RealGM

PhillyFan11 wrote:

Negrodamus wrote:I guess another question I have is does he ever really shut anyone down? Last year, I'm going through the notable teams he played again and it seems like a few drafted stars were able to put up pretty decent games. He got absolutely exposed against UNC. NAW had a massive game against UW. Louis King and KZ Okpala had two very solid performances (and two duds). Tres Tinkle had two very solid offensive outings.

Now I'm not saying it's his fault, but when you play zone, does one excuse the massive performances from the opposing stars while applauding his games where they shut down a star? I'm not sure. I posted a highlight tape of Kerwin Roach in the other thread where you can see the direct result of his defense against NBA stars due to man to man matchups. Those are results I can legitimately keep under consideration for how he'll be as a defender at the next level.

Just something to think about.

So based off of your YouTube scouting you’ve deemed that a guy the entire nba deemed undraftable (Roach) is a more impactful defender than the reigning defensive player of the year and consensus top 25 pick?

And because a player played zone for 2 of 4 years in college you think he isn’t a good man defender? Despite the fact that he has all the requisite skills, athleticism and length to do so?

Just trying to make sure I’m reading this correctly

I'm not sure why I'm even responded due to the contentiousness of this, and your previous posts, towards a civil post critiquing Thybulle, but I'll do it anyway.

If your argument is that he played in man to man defense his first two years, it's pretty flimsy. He was DRtg was horrendous his freshman year and somehow got even worse his sophomore year (probably because he didn't have Dejounte Murray and Marquise Criss helping him). But the thing is, he wasn't even strictly in man to man those years. They had to switch to a 2-3 zone because they were getting bludgeoned too much on defense. Those teams went 19-15 and 9-22 respectfully.

Comparatively, Brandon Clarke was on one of the worst teams in D-I basketball in San Jose State and put up exceptional defensive numbers in his first year starting. Even had the back to back 4 win SJSU at a near 500 record. Still maintained great defensive advanced stats.

So yes, I think what Kerwin Roach did on Texas was more impressive. The foundation of your argument on multiple threads has strangely been about my competency compared to NBA teams. Is Robert Covington really a better defender than Otto Porter? How can you compare an undrafted SF to the third overall pick? Is Draymond really a better defender than Michael Kidd Gilchrist?

How frequently do teams have to botch their picks till you understand that many front offices have their heads up their asses.

Negrodamus wrote:

PhillyFan11 wrote:

Negrodamus wrote:I guess another question I have is does he ever really shut anyone down? Last year, I'm going through the notable teams he played again and it seems like a few drafted stars were able to put up pretty decent games. He got absolutely exposed against UNC. NAW had a massive game against UW. Louis King and KZ Okpala had two very solid performances (and two duds). Tres Tinkle had two very solid offensive outings.

Now I'm not saying it's his fault, but when you play zone, does one excuse the massive performances from the opposing stars while applauding his games where they shut down a star? I'm not sure. I posted a highlight tape of Kerwin Roach in the other thread where you can see the direct result of his defense against NBA stars due to man to man matchups. Those are results I can legitimately keep under consideration for how he'll be as a defender at the next level.

Just something to think about.

So based off of your YouTube scouting you’ve deemed that a guy the entire nba deemed undraftable (Roach) is a more impactful defender than the reigning defensive player of the year and consensus top 25 pick?

And because a player played zone for 2 of 4 years in college you think he isn’t a good man defender? Despite the fact that he has all the requisite skills, athleticism and length to do so?

Just trying to make sure I’m reading this correctly

I'm not sure why I'm even responded due to the contentiousness of this, and your previous posts, towards a civil post critiquing Thybulle, but I'll do it anyway.

If your argument is that he played in man to man defense his first two years, it's pretty flimsy. He was DRtg was horrendous his freshman year and somehow got even worse his sophomore year (probably because he didn't have Dejounte Murray and Marquise Criss helping him). But the thing is, he wasn't even strictly in man to man those years. They had to switch to a 2-3 zone because they were getting bludgeoned too much on defense. Those teams went 19-15 and 9-22 respectfully.

Comparatively, Brandon Clarke was on one of the worst teams in D-I basketball in San Jose State and put up exceptional defensive numbers in his first year starting. Even had the back to back 4 win SJSU at a near 500 record. Still maintained great defensive advanced stats.

