Kuminga to Charlotte

[ChuckDurn]

There's almost no precedence for a guy showing so little in his first 4 years becoming a really good player. There are exceptions to this rule like JO, but those exceptions have pretty good reasons behind them (e.g. the Blazers were absolutely stacked with good vets, which prevented JO getting any burn). Those reasons don't really apply to Kuminga, who has been given plenty of chances.

The guys that come to mind for me were Dale Ellis and Detlef Schrempf who were buried on the Mavs bench (Ellis broke through in his 4th year, Schrempf in his 5th). Today players are coming into the NBA much younger so it's more likely plus Kuminga did average over 15ppg and roughly 30 pp/100 possessions the last two years.

Am I a big fan? Not particularly as I want someone to play better team defense and pass more on offense or be really really efficient. But, it's not like he has shown nothing the last two years if you value scoring.

Chauncey Billups also kind of fits this - he really broke out in his 6th year as he joined Detroit, which was his 5th team. He took a major leap at that point after not being great leading up to that.

[OGSactownballer]

Steve Kerr cares about this thing called “defense” that Moses does very well. Monk hasn’t heard of it. So, yes, it’s a downgrade.

That d better be great when he’s pumping out 8 ppg.

Moody scores about 16 points per 36 minutes on 58% true shooting.
Monk scores about 20 points per 36 minutes on 55% true shooting.

So, Monk scores a little more (not dramatically), but it’s less efficient, which wouldn’t fly on a team that’s got far more efficient players than him.

Moody’s relatively low scoring is more of a matter of who he’s surrounded by on the court, and how challenged he’s been getting consistent minutes with the Warriors’ roster, than an inability to score.

It’s pretty funny to pull a per 36 comparison here when one guy (Monk) actually PLAYS about that much a night and the other averages in the 15-20 minute range. If he was really that consistently good, he would play more regardless of who else is on the roster. His coach isn’t a fool. That’s who he is. Having watched the kid play a bunch (we are a split fandom household Kings/Dubs) I can comfortably say he is VERY raw STILL offensively and nowhere near Monk’s class as a sixth man/sometime starter who can heat up and drop 35 at any time to more than offset the lesser defense.

[gswhoops]

That d better be great when he’s pumping out 8 ppg.

Moody scores about 16 points per 36 minutes on 58% true shooting.
Monk scores about 20 points per 36 minutes on 55% true shooting.

So, Monk scores a little more (not dramatically), but it’s less efficient, which wouldn’t fly on a team that’s got far more efficient players than him.

Moody’s relatively low scoring is more of a matter of who he’s surrounded by on the court, and how challenged he’s been getting consistent minutes with the Warriors’ roster, than an inability to score.

It’s pretty funny to pull a per 36 comparison here when one guy (Monk) actually PLAYS about that much a night and the other averages in the 15-20 minute range. If he was really that consistently good, he would play more regardless of who else is on the roster. His coach isn’t a fool. That’s who he is. Having watched the kid play a bunch (we are a split fandom household Kings/Dubs) I can comfortably say he is VERY raw STILL offensively and nowhere near Monk’s class as a sixth man/sometime starter who can heat up and drop 35 at any time to more than offset the lesser defense.

The whole comparison doesn't make sense. They're completely different players.

Monk is a microwave scorer who can get hot and win you games but is going to be a liability on the floor if he's not hitting shots; Moody is a jack of all trades/master of none wing who you won't notice on the floor 90% of the time in both the good sense and the bad sense.

[basketballwacko2]

I have a feeling that Kuminga is gonna get traded, but to who? It most likely will be an S&T and then the question is how much is JK worth right now.

[the_process]

Could there maybe be something around Miles Bridges to BKN, Kuminga to CHA, Ziaire Williams and a 1st to GSW?

[Nate the Great]

Moody scores about 16 points per 36 minutes on 58% true shooting.
Monk scores about 20 points per 36 minutes on 55% true shooting.

So, Monk scores a little more (not dramatically), but it’s less efficient, which wouldn’t fly on a team that’s got far more efficient players than him.

Moody’s relatively low scoring is more of a matter of who he’s surrounded by on the court, and how challenged he’s been getting consistent minutes with the Warriors’ roster, than an inability to score.

It’s pretty funny to pull a per 36 comparison here when one guy (Monk) actually PLAYS about that much a night and the other averages in the 15-20 minute range. If he was really that consistently good, he would play more regardless of who else is on the roster. His coach isn’t a fool. That’s who he is. Having watched the kid play a bunch (we are a split fandom household Kings/Dubs) I can comfortably say he is VERY raw STILL offensively and nowhere near Monk’s class as a sixth man/sometime starter who can heat up and drop 35 at any time to more than offset the lesser defense.

The whole comparison doesn't make sense. They're completely different players.

Monk is a microwave scorer who can get hot and win you games but is going to be a liability on the floor if he's not hitting shots; Moody is a jack of all trades/master of none wing who you won't notice on the floor 90% of the time in both the good sense and the bad sense.

And the Warriors already have a microwave scorer who can get hot and win you games but is going to be a liability on the floor if he's not hitting shots in Hield. Moody brings other qualities that the team needs.

Also, the fact that Monk “plays a little more” is a difference in team needs. It’s not evidence that he’s a better player.