Page 56 of 171 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106156 ... LastLast
Results 1,376 to 1,400 of 4270
  1. #1376
    "The ball don't lie." dbestpro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    10,259
    My choice last year was Saddiq Bey cause he was a three point shooter. NBA success in this day and age is 70% about the three. Pick the best three point shooter that is on the board at 12 and you can’t go wrong.

  2. #1377
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Post Count
    26
    But again, skilled shooters can be found nearly anywhere. You don’t have to spend a lottery pick on a guy that can just shoot with shaky defense. For example, Forbes was undrafted. You can also try your luck by looking to bring in someone through FA without necessarily overpaying.

  3. #1378
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    This is the guy we should draft at #12:


  4. #1379
    Veteran BG_Spurs_Fan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    5,360
    ^ Kidd-Gilchrist special

  5. #1380
    Hope springs eternal. SAGirl's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    27,774
    I find it interesting that so many Spurs fans say they want the Spurs to take gambles and try to draft stars ... but then when the Spurs do it, they hate it. Samanic was an obvious swing for the fences. He was a guy who sucked in Europe but was so athletic, mobile and skilled that there was a chance that he could develop into something in a couple years. But instead of liking the pick, the same Spurs fans who cosigned on taking gambles were whining that the Spurs didn't pick old-and-ready Brandon Clarke. Fast forward two years and Samanic is still maturing and Clarke is old news as the Grizzlies 12th man -- yet Spurs fans in general would still rather have Clarke even though he has shown himself to be a low ceiling 6-foot-7 center
    I had a lengthy response but it got erased when I was mul asking. lol

    No matter the short version is that I hope they don’t gamble so wide that they end up with another Samanic, or Bruno Caboclo (which Samanic is close to being... he’s on pace at least, “2 years away from being 2 years away”.). The further he is from being a rotation player, the more he looks like Bruno, and the more unlikely it seems that he’s going to pan out. He needs to become a useful rotation player by this next season or he can start to be considered a wide miss. However, I can understand the gamble on his athleticism and unusual skill. That year the Spurs had two swipes at the cart and a good chance to come out of that draft with at least one good player.

    This summer there’s going to be useful players where the Spurs pick. Gambles as wide as Livio Jean Charles are better left for later in the draft because most of the time all you find is a LJC in gambles like that. Having said that, sometimes the best player available is just a piece of the puzzle, not the main part of the puzzle. Like if they find a Klay Thompson, he’s not the main guy in a championship team, but he’s a significant part of it and worth taking.

  6. #1381
    Hope springs eternal. SAGirl's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    27,774
    Again, my point wasn't anti-Kispert. It's that it's not the responsibility of a rookie to space the floor for guys who shouldn't've developed to need that kind of spacing. The Spurs can and should use some of their roster flexibility to get shooting. But if they don't combine that with a reduction of non-shooting, they will still find themselves going long stretches of minutes playing four or five poor/reluctant shooters at the same time. That Pop feels White/Murray/Johnson is a responsible perimeter set-up has more of an effect on spacing than getting a bench player who's a good player. When Pop did have a great shooter, he glued him to the starting lineup in an attempt to make Murray/DeRozan/Lyles/Aldridge work. Basically doing the same thing with Kispert instead isn't an answer. The Spurs should basically commit to the idea that they aren't going to play more than three (or better yet two) of Murray, White, Johnson and Poeltl in the starting lineup. If they do that, then they can go into the draft free to evaluate the prospects based on their actual ability and not worry about replacing Forbes.



    I don't think the Spurs should "take gambles and try to draft stars". At least, I don't think that a guy potentially being a star means it's okay to be raw. I sort of take issue with the suggestion that a future star has to be raw and basically unplayable before being drafted. Guys like George and Leonard had role-player floors with NBA niches. Not that the early results suggest it, but for all we know, Vassell with put things together and progress from three-and-D guy to legit offensive option as well. I don't regret the Spurs not drafting Pokusevski. I still like Clarke, and I still think he'd be a fine player for the team to have right now. That he's not getting minutes on a Memphis team that just straight cut Gorgui Dieng doesn't really change my mind. Memphis at least has a stacked big-man rotation and is a playoff team. The Spurs don't have a lot of PF options and still didn't find a way to have Samanic in their rotation until they basically started tanking.

