What kind of player do you see Tyreke Evans as, 5+ years from now?

[RookieOfTheDay]

i'm not saying tyreke evans doesn't have a problem with consistency. i fully recognize that he has a problem with consistency. what i am asserting is that you're living in a world of unrealistic expectations. so here's data for you, in the form of season splits from the junior season of both tyreke evans and tony parker:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/evansty01/gamelog/2012/

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01/gamelog/2004/

that's two wildly inconsistent players in their third years. their stats read like an EKG. its all ups and downs. but, with coaching, parker became a more consistent player, and eventual all star. perhaps tyreke will do the same. perhaps he needs further discipline via his head coach. it sounds like keith smart recognizes this, and he's taken on the challenge of truly coaching tyreke evans, something westphal never seemed wont to do...

Thanks for the player info. I'm not seeing what i'm expecting that's unrealistic though. Just because other players have struggled in their 3rd years doesn't mean we should settle for that with Tyreke because plenty of players haven't struggled in their 3rd years as well. Like Kingster said, we should be raising expectations, not lowering them. I just don't think we should settle with the expectation that tyreke could get 30 on any given night but he could just as easily get 6.

 

[Padrino]

Thanks for the player info. I'm not seeing what i'm expecting that's unrealistic though. Just because other players have struggled in their 3rd years doesn't mean we should settle for that with Tyreke because plenty of players haven't struggled in their 3rd years as well. Like Kingster said, we should be raising expectations, not lowering them. I just don't think we should settle with the expectation that tyreke could get 30 on any given night but he could just as easily get 6.

i will absolutely agree that we should expect a lot from promising young talent like tyreke evans and demarcus cousins, especially as a potentially crushing duo if they develop a consistent chemistry. i just think its necessary to maintain some kind of perspective, because i see the present state of the kings as a team with clear ownership, management, and coaching issues. the roster is mismatched, and the architects of that roster, in combination with the untimeliness of the lockout, seem the most at fault to me with regard to the kings poor play this season...

a lot has fallen at the doorstep of tyreke evans here at kingsfans.com, and i'm not certain that its very fair. i would love to see greater strides in his game, but i also see bigger problems that need addressing. coach is doing right by tyreke. now its management's turn to do right by its cornerstone talents with complementary pieces. the omri casspi for john salmons/jimmer fredette looks worse every single day. omri may or may not have had a place on this team going forward, and regardless of what fredette may or may not become in the nba, the roster is terribly imbalanced, and the duplicative skillsets negatively impacts the ability for this team's individual talents to thrive...

while he's also not shooting well to begin the season, it seems like no coincidence to me that demarcus cousins is thriving, because he's the only truly strong, bruising, power frontcourt player that the kings have. his skills are given room to thrive, because there's no logjam of players at his position that duplicate his talents. in an ideal world, the kings should be starting evans and cousins, while bringing thornton off the bench as a dynamic 6th man. in an ideal world, john salmons is not a sacramento king, and the rest of the starting unit better complements evans and cousins...

unfortunately, things are not ideal at the moment. things are pretty bad, and you're seeing a team that's suffering from its collective deficiencies more than you're seeing a team that's suffering because one of its most talented player isn't yet blowing apart people's expectations. in some other thread, bricklayer did a nice breakdown of the kings' most recent offseason failures. while i'm not really a proponent of looking backward and daydreaming about "what could have been," i think brick's post did a good job of highlighting the reachable skills that the kings need from very acquirable players in order to maximize the talents of their core of evans and cousins. its just unfortunate that it didn't pan out this offseason. i don't know what comes next for this team, but its up to management to help put these players in a position to succeed by surrounding them with complementary talent...

 

[Kingster]

i will absolutely agree that we should expect a lot from promising young talent like tyreke evans and demarcus cousins, especially as a potentially crushing duo if they develop a consistent chemistry. i just think its necessary to maintain some kind of perspective, because i see the present state of the kings as a team with clear ownership, management, and coaching issues. the roster is mismatched, and the architects of that roster, in combination with the untimeliness of the lockout, seem the most at fault to me with regard to the kings poor play this season...

