Zach Lowe, Best article of all time

[Chubbs]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9541808/the-future-demarcus-boogie-cousins-nba-biggest-mystery

I'm sure this was posted elsewhere back in august, and there are some decent points, but his conclusions are out there.

Go on... He actually compared cousins to Randolph at one point, hoping he can be a Randolph type someday.

Go ahead, read all the ways cousins isn't an asset. He advocates strongly not to sign cousins.

"D'Alessandro should be working hard to find that trade partner willing to surrender a package that meets his needs.12 The Kings should be in no rush; Cousins hasn't earned it. They control the free-agency process, and they should make him prove he's worth that kind of deal — either so they can feel comfortable giving it to him, or to boost his trade value midseason. Either way, the Boogie mystery has some exciting turns in store."

Yes, totally nailed it. The best thing a new gm can do is take his franchise player and try to up his trade value.

Here is a comparison of Randolph and cousins at the same age. It's eye opening. Cousins crushes zbo in every way.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...m=0&p1=couside01&y1=2014&p2=randoza01&y2=2005

Cousins now vs Randolph at age 29, his best season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...m=0&p1=couside01&y1=2014&p2=randoza01&y2=2011

 

[swisshh]

He fancies himself a long-range shooter, but he cannot shoot very well. Cousins shot 32 percent on a totally irresponsible 5.2 long 2-point jumpers per 40 minutes last season, per Hoopdata.com; among 117 players who jacked at least 3.5 such shots per 40 minutes, only Rudy Gay, Anthony Davis, and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist hit a lower percentage than Big Cuz.

This is one of the many points of the Cousins criticisms where the stat gurus exposed themselves at being inept at making the eye test of a player. Cousins has hit outside jumpers since entering the league. If you watched him, you could see he was capable, but shot selection and Maloof Era basketball made it look like a bad idea statistically. You could also tell Anthony Davis could shoot that mid-range jumper, even if it wasn't showing up in stats. Both of these things have shown up more positively in stats this year.

It's also a great reason why anyone not using SportsVU (which Lowe is still half-hearted about for some reason) is going in with a far too inexact data basis. SportsVU hotspots and shot chart data shows Cousins as a good shooter from above the free throw line from one angle of the High Post to the other. However, his mid-range shot from the deeper angle and from the baseline is poor. The data Lowe works with here and a lot of Statnerds work with doesn't separate these things, so it gets gathered into one lumped sum that says Cousins can't shoot. Baseline shots and deep angle shots are different types of shots built of different situations. When your big guy is shooting from the High Post area, then you're more likely getting a shot within the regular offense. If he's shooting a deep angle two then something went wrong. If you have no how and no why then you have no understanding.

 

[jalfa]

oh lord, I really don't want to do this, but playing devil's advocate: you're quoting an article from five months ago, bashing an absolute throw-away line about Randolph and citing numbers that Cousins had simply not put up at that point. most of that article is concerned with boogie's defensive performance that had been completely horrendous up until the point when that article was written and, while better this season, is still not really all that great at this point. I know that Lowe is a bit of a Cousins detractor, born out of an inkling for defence (again, not boogie's strong suit and he was horrendous at it before this year) and a weird obsession with Keith Smart, but even he was recently acknowledged that he's improved a whole lot.

 

[DesertFox]

A lot of people knew Cuz had this kind of player in him, most weren't sure if he'd reach it, and I don't blame them. That's why he was available at #5, and I'm glad. That risk got him in Sac.

 

[Chubbs]

oh lord, I really don't want to do this, but playing devil's advocate: you're quoting an article from five months ago, bashing an absolute throw-away line about Randolph and citing numbers that Cousins had simply not put up at that point. most of that article is concerned with boogie's defensive performance that had been completely horrendous up until the point when that article was written and, while better this season, is still not really all that great at this point. I know that Lowe is a bit of a Cousins detractor, born out of an inkling for defence (again, not boogie's strong suit and he was horrendous at it before this year) and a weird obsession with Keith Smart, but even he was recently acknowledged that he's improved a whole lot.

