Around the league 2017-2018

[ivysixer2000]

Always amusing to see the outlandish statements made here sometimes.

People who play ball know Ball has been terrible (even people who don't really), yet some here try to dig for some stat to justify their position. Tatum's 12/2/3, wow that dude is the next Jordan.

Fultz shot about the same percentage as Ball with one arm. I do like the energy and life he has brought to the lakers, kinda like what Arsenio Hall said about Bird though.....people would give him credit for stuff and Bird wasn't even on the court (its contiguous lmao).

We are 1-4, got alot to learn about winning basketball, from our tank coach on down. But indirectly putting down our players time and time again does get really old.

I watched Tatum last night. He was very impressive and efficient. He only had 12 points because he only shot the ball 6 times. He shot 50% from the field. He was perfect from the foul line. He is a very good free throw shooter and makes opponents pay for fouling him unlike Ben and Markelle.

And Ball hasn’t been terrible so far he’s been one of the 5 best rookies.

I'd take Fox over Ball right now, especially with his new found shooting stroke. Your hate is massive for Fultz, but he can still shot as good as Ball with one arm. I do like the other things Ball brings to the table, but that shot is just broke.

Tatum is playing out of position, not matter what they say about 'positionless' basketball, he is still a SF. I don't think any of the rookies have looked great really, just ok so far. None of them make me want to pass on a healthy Fultz as of right now.

[LordCovington33]

Quietly, De'Aaron Fox has actually be the best rookie not named Ben Simmons. He's shooting 91% from FT and 50% from 3. Granted they aren't on large volumes (2.4 FTA; 1.2 3PA per game) but he's scoring 15 ppg, 5 apg, and 4 rpg. All this coming off the bench on a pretty bad, but young, team.

I can't wait till they fully hand the keys over to him.

Not sure why you are excluding the 14FGA (42.9%) per game to get those points. He is actually inefficient from the field, and a below average defender at this stage. Tatum has been much better.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

[Unbreakable99]

Always amusing to see the outlandish statements made here sometimes.

People who play ball know Ball has been terrible (even people who don't really), yet some here try to dig for some stat to justify their position. Tatum's 12/2/3, wow that dude is the next Jordan.

Fultz shot about the same percentage as Ball with one arm. I do like the energy and life he has brought to the lakers, kinda like what Arsenio Hall said about Bird though.....people would give him credit for stuff and Bird wasn't even on the court (its contiguous lmao).

We are 1-4, got alot to learn about winning basketball, from our tank coach on down. But indirectly putting down our players time and time again does get really old.

I watched Tatum last night. He was very impressive and efficient. He only had 12 points because he only shot the ball 6 times. He shot 50% from the field. He was perfect from the foul line. He is a very good free throw shooter and makes opponents pay for fouling him unlike Ben and Markelle.

And Ball hasn’t been terrible so far he’s been one of the 5 best rookies.

I'd take Fox over Ball right now, especially with his new found shooting stroke. Your hate is massive for Fultz, but he can still shot as good as Ball with one arm. I do like the other things Ball brings to the table, but that shot is just broke.

Tatum is playing out of position, not matter what they say about 'positionless' basketball, he is still a SF. I don't think any of the rookies have looked great really, just ok so far. None of them make me want to pass on a healthy Fultz as of right now.

So if Tatum is playing out of position according to you then that should make what he’s doing even more impressive right? Tatum is going to be a problem going forward. Same for Fox.

[Negrodamus]

Quietly, De'Aaron Fox has actually be the best rookie not named Ben Simmons. He's shooting 91% from FT and 50% from 3. Granted they aren't on large volumes (2.4 FTA; 1.2 3PA per game) but he's scoring 15 ppg, 5 apg, and 4 rpg. All this coming off the bench on a pretty bad, but young, team.

I can't wait till they fully hand the keys over to him.

Not sure why you are excluding the 14FGA (42.9%) per game to get those points. He is actually inefficient from the field, and a below average defender at this stage. Tatum has been much better.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

Right, if you discount Tatum having a stronger frame and being on the second or third best team in the conference thus giving him easier shots that he doesn't need to create for himself, then yes, Tatum is definitely better.

[James40]

A rookie that has surprised me is Markkanen. He still doesn't provide much on defense other than rebounding, but he's clearly making a difference in this early season.

Read on Twitter

He’s getting a lot of run since Mirotic got his face busted and he’s doing pretty good with that extra time. He’s a much better shooter than given credit for.

[ivysixer2000]

I watched Tatum last night. He was very impressive and efficient. He only had 12 points because he only shot the ball 6 times. He shot 50% from the field. He was perfect from the foul line. He is a very good free throw shooter and makes opponents pay for fouling him unlike Ben and Markelle.

And Ball hasn’t been terrible so far he’s been one of the 5 best rookies.

I'd take Fox over Ball right now, especially with his new found shooting stroke. Your hate is massive for Fultz, but he can still shot as good as Ball with one arm. I do like the other things Ball brings to the table, but that shot is just broke.

