2024-25 Season Discussion and Speculation

[Saberestar]

Great to see Allen hitting 3s. I noticed in last night's game Book and Beal play really well together. They seem to have really good chemistry. A lot better with either of them and KD. It seems they complement each other and feed each other for great plays, whereas with KD and Book it's a bit more of your turn/my turn.

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

[bwgood77]

Great to see Allen hitting 3s. I noticed in last night's game Book and Beal play really well together. They seem to have really good chemistry. A lot better with either of them and KD. It seems they complement each other and feed each other for great plays, whereas with KD and Book it's a bit more of your turn/my turn.

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

I'm not saying the team played poorly or worse or anything, just that Book and Beal seem to have really good chemistry setting up each other and being on the same page. Moreso than what it seems like KD does. But KD does his own thing, and he's as good at it as pretty much anyone has ever been.

[ChuckS]

Great to see Allen hitting 3s. I noticed in last night's game Book and Beal play really well together. They seem to have really good chemistry. A lot better with either of them and KD. It seems they complement each other and feed each other for great plays, whereas with KD and Book it's a bit more of your turn/my turn.

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

I agree with you, although I can understand both opinions with Booker high scorer for the night. But I think it was deceiving. He and Beal were both under 40% for the night, and Booker at 20% of 10 threes. KD was the only one of the big three that was relatively efficient, although one make from his usual minimum of 50%. It seems obvious to me (and I think most others) after all of last year, when they tied in average, and thus far this year, that they are our best combination. Someone said that they just take turns ISOing, but in reality they both have the BB IQ to defer to the hottest hand. This has been the general league practice since the peach basket.

I have no problem with Bud's fantastic coaching. Early in the season his intent seems to have been to get Booker, Beal, Allen, and even Dunn going as obvious future strengths of this team. Bol might be next if Coach sees such potential. It seems obvious that he knows Durant's true importance by minutes given, even when he's a diversion for the defense and seemingly passive. A good example was the two great KD makes at about the 2 minute mark of the win against the Lakers. After KD again attracted the defensive interest he was able to find Royce open for the assist on the clinching three pointer. I'm confident that once Coach gets the team where he wants it, he will make sure that KD gets more than 3 shots in the 3d quarter, and only 3 more in the fourth, if they are blowing a 20 point lead. But this is just my lonely opinion.

[lilfishi22]

Great to see Allen hitting 3s. I noticed in last night's game Book and Beal play really well together. They seem to have really good chemistry. A lot better with either of them and KD. It seems they complement each other and feed each other for great plays, whereas with KD and Book it's a bit more of your turn/my turn.

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

I'm not saying the team played poorly or worse or anything, just that Book and Beal seem to have really good chemistry setting up each other and being on the same page. Moreso than what it seems like KD does. But KD does his own thing, and he's as good at it as pretty much anyone has ever been.

I didn't really notice that nor was I focused on it tbh but out of the 3, KD has been the most "ball stopperish", at least that was the experience from last season. So it wouldn't surprise me if you noticed that. But I think the main thing that I see is KD is coming around on those iso's and having Jones out there and an offensive system that preaches ball movement does limit how many iso possessions he gets

KD ISO possessions:
2023-2024: 4.4
2024-2025: 3.7

KD ISO FREQ%:
2023-2024: 17.7
2024-2025: 15.6

KD ISO PPP:
2023-2024: 0.94
2024-2025: 1.23

KD ISO FGA:
2023-2024: 3.5
2024-2025: 2.2

So for me, as long as the iso's are down, I don't mind as much if his chemistry isn't as super hot as Book/Beal

[bwgood77]

Great to see Allen hitting 3s. I noticed in last night's game Book and Beal play really well together. They seem to have really good chemistry. A lot better with either of them and KD. It seems they complement each other and feed each other for great plays, whereas with KD and Book it's a bit more of your turn/my turn.

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

I agree with you, although I can understand both opinions with Booker high scorer for the night. But I think it was deceiving. He and Beal were both under 40% for the night, and Booker at 20% of 10 threes. KD was the only one of the big three that was relatively efficient, although one make from his usual minimum of 50%. It seems obvious to me (and I think most others) after all of last year, when they tied in average, and thus far this year, that they are our best combination. Someone said that they just take turns ISOing, but in reality they both have the BB IQ to defer to the hottest hand. This has been the general league practice since the peach basket.

