Image ImageImage Image

Pessimists will not like this

Moderators: HomoSapien, GimmeDat, AshyLarrysDiaper, Payt10, RedBulls23, dougthonus, fleet, kulaz3000, Tommy Udo 6 , Ice Man, DASMACKDOWN

Ball4life32
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 952
Joined: Dec 05, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#41 » by Ball4life32 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:33 pm

wonderboy2 wrote:
nomorezorro wrote:markkanen is absolutely not a better defensive player than john collins

collins and lauri are both kinda weird imperfect prospects that present challenges to build around, but i think lauri has both a higher ceiling and lower floor

Not only is John Collins a bad defender, he’s one of the worst power forward defenders in the entire league. Look at his stats on defense. Ask any hawk fan about his defense. They will tell you that he can get you buckets and is a tough rebounder but his defense is horrid. In theory you would think he would be an excellent defender due to his strength and athleticism but that is just not the case.

No way Collins is one for the worst defenders in NBA.

Rookie year:
Collins +1.9 DBPM
Lauri -1.3 DBPM

2nd year:
Collins -1.2 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

Career:
Collins +0.3 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

So how is Lauri superior to Collins defensively? Collins actually was very good defensively as a rookie and no where bad as people say imo.

Offensively:

Collins - 19.5 points, 9.8 rebounds, 2.0 assists
.560 FG, .348 3 pt, .763 FT% - 21.8 PER / .627 TS% / +1.4 DBPM (30.0 minutes per game)

Lauri - 18.7 points, 9.0 rebounds,1.4 assists
.430 FG, .361 3 pt, .872 FT% - 17.1 PER / .553 TS% / -1.9 BPM (32.3 minutes per game)

PaKii94 wrote:Collins & Lauri are like polar opposites in player types. Collins is a force fed big who has a decent shot (can shoot 3s) but TERRIBLE defense (bad rim protection + bad perimeter d). He goes how Trae goes. Lauri is an offensive player who creates his own shot, has a much better shooting stroke (3s is a primary weapon for him) and he's mediocre at defense (decent perimeter d + poor rim protection).

In both aspects, Lauri is clearly ahead. What Collins is ahead in is finishing (pick and rolls) at the rim but idt there is much potential for more. It's like comparing KLove with Tyson Chandler with a semi decent shot. Tyson in the right situation can play his role better (DPOY) but KLove's all around package is valued more.

Collins averaged 19.5 points in only 30 minutes per game on elite efficiently at 21 years old. Tyson even with a shot has 0 chance to do anything close to that and he is nothing like Collins at all. Collins put up similar numbers at Wake Forest without Trae or a good PG.

wonderboy2 wrote: For as much **** Lavine gets about his defense Young makes Lavine look like a prime Gary Payton. Lavine is a better scorer, more efficient, better defensively, better rebounder than young.


Trae was a rookie compared to LaVine who’s been in the league 4 years. Zach’s defense has improved since his rookie year so let’s see how Trae looks defensively in year 4. Trae is ahead of him in most of those categories at the same stage.
User avatar
PaKii94
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,496
And1: 2,778
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#42 » by PaKii94 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:20 pm

Ball4life32 wrote:
wonderboy2 wrote:
nomorezorro wrote:markkanen is absolutely not a better defensive player than john collins

collins and lauri are both kinda weird imperfect prospects that present challenges to build around, but i think lauri has both a higher ceiling and lower floor

Not only is John Collins a bad defender, he’s one of the worst power forward defenders in the entire league. Look at his stats on defense. Ask any hawk fan about his defense. They will tell you that he can get you buckets and is a tough rebounder but his defense is horrid. In theory you would think he would be an excellent defender due to his strength and athleticism but that is just not the case.

No way Collins is one for the worst defenders in NBA.

Rookie year:
Collins +1.9 DBPM
Lauri -1.3 DBPM

2nd year:
Collins -1.2 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

Career:
Collins +0.3 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

So how is Lauri superior to Collins defensively? Collins actually was very good defensively as a rookie and no where bad as people say imo.

Offensively:

Collins - 19.5 points, 9.8 rebounds, 2.0 assists
.560 FG, .348 3 pt, .763 FT% - 21.8 PER / .627 TS% / +1.4 DBPM (30.0 minutes per game)

Lauri - 18.7 points, 9.0 rebounds,1.4 assists
.430 FG, .361 3 pt, .872 FT% - 17.1 PER / .553 TS% / -1.9 BPM (32.3 minutes per game)

PaKii94 wrote:Collins & Lauri are like polar opposites in player types. Collins is a force fed big who has a decent shot (can shoot 3s) but TERRIBLE defense (bad rim protection + bad perimeter d). He goes how Trae goes. Lauri is an offensive player who creates his own shot, has a much better shooting stroke (3s is a primary weapon for him) and he's mediocre at defense (decent perimeter d + poor rim protection).

In both aspects, Lauri is clearly ahead. What Collins is ahead in is finishing (pick and rolls) at the rim but idt there is much potential for more. It's like comparing KLove with Tyson Chandler with a semi decent shot. Tyson in the right situation can play his role better (DPOY) but KLove's all around package is valued more.

Collins averaged 19.5 points in only 30 minutes per game on elite efficiently at 21 years old. Tyson even with a shot has 0 chance to do anything close to that and he is nothing like Collins at all. Collins put up similar numbers at Wake Forest without Trae or a good PG.

wonderboy2 wrote: For as much **** Lavine gets about his defense Young makes Lavine look like a prime Gary Payton. Lavine is a better scorer, more efficient, better defensively, better rebounder than young.


Trae was a rookie compared to LaVine who’s been in the league 4 years. Zach’s defense has improved since his rookie year so let’s see how Trae looks defensively in year 4. Trae is ahead of him in most of those categories at the same stage.



Defense:

Defense is a hard thing to judge. It requires eye test be part of it along with an aggregation of stats. I will admit I haven't watched much ingame footage of Collins but the numbers are pretty damning for him. I like how you chose one of the few metrics Collins is ahead in compared to Lauri for defense ;)

Here are some other metrics and how to interpret them:
DRTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- 115 (113.9)
Lauri - 112 (113.2)

^ This is a team based stat but Collins is higher than ATL and Lauri is lower than CHI

DWS:
Collins- 1.0 in 1829 minutes
Lauri- 1.5 in 1682 minutes

^ Lauri's defense contributed to more wins in less minutes

Steals+blocks p100:
Collins- 1.6
Lauri- 2.1

Steals+blocks %:
Collins- 1.4%
Lauri- 2.8%

^ These are what Bulls fan complain Lauri is very anemic in....and yet Collins is substantially worse.

Shooting Fouls committed p36:
Collins- 2.1
Lauri- 1.3

^ Commits almost 2x the fouls

2019 D-PIPM/ multi-year D-PIPM:
Collins- -1.5/-0.8
Lauri- -0.4/-0.3

^ Last year might have been an outlier for Collins but for the career, Lauri is still better. (Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere PIPM is the closest stat to measuring defense but again not perfect)

DRPM:
Collins- -1.57
Lauri- -0.24
^ ESPN's stat. I don't put too much credibility on it but again pointing towards Lauri as the better defender

On-off court opponent ORTG/ On court Opponent ORTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- +2.5/ 115.7 (113.9)
Lauri- +0.4/ 114.4 (113.2)

This is the interesting one. The opposing team had a +2.5 better offensive rating when Collins was on the floor. and on average the opposing team was better compared to the overall team defense. Lauri did the same but not nearly as much. It was almost a wash for him

So I guess the point is both are poor defenders but Collins was worse.

