few pick and rolls. Either way, the bigs are integral to the offense and get plenty of touches.
Rose and Westbrook are the only two point guards I see consistently dribbling out shot clock with any success. For Rose, it's because no one else on the team is anywhere near as competent on offense. For Westbrook, he shares isolation duties with Durant. Chris Paul sets up pick and roll plays all day long with the objective of getting the ball to his teammates to finish.
IT is nowhere near as good as any of those three. If he is going to insist on pick and roll play when he is in the game, he needs to do a better job setting up his teammates, if for no other reason than to force defense out of the lane so he can get more high % shots around the rim.
C