Luka Doncic part II

[daoneandonly]

I'm going to try to explain it to you one last time: Rubio wasn't even a top 50 player in Europe in his last season there (some probably wouldn't even put him in top 100, Mirotic12 surely wouldn't )! Maybe he was a year before that, but surely not much higher. Doncic, on the other hand, is in the lead for Euroleague MVP!

Rubio was hyped because of his flashy passing and the fact that everyone thought he's more suited for the NBA than the Euroleague. Doncic, on the other hand, isn't hyped because of his flashiness, or even potential, but actual PRODUCTION on the court. They aren't even remotely comparable as prospects, so you trying to lump them together shows nothing else but your own ignorance. Rubio averaged 6ppg, for **** sake.

It's not Doncic's fault that scouts and GMs thought that Rubio is one day going to find his shot, something he wasn't even able to in all of his years in Europe where shooting is a priority.

So who does Doncic compare to? What player do you see him being like?

i've heard someone mention Harden, now that's just as much a joke as a Rubio comparison. Doncic does not have Harden's shot, and is not even as quick in attacking the rim as Harden

I don't think a similar player even existed. You're probably not going to like a "substantially less athletic mix of LeBron & Harden".

There really hasn't been many other tall point-guards and/or point-forwards that had Doncic's skills in combination with his strong body/strength. Players with his skill-set are usually rather weak, except for players like LeBron & Harden. But you're correct, those comparisons aren't the best either, to say the least.

His unique combination of all-around skills and a strong body is also one of the reasons (along with his unprecedented actual production) why comparing him to European players doesn't make much sense. Nobody is even remotely comparable. Maybe Papaloukas (who never went to the NBA), but he was nowhere near the scorer (and even rebounder) that Doncic is. A year ago they seemed a lot more comparable.

Interesting. my posts have been more reactionary to all the guards that came over that have not even remotley lived up to their draft status. Granted it happens very often with the NCAA guys, but I honestly can't name a single guard from Europe/Australia (except maybe Parker, who had Pop and Duncan) that lived up to where they were drafted. Whereas the bigs (Gasol, Giannis, Jokic, and my all time fave, Dirk Diggler) seem to have a few who have not only met it, but shattered it. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I'm a "I'll believe it when i see it" type that Doncic is finally going to be that guy to break the glass ceiling.

[SportsGuy8]

I never understood why that argument is used. If a player is ex-NBA, that only proves that he's not good enough to be in the NBA.

It means they were considered good enough at one point, that's still more than 99% of the college players these guys play against no?

No, it definitely does not prove that. Again... the only thing it proves is that they're not good enough for the NBA. Good enough at one point... come on. At one point, the hot chick in high school thought I was cute.

I think that he's trying to point out the double standards. Many of the collegiate draftees are also going to be out of the league rather soon.

Besides, the college talent pool is spread throughout lots and lots of NCAA teams, meaning that these lottery prospects very rarely even face other lottery prospects, often not even draft prospects, but players that are going to end up playing in China or some other lower-level league.

So you can say that Doncic faces opponents that weren't good enough to stay in the NBA (although that's not always the case; some prefer to have important roles in the Euroleague, than to be end-of-bench players in the NBA), however, the vast majority of players college prospect face aren't even going to come CLOSE to the NBA ...

Not to mention that they're KIDS. College prospects are basically mostly facing KIDS who aren't even going to come close to getting drafted by NBA teams, kids that play in very strategically primitive systems (most NCAA defenses are a huge mess).

[Ruzious]

It means they were considered good enough at one point, that's still more than 99% of the college players these guys play against no?

No, it definitely does not prove that. Again... the only thing it proves is that they're not good enough for the NBA. Good enough at one point... come on. At one point, the hot chick in high school thought I was cute.

I think that he's trying to point out the double standards. Many of the collegiate draftees are also going to be out of the league rather soon.

Besides, the college talent pool is spread throughout lots and lots of NCAA teams, meaning that these lottery prospects very rarely even face other lottery prospects, often not even draft prospects, but players that are going to end up playing in China or some other lower-level league.

So you can say that Doncic faces opponents that weren't good enough to stay in the NBA (although that's not always the case; some prefer to have important roles in the Euroleague, than to be end-of-bench players in the NBA), however, the vast majority of players college prospect face aren't even going to come CLOSE to the NBA ...

Not to mention that they're KIDS. College prospects are basically mostly facing KIDS who aren't even going to come close to getting drafted by NBA teams, kids that play in very strategically primitive systems (most NCAA defenses are a huge mess).

And my point is - when you guys make those kind of points, you lose credibility.

[SportsGuy8]

Don't you think there's a double standard?

If Doncic playing vs. ex-NBA players (let's forget for a second that he also played vs. many actual NBA players, even stars) doesn't count for much ...

Shouldn't then everything collegiate prospects ever do vs. players who aren't even going to get drafted be completely disregarded? (and even many of those that actually do get drafted are soon going to become "ex-NBA" also, just look at the stats how many draftees actually stay in the league)

[SportsGuy8]

So who does Doncic compare to? What player do you see him being like?

i've heard someone mention Harden, now that's just as much a joke as a Rubio comparison. Doncic does not have Harden's shot, and is not even as quick in attacking the rim as Harden

I don't think a similar player even existed. You're probably not going to like a "substantially less athletic mix of LeBron & Harden".