Tatum is playing out of position, not matter what they say about 'positionless' basketball, he is still a SF. I don't think any of the rookies have looked great really, just ok so far. None of them make me want to pass on a healthy Fultz as of right now.

So if Tatum is playing out of position according to you then that should make what he’s doing even more impressive right? Tatum is going to be a problem going forward. Same for Fox.

Well Tatum does have the advantage of playing with Kyrie and Harford (although not a fan of him) who are established already. Fultz and Simmons don't have that advantage, heck really Embiid is still a rookie. Tatum has alot less responsibility then our basically 3 rookies which helps him out alot.

Fox was always going to be a problem if he develops a 3pt shot.

[Unbreakable99]

Read on Twitter

LeBron and Lonzo.

[ivysixer2000]

Read on Twitter

LeBron and Lonzo.

Don't get too excited and throw a party, wishing someone a happy birthday doesn't mean he's trying to go to the Lakers cause of Lonzo.

[LordCovington33]

Quietly, De'Aaron Fox has actually be the best rookie not named Ben Simmons. He's shooting 91% from FT and 50% from 3. Granted they aren't on large volumes (2.4 FTA; 1.2 3PA per game) but he's scoring 15 ppg, 5 apg, and 4 rpg. All this coming off the bench on a pretty bad, but young, team.

I can't wait till they fully hand the keys over to him.

Not sure why you are excluding the 14FGA (42.9%) per game to get those points. He is actually inefficient from the field, and a below average defender at this stage. Tatum has been much better.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

Right, if you discount Tatum having a stronger frame and being on the second or third best team in the conference thus giving him easier shots that he doesn't need to create for himself, then yes, Tatum is definitely better.

Still not sure why you chose to ignore his overall shooting efficiency. Selecting the small volume samples helps support a certain narrative, but it provides an inaccurate picture of his true shooting efficiency.

[Negrodamus]

Not sure why you are excluding the 14FGA (42.9%) per game to get those points. He is actually inefficient from the field, and a below average defender at this stage. Tatum has been much better.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

Right, if you discount Tatum having a stronger frame and being on the second or third best team in the conference thus giving him easier shots that he doesn't need to create for himself, then yes, Tatum is definitely better.

Still not sure why you chose to ignore his overall shooting efficiency. Selecting the small volume samples helps support a certain narrative, but it provides an inaccurate picture of his true shooting efficiency.

Speaking of confused, I'm not entirely sure why you used that graph to prove any point? Fox has more points added, than the off ball, low stress, jumpshooter Tatum.

Second, shooting efficiency is going to take a dip when you're the main ball handler creating for yourself as a rookie in your fifth game. If you want to ride this FG% argument home, be my guest. But the way Fox is getting points for his team is infinitely more difficult than what Tatum is doing.

[LordCovington33]

Speaking of confused, I'm not entirely sure why you used that graph to prove any point? Fox has more points added, than the off ball, low stress, jumpshooter Tatum.

Second, shooting efficiency is going to take a dip when you're the main ball handler creating for yourself as a rookie in your fifth game. If you want to ride this FG% argument home, be my guest. But the way Fox is getting points for his team is infinitely more difficult than what Tatum is doing.

Okay, so you thought mentioning the percentages of a shot he rarely attempts was more important than providing overall shooting efficiency. Gotcha.

Basketball is two sides of the ball. Just illustrating that there are other players worthy of "second to Simmons", and Fox is not the actual second best player as you suggested.

If Tatum's stats are inflated due to being on a good team, why are most of the other Boston players failing to make a similar impact?

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

[Negrodamus]

Speaking of confused, I'm not entirely sure why you used that graph to prove any point? Fox has more points added, than the off ball, low stress, jumpshooter Tatum.

Second, shooting efficiency is going to take a dip when you're the main ball handler creating for yourself as a rookie in your fifth game. If you want to ride this FG% argument home, be my guest. But the way Fox is getting points for his team is infinitely more difficult than what Tatum is doing.

Okay, so you thought mentioning the percentages of a shot he rarely attempts was more important than providing overall shooting efficiency. Gotcha.

Basketball is two sides of the ball. Just illustrating that there are other players worthy of "second to Simmons", and Fox is not the actual second best player as you suggested.

If Tatum's stats are inflated due to being on a good team, why are most of the other Boston players failing to make a similar impact?

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

Well, if you look at the graph, you'll notice that most of the team is struggling on offense, but all are positive on defense. That's the sign of a good defensive team. Then you look at the starters (along with Tatum) and see that Kyrie and Horford are way positive on offense and defense. So, what can I deduce from this? That he has quite a bit of support on the defensive end.

Conversely, you look at the Kings garbage roster:

Read on Twitter

And you realize that maybe, just maybe, Fox has the odds stacked against him in the first five games of his career.

Also, I never stated that the "shots he rarely attempts" was more important than overall shooting efficiency. That was a weird deduction you incorrectly drew.

[Ericb5]

One of the dumbest, most illogical, most cliched, yet probably very commonly believed notion is that plays at the end of the game count more than plays in the beginning or middle of the game. No, they don't. Every point counts equally. Change 5 of your team's random 3 pointers from makes to misses and rebounds to the opposing team, and that's taking 15 points cumulatively off your scoreboard.