    That's why I'm not against Kispert (that and because he actually seems to have more offensive upside than his role-player projection would assume). Elite role-players not only help stars develop, but they also have a ton of trade value. If the Spurs are going to eventually do the three-step process to build themselves into a contender, getting a solid core of young/cheap players with a lot of trade value is essential. The Spurs are going to have to get used to trading their players, because they aren't going to draft a star trio and hold onto them long enough to have an OKC-like rise.
    I was going to mention something about Clarke but it got deleted and then decided not to reference it later bc its simply fans saving face for the FO, which they are allowed to do if they want.

    But my point was going to be very similar to yours with regard to Clarke. I still think he’s a useful player but a team that has a healthy JV and JJJ, will have most of their big men minutes covered in the postseason. On top of that Kyle has produced well for them at the 4, effectively taking any minutes away that JJJ isn’t playing at that spot. If it wasn’t bc JJJ is so raw and makes so many mistakes when he plays the 5, Tillman wouldn’t really see minutes either. Tillman playing is more to cover up for JJJ being an unfinished project who can’t play the 5 without fouling at this point in his career. However, I think that if needed for whatever reason (foul problems most likely) Clarke can come in and will play well. As you said, even Dieng wasn’t getting played in that team.

    And then, there’s the point you made about how the Spurs don’t really have that many big men. They lost minutes from LMA and went away from Lyles (or he got injured...with the ankle disease that wouldn’t heal hmmm?) and they still couldn’t find minutes for Samanic except for rest games, blowouts, etc. that’s an absolute lack of confidence that he could contribute this year.

    It says that he doesn’t do anything that Keldon already does better than him, or that he could play well next to Gay and do a better job than the undrafted Eubanks was doing there. In fact going out and getting Dieng is more damning bc he’s a better shooter and rim protector than Samanic is and fulfilled a niche as a spacing shooting big.

    Luka as it is, doesn’t have a niche. I can see he runs like a deer and can make plays off the bounce, maybe he’s more of a tall wing, but he can’t shoot as of right now and if he’s a tall wing the shorter wings the Spurs have are better. He’s going to have to earn his minutes and he hasn’t.

    I will say though that pointing these things out is not an indication that one isn’t rooting for that guy to get better, but one has to take the rose colored glasses off when evaluating his season. I hope he puts the work in summer league and thereafter to come back better next year.

    You made an interesting point about not blowing picks on wide misses when good players are already there and how the Spurs will have to get on opportunistic trades to get their guy if they have to. Fingers crossed.

  7. #1382
    Believe. PrimeMinister's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    626
    Luka will stick next year not as a scorer or anything like that- but as a defense first glass cleaner providing height at a position of need. Clearly fills the role of the modern 4- switchable defensively, can guard in the post and help at the rim if the center is out of position. Spot up and hit a 3 when necessary. The face up game doesn’t even need to be there yet with the ball handlers already on the team.

    His minutes were sparse, but the tools he has defensively and instincts on the glass will be quickly repeatable and very valuable within the context of this roster. He showed more between gleague and even just the knicks game than Bruno showed his entire career.

    scoring will take a while. But he has an immediate role with skills he already has and I’m surprised to see some of the more usually brilliant minds of spurs talk not seeing that.

  8. #1383
    Hope springs eternal. SAGirl's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    27,774
    Luka will stick next year not as a scorer or anything like that- but as a defense first glass cleaner providing height at a position of need. Clearly fills the role of the modern 4- switchable defensively, can guard in the post and help at the rim if the center is out of position. Spot up and hit a 3 when necessary. The face up game doesn’t even need to be there yet with the ball handlers already on the team.

    His minutes were sparse, but the tools he has defensively and instincts on the glass will be quickly repeatable and very valuable within the context of this roster. He showed more between gleague and even just the knicks game than Bruno showed his entire career.

    scoring will take a while. But he has an immediate role with skills he already has and I’m surprised to see some of the more usually brilliant minds of spurs talk not seeing that.
    I am hoping to see that next season (would love to see him in summer league as well, that wrist injury was unfortunate).

    Also my comparison to Bruno is about how far away the player is from becoming the ideal version the FO had of him when drafted. Bruno had some impressive physical tools and even one season where he looked like he might have finally put it together as a role player in the league (never mind the Durant or Greek freak comparison—-in terms of body measurements—-just as a rotation player) and yet he didn’t stick in the league, but even if he came back and was signed to a team (he’s still young enough) after getting more experience in a different league, that doesn’t take away the fact that it took him over 6-7 years to figure out how to be a role player. I don’t think Samanic is that far away but he also has to show it on the court at this point.
    Last edited by SAGirl; 05-26-2021 at 11:22 AM.