So yes, I think what Kerwin Roach did on Texas was more impressive. The foundation of your argument on multiple threads has strangely been about my competency compared to NBA teams. Is Robert Covington really a better defender than Otto Porter? How can you compare an undrafted SF to the third overall pick? Is Draymond really a better defender than Michael Kidd Gilchrist?

How frequently do teams have to botch their picks till you understand that many front offices have their heads up their asses.

If you can’t understand why I’m doubting your scouting over the ENTIRE NBA’s...you might need seek out some help.

Thanks for your insight. You've carried yourself exceptionally well in this discourse with plenty of evidence and respect.

PhillyFan11 wrote:

Negrodamus wrote:

PhillyFan11 wrote:

So based off of your YouTube scouting you’ve deemed that a guy the entire nba deemed undraftable (Roach) is a more impactful defender than the reigning defensive player of the year and consensus top 25 pick?

And because a player played zone for 2 of 4 years in college you think he isn’t a good man defender? Despite the fact that he has all the requisite skills, athleticism and length to do so?

Just trying to make sure I’m reading this correctly

I'm not sure why I'm even responded due to the contentiousness of this, and your previous posts, towards a civil post critiquing Thybulle, but I'll do it anyway.

If your argument is that he played in man to man defense his first two years, it's pretty flimsy. He was DRtg was horrendous his freshman year and somehow got even worse his sophomore year (probably because he didn't have Dejounte Murray and Marquise Criss helping him). But the thing is, he wasn't even strictly in man to man those years. They had to switch to a 2-3 zone because they were getting bludgeoned too much on defense. Those teams went 19-15 and 9-22 respectfully.

Comparatively, Brandon Clarke was on one of the worst teams in D-I basketball in San Jose State and put up exceptional defensive numbers in his first year starting. Even had the back to back 4 win SJSU at a near 500 record. Still maintained great defensive advanced stats.

So yes, I think what Kerwin Roach did on Texas was more impressive. The foundation of your argument on multiple threads has strangely been about my competency compared to NBA teams. Is Robert Covington really a better defender than Otto Porter? How can you compare an undrafted SF to the third overall pick? Is Draymond really a better defender than Michael Kidd Gilchrist?

How frequently do teams have to botch their picks till you understand that many front offices have their heads up their asses.

If you can’t understand why I’m doubting your scouting over the ENTIRE NBA’s...you might need seek out some help.

I wouldn’t even respond Negrodamus. Dudes clearly trolling.

I can also vouch for Negrodamus’ player projections and evaluations as he has consistently identified more diamond in the rough talent that goes on to produce in the NBA over the last 10 years on this board than many NBA gm’s.

AirP. wrote:

Ben wrote:I agree completely that Thybulle's NBA potential is tied closely to his 3P shot. If he can improve, and can become a player who shoots better than 35% regularly from 3, then he has a real potential to help here. On the other hand, I wouldn't ground his NBA potential based on his college defensive stats, because based on those he should be twice as good as Snell or maybe 50% better than Bowen, and that's unlikely to happen.

The really ironic thing is that while you start your post so vehemently rejecting Tony Snell as a comparison, you close by putting Thybulle's upside as a decent 3&D wing. That's what Tony Snell already IS, with better 3P shooting and worse defense than some in that category. I don't think that anyone has hit what you describe as Thybulle's ceiling with collegiate offensive stats like Thybulle's. But you and I and a lot of other fans hope that he can do it. Here's hoping.

I don't see the Snell/Thybulle as a good comparison either, I see Thybulle as more coordinated, stronger and just overall just a more athletic player then Snell, if you want to use a Bull's pick (from somewhat recent history) I think Thabo Sefolosha (which came from Philly) is way more alike Thybulle then Snell is/was. Thybulle, much like Thabo, just had a knack at getting their hands on the ball with great coordination and being able to read what the offensive player was going to do.

Again, if you'll re-read the post that originally began this, I wasn't chiming in to offer Snell as a great comparison for Thybulle but to sympathize with folks who felt irked by the pick in the same way that I felt irked by the Bulls drafting Snell (also at #20) some years ago, and drafting him to fit a category similar to the one that the Sixers are now trying to fill. I wasn't super-pissed when the Bulls drafted Thabo.

