RealGM

It's interesting that both Lavine and Booker were both left off this team, and as far as I remember Booker didn't receive an invite as well. Is it a wakeup call to Booker also? I would have to think the lack of team success of both their teams last year with both those players in prominent roles as lead scorers would be enough of a wakeup call, and that the Team USA snubs for both of them is minor in the grand scheme of things. I think both Booker and Lavine have solid seasons with their respective clubs and that both teams are better than they fared last year.

Basically they opted for Mitchell and Middleton over Zach. That’s not a snub. And you can see from the rest of the roster they are going for balance and role players.

Looks fine to me.

Edit: Fox is a freaking stud and superstar in the making. And he plays a different position. So I don’t see any issue with his inclusion over Zach.

With Zach's defensive mental lapses, if you're a coach - do you really want him guarding the high precision offenses, cuts, and screens seen in international play?

It's not a snub. He needs to get better. To his credit, he knows it, has stated it, and is working on improving.

I like the team they put together (all things considered).

I don't think LaVine would've brought anything to that squad. I'd much rather have their 3D wings slide and overwhelm opponents defensively at SG (Jaylen, Middleton) sooner than have Zach play 1-on-1... or get 2 PGs on the floor and open up the spacing and creating (Kemba/Smart at 2).

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

Mark K wrote:Zach isn't better than Fox, who plays a different position, and while I think he's comparable to Mitchell, if that's who they're taking as their young scoring guard, it's not wild to think they slotted in a position for a defensive guard like Smart.

This should be a message to Zach that he needs to becoming a more winning player, both in metrics and on the floor. He's never really been part of a team that did anything of note. Guys like that get overlooked.

My question is this. What exactly is a winning player? Guys that play on winning teams? Sure. I get that. But how many examples have we seen of guys that were dubbed as “winners” when they were on great teams but later went into non winning situations only to become a shell of themselves. Kobe was a winner. But how much winning did he do when the teams around him were bad. Same with Wade. What about Ben Wallace? JR Smith was a decent contributor on some good Cavs teams. Does that make him a winner?

Now, I know that there are a handful of players that can single handedly lift a mediocre team to greatness. But generally speaking, being a winner has more to do with the team than any one individual. And in the case of Zach, he could definitely stand to do more to help his team win. But he’s been in some pretty jacked up situations that weren’t exactly conducive to winning. Hell, this dude really doesn’t know much else other than rebuilds. That’s just the hand that he’s been dealt.

Not only that, but Zach did sign that offer sheet with Sacramento which was then matched by the Bulls. Had the bulls allowed him to leave because he wasn't a winner only to see the Kings make a turnaround into a winning team last season, how would he be viewed then? Would Zach have been seen as the catalyst that turned the Kings around? would he be considered the best player on that team (over Fox)?

Senor Chang wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

Mark K wrote:Zach isn't better than Fox, who plays a different position, and while I think he's comparable to Mitchell, if that's who they're taking as their young scoring guard, it's not wild to think they slotted in a position for a defensive guard like Smart.

This should be a message to Zach that he needs to becoming a more winning player, both in metrics and on the floor. He's never really been part of a team that did anything of note. Guys like that get overlooked.

My question is this. What exactly is a winning player? Guys that play on winning teams? Sure. I get that. But how many examples have we seen of guys that were dubbed as “winners” when they were on great teams but later went into non winning situations only to become a shell of themselves. Kobe was a winner. But how much winning did he do when the teams around him were bad. Same with Wade. What about Ben Wallace? JR Smith was a decent contributor on some good Cavs teams. Does that make him a winner?

Now, I know that there are a handful of players that can single handedly lift a mediocre team to greatness. But generally speaking, being a winner has more to do with the team than any one individual. And in the case of Zach, he could definitely stand to do more to help his team win. But he’s been in some pretty jacked up situations that weren’t exactly conducive to winning. Hell, this dude really doesn’t know much else other than rebuilds. That’s just the hand that he’s been dealt.

Not only that, but Zach did sign that offer sheet with Sacramento which was then matched by the Bulls. Had the bulls allowed him to leave because he wasn't a winner only to see the Kings make a turnaround into a winning team last season, how would he be viewed then? Would Zach have been seen as the catalyst that turned the Kings around? would he be considered the best player on that team (over Fox)?

Kings got lucky we matched. I don't think they make a turnaround if we don't. They probably would have been the team that won less than 50 games over the last two seasons.

How exactly is not being on the team or publicly invited a wake up call for LaVine? He just got back healthy and was coming on strong last season. He's a up and coming star in the league and will help this team get better.