  9. #1384
    Veteran rjv's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    9,605
    I had a lengthy response but it got erased when I was mul asking. lol

    No matter the short version is that I hope they don’t gamble so wide that they end up with another Samanic, or Bruno Caboclo (which Samanic is close to being... he’s on pace at least, “2 years away from being 2 years away”.). The further he is from being a rotation player, the more he looks like Bruno, and the more unlikely it seems that he’s going to pan out. He needs to become a useful rotation player by this next season or he can start to be considered a wide miss. However, I can understand the gamble on his athleticism and unusual skill. That year the Spurs had two swipes at the cart and a good chance to come out of that draft with at least one good player.

    This summer there’s going to be useful players where the Spurs pick. Gambles as wide as Livio Jean Charles are better left for later in the draft because most of the time all you find is a LJC in gambles like that. Having said that, sometimes the best player available is just a piece of the puzzle, not the main part of the puzzle. Like if they find a Klay Thompson, he’s not the main guy in a championship team, but he’s a significant part of it and worth taking.
    samanic is a highly skilled player and a rarity. you don't come across 6'10" athletes who have his skill set that often so you take the chance. KA never fully hit his potential here and is now having his coming out party-and he had two years of college at UCLA when the spurs drafted him so KA was far more polished and coached up than luka was when drafted. also, KA never had to deal with a shortened season in which the summer league and training camps were essentially cancelled. so i agree with timvp here: luka is still maturing whereas some of the safer picks from that same draft have hit their very pedestrian caps.

  10. #1385
    Remember Cherokee Parks The Truth #6's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Post Count
    6,114
    I have optimistic hopes for Luka next season. But that shouldn’t factor in who we draft, for example, I am fine with Wagner if that’s who they go with, if he’s available.

  11. #1386
    Hope springs eternal. SAGirl's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    27,774
    samanic is a highly skilled player and a rarity. you don't come across 6'10" athletes who have his skill set that often so you take the chance. KA never fully hit his potential here and is now having his coming out party-and he had two years of college at UCLA when the spurs drafted him so KA was far more polished and coached up than luka was when drafted. also, KA never had to deal with a shortened season in which the summer league and training camps were essentially cancelled. so i agree with timvp here: luka is still maturing whereas some of the safer picks from that same draft have hit their very pedestrian caps.
    I am going to completely ignore the KA point bc it’s discussed somewhere else at length and it’s irrelevant for Luka.

    I hope Luka becomes a useful player, but that’s still to be seen. That’s part of the point. Also, if it wasn’t bc the team drafted Keldon that season, they wouldn’t have much to show for it right up to this point. I think that bc they had two opportunities to draft a good player that year the gamble was fair and hitting on one out of two first draft picks are acceptable odds. I am going to be bold and say even if Luka doesn’t pan out at all it doesn’t hurt them because Keldon panned out for the team.

    But I want them to draft a guy who can contribute and show something next season, even if the guy still needs to get better, like many rookies do.

  12. #1387
    Shaken, not stirred jjspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    705
    I am going to completely ignore the KA point bc it’s discussed somewhere else at length and it’s irrelevant for Luka.

    I hope Luka becomes a useful player, but that’s still to be seen. That’s part of the point. Also, if it wasn’t bc the team drafted Keldon that season, they wouldn’t have much to show for it right up to this point. I think that bc they had two opportunities to draft a good player that year the gamble was fair and hitting on one out of two first draft picks are acceptable odds. I am going to be bold and say even if Luka doesn’t pan out at all it doesn’t hurt them because Keldon panned out for the team.


    But I want them to draft a guy who can contribute and show something next season, even if the guy still needs to get better, like many rookies do.
    Totally agree with your points about Luka. In Kyle Anderson's last two years with the spurs, he became a valuable role player, just not valuable enough to justify his new salary and so he was not matched. Luka needs to improve significantly to become a rotation player or he may have the same fate as Kyle Anderson an unappreciated and unmatched player who's future may be somewhere else.

  13. #1388
    Veteran rjv's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    9,605
    Luka will stick next year not as a scorer or anything like that- but as a defense first glass cleaner providing height at a position of need. Clearly fills the role of the modern 4- switchable defensively, can guard in the post and help at the rim if the center is out of position. Spot up and hit a 3 when necessary. The face up game doesn’t even need to be there yet with the ball handlers already on the team.

