Who are your picks if the Kings win a top 3 pick in the Draft Lottery?

[ESP47]

It is flawed. You're asserting that a dominate big man can't still lead a team to a title simply because the teams on top right now don't happen to have one. But it's simply not true.

Until the Warriors did it several years back, many claimed that a jump shooting team couldn't win a title. But it happened.

Like it's always been, winning a title is about having loads of talent but also the right mix of players. If a player such as Anthony Davis has enough talent and the right mix of players around him, he's going to win a title and it doesn't matter that he's not primarily a 3 pt shooter.

I fully agree with you that the game has developed and changed. But it's not like the 3 pt line was just implemented a few years back. It's been around since 1979. Furthermore, the recent emphasis on 3 pt shooting actually benefits a dominant big because it creates more spacing in the post.

If Shaq in his prime was in the league today, he'd still win titles despite not shooting threes himself. He'd need the right supporting cast around him as he did in LA and Miami, but he'd win titles and still dominate as he did 15 years ago.

Actually, he'd be likely to dominate even more than he did then if today's teams refused to adapt and stayed with their small lineups. Shaq's FG% was high 50's and low 60's back when legit 7 footers were defending him. If today's teams used undersized 4's on him, he'd be somewhere around 65% and probably even closer to 70%.

For the past 5 seasons, the very best 3 pt shooting team shot 39.1, 39.1, 41.6, 39.8 and 40.9 respectively. This season, the Rockets led the league in attempts with 42.3 attempt per (converted at 36.2%). The league average is around 29 per and the average conversion rate matches the Rockets 36.2%.

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to recognize that 58% of 2 pointers >>>>> 36.2 of three's. All Shaq would need do in today's game guarded by undersized 4's to best the Warriors 41.6% from 2015 is average 62.5% -- which he could easily do. And that's not even counting his free throw production (even at 58% conversion) which means a team would have to shoot far better than 42% for the math to workout for them.

Shaq only took around 18-20 shot per back in the day, compared to the 29 threes teams are averaging today ... but Shaq's attempts would be higher today to take advantage of the mismatches. Then add in his FT attempts and HIS teammates shooting somewhere around the league average of 36.2% on whatever 3 pt attempts they ended up taking.

Similar logic applies to Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon or whatever other elite big you want top name.

Good post. I agree with a lot of it but not all of it.

I'm not asserting that big men can't lead a team right now solely because there aren't any good teams led by them at the moment. I'm basically making 2 points here.

1. Ayton is only half the player AD and Embiid are. He's more like KAT or Aldridge due to his defense and they have yet to prove they can lead a team.

2. The best teams aren't led by big men because they are less effective due to the insurgence of the 3 point shot.

Yeah the 3 point shot wasn't invented yesterday but you can't deny that teams haven't been shooting it exponentially higher lately. It's tough for a big man to match the production of some of these guards that can shoot the 3, get to the line a handful of times a game and get their big man an 80% shot right at the rim on any given play.

You're talking a lot about Shaq and everything you say about him is correct but Ayton is not even close to Shaq. You're talking about what kind of impact a truly one of a kind player could have these days. Shaq would dominate in any era but we aren't talking about Shaq here. We're talking about Ayton and he's more than likely not going to score 20+ PPG at a 58% clip. KAT is the closest big man to do that with 55% and Davis is at 53%. Davis can lead his team because he not only scores 28pts compared to KAT's 21pts but he also plays much much better defense. Something Ayton is not projected to do very well.

 

[ParniValjak]

Good post. I agree with a lot of it but not all of it.

I'm not asserting that big men can't lead a team right now solely because there aren't any good teams led by them at the moment. I'm basically making 2 points here.

1. Ayton is only half the player AD and Embiid are. He's more like KAT or Aldridge due to his defense and they have yet to prove they can lead a team.

2. The best teams aren't led by big men because they are less effective due to the insurgence of the 3 point shot.

Yeah the 3 point shot wasn't invented yesterday but you can't deny that teams haven't been shooting it exponentially higher lately. It's tough for a big man to match the production of some of these guards that can shoot the 3, get to the line a handful of times a game and get their big man an 80% shot right at the rim on any given play.