a lot has fallen at the doorstep of tyreke evans here at kingsfans.com, and i'm not certain that its very fair. i would love to see greater strides in his game, but i also see bigger problems that need addressing. coach is doing right by tyreke. now its management's turn to do right by its cornerstone talents with complementary pieces. the omri casspi for john salmons/jimmer fredette looks worse every single day. omri may or may not have had a place on this team going forward, and regardless of what fredette may or may not become in the nba, the roster is terribly imbalanced, and the duplicative skillsets negatively impacts the ability for this team's individual talents to thrive...

while he's also not shooting well to begin the season, it seems like no coincidence to me that demarcus cousins is thriving, because he's the only truly strong, bruising, power frontcourt player that the kings have. his skills are given room to thrive, because there's no logjam of players at his position that duplicate his talents. in an ideal world, the kings should be starting evans and cousins, while bringing thornton off the bench as a dynamic 6th man. in an ideal world, john salmons is not a sacramento king, and the rest of the starting unit better complements evans and cousins...

unfortunately, things are not ideal at the moment. things are pretty bad, and you're seeing a team that's suffering from its collective deficiencies more than you're seeing a team that's suffering because one of its most talented player isn't yet blowing apart people's expectations. in some other thread, bricklayer did a nice breakdown of the kings' most recent offseason failures. while i'm not really a proponent of looking backward and daydreaming about "what could have been," i think brick's post did a good job of highlighting the reachable skills that the kings need from very acquirable players in order to maximize the talents of their core of evans and cousins. its just unfortunate that it didn't pan out this offseason. i don't know what comes next for this team, but its up to management to help put these players in a position to succeed by surrounding them with complementary talent...

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. It's what you don't say, that's what gets my attention. Complementary talent? Yes, it would be very nice. It would make the team more effective and Tyreke more effective. But you omit what I've been pounding on, which is skill development, which is independent of complementary talent. To my mind, that's the issue with Tyreke. I think that if Tyreke had expanded his skills as I expected he would, then we would have a legit conversation by now about him being an All Star very soon. As it is, I think we're a long ways from that.

 

[Padrino]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. It's what you don't say, that's what gets my attention. Complementary talent? Yes, it would be very nice. It would make the team more effective and Tyreke more effective. But you omit what I've been pounding on, which is skill development, which is independent of complementary talent. To my mind, that's the issue with Tyreke. I think that if Tyreke had expanded his skills as I expected he would, then we would have a legit conversation by now about him being an All Star very soon. As it is, I think we're a long ways from that.

complementary talent is everything in the nba. or, at the very least, having options is everything in the nba. you think russell westbrook is complaining about playing alongside kevin durant? it opens up the game for westbrook to have defenses so focused in on durant. 'reke doesn't have that kinda help yet, though cousins is becoming something special right in front of our eyes. it rue enough that evans is not having a good shooting season to this point, but if his team wasn't echoing his poor shooting percentages, you'd see the game open up for him, as well. his assist numbers would increase, and so would his shooting percentage, because defenses would be forced to flash out on kings shooters rather than packing the paint, exclusively, which is what most well-prepared defenses are doing against the kings. they don't need to honor our outside shooting, because the kings don't have outside shooting. this makes things harder on tyreke, as a young, third year player...

coaching is the other half of the battle. tyreke's head coach was fired for, among many things, being unable to develop the skillsets of his best players. can tyreke work on the weaker aspects of his game independent of his team and coaching staff? absolutely. but he's only 22 years old. he's going to need guidance. and keith smart is providing it. if you refuse to see that, in just the very brief time since smart took over, tyreke has shown improvement in some of those weaker aspects of his game, then i can't help you. the statistics bear it out, though...

evans put up 22/10/9 against the warriors on tuesday. we've seen that he's capable of big games on a regular basis. unfortunately, he also has some very poor games. if he develops consistency in his offense, continues to play above average defense, and, importantly, has a coaching staff that seeks to make he and demarcus cousins the focal point of the kings' play sets, he'll be an all star a whole lot sooner than you think...

 

[Section 101]

evans put up 22/10/9 against the warriors on tuesday. we've seen that he's capable of big games on a regular basis. unfortunately, he also has some very poor games. if he develops consistency in his offense, continues to play above average defense, and, importantly, has a coaching staff that seeks to make he and demarcus cousins the focal point of the kings' play sets, he'll be an all star a whole lot sooner than you think...

