Jump into the Poole Party: The Official Jordan Poole Thread

[Runner300]

If you get invested in Poole as your pg, you get him control the game; him and Kuzma will take 40-50++ shots a game.
Also Kispert, that has to shoot a lot to justify his minutes.
BC and a new lottery pick, both need minutes and shots to develop.
Wise would be to trade my boy Deni and Jones as a package deal to some contender to run their 2nd unit.
I'm sorry to digress from the thread subject...

[pancakes3]

It's unorthodox but benching poole, but letting him play heavy 4th quarter minutes seems to be all Poole can handle. he's not disciplined enough to start. he takes a long time to warm up and isn't ready from the jump. and to get warmed up, he needs to take a crap ton of shots. better to let him get warmed up against bench players in the late 1st quarter than from tipoff, while shooting ourselves into a 10-0 deficit.

when he's on, he's on, and absolutely, play him in the 4th. but 4th q basketball is a different game from the first 3 quarters, and I'd rather keep the pieces on the team that can play the first 3 q's than rely on the guy who may or may not be on fire for the 4th.

[TGW]

Poole is a bench player. I think the coaching staff has realized this. If Bilal and Tyus were healthy, they'd be the starters.

Anyway, he's no longer China bound. I think he's elevated his game to 7th man which is fine.

[nate33]

Poole is a bench player. I think the coaching staff has realized this. If Bilal and Tyus were healthy, they'd be the starters.

Anyway, he's no longer China bound. I think he's elevated his game to 7th man which is fine.

Yeah, he's a bench player unless he can play starting-caliber defense (unlikely) or he can be a primary option scorer/playmaker like a Donovan Mitchell or Jalen Brunson (also unlikely).

Having a bad defender be only a #2 or #3 option scorer is not a recipe for success. You only permit a bad defender to start if he is a #1 option caliber offensive player.

But as you said, at least he has played his way into being a useful bench scorer. Hopefully he can keep it up and be at least as good as the guy we saw in Golden State 2 years ago.

[Pistol King]

Smart organizations are the ones that would trade him the first minute they get a chance. Especially now when he has increased his value and can be viewed as a (shorter) Jordan Clarkson volume scorer.

Yep, Poole can be a fun player to watch when he gets hot, he's very creative at finding ways to get buckets, but even when he's on he just doesn't play winning basketball and you know they can score on him right after at any given point. It's clear he wouldn't be satisfied as long as it's not "his" team. Let him go to an organization that has already an established system that can hold him accountable. There is no chance this organization in his current trajectory can hold accountable players like him or Kuzma. We've seen plenty of evidences for that. The only players this organization can "develop" are the ones who are willing listeners type players. Kuzma and Poole wouldn't change their game. It's already clear.

Now I know people gonna say "why caring about playing winning basketball when we need to tank the next 1-2 years anyway". But I believe that if you want to build something really good, it starts from the roots. You can't allow an empty tanking with horrible habits and just by drafting 1-2 top end talents to suddenly become a contender. You first plant the roots of the basketball you envision, and on that you add the talents you think might suit it the best way. And until that, you rely and develop the players you believe are the most likely to be key part of your long term vision.

[Rafael122]

Smart organizations are the ones that would trade him the first minute they get a chance. Especially now when he has increased his value and can be viewed as a (shorter) Jordan Clarkson volume scorer.

Yep, Poole can be a fun player to watch when he gets hot, he's very creative at finding ways to get buckets, but even when he's on he just doesn't play winning basketball and you know they can score on him right after at any given point. It's clear he wouldn't be satisfied as long as it's not "his" team. Let him go to an organization that has already an established system that can hold him accountable. There is no chance this organization in his current trajectory can hold accountable players like him or Kuzma. We've seen plenty of evidences for that. The only players this organization can "develop" are the ones who are willing listeners type players. Kuzma and Poole wouldn't change their game. It's already clear.

Now I know people gonna say "why caring about playing winning basketball when we need to tank the next 1-2 years anyway". But I believe that if you want to build something really good, it starts from the roots. You can't allow an empty tanking with horrible habits and just by drafting 1-2 top end talents to suddenly become a contender. You first plant the roots of the basketball you envision, and on that you add the talents you think might suit it the best way. And until that, you rely and develop the players you believe are the most likely to be key part of your long term vision.