When I wrote that I had been composing a much longer post, since discarded, breaking down a number of the 3&D guys who seem like decent comparisons and pointing out that it's always tough to find really good comparisons for any given draftee because there are so many factors involved. The most important point is probably that someone like Thybulle needs to be able to shoot well in the NBA, and that's going to take some doing. If you want to bring Thabo into this, note that he didn't start shooting decently from 3 until he was 27, which was long past when the Bulls needed him to be doing that. That's my main concern here.

Negrodamus wrote:I'm not sure why I'm even responded due to the contentiousness of this, and your previous posts, towards a civil post critiquing Thybulle, but I'll do it anyway.

If your argument is that he played in man to man defense his first two years, it's pretty flimsy. He was DRtg was horrendous his freshman year and somehow got even worse his sophomore year (probably because he didn't have Dejounte Murray and Marquise Criss helping him). But the thing is, he wasn't even strictly in man to man those years. They had to switch to a 2-3 zone because they were getting bludgeoned too much on defense. Those teams went 19-15 and 9-22 respectfully.

Although DRTG tries to extract what a player contributes on defense, it's still based off what the team as a whole does in it's equation. Yes Thybulle was 110 that 2nd year, only one player who started on his team more than 10 games had a lower DRTG (107.8), the rest of the starters... 110.3, 110.7, 111.5 and 117.9.

Negrodamus wrote:Comparatively, Brandon Clarke was on one of the worst teams in D-I basketball in San Jose State and put up exceptional defensive numbers in his first year starting. Even had the back to back 4 win SJSU at a near 500 record. Still maintained great defensive advanced stats.

All of Gonzaga's starters were DRTG of 95.1 and lower, I highly doubt all of them were better then Thybulle defensively, they just were a better overall defensive team.

Negrodamus wrote:How frequently do teams have to botch their picks till you understand that many front offices have their heads up their asses.

Although I'm a big fan of ORTG and DRTG in the NBA(since everyone plays near the same competition in a season and you have to be pretty good to be in the NBA), the level of players in the NCAA are wildly different in levels of quality making it very tough to have a stat to point to, to say a player will be better than another, not to mention the playstyle is different too. Also, you can be undersized in the NCAA and still be highly productive whereas that may not work in the NBA since most have good size.

AirP. wrote:

Negrodamus wrote:I'm not sure why I'm even responded due to the contentiousness of this, and your previous posts, towards a civil post critiquing Thybulle, but I'll do it anyway.

If your argument is that he played in man to man defense his first two years, it's pretty flimsy. He was DRtg was horrendous his freshman year and somehow got even worse his sophomore year (probably because he didn't have Dejounte Murray and Marquise Criss helping him). But the thing is, he wasn't even strictly in man to man those years. They had to switch to a 2-3 zone because they were getting bludgeoned too much on defense. Those teams went 19-15 and 9-22 respectfully.

Although DRTG tries to extract what a player contributes on defense, it's still based off what the team as a whole does in it's equation. Yes Thybulle was 110 that 2nd year, only one player who started on his team more than 10 games had a lower DRTG (107.8), the rest of the starters... 110.3, 110.7, 111.5 and 117.9.

Negrodamus wrote:Comparatively, Brandon Clarke was on one of the worst teams in D-I basketball in San Jose State and put up exceptional defensive numbers in his first year starting. Even had the back to back 4 win SJSU at a near 500 record. Still maintained great defensive advanced stats.

All of Gonzaga's starters were DRTG of 95.1 and lower, I highly doubt all of them were better then Thybulle defensively, they just were a better overall defensive team.

Negrodamus wrote:How frequently do teams have to botch their picks till you understand that many front offices have their heads up their asses.

Although I'm a big fan of ORTG and DRTG in the NBA(since everyone plays near the same competition in a season and you have to be pretty good to be in the NBA), the level of players in the NCAA are wildly different in levels of quality making it very tough to have a stat to point to, to say a player will be better than another, not to mention the playstyle is different too. Also, you can be undersized in the NCAA and still be highly productive whereas that may not work in the NBA since most have good size.

I was talking about Brandon Clarke's Soph year defensive numbers at San Jose State which is more remarkable because of how awful they were. Gonzaga is a different story.

I’m hopeful Thybulle is better than Snell, but I think people acting like Snell is some sort of awful result speaks to the outsized expectations that people have for late first round picks.