Having a key assist in the last 40 seconds of the game leads to two points which count no more than a two point assist and bucket done 5 minutes prior.

So yeah, the "winning plays at the end of games" thing is garbage. Just a cliche being regurgitated in the same sports echochamber.

Perhaps true mathematically, but performance in pressure situations is certainly more difficult than in non pressure situations, and therefore players that perform in crunch time are more valuable than players with the same production that DON’T perform in crunch time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ericb5]

For the season: Lakers with Lonzo -9.9. Lakers without Lonzo +7.0

I do hear that whatever Lonzo has is contagious, so that could explain the Lakers being better without him to this point.

Spoiler:

I don’t even dislike Lonzo, he’s doing some
impressive things for a rookie, but he doesn’t deserve so much credit (or blame). This discussion as a microcosm of the mania demonstrates why so many want him to fail, tho - it’s annoying.

All of this early season evaluation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. These numbers for Lonzo, Simmons, and Embiid will be much more meaningful when they are true over the course of say 50 games.

Lonzo is the real deal imo. He isn’t in the league of Simmons overall, but he is going to be a terrific point guard in his own right. There is no such thing as a fake triple double unless you are counting double digit turnovers or something negative. I expect him to at least be as good as Rondo was, however he could end up closer to Kidd than Rondo in the end as he gains experience.


I don’t think that he has Kidd’s raw talent, but I do think that he isn’t that far behind. Kidd with a talent level a full tier below. Which goes from superstar down to allstar.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spikeslovechild]

I hate those stupid photo graphs they tell me nothing because I can't make out their faces. Why bother creating a graph at all

[CoreyGallagher]

All of this early season evaluation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. These numbers for Lonzo, Simmons, and Embiid will be much more meaningful when they are true over the course of say 50 games.

Lonzo is the real deal imo. He isn’t in the league of Simmons overall, but he is going to be a terrific point guard in his own right. There is no such thing as a fake triple double unless you are counting double digit turnovers or something negative. I expect him to at least be as good as Rondo was, however he could end up closer to Kidd than Rondo in the end as he gains experience.


I don’t think that he has Kidd’s raw talent, but I do think that he isn’t that far behind. Kidd with a talent level a full tier below. Which goes from superstar down to allstar.

If the praise is going to be what it is then I’m going to expect more.

[LongLiveHinkie]

For the season: Lakers with Lonzo -9.9. Lakers without Lonzo +7.0

I do hear that whatever Lonzo has is contagious, so that could explain the Lakers being better without him to this point.

Spoiler:

I don’t even dislike Lonzo, he’s doing some
impressive things for a rookie, but he doesn’t deserve so much credit (or blame). This discussion as a microcosm of the mania demonstrates why so many want him to fail, tho - it’s annoying.

All of this early season evaluation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. These numbers for Lonzo, Simmons, and Embiid will be much more meaningful when they are true over the course of say 50 games.

Lonzo is the real deal imo. He isn’t in the league of Simmons overall, but he is going to be a terrific point guard in his own right. There is no such thing as a fake triple double unless you are counting double digit turnovers or something negative. I expect him to at least be as good as Rondo was, however he could end up closer to Kidd than Rondo in the end as he gains experience.


I don’t think that he has Kidd’s raw talent, but I do think that he isn’t that far behind. Kidd with a talent level a full tier below. Which goes from superstar down to allstar.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's exactly the point he's making indirectly. If you're going to gush over underwhelming performances a mere handful of games in and gush over a couple plays a game that are "winning plays" then he's going to make show that he can do the same thing in the other direction.

Basically proving that all reactions this early are nonsensical and pointless.

[PLO]

Lonzo is a winner by moving the ball and make the right plays whereas Simmons is a loser by holding the ball too long and not taking that open jump shot. Simmons is the reason why we loss yesterday. Simmons should take note.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Lonzo was a real winner earlier this year when De'Aaron Fox dropped 39 on him and punted UCLA out of the Sweet Sixteen.

Lonzo helped his team win over 35 games so yes he is a winner. Look at UCLA before Ball and after Ball got there.

Yeah but what people mean when they say "winner" is how a player performs in clutch situations. Ball was found massively wanting against Fox that day in the most clutch situation UCLA and Ball had faced that entire season.

However, I don't really subscribe that much to the "winner" narrative - even the supposedly most clutch of players, Michael Jordan, still missed a heap of game winning shots throughout his career. I would agree its great to have a player that can perform at their best under pressure situations but sometimes that doesn't mean they'll win the game as a result.

[PLO]

A rookie that has surprised me is Markkanen. He still doesn't provide much on defense other than rebounding, but he's clearly making a difference in this early season.

Read on Twitter

He’s getting a lot of run since Mirotic got his face busted and he’s doing pretty good with that extra time. He’s a much better shooter than given credit for.

He did come into the season as probably the most statistically credentialed shooter in the history of college basketball though.

[Unbreakable99]

I will call KAT new Okafor.

Read on Twitter