There really hasn't been many other tall point-guards and/or point-forwards that had Doncic's skills in combination with his strong body/strength. Players with his skill-set are usually rather weak, except for players like LeBron & Harden. But you're correct, those comparisons aren't the best either, to say the least.

His unique combination of all-around skills and a strong body is also one of the reasons (along with his unprecedented actual production) why comparing him to European players doesn't make much sense. Nobody is even remotely comparable. Maybe Papaloukas (who never went to the NBA), but he was nowhere near the scorer (and even rebounder) that Doncic is. A year ago they seemed a lot more comparable.

Interesting. my posts have been more reactionary to all the guards that came over that have not even remotley lived up to their draft status. Granted it happens very often with the NCAA guys, but I honestly can't name a single guard from Europe/Australia (except maybe Parker, who had Pop and Duncan) that lived up to where they were drafted. Whereas the bigs (Gasol, Giannis, Jokic, and my all time fave, Dirk Diggler) seem to have a few who have not only met it, but shattered it. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I'm a "I'll believe it when i see it" type that Doncic is finally going to be that guy to break the glass ceiling.

The skepticism is understandable, however, there's Petrovic and Ginobili (it's hard to deny that Manu would have been a perennial All-Star had he played on most other teams; he sacrificed a whole lot for the good of the team/dynasty).

Both Petrovic and Ginobili were the best guards in Europe before they came to the NBA. Rubio wasn't close, Hezonja MILES away (he probably wasn't even top50 among guards), while Doncic can actually claim to be just that (but obviously not as dominant as Manu and Drazen, understandably so because he's only turning 19 in a couple days, while Manu & Drazen were both in mid-20s).

[Nikson]

I never understood why that argument is used. If a player is ex-NBA, that only proves that he's not good enough to be in the NBA.

It means they were considered good enough at one point, that's still more than 99% of the college players these guys play against no?

No, it definitely does not prove that. Again... the only thing it proves is that they're not good enough for the NBA. Good enough at one point... come on. At one point, the hot chick in high school thought I was cute.

I agree with you on some of your thoughts.

Then, when I think of MJ, he was drafted and was also out of the league... and later prove he still was good enough for the NBA....
Just as contradiction example ....not anything else.


We can sure agree on this short facts:
1. Doncic at 18 has already played (well) against NBA players. (100%)
2. Doncic at 18 has already played (well) against ex-NBA players. (100%)
3. Doncic at 17 has already played (well) against NBA prospects which actually later has been on Draft. Not saying anything about being drafted.

We cannot say 1., 2., or 3. for any of this season NCAA player, right?

[Ruzious]

It means they were considered good enough at one point, that's still more than 99% of the college players these guys play against no?

No, it definitely does not prove that. Again... the only thing it proves is that they're not good enough for the NBA. Good enough at one point... come on. At one point, the hot chick in high school thought I was cute.

I agree with you on some of your thoughts.

Then, when I think of MJ, he was drafted and was also out of the league... and later prove he still was good enough for the NBA....
Just as contradiction example ....not anything else.

But when he came back, he came back to the NBA - not Europe.

And he's Michael Jordan.

[Nikson]

No, it definitely does not prove that. Again... the only thing it proves is that they're not good enough for the NBA. Good enough at one point... come on. At one point, the hot chick in high school thought I was cute.

I agree with you on some of your thoughts.

Then, when I think of MJ, he was drafted and was also out of the league... and later prove he still was good enough for the NBA....
Just as contradiction example ....not anything else.

But when he came back, he came back to the NBA - not Europe.

And he's Michael Jordan.

And in time he was out of the league, the only thing it proves is that he was not good enough for the NBA.?
Sure not.
There are other examples of returning to NBA from other leagues. Even China or south America.

I am glad you agree on all my other statements too.

[KD95]

I agree with you on some of your thoughts.

Then, when I think of MJ, he was drafted and was also out of the league... and later prove he still was good enough for the NBA....
Just as contradiction example ....not anything else.

But when he came back, he came back to the NBA - not Europe.

And he's Michael Jordan.

And in time he was out of the league, the only thing it proves is that he was not good enough for the NBA.?
Sure not.

I am glad you agree on all my other statements too.

I think the key difference there is that MJ was out of the league because he wanted to be out, not because he wasn’t good enough. I don’t think that’s a good example at all.

[Nikson]

But when he came back, he came back to the NBA - not Europe.

And he's Michael Jordan.

And in time he was out of the league, the only thing it proves is that he was not good enough for the NBA.?
Sure not.

I am glad you agree on all my other statements too.

Yes I agree completely!
The whole bolded and underlined Razor statement is wrong.

I think the key difference there is that MJ was out of the league because he wanted to be out, not because he wasn’t good enough. I don’t think that’s a good example at all.

There are other examples too. Who returns to NBA is obviously not “not good enough “ for NBA.

One cannot be sure Marbury, Beasley and likes were not good enough for NBA when they leave. Comming back or not.

[KD95]

And in time he was out of the league, the only thing it proves is that he was not good enough for the NBA.?
Sure not.

I am glad you agree on all my other statements too.

I think the key difference there is that MJ was out of the league because he wanted to be out, not because he wasn’t good enough. I don’t think that’s a good example at all.

There are other examples too. Who returns to NBA is obviously not “not good enough “ for NBA.

One cannot be sure Marbury, Beasley and likes were not good enough for NBA when they