Offense:

I'll admit Collins had much better efficiency and better numbers but that's where season context comes into play. Lauri came into the season recovering from a serious elbow injury on his shooting arm. Working back from it, for half a season Lauri was at 20/9 @ 57 TS% until a freak fatigue thing occurred and his game fell off a cliff and he was shut down. This fatigue thing shouldn't be chronic so it is reasonable to assume Lauri could continue at that level for offense. (Fans are obviously hoping for more though).

Now did Collins have something similar? Major injuries he was playing out of? Some freak incidences? (I am not trying to make excuses, I didn't watch enough of Collins so I legitimately don't know). Maybe there were and his season numbers don't account for that. IDK

Anyway, then you can look at offensive potential. Lauri was coming to form in February. He put up 26.5p/12.6r on 60TS% (his shooting splits were pretty mediocre tbh 49/36) This is a flash of his offensive ceiling. He could put up even better statlines if he actually got hot (something along the lines of 55/40). Did Collins ever have a stretch of games where he flashed his potential like that?

Finally, I admit the Chandler comparison is undercutting Collins however, my concern with him still stands. Collins is an under the basket finisher with a decent shot. This to me indicates elite "role player". His average distance from the hoop: 7.6 ft compared to Lauri's of 15 ft, almost doubled. Lauri's is much closer to a wing player (PG 16 ft, Durant 15 ft, Towns 11 ft, Jokic 10 ft, klove 15 ft, cousins 9ft).

Now that number isn't that damning. You can still be a superstar and stay under the rim but the major red flag is the assisted rate. Here are some assisted rate for some players: Klove .56, Towns .58, Jokic .54, Valanciunas .58, cousins .48

Lauri- .58 career, .54 last season
Collins- .73 career/last season

Collins is much more of a spoon fed big. Now let's look at his raw offensive stats. Generally his numbers put him in pretty elite company. These are the players who hit 19.3p/9.7r @ 60TS%: http://bkref.com/tiny/5q1HF

However, if you look at the list, the players who got spoon fed as much as Collins, they were ELITE defenders aka DPOY/All-defense type of players and they were putting up better numbers. Collins on the other hand is just the worst defender of the bunch. Lower than KAT and he is considered a sieve.

^ When you put all that together, I think Lauri is clearly the better prospect in the hopes of becoming a true star while I think Collins maxes out as an elite role player. Having said that, Collins clearly played his role better last year (i.e. more valuable player LAST year)

---

As far as Trae vs Lavine goes, obviously Trae is the better asset when you include contracts into consideration. Without including contracts, it is an interesting comparison. Trae is already more impactful on the offensive end however I think for him he has physical limitations on the defensive end. Even if his mental aspect comes around, he can only improve so much on that end.

For Lavine on the other hand, his defensive lapses are mental. The physical tools are there. If he can figure out the mental aspect, Lavine shoots up in impact. Will he get there? we will see but theoretically I think Lavine has more defensive potential.

On the offensive end it comes to playmaking vs pure scoring. I concede an elite floor general is a lot more valuable when isolated but I think Lavine's role on the Bulls as a scorer fits him well.
Ball4life32
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 952
Joined: Dec 05, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#43 » by Ball4life32 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:10 pm

PaKii94 wrote:
Ball4life32 wrote:
wonderboy2 wrote:Not only is John Collins a bad defender, he’s one of the worst power forward defenders in the entire league. Look at his stats on defense. Ask any hawk fan about his defense. They will tell you that he can get you buckets and is a tough rebounder but his defense is horrid. In theory you would think he would be an excellent defender due to his strength and athleticism but that is just not the case.

No way Collins is one for the worst defenders in NBA.

Rookie year:
Collins +1.9 DBPM
Lauri -1.3 DBPM

2nd year:
Collins -1.2 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

Career:
Collins +0.3 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

So how is Lauri superior to Collins defensively? Collins actually was very good defensively as a rookie and no where bad as people say imo.

Offensively:

Collins - 19.5 points, 9.8 rebounds, 2.0 assists
.560 FG, .348 3 pt, .763 FT% - 21.8 PER / .627 TS% / +1.4 DBPM (30.0 minutes per game)

Lauri - 18.7 points, 9.0 rebounds,1.4 assists
.430 FG, .361 3 pt, .872 FT% - 17.1 PER / .553 TS% / -1.9 BPM (32.3 minutes per game)

PaKii94 wrote:Collins & Lauri are like polar opposites in player types. Collins is a force fed big who has a decent shot (can shoot 3s) but TERRIBLE defense (bad rim protection + bad perimeter d). He goes how Trae goes. Lauri is an offensive player who creates his own shot, has a much better shooting stroke (3s is a primary weapon for him) and he's mediocre at defense (decent perimeter d + poor rim protection).

In both aspects, Lauri is clearly ahead. What Collins is ahead in is finishing (pick and rolls) at the rim but idt there is much potential for more. It's like comparing KLove with Tyson Chandler with a semi decent shot. Tyson in the right situation can play his role better (DPOY) but KLove's all around package is valued more.

Collins averaged 19.5 points in only 30 minutes per game on elite efficiently at 21 years old. Tyson even with a shot has 0 chance to do anything close to that and he is nothing like Collins at all. Collins put up similar numbers at Wake Forest without Trae or a good PG.

wonderboy2 wrote: For as much **** Lavine gets about his defense Young makes Lavine look like a prime Gary Payton. Lavine is a better scorer, more efficient, better defensively, better rebounder than young.


Trae was a rookie compared to LaVine who’s been in the league 4 years. Zach’s defense has improved since his rookie year so let’s see how Trae looks defensively in year 4. Trae is ahead of him in most of those categories at the same stage.



Defense:

Defense is a hard thing to judge. It requires eye test be part of it along with an aggregation of stats. I will admit I haven't watched much ingame footage of Collins but the numbers are pretty damning for him. I like how you chose one of the few metrics Collins is ahead in compared to Lauri for defense ;)

Here are some other metrics and how to interpret them:
DRTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- 115 (113.9)
Lauri - 112 (113.2)

^ This is a team based stat but Collins is higher than ATL and Lauri is lower than CHI

DWS:
Collins- 1.0 in 1829 minutes
Lauri- 1.5 in 1682 minutes

^ Lauri's defense contributed to more wins in less minutes

Steals+blocks p100:
Collins- 1.6
Lauri- 2.1

Steals+blocks %:
Collins- 1.4%
Lauri- 2.8%

^ These are what Bulls fan complain Lauri is very anemic in....and yet Collins is substantially worse.

Shooting Fouls committed p36:
Collins- 2.1
Lauri- 1.3

^ Commits almost 2x the fouls

2019 D-PIPM/ multi-year D-PIPM:
Collins- -1.5/-0.8
Lauri- -0.4/-0.3

^ Last year might have been an outlier for Collins but for the career, Lauri is still better. (Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere PIPM is the closest stat to measuring defense but again not perfect)

DRPM:
Collins- -1.57
Lauri- -0.24
^ ESPN's stat. I don't put too much credibility on it but again pointing towards Lauri as the better defender

On-off court opponent ORTG/ On court Opponent ORTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- +2.5/ 115.7 (113.9)
Lauri- +0.4/ 114.4 (113.2)

This is the interesting one. The opposing team had a +2.5 better offensive rating when Collins was on the floor. and on average the opposing team was better compared to the overall team defense. Lauri did the same but not nearly as much. It was almost a wash for him

So I guess the point is both are poor defenders but Collins was worse.