Well whatever, if you keep sim’ing through NBA 2k seasons, Lavine gets up beyond a 90 rating.

What is the difference between Mitchell and LaVine? I wonder if they swapped places what the narrative would be for each.

cjbulls wrote:What is the difference between Mitchell and LaVine? I wonder if they swapped places what the narrative would be for each.

They are similar offensively, but . . .

Zach's best DBPM is -1.7 (last year); Mitchell has been at -.2 in each of his two years.

Zach has never had a positive overall BPM; Mitchell has been positive in each of his two years.

Zach has consistently given away more on defense than he has added on offense.

johnnyvann840 wrote:

Senor Chang wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:
My question is this. What exactly is a winning player? Guys that play on winning teams? Sure. I get that. But how many examples have we seen of guys that were dubbed as “winners” when they were on great teams but later went into non winning situations only to become a shell of themselves. Kobe was a winner. But how much winning did he do when the teams around him were bad. Same with Wade. What about Ben Wallace? JR Smith was a decent contributor on some good Cavs teams. Does that make him a winner?

Now, I know that there are a handful of players that can single handedly lift a mediocre team to greatness. But generally speaking, being a winner has more to do with the team than any one individual. And in the case of Zach, he could definitely stand to do more to help his team win. But he’s been in some pretty jacked up situations that weren’t exactly conducive to winning. Hell, this dude really doesn’t know much else other than rebuilds. That’s just the hand that he’s been dealt.

Not only that, but Zach did sign that offer sheet with Sacramento which was then matched by the Bulls. Had the bulls allowed him to leave because he wasn't a winner only to see the Kings make a turnaround into a winning team last season, how would he be viewed then? Would Zach have been seen as the catalyst that turned the Kings around? would he be considered the best player on that team (over Fox)?

Kings got lucky we matched. I don't think they make a turnaround if we don't. They probably would have been the team that won less than 50 games over the last two seasons.

So the Kings (who still missed the playoffs) made their “turnaround” based on is matching LaVine. LaVine, who is apparently a bottom quartile player by all evidence that matters. Very cool take.......

bad knees wrote:

cjbulls wrote:What is the difference between Mitchell and LaVine? I wonder if they swapped places what the narrative would be for each.

They are similar offensively, but . . .

Zach's best DBPM is -1.7 (last year); Mitchell has been at -.2 in each of his two years.

Zach has never had a positive overall BPM; Mitchell has been positive in each of his two years.

Zach has consistently given away more on defense than he has added on offense.

It’s a crying shame that people continue to swear by metrics that are so blatantly flawed. It’s actually sort of scary to think about.

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

bad knees wrote:

cjbulls wrote:What is the difference between Mitchell and LaVine? I wonder if they swapped places what the narrative would be for each.

They are similar offensively, but . . .

Zach's best DBPM is -1.7 (last year); Mitchell has been at -.2 in each of his two years.

Zach has never had a positive overall BPM; Mitchell has been positive in each of his two years.

Zach has consistently given away more on defense than he has added on offense.

It’s a crying shame that people continue to swear by metrics that are so blatantly flawed. It’s actually sort of scary to think about.

Choose whatever statistic rocks your boat. LaVine is a poor defensive player; Mitchell is average to good.

bad knees wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

bad knees wrote:
They are similar offensively, but . . .

Zach's best DBPM is -1.7 (last year); Mitchell has been at -.2 in each of his two years.

Zach has never had a positive overall BPM; Mitchell has been positive in each of his two years.

Zach has consistently given away more on defense than he has added on offense.

It’s a crying shame that people continue to swear by metrics that are so blatantly flawed. It’s actually sort of scary to think about.

Choose whatever statistic rocks your boat. LaVine is a poor defensive player; Mitchell is average to good.

My eye test tells me that he’s a below average defender. The metrics say that he’s a putrid defender. That’s where the disconnect is for me. And that’s particularly troubling when such metrics allows certain people to ascertain that he’s somehow a net negative player because all of the magical advanced metrics say so.

See, here’s my issue with the advanced stats. There are certain team oriented aspects of the game that are hard to account for when developing these advanced stats. If one asks how can any stat that is team based be linked back to an individual player, the quick answer is “oh, well this stat accounts for that.” If one asks how, we get crickets. I’ve taken a fair amount of statistics coursework and I work in a field (Pricing) that revolves around lots of statistics and algorithms. Whenever I try to find out what these advanced stats are based on and the algorithms associated with them, I find nothing. Its like some secret recipe that we’re told to trust but never see. I’m sorry. I can’t do that.