Here are the all start votes for this years guards

Guards: Kobe Bryant (LAL) 1,555,479; Chris Paul (LAC) 1,138,743; Ricky Rubio (Min) 397,456; Steve Nash (Pho) 276,268; Russell Westbrook (OKC) 262,186; Kyle Lowry (Hou) 185,584; Monta Ellis (GS) 156,603; Chauncey Billups (LAC) 120,961; Jason Kidd (Dal) 114,924; Manu Ginobili (SA) 111,273.

Ya some are old and few years from retirement. But I don't think he passes CP3,Rubio or Westbrook in votes anytime soon. Plus add in Gordon, Curry, Lawson, Conley, Harden and Martin that's alot to overcome in the future to become an all star. Also, we don't know about future draft picks or trades that will add or remove competition.

 

[Padrino]

Here are the all start votes for this years guards



Ya some are old and few years from retirement. But I don't think he passes CP3,Rubio or Westbrook in votes anytime soon. Plus add in Gordon, Curry, Lawson, Conley, Harden and Martin that's alot to overcome in the future to become an all star. Also, we don't know about future draft picks or trades that will add or remove competition.

well, then **** the all star game. i'll happily take tyreke evans averaging upwards of 20/5/5 across his career alongside the beastly demarcus cousins, who could easily average upwards of 20/12/3. the point isn't so much the all star selection itself as it is the all star quality numbers and impact. and in a thread that asks where tyreke will be in five years, i anticipate he'll be in that conversation, unless he's sabotaged by future coaches, teammates, and mentors who refuse to help him develop, a la paul westphal. but i think keith smart, demarcus cousins, et al. have his back. i'm excited to see him improve after losing much of his sophomore season to injury and poor coaching...

 

[Bricklayer]

Here are the all start votes for this years guards



Ya some are old and few years from retirement. But I don't think he passes CP3,Rubio or Westbrook in votes anytime soon. Plus add in Gordon, Curry, Lawson, Conley, Harden and Martin that's alot to overcome in the future to become an all star. Also, we don't know about future draft picks or trades that will add or remove competition.

What do votes have to do with anything? I'm not sure if a Sacramento King has ever been voted in. Richmond might have once or twice, not sure.

When Reke starts appearing in All Star games it will be via the coaches through merit, not by huge fanbase or hype. None of "Gordon, Curry, Lawson, Conley, Harden and Martin" are impediments if he starts to consistently dominate games, and in an upcoming era that is looking shy of SGs, he'll have the advantage of being combo enough to encourage his selection rather than taking 4 or 5 small guards. While Kobe remains things will be tight. In a couple of years, it will loosen up considerably. The pure PGs are the guys who are going to get squeezed.

 

[Kingsguy881]

What do votes have to do with anything? I'm not sure if a Sacramento King has ever been voted in. Richmond migth have once or twice, not sure.

When Reke starts apeparing in All Star games it will be via the coaches through meri, not by huge fanbase or hype. None of "Gordon, Curry, Lawson, Conley, Harden and Martin" are impediments if he starts to constently dominate games, and in an upcoming era that is looking shy of SGs, he'll have the advantage of being combo enough to encourage his selection rather than taking 4 or 5 small guards. Whiel Kobe remains things will be tight. IN a couple of years, it will loosen up considerably. The pure PGs are the guys who are going to get squeezed.

Votes have everything to do with it. The voting chooses 5 of the players which is obviously MORE than the 7 the coaches pick based on performance.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Votes have everything to do with it. The voting chooses 5 of the players which is obviously MORE than the 7 the coaches pick based on performance.

I appear to be having a reading comprehension error: five is more than seven?

 

[VF21]

I appear to be having a reading comprehension error: five is more than seven?

Is your sarcasm detector malfunctioning?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Is your sarcasm detector malfunctioning?

Clearly. Sorry, got a lot on my mind.

 

[Section 101]

Votes have everything to do with it. The voting chooses 5 of the players which is obviously MORE than the 7 the coaches pick based on performance.

Actually still false. 2 starting guards, 2 guards by coaches and 2 of any from coaches.

So whether its 2 of 6 or 2 of 4 that still is taking up 2 spots by the voters.

Yes Mitch was voted in and then he won the MVP.

 

[Tetsujin]

Actually still false. 2 starting guards, 2 guards by coaches and 2 of any from coaches.

So whether its 2 of 6 or 2 of 4 that still is taking up 2 spots by the voters.

Yes Mitch was voted in and then he won the MVP.