I have no problem with Bud's fantastic coaching. Early in the season his intent seems to have been to get Booker, Beal, Allen, and even Dunn going as obvious future strengths of this team. Bol might be next if Coach sees such potential. It seems obvious that he knows Durant's true importance by minutes given, even when he's a diversion for the defense and seemingly passive. A good example was the two great KD makes at about the 2 minute mark of the win against the Lakers. After KD again attracted the defensive interest he was able to find Royce open for the assist on the clinching three pointer. I'm confident that once Coach gets the team where he wants it, he will make sure that KD gets more than 3 shots in the 3d quarter, and only 3 more in the fourth, if they are blowing a 20 point lead. But this is just my lonely opinion.

I don't disagree with any of that. I definitely think KD is the best player and Booker is the next best, and it's pretty close. I just simply noticed last night that I felt Booker and Beal have developed a nice chemistry and 2 man game. Not something I had really noticed before. But you are right, neither had great shooting nights, which is independent of the plays I was talking about. KD is a great player, just more of the type of player you let do his thing. A guy like Tyus Jones isn't quite as impactful running an offense when there is more iso. KD likes to call for the ball and do his thing. I am not saying that's a negative thing, because him doing his thing is just as good as anyone has ever been at "doing their thing".

And if you take any of the two players you want playing that night, I agree that you take KD and Book, but that wasn't really my point. I in no way meant that either were better than KD. I think I must have not communicated what I meant clearly enough.

My comment was a positive one, a plus for the team.

[bwgood77]

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

I'm not saying the team played poorly or worse or anything, just that Book and Beal seem to have really good chemistry setting up each other and being on the same page. Moreso than what it seems like KD does. But KD does his own thing, and he's as good at it as pretty much anyone has ever been.

I didn't really notice that nor was I focused on it tbh but out of the 3, KD has been the most "ball stopperish", at least that was the experience from last season. So it wouldn't surprise me if you noticed that. But I think the main thing that I see is KD is coming around on those iso's and having Jones out there and an offensive system that preaches ball movement does limit how many iso possessions he gets

KD ISO possessions:
2023-2024: 4.4
2024-2025: 3.7

KD ISO FREQ%:
2023-2024: 17.7
2024-2025: 15.6

KD ISO PPP:
2023-2024: 0.94
2024-2025: 1.23

KD ISO FGA:
2023-2024: 3.5
2024-2025: 2.2

So for me, as long as the iso's are down, I don't mind as much if his chemistry isn't as super hot as Book/Beal

Yeah, I don't mind...it's what he does, though for me it's nice to see it down, as I like a free flowing offense with a lot of open catch and shoot 3s or guys simply finishing at the rim. But KD bread and butter is those iso shots from the elbow.

The one thing surprising in those #s is that he only has 2.2 ISO FGA per game, but that's good. You could say he should do it more given his PPP, but that's probably part of the reason his PPP is higher, because he is doing it less and under better circumstances when he does.

[ChuckS]

I don't notice anything of that. All three of them has the ISO ball as an option, but they are playing good team ball mixed with some ISO so far this year and has been nice.

We have played 2 games without Beal and the team won both playing great.

I agree with you, although I can understand both opinions with Booker high scorer for the night. But I think it was deceiving. He and Beal were both under 40% for the night, and Booker at 20% of 10 threes. KD was the only one of the big three that was relatively efficient, although one make from his usual minimum of 50%. It seems obvious to me (and I think most others) after all of last year, when they tied in average, and thus far this year, that they are our best combination. Someone said that they just take turns ISOing, but in reality they both have the BB IQ to defer to the hottest hand. This has been the general league practice since the peach basket.

I have no problem with Bud's fantastic coaching. Early in the season his intent seems to have been to get Booker, Beal, Allen, and even Dunn going as obvious future strengths of this team. Bol might be next if Coach sees such potential. It seems obvious that he knows Durant's true importance by minutes given, even when he's a diversion for the defense and seemingly passive. A good example was the two great KD makes at about the 2 minute mark of the win against the Lakers. After KD again attracted the defensive interest he was able to find Royce open for the assist on the clinching three pointer. I'm confident that once Coach gets the team where he wants it, he will make sure that KD gets more than 3 shots in the 3d quarter, and only 3 more in the fourth, if they are blowing a 20 point lead. But this is just my lonely opinion.

