Jimmer Fredette to the Spurs (Update: Mostly Non-Guaranteed Training Camp Deal)

[Chinook]

Chinook, what proof do you have that the ball movement was getting Jimmer wide open looks? All the clips show defenders mostly stating home on him. And the ball movement in Sac, NO, and ESP in Chicago have never produced the same open looks Mills and Green get with the Spurs. And even sometimes defenders close out on them. If you had clips of only when Green and Mills were chased off the three point line,you'd be making the same claim about them. Spurs aren't going to sign a shooter to that kind of guaranteed money if they don't think he can space the floor. And I disagree that he doesn't space. Lots of defenders were staying home with him and we're getting burned when they didn't.

No one was getting burned by Jimmer hitting threes on them. The reason why his men were usually close to him in those vids is because he is handling the ball. But he gets run off the line in all but five the spot-up attempts he does have. Those were full-game highlights, not just a clipping to make Jimmer look bad (especially since the YTer is clearly a Fredette homer based on his comments). Of course, if Mills and Green constantly got run off the line, they wouldn't be effective floor-spacers. But they don't have as much trouble because they have faster releases. As I pointed out, the only times Jimmer got a clean shot off after the catch was when his guys were 20-something feet away from him. Any other time, he had to put the ball and the floor and settle for a long two or stepback three.

And Jimmer clearly knows this, and that's why he is so quick to put the ball on the floor in those vids and why he shoots from so far away. Despite what it looks like, teams are pretty happy with giving up long twos off the dribble. Jimmer shooting those isn't "burning" anyone. And I think NBA teams have figured out that they can totally help off him now. Sure, the Spurs did it and got burned that one game, but as a whole, the league seemed to have a ton of success doing so, and I can see why by looking at those vids.

Anyway, I actually don't think the Spurs signed Fredette to be a spot-up guy, or at least I hope they didn't, since there were clearly better guys out there who took the same or even less money. Rather, they signed him to do exactly what he did in those vids, which is handle the ball and do some one-on-one scoring. They probably see him as pretty similar to Beli, which I could see in a limited sense. Anderson, Simmons and Fredette are all handlers first, shooters second. It seems like that's the type of player the team wants next to Manu this season. They're probably scouting for his successor. That's all well and good, but Jimmer's lack of size and spot-up shooting makes him a clear third in that backup SF conversation. He faces and uphill battle to make the rotation with his game.

[ceperez]

No one was getting burned by Jimmer hitting threes on them. The reason why his men were usually close to him in those vids is because he is handling the ball. But he gets run off the line in all but five the spot-up attempts he does have. Those were full-game highlights, not just a clipping to make Jimmer look bad (especially since the YTer is clearly a Fredette homer based on his comments). Of course, if Mills and Green constantly got run off the line, they wouldn't be effective floor-spacers. But they don't have as much trouble because they have faster releases. As I pointed out, the only times Jimmer got a clean shot off after the catch was when his guys were 20-something feet away from him. Any other time, he had to put the ball and the floor and settle for a long two or stepback three.

And Jimmer clearly knows this, and that's why he is so quick to put the ball on the floor in those vids and why he shoots from so far away. Despite what it looks like, teams are pretty happy with giving up long twos off the dribble. Jimmer shooting those isn't "burning" anyone. And I think NBA teams have figured out that they can totally help off him now. Sure, the Spurs did it and got burned that one game, but as a whole, the league seemed to have a ton of success doing so, and I can see why by looking at those vids.

Anyway, I actually don't think the Spurs signed Fredette to be a spot-up guy, or at least I hope they didn't, since there were clearly better guys out there who took the same or even less money. Rather, they signed him to do exactly what he did in those vids, which is handle the ball and do some one-on-one scoring. They probably see him as pretty similar to Beli, which I could see in a limited sense. Anderson, Simmons and Fredette are all handlers first, shooters second. It seems like that's the type of player the team wants next to Manu this season. They're probably scouting for his successor. That's all well and good, but Jimmer's lack of size and spot-up shooting makes him a clear third in that backup SF conversation. He faces and uphill battle to make the rotation with his game.

Absolutely looking for Manu's successor.... most likely candidate at this stage is Jonathon Simmons.