Offense:

I'll admit Collins had much better efficiency and better numbers but that's where season context comes into play. Lauri came into the season recovering from a serious elbow injury on his shooting arm. Working back from it, for half a season Lauri was at 20/9 @ 57 TS% until a freak fatigue thing occurred and his game fell off a cliff and he was shut down. This fatigue thing shouldn't be chronic so it is reasonable to assume Lauri could continue at that level for offense. (Fans are obviously hoping for more though).

Now did Collins have something similar? Major injuries he was playing out of? Some freak incidences? (I am not trying to make excuses, I didn't watch enough of Collins so I legitimately don't know). Maybe there were and his season numbers don't account for that. IDK

Anyway, then you can look at offensive potential. Lauri was coming to form in February. He put up 26.5p/12.6r on 60TS% (his shooting splits were pretty mediocre tbh 49/36) This is a flash of his offensive ceiling. He could put up even better statlines if he actually got hot (something along the lines of 55/40). Did Collins ever have a stretch of games where he flashed his potential like that?

Finally, I admit the Chandler comparison is undercutting Collins however, my concern with him still stands. Collins is an under the basket finisher with a decent shot. This to me indicates elite "role player". His average distance from the hoop: 7.6 ft compared to Lauri's of 15 ft, almost doubled. Lauri's is much closer to a wing player (PG 16 ft, Durant 15 ft, Towns 11 ft, Jokic 10 ft, klove 15 ft, cousins 9ft).

Now that number isn't that damning. You can still be a superstar and stay under the rim but the major red flag is the assisted rate. Here are some assisted rate for some players: Klove .56, Towns .58, Jokic .54, Valanciunas .58, cousins .48

Lauri- .58 career, .54 last season
Collins- .73 career/last season

Collins is much more of a spoon fed big. Now let's look at his raw offensive stats. Generally his numbers put him in pretty elite company. These are the players who hit 19.3p/9.7r @ 60TS%: http://bkref.com/tiny/5q1HF

However, if you look at the list, he players who got spoon fed as much as Collins, they were ELITE defenders aka DPOY/All-defense type of players and they were putting up better numbers. Collins on the other hand is just the worst defender of the bunch. Lower than KAT and he is considered a sieve.

^ When you put all that together, I think Lauri is clearly the better prospect in the hopes of becoming a true star while I think Collins maxes out as an elite role player. Having said that, Collins clearly played his role better last year (i.e. more valuable player LSAT year)

---

As far as Trae vs Lavine goes, obviously Trae is the better asset when you include contracts into consideration. Without including contracts, it is an interesting comparison. Trae is already more impactful on the offensive end however I think for him he has physical limitations on the defensive end. Even if his mental aspect comes around, he can only improve so much on that end.

For Lavine on the other hand, his defensive lapses are mental. The physical tools are there. If he can figure out the mental aspect, Lavine shoots up in impact. Will he get there? we will see but theoretically I think Lavine has more defensive potential.

On the offensive end it comes to playmaking vs pure scoring. I concede an elite floor general is a lot more valuable when isolated but I think Lavine's role on the Bulls as a scorer fits him well.

+1 for all the stats. Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.

Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.

Collins can dominate without being a high usage player and it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous. (Hawks were #1 in scoring at 119 ppg after the all star break with a rookie backcourt and 2nd year PF/C). His shot/handle is expanding so he absolutely can improve and look for his minutes/usage to expand with more experience
to put those rumors to rest.
User avatar
PaKii94
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,496
And1: 2,778
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#44 » by PaKii94 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:36 pm

Ball4life32 wrote:
PaKii94 wrote:
Ball4life32 wrote:No way Collins is one for the worst defenders in NBA.

Rookie year:
Collins +1.9 DBPM
Lauri -1.3 DBPM

2nd year:
Collins -1.2 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

Career:
Collins +0.3 DBPM
Lauri -1.6 DBPM

So how is Lauri superior to Collins defensively? Collins actually was very good defensively as a rookie and no where bad as people say imo.

Offensively:

Collins - 19.5 points, 9.8 rebounds, 2.0 assists
.560 FG, .348 3 pt, .763 FT% - 21.8 PER / .627 TS% / +1.4 DBPM (30.0 minutes per game)

Lauri - 18.7 points, 9.0 rebounds,1.4 assists
.430 FG, .361 3 pt, .872 FT% - 17.1 PER / .553 TS% / -1.9 BPM (32.3 minutes per game)


Collins averaged 19.5 points in only 30 minutes per game on elite efficiently at 21 years old. Tyson even with a shot has 0 chance to do anything close to that and he is nothing like Collins at all. Collins put up similar numbers at Wake Forest without Trae or a good PG.



Trae was a rookie compared to LaVine who’s been in the league 4 years. Zach’s defense has improved since his rookie year so let’s see how Trae looks defensively in year 4. Trae is ahead of him in most of those categories at the same stage.



Defense:

Defense is a hard thing to judge. It requires eye test be part of it along with an aggregation of stats. I will admit I haven't watched much ingame footage of Collins but the numbers are pretty damning for him. I like how you chose one of the few metrics Collins is ahead in compared to Lauri for defense ;)

Here are some other metrics and how to interpret them:
DRTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- 115 (113.9)
Lauri - 112 (113.2)

^ This is a team based stat but Collins is higher than ATL and Lauri is lower than CHI

DWS:
Collins- 1.0 in 1829 minutes
Lauri- 1.5 in 1682 minutes

^ Lauri's defense contributed to more wins in less minutes

Steals+blocks p100:
Collins- 1.6
Lauri- 2.1

Steals+blocks %:
Collins- 1.4%
Lauri- 2.8%

^ These are what Bulls fan complain Lauri is very anemic in....and yet Collins is substantially worse.

Shooting Fouls committed p36:
Collins- 2.1
Lauri- 1.3

^ Commits almost 2x the fouls

2019 D-PIPM/ multi-year D-PIPM:
Collins- -1.5/-0.8
Lauri- -0.4/-0.3

^ Last year might have been an outlier for Collins but for the career, Lauri is still better. (Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere PIPM is the closest stat to measuring defense but again not perfect)

DRPM:
Collins- -1.57
Lauri- -0.24
^ ESPN's stat. I don't put too much credibility on it but again pointing towards Lauri as the better defender

On-off court opponent ORTG/ On court Opponent ORTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- +2.5/ 115.7 (113.9)
Lauri- +0.4/ 114.4 (113.2)

This is the interesting one. The opposing team had a +2.5 better offensive rating when Collins was on the floor. and on average the opposing team was better compared to the overall team defense. Lauri did the same but not nearly as much. It was almost a wash for him

So I guess the point is both are poor defenders but Collins was worse.

Offense:

I'll admit Collins had much better efficiency and better numbers but that's where season context comes into play. Lauri came into the season recovering from a serious elbow injury on his shooting arm. Working back from it, for half a season Lauri was at 20/9 @ 57 TS% until a freak fatigue thing occurred and his game fell off a cliff and he was shut down. This fatigue thing shouldn't be chronic so it is reasonable to assume Lauri could continue at that level for offense. (Fans are obviously hoping for more though).