I just mentioned it in the trade thread but a team like Orlando could really use him. They don't have consistent scoring and that's going to haunt them in the playoffs. I'm not saying he's the missing piece but what they're trading: expiring contracts and a pick that might be in the high 20s might be worth it to them. What's their alternative? Signing Klay to a $40 million per year deal?

[pancakes3]

Smart organizations are the ones that would trade him the first minute they get a chance. Especially now when he has increased his value and can be viewed as a (shorter) Jordan Clarkson volume scorer.

Yep, Poole can be a fun player to watch when he gets hot, he's very creative at finding ways to get buckets, but even when he's on he just doesn't play winning basketball and you know they can score on him right after at any given point. It's clear he wouldn't be satisfied as long as it's not "his" team. Let him go to an organization that has already an established system that can hold him accountable. There is no chance this organization in his current trajectory can hold accountable players like him or Kuzma. We've seen plenty of evidences for that. The only players this organization can "develop" are the ones who are willing listeners type players. Kuzma and Poole wouldn't change their game. It's already clear.

Now I know people gonna say "why caring about playing winning basketball when we need to tank the next 1-2 years anyway". But I believe that if you want to build something really good, it starts from the roots. You can't allow an empty tanking with horrible habits and just by drafting 1-2 top end talents to suddenly become a contender. You first plant the roots of the basketball you envision, and on that you add the talents you think might suit it the best way. And until that, you rely and develop the players you believe are the most likely to be key part of your long term vision.

Yeah, and I really don't think x's and o's are the hallmarks of a good basketball coach, and I don't even necessarily think draft ability is the hallmark of a good GM. These are necessary but not sufficient. Which makes sense if you view the overall organization as a business. Talent acquisition is just one facet of what makes the machine run.

And at the tippy top, the boomer ass owner is running it like an 80's-era corporate raider, trying to increase profitability by cutting costs instead of increasing revenue. His approach to facilities upgrades is like him scoffing at post-AOL internet companies putting in ping pong tables and not understanding that employee morale is a productivity multiplier, or that when you don't have a monopoly on internet access, customer experience dictates your profitability.

When the problem is "oh we can't sell out our tickets, and our floor seats are 1/10 what the Lakers can charge" the answer isn't to improve fan experience, it's to move 6 miles away where there's a higher median income. Just a doofus.

There's a business development professor, Hamilton Helmer, who said that there are 7 ways to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage, meaning if a company wants to distinguish itself from its competitors (other NBA teams, other sports teams, other entertainment options, etc.):

- Scale Economies: This means that as a business grows and produces more, its per-unit cost goes down. Big companies often have this power because they can spread out their fixed costs over larger units, making them more cost-efficient than their smaller competitors.

- Network Economies: This refers to the effect where the value of a product or service increases as more people use it. A classic example of this is social media platforms; the more friends you have on a platform, the more valuable it becomes to you.

- Counter-Positioning: A newcomer adopts a new, superior business model that the incumbent does not mimic due to anticipated damage to their existing business. An example is how Netflix, with its subscription model, counter-positioned against traditional video rental stores.

- Switching Costs: This is when it's difficult or costly for customers to switch from one product to another. This could be due to monetary costs, time and effort, or any other inconvenience. Software products, for instance, might have high switching costs if users have to relearn a new system or migrate large amounts of data.

- Branding: A strong brand can serve as a powerful moat. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for a brand they trust and recognize.

- Cornered Resource: This is when a company has exclusive access to a valuable resource. This could be in the form of a patent, a unique location, a talented team, etc.

- Process Power: When a company develops unique and superior methods of doing things that cannot be easily replicated by competitors. Over time, these processes can provide a sustainable competitive advantage.

We don't have scale economies, we don't have network economies, we don't have switching costs, we don't have branding (knicks and lakers have it).

We don't have a cornered resource relative to other teams, but the NBA as a whole is a cornered resource in the sense that it'd be hard for an ABA league to crop up on its own. I guess Jokic/Lebron/MJ are cornered resources in a sense.

The only way for the Wizards to become a successful business is to improve internal operations in a way that's not easily replicable, like what Riley brings to the Heat, or what the Spurs have. Even what Sam Hinkie did with moneyball isn't true process power, because it's easily replicable. It's much harder to replicate the soft skills that Riley and Pops can do with respect to implementing a culture on a team. Phil Jackson. Red Auerbach. Visionaries. The Patriot way in the NFL (vomit).