CWebb got voted in a couple of times too if memory serves me correct

 

[Bricklayer]

CWebb got voted in a couple of times too if memory serves me correct

But Duncan and KG were always there and I don't remember him starting one? Rarely watch them though, although do when there's a King.

 

[Kingster]

complementary talent is everything in the nba. or, at the very least, having options is everything in the nba. you think russell westbrook is complaining about playing alongside kevin durant? it opens up the game for westbrook to have defenses so focused in on durant. 'reke doesn't have that kinda help yet, though cousins is becoming something special right in front of our eyes. it rue enough that evans is not having a good shooting season to this point, but if his team wasn't echoing his poor shooting percentages, you'd see the game open up for him, as well. his assist numbers would increase, and so would his shooting percentage, because defenses would be forced to flash out on kings shooters rather than packing the paint, exclusively, which is what most well-prepared defenses are doing against the kings. they don't need to honor our outside shooting, because the kings don't have outside shooting. this makes things harder on tyreke, as a young, third year player...

coaching is the other half of the battle. tyreke's head coach was fired for, among many things, being unable to develop the skillsets of his best players. can tyreke work on the weaker aspects of his game independent of his team and coaching staff? absolutely. but he's only 22 years old. he's going to need guidance. and keith smart is providing it. if you refuse to see that, in just the very brief time since smart took over, tyreke has shown improvement in some of those weaker aspects of his game, then i can't help you. the statistics bear it out, though...

evans put up 22/10/9 against the warriors on tuesday. we've seen that he's capable of big games on a regular basis. unfortunately, he also has some very poor games. if he develops consistency in his offense, continues to play above average defense, and, importantly, has a coaching staff that seeks to make he and demarcus cousins the focal point of the kings' play sets, he'll be an all star a whole lot sooner than you think...

Taking the logical extreme of your argument, a player with no skills on the highest complementary team possible would in fact be a very good player according to your argument. I think there's more to it than that. Also, taking the logical extreme, a player with a good coach is inevitably going to be a very good player, regardless of the player's discipline, motivation, work ethic, etc. Again, I think there's more to it than that. It's not just coaching and complementary talent than makes a very good player.

 

[Padrino]

Taking the logical extreme of your argument, a player with no skills on the highest complementary team possible would in fact be a very good player according to your argument. I think there's more to it than that. Also, taking the logical extreme, a player with a good coach is inevitably going to be a very good player, regardless of the player's discipline, motivation, work ethic, etc. Again, I think there's more to it than that. It's not just coaching and complementary talent than makes a very good player.

of course its not. but its clear that evans already has the talent. he's already a very good player. if you don't see that, there's nothing i can do for you. but talent alone doesn't make it in this league, and the very good player that evans already is certainly does not represent what he hope for him in the future. there are plenty of good players who've peaked without help and languished on bad teams. i don't want to see that happen to tyreke, because we've already seen the strides he's capable of making when he doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting by himself. he'll take some initiative to improve on his own, but an island isn't the best place to learn how to improve on a court with four other players. those four other players should help to maximize his skillset. demarcus cousins is one. who are the other three gonna be? and who's gonna be the coach that makes it all work? i like what keith smart has done so far. i'm not completely convinced that he's a long term solution, but he's already earned my trust as a fan by showing a knack for developing tyreke's natural talent...

and just look at minnesota if you want a comparable framework. kurt rambis, similar to paul westphal, was a massive failure as head coach of that team. he desperately tried to institute a triangle offense on a team that had no business running it. he alienated the team's star player by benching him at the most inopportune of times. and he was fired for being a goddamn idiot. so was westphal. then minny brings over ricky rubio, a complementary player to kevin love, they bring in rick adelman, an excellent head coach, and they're humming along at an incredibly improved rate of success. david kahn, a league-wide joke of astronomical proportions, has already undone so much of the bad reputation he's earned with those two moves. he aggressively pursued rick adelman, who wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to coach a loser like the timberwolves. but kahn sold him on the idea, and people across the nba are now actually talking about the wolves as if they're in the playoff hunt this season. and they might be, by season's end. we'll see...

point is, we're both right. talent alone doesn't win it in the nba. the right pieces alone don't win it in the nba. an excellent coach alone doesn't win it in the nba. all of those factors must coalesce, and under westphal, all we saw was a team begging to make strides, and often doing so in spite of its limited head coach. he got himself fired, though, for not helping along a young team that desperately needed his help. they're improving under smart. the improvements are visible on the court. but they still need to consider what pieces might be brought in to improve on the formula they have in place...