Now did Collins have something similar? Major injuries he was playing out of? Some freak incidences? (I am not trying to make excuses, I didn't watch enough of Collins so I legitimately don't know). Maybe there were and his season numbers don't account for that. IDK

Anyway, then you can look at offensive potential. Lauri was coming to form in February. He put up 26.5p/12.6r on 60TS% (his shooting splits were pretty mediocre tbh 49/36) This is a flash of his offensive ceiling. He could put up even better statlines if he actually got hot (something along the lines of 55/40). Did Collins ever have a stretch of games where he flashed his potential like that?

Finally, I admit the Chandler comparison is undercutting Collins however, my concern with him still stands. Collins is an under the basket finisher with a decent shot. This to me indicates elite "role player". His average distance from the hoop: 7.6 ft compared to Lauri's of 15 ft, almost doubled. Lauri's is much closer to a wing player (PG 16 ft, Durant 15 ft, Towns 11 ft, Jokic 10 ft, klove 15 ft, cousins 9ft).

Now that number isn't that damning. You can still be a superstar and stay under the rim but the major red flag is the assisted rate. Here are some assisted rate for some players: Klove .56, Towns .58, Jokic .54, Valanciunas .58, cousins .48

Lauri- .58 career, .54 last season
Collins- .73 career/last season

Collins is much more of a spoon fed big. Now let's look at his raw offensive stats. Generally his numbers put him in pretty elite company. These are the players who hit 19.3p/9.7r @ 60TS%: http://bkref.com/tiny/5q1HF

However, if you look at the list, he players who got spoon fed as much as Collins, they were ELITE defenders aka DPOY/All-defense type of players and they were putting up better numbers. Collins on the other hand is just the worst defender of the bunch. Lower than KAT and he is considered a sieve.

^ When you put all that together, I think Lauri is clearly the better prospect in the hopes of becoming a true star while I think Collins maxes out as an elite role player. Having said that, Collins clearly played his role better last year (i.e. more valuable player LSAT year)

---

As far as Trae vs Lavine goes, obviously Trae is the better asset when you include contracts into consideration. Without including contracts, it is an interesting comparison. Trae is already more impactful on the offensive end however I think for him he has physical limitations on the defensive end. Even if his mental aspect comes around, he can only improve so much on that end.

For Lavine on the other hand, his defensive lapses are mental. The physical tools are there. If he can figure out the mental aspect, Lavine shoots up in impact. Will he get there? we will see but theoretically I think Lavine has more defensive potential.

On the offensive end it comes to playmaking vs pure scoring. I concede an elite floor general is a lot more valuable when isolated but I think Lavine's role on the Bulls as a scorer fits him well.

+1 for all the stats. Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.

Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.
Collins can dominate without being high usage it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous. (Hawks were #1 in scoring after the all star break with a rookie backcourt and 2nd year PF/C). His shot/handle is expanding so he absolutely can improve and has a very high ceiling.


Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.


I think the differentiator is that Lauri's season was a trend upwards that grew to Feb vs hot spurts throughout the season. Also, yes I would expect Collin's mins to expand but usually production doesn't scale linearly with increased minutes.


Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.


That's interesting. I wonder how much it did effect his game. I could see it negatively impacting his defense.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.


That's cool but I can do similar things with lauri (See here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1883334&start=20#p78199050). Both players productions from last season puts them in the perennial all star cluster. It is definitely an encouraging cluster to be in.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.
Collins can dominate without being high usage it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous.


Again a good sign but doesn't really lead to "star" potential, that's more again elite "role player" grouping. He needs to show similar/increased production with higher usage. If he does then that a monster superstar level player.

Stars are the ones DRIVING the impact but in this case I don't see that with Collins (yet). If you plop Collins on another team, I am sure he gets his numbers but will those numbers be driving the wins? Idk I think not right now.

That's why I do think Trae is a much better prospect than Collins in that regards. I think Collin's numbers are a product of Trae's elite playmaking. I know you quote college but NCAA is a completely different beast which I don't think is comparable to NBA. All his numbers from college tell us is he has definitely at the level of an NBA player (which he has already confirmed with his seasons in the league)
Ball4life32
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 952
Joined: Dec 05, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#45 » by Ball4life32 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:07 pm

PaKii94 wrote:
Ball4life32 wrote:
PaKii94 wrote:

Defense:

Defense is a hard thing to judge. It requires eye test be part of it along with an aggregation of stats. I will admit I haven't watched much ingame footage of Collins but the numbers are pretty damning for him. I like how you chose one of the few metrics Collins is ahead in compared to Lauri for defense ;)

Here are some other metrics and how to interpret them:
DRTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- 115 (113.9)
Lauri - 112 (113.2)

^ This is a team based stat but Collins is higher than ATL and Lauri is lower than CHI

DWS:
Collins- 1.0 in 1829 minutes
Lauri- 1.5 in 1682 minutes

^ Lauri's defense contributed to more wins in less minutes

Steals+blocks p100:
Collins- 1.6
Lauri- 2.1

Steals+blocks %:
Collins- 1.4%
Lauri- 2.8%

^ These are what Bulls fan complain Lauri is very anemic in....and yet Collins is substantially worse.

Shooting Fouls committed p36:
Collins- 2.1
Lauri- 1.3

^ Commits almost 2x the fouls

2019 D-PIPM/ multi-year D-PIPM:
Collins- -1.5/-0.8
Lauri- -0.4/-0.3

^ Last year might have been an outlier for Collins but for the career, Lauri is still better. (Don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere PIPM is the closest stat to measuring defense but again not perfect)

DRPM:
Collins- -1.57
Lauri- -0.24
^ ESPN's stat. I don't put too much credibility on it but again pointing towards Lauri as the better defender

On-off court opponent ORTG/ On court Opponent ORTG (Team DRTG):
Collins- +2.5/ 115.7 (113.9)
Lauri- +0.4/ 114.4 (113.2)

This is the interesting one. The opposing team had a +2.5 better offensive rating when Collins was on the floor. and on average the opposing team was better compared to the overall team defense. Lauri did the same but not nearly as much. It was almost a wash for him

So I guess the point is both are poor defenders but Collins was worse.

Offense:

I'll admit Collins had much better efficiency and better numbers but that's where season context comes into play. Lauri came into the season recovering from a serious elbow injury on his shooting arm. Working back from it, for half a season Lauri was at 20/9 @ 57 TS% until a freak fatigue thing occurred and his game fell off a cliff and he was shut down. This fatigue thing shouldn't be chronic so it is reasonable to assume Lauri could continue at that level for offense. (Fans are obviously hoping for more though).

Now did Collins have something similar? Major injuries he was playing out of? Some freak incidences? (I am not trying to make excuses, I didn't watch enough of Collins so I legitimately don't know). Maybe there were and his season numbers don't account for that. IDK

Anyway, then you can look at offensive potential. Lauri was coming to form in February. He put up 26.5p/12.6r on 60TS% (his shooting splits were pretty mediocre tbh 49/36) This is a flash of his offensive ceiling. He could put up even better statlines if he actually got hot (something along the lines of 55/40). Did Collins ever have a stretch of games where he flashed his potential like that?

Finally, I admit the Chandler comparison is undercutting Collins however, my concern with him still stands. Collins is an under the basket finisher with a decent shot. This to me indicates elite "role player". His average distance from the hoop: 7.6 ft compared to Lauri's of 15 ft, almost doubled. Lauri's is much closer to a wing player (PG 16 ft, Durant 15 ft, Towns 11 ft, Jokic 10 ft, klove 15 ft, cousins 9ft).