[DCZards]

The only way for the Wizards to become a successful business is to improve internal operations in a way that's not easily replicable, like what Riley brings to the Heat, or what the Spurs have. Even what Sam Hinkie did with moneyball isn't true process power, because it's easily replicable. It's much harder to replicate the soft skills that Riley and Pops can do with respect to implementing a culture on a team. Phil Jackson. Red Auerbach. Visionaries. The Patriot way in the NFL (vomit).

Improve internal operations. Isn’t that what Monumental and the Wizards have done (or at least started) with the hiring of Winger and Dawkins?

Next important internal step as far as the Wizards are concerned is to identify and hire the right head coach.

[badinage]

Enh.

Draft a superduperstar like Cooper Flagg and there’s your internal improvement.

[pancakes3]

The only way for the Wizards to become a successful business is to improve internal operations in a way that's not easily replicable, like what Riley brings to the Heat, or what the Spurs have. Even what Sam Hinkie did with moneyball isn't true process power, because it's easily replicable. It's much harder to replicate the soft skills that Riley and Pops can do with respect to implementing a culture on a team. Phil Jackson. Red Auerbach. Visionaries. The Patriot way in the NFL (vomit).

Improve internal operations. Isn’t that what Monumental and the Wizards have done (or at least started) with the hiring of Winger and Dawkins?

Next important internal step as far as the Wizards are concerned is to identify and hire the right head coach.

Maybe. The 7 powers that Hamilton Helmer prescribes is for a sustained competitive advantage over the market at large. We were below average for decades. Getting a competent front office only gets us to average, where we go through the ebbs and flows of success like any other franchise. The theory is that if you have something truly unique, one of these powers, there would be no downs, only ups.

I'd argue that only really Riley and Pops have something that's not replicable, in terms of front office operations. They manage egos well, they hold players accountable, they develop players well, they implement great discipline and conditioning for their players (especially Riles down in South Beach), and generally do not tolerate knuckleheads on and off the court. They're not blinded by talent.

Take for example, Draymond. GSW is really bending over backwards for the guy, and while they've had success with him, something clearly isn't working. And most GM's and front offices would have trouble managing Draymond. But I believe that if you shipped him to SA or Miami, there would be *something* there, unique and proprietary to their management style, that would make a difference in a way that other front offices wouldn't be able to replicate. Or even the fact that they are able to acknowledge their limits and wouldn't bother in the first place, which other GMs are incapable of doing. Maybe this better categorized as counterpositioning. I don't know, and I don't think there are hard or fast rules, just interesting concepts to frame my thinking.

The gist of the 7 powers concept is that you can do everything perfectly but that only gets you to what the market standard is. So competency is necessary but insufficient for sustained success. If you really want to stand out as a market leader, you need to be able to do something that other people can't copy you on, whether it's cornering resources, or having a unique internal operations, or counterpositioning yourself to zig where others are zagging, that's how you become the best.

If you just want to be competent, you can, but you'll be at the market average. Which isn't a bad thing - there are plenty of companies that operate at that level and are profitable.

And in a sports league context, there's something even more ok with being market average, because by definition, you can't be forced out by a market leader the way say, Amazon can squeeze out competitors.

[nate33]

Smart organizations are the ones that would trade him the first minute they get a chance. Especially now when he has increased his value and can be viewed as a (shorter) Jordan Clarkson volume scorer.

I don't see him being tradeable anytime soon. It's nice that he is no longer the worst player in the league, but he's a pretty long way away from actually being worth that contract.

[AFM]

Yeah. Going to need at least a half season of good play IMO. 5 or so games isn’t enough to change anyone’s mind.

[pancakes3]

^ and not in March

[Pistol King]

There is any example you can think of an organization that was going in a great direction when one of the worst players in the league getting a primary role on that team during this "process"?

I know it's a hot take, but I'd try to move Poole even if it means giving up a pick alongside it. Or at least giving up something with value just to move on from him.

His basketball influence is so bad for players you would want to develop that I truly believe it's impossible to go in a right direction as long as he's here. If the organization was treating him like a bench player, that is one thing, but it's clear they treating him like a primary option, and for this I'd also fault the org. You don't ruin the team in order to try and increase someone's value. That's not a healthy plan.

[nate33]

There is any example you can think of an organization that was going in a great direction when one of the worst players in the league getting a primary role on that team during this "process"?