[SAGirl]

Anyway, I actually don't think the Spurs signed Fredette to be a spot-up guy, or at least I hope they didn't, since there were clearly better guys out there who took the same or even less money. Rather, they signed him to do exactly what he did in those vids, which is handle the ball and do some one-on-one scoring. They probably see him as pretty similar to Beli, which I could see in a limited sense. Anderson, Simmons and Fredette are all handlers first, shooters second. It seems like that's the type of player the team wants next to Manu this season. They're probably scouting for his successor. That's all well and good, but Jimmer's lack of size and spot-up shooting makes him a clear third in that backup SF conversation. He faces and uphill battle to make the rotation with his game.

this is a very interesting point. Sounds like a bench audition for the perimeter players. Spurs seemed to be prioritizing playmaking over shooting. It would be good to get a guy who can do both, but they were steering clear this season of the pure shooter types. Even Williams had some playmaking in the D'league and a good assist %. It will be interesting to see who comes out ahead in this. My favorite playmaker is Anderson, but he is better paired with a more athletic guy who can compliment him and the Spurs seem to be visualizing him as a forward. To me, the guards are up for grabs. Manu is around, but will be rested, and may be out games w/ injuries. Same with Tony. There will be guard minutes and they want someone who can pass well.
I don't know, it's probably why Williams is still around. Jimmer can be around for depth, I don't know his game, but his playmaking could be useful.

[tholdren]

No one was getting burned by Jimmer hitting threes on them. The reason why his men were usually close to him in those vids is because he is handling the ball. But he gets run off the line in all but five the spot-up attempts he does have. Those were full-game highlights, not just a clipping to make Jimmer look bad (especially since the YTer is clearly a Fredette homer based on his comments). Of course, if Mills and Green constantly got run off the line, they wouldn't be effective floor-spacers. But they don't have as much trouble because they have faster releases. As I pointed out, the only times Jimmer got a clean shot off after the catch was when his guys were 20-something feet away from him. Any other time, he had to put the ball and the floor and settle for a long two or stepback three.

And Jimmer clearly knows this, and that's why he is so quick to put the ball on the floor in those vids and why he shoots from so far away. Despite what it looks like, teams are pretty happy with giving up long twos off the dribble. Jimmer shooting those isn't "burning" anyone. And I think NBA teams have figured out that they can totally help off him now. Sure, the Spurs did it and got burned that one game, but as a whole, the league seemed to have a ton of success doing so, and I can see why by looking at those vids.

Anyway, I actually don't think the Spurs signed Fredette to be a spot-up guy, or at least I hope they didn't, since there were clearly better guys out there who took the same or even less money. Rather, they signed him to do exactly what he did in those vids, which is handle the ball and do some one-on-one scoring. They probably see him as pretty similar to Beli, which I could see in a limited sense. Anderson, Simmons and Fredette are all handlers first, shooters second. It seems like that's the type of player the team wants next to Manu this season. They're probably scouting for his successor. That's all well and good, but Jimmer's lack of size and spot-up shooting makes him a clear third in that backup SF conversation. He faces and uphill battle to make the rotation with his game.

They signed him to play the Mills/Marco role = instant scoring and not afraid to let it go. Saying he has a slow release is silly, and even if it were true, doesn't matter.

[Chinook]

They signed him to play the Mills/Marco role = instant scoring and not afraid to let it go. Saying he has a slow release is silly, and even if it were true, doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. He's been a poor offensive player statistically in the NBA despite that being his calling card. And the role you're describing is "chucker" and those are really easy to find.

[tholdren]

Of course it matters. He's been a poor offensive player statistically in the NBA despite that being his calling card. And the role you're describing is "chucker" and those are really easy to find.

He's got really similar shooting advanced stats to marco and a higher career PER.

[AFBlue]

This is why I compared you to a flatearther. The vids and everything else show a guy who's a terrible floor-spacing but who at his best can create decently off the dribble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfqqfwk3I7Q (didn't want to make it two-post response, so I'll just leave the link)

One spot-up attempt in that who vid where he got his shot off without having to reset, and he missed the contested look. His man was way overhelping in the paint and still got out to him.



Same thing here. The shot of the vid is Jimmer's only spot-up attempt where he didn't have to reset, and he missed because he guy got back out to him.



First play of this vid is a successful spot-up by Jimmer. And he's like 30 feet away from the basket and still gets contested. He gets two wide-open threes from the far corner later on the vid, and he splits them. Almost all of his plays involved him driving. He hardly got any room to get a shot off, even though he was being played loosely most of the game.



Last vid is just pure highlights. His only spot-up attempt is from 30 feet away, and Melo runs all the way from the baseline to contest.

Jimmer is NOT a spot-up shooter. Anyone with eyes can see that. And anyone with critical evaluation skills can see why. He keeps getting run off the line if he's anywhere near normal three-point range. He only gets open looks otherwise if he's the beneficiary of busted defense (guys under the basket and getting caught on back screens. His game in the pros has been mostly inside the arc, which is fine in a one-on-one context. But it dramatically diminishes his value to a team that doesn't need playmaking from him. He also has a tendency to take bad shots (meaning off-balance long twos) because he gets run off the line so much.