I don't disagree with any of that. I definitely think KD is the best player and Booker is the next best, and it's pretty close. I just simply noticed last night that I felt Booker and Beal have developed a nice chemistry and 2 man game. Not something I had really noticed before. But you are right, neither had great shooting nights, which is independent of the plays I was talking about. KD is a great player, just more of the type of player you let do his thing. A guy like Tyus Jones isn't quite as impactful running an offense when there is more iso. KD likes to call for the ball and do his thing. I am not saying that's a negative thing, because him doing his thing is just as good as anyone has ever been at "doing their thing". And if you take any of the two players you want playing that night, I agree that you take KD and Book, but that wasn't really my point. I in no way meant that either were better than KD. I think I must have not communicated what I meant clearly enough.

My comment was a positive one, a plus for the team.

My possible bad! I actually agree with your main point, particularly the important Booker - Beal chemistry. I also do not know if I've ever seen better overall positive team chemistry. I also appreciate your balanced view of ISOs, and KD's value. And I feel better knowing that you agree with the KD/Booker pairing since I value your opinion.

My tragic flaw, and it doesn't result from your views, is my belief in the value of ISOs. I cannot imagine what Michael or Kobe, and too many others, particularly KD, would have been without them. I cannot believe anyone who watched that 1988 playoff game 7, between Bird and Wilkins, could ever complain. I like them at the end of games when great defenses screw up great offenses...not at the expense of great offenses. (Even though the analysts allege they are the least efficient, and about a fourth option.) We make ISO players sound like 300 pound blundering oafs. And mediocrities give them a bad rap. But recently posted stats indicated (per my memory) that KD averages about 3.5 seconds and 2.5 dribbles per touch. I don't see it, but even if that slows down play, I'll take a great shooter, and greatly efficient, over the potential of the shot being taken by one who is not. And, at least theoretically, IMO, both can be in the flow of a good motion offense.

[bwgood77]

I agree with you, although I can understand both opinions with Booker high scorer for the night. But I think it was deceiving. He and Beal were both under 40% for the night, and Booker at 20% of 10 threes. KD was the only one of the big three that was relatively efficient, although one make from his usual minimum of 50%. It seems obvious to me (and I think most others) after all of last year, when they tied in average, and thus far this year, that they are our best combination. Someone said that they just take turns ISOing, but in reality they both have the BB IQ to defer to the hottest hand. This has been the general league practice since the peach basket.

I have no problem with Bud's fantastic coaching. Early in the season his intent seems to have been to get Booker, Beal, Allen, and even Dunn going as obvious future strengths of this team. Bol might be next if Coach sees such potential. It seems obvious that he knows Durant's true importance by minutes given, even when he's a diversion for the defense and seemingly passive. A good example was the two great KD makes at about the 2 minute mark of the win against the Lakers. After KD again attracted the defensive interest he was able to find Royce open for the assist on the clinching three pointer. I'm confident that once Coach gets the team where he wants it, he will make sure that KD gets more than 3 shots in the 3d quarter, and only 3 more in the fourth, if they are blowing a 20 point lead. But this is just my lonely opinion.

I don't disagree with any of that. I definitely think KD is the best player and Booker is the next best, and it's pretty close. I just simply noticed last night that I felt Booker and Beal have developed a nice chemistry and 2 man game. Not something I had really noticed before. But you are right, neither had great shooting nights, which is independent of the plays I was talking about. KD is a great player, just more of the type of player you let do his thing. A guy like Tyus Jones isn't quite as impactful running an offense when there is more iso. KD likes to call for the ball and do his thing. I am not saying that's a negative thing, because him doing his thing is just as good as anyone has ever been at "doing their thing". And if you take any of the two players you want playing that night, I agree that you take KD and Book, but that wasn't really my point. I in no way meant that either were better than KD. I think I must have not communicated what I meant clearly enough.

My comment was a positive one, a plus for the team.

My possible bad! I actually agree with your main point, particularly the important Booker - Beal chemistry. I also do not know if I've ever seen better overall positive team chemistry. I also appreciate your balanced view of ISOs, and KD's value. And I feel better knowing that you agree with the KD/Booker pairing since I value your opinion.