Snell is 16th in his draft class in career win shares, he’s gonna play in the league for a decade including starting games for playoff teams. The Bucks giving him that contract is unfortunate but also separate from him getting drafted.

Negrodamus wrote:I was talking about Brandon Clarke's Soph year defensive numbers at San Jose State which is more remarkable because of how awful they were. Gonzaga is a different story.

In San Jose, he was at 98.7 DRTG and the other starters were at 101.8, 105.6, 106.9, 107.3 and 108.8, with those numbers he didn't stick out mathematically as much there as he did in Gonzaga. Still a very good defensive player.

AirP. wrote:

Negrodamus wrote:I was talking about Brandon Clarke's Soph year defensive numbers at San Jose State which is more remarkable because of how awful they were. Gonzaga is a different story.

In San Jose, he was at 98.7 DRTG and the other starters were at 101.8, 105.6, 106.9, 107.3 and 108.8, with those numbers he didn't stick out mathematically as much there as he did in Gonzaga. Still a very good defensive player.

The 101.8 player played a third of the minutes that Clarke did. Also I'd drop 105.6 since he wasn't a starter. But the rest are a pretty substantial difference, IMO. I also think it's particularly important to point out that the season in question (14-16) is bookended by a 9-22 season (Clarke was a freshman with only 2 games started) and a 4-26 season (year after Clarke left).

My hope is that Thybulle can become a 36% 3PT shooter on a large number of attempts, ala Robert Covington. I don't expect that for at least a year or two as he was only a 36% 3PT shooter through his entire college career with the obviously shorter line.

This is the time for that new shooting coach we got from the Spurs to make his money. Need to rub off some of that Chip Engellund magic onto Mattise and Ben Simmons also.

Arsenal wrote:My hope is that Thybulle can become a 36% 3PT shooter on a large number of attempts, ala Robert Covington. I don't expect that for at least a year or two as he was only a 36% 3PT shooter through his entire college career with the obviously shorter line.

This is the time for that new shooting coach we got from the Spurs to make his money. Need to rub off some of that Chip Engellund magic onto Mattise and Ben Simmons also.

My post this morning was to suggest Thybulle's hoped-for level as a 36% 3P shooter with great defense, and I also noted that it might well take years for that to develop.

I don't want to bog anyone too far down into analytics, because they're generally best at post-diction rather than prediction. But I'm aware of some fairly basic models put forward by fans that try to guesstimate NBA 3P % based on college performance (usually a combination of college 3P%, college FT%, and collegiate attempts). Color me a skeptic, but an interested skeptic. The model that I linked does a pretty good job with a reasonable number of draftees who went pro. And it projects Thybulle as a 35.8% NBA 3P shooter, pretty much the same as his collegiate performance. If he's able to achieve that, it wouldn't be unusual for it to take several years. If he struggles at the 33-35% level for one or more years, it will be tough for him to get playing time and it will be tough for him to contribute during the Sixers' "win-now" window. Do the folks who support his choice in this draft really get that?

I mean, it'd be great if he can step in right away and defend and shoot 3s like RoCo. I would be SO psyched. But do people really understand how unlikely that is in the first season or two? The bottom line is that he might become a contributor in the Sixers' next round of title contention, several years down the road, but leaving them still needing a 3&D vet who can contribute right now.

Ben wrote:

Arsenal wrote:My hope is that Thybulle can become a 36% 3PT shooter on a large number of attempts, ala Robert Covington. I don't expect that for at least a year or two as he was only a 36% 3PT shooter through his entire college career with the obviously shorter line.

This is the time for that new shooting coach we got from the Spurs to make his money. Need to rub off some of that Chip Engellund magic onto Mattise and Ben Simmons also.

My post this morning was to suggest Thybulle's hoped-for level as a 36% 3P shooter with great defense, and I also noted that it might well take years for that to develop.

I don't want to bog anyone too far down into analytics, because they're generally best at post-diction rather than prediction. But I'm aware of some fairly basic models put forward by fans that try to guesstimate NBA 3P % based on college performance (usually a combination of college 3P%, college FT%, and collegiate attempts). Color me a skeptic, but an interested skeptic. The model that I linked does a pretty good job with a reasonable number of draftees who went pro. And it projects Thybulle as a 35.8% NBA 3P shooter, pretty much the same as his collegiate performance. If he's able to achieve that, it wouldn't be unusual for it to take several years. If he struggles at the 33-35% level for one or more years, it will be tough for him to get playing time and it will be tough for him to contribute during the Sixers' "win-now" window. Do the folks who support his choice in this draft really get that?