It's no wonder he has a net-negative OBPM (-.2) and an anemic career ORtg (102). He has to dominate the ball to be successful, and he isn't good enough with the ball in his hands to warrant a decent team to give him the keys to the offense. These are things I should NOT have to show you. You're the one who's the Jimmer fan -- you should know his strengths and weaknesses. Instead, you tried to hide behind a false burden of proof when the null is clearly that Jimmer isn't an NBA-caliber player.

A sampling of video highlights doesn't equate to definitive proof that his shot is broken and must be fixed for him to be effective. The truth is that we'll just have to wait and see. If Jimmer is going to be an effective contributor, San Antonio with its structured offense is the place where it should happen. I see no reason to continue going on about this when it's clear we have a difference of opinion and no way of resolving it through facts or data.

And for the record, I'm not a Jimmer fan. I just happen to have an optimistic outlook on his potential contribution to the team next year based on what he showed in college, the Spurs' success at improving role players (see: Green, Danny), and the opportunity to earn playing time now that Marco is in Sacto. He could totally flame out and I'll happily concede I was wrong. I just wonder if those with a more pessimistic view such as yourself will do the same if he succeeds.

[exstatic]

Yep, that is why Bonner sucks in games. He has such a slow release. In an empty gym or on the practice floor, Bonner is a magnificent shooter, but when you need to get your shot off quick that is where Bonner struggles in live games with his accuracy. I remember a couple of seasons ago where I read that he was trying to speed up his release. I can't remember if it was during an off-season or not, but I do recall him making it a priority. So obviously Bonner knows it's a problem and he has tried working on it in the past. I can't remember how many years ago it was that I read that. I'm thinking it was 1-2 years ago. I'm also thinking he somehow got worse in games since he made that a priority .

I also saw a video within the past year where Steph Curry said - "I want to practice to the point of where it's almost uncomfortable how fast you shoot so that in a game things kind of slow down". After hearing him say that it kind of changed my thoughts quite a lot on practicing shooting.

Bonner struggles to the tune of 41.4% 782-1889, career. Klay Thompson, considered one of the best shooters at a position where you are SUPPOSED to be able to gun it, has a career 3G% of 41.8%.

[Kawhitstorm]

Bonner struggles to the tune of 41.4% 782-1889, career. Klay Thompson, considered one of the best shooters at a position where you are SUPPOSED to be able to gun it, has a career 3G% of 41.8%.

You might want to post their postseason stats since teams don't bother following through w/ the scouting report in the REGULAR season. Just look at how the Mavs defended Danny in the 2014 postseason compared to the regular season, it was night & day.

[exstatic]

You might want to post their postseason stats since teams don't bother following through w/ the scouting report in the REGULAR season. Just look at how the Mavs defended Danny in the 2014 postseason compared to the regular season, it was night & day.

He was talking about Bonner only being able to shoot in practice. I refuted it. Stop moving the goalposts.

[SpursIndonesia]

I can live with the release based upon his percentage/range. But he definitely could stand to learn different release points to maximize his threat level / ability to get shots off.

Yeah, the release point is quite low too. You can get away in NBA (especially off the bench) with either slow release or low release, but not BOTH at the same time.

[Chinook]

A sampling of video highlights doesn't equate to definitive proof that his shot is broken and must be fixed for him to be effective.

What a freaking backtrack. First, you told me to watch the vids to see that Jimmer can space the floor. Then, when I show you the four Jimmer vids (the top ones on YT btb, not a cherry-picked sample at all), you s into, "Well it's just my opinion." It's your WRONG opinion, and I assume you didn't even watch those vids, because you could see how bad Jimmer's release is and how it's completely negating him in the spot-up game.

It would be all fine and good to say you believe in Jimmer and are taking a wait-and-see approach. We would all like to see him be really good and the Spurs to have another reliable option as their 12th or 15th man. There's nothing wrong with optimism. Even I have it for him. However, you chose to smugly dismiss what was pretty obvious analysis merely because you didn't understand it, and that's where I took issue. It's not being a 'shooting-form Nazi' to argue that a short guy with a slow and low release is going to struggle spacing the floor/being a shooter, especially when that's what has happened so far in his career.

[Chinook]

He's got really similar shooting advanced stats to marco and a higher career PER.

Well, yeah. That's why I said his upside was Beli 2.0. He's better with the ball than Beli, but isn't nearly as good off the ball. But it might help if you understand that I'm not a Beli fan at all. I always thought he was a bad signing, and I'm glad to see him in another uniform.