    His minutes were sparse, but the tools he has defensively and instincts on the glass will be quickly repeatable and very valuable within the context of this roster. He showed more between gleague and even just the knicks game than Bruno showed his entire career.

    scoring will take a while. But he has an immediate role with skills he already has and I’m surprised to see some of the more usually brilliant minds of spurs talk not seeing that.
    i don't see how some posters seem to ignore what luka showed on the defensive side of the ball.

  14. #1389
    Veteran Dejounte's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    13,620
    i don't see how some posters seem to ignore what luka showed on the defensive side of the ball.
    People are using Pop's conservative ways of handing minutes to the youth as an end-all-be-all indication of their future. With that said, I think it's next year that will be most telling about Luka's future. As I've noted in the past, there's no reason for him to be hyped up if there was no plan for him. But the fact is, he is.

  15. #1390
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,749
    My disagreement comes from the idea that the Spurs "need shooting".
    Bruh.

    First, I don't actually think that those players can move out of that group. Both Murray and Johnson will shoot threes more next season and hopefully at a higher percentage. The issue with them is likely the same issue as with White. White is basically shooting to make him and Murray work. Yes, he had stretches where his off-dribble three was cooking too. But the kind of shots White was taking does nothing to take the offense from its iso, "hydra" track. White is basically doing subsistence shooting right now, shooting enough for him to justify being on the floor and to open up his game. If Murray and Johnson get to that level, sure, it'll be somewhat harder to help. But the offense will still lack structure and dynamism because they don't have off-ball threats. They'd just have guys who will shoot if they're open enough but will otherwise stand around waiting for their turn to drive into the teeth of the defense.
    So, once you've labeled someone a non-three-point shooter, it's impossible for them to become a three-point shooter even if their three-point shooting volume increases to an elite level? Interesting.

    Tbh, though, this is a discussion for another thread. Obviously, you don't like the roster composition or the offense. That's fine, tbh, I would rather discuss in another thread.

    Seriously just Booker on your list was drafted in the lottery, and he clearly had a legit floor as a shooter anyway.

    Still, perhaps I didn't state the position clearly enough. It's not that guys can't be raw. It's that saying, "Who cares, if it's only a one-percent chance? If he pans out, he'll be a star", can't be used as the main justification to draft guys who don't even look like clear NBA players.
    Booker averaged ten points in college. He didn't have much of a floor at all.

    But, anyways, the perfect example is Giannis. Would you want the Spurs to take Giannis-type gambles? That's what the Spurs will need to figure out (and it'd be interesting to see if you think they should take such gambles). Giannis was the 15th pick, the first pick outside of the lottery, so he's a perfect example of the type of player the Spurs will need to ponder taking. Going into the draft, he was basically a blank slate with raw physical tools. His floor was obviously really low.

    San Antonio will need to decide on whether low-floor, high-ceiling players are worth gambling on at 12 because this draft has a ton of those players. I'd put Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson, Scottie Barnes, Josh Giddey, Apleren Sengun, Sharife Cooper and Kai Jones in that category off the top of my head. These players could all either become All-Stars or be out of the league in three years.

    Sure, it's preferable to draft potential All-Stars with role player floors ... but this draft doesn't have that. Moses Moody might be the only player who fits into that category.

  16. #1391
    Veteran ace3g's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    38,107
    Spurs need 3 point shooting because it gives you more options in PnR as well as makes the defense have to make a decision how to guard the PnR.

  17. #1392
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    You're saying that because you're looking at the current roster. Right now, I'm not sure they "have" anything. So we don't actually know what they "need" yet. Last year, you agreed with the idea that the Spurs didn't have holes because that implied there was some structure which already existed that needed to be shored up. A year didn't change that. I'd argue it just got worse. The Spurs don't need shooting if we're talking about the future when they eventually draft a potential star. They can easily get that from other sources. They only "need" it in the context of having no shooters right now. They can and should draft a relative non-shooter if that is BPA and move the established guys in order to create room for other shooters. You don't actually have to prioritize the skill. If Ben Simmons 2.0 were available with the Spurs pick, you take him and trade guys like Murray 10/10 times.

    Now if you said, "The Spurs need to change their philosophy and make sure that everyone they draft has to be a good shooter", then I can accept that as something that isn't worrying after the fit with the current roster. I think you could mean it that way, but you still mention his fit with the current roster, which adds confusion if you didn't intend to take that into account.

    So, once you've labeled someone a non-three-point shooter, it's impossible for them to become a three-point shooter even if their three-point shooting volume increases to an elite level? Interesting.

