Donovan Mitchell Thread #6 - Something might actually happen in this one!!!!!!

[F N 11]

Damn y’all seen Darius Garland and Obi? We can’t trade Obi.

[Clyde_Style]

Damn y’all seen Darius Garland and Obi? We can’t trade Obi.

Watch on YouTube

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

You and I know Obi will be one of the greatest providers of crow dinners in RealGM history. Looking forward to it

This board is hilarious, the same people who say Dolan wont tank, are the reason why, because they have zero patience for player development. I don't see Pistons fans saying Saddiq Bey sucks, even though his advance stats say he's far worse than Obi and he's only a year younger, yet here every single one of our young players is expected to be Luka right out the gate

[Chanel Bomber]

Siakam didn't have a good handle, what he had going for him was that he was constantly putting pressure on teams to get back on defense, he scored 6ppg in transition out of his 16.9ppg, hustling is the key thing you're missing here. We just saw Brandon Clarke make an impact in the playoffs and he doesn't shoot the three at all, point is you're putting entirely too big an emphasis on shooting from the 4 spot, it's a luxury not a requirement.

Here's the thing, if we trade for Mitchell we're going to have limited ways to improve the 4 spot, so the most logical thing to do is take the guy on a lower salary that doesn't need the ball and find out what he can do. You're talking about Randle & Obi as though we're going to be able to find a better replacement while being capped out & with less draft capital. Also, the other day didn't you just say you think Obi can be a productive starter

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion (unless he becomes an elite defender to "make up" for the lack of spacing).

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

And I can't respond to your accusation about things I haven't said. This is the epitome of a false accusation. You're already preemptively accusing me of something I haven't done in a hypothetical future that hasn't yet happened. But your insecurity is showing there, in all honesty.

[Capn'O]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

Why do you think they even have a framework at this point?

Rumor mill seems to be honing in on a similar deal from each side. That said, if the Knicks could bring in a third team they might better be able to meet the Jazz demands without depleting their own cupboard. Example: gaining an extra pick by moving Rose.

[Clyde_Style]

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

You and I know Obi will be one of the greatest providers of crow dinners in RealGM history. Looking forward to it

This board is hilarious, the same people who say Dolan wont tank, are the reason why, because they have zero patience for player development. I don't see Pistons fans saying Saddiq Bey sucks, even though his advance stats say he's far worse than Obi and he's only a year younger, yet here every single one of our young players is expected to be Luka right out the gate

No vision. Sad. All back-tested metrics and two eye patches each.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion.

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

Obi shot 35% from three over a 45 game stretch, he was quite literally a league average shooter He had a horrible start, and was average after that, how many times does this need to be repeated, is more than half the season not representative of progress? I could have said he shot 38% from three over his last 23 games, but I know that would get dismissed. You're all over the place, you said don't doubt that he could be a productive starter yesterday, and now today you don't project him as a stater



I didn't say anything about Obi, Clarke or Randle replacing PJ, that's an "IF" as well, we'll never know. What we do know is that PJ Tucker was dead weight out there, and knowing Pat Riley's history, he would have traded PJ Tucker in a heartbeat if we were dumb enough to offer Obi for him. You overvalue role players, I would rather try to teach a player with talent to give some more effort, than to lock a team into a very limited role player.

That's just hedging, you've already made two separate claims, one is you don't think he projects out to being a starter, the other is you think he can be a productive starter.

[Chanel Bomber]

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion.

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

Obi shot 35% from three over a 45 game stretch, he was quite literally a league average shooter He had a horrible start, and was average after that, how many times does this need to be repeated, is more than half the season not representative of progress? I could have said he shot 38% from three over his last 23 games, but I know that would get dismissed. You're all over the place, you said don't doubt that he could be a productive starter yesterday, and now today you don't project him as a stater



I didn't say anything about Obi, Clarke or Randle replacing PJ, that's an "IF" as well, we'll never know. What we do know is that PJ Tucker was dead weight out there, and knowing Pat Riley's history, he would have traded PJ Tucker in a heartbeat if we were dumb enough to offer Obi for him. You overvalue role players, I would rather try to teach a player with talent to give some more effort, than to lock a team into a very limited role player.