You're talking a lot about Shaq and everything you say about him is correct but Ayton is not even close to Shaq. You're talking about what kind of impact a truly one of a kind player could have these days. Shaq would dominate in any era but we aren't talking about Shaq here. We're talking about Ayton and he's more than likely not going to score 20+ PPG at a 58% clip. KAT is the closest big man to do that with 55% and Davis is at 53%. Davis can lead his team because he not only scores 28pts compared to KAT's 21pts but he also plays much much better defense. Something Ayton is not projected to do very well.

Projections are just guesses in this case based on what has been seen to date.

Ayton could be a pretty good defender at the next level with proper development and coaching. He might not have the defensive instinct of a JJJ but he has the physical tools to be a very good defender. Marc Gasol was never projected to be a great defender but he is a perennial DPOY candidate lately. Cousins was projected to be a terrible defender but he is a solid one at least on on one.

I think in time Ayton will be fine defensively in the NBA. He reminds me of David Robinson who was far from a slouch defensively.

If I have pick #1, I am taking Ayton without blinking and ensuring that I put excellent development team around him to get the best out of him at both ends of the court.

 

[ESP47]

Projections are just guesses in this case based on what has been seen to date.

Ayton could be a pretty good defender at the next level with proper development and coaching. He might not have the defensive instinct of a JJJ but he has the physical tools to be a very good defender. Marc Gasol was never projected to be a great defender but he is a perennial DPOY candidate lately. Cousins was projected to be a terrible defender but he is a solid one at least on on one.

I think in time Ayton will be fine defensively in the NBA. He reminds me of David Robinson who was far from a slouch defensively.

If I have pick #1, I am taking Ayton without blinking and ensuring that I put excellent development team around him to get the best out of him at both ends of the court.

I don't understand your logic here. So you don't really agree with the projections because they are just guesses based on what has been seen to date but you're going to just guess on a hunch that he will be fine defensively? So far, the only data we have supports him not being a good defender. He has one of the lowest block percentages for a big man in the lottery in the last two decades. David Robinson was a beast offensively and defensively from the moment he stepped on the court. I don't see the comparisons at all other than Ayton's NBA ready body. If I'm taking a guy #1, I don't want to have to cross my fingers that 50% of his game will develop. It's just alarming to me that a guy with 10/10 elite size could struggle so much defensively. That tells me he has some problems between the ears. Whether it's lack of effort or low bball IQ.

 

[funkykingston]

The thing with Porter is that all he really offers (at this point) is scoring and if that doesn't translate to the NBA then I don't know what kind of player he can be. And beyond the injury there are reasons for concern - namely his good but not great physical tools, subpar handling for a primary scorer, lack of playmaking and tendency to settle for inefficient jumpers.

Now many of those are the same criticisms Jayson Tatum got last year but they are different players. And there's also the possibility that I've just seen way more of Porter than most other prospects which tends to mean I start picking him apart more. The Kings definitely do need a go-to-scorer (that isn't Zbo) so he's a fit and I wouldn't mind him at 7 but I don't think I'd take him top three.

I love Doncic but I'm not convinced that he isn't going to be a really high level role player in the NBA. I think his footspeed will keep him from being an elite/go-to scorer but he's so skilled that he'll help a team. Like a rich man's Bogie but I don't see him being the best player on a contending team

Ayton's defense concerns me but I'd likely take him #1.

At #2 or #3? Would San Antonio be interested in a trade for Kawhi? Huge risk given his impending free agency, but he doesn't seem like the type of player to bolt for a big market so the onus would be on the Kings to show him that they are building something in Sacramento.

 

[gunks]

Dogfight
Ayton
Bagels


Too lazy to fix the autocomplete, y'all get the idea (I'm actually just easily amused and find typos funny).

 

[bajaden]

The thing with Porter is that all he really offers (at this point) is scoring and if that doesn't translate to the NBA then I don't know what kind of player he can be. And beyond the injury there are reasons for concern - namely his good but not great physical tools, subpar handling for a primary scorer, lack of playmaking and tendency to settle for inefficient jumpers.

Now many of those are the same criticisms Jayson Tatum got last year but they are different players. And there's also the possibility that I've just seen way more of Porter than most other prospects which tends to mean I start picking him apart more. The Kings definitely do need a go-to-scorer (that isn't Zbo) so he's a fit and I wouldn't mind him at 7 but I don't think I'd take him top three.