I mean, it'd be great if he can step in right away and defend and shoot 3s like RoCo. I would be SO psyched. But do people really understand how unlikely that is in the first season or two? The bottom line is that he might become a contributor in the Sixers' next round of title contention, several years down the road, but leaving them still needing a 3&D vet who can contribute right now.

I don’t think the Sixers are expecting thybulle to do that this year, there’s rumours they are going hard after Danny green which means he could sit for a year or 2 behind him to develop into that type of player.

Ben wrote:

51X3RF4N wrote:I feel like people are saying how bad he will be offensively but we really don't need him to do anything more than what RoCo does, and even then we may just need a catch and shoot 3&D guy, right?

I think Zhaire has shown more offensive flashes than Matysse in his limited time in the NBA, but that doesn't mean Matysse won't be just as impactful simply by shooting 38-40% from 3pt.

We literally have been saying we need a RoCo replacement since the trade, and we need a 3&D guy next to Ben, and we need someone who plays well without the ball in his hands, and defers on offense to our stars.

That is Exactly what we just drafted and I am very excited to see how he fits in and makes an immediate impact.

Zhaire is still 2 years younger than Matysse and I think can develop into an offensive threat in time, and Matysse will still be plugging along in his role.

I think he's a Landry Shamet type in the sense that he can come in and learn from JJ about playing off the ball and running through those sets to get open 3pt looks, preparing for games etc. Except even though he may not shoot the lights out like Landry, his defense will be a huge plus.

Whoa. If Thybulle could hit 38-40% from 3P range, I'd be ecstatic. But that's really hard to do. He shot 35.8% from 3 over four college seasons. NBA range is three feet further and the defenses are better. For point of reference, Covington shot 42.2% from 3 over four college seasons, and he's a career 36% 3-point shooter in the NBA. (Covington was also a little better collegiate FT shooter than Thybulle, 80.2% to 78.2%.) So if Thybulle somehow becomes a 38-40% shooter relatively soon (since the idea is to get him contributing during the Sixers' championship window), that would be amazing. But not at all expected.

Well, to be fair I'm not sure what his senior season was all about, but he was 36%, 40%, and 36% prior to going 30% his final season.

So I based my estimate off the 37% average those 3 years, and really I figure if he can be a 40% shooter one year, why couldn't he improve further in the NBA with better coaches, trainers and opportunities to develop, along with defenses collapsing on Embiid and Simmons?

If he can simply be 38%, as I said or better, he would make a major impact as a 3&D player on the wing, which is exactly what this team is missing

Does good defense with 36% shooting even matter when the guy is scoring 3-6 points in over 20 minutes of action?

That's a 10-15 roster spot guy, not a rotation player.

Kobblehead wrote:Does good defense with 36% shooting even matter when the guy is scoring 3-6 points in over 20 minutes of action?

That's a 10-15 roster spot guy, not a rotation player.

If we have our big 4 back, 3-6pts in 20 minutes on good efficiency with good defense is more than sufficient.

That's basically just James Ennis when he's healthy. Or Tony Snell on a yearly basis. Neither of which have established themselves as covetable rotation players.

You still need to produce points. Like Covington and Porter.

The points don't matter it's the efficiency. Assuming we bring everyone back he needs to be able to hit knockdown 3's play some D but nothing else.

spikeslovechild wrote:The points don't matter it's the efficiency. Assuming we bring everyone back he needs to be able to hit knockdown 3's play some D but nothing else.

Only problem is that he's a 35% career college 3 point shooter, and NBA 3 pointers are more difficult than college.

Also, offensive efficiency involves not only shooting % but ability to create and convert on free throw opportunities. That ability often translates pretty well from college to the pros. James Harden was great at it. Jimmy Butler was in that ballpark. Matisse Thybulle was at about 30% of their level (collegiate FTA/40).

So if it's the efficiency that matters, with Thybulle we have to cross our fingers and hope for the unexpected.

I like the kid, so I'll be right there at gametime with hands clasped.

Welcome Matisse Thybulle to the starting lineup!