 

[Kingster]

of course its not. but its clear that evans already has the talent. he's already a very good player. if you don't see that, there's nothing i can do for you. but talent alone doesn't make it in this league, and the very good player that evans already is certainly does not represent what he hope for him in the future. there are plenty of good players who've peaked without help and languished on bad teams. i don't want to see that happen to tyreke, because we've already seen the strides he's capable of making when he doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting by himself. he'll take some initiative to improve on his own, but an island isn't the best place to learn how to improve on a court with four other players. those four other players should help to maximize his skillset. demarcus cousins is one. who are the other three gonna be? and who's gonna be the coach that makes it all work? i like what keith smart has done so far. i'm not completely convinced that he's a long term solution, but he's already earned my trust as a fan by showing a knack for developing tyreke's natural talent...

and just look at minnesota if you want a comparable framework. kurt rambis, similar to paul westphal, was a massive failure as head coach of that team. he desperately tried to institute a triangle offense on a team that had no business running it. he alienated the team's star player by benching him at the most inopportune of times. and he was fired for being a goddamn idiot. so was westphal. then minny brings over ricky rubio, a complementary player to kevin love, they bring in rick adelman, an excellent head coach, and they're humming along at an incredibly improved rate of success. david kahn, a league-wide joke of astronomical proportions, has already undone so much of the bad reputation he's earned with those two moves. he aggressively pursued rick adelman, who wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to coach a loser like the timberwolves. but kahn sold him on the idea, and people across the nba are now actually talking about the wolves as if they're in the playoff hunt this season. and they might be, by season's end. we'll see...

point is, we're both right. talent alone doesn't win it in the nba. the right pieces alone don't win it in the nba. an excellent coach alone doesn't win it in the nba. all of those factors must coalesce, and under westphal, all we saw was a team begging to make strides, and often doing so in spite of its limited head coach. he got himself fired, though, for not helping along a young team that desperately needed his help. they're improving under smart. the improvements are visible on the court. but they still need to consider what pieces might be brought in to improve on the formula they have in place...

It's not just complementary talent, a good coach, and talent that makes a very good player.

And yes, I don't think Tyreke is in the "very good" category right now. In my book, very good status would be a top 10 pg in the league. I'd say he probably has a mid-level status now, though defining that is extemely hazy because of his sporadic performances and his TOs at key points in games.

 

[Padrino]

It's not just complementary talent, a good coach, and talent that makes a very good player.

And yes, I don't think Tyreke is in the "very good" category right now. In my book, very good status would be a top 10 pg in the league. I'd say he probably has a mid-level status now, though defining that is extemely hazy because of his sporadic performances and his TOs at key points in games.

oh. well then i was right, i can do nothing else in this conversation. if you fail to acknowledge winning recipes in the nba, i can't help you. if you don't classify a player that can go off for 20/5/5 on any given night as "very good," i can't help you...

i am plenty willing to admit that tyreke is not of an "elite" status yet, but if your definition of "very good" cannot include a player of tyreke evans caliber, then you are going to be rather dissatisfied with any young nba talent that ever comes through sacramento. i leave such judgments to you...

 

[Tetsujin]

oh. well then i was right, i can do nothing else in this conversation. if you fail to acknowledge winning recipes in the nba, i can't help you. if you don't classify a player that can go off for 20/5/5 on any given night as "very good," i can't help you...

Going by that standard, Russell Westbrook isn't that good either because 20/5/5 is almost his exact statline.

 

[Kingster]

oh. well then i was right, i can do nothing else in this conversation. if you fail to acknowledge winning recipes in the nba, i can't help you. if you don't classify a player that can go off for 20/5/5 on any given night as "very good," i can't help you...

i am plenty willing to admit that tyreke is not of an "elite" status yet, but if your definition of "very good" cannot include a player of tyreke evans caliber, then you are going to be rather dissatisfied with any young nba talent that ever comes through sacramento. i leave such judgments to you...

First, your "recipe" is lacking a key indgredient, without which the food with not be all that palatable.

Second, based on your disagrement with me concerning Tyrekes ranking, it sounds like you think Tyreke is a top 10 pg in the league right now. Correct?