That's just hedging, you've already made two separate claims, one is you don't think he projects out to being a starter, the other is you think he can be a productive starter.

You're judging him off a selective sample size. One that fits the conclusion you want to reach. It's called cherry-picking. I want to see his 3-point shooting sustain over a longer period of time and not just a fairly small sample size before I believe he can adequately space the floor as a starting 4. Which is not to say that it will never happen.

Do you not see the difference between production and impact?

I have no doubt that Obi can be a productive starter. I have doubts about whether he can be a starter who has a positive impact on winning. These are two different things.

I can't help you if you don't see the difference.

[Clyde_Style]

Chanel Takes Matters Into Their Own Hands

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion.

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

Obi shot 35% from three over a 45 game stretch, he was quite literally a league average shooter He had a horrible start, and was average after that, how many times does this need to be repeated, is more than half the season not representative of progress? I could have said he shot 38% from three over his last 23 games, but I know that would get dismissed. You're all over the place, you said don't doubt that he could be a productive starter yesterday, and now today you don't project him as a stater



I didn't say anything about Obi, Clarke or Randle replacing PJ, that's an "IF" as well, we'll never know. What we do know is that PJ Tucker was dead weight out there, and knowing Pat Riley's history, he would have traded PJ Tucker in a heartbeat if we were dumb enough to offer Obi for him. You overvalue role players, I would rather try to teach a player with talent to give some more effort, than to lock a team into a very limited role player.

That's just hedging, you've already made two separate claims, one is you don't think he projects out to being a starter, the other is you think he can be a productive starter.

You're judging him off a selective sample size. One that fits the conclusion you want to reach. It's called cherry-picking. I want to see his 3-point shooting sustain over a longer period of time and not just a small sample size before I believe he can adequately space the floor as a starting 4. Which is not to say that it will never happen.

Do you not see the difference between production and impact?

I have no doubt that Obi can be a productive starter. I have doubts about whether he can be a starter who has a positive impact on winning. These are two different things.

I can't help you if you don't see the difference.

Judging someone off more than half a season is a selective sample size? What NBA are you watching, I want to know the world in which you live where guys make clear and obvious progress and then it's dismissed, especially when production stays consistent as minutes increase.

He has been a positive impact with us, but that is dismissed, you tried to say his +/- was a result of Derrick Rose, even though Rose missed 56 games which coincidentally is more than the "selective sample size" of games in which Obi was a average 3 point shooter.

It's hedging, you and I will not agree on it.

[RHODEY]

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion (unless he becomes an elite defender to "make up" for the lack of spacing).

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

And I can't respond to your accusation about things I haven't said. This is the epitome of a false accusation. You're already preemptively accusing me of something I haven't done in a hypothetical future that hasn't yet happened. But your insecurity is showing there, in all honesty.

Tucker fits like a cog on Miami. He's great in a very limited role, but overall OBI is 10x the player Tucker is.

[Ghetto Gospel]

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion (unless he becomes an elite defender to "make up" for the lack of spacing).

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

And I can't respond to your accusation about things I haven't said. This is the epitome of a false accusation. You're already preemptively accusing me of something I haven't done in a hypothetical future that hasn't yet happened. But your insecurity is showing there, in all honesty.

Tucker fits like a cog on Miami. He's great in a very limited role, but overall OBI is 10x the player Tucker is.

this is true, obi is a better player than tucker and all of the above, but it's important to be able to fit like a cog. guys like pj tucker on the heat, jae crowder before tucker on the heat, you could also say the same for like say grant williams on the celtics, all fit like cogs. in a vacuum obi is better and more valuable than all of those guys, but generally speaking, for highly competitive/championship teams, it's easier to fit like a cog if you play good defense as long as you can contribute in some which way on offense

[Clyde_Style]

[RHODEY]

You're judging him off a selective sample size. One that fits the conclusion you want to reach. It's called cherry-picking. I want to see his 3-point shooting sustain over a longer period of time and not just a fairly small sample size before I believe he can adequately space the floor as a starting 4. Which is not to say that it will never happen.