[benefactor]

Chinook with repeated unstoppable post moves tbh.

[SAGirl]

Chinook with repeated unstoppable post moves tbh.

BTW Marco was a purely offensive player, and he brought value. His role was to make big shots and he made them. He was ok for his role. His defense even though he made an effort did cost the spurs much and you had to have guys cover for him. There is simply no perfect player. The ones without many flaws are starter quality or stars. Personally CoJo drove me mad at times but he also brought value. He was a guard who hustled and competed defensively and that was a need and helped out tremendously at times. His lack of court vision and tendency to get passive or hero ball was infuriating at times, but he still brought value.
I am not sure about Jimmer at all but I hope he brings some value even if he's not the perfect player. If he works on rebuilding that shot his accuracy can take a hit big time in the immediate future. That is something Spurs will probably recognize. He does have hand eye coordination to shoot well, but sometimes shooters are so reluctant to change their shots bc their accuracy takes a huge hit b4 the new form is consistent. Bonner is the perfect example, sticking with that slow shot for his entire career.
I see Chinook's point. There are too many questions surrounding Jimmer, could you live with his defensive struggles if he brings something of value? He doesn't think his shooting is sufficiently good/able to get it off to justify the lack of defense. It's possible he rather brings playmaking with an occasional bomb if he sees an opportunity and that is fine. If he could bring shooting that would help out his case tremendously as there are other playmakers in the team who also bring defense and rebounding to boot as well as size. Simmons, Ray and Anderson look better in this regard. Where Jimmer could edge them out is in his shooting and we'll see.

[Gladney to see you]

The case for him would be...he will have mores space here AND his 2 point % is really good by league standards. So want him to do that or not...he does it well it would seem.

[ceperez]

BTW Marco was a purely offensive player, and he brought value. His role was to make big shots and he made them. He was ok for his role. His defense even though he made an effort did cost the spurs much and you had to have guys cover for him. There is simply no perfect player. The ones without many flaws are starter quality or stars. Personally CoJo drove me mad at times but he also brought value. He was a guard who hustled and competed defensively and that was a need and helped out tremendously at times. His lack of court vision and tendency to get passive or hero ball was infuriating at times, but he still brought value.
I am not sure about Jimmer at all but I hope he brings some value even if he's not the perfect player. If he works on rebuilding that shot his accuracy can take a hit big time in the immediate future. That is something Spurs will probably recognize. He does have hand eye coordination to shoot well, but sometimes shooters are so reluctant to change their shots bc their accuracy takes a huge hit b4 the new form is consistent. Bonner is the perfect example, sticking with that slow shot for his entire career.
I see Chinook's point. There are too many questions surrounding Jimmer, could you live with his defensive struggles if he brings something of value? He doesn't think his shooting is sufficiently good/able to get it off to justify the lack of defense. It's possible he rather brings playmaking with an occasional bomb if he sees an opportunity and that is fine. If he could bring shooting that would help out his case tremendously as there are other playmakers in the team who also bring defense and rebounding to boot as well as size. Simmons, Ray and Anderson look better in this regard. Where Jimmer could edge them out is in his shooting and we'll see.

Simmons, Anderson and Jimmer should have plenty of opportunities to play when Manu is in street clothes.

Ray is actually guaranteed starting minutes with Parker likely being in street clothes too.

[SAGirl]

Simmons, Anderson and Jimmer should have plenty of opportunities to play when Manu is in street clothes.

Ray is actually guaranteed starting minutes with Parker likely being in street clothes too.

agreed. I think those are the minutes everyone is talking about here TBH. Anderson is my candidate for backup SF, but there is legit compe ion by Simmons. I don't see Jimmer in a lineup w Manu and Patty personally. Others may disagree, but I don't think that is the way Pop will roll.

[TheDoctor]

Some (not so) spectacular fan in Austin wearing a Fredette jersey. And the plot thickens...

[Ice009]

Bonner struggles to the tune of 41.4% 782-1889, career. Klay Thompson, considered one of the best shooters at a position where you are SUPPOSED to be able to gun it, has a career 3G% of 41.8%.

lol. Bonner's shooting percentage in the regular season is based on wide open looks. I mentioned empty gym, but I wasn't exclusively talking about him only shooting well in an empty gym or the practice floor. When teams make it a priority to not give him any looks or close out on him faster, his percentage goes down the toilet. That's why in the playoffs he's a nobody.

[Gladney to see you]

Well, Bonner's motion is from the 50's. If we could run the picket fence he would be fine.