Now that number isn't that damning. You can still be a superstar and stay under the rim but the major red flag is the assisted rate. Here are some assisted rate for some players: Klove .56, Towns .58, Jokic .54, Valanciunas .58, cousins .48

Lauri- .58 career, .54 last season
Collins- .73 career/last season

Collins is much more of a spoon fed big. Now let's look at his raw offensive stats. Generally his numbers put him in pretty elite company. These are the players who hit 19.3p/9.7r @ 60TS%: http://bkref.com/tiny/5q1HF

However, if you look at the list, he players who got spoon fed as much as Collins, they were ELITE defenders aka DPOY/All-defense type of players and they were putting up better numbers. Collins on the other hand is just the worst defender of the bunch. Lower than KAT and he is considered a sieve.

^ When you put all that together, I think Lauri is clearly the better prospect in the hopes of becoming a true star while I think Collins maxes out as an elite role player. Having said that, Collins clearly played his role better last year (i.e. more valuable player LSAT year)

---

As far as Trae vs Lavine goes, obviously Trae is the better asset when you include contracts into consideration. Without including contracts, it is an interesting comparison. Trae is already more impactful on the offensive end however I think for him he has physical limitations on the defensive end. Even if his mental aspect comes around, he can only improve so much on that end.

For Lavine on the other hand, his defensive lapses are mental. The physical tools are there. If he can figure out the mental aspect, Lavine shoots up in impact. Will he get there? we will see but theoretically I think Lavine has more defensive potential.

On the offensive end it comes to playmaking vs pure scoring. I concede an elite floor general is a lot more valuable when isolated but I think Lavine's role on the Bulls as a scorer fits him well.

+1 for all the stats. Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.

Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.
Collins can dominate without being high usage it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous. (Hawks were #1 in scoring after the all star break with a rookie backcourt and 2nd year PF/C). His shot/handle is expanding so he absolutely can improve and has a very high ceiling.


Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.


I think the differentiator is that Lauri's season was a trend upwards that grew to Feb vs hot spurts throughout the season. Also, yes I would expect Collin's mins to expand but usually production doesn't scale linearly with increased minutes.


Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.


That's interesting. I wonder how much it did effect his game. I could see it negatively impacting his defense.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.


That's cool but I can do similar things with lauri (See here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1883334&start=20#p78199050). Both players productions from last season puts them in the perennial all star cluster. It is definitely an encouraging cluster to be in.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.
Collins can dominate without being high usage it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous.


Again a good sign but doesn't really lead to "star" potential, that's more again elite "role player" grouping. He needs to show similar/increased production with higher usage. If he does then that a monster superstar level player.

Stars are the ones DRIVING the impact but in this case I don't see that with Collins (yet). If you plop Collins on another team, I am sure he gets his numbers but will those numbers be driving the wins? Idk I think not right now.

That's why I do think Trae is a much better prospect than Collins in that regards. I think Collin's numbers are a product of Trae's elite playmaking. I know you quote college but NCAA is a completely different beast which I don't think is comparable to NBA. All his numbers from college tell us is he has definitely at the level of an NBA player (which he has already confirmed with his seasons in the league)

Trae’s playmaking will help anybody but Collins did put up 10.5 points and 7.3 rebounds on elite efficiency (.620 TS%) in only 24 minutes last year as a rookie without Trae. He has produced everywhere so while Trae helps I believe Collins would produce with any PG.

When he came back from injury (which I think impacted his defense like you said because his Blocks/activity was higher later in the year) the Hawks improved drastically so I think it’s clear he makes a big impact. Trae for sure is MUCH better with Collins on the floor.

Also there were times when Trae struggled early-mid last year & Jermey Lin played a lot of minutes (and into the 4th) and Collins still produced fine.
User avatar
PaKii94
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,496
And1: 2,778
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#46 » by PaKii94 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:37 pm

Ball4life32 wrote:
Spoiler:
PaKii94 wrote:
Ball4life32 wrote:+1 for all the stats. Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.

Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.
Collins can dominate without being high usage it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous. (Hawks were #1 in scoring after the all star break with a rookie backcourt and 2nd year PF/C). His shot/handle is expanding so he absolutely can improve and has a very high ceiling.


Collins did have multiple 5-6 game stretches averaging 23-12 but his minutes never exceeded 32-33 mins during any period of the season while Lauri put up his stats in 36.1 minutes a game in February. Look for Collins minutes to expand now that the Hawks won’t be tanking.


I think the differentiator is that Lauri's season was a trend upwards that grew to Feb vs hot spurts throughout the season. Also, yes I would expect Collin's mins to expand but usually production doesn't scale linearly with increased minutes.


Collins like Lauri started the season hurt...Hawks were 3-16 to start the year until Collins came back from his ankle injury and started playing regular minutes. Hawks finished 24-29 with the 2nd youngest starting lineup so he definitely had a huge impact.


That's interesting. I wonder how much it did effect his game. I could see it negatively impacting his defense.

Out of every big man in history that’s averaged 20 and 10 in their second season (most were perennial all stars) Collins did in less minutes (30.0 mins per game) than any big in history.


That's cool but I can do similar things with lauri (See here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1883334&start=20#p78199050). Both players productions from last season puts them in the perennial all star cluster. It is definitely an encouraging cluster to be in.

And Collins has always been an extremely productive big without being high usage. At WF he averaged 19 and 9 on elite efficiency in 26 mins a game without good PG play at 19 years old.
Collins can dominate without being high usage it makes the Hawks offense more dangerous.


Again a good sign but doesn't really lead to "star" potential, that's more again elite "role player" grouping. He needs to show similar/increased production with higher usage. If he does then that a monster superstar level player.

Stars are the ones DRIVING the impact but in this case I don't see that with Collins (yet). If you plop Collins on another team, I am sure he gets his numbers but will those numbers be driving the wins? Idk I think not right now.

That's why I do think Trae is a much better prospect than Collins in that regards. I think Collin's numbers are a product of Trae's elite playmaking. I know you quote college but NCAA is a completely different beast which I don't think is comparable to NBA. All his numbers from college tell us is he has definitely at the level of an NBA player (which he has already confirmed with his seasons in the league)

Trae’s playmaking will help anybody but Collins did put up 10.5 points and 7.3 rebounds on elite efficiency (.620 TS%) in only 24 minutes last year as a rookie without Trae. He has produced everywhere so while Trae helps I believe Collins would produce with any PG.

When he came back from injury (which I think impacted his defense like you said because his Blocks/activity was higher later in the year) the Hawks improved drastically so I think it’s clear he makes a big impact. Trae for sure is MUCH better with Collins on the floor.

Also there were times when Trae struggled early-mid last year & Jermey Lin played a lot of minutes (and into the 4th) and Collins still produced fine.


I am not denying Collins doesn't have impact, my main thing is elite role player impact vs star player impact. Low level star players have that elite level impact but they have the potential to reach greater heights. Elite roleplayers are at the maximum of their impacts. The numbers he put up as a rookie are very good but not star numbers. They are something like Clint Capela numbers (another elite role playing big). I think what distinguishes Collins from other rim-crashing bigs and could help elevate him is his shot. If he continues to develop his shot, it can help him go to the next level. But then again you wouldn't want him taking too many ill advised jumpshots just because he can shoot it. There is a delicate balance and idt he is there yet.