My tragic flaw, and it doesn't result from your views, is my belief in the value of ISOs. I cannot imagine what Michael or Kobe, and too many others, particularly KD, would have been without them. I cannot believe anyone who watched that 1988 playoff game 7, between Bird and Wilkins, could ever complain. I like them at the end of games when great defenses screw up great offenses...not at the expense of great offenses. (Even though the analysts allege they are the least efficient, and about a fourth option.) We make ISO players sound like 300 pound blundering oafs. And mediocrities give them a bad rap. But recently posted stats indicated (per my memory) that KD averages about 3.5 seconds and 2.5 dribbles per touch. I don't see it, but even if that slows down play, I'll take a great shooter, and greatly efficient, over the potential of the shot being taken by one who is not. And, at least theoretically, IMO, both can be in the flow of a good motion offense.

I agree...some of the best players ever were iso, but just from my personal view, that was never the style I enjoyed as much. I liked Bird on the fast break running, how the showtime Lakers played, how the Suns from 88-92 played with KJ running and gunning, the SSOL Suns, etc. I don't really like watching one guy do his thing while 4 guys watch him. It's not a bad thing with KD, but I was never a fan of watching Kobe. MJ was an exciting player, but that's who Kobe was trying to emulate, and then a whole generation of players tried to emulate Kobe, which I didn't like as much as the more free flowing offense.

Just personal preference. But iso is important, particularly at the end of close games. In general I think drawing up a play and just finding the best open shot is the best bet, but sometimes you want the ball in your best players hands to take it, and live or die by it.

[lilfishi22]

Still early in the season but the OKC Thunder have a defensive rating of 97.5. No team has had a sub-100 DRTG since the 2015-2016 Spurs who had a 99.0 DRTG. For context, the average DRTG back then was 106.4 whereas it's now 113.0. The average pace then was 95.8 whereas it's 99.9 right now. GSW had the highest ORTG at 114.5; that would be good for 12th right now. The Rockets had the highest 3PT rate 37%; that's good for 26th in today's league (Boston's at 55.1%)

The Warriors are also decimating competition. They have the highest net rating currently at 17.9, 4th in ORTG and 2nd in DRTG. I thought they were going to be slightly worse this season...Haven't looked at the bench stats yet but their bench might be better than their starting line up without Steph

Edit: OK just looked it up. Warriors bench is indeed better than their starting line up. Bench is putting up 61pts (best in the league) which is a plus 10.8pts from the next team down. Their starters put up 60pts a game (2nd worst in the league).

Our bench is 24th in the league in scoring, I suppose that is not unexpected given most of our scoring comes is concentrated around the Big 3.

[bwgood77]

Still early in the season but the OKC Thunder have a defensive rating of 97.5. No team has had a sub-100 DRTG since the 2015-2016 Spurs who had a 99.0 DRTG. For context, the average DRTG back then was 106.4 whereas it's now 113.0. The average pace then was 95.8 whereas it's 99.9 right now. GSW had the highest ORTG at 114.5; that would be good for 12th right now. The Rockets had the highest 3PT rate 37%; that's good for 26th in today's league (Boston's at 55.1%)

The Warriors are also decimating competition. They have the highest net rating currently at 17.9, 4th in ORTG and 2nd in DRTG. I thought they were going to be slightly worse this season...Haven't looked at the bench stats yet but their bench might be better than their starting line up without Steph

Edit: OK just looked it up. Warriors bench is indeed better than their starting line up. Bench is putting up 61pts (best in the league) which is a plus 10.8pts from the next team down. Their starters put up 60pts a game (2nd worst in the league).

Our bench is 24th in the league in scoring, I suppose that is not unexpected given most of our scoring comes is concentrated around the Big 3.

The Thunder our amazing, and our great defensively everywhere. Shai, Caruso, Dort and Jalen are great defenders, as is Chet, and Hartenstein hasn't even played yet.

GS is better than I expected, but their biggest wins were against Utah and Portland. They did beat the Pelicans twice, but they are also without Murray and Trey Murphy, plus McCollum in one of those games.

Houston almost came back to beat them.

But GS has done a good job of adding young talent while their old guys decline. And Curry is still great. Wiggins playing a bit better. I expect them to cool off, but their young guys have improved.

[bwgood77]

Last in offensive rebounding is an issue if Nurkic is stuck to the floor because we can't shoot much better and are still not top 10 offense

Nurkic is hurting us in many areas, offensive rebounding being one. I mention his poor defense often but his offense has been atrocious.