    Tbh, though, this is a discussion for another thread. Obviously, you don't like the roster composition or the offense. That's fine, tbh, I would rather discuss in another thread.
    And we'll have plenty of time this off-season to talk about that. I won't keep pulling this thread in that direction, at least not unless there's some reason to later on. I don't think we disagree that a) the Spurs should draft BPA and b) BPA might well be a role-player. We can agree to agree on that and agree to table most of the other stuff. Post lotto when the range of possible first-rounders shrinks, I'll likely want to revisit restructuring the roster as part of addressing the draft.

    Booker averaged ten points in college. He didn't have much of a floor at all.
    So I think Booker showed that he was a good shooter in college. Just like how good rebounding is something that translates, good shooting tends to be. Even if they don't break out, good shooters are valuable on all sorts of teams. He had a decent floor on that alone.

    But, anyways, the perfect example is Giannis. Would you want the Spurs to take Giannis-type gambles? That's what the Spurs will need to figure out (and it'd be interesting to see if you think they should take such gambles). Giannis was the 15th pick, the first pick outside of the lottery, so he's a perfect example of the type of player the Spurs will need to ponder taking. Going into the draft, he was basically a blank slate with raw physical tools. His floor was obviously really low.

    San Antonio will need to decide on whether low-floor, high-ceiling players are worth gambling on at 12 because this draft has a ton of those players. I'd put Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson, Scottie Barnes, Josh Giddey, Apleren Sengun, Sharife Cooper and Kai Jones in that category off the top of my head. These players could all either become All-Stars or be out of the league in three years.

    Sure, it's preferable to draft potential All-Stars with role player floors ... but this draft doesn't have that. Moses Moody might be the only player who fits into that category.
    It's important to note that terms like floor and ceiling are only really framing devices to help us understand possible development paths that in reality have a lot of dimensions and motion to them. In addition to how good a player might potentially be is how likely is it for a player to get there and how quickly can they progress. With that in mind, we have no idea how likely teams think it is for them to coach up prospects we think of as being raw. Maybe Milwaukee's staff thought they had a clear path for Giannis and that they were basically sure he could at least be a defensive dynamo (which was a more viable role to play in 2015). Very little in player development is an actual gamble. Leonard fixing his shot wasn't a chance thing. I don't disagree with the spirit of what you're saying when it comes to the Spurs taking calculated risks. But when it comes what we as fans, or at least I as an individual fan, want, I don't support the idea that the Spurs should reach for the stars with their picks, because I don't think the upside of those picks is really worth the opportunity cost once you factor in the realities on the NBA.

  18. #1393
    Veteran JeffDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    3,035
    Spurs need 3 point shooting because it gives you more options in PnR as well as makes the defense have to make a decision how to guard the PnR.
    And also, ahem, it scores points. Which is kinda important to winning games.

  19. #1394
    Veteran rjv's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    9,605
    i think that what complicates matters is the not fully knowing where the spurs stand with this current roster. to say that walker, murray, kj and luka are not panning out is a bit premature. i'd even add d white to that mix. this past year, this team had no summer league, no real off-season development and no legit training camp. then the team had to deal with one of the most brutal second-half schedules one could muster up while changing line-ups as often as the kardashians go through NBA players. i'll wait until next season before i pass judgement on what this team has in terms of its future.

  20. #1395
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    A lot of the comments about Kispert are valid and they obviously shouldn't be fixated on drafting him, but the difference between him and someone like Forbes is though they're both relatively athletically deficient, he's not a physical liability and shooters with size are not dime a dozen and don't come cheap. Look no further than Bertans and Harris last off season and Robinson and McDermott this off season.

    I'm usually a swing for the fences type, especially in their predicament, but you also can't force it. The gambles have to be calculated. Every player with impressive physical tools and a modi of ball skills isn't worth spending a lottery pick on.

    Also, high ceiling doesn't automatically equate to superstar or star. Sticking with Kispert, if he's the next Harris or close, that's a highly valuable role player either to the team or possibly as a part of a package for a star eventually.

  21. #1396
    Veteran R. DeMurre's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    3,581
    I think you get into potentially dangerous territory when you have the philosophy that shooters can be found anywhere. That's the issue the Spurs had last year-- they had shooters in Forbes, Belinelli, Lyles, and Mills-- problem was they generally weren't good at anything else and were ultimately liabilities rather than advantages. Same can be said for defenders-- Kidd-Gilchrist and Hollis-Jefferson are good defenders, but aren't really helping their teams because their other shortcomings are too prominent. Milwaukee can use a guy like Forbes as their #8 guy thanks primarily to Giannis, but Giannis also has Holiday, Middleton, and Lopez-- guys who aren't one dimensional.