I love Doncic but I'm not convinced that he isn't going to be a really high level role player in the NBA. I think his footspeed will keep him from being an elite/go-to scorer but he's so skilled that he'll help a team. Like a rich man's Bogie but I don't see him being the best player on a contending team

Ayton's defense concerns me but I'd likely take him #1.

At #2 or #3? Would San Antonio be interested in a trade for Kawhi? Huge risk given his impending free agency, but he doesn't seem like the type of player to bolt for a big market so the onus would be on the Kings to show him that they are building something in Sacramento.

I saw every minute Porter played in college, and basically threw them out as irrelevant to the equation. However did see a couple of highschool games and a couple of highschool all star games. In one of the all star games he was very impressive, and outplayed Marvin Bagley, but then it's just one game.

I would love to acquire Leonard, and wouldn't have a problem trading our pick as part of that trade, but I'd be reluctant to give up too much because in a way, he's a double risk. First there's the injury, and second, there's his contract status. Your betting he'll completely recover and be the player he used to be, and then your betting you can sign him to a long team contract. He's certainly worth some risk, but I wouldn't give up the keys to the bank for him.

 

[Joshoua]

If your big can’t play defense he will be exposed in the playoffs.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Good post. I agree with a lot of it but not all of it.

I'm not asserting that big men can't lead a team right now solely because there aren't any good teams led by them at the moment. I'm basically making 2 points here.

1. Ayton is only half the player AD and Embiid are. He's more like KAT or Aldridge due to his defense and they have yet to prove they can lead a team.

2. The best teams aren't led by big men because they are less effective due to the insurgence of the 3 point shot.

Yeah the 3 point shot wasn't invented yesterday but you can't deny that teams haven't been shooting it exponentially higher lately. It's tough for a big man to match the production of some of these guards that can shoot the 3, get to the line a handful of times a game and get their big man an 80% shot right at the rim on any given play.

You're talking a lot about Shaq and everything you say about him is correct but Ayton is not even close to Shaq. You're talking about what kind of impact a truly one of a kind player could have these days. Shaq would dominate in any era but we aren't talking about Shaq here. We're talking about Ayton and he's more than likely not going to score 20+ PPG at a 58% clip. KAT is the closest big man to do that with 55% and Davis is at 53%. Davis can lead his team because he not only scores 28pts compared to KAT's 21pts but he also plays much much better defense. Something Ayton is not projected to do very well.

I used the Shaq example because he's the epitome of an elite big that wouldn't ever adapt to shooting 3's in today's game. But you're correct that Ayton is no Shaq and I was in no way trying to suggest he is. I'm not even saying that I believe any the bigs in this draft will ever be an elite big. I was just speaking generally.

Not necessarily you, but I hear all this nonsense about how the game is so different that today's bigs have to shoot 3's. And I fully disagree.

If a Shaq, Tim Duncan, or Olajuwon type player came into the league today and their team played old style post basketball through him, the opposition would have to adjust. As I said before, 58% of 2's >>>>> than 36% of 3's.

As many 3's and the Rockets shoot, they still only convert 36% of them. If there was an elite big man carving them up down low, they'd have to put a legit big to defend thus changing the effectiveness and output of their offense. Same goes for the Warriors. They are a much more dynamic offensive team when they are small than when they have Pachulia or McGee on the floor. When you force them to play those guys to keep from getting dominated down low, they become vulnerable.

Anyway, after reading your reply, I can see that we agree for the most part. I see clearly where you're coming from now.

 

[ParniValjak]

I don't understand your logic here. So you don't really agree with the projections because they are just guesses based on what has been seen to date but you're going to just guess on a hunch that he will be fine defensively? So far, the only data we have supports him not being a good defender. He has one of the lowest block percentages for a big man in the lottery in the last two decades. David Robinson was a beast offensively and defensively from the moment he stepped on the court. I don't see the comparisons at all other than Ayton's NBA ready body. If I'm taking a guy #1, I don't want to have to cross my fingers that 50% of his game will develop. It's just alarming to me that a guy with 10/10 elite size could struggle so much defensively. That tells me he has some problems between the ears. Whether it's lack of effort or low bball IQ.

Talk about making an argument just to make one. Each case should be looked at differently. Is Ayton bad defensively because he is just dumb as a bucket of shrimp (which I don't believe is the case, or is it because of physical/athletic limitations or lack of development.