To my mind, a player that "can" go off for 20/5/5 on any given night, but can't perform down the stretch isn't in the very good (top 10) caliber. If you check around you'll see that Tyreke is ranked in the middle of the pack when you factor in all the stats. I was just viewing a site a couple of days ago in which they do overall ranking of effectiveness statistically and I think he was the 15th ranked pg and if I recall correctly around 50th in the league in overall player effectiveness. (Unfortunately can't recall the site; I'll see if I can track it down). I feel comfortable with the view that Tyreke is in the middle of the pack. Frankly, if he were in the top 10 of pgs now the Kings would be winning a lot more; that's the ultimate statistic.

PS http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp

So that site ranks Tyreke as 64th in efficiency; Cousins 40th. I don't think there is a Holy Grail on stats, but it should have some weight, don't you think? As least a basis for discussion. So that someone saying Tyreke isn't in the "very good" category right now shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

 

[uolj]

I was just viewing a site a couple of days ago in which they do overall ranking of effectiveness statistically and I think he was the 15th ranked pg and if I recall correctly around 50th in the league in overall player effectiveness.

FYI... 50th in the league translates to about 10th at any one individual position. Also it means the second best starter on an average team. I know we're just arguing about subjective meaning of terms, but I'd consider that to be "very good".

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Going by that standard, Russell Westbrook isn't that good either because 20/5/5 is almost his exact statline.

Being able to get 20/5/5 on any given night and averaging it on a good team are hardly the same thing.

 

[uolj]

Being able to get 20/5/5 on any given night and averaging it on a good team are hardly the same thing.

True, but the distinction between someone who averages 22/6/5 on a good team this year and someone who averaged 20/6/5 on a bad team his first year and who is averaging 19/5/5 on a bad team this year isn't very great.

Of course, Kingster didn't bring up that stat, Padrino did, so perhaps Kingster has other ways of assessing the difference between someone who averages 19/5/5 and isn't very good and someone who averages 22/6/5 and is a star.

 

[Tetsujin]

Being able to get 20/5/5 on any given night and averaging it on a good team are hardly the same thing.

Yeah averaging it on a good team is easier.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Yeah averaging it on a good team is easier.

I'd say it's harder, actually. It's easier to put up 20/5/5 when you're basically the only option on your team. That's why Tyreke did it his rookie year and hasn't been able to since.

 

[Kingster]

FYI... 50th in the league translates to about 10th at any one individual position. Also it means the second best starter on an average team. I know we're just arguing about subjective meaning of terms, but I'd consider that to be "very good".

Fair point on the 50th. It turns out Tyreke was 64th in terms of all players (I was just going by memory). On the website I was looking at previously he was 15th in point guards, so he was right in the middle of the pack.

 

[Padrino]

First, your "recipe" is lacking a key indgredient, without which the food with not be all that palatable.

Second, based on your disagrement with me concerning Tyrekes ranking, it sounds like you think Tyreke is a top 10 pg in the league right now. Correct?

To my mind, a player that "can" go off for 20/5/5 on any given night, but can't perform down the stretch isn't in the very good (top 10) caliber. If you check around you'll see that Tyreke is ranked in the middle of the pack when you factor in all the stats. I was just viewing a site a couple of days ago in which they do overall ranking of effectiveness statistically and I think he was the 15th ranked pg and if I recall correctly around 50th in the league in overall player effectiveness. (Unfortunately can't recall the site; I'll see if I can track it down). I feel comfortable with the view that Tyreke is in the middle of the pack. Frankly, if he were in the top 10 of pgs now the Kings would be winning a lot more; that's the ultimate statistic.

PS http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp

So that site ranks Tyreke as 64th in efficiency; Cousins 40th. I don't think there is a Holy Grail on stats, but it should have some weight, don't you think? As least a basis for discussion. So that someone saying Tyreke isn't in the "very good" category right now shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

and what is that?

our fundamental disagreement has nothing to do with stats. it has everything to do with the fact that you are evaluating tyreke evans as a player based upon 22 games in a lockout shortened season in which he and his team have experienced significant roster turnover, have had very little time to prepare, and have replaced their had coach. if you want someone to acknowledge tyreke's presently mediocre efficiency rating, then you must at least acknowledge the mitigating factors responsible for it...