I am however excited for the future ATL vs CHI rivalries tho :wink:
chefo
Junior
Posts: 333
And1: 498
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#47 » by chefo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:39 pm

Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.

P.S. Just to clarify--I actually like Collins, he reminds of a young Boozer with better range on O, in how well he moves and knows where to go. That's actually a skill in its own right. You can tell Lauri did not grow up playing as a big, because he much prefers to pop than to roll, for example.
User avatar
PaKii94
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,496
And1: 2,778
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#48 » by PaKii94 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:47 pm

chefo wrote:Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.


I agree with 95% of what you said. You pretty much condensed my thought process into a post. However, the highlighted I still have trouble believing. Coldfish also had similar thoughts on that. I didn't see these issues last year but I also wasn't out looking for them. I did see the positive perimeter (on ball) defense and mediocre/bad rim protection (physically limited by his length) but his help defense didn't stand out one way or the other. Do you have any examples you can link me too?

To me our defensive system was already flawed last season (very switch heavy) and playing next to Portis/Parker definitely didn't help (Those were definitely bigs in bottom percentile in defense). It looked like to me in the end, it was every man for himself. Just guard your own man that is in front of you and let the team deal with the rest of the players. Obviously this is not the best defensive strategy.
Ball4life32
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 952
Joined: Dec 05, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#49 » by Ball4life32 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:00 pm

chefo wrote:Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.

P.S. Just to clarify--I actually like Collins, he reminds of a young Boozer with better range on O, in how well he moves and knows where to go. That's actually a skill in its own right. You can tell Lauri did not grow up playing as a big, because he much prefers to pop than to roll, for example.

Portis has been a negative defensively his entire career. Like i mentioned Collins was very good as rookie. He missed the first 18 games last year after an ankle injury in preseason + new coach in new system with a rookie backcourt and Prince was bad defensively.

First 47 games:
18 total blocks (0.4 Blocks per game)

Last 14 games:
21 total blocks (1.5 Blocks per game)

Those last 14 games are closer to his career averages so I think the first part of the year is an outlier.

Offensively Portis has a .527 career TS% compared to Collins .624 TS%. Even without Trae, Collins had a .620 TS% with big negative Schroeder at PG. Collins with a +1.5 BPM in 2 years compared to Portis -2.0 BPM in 4 years. I don’t see anyway Portis producing anything close to Collins if he was an Atlanta.

Also if Collins could be anywhere near Millsap defensively then that is a huge plus. Millsap is/was a beast defensively despite being 6’8 PF.
chefo
Junior
Posts: 333
And1: 498
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#50 » by chefo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:02 pm

PaKii94 wrote:
chefo wrote:Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.


I agree with 95% of what you said. You pretty much condensed my thought process into a post. However, the highlighted I still have trouble believing. Coldfish also had similar thoughts on that. I didn't see these issues last year but I also wasn't out looking for them. I did see the positive perimeter (on ball) defense and mediocre/bad rim protection (physically limited by his length) but his help defense didn't stand out one way or the other. Do you have any examples you can link me too?

To me our defensive system was already flawed last season (very switch heavy) and playing next to Portis/Parker definitely didn't help (Those were definitely bigs in bottom percentile in defense). It looked like to me in the end, it was every man for himself. Just guard your own man that is in front of you and let the team deal with the rest of the players. Obviously this is not the best defensive strategy.


Just something I noticed so often that it stopped surprising me at some point. Lauri was almost never where he was supposed to be, when he was the help big, and was forced to rotate. He was either much too late or did not rotate at all--at some point it was obvious to me that the opposing strategy was get the Bulls 5 (Rolo, WCJ) out on the P&R and have the Bulls 4s rotate to help--and it worked all the time because all three Bulls 4s never seemed to rotate and challenge drives competently or at all, and if Rolo stayed low, it was open shot every time. Maybe I saw it so many times that I'm wrong about it being pervasive, but I sure remember thinking it in-game.
User avatar
PaKii94
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,496
And1: 2,778
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#51 » by PaKii94 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:06 pm

chefo wrote:
PaKii94 wrote:
chefo wrote:Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.


I agree with 95% of what you said. You pretty much condensed my thought process into a post. However, the highlighted I still have trouble believing. Coldfish also had similar thoughts on that. I didn't see these issues last year but I also wasn't out looking for them. I did see the positive perimeter (on ball) defense and mediocre/bad rim protection (physically limited by his length) but his help defense didn't stand out one way or the other. Do you have any examples you can link me too?

To me our defensive system was already flawed last season (very switch heavy) and playing next to Portis/Parker definitely didn't help (Those were definitely bigs in bottom percentile in defense). It looked like to me in the end, it was every man for himself. Just guard your own man that is in front of you and let the team deal with the rest of the players. Obviously this is not the best defensive strategy.


Just something I noticed so often that it stopped surprising me at some point. Lauri was almost never where he was supposed to be, when he was the help big, and was forced to rotate. He was either much too late or did not rotate at all--at some point it was obvious to me that the opposing strategy was get the Bulls 5 (Rolo, WCJ) out on the P&R and have the Bulls 4s rotate to help--and it worked all the time because all three Bulls 4s never seemed to rotate and challenge drives competently or at all, and if Rolo stayed low, it was open shot every time. Maybe I saw it so many times that I'm wrong about it being pervasive, but I sure remember thinking it in-game.


Hmm I will have to look out for that this upcoming season. However I think this was a product of the system. I think in those situations the 4s were told to stay home otherwise it'd open up an easy 3 for the opposing team (since our defensive rotations/switches were wack and not on a string)
chefo
Junior
Posts: 333
And1: 498
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#52 » by chefo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:14 pm

Ball4life32 wrote:
chefo wrote:Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.

P.S. Just to clarify--I actually like Collins, he reminds of a young Boozer with better range on O, in how well he moves and knows where to go. That's actually a skill in its own right. You can tell Lauri did not grow up playing as a big, because he much prefers to pop than to roll, for example.

Portis has been a negative defensively his entire career. Like i mentioned Collins was very good as rookie. He missed the first 18 games last year after an ankle injury in preseason + new coach in new system with a rookie backcourt and Prince was bad defensively.

First 47 games:
18 total blocks (0.4 Blocks per game)

Last 14 games:
21 total blocks (1.5 Blocks per game)

Those last 14 games are closer to his career averages so I think the first part of the year is an outlier.

Offensively Portis has a .527 career TS% compared to Collins .624 TS%. Even without Trae, Collins had a .620 TS% with big negative Schroeder at PG. Collins with a +1.5 BPM in 2 years compared to Portis -2.0 BPM in 4 years. I don’t see anyway Portis producing anything close to Collins if he was an Atlanta.

Also if Collins could be anywhere near Millsap
Defensively then that is a huge plus. Millsap is/was a beast defensively despite being 6’8.


Bobby has been a 20/10+ per 36, 20 PER guy the last coupe of years. He's not as good as Collins, as I already mentioned, and his 55% or so TS the last couple of years was more than respectable, given how much ISO he played. He's not as smart on O as Collins, that much is pretty obvious. But he produces.

On Collins, I just go by the eye-test of watching probably 4-5 games, so small sample size. But he did not look like any bigger than Aaron Gordon, for example, when I watched the Hawks in Orlando. He moves like a big, but he's probably 6'9 in shoes on a good day (I checked his official measurements already so no need to counter with them) and he's built more like a wing. Vucevic who's only listed at an inch taller dwarfed him... by a lot.

Older Millsap was awesome on D. Younger Millsap was OK to decent--that's what I mean--maybe if he can get stronger he can be a decent positional defender and hold down bigger guys like Millsap could. Not saying he will (see Amare who never got any better at any of these things), but in theory he could.
Ball4life32
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 952
Joined: Dec 05, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#53 » by Ball4life32 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:30 pm

chefo wrote:
Ball4life32 wrote:
chefo wrote:Watched John Collins a few times last season. He's pretty bad on D, not because he does not want to play D, or is grossly unaware, but because he's neither that quick (to guard anybody outside), nor long (to change shots), nor tall (to intimidate), nor strong (to bang with the really big guys), nor does he play bigger than he is like some smaller PFs do.

In other words, these are things that he can't really change. He reminds me of a less crazy, more focused Bobby Portis. Very, very similar strengths and weaknesses. If Bobby had Trae and was a 1a/1b option on a team, I can totally see him averaging something similar to 20/10. The problem with Bobby, just like with Collins, is that you can't leave them in the game for more than 30 minutes unless you have an elite D big next to them, because your D turns into Swiss cheese when they're in.

Can he become serviceable on D? Sure, but he'll always require a good D big next to him, if the Hawks ever plan on going anywhere. If he's lucky, he'll become young Paul Milssap competent on that end--in other words serviceable, a player who does not hurt you.

Now, Lauri has a different issue--he is woefully unaware on help D. Like bottom decile bad. I'm not sure if that's correctable or not, or the Bulls coaches simply sucked royally at teaching D (consider how bad all three of the Bulls PFs were--Jabari, Bobby and Lauri). That sucks for a major rotational big. Lauri has much better in-game athleticism that Collins, however, just by the eye-test and is a pretty big guy--the only player on the Bulls that Rolo did not completely dwarf. And for some bizarre reason, Lauri is actually a very competent wing defender--in one-on-one, people straight up struggle to both get past him and shoot over him already as a 20-year old. In that regard, he's already miles ahead of Collins.

The Hawks are doing the right things IMO and I am actually excited for them. The FO seems to be very realistic about the weaknesses of their main stars (Trae and Collins) and are looking to surround them with players that can mitigate them.

Lauri has insane potential, however, at least in my opinion. I think he can be a 23-25 pts/game scorer AS-IS, without adding a single new skill, if only he's featured the correct ways, and fed the ball where he likes getting it. He has a bit of Dirk in him where he has a little mid-range fadeaway from the FT line that's unguardable, for example, no matter who you put on him.

Collins is a very nice system big--that's not a dig, BTW; there's a lot of value in talented players who can play the right way--but he can't do the things Lauri can. One of the main reasons I was such a big Luka fanboy before the draft was because I thought Lauri needs somebody like him to unlock his full potential. It looks like Trae could have done the same.

Anyways, it will be fun playing the Hawks this year--I expect them to be borderline playoffs, especially if the rooks pan out.

P.S. Just to clarify--I actually like Collins, he reminds of a young Boozer with better range on O, in how well he moves and knows where to go. That's actually a skill in its own right. You can tell Lauri did not grow up playing as a big, because he much prefers to pop than to roll, for example.

Portis has been a negative defensively his entire career. Like i mentioned Collins was very good as rookie. He missed the first 18 games last year after an ankle injury in preseason + new coach in new system with a rookie backcourt and Prince was bad defensively.

First 47 games:
18 total blocks (0.4 Blocks per game)

Last 14 games:
21 total blocks (1.5 Blocks per game)

Those last 14 games are closer to his career averages so I think the first part of the year is an outlier.

Offensively Portis has a .527 career TS% compared to Collins .624 TS%. Even without Trae, Collins had a .620 TS% with big negative Schroeder at PG. Collins with a +1.5 BPM in 2 years compared to Portis -2.0 BPM in 4 years. I don’t see anyway Portis producing anything close to Collins if he was an Atlanta.

Also if Collins could be anywhere near Millsap
Defensively then that is a huge plus. Millsap is/was a beast defensively despite being 6’8.


Bobby has been a 20/10+ per 36, 20 PER guy the last coupe of years. He's not as good as Collins, as I already mentioned, and his 55% or so TS the last couple of years was more than respectable, given how much ISO he played. He's not as smart on O as Collins, that much is pretty obvious. But he produces.

On Collins, I just go by the eye-test of watching probably 4-5 games, so small sample size. But he did not look like any bigger than Aaron Gordon, for example, when I watched the Hawks in Orlando. He moves like a big, but he's probably 6'9 in shoes on a good day (I checked his official measurements already so no need to counter with them) and he's built more like a wing. Vucevic who's only listed at an inch taller dwarfed him... by a lot.

Older Millsap was awesome on D. Younger Millsap was OK to decent--that's what I mean--maybe if he can get stronger he can be a decent positional defender and hold down bigger guys like Millsap could. Not saying he will (see Amare who never got any better at any of these things), but in theory he could.

See I have see him in person against Jokic/Towns and they were bigger but no where dwarfed him.
Collins is a good 15-20 pounds heavier than Gordon...Collins has a weird body type but I think he’s stronger/heavier than you think.

I do agree with him struggling against certain 4’s especially in this small era due to his foot speed but I thought he played is best defense against bigger Centers like Towns/Jokic. Atlanta really didn’t have a good PF defensively to put next to Collins last year so he played mostly PF. He got more minutes at C later in the year and I thought he looked better defensively. He doesn’t have long arms for his height (6’11 wingspan) but he’s strong and is a great athlete.

Even though he’s only 6’7 I think you’ll see Hunter play a lot of PF with Collins at Center next year. Hunter has a 7’2 wingspan and good strength(still needs to get stronger) so the hope is he’s a plus defender and can guard the quicker and stronger PF’s.
User avatar
TheFinishSniper
Starter
Posts: 2,499
And1: 1,931
Joined: Feb 02, 2018
Location: Earth
   

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#54 » by TheFinishSniper » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:37 pm

Collins is really good NBA player. He factually outproduced Markkanen.

I still think Lauri will eventually be better player due skillset he possess. That's bet I am willing to make. Lauri really is a 7 foot guard and not big. So his stats look more of a guard than a big. But for time being efficency and stats wise Collins is giving more for less (usage). And if Collins get anywhere near skillset along usage with his stats that will be nasty player. I dont think he will, but I am certain Lauri can improve on his efficency when he is not for example bothered with missing months of playing time due elbow injury.
“If you were grading rebuilds and dropped in on the United Center on Wednesday night, you saw one team flying up the court, launching 3-pointers, sharing the ball and generally looking like it was having a lot of fun. And then you saw the Bulls.”
User avatar
Ben Wilson25
Pro Prospect
Posts: 821
And1: 215
Joined: Jul 14, 2006
Location: 1983 French Open
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#55 » by Ben Wilson25 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:04 pm

ChettheJet wrote:Pessimists will not like this

Take that fellow fans of the team we both love! In your face you jackwads!
NZB2323
Head Coach
Posts: 7,257
And1: 3,126
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#56 » by NZB2323 » Wed Sep 4, 2019 2:09 am

League Circles wrote:
Showtime23 wrote:
League Circles wrote:I admit I don't watch the Hawks. I'm proud of that and I don't really believe that anyone outside ATL does either.

