NyCeEvO wrote:Hello Brooklyn wrote:Prokorov wrote:
at 24 years old Jimmy Butlers numbers were nearly identical to KCP at 24 years old. (butler a worse shooter even)
so im not sure why butler improving from 24 to 25 given he was nearly the exact same statisitcally at 24 is a bad example?
what butler shot in year 2 in 16 minutes on low volume i dont think is really relevant.
I'm just not accepting the premise that Jimmy Butler was ever a bad shooter. I think he had a bad 3rd year when he started getting minutes.
I think we have enough evidence to prove that KCP when given minutes isn't going to change his ways after 4 years of getting minutes and doing the same thing.
And even if I grant you that Jimmy Butler was in the same situation, Jimmy Butler is also an anomaly.
The vast majority of players in the NBA don't follow his trajectory. So if you're hoping that KCP ends up following the Jimmy Butler path then its a fools errand.
HB, this started because of this post you made:
Hello Brooklyn wrote:Also KCP is not that young. Hes 24.
When was the last time you saw a huge turnaround by a player that age. He is what he is.
I'm not going to invest 20 million a year into someone that Pistons fans refer to as "brick machine." Sorry.
The modern NBA is all about shooting. We need to develop our backcourt of Russell and LeVert. No room for KCP to take dumb shots.
I predict hes going to be pretty bad on the Lakers. The West is a different animal.
24 is still quite young. Most people hold that a player's prime years begin around 27 and end in their early 30s. There are plenty of players who show improvement after that age or when the change teams.
More importantly, Kenny's mantra is that every player can be developed and continue to improve throughout their career. Players from their young 20s to older vets well beyond the age of 24 have credited Kenny with pushing them to improve and actually bearing the fruit of their labor. His age is not really a factor at all.
The number of seasons he's played without large improvement is a more defensible argument. The box score stats backup the assessment of KCP being an inefficient shooter, but he's not inefficient in each type of shooting scenario. As Prok has shown, he's a very good catch-and-shoot player. His inefficiency comes from a trigger-happiness non-catch and shoot situations. The question is whether he can show enough self-restraint/Kenny can get through to him so that he can become a more efficient shooter but also a better, more effective player in other aspects.
Even though he will be on a different team and we can't be sure if he'll have the same playing style in LA, he actually performed better against the West.
In 48 games against the East, he averaged 13.6ppg on .392 FG% (4.88/12.44 FGM/FGA) /.329 3FG% (1.91/5.84 3PM/3PA)/ .507 TS% on 19.6 USG% and . His ORTG was 105 while his DRTG was 111. His +/- was -5.8 in 32.9 mpg.
In 27 games against the West, he averaged 14.1ppg on .412 FG% (4.85/11.78 FGM/FGA) /.391 3FG% (2.18/5.59 3PM/3PA) /.541 TS% on 18.7 USG%. His ORTG 109 while his DRTG was 108. His +/- was 0.0 in 34.0
In short, it seems like he was better in almost every facet of his offensive game against Western teams. He was a very good 3pt shooter on high volume against the West and he did it making more 3s on less attempts per game than against the East.
You then asked (I now assume rhetorically) when was the last time we saw a "huge" turnaround from a player beyond 24. Ror gave you an example of a player in Jimmy Butler. I don't think it's fair to get upset and just say that he is an anomaly when you only asked for one example as if to suggest that it's near impossible. Even in the chain quoted in this above, you went from saying that "Butler isn't a great shooter" to refusing to accept that "Butler was ever a bad shooter".
Is it that in your estimation, he was always a good shooter/scorer but needed to the comfortability of having high FGAs to prove it? Butler was given a 38.7mpg season on 39.7 FG% and 28.3 3FG% on 10.3 FGApg. Butler's increase in efficiency from thereafter was accompanied by an increase in FGAs 14.0 (and continually upwards since). KCP has already proved that he can shoot from distance better than Butler did. The only question is whether he can increase his efficiency if he's given more shot attempts. There was nothing to suggest that Butler could become that much better by his 3rd season, but we do know that his desire to get better and his work ethic are tremendous. KCP is a hardworking player. Maybe he just needs some guidance as well.
I clarified this several times, but I will do it for you again.
By huge turnaround I don't mean an improvement in skill. I mean a change in the way they play the game. I said this over and over again if you read my posts.
Obviously players can "improve" and become better at age 24. But they're not going to change their identity or the way they play.
Kenny can develop players by improving their skills. Hes not going to change the way that they play after they have already been playing that way for 4 years.
Furthermore, Jimmy Butler is not an example of someone who changed the way that he played. I don't believe that Jimmy Butler was ever a bad shooter. As I stated he shot 47% his second year on the Bulls. He also shot near 50% every year at Marquette. It's a false equivalency.
We have 4 years of evidence of KCP shooting terribly in the NBA. Even at Georgia he shot 39% and 43%. He has never been a good shooter at any level in his entire career.
That simply is not the case with Jimmy Butler. You can't just say because he had one year in Chicago that hes suddenly a terrible shooter the way that KCP is.
Also, I don't think its important why he is shooting badly. Whether its his shot selection or its his inability to shot. Either way, he has been playing this way since he was 18 years. Hes not going to change if he was signed here.
And I didn't say that Jimmy Butler was an anomaly in reference to the argument.
I said that EVEN if I accept the premise that Jimmy Butler=KCP (which I certainly do not), then it still does not justify signing KCP. Because Jimmy Butler is a very rare case.
And I'm not willing to pay KCP 100 mill because of some off chance that he could be the next Jimmy Butler. As I said, its a fool's errand.
And signing KCP is what this entire discussion was supposed to be about.