[AFBlue]

What a freaking backtrack. First, you told me to watch the vids to see that Jimmer can space the floor. Then, when I show you the four Jimmer vids (the top ones on YT btb, not a cherry-picked sample at all), you s into, "Well it's just my opinion." It's your WRONG opinion, and I assume you didn't even watch those vids, because you could see how bad Jimmer's release is and how it's completely negating him in the spot-up game.

It would be all fine and good to say you believe in Jimmer and are taking a wait-and-see approach. We would all like to see him be really good and the Spurs to have another reliable option as their 12th or 15th man. There's nothing wrong with optimism. Even I have it for him. However, you chose to smugly dismiss what was pretty obvious analysis merely because you didn't understand it, and that's where I took issue. It's not being a 'shooting-form Nazi' to argue that a short guy with a slow and low release is going to struggle spacing the floor/being a shooter, especially when that's what has happened so far in his career.

I never told you to watch anything. You must be confusing me with someone else. And I am taking a wait-and-see approach by not jumping to the conclusion, as you are, that his shot must be fixed for him to be successful. Pretty sure the statement "we will see" was uttered by me on multiple occasions.

[Chinook]

I never told you to watch anything. You must be confusing me with someone else. And I am taking a wait-and-see approach by not jumping to the conclusion, as you are, that his shot must be fixed for him to be successful. Pretty sure the statement "we will see" was uttered by me on multiple occasions.

Again, saying "We'll see," is fine, though it is also a complete waste of cyber space, as we'll wait and see regardless of what we think or say here. There's literally no point in saying "You don't know that for sure," or "You could be wrong," as that's ALWAYS true. If I had said, "Kawhi is going to be important for the Spurs' success next season," would you be falling over yourself to say how we have to wait and see what Kawhi does before jumping to conclusions? No. But it's the same thing. Jimmer COULD have a complete career turnaround without actually doing anything to become a better player. And the Spurs COULD end up being successful with Kawhi out of the rotation somehow. But it's a waste of time to constantly acknowledge remote possibilities, because we all already know they're there and don't have to talk about them.

But again, this would never have been a discussion had you left it at that. Instead you acted all condescending toward people discussing why Jimmer struggled before and why he's likely to struggle going forward. You made it seem like talking about his mechanics (which by the most recent practice vid are as bad as ever) was some type of psuedo-intellectual gobbledygook, with us being as nit-picky as a grammarian correcting "to who" to be "to whom". But it's not, and technique and efficiency are big deals in sports. If you didn't want to have a conversation about how Jimmer's technique is hurting his NBA viability, that's cool. But that makes it even less cool to jab at people who do want to have that conversation just because their conclusions aren't optimistic enough for you.

[AFBlue]

Again, saying "We'll see," is fine, though it is also a complete waste of cyber space, as we'll wait and see regardless of what we think or say here. There's literally no point in saying "You don't know that for sure," or "You could be wrong," as that's ALWAYS true. If I had said, "Kawhi is going to be important for the Spurs' success next season," would you be falling over yourself to say how we have to wait and see what Kawhi does before jumping to conclusions? No. But it's the same thing. Jimmer COULD have a complete career turnaround without actually doing anything to become a better player. And the Spurs COULD end up being successful with Kawhi out of the rotation somehow. But it's a waste of time to constantly acknowledge remote possibilities, because we all already know they're there and don't have to talk about them.

But again, this would never have been a discussion had you left it at that. Instead you acted all condescending toward people discussing why Jimmer struggled before and why he's likely to struggle going forward. You made it seem like talking about his mechanics (which by the most recent practice vid are as bad as ever) was some type of psuedo-intellectual gobbledygook, with us being as nit-picky as a grammarian correcting "to who" to be "to whom". But it's not, and technique and efficiency are big deals in sports. If you didn't want to have a conversation about how Jimmer's technique is hurting his NBA viability, that's cool. But that makes it even less cool to jab at people who do want to have that conversation just because their conclusions aren't optimistic enough for you.

Your conclusions aren't based in fact or data. That's what I took issue with. If there were facts or data to back up your assertion I would've happily conceded the point. So you get internet points for being bold and making a stand on something you have no way of backing up, while you pass off my "wait-and-see" approach is a waste of time? Good job,Internet police.

[Spurtacular]

Yeah, the release point is quite low too. You can get away in NBA (especially off the bench) with either slow release or low release, but not BOTH at the same time.

Dude, the guy shot 49 percent from 3 in Sac his last season there. I think he can "get away with it". Improvements are a worthy discussion. But don't act like Jimmer hasn't shown that he can shoot the 3 in the NBA.