Look at his shooting so far.



He's 37.5% from the field so far, with 8 pts and 8 boards a game, along with 1.5 ast, 3.5 turnovers, less than 20% from 3 and less than 70% from the line.

I wouldn't have even noticed exactly how bad his #s have been but unfortunately I had to take him in fantasy because all the Cs were gone before I started taking them.

He has to be one of the worst starting Cs, if not the worst.

[bwgood77]

Paul George back tonight, but luckily I don't think Embiid is yet. Maxey has been playing well, but without Embiid they have been bad so far and George will probably be on a minutes restriction.

[bwgood77]

Put down some thoughts on the games so far:

https://hoopsnexus.substack.com/p/suns-insights-week-onetwo

Will have a deeper read through later but only have time to read the numbers stuff at the end which is interesting.

- I'm a bit surprised by the single Big 3 line ups. With Beal out for 2 games, there must've been a decent amount of single big 3 lineups during those games and they couldn't be that bad right?
- Those Nurk minutes are insanely bad.....
- BRef has our Points per 100 as 115.6pts for 9th in the league. ORB% is 16.2% for last. Wonder why the discrepancy.

Cleaning the Glass filters out garbage time n heaves n stuff

Could also have been updated since I pulled the #s too i suppose

Lineups are just kinda nothing atm, all it takes is one stretch to change it pretty drastically. The Beal only stuff doesnt look nearly as good without that 1st quarter vs Lakers, for example.

I like how you use Cleaning the Glass, since they throw out all the junk time stats, heaves, etc. I used to subscribe. Are you going to write at all about other teams? Personally aside from the Suns I am interested in the WC, but if you write about some big market teams too, you can probably increase traffic big time, and I can spread the word to other fanbases as well.

Just a thought, but of course I'd like the focus on the Suns. But if you hit on the Knicks, Celtics, Sixers, Rockets, LA teams, GS, etc, all the huge market teams, especially if they are good, that will probably significantly increase your reader base in time. Especially with guys like Zach Lowe out for now and 538 #s gone.

There probably is an opening for in depth analysis. Of course you can't watch all the games, but digging into the #s is good. Do you watch many other teams?

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Looking around the L for a possible Nurkic trade - man, the second apron makes it tough. But I found this:

After Dec. 15 - Nurkic + [whatever draft capital we have left] for Jonas Valanciunas and Johnny Davis.

Even when I'm optimistic about Nurk, I don't think he's better than Val. Nurk's expiring, so the Wizards get some value out of Val's contract. Val has two more years at $10 mil per, which I don't think is unreasonable. What do y'all think?

[flagstaff]

I don't disagree with any of that. I definitely think KD is the best player and Booker is the next best, and it's pretty close. I just simply noticed last night that I felt Booker and Beal have developed a nice chemistry and 2 man game. Not something I had really noticed before. But you are right, neither had great shooting nights, which is independent of the plays I was talking about. KD is a great player, just more of the type of player you let do his thing. A guy like Tyus Jones isn't quite as impactful running an offense when there is more iso. KD likes to call for the ball and do his thing. I am not saying that's a negative thing, because him doing his thing is just as good as anyone has ever been at "doing their thing". And if you take any of the two players you want playing that night, I agree that you take KD and Book, but that wasn't really my point. I in no way meant that either were better than KD. I think I must have not communicated what I meant clearly enough.

My comment was a positive one, a plus for the team.

My possible bad! I actually agree with your main point, particularly the important Booker - Beal chemistry. I also do not know if I've ever seen better overall positive team chemistry. I also appreciate your balanced view of ISOs, and KD's value. And I feel better knowing that you agree with the KD/Booker pairing since I value your opinion.

My tragic flaw, and it doesn't result from your views, is my belief in the value of ISOs. I cannot imagine what Michael or Kobe, and too many others, particularly KD, would have been without them. I cannot believe anyone who watched that 1988 playoff game 7, between Bird and Wilkins, could ever complain. I like them at the end of games when great defenses screw up great offenses...not at the expense of great offenses. (Even though the analysts allege they are the least efficient, and about a fourth option.) We make ISO players sound like 300 pound blundering oafs. And mediocrities give them a bad rap. But recently posted stats indicated (per my memory) that KD averages about 3.5 seconds and 2.5 dribbles per touch. I don't see it, but even if that slows down play, I'll take a great shooter, and greatly efficient, over the potential of the shot being taken by one who is not. And, at least theoretically, IMO, both can be in the flow of a good motion offense.