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

bad knees wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:It’s a crying shame that people continue to swear by metrics that are so blatantly flawed. It’s actually sort of scary to think about.

Choose whatever statistic rocks your boat. LaVine is a poor defensive player; Mitchell is average to good.

My eye test tells me that he’s a below average defender. The metrics say that he’s a putrid defender. That’s where the disconnect is for me. And that’s particularly troubling when such metrics allows certain people to ascertain that he’s somehow a net negative player because all of the magical advanced metrics say so.

See, here’s my issue with the advanced stats. There are certain team oriented aspects of the game that are hard to account for when developing these advanced stats. If one asks how can any stat that is team based be linked back to an individual player, the quick answer is “oh, well this stat accounts for that.” If one asks how, we get crickets. I’ve taken a fair amount of statistics coursework and I work in a field (Pricing) that revolves around lots of statistics and algorithms. Whenever I try to find out what these advanced stats are based on and the algorithms associated with them, I find nothing. Its like some secret recipe that we’re told to trust but never see. I’m sorry. I can’t do that.

Also i feel zachs acl recovery will have him playing more tentative in some aspects and I'm sure there's some adv stat that will cook him for this

I don't see where the outrage is. Kemba/Lowry/Fox/Mitchell/Middleton all are better players than Lavine. The only one that is arguable is Marcus Smart, but his profile fits the roster better.

bearadonisdna wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

bad knees wrote:
Choose whatever statistic rocks your boat. LaVine is a poor defensive player; Mitchell is average to good.

My eye test tells me that he’s a below average defender. The metrics say that he’s a putrid defender. That’s where the disconnect is for me. And that’s particularly troubling when such metrics allows certain people to ascertain that he’s somehow a net negative player because all of the magical advanced metrics say so.

See, here’s my issue with the advanced stats. There are certain team oriented aspects of the game that are hard to account for when developing these advanced stats. If one asks how can any stat that is team based be linked back to an individual player, the quick answer is “oh, well this stat accounts for that.” If one asks how, we get crickets. I’ve taken a fair amount of statistics coursework and I work in a field (Pricing) that revolves around lots of statistics and algorithms. Whenever I try to find out what these advanced stats are based on and the algorithms associated with them, I find nothing. Its like some secret recipe that we’re told to trust but never see. I’m sorry. I can’t do that.

Also i feel zachs acl recovery will have him playing more tentative in some aspects and I'm sure there's some adv stat that will cook him for this

Zach’s biggest issue defensively is that he is weak in the very area that these defensive metrics hone in on, team defense. He’s actually pretty formidable as a man defender. He generally stays in front of his guy. He contests shots. He’s not losing his man all that often. But in terms of help defense and such, he doesn’t always seem to be cognizant of what’s going on outside of his man to man matchup and these advanced stats make you pay big time for that. I do find it encouraging that he called this out as a focus area for him and given his work ethic, I feel that this is something that will improve going forward. We shall see though.

Ferulci wrote:I don't see where the outrage is. Kemba/Lowry/Fox/Mitchell/Middleton all are better players than Lavine. The only one that is arguable is Marcus Smart, but his profile fits the roster better.

I agree with this in general. However, I’m not sold on the idea that Middleton is better and I don’t at all buy the idea that Smart is better. Fox is arguable but I’ll concede that.

bad knees wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

bad knees wrote:
They are similar offensively, but . . .

Zach's best DBPM is -1.7 (last year); Mitchell has been at -.2 in each of his two years.

Zach has never had a positive overall BPM; Mitchell has been positive in each of his two years.

Zach has consistently given away more on defense than he has added on offense.

It’s a crying shame that people continue to swear by metrics that are so blatantly flawed. It’s actually sort of scary to think about.

Choose whatever statistic rocks your boat. LaVine is a poor defensive player; Mitchell is average to good.

My eye test confirms Lavine doesnt make team better. Mitchell does. Guys like Lavine, Wiggins have negative BPM for a reason.

Showtime23 wrote:

bad knees wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:It’s a crying shame that people continue to swear by metrics that are so blatantly flawed. It’s actually sort of scary to think about.

Choose whatever statistic rocks your boat. LaVine is a poor defensive player; Mitchell is average to good.

My eye test confirms Lavine doesnt make team better. Mitchell does. Guys like Lavine, Wiggins have negative BPM for a reason.

If asked exactly what you mean when you say “make a team better” could you provide a detailed definition?