I think in terms of physical/athletic attributes, he is more than capable enough. I don't believe its because of IQ either. I think its because of development or lack there of. That is more than fixable. If you get him to the next level, where the only focus will be basketball and development then he can be a pretty darn good defender. If you put a strong development program and staff around him and work on it, he will get better because the talent is certainly there and the work ethic and IQ seems to be there too.

The point is, every single player on this draft is based on projections. You seem to be basing yours on what has been done to date and if someone is terrible at something, he will continue to be terrible at it. Most of the projections is based on where are they now and can they with professional development and coaching get to where they need to be. Is their work ethic, IQ and attitude good enough to get there?

You are comparing Ayton after one year of college to Robinson who spent 4 years in college and worked on his game to the point where he was a complete player and future HOF the moment he stepped on the NBA court. Let's see what Ayton the player looks like at the end of his 3rd NBA season on both ends of the floor. I am willing to bet that he will be an all-star. If Kings are lucky enough to end up with Ayton, he immediately becomes our most talented player and a franchise building block, a foundational piece. Especially, since the Kings need to be putting more emphasis on player development than at any time in the last decade or so.

 

[kingsfan1984]

I would like to change my vote—I’m just not enamored with Ayton. We need ballers that can keep up with Bogi, Buddy, Fox, Giles and Skal. These dudes are putting in work. Ayton can enjoy the basketball life somewhere else. Give me:

1. Doncic
2. Bagley
3. Mikal

Yep, Mikal Bridges third. He’s a baller. JJJ is up there too, but these three cats all win a starting job by the end of training camp and have huge upsides too.

Exactly, Ayton admittedly puts in little to no work off the court. Not the kind of attributes that will endure himself to our other young hard working players. Plus, he just wont be anything special of he is not that motivated. Have to habe that drive to be great and of all the top prospects he is easily dead last in drive.

 

[Joshoua]

Exactly, Ayton admittedly puts in little to no work off the court. Not the kind of attributes that will endure himself to our other young hard working players. Plus, he just wont be anything special of he is not that motivated. Have to habe that drive to be great and of all the top prospects he is easily dead last in drive.

And his defense is bad

 

[hrdboild]

Exactly, Ayton admittedly puts in little to no work off the court. Not the kind of attributes that will endure himself to our other young hard working players. Plus, he just wont be anything special of he is not that motivated. Have to habe that drive to be great and of all the top prospects he is easily dead last in drive.

I wonder if having a group of young guys who want to work on their game would rub off on him though? There are so many factors that add up to succeess. I wouldn't even know how to attribute the credit if Ayton comes in and achieves his potential. Was it the situation that made him successful? And if so how much does it matter who we pick? The same could be said of the reverse. It's possible we have a knack for drafting busts. It's also possible that the situation that existed in the recent past was one where very few prospects would have thrived.

You can second guess yourself all day trying to project these guys. I think you just gather all the information you can about who they are and how badly they want to be great and then you try to give them every resource possible to succeed. Not to take anything away from the players themselves and the work they put in, but you usually see Hall of Fame players matched up with great coaches and organizations which have a plan for how they're going to succeed. As a team we really just have one job and that's to create the right structure where a young talent can come in and achieve their full potential. Any number of these guys could be a franchise player for us if they want it badly enough. Part of making that happen is paying attention to the personality fit and actively supporting your players. In other words I don't think the mistake is drafting a guy with a reputation for laziness... The mistake is not having a plan in place to keep that player motivated when you've already identified that as a potential problem area. Draft day is really just day one of what should be an ongoing process of building the player you want.

 

[KingsCitizen]

If Kings get #1, send Ayton to the Spurs for Kawhi and sign Cousins.

 

[upinsmoke]

If Kings get #1, send Ayton to the Spurs for Kawhi and sign Cousins.

I'm all for it. As long as a few players opt out I wouldn't mind bringing cousins back.
http://gleague.nba.com/player/isaiah-cousins/

 

[Mike]

If Kings get #1, send Ayton to the Spurs for Kawhi and sign Cousins.

He has two years left on his deal, the second is a player option. So he would need to give a guarantee that he's going to sign an extension with us. If he did it's worth consideration.

As a duo it's an exciting thought, but we'd need to bear in mind that Kawhi has been injury prone and Cousins is coming off a major injury. There's a ton of potential in having them, but there's a lot of risk as well depending on how Cousins returns and whether Kawhi can avoid any more niggling injuries. And then there's keeping them both happy to consider.