I know it's a hot take, but I'd try to move Poole even if it means giving up a pick alongside it. Or at least giving up something with value just to move on from him.

His basketball influence is so bad for players you would want to develop that I truly believe it's impossible to go in a right direction as long as he's here. If the organization was treating him like a bench player, that is one thing, but it's clear they treating him like a primary option, and for this I'd also fault the org. You don't ruin the team in order to try and increase someone's value. That's not a healthy plan.

This is an overreaction. Poole was awful last night, but that's what you get with a streaky scorer, and nobody ever pretended Poole was anything otherwise.

Starting 2 games after Keefe moved Poole to the bench, Poole got his act together and has been playing pretty good basketball. And he continued to play well even after being re-inserted into the starting lineup to replace the injured Jones. In the 17 games prior to the Detroit game last night, Poole has carried a USG% of 29.2%, posting 21 points and 5.2 assists per game (in 31 minutes) with a TS% of .587, which is a fair bit higher than the team TS% of .565.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of Poole's architype. Instant offense guard scorers with so-so efficiency and don't defend are not winning players. But at least now he is playing like that architype is supposed to play.

[Pistol King]

This is an overreaction. Poole was awful last night, but that's what you get with a streaky scorer, and nobody ever pretended Poole was anything otherwise.

Starting 2 games after Keefe moved Poole to the bench, Poole got his act together and has been playing pretty good basketball. And he continued to play well even after being re-inserted into the starting lineup to replace the injured Jones. In the 17 games prior to the Detroit game last night, Poole has carried a USG% of 29.2%, posting 21 points and 5.2 assists per game (in 31 minutes) with a TS% of .587, which is a fair bit higher than the team TS% of .565.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of Poole's architype. Instant offense guard scorers with so-so efficiency and don't defend are not winning players. But at least now he is playing like that architype is supposed to play.

Nate, honest question, don't you think the org gives him way too much of a usage and FGAs for someone who is viewed by literally everyone as a bench player and nothing more? I've yet to meet one fan that wants to take Poole's contract, yet we somehow trying to convince ourselves that he's good enough to soak up so much usage and shots.

[nate33]

This is an overreaction. Poole was awful last night, but that's what you get with a streaky scorer, and nobody ever pretended Poole was anything otherwise.

Starting 2 games after Keefe moved Poole to the bench, Poole got his act together and has been playing pretty good basketball. And he continued to play well even after being re-inserted into the starting lineup to replace the injured Jones. In the 17 games prior to the Detroit game last night, Poole has carried a USG% of 29.2%, posting 21 points and 5.2 assists per game (in 31 minutes) with a TS% of .587, which is a fair bit higher than the team TS% of .565.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of Poole's architype. Instant offense guard scorers with so-so efficiency and don't defend are not winning players. But at least now he is playing like that architype is supposed to play.

Nate, honest question, don't you think the org gives him way too much of a usage and FGAs for someone who is viewed by literally everyone as a bench player and nothing more? I've yet to meet one fan that wants to take Poole's contract, yet we somehow trying to convince ourselves that he's good enough to soak up so much usage and shots.

Poole was the worst player in the NBA for the first 50 games this season. You don't have to convince me of that. I'm the most prolific poster on the Amazingly Sucky Poole Thread.

But the fact is, he has played considerably better of late, and our team has terrible guards. Kispert is the only healthy guard on the roster who is better than Poole and Kispert is getting starters minutes now. There is no good reason not to start Poole when he is playing pretty well and there are no other options. And statistically, he has shown over the last 18 games that he deserves those shots because he is scoring at an efficiency higher than the rest of the roster.

If we get a real PG capable of starting, I'll be the first guy to argue that Poole should be moved back to the bench.

[nate33]

High praise of Jordan Poole from Kispert:

Read on Twitter

[tontoz]

Yeah when Poole focuses on playmaking rather than chucking he becomes a much more effective player. I wonder if his recent play might mean that we dont try to resign Tyus. We could easily sign Butler to be the backup pg.

[Frichuela]

Yeah when Poole focuses on playmaking rather than chucking he becomes a much more effective player. I wonder if his recent play might mean that we dont try to resign Tyus. We could easily sign Butler to be the backup pg.

Yes, please!!! Tyus and Poole are a debacle together hence Tyus must go. If they can not arrange a sign and trade, I'd simply let Tyus go in the offseason.