I agree...some of the best players ever were iso, but just from my personal view, that was never the style I enjoyed as much. I liked Bird on the fast break running, how the showtime Lakers played, how the Suns from 88-92 played with KJ running and gunning, the SSOL Suns, etc. I don't really like watching one guy do his thing while 4 guys watch him. It's not a bad thing with KD, but I was never a fan of watching Kobe. MJ was an exciting player, but that's who Kobe was trying to emulate, and then a whole generation of players tried to emulate Kobe, which I didn't like as much as the more free flowing offense.

Just personal preference. But iso is important, particularly at the end of close games. In general I think drawing up a play and just finding the best open shot is the best bet, but sometimes you want the ball in your best players hands to take it, and live or die by it.

I agree about Kobe. He was a great player, but almost felt forced for him to share the ball. I remember a game during the last 5 years(?) of his career. People had been calling him selfish, not a team player, etc. One game, he practically refuses to shoot. Passing up open shots. He would pass to teammates, but not really facilitate. Obviously to show his importance, but not to highlight anyone else. I think they lost badly. Of course, he reverted shortly after.

[bwgood77]

My possible bad! I actually agree with your main point, particularly the important Booker - Beal chemistry. I also do not know if I've ever seen better overall positive team chemistry. I also appreciate your balanced view of ISOs, and KD's value. And I feel better knowing that you agree with the KD/Booker pairing since I value your opinion.

My tragic flaw, and it doesn't result from your views, is my belief in the value of ISOs. I cannot imagine what Michael or Kobe, and too many others, particularly KD, would have been without them. I cannot believe anyone who watched that 1988 playoff game 7, between Bird and Wilkins, could ever complain. I like them at the end of games when great defenses screw up great offenses...not at the expense of great offenses. (Even though the analysts allege they are the least efficient, and about a fourth option.) We make ISO players sound like 300 pound blundering oafs. And mediocrities give them a bad rap. But recently posted stats indicated (per my memory) that KD averages about 3.5 seconds and 2.5 dribbles per touch. I don't see it, but even if that slows down play, I'll take a great shooter, and greatly efficient, over the potential of the shot being taken by one who is not. And, at least theoretically, IMO, both can be in the flow of a good motion offense.

I agree...some of the best players ever were iso, but just from my personal view, that was never the style I enjoyed as much. I liked Bird on the fast break running, how the showtime Lakers played, how the Suns from 88-92 played with KJ running and gunning, the SSOL Suns, etc. I don't really like watching one guy do his thing while 4 guys watch him. It's not a bad thing with KD, but I was never a fan of watching Kobe. MJ was an exciting player, but that's who Kobe was trying to emulate, and then a whole generation of players tried to emulate Kobe, which I didn't like as much as the more free flowing offense.

Just personal preference. But iso is important, particularly at the end of close games. In general I think drawing up a play and just finding the best open shot is the best bet, but sometimes you want the ball in your best players hands to take it, and live or die by it.

I agree about Kobe. He was a great player, but almost felt forced for him to share the ball. I remember a game during the last 5 years(?) of his career. People had been calling him selfish, not a team player, etc. One game, he practically refuses to shoot. Passing up open shots. He would pass to teammates, but not really facilitate. Obviously to show his importance, but not to highlight anyone else. I think they lost badly. Of course, he reverted shortly after.

Also, when Nash went there Kobe made it a point to basically be a PG and have huge assist games, I guess trying to prove a point "hey, I could have done and can do what Nash did anyway" and turned Nash into a spot up shooter. Kobe was pretty petty during his career.

[Saberestar]

I agree...some of the best players ever were iso, but just from my personal view, that was never the style I enjoyed as much. I liked Bird on the fast break running, how the showtime Lakers played, how the Suns from 88-92 played with KJ running and gunning, the SSOL Suns, etc. I don't really like watching one guy do his thing while 4 guys watch him. It's not a bad thing with KD, but I was never a fan of watching Kobe. MJ was an exciting player, but that's who Kobe was trying to emulate, and then a whole generation of players tried to emulate Kobe, which I didn't like as much as the more free flowing offense.