For me, if we land the top pick I'd rather retain Ayton and build around him and Fox. Alternatively I'd consider selling our pick to Orlando and grabbing their pick plus Aaron Gordon. In that scenario if they stay fifth we could get a Gordon and Porter, or Gordon and Bagley, or Gordon and Jackson type combination. Ending up with a line up like:

Fox
Bogdanovic
Porter / Gordon
Gordon / Bagley or Jackson
WCS

 

[Joshoua]

If Kings get #1, send Ayton to the Spurs for Kawhi and sign Cousins.

I’ll do you one better since DMC hates the front office.

Trade Buddy, 7, WCS, and JJ for Kawhi
Trade Fox, Skal, ZBo, and 2nd round picks for Wall/Mahinmi
Sign Bjlecia for spacing

Wall-Bogdan-Kawhi-Bjlecia-KK
Bench Mason, Temple, Giles

 

[Sac.1989]

Doncic. Real game changer.

Vlade will send half our youth away for him on draft night i am sure. This is the one

 

[LPKingsFan]

Not sure where to post this, but will do so here since the subject is only relevant if the Kings jump into the top three -- JZ Mazlish of the Stepien has done a deep dive on the offensive upside of Ayton and Bagley. Definitely worth the time: https://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/19/offensive-upside-deandre-ayton-vs-marvin-bagley/

 

[ESP47]

I used the Shaq example because he's the epitome of an elite big that wouldn't ever adapt to shooting 3's in today's game. But you're correct that Ayton is no Shaq and I was in no way trying to suggest he is. I'm not even saying that I believe any the bigs in this draft will ever be an elite big. I was just speaking generally.

Not necessarily you, but I hear all this nonsense about how the game is so different that today's bigs have to shoot 3's. And I fully disagree.

If a Shaq, Tim Duncan, or Olajuwon type player came into the league today and their team played old style post basketball through him, the opposition would have to adjust. As I said before, 58% of 2's >>>>> than 36% of 3's.

As many 3's and the Rockets shoot, they still only convert 36% of them. If there was an elite big man carving them up down low, they'd have to put a legit big to defend thus changing the effectiveness and output of their offense. Same goes for the Warriors. They are a much more dynamic offensive team when they are small than when they have Pachulia or McGee on the floor. When you force them to play those guys to keep from getting dominated down low, they become vulnerable.

Anyway, after reading your reply, I can see that we agree for the most part. I see clearly where you're coming from now.

Take a look at the True Shooting % stat at basketball reference which is formulated using 2 pointers, 3 pointers and free throws. The efficiency that these top players have is mind blowing these days. They are blowing Shaq, MJ and pretty much any other top player from back in the day that you can think of right out of the water. Look up the TS% for Curry, Durant, Harden. It's insane. Even second tier stars like Lillard have TS percentages up there with what MJ and Shaq were doing in their prime.

It's really hard for me to agree that the game hasn't changed because these guys are just bombing 3 pointers away at a record clip and their overall efficiency is going up because they only have to shoot 3 pointers at an average rate to be as efficient as an elite big man who can score 25ppg on 58% in the post. It's very hard to find big men that can do that but there are a handful of wings that are doing it today and the numbers have been rising pretty heavily the last couple years as more and more players start mimicking Curry, who is the TS% king at the moment.

I agree that special players like Hakeem and Shaq would be game changers but these days it's just so much easier to find wings that can give you the same sort of the production. Which is exactly why I think there needs to be a rule change because I don't really like watching guards jack up 3's all game while post play has mostly disappeared. There needs to be a balance here and if they don't want to move the 3 point line back, then they need to start allowing these guys to play defense again.

 

[ESP47]

Talk about making an argument just to make one. Each case should be looked at differently. Is Ayton bad defensively because he is just dumb as a bucket of shrimp (which I don't believe is the case, or is it because of physical/athletic limitations or lack of development.


I think in terms of physical/athletic attributes, he is more than capable enough. I don't believe its because of IQ either. I think its because of development or lack there of. That is more than fixable. If you get him to the next level, where the only focus will be basketball and development then he can be a pretty darn good defender. If you put a strong development program and staff around him and work on it, he will get better because the talent is certainly there and the work ethic and IQ seems to be there too.