Hey, I said he had good points. Maybe went overboard on the Randolph comparison, but I thought it was still interesting to compare the two. So I did. I realize it was a throwaway line.

The conclusion though was pretty clear. And pretty wrong. It was wrong 5 months ago, and it's wrong now. It'll be wrong 5 years from now too.

Plenty of great players aren't known for defense. I don't disagree that his d has been bad. Everything was bad here, coaching, ownership, defense from everyone. But isn't that kinda missing the bigger picture? Talents like demarcus don't land in sac often. To recommend making cousins prove himself? Wow, what a mistake that would have been. I thought his second half last year was proof enough. Lowe dismissed it. He put up his best numbers and best overall play when the team's situation was at its most dysfunctional. That says something about demarcus.

 

[swisshh]

I don't have any problem with Lowe's criticism of Boogie's defense and his getting back in transition.

One thing I'd like to point out is that the Kings drafted other guys of supposedly higher character than Boogie in the surrounding drafts. Most draft selections were followed by "Sacramento is not a good spot for him to be." I won't argue with that assessment. The Kings were run by broke owners, a GM on early vacation, coaches who won't ever get a head coaching job again, and teammates that didn't belong in the situation. Out of all those draft picks put into this bad situation, the only two who actually developed and made it through were IT and Cousins. So for all his character issues, he actually survived a bad situation better than players who were supposed to be more mature or of higher character.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'll just say that I already called Lowe an idiot when he first wrote this, so I won't bother repeating it. Suffice it to say I was right, he was not. Shocker.

Actually it was more the blatant bias it was written with rather than just not understanding his subject that pissed me off.

I should drop him a note and offer to let him send any future articles about the Kings through me first so he doesn't embarrass himself again.

 

[jalfa]

Hey, I said he had good points. Maybe went overboard on the Randolph comparison, but I thought it was still interesting to compare the two. So I did. I realize it was a throwaway line.

The conclusion though was pretty clear. And pretty wrong. It was wrong 5 months ago, and it's wrong now. It'll be wrong 5 years from now too.

Plenty of great players aren't known for defense. I don't disagree that his d has been bad. Everything was bad here, coaching, ownership, defense from everyone. But isn't that kinda missing the bigger picture? Talents like demarcus don't land in sac often. To recommend making cousins prove himself? Wow, what a mistake that would have been. I thought his second half last year was proof enough. Lowe dismissed it. He put up his best numbers and best overall play when the team's situation was at its most dysfunctional. That says something about demarcus.

my thing with that is that pretty much every analyst out there went on record in favour of letting Cuz earn his extension. all of them were wrong and you have to give Lowe credit for at least going beyond the tired "he's mentally unstable and a bad team mate" cliché and providing some insight on what Cuz does wrong on the court. he's biased, mainly because he actually believes in Keith Smart and his smooth-talking ways, and he's off in some ways. however, as you said, he actually brings up good points and it's pretty much impossible to find any non-Kings bloggers/analysts that are as extensive in their analysis of Cuz. he certainly doesn't deserve a sarcastic "Best article of all times" thread dedicated to him, for that piece.

 

[Chubbs]

my thing with that is that pretty much every analyst out there went on record in favour of letting Cuz earn his extension. all of them were wrong and you have to give Lowe credit for at least going beyond the tired "he's mentally unstable and a bad team mate" cliché and providing some insight on what Cuz does wrong on the court. he's biased, mainly because he actually believes in Keith Smart and his smooth-talking ways, and he's off in some ways. however, as you said, he actually brings up good points and it's pretty much impossible to find any non-Kings bloggers/analysts that are as extensive in their analysis of Cuz. he certainly doesn't deserve a sarcastic "Best article of all times" thread dedicated to him, for that piece.

If he believes in Keith smart, then he deserves a rich and magnificent amount of mocking.

In the end, this was really just a repost to see if bricks blood would boil again.

Now let's let this thread die.