unlike you, i am choosing to evaluate tyreke evans based upon the natural talent he very clearly has, and the potential he has to become an elite guard in this league. kobe bryant, statistically, is not "very good" down the stretch, but you will find no one who rates him as mediocre because of it. bryant is a game changer, and he has a high usage rate at the end of games. so does evans. in his first year, he mauled teams down the stretch. as defenses adjusted to him in his second year, and as he battled a foot injury, we saw his success rate plummet at the close of games. but he has the killer instinct, and if he continues to develop in the upward trajectory we're seeing from him, i imagine he'll find more success in the clutch...

all of that said, "very good" is tremendously subjective. i see a player with a unique body to accompany his highly valued skill set, and enough successes thus far in his career to warrant a tremendously positive evaluation of his potential. others evaluate him differently. however, these are the only pg's in the nba that i consider to be clearly better than tyreke at this stage of their careers: chris paul, derrick rose, steve nash, tony parker, rajon rondo, and russell westbrook. ty lawson is not clearly better than evans, and neither is mike conley, kyle lowry, or ricky rubio, although all four are having excellent seasons to this point. but 22 games from those four players does not separate them from evans in terms of their talent level, in my opinion..

although i will graciously admit that james harden, a combo guard like evans, might make my list, too, if he wasn't playing on a team with kevin durant and russell westbrook. now which of all of these players would i take over tyreke today, if given the chance? paul, rose, rondo, and westbrook. that's it. harden's on the outside of that particular list, but i do think he's got the same grown-***-man kinda instinct that evans has. i do like rubio's game, too, as i've witnessed it so far. but again, i tend to prefer stronger players who present matchup problems in the paint. i see tyreke as a potential game changer down there, and i'm willing to wait for that potential to be fulfilled...

 

[Kingster]

and what is that?

our fundamental disagreement has nothing to do with stats. it has everything to do with the fact that you are evaluating tyreke evans as a player based upon 22 games in a lockout shortened season in which he and his team have experienced significant roster turnover, have had very little time to prepare, and have replaced their had coach. if you want someone to acknowledge tyreke's presently mediocre efficiency rating, then you must at least acknowledge the mitigating factors responsible for it...

unlike you, i am choosing to evaluate tyreke evans based upon the natural talent he very clearly has, and the potential he has to become an elite guard in this league. kobe bryant, statistically, is not "very good" down the stretch, but you will find no one who rates him as mediocre because of it. bryant is a game changer, and he has a high usage rate at the end of games. so does evans. in his first year, he mauled teams down the stretch. as defenses adjusted to him in his second year, and as he battled a foot injury, we saw his success rate plummet at the close of games. but he has the killer instinct, and if he continues to develop in the upward trajectory we're seeing from him, i imagine he'll find more success in the clutch...

all of that said, "very good" is tremendously subjective. i see a player with a unique body to accompany his highly valued skill set, and enough successes thus far in his career to warrant a tremendously positive evaluation of his potential. others evaluate him differently. however, these are the only pg's in the nba that i consider to be clearly better than tyreke at this stage of their careers: chris paul, derrick rose, steve nash, tony parker, rajon rondo, and russell westbrook. ty lawson is not clearly better than evans, and neither is mike conley, kyle lowry, or ricky rubio, although all four are having excellent seasons to this point. but 22 games from those four players does not separate them from evans in terms of their talent level, in my opinion..

although i will graciously admit that james harden, a combo guard like evans, might make my list, too, if he wasn't playing on a team with kevin durant and russell westbrook. now which of all of these players would i take over tyreke today, if given the chance? paul, rose, rondo, and westbrook. that's it. harden's on the outside of that particular list, but i do think he's got the same grown-***-man kinda instinct that evans has. i do like rubio's game, too, as i've witnessed it so far. but again, i tend to prefer stronger players who present matchup problems in the paint. i see tyreke as a potential game changer down there, and i'm willing to wait for that potential to be fulfilled...

I think we've already established that talent, coaching, and complementary players make a very good player. I'd quibble somewhat on the complementary players idea because I think a player is excellent, very good, good, average, or poor regardless of whether he has complementary players; it's just that his effectiveness on the court is magnified or diminished by the complementary players or lack thereof on the floor. But you've left out what is key component of the recipe to a very good player - discipline, work ethic, initiative, will. Talent, coaching, and even complementary players will only take you so far without those closely related ingredients. So far, Tyreke's off-season workout programs and lack of skill development hasn't provided the evidence that he has those qualities in great quantity. The next couple of years will tell the tale.