The point is, every single player on this draft is based on projections. You seem to be basing yours on what has been done to date and if someone is terrible at something, he will continue to be terrible at it. Most of the projections is based on where are they now and can they with professional development and coaching get to where they need to be. Is their work ethic, IQ and attitude good enough to get there?

You are comparing Ayton after one year of college to Robinson who spent 4 years in college and worked on his game to the point where he was a complete player and future HOF the moment he stepped on the NBA court. Let's see what Ayton the player looks like at the end of his 3rd NBA season on both ends of the floor. I am willing to bet that he will be an all-star. If Kings are lucky enough to end up with Ayton, he immediately becomes our most talented player and a franchise building block, a foundational piece. Especially, since the Kings need to be putting more emphasis on player development than at any time in the last decade or so.

Why do so many people here think taking what a player is doing on the court now and using it to predict what they're going to do in the future is somehow wrong and pointless? I cannot wrap my head around this line of thinking but this argument comes up in any thread where I don't talk favorably about a young player. They don't all develop just because they are young and this is the entire reason why scouting departments exist. You take their physical and mental tools and couple them with their on court play and use that to predict what they are going to do in the future. Why is that taboo around here?

I just don't like this generalization that all players develop because they are young and that's what young players all do. I mean we can pick any player out there and just cloak him with "give him time to develop" but there's a lot more to the game than that. If you think he can develop, tell us specifically why he can develop despite his bad defensive play last year. Telling me that he can be a good defender by spending his time practicing basketball with a good coaching staff doesn't really mean much to me because you could literally say that about any player on the planet. That's like saying Ben McLemore can be a good ball handler if you just hook him up with a good ball handling coach. All of these guys work on their craft but they don't all develop and there are a myriad of reasons for that.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

It's really hard for me to agree that the game hasn't changed because these guys are just bombing 3 pointers away at a record clip

This is the point where you lose me and I disagree.

The Rockets may attempting 42 3's a game, but they are still shooting 36%. And the Warriors are usually the very best team at it and shooting around 39%. Part of what allows them to do maximize those percentages is the fact that they don't have to respect a true big and can play small lineups. If they can't get away with doing that, those percentages go down to the point where it becomes a losing proposition against a good post oriented team. IMO, that's one of several reasons why you didn't see this revolution start years and years ago. Teams just couldn't get away with it considering the elite post players that were in the league and were forced to matchup the best way possible.

But with AAU ball and post players wanting to be guards thus drifting further and further out on the perimeter and not learning how to be dominant in the post, today's teams are able to get away with it -- which is why you're seeing the shooting spikes.

Just like how it took a special group of shooters to do what Golden State did a few years back (and are continuing to do today), all it will take is an elite post player or two to come along and change things yet again. Most things tend to be cyclical anyway, so I'm confident it will happen. Just 5 years ago, nobody would believe a jump shooting, perimeter oriented team could win a title. Those that suggested it were mocked and laughed at. Now nobody believes a post oriented team that doesn't shoot 30+ three's per game can do it.

 

[ESP47]

This is the point where you lose me and I disagree.

The Rockets may attempting 42 3's a game, but they are still shooting 36%. And the Warriors are usually the very best team at it and shooting around 39%. Part of what allows them to do maximize those percentages is the fact that they don't have to respect a true big and can play small lineups. If they can't get away with doing that, those percentages go down to the point where it becomes a losing proposition against a good post oriented team. IMO, that's one of several reasons why you didn't see this revolution start years and years ago. Teams just couldn't get away with it considering the elite post players that were in the league and were forced to matchup the best way possible.

But with AAU ball and post players wanting to be guards thus drifting further and further out on the perimeter and not learning how to be dominant in the post, today's teams are able to get away with it -- which is why you're seeing the shooting spikes.

Just like how it took a special group of shooters to do what Golden State did a few years back (and are continuing to do today), all it will take is an elite post player or two to come along and change things yet again. Most things tend to be cyclical anyway, so I'm confident it will happen. Just 5 years ago, nobody would believe a jump shooting, perimeter oriented team could win a title. Those that suggested it were mocked and laughed at. Now nobody believes a post oriented team that doesn't shoot 30+ three's per game can do it.

