Def Swami wrote:Xatticus wrote:GelbeWand09 wrote:
I can understand that & see the appeal & i'm happy with Jabari too but i just think Chet's gonna be a better player in case that Jabari doesnt learn to drive (which is one of the hardest things to learn).
I can make the same argument and say. Look its a dribble penetration game. Check the conference finals. You see Tatum, Brown, Butler, Doncic, Steph, Poole & not a oversized Klay or Rashard Lewis leading those teams.
Chet is just the much better basketball player at this point in time. What advantages does Jabari have? He is a better shooter. That's pretty much the whole of it. What does Chet do well? Pretty much everything.
I really don't care what other teams look like. I'm not taking a lesser player because some other team doesn't have a great 7-footer on their roster.
Chet is the guy you want. He isn't a guy trying to look like he is the guy you want.
Every year people try to talk themselves into guys that look like what you think a great basketball player should look like. Who are the legends? Larry Bird. Charles Barkley. Bill Walton. What matters isn't what you look like. What matters is whether or not you can play basketball.
I've been trying to figure out why a good chunk of people have dismissed Holmgren. Sometimes I feel like I watched a different college basketball season.
Other than shooting, which he holds his own in, he does everything else as good or better than Smith. He's a more complete offensive player. He's a better finisher around the rim. He's a better ball handler and passer. He's a better rim protector. He was more efficient (higher than TS% and eFG%). His advanced stats are better across the board (PER, WS, BPM, net rating). I think Holmgren's weight is a concern, but after that, he's a probably the most complete player among him, Smith, and Banchero. I actually think he's going to contribute right away in a way that Evan Mobley was able to last year.
Maybe this is it though. Perhaps it's some implicit bias that doesn't fit the vision for what we perceive as an all-NBA or MVP player. And that's usually the case until you get these guys who break the mold. You can add Jokic to your list of examples. It's a skill based league and I don't think body types are as important as they used to be in an antiquated NBA where big men had to bang with one another in the post for 48 minutes. Holmgren is really good at basketball. I think this entire conversation is about his weight or lack thereof, and if you're not going to draft him #1, it's because of that and that only. And that's a fair reason to not take him.
Personally, I always default to who is better at playing basketball and then think about their physical aspects after that.
maybe its because where he showed your highlighted traits were in conference against much smaller players. Ive posted on another thread i believe his stats against ranked teams. he didnt show nearly as much shooting, finishing and efficiency.