Do you not see the difference between production and impact?

I have no doubt that Obi can be a productive starter. I have doubts about whether he can be a starter who has a positive impact on winning. These are two different things.

I can't help you if you don't see the difference.

[RHODEY]

Well I don't disagree that Brandon Clarke with a 3-point shot could be starter who makes a positive impact. But your argument is based on an "if". Then I could say "if IQ shot 45% from 3 he could be Dame Lillard". You can make "if" scenarios for every player in the NBA. The worry is that Obi so far hasn't proven to be a reliable 3-point shooter. I'm not saying he will never become one. But until he does, if he ever does, he doesn't project as a starter in my opinion (unless he becomes an elite defender to "make up" for the lack of spacing).

The Heat don't reach game 7 of the ECF with a player like Obi, Brandon Clarke or Randle playing the 4 instead of PJ Tucker, sorry. He's an elite 3-point shooter. He's an elite defender. He spreads the floor for Butler to attack the basket, or for Bam to roll to the rim. Over the course of days, weeks and months, this impacts winning in a major way. But maybe it's just a coincidence he keeps finding himself starting for contenders (Rockets, Bucks, Heat, now Sixers), and that these teams want him. He had a bad game. This doesn't erase the impact he had on Miami's season, or the Bucks the year before.

I can't help you if you don't understand that it's easier to have a positive impact against bench units than against starters with the same production.

I have already said I don't have strong feelings about Obi's future, and that no outcome would surprise me. I'm not hedging my bet, I'm just not placing any bet. I just disagree with the logic that you use to confidently project him as a starter.

And I can't respond to your accusation about things I haven't said. This is the epitome of a false accusation. You're already preemptively accusing me of something I haven't done in a hypothetical future that hasn't yet happened. But your insecurity is showing there, in all honesty.

Tucker fits like a cog on Miami. He's great in a very limited role, but overall OBI is 10x the player Tucker is.

this is true, obi is a better player than tucker and all of the above, but it's important to be able to fit like a cog. guys like pj tucker on the heat, jae crowder before tucker on the heat, you could also say the same for like say grant williams on the celtics, all fit like cogs. in a vacuum obi is better and more valuable than all of those guys, but generally speaking, for highly competitive/championship teams, it's easier to fit like a cog if you play good defense as long as you can contribute in some which way on offense

But since we are not yet a contending team, its more important to get the talent FIRST and then fill in the gaps with cogs that fit.
So yeah OBI is the better player and the better talent fit for NY and any other non contending team that needs low usage high impact production from the 4 position.

[Chanel Bomber]

Obi shot 35% from three over a 45 game stretch, he was quite literally a league average shooter He had a horrible start, and was average after that, how many times does this need to be repeated, is more than half the season not representative of progress? I could have said he shot 38% from three over his last 23 games, but I know that would get dismissed. You're all over the place, you said don't doubt that he could be a productive starter yesterday, and now today you don't project him as a stater



I didn't say anything about Obi, Clarke or Randle replacing PJ, that's an "IF" as well, we'll never know. What we do know is that PJ Tucker was dead weight out there, and knowing Pat Riley's history, he would have traded PJ Tucker in a heartbeat if we were dumb enough to offer Obi for him. You overvalue role players, I would rather try to teach a player with talent to give some more effort, than to lock a team into a very limited role player.

That's just hedging, you've already made two separate claims, one is you don't think he projects out to being a starter, the other is you think he can be a productive starter.

You're judging him off a selective sample size. One that fits the conclusion you want to reach. It's called cherry-picking. I want to see his 3-point shooting sustain over a longer period of time and not just a small sample size before I believe he can adequately space the floor as a starting 4. Which is not to say that it will never happen.