I don't think you're taking into account how efficient the offenses are these days. Big men are stepping out of the post because it's the winning basketball move. They Rockets have 7 players that made over 100 3s. The 2002 Lakers have 1. To match that productivity, you'd have to have hall of fame efficiency down in the post on every play to combat it.

The Rockets have 3 players all with a TS% of .600+ (Harden, Paul, Capela). This is a pretty elite benchmark. Those players average a combined 63 points a game.

It's a different era but the 2002 Lakers leading TS% is Shaq at .590. Kobe is at .544.

Basically you have 3 players on the Rockets averaging 63 points more efficiently than Shaq did in his prime. I don't know of any post player or duo that can compete with that on a nightly basis. The Warriors are even more efficient than that. Damn near half their players have a TS% of over .600. Shaq would be even more efficient if he was in his prime right now but I don't think he could overcome the sheer efficiency of the 3 point shot. You're looking squarely at the percentage that the Rockets make but you aren't looking at the volume. They score 46PPG on 3s on an average shooting night. That means that the opposing team has to score 46PPG on 58% shooting from 2 on a nightly basis to compete. That's extremely difficult to average. The Warriors are the top team in the league with a 56% 2pt average right now.

 

[mac]

I don't think you're taking into account how efficient the offenses are these days. Big men are stepping out of the post because it's the winning basketball move. They Rockets have 7 players that made over 100 3s. The 2002 Lakers have 1. To match that productivity, you'd have to have hall of fame efficiency down in the post on every play to combat it.

The Rockets have 3 players all with a TS% of .600+ (Harden, Paul, Capela). This is a pretty elite benchmark. Those players average a combined 63 points a game.

It's a different era but the 2002 Lakers leading TS% is Shaq at .590. Kobe is at .544.

Basically you have 3 players on the Rockets averaging 63 points more efficiently than Shaq did in his prime. I don't know of any post player or duo that can compete with that on a nightly basis. The Warriors are even more efficient than that. Damn near half their players have a TS% of over .600. Shaq would be even more efficient if he was in his prime right now but I don't think he could overcome the sheer efficiency of the 3 point shot. You're looking squarely at the percentage that the Rockets make but you aren't looking at the volume. They score 46PPG on 3s on an average shooting night. That means that the opposing team has to score 46PPG on 58% shooting from 2 on a nightly basis to compete. That's extremely difficult to average. The Warriors are the top team in the league with a 56% 2pt average right now.

Nitpicking here but I'm not a fan of using"efficiency" to compare across eras as you said. It's like comparing the time taken for a jeep to cross a dirt track with a Ferrari on a straight smooth road and concluding that the Ferrari is more efficient.

 

[Telemachus]

Nitpicking here but I'm not a fan of using"efficiency" to compare across eras as you said. It's like comparing the time taken for a jeep to cross a dirt track with a Ferrari on a straight smooth road and concluding that the Ferrari is more efficient.

I agree. The NBA has consistently made it easier for teams to score by how the game is called. If teams today played by the rules of 20 years ago (or 30 years) they would have more trouble scoring as efficiently.

 

[bajaden]

I wonder if having a group of young guys who want to work on their game would rub off on him though? There are so many factors that add up to succeess. I wouldn't even know how to attribute the credit if Ayton comes in and achieves his potential. Was it the situation that made him successful? And if so how much does it matter who we pick? The same could be said of the reverse. It's possible we have a knack for drafting busts. It's also possible that the situation that existed in the recent past was one where very few prospects would have thrived.

You can second guess yourself all day trying to project these guys. I think you just gather all the information you can about who they are and how badly they want to be great and then you try to give them every resource possible to succeed. Not to take anything away from the players themselves and the work they put in, but you usually see Hall of Fame players matched up with great coaches and organizations which have a plan for how they're going to succeed. As a team we really just have one job and that's to create the right structure where a young talent can come in and achieve their full potential. Any number of these guys could be a franchise player for us if they want it badly enough. Part of making that happen is paying attention to the personality fit and actively supporting your players. In other words I don't think the mistake is drafting a guy with a reputation for laziness... The mistake is not having a plan in place to keep that player motivated when you've already identified that as a potential problem area. Draft day is really just day one of what should be an ongoing process of building the player you want.