  22. #1397
    Forum Official Personal Life Coach BacktoBasics's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    11,001
    Some here, including myself see a considerable development in Luka. Yeah it’s frustrating that we didn’t see more of him or have a staff that opened him up and let him sink or swim but I believe bringing him along slowly will give us a more true perspective of what he really is.

    Sometimes patience and incremental progress helps players from becoming a bust before they can even develop a legitimate skill set.

  23. #1398
    Hope springs eternal. SAGirl's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    27,774
    I think you get into potentially dangerous territory when you have the philosophy that shooters can be found anywhere. That's the issue the Spurs had last year-- they had shooters in Forbes, Belinelli, Lyles, and Mills-- problem was they generally weren't good at anything else and were ultimately liabilities rather than advantages. Same can be said for defenders-- Kidd-Gilchrist and Hollis-Jefferson are good defenders, but aren't really helping their teams because their other shortcomings are too prominent. Milwaukee can use a guy like Forbes as their #8 guy thanks primarily to Giannis, but Giannis also has Holiday, Middleton, and Lopez-- guys who aren't one dimensional.
    Great post. 10/10 summarizing the predicament of some fan opinions.

  24. #1399
    Believe. PhantomDashCam's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    2,326
    I think you get into potentially dangerous territory when you have the philosophy that shooters can be found anywhere. That's the issue the Spurs had last year-- they had shooters in Forbes, Belinelli, Lyles, and Mills-- problem was they generally weren't good at anything else and were ultimately liabilities rather than advantages. Same can be said for defenders-- Kidd-Gilchrist and Hollis-Jefferson are good defenders, but aren't really helping their teams because their other shortcomings are too prominent. Milwaukee can use a guy like Forbes as their #8 guy thanks primarily to Giannis, but Giannis also has Holiday, Middleton, and Lopez-- guys who aren't one dimensional.
    I'm with you on this too. Wonder what your thoughts are of Tre Mann in the draft? Are you buying that he's an elite shooter?

    I loved this piece about him from The Stepien btw:

    https://www.thestepien.com/2021/05/1...-and-springer/

    ...Mann lacks the blistering speed that some guys are lucky enough to possess, but he compensates and consistently creates advantages with his handle, pace and one-on-one movement skills. Along with his handle, Mann’s calling card is his shooting, with an emphasis on self created looks.

    According to barttorvik, Mann drained 40.2% of his threes while just 31.9% of them were assisted. For reference, that unassisted rate is historically off the charts and practically unheard of. In my database last year, which included 100 “draftable” prospects, Jordan Ford had the lowest assisted rate at 44.4%. Mann checks in 12 percentage points lower!
    Trae Young was the prospect I could find that had a lower assisted rate (26.3%) than Mann, but he wasn’t as efficient. The first rule of evaluating shooting is that not all percentages are created equally.

    On the surface, shooting 40% on his volume (4.7 attempts per game) is very impressive and would likely point towards an optimistic shooting outlook. Then, when you consider the load and average degree of difficulty on each of these attempts, it starts to become feasible that Mann might just be an elite shooter and shot maker. The Florida native has parking lot range, and aside from that being a valuable microskill, it also helps open up the rest of his game.

  25. #1400
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Post Count
    26
    I think you get into potentially dangerous territory when you have the philosophy that shooters can be found anywhere. That's the issue the Spurs had last year-- they had shooters in Forbes, Belinelli, Lyles, and Mills-- problem was they generally weren't good at anything else and were ultimately liabilities rather than advantages. Same can be said for defenders-- Kidd-Gilchrist and Hollis-Jefferson are good defenders, but aren't really helping their teams because their other shortcomings are too prominent. Milwaukee can use a guy like Forbes as their #8 guy thanks primarily to Giannis, but Giannis also has Holiday, Middleton, and Lopez-- guys who aren't one dimensional.
    Which reinforces the point why Kispert probably isn’t the best choice here with the current roster. He is just a shooter with size and not much else at this point. Guys like these are successful on rosters that have the overall talent to hide their deficiencies, the Spurs do not have that right now. The Spurs were expecting Forbes to play 30+ minutes, his role in Milwaukee is to just shoot, and the Bucks have the talent defensively to cover him. It’s exactly why he’s having a much better season.

    All of those shooters were essentially asked to do way too much because the Spurs didn’t have the talent for them to just focus on their role.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •