RealGM

It’s seems to me that Levert is the better player

Reportedly we an interest in NAW... and then we shifted to LeVert.

LeVert is a bit older and a slightly worse 3 point shooter. I would imagine they both will have somewhat similar impacts with their teams this season. Solid bench players but not real difference makers. 7th or 8th man types most nights scoring 7 -10 PPG.

Lavert was better in every statistical category except 3%. I think peeps just want younger players. Pistons done well with the older players aka Tobias, Bease, Rob Schneider, I mean Schroder. Levert is just a better facilitator. This team just needs a solid mix of older vets and young players as is.

BadMofoPimp wrote:Lavert was better in every statistical category except 3%. I think peeps just want younger players. Pistons done well with the older players aka Tobias, Bease, Rob Schneider, I mean Schroder. Levert is just a better facilitator. This team just needs a solid mix of older vets and young players as is.

Great Rob Schneider reference. I love Surf Ninjas.

I wasn’t thrilled about the Levert signing. Always thought of him as a streaky ball stopper (basically a Sg/Sf version of Rodney Stuckey)…haven’t really watched the tape of him last few years but the numbers say he is a better distributor and 3 pt shooter than I thought. Fingers crossed.

NAW is just younger and his cousin makes it seem like he could have a higher ceiling. Seems like KCP 2.0, which is fine but glad we didn’t overpay for him.

Seeing a lot of hype for Atlanta based on their moves, but I’m not buying it…

BadMofoPimp wrote:Lavert was better in every statistical category except 3%. I think peeps just want younger players. Pistons done well with the older players aka Tobias, Bease, Rob Schneider, I mean Schroder. Levert is just a better facilitator. This team just needs a solid mix of older vets and young players as is.

To be fair, three pointers, particularly for a role playing guard, are probably the most important stat.

NAW is the classic 3 and D archetype. That's always going to be prized and valued. Note that the Hawks HAD Lavert, and chose to go for NAW over resigning him despite NAW requiring a larger financial committment.

Don't get me wrong, I was perfectly fine with Levert as a consolation when it became apparent we weren't getting NAW. But I'd have absolutely preferred NAW.

It will be interesting to see how minutes work if we actually get Beasley back.

I get trying to talk up the new guy. But no. LeVert is not as good as Alexander-Walker.

Snakebites wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:Lavert was better in every statistical category except 3%. I think peeps just want younger players. Pistons done well with the older players aka Tobias, Bease, Rob Schneider, I mean Schroder. Levert is just a better facilitator. This team just needs a solid mix of older vets and young players as is.

To be fair, three pointers, particularly for a role playing guard, are probably the most important stat.

NAW is the classic 3 and D archetype. That's always going to be prized and valued. Note that the Hawks HAD Lavert, and chose to go for NAW over resigning him despite NAW requiring a larger financial committment.

Don't get me wrong, I was perfectly fine with Levert as a consolation when it became apparent we weren't getting NAW. But I'd have absolutely preferred NAW.

It will be interesting to see how minutes work if we actually get Beasley back.

So, what you are saying, is the only need is for player is that they can shoot 3's and disregard any other aspect even the ability to help facilitate offense with better assists? The team got Duncan for that.

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Snakebites wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:Lavert was better in every statistical category except 3%. I think peeps just want younger players. Pistons done well with the older players aka Tobias, Bease, Rob Schneider, I mean Schroder. Levert is just a better facilitator. This team just needs a solid mix of older vets and young players as is.

To be fair, three pointers, particularly for a role playing guard, are probably the most important stat.

NAW is the classic 3 and D archetype. That's always going to be prized and valued. Note that the Hawks HAD Lavert, and chose to go for NAW over resigning him despite NAW requiring a larger financial committment.

Don't get me wrong, I was perfectly fine with Levert as a consolation when it became apparent we weren't getting NAW. But I'd have absolutely preferred NAW.

It will be interesting to see how minutes work if we actually get Beasley back.

So, what you are saying, is the only need is for player is that they can shoot 3's and disregard any other aspect even the ability to help facilitate offense with better assists? The team got Duncan for that.

No, that is not what I’m saying. But the ability to shoot threes is more valuable than any other offensive stat for a player who’s likely to be relatively low on the list of offensive options.

Levert is more of a generalist “jack of all trades master of none” type guy, which does carry some value. Still, I think a specialist would have been better in that secondary and likely bench role. Clearly the Hawks agreed.

And yes I’m aware we have Duncan too. But look at good teams. They don’t usually just have one single shooter. They have multiple. Last years Pistons had multiple.

Snakebites wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Snakebites wrote:To be fair, three pointers, particularly for a role playing guard, are probably the most important stat.

NAW is the classic 3 and D archetype. That's always going to be prized and valued. Note that the Hawks HAD Lavert, and chose to go for NAW over resigning him despite NAW requiring a larger financial committment.

Don't get me wrong, I was perfectly fine with Levert as a consolation when it became apparent we weren't getting NAW. But I'd have absolutely preferred NAW.

It will be interesting to see how minutes work if we actually get Beasley back.

So, what you are saying, is the only need is for player is that they can shoot 3's and disregard any other aspect even the ability to help facilitate offense with better assists? The team got Duncan for that.

No, that is not what I’m saying. But the ability to shoot threes is more valuable than any other offensive stat for a player who’s likely to be relatively low on the list of offensive options.

Levert is more of a generalist “jack of all trades master of none” type guy, which does carry some value. Still, I think a specialist would have been better in that secondary and likely bench role. Clearly the Hawks agreed.

And yes I’m aware we have Duncan too. But look at good teams. They don’t usually just have one single shooter. They have multiple. Last years Pistons had multiple.

While I agree, I think all the other things are more important than just 3-5% better shooting from the 3 if it comes down to me choosing which player I would rather have for next season.

Levert made over a 100 threes last season

I think this team will be dangerous next season.

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Snakebites wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:
So, what you are saying, is the only need is for player is that they can shoot 3's and disregard any other aspect even the ability to help facilitate offense with better assists? The team got Duncan for that.

No, that is not what I’m saying. But the ability to shoot threes is more valuable than any other offensive stat for a player who’s likely to be relatively low on the list of offensive options.

Levert is more of a generalist “jack of all trades master of none” type guy, which does carry some value. Still, I think a specialist would have been better in that secondary and likely bench role. Clearly the Hawks agreed.

And yes I’m aware we have Duncan too. But look at good teams. They don’t usually just have one single shooter. They have multiple. Last years Pistons had multiple.

While I agree, I think all the other things are more important than just 3-5% better shooting from the 3 if it comes down to me choosing which player I would rather have for next season.

3 to 5 percent is fairly significant. A 34% three point shooter is guarded very differently from a 38 percent shooter.

It's like baseball. The difference between a .320 on base percentage and a .360 on base percentage is a reliable offensive producer vs a borderline liability.

i think it was a combination of things. at the time we were rumoured to be interested in him and he filled the 3&D role, which made sense because at the same time we assumed that we were in the market for a "true" backup PG like schroder was for us. i don't think a lot of us even considered levert an option, he isn't a true PG like schroder, he isn't the best 3 point shooter and even though he can get after it defensively he isn't the screen navigator NAW is.

it'll definitely bring a different vibe to the bench with levert but it'll be cool to see how that plays out.

I don't think there's a huge gulf between them as players. Sure, NAW is a few years younger and a better defender. Although LeVert is a better scorer and secondary playmaker.

They both ended up with a similar AAV on their contracts which reflects they're in a similar tier. Gun to my head, I'd take NAW but also not too upset that we ended up with LeVert.

Snakebites wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Snakebites wrote:No, that is not what I’m saying. But the ability to shoot threes is more valuable than any other offensive stat for a player who’s likely to be relatively low on the list of offensive options.

Levert is more of a generalist “jack of all trades master of none” type guy, which does carry some value. Still, I think a specialist would have been better in that secondary and likely bench role. Clearly the Hawks agreed.

And yes I’m aware we have Duncan too. But look at good teams. They don’t usually just have one single shooter. They have multiple. Last years Pistons had multiple.

While I agree, I think all the other things are more important than just 3-5% better shooting from the 3 if it comes down to me choosing which player I would rather have for next season.

3 to 5 percent is fairly significant. A 34% three point shooter is guarded very differently from a 38 percent shooter.

It's like baseball. The difference between a .320 on base percentage and a .360 on base percentage is a reliable offensive producer vs a borderline liability.

For me it is like, hmmm, why take a guy only because who shoots a whole 3-5% better over a guy who can do everything else better. The team just got the one of the best 3 point shooters in the league regardless in Duncan so I can understand why the Pistons chose a player who can help more in all facets over a player whose entire game is just that he can shoot 3-5% better. It is a no brainer to me as this isn't NBA2k, but team basketball. It is like some fans only look at 3% and nothing else. The game is much more than just how well a player can shoot 3's. Besides, Levert made 106 3's last year. I don't think shooting them will be a problem with this team as constructed and he will be a much better fit, team wise, than some guy whose only job is to wait on the wing to shoot 3's.