In all my years of watching NBA basketball, the saddest part is seeing players loaded with talent, but not with desire. Sometimes the talent is so good, that they still end up being very good if not great players. But you always know they could have been better. And then you have the players with just average athleticism who work their butts off and become great players. Of course there's the other side of the coin with the players that have the athleticism and the desire, but not the grey matter between their ears. At least they tried. Still sad though..

 

[bajaden]

Not sure where to post this, but will do so here since the subject is only relevant if the Kings jump into the top three -- JZ Mazlish of the Stepien has done a deep dive on the offensive upside of Ayton and Bagley. Definitely worth the time: https://www.thestepien.com/2018/04/19/offensive-upside-deandre-ayton-vs-marvin-bagley/

Yeah, I posted it yesterday on the Prospects forum. Good read with a different perspective.

 

[bajaden]

This is the point where you lose me and I disagree.

The Rockets may attempting 42 3's a game, but they are still shooting 36%. And the Warriors are usually the very best team at it and shooting around 39%. Part of what allows them to do maximize those percentages is the fact that they don't have to respect a true big and can play small lineups. If they can't get away with doing that, those percentages go down to the point where it becomes a losing proposition against a good post oriented team. IMO, that's one of several reasons why you didn't see this revolution start years and years ago. Teams just couldn't get away with it considering the elite post players that were in the league and were forced to matchup the best way possible.

But with AAU ball and post players wanting to be guards thus drifting further and further out on the perimeter and not learning how to be dominant in the post, today's teams are able to get away with it -- which is why you're seeing the shooting spikes.

Just like how it took a special group of shooters to do what Golden State did a few years back (and are continuing to do today), all it will take is an elite post player or two to come along and change things yet again. Most things tend to be cyclical anyway, so I'm confident it will happen. Just 5 years ago, nobody would believe a jump shooting, perimeter oriented team could win a title. Those that suggested it were mocked and laughed at. Now nobody believes a post oriented team that doesn't shoot 30+ three's per game can do it.

Look, there are a lot of ways to win in the NBA, and usually it's some combination of things. Just being a good 3 pt shooting team doesn't guarantee winning. If it did, the Kings would be in the playoff's since they shot 37.5% from the three. That's better than either the Rockets or the Spurs, both of whom are in the playoffs. If the Kings could play defense as well as they shot the three, they would probably be in the playoffs. But the bottom line is, if you give up more points than you score, you lose. That sounds simplistic, and actually it is, but the Warriors are one of the best defensive teams in the league. The reason the Pel's are suddenly winning, is because all of a sudden they've come up with a smothering defense.

My point is, a big man, scoring aside, can be a crucial part of that defense. That's why Bamba is so enticing. He's like a piece of defensive candy being dangled in front of us. It's one of the main reasons I like Mikal Bridges. It's the reason Robert Williams may be a lottery pick. If you can find a big that's not only a good defensive player, but capable of scoring as well, then there's no reason that big can't be on a winning team. I guess what I'm trying to say is that almost all winning teams have balance, on both the defensive and offensive side of the ball. They just find different ways to do it.

The game is changing though, and for the better in my opinion. Were seeing less of isolation basketball and more team basketball, which is how I think the game should be played. I think there will always be a place for a great isolation player. There are times when you need that guy who can go get you a basket at a crucial moment in the game. But you want that same player to be able to play unselfish team basketball as well. By the way, the team I'm rooting for in the playoffs is the Pel's. I just wish Cuz could be a part of it.

 

[macadocious]

In all my years of watching NBA basketball, the saddest part is seeing players loaded with talent, but not with desire. Sometimes the talent is so good, that they still end up being very good if not great players. But you always know they could have been better. And then you have the players with just average athleticism who work their butts off and become great players. Of course there's the other side of the coin with the players that have the athleticism and the desire, but not the grey matter between their ears. At least they tried. Still sad though..

Derrick Coleman.

 

[Telemachus]

Derrick Coleman.

He is always one of the first to come to mind. He was still a very good player that was a borderline HOFer. If he had the drive, I think he would be considered the best PF of all time and in the conversation when talking about the top 5 - 10 players all time.

 

[ESP47]

Nitpicking here but I'm not a fan of using"efficiency" to compare across eras as you said. It's like comparing the time taken for a jeep to cross a dirt track with a Ferrari on a straight smooth road and concluding that the Ferrari is more efficient.

That's a fair take but can you provide an argument showing how a big man can beat these teams that are jacking up 3s at a record rate?