Just personal preference. But iso is important, particularly at the end of close games. In general I think drawing up a play and just finding the best open shot is the best bet, but sometimes you want the ball in your best players hands to take it, and live or die by it.

I agree about Kobe. He was a great player, but almost felt forced for him to share the ball. I remember a game during the last 5 years(?) of his career. People had been calling him selfish, not a team player, etc. One game, he practically refuses to shoot. Passing up open shots. He would pass to teammates, but not really facilitate. Obviously to show his importance, but not to highlight anyone else. I think they lost badly. Of course, he reverted shortly after.

Also, when Nash went there Kobe made it a point to basically be a PG and have huge assist games, I guess trying to prove a point "hey, I could have done and can do what Nash did anyway" and turned Nash into a spot up shooter. Kobe was pretty petty during his career.

Nash was almost done as a basketball player when he arrived to the Lakers, like CP3 last year on the GSW.

[bwgood77]

Looking around the L for a possible Nurkic trade - man, the second apron makes it tough. But I found this:

After Dec. 15 - Nurkic + [whatever draft capital we have left] for Jonas Valanciunas and Johnny Davis.

Even when I'm optimistic about Nurk, I don't think he's better than Val. Nurk's expiring, so the Wizards get some value out of his contract. Val has two more years at $10 mil per, which I don't think is unreasonable. What do y'all think?

I was actually just looking at Val today...had to google him to see what team he was on. Not so much because I was thinking of trading for him, but it did pop up into my mind.

I don't think that's really much of an upgrade. I think Nurk is a little better than he is playing. He is horrible shooting, but not quite as horrible as he's been.

I've felt this board as overvalued Mitchell Robinson, but at this point I might take him. Though I don't know if the Knicks would prefer to have Nurkic as a backup than Robinson. Probably not.

I just can't see any reason a team would trade for Nurkic unless they were getting rid of a horrible contract, or a long one. I think we might have to do someone like Allen if a team needs 3 pt shooting.

It would be nice if we could get Mark Williams or Nick Richards. I don't know why they would, because both are cheap and pretty good. But they are both somewhat injury prone. Nick Richards is an UFA in 2 summers. They both make $5 million or less. But they do want to compete.

Maybe if we took on Grant Williams because he has a long contract, but I still wouldn't do it if I was Charlotte. However, Nick Richards and Grant Williams make like 100K less than Nurkic or something like that. Williams is a Bud type of player too...3 pt shooting PF.

Maybe if we threw in a pick. I still wouldn't do it if I'm Charlotte though and at least trying to make a push for the playoffs.

[Saberestar]

Looking around the L for a possible Nurkic trade - man, the second apron makes it tough. But I found this:

After Dec. 15 - Nurkic + [whatever draft capital we have left] for Jonas Valanciunas and Johnny Davis.

Even when I'm optimistic about Nurk, I don't think he's better than Val. Nurk's expiring, so the Wizards get some value out of his contract. Val has two more years at $10 mil per, which I don't think is unreasonable. What do y'all think?

I wouldn't do it.

With all his flaws and all I think Nurkic is slightly better than Valanciunas and he is loved by his teammates and coaches already in Phoenix.

Even if you think that Valanciunas is better than Nurkic (debatable) it wouldn't be never by much, so it would be a lateral move that could alter the nice chemistry.

[bwgood77]

I agree about Kobe. He was a great player, but almost felt forced for him to share the ball. I remember a game during the last 5 years(?) of his career. People had been calling him selfish, not a team player, etc. One game, he practically refuses to shoot. Passing up open shots. He would pass to teammates, but not really facilitate. Obviously to show his importance, but not to highlight anyone else. I think they lost badly. Of course, he reverted shortly after.

Also, when Nash went there Kobe made it a point to basically be a PG and have huge assist games, I guess trying to prove a point "hey, I could have done and can do what Nash did anyway" and turned Nash into a spot up shooter. Kobe was pretty petty during his career.

Nash was almost done as a basketball player when he arrived to the Lakers, like CP3 last year on the GSW.

He averaged 10.7 apg and had his best FG% in like 5 years in his last year in PHX, was an all star and got MVP votes. He hurt his back in LA which ended his career but when he got there he was still a great shooter and a great assist guy.

He shot like 44% from 3 with LA the first year and still was a great passer, but just didn't handle the main ball handling duties nearly as much.