Do you not see the difference between production and impact?

I have no doubt that Obi can be a productive starter. I have doubts about whether he can be a starter who has a positive impact on winning. These are two different things.

I can't help you if you don't see the difference.

Judging someone off more than half a season is a selective sample size? What NBA are you watching, I want to know the world in which you live where guys make clear and obvious progress and then it's dismissed, especially when production stays consistent as minutes increase.

He has been a positive impact with us, but that is dismissed, you tried to say his +/- was a result of Derrick Rose, even though Rose missed 56 games which coincidentally is more than the "selective sample size" of games in which Obi was a average 3 point shooter.

It's hedging, you and I will not agree on it.

I think half a season is too small of a sample size to draw the conclusion that something will necessarily sustain. RJ's second half of last season for instance was brought up as evidence that he was getting more efficient at scoring the ball, and that his newfound efficiency was going to sustain. It didn't.

I don't dismiss Obi's progress throughout the season as a 3-point shooter. It's encouraging. I don't think it's enough to confidently project him as an adequate floor spacer/3-point shooter as a starter.

I never said Obi's impact was a result of Derrick Rose. I said Rose was the driving force of the bench, which drove the Knicks success. The bench was still largely good after he got hurt, and Obi played a big part in that, though the impact stats suggest that Quickley played a bigger part in that.

You're now getting lost in making false accusations, because you're so obsessed with the idea of finding an inconsistency in my position, which, sorry, there isn't, that you have lost your own decency.

Let me simplify for you:

- Production can translate from bench player to starter.
- Impact doesn't necessarily translate from bench player to starter.
- Obi has been productive and impactful as a bench player.
- Obi can be productive as a starter, but it doesn't necessarily mean he can be impactful as a starter.

It's not hedging. I'm just waiting to see more.

[Ghetto Gospel]

Tucker fits like a cog on Miami. He's great in a very limited role, but overall OBI is 10x the player Tucker is.

this is true, obi is a better player than tucker and all of the above, but it's important to be able to fit like a cog. guys like pj tucker on the heat, jae crowder before tucker on the heat, you could also say the same for like say grant williams on the celtics, all fit like cogs. in a vacuum obi is better and more valuable than all of those guys, but generally speaking, for highly competitive/championship teams, it's easier to fit like a cog if you play good defense as long as you can contribute in some which way on offense

But since we are not yet a contending team, its more important to get the talent FIRST and then fill in the gaps with cogs that fit.
So yeah OBI is the better player and the better talent fit for NY and any other non contending team that needs low usage high impact production from the 4 position.

yes, but assuming the trade for mitchell goes through and he's on the squad, we are making an attempt to become a more serious/contending team, thus it's important to start looking to fill the gaps with cogs that fit

[El Poochio]

Damn y’all seen Darius Garland and Obi? We can’t trade Obi.

Watch on YouTube

Bamobidarius! How come you havent thought of that word before

[Chanel Bomber]

You're judging him off a selective sample size. One that fits the conclusion you want to reach. It's called cherry-picking. I want to see his 3-point shooting sustain over a longer period of time and not just a fairly small sample size before I believe he can adequately space the floor as a starting 4. Which is not to say that it will never happen.

Do you not see the difference between production and impact?

I have no doubt that Obi can be a productive starter. I have doubts about whether he can be a starter who has a positive impact on winning. These are two different things.

I can't help you if you don't see the difference.

Yes. Off the bench.

Shall I bring up IQ's numbers? Or better yet, Burks's numbers?

Or do we seriously believe that Rose-IQ-Burks-Obi-Taj would dominate the league as a starting unit because of their +/- as a bench unit?

[Clyde_Style]

Damn y’all seen Darius Garland and Obi? We can’t trade Obi.

Watch on YouTube

Bamobidarius! How come you havent thought of that word before

Your star sign is Bamquarius with Buzz ascendant in Uranus rising