I think a solid case can be made that the Bulls have at least 3 of the 4 best players between the two teams. Perhaps the best 4.

What decisions, specifically, should we be impressed with Schlenk for having made?

Not sure anything exciting has come from the Hawks since Dominique.


Trae Young and Collins are already better than anyone we have. And they added the highly coveted Hunter and hyped Reddish who is a rookie version of Leonard and George.
Add in poor mans Klay Thompson and thats a scary looking team that can still add a star or 2.

Trae Young sucks and always will. There's my "bold" prediction (strange to think it's controversial since he's terrible statistically and is a very low level prospect from a physical tools standpoint). Collins is good but I don't think he'll ever be anything special. Hunter should be pretty good but no reason to think he'll be better than Porter IMO. Reddish and Heurter are nothing IMO.

I truly wouldn't trade any of Carter, Lauri, Porter or Lavine for any of their top guys.


A 20 year old rookie averaging 19 ppg and 8 apg is terribly statistically?

Post all-star break he averaged 25, 9, and 5 with 44/35/88% shooting splits.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,520
And1: 7,271
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#57 » by League Circles » Wed Sep 4, 2019 2:16 am

NZB2323 wrote:
League Circles wrote:
Showtime23 wrote:
Trae Young and Collins are already better than anyone we have. And they added the highly coveted Hunter and hyped Reddish who is a rookie version of Leonard and George.
Add in poor mans Klay Thompson and thats a scary looking team that can still add a star or 2.

Trae Young sucks and always will. There's my "bold" prediction (strange to think it's controversial since he's terrible statistically and is a very low level prospect from a physical tools standpoint). Collins is good but I don't think he'll ever be anything special. Hunter should be pretty good but no reason to think he'll be better than Porter IMO. Reddish and Heurter are nothing IMO.

I truly wouldn't trade any of Carter, Lauri, Porter or Lavine for any of their top guys.


A 20 year old rookie averaging 19 ppg and 8 apg is terribly statistically?

Yeah, because counting stats don't really mean anything. He made a bad team worse when he was on the floor and was damn near the worst PG in the entire league by RPM. I'll give you a hint - as expected, he's an atrocious defender, and he really doesn't have the tools to get a lot better at that half of the game.
NZB2323
Head Coach
Posts: 7,257
And1: 3,126
Joined: Aug 02, 2008

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#58 » by NZB2323 » Wed Sep 4, 2019 2:23 am

League Circles wrote:
NZB2323 wrote:
League Circles wrote:Trae Young sucks and always will. There's my "bold" prediction (strange to think it's controversial since he's terrible statistically and is a very low level prospect from a physical tools standpoint). Collins is good but I don't think he'll ever be anything special. Hunter should be pretty good but no reason to think he'll be better than Porter IMO. Reddish and Heurter are nothing IMO.

I truly wouldn't trade any of Carter, Lauri, Porter or Lavine for any of their top guys.


A 20 year old rookie averaging 19 ppg and 8 apg is terribly statistically?

Yeah, because counting stats don't really mean anything. He made a bad team worse when he was on the floor and was damn near the worst PG in the entire league by RPM. I'll give you a hint - as expected, he's an atrocious defender, and he really doesn't have the tools to get a lot better at that half of the game.


20 year olds usually struggle to guard NBA players. Also interesting you criticize him for being bad on defense and then say you'd take Lavine over him. Trae Young has had 1 season where he was a bad defensive player. Zach has had 5.

Post all-star break Trae averaged 25, 9, and 5 with 44/35/88% shooting splits. Saying he's always going to suck is crazy.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,520
And1: 7,271
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#59 » by League Circles » Wed Sep 4, 2019 2:55 am

NZB2323 wrote:
League Circles wrote:
NZB2323 wrote:
A 20 year old rookie averaging 19 ppg and 8 apg is terribly statistically?

Yeah, because counting stats don't really mean anything. He made a bad team worse when he was on the floor and was damn near the worst PG in the entire league by RPM. I'll give you a hint - as expected, he's an atrocious defender, and he really doesn't have the tools to get a lot better at that half of the game.


20 year olds usually struggle to guard NBA players. Also interesting you criticize him for being bad on defense and then say you'd take Lavine over him. Trae Young has had 1 season where he was a bad defensive player. Zach has had 5.

Post all-star break Trae averaged 25, 9, and 5 with 44/35/88% shooting splits. Saying he's always going to suck is crazy.

He was a terrible defender in college too I believe.

It's not that he struggles to guard guys, it's that there's almost no one worse in the whole league at guarding guys. Lavine, now at least, is a much better defender IMO, which isn't surprising, as he has drastically better physical tools with which to defend.

Those 23 games post all star break weren't exactly against teams taking an opponent very seriously IMO.

Make yourself a list of guys you also think are or will be good PGs in the league. How many is Young projected to be better than? IMO almost every team in the league has a guy who is or likely will be better than Young will be. Obviously Young will likely end up better than some of them, but there's enough that I don't project him as ever being a plus starter. Can he be the 20th best guy in the league at the 1 spot instead of like the 75th best? Perhaps, yeah. But having the 20th best guy at a position is a problem, not a success.
Ball4life32
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 952
Joined: Dec 05, 2013
     

Re: Pessimists will not like this 

Post#60 » by Ball4life32 » Mon Sep 9, 2019 11:14 am

League Circles wrote:
NZB2323 wrote:
League Circles wrote:Yeah, because counting stats don't really mean anything. He made a bad team worse when he was on the floor and was damn near the worst PG in the entire league by RPM. I'll give you a hint - as expected, he's an atrocious defender, and he really doesn't have the tools to get a lot better at that half of the game.


20 year olds usually struggle to guard NBA players. Also interesting you criticize him for being bad on defense and then say you'd take Lavine over him. Trae Young has had 1 season where he was a bad defensive player. Zach has had 5.

Post all-star break Trae averaged 25, 9, and 5 with 44/35/88% shooting splits. Saying he's always going to suck is crazy.

He was a terrible defender in college too I believe.

It's not that he struggles to guard guys, it's that there's almost no one worse in the whole league at guarding guys. Lavine, now at least, is a much better defender IMO, which isn't surprising, as he has drastically better physical tools with which to defend.

Those 23 games post all star break weren't exactly against teams taking an opponent very seriously IMO.

Make yourself a list of guys you also think are or will be good PGs in the league. How many is Young projected to be better than? IMO almost every team in the league has a guy who is or likely will be better than Young will be. Obviously Young will likely end up better than some of them, but there's enough that I don't project him as ever being a plus starter. Can he be the 20th best guy in the league at the 1 spot instead of like the 75th best? Perhaps, yeah. But having the 20th best guy at a position is a problem, not a success.


So Trae averaged 25/9/4 with a .584 TS% in his last 23 games because teams weren’t taking him seriously? Huh? How would you even know this if you don’t watch the Hawks? Same with Collins and Huerter who isn’t anything according to you. In reality he put those numbers up after Lin’s buyout and his minutes went up.

Trae’s RPM is weighted down because he struggled (really between games 11-32) early but he was one of better offensive players in the league the last 30 games or so. Hawks also led the league in scoring at 119 ppg after the break... No one that watches the games thinks Trae made the Hawks worse.

I like the Bulls future for sure but how do the Hawks win more games with a younger team than the Bulls yet the Bulls have the 4 best players between the 2?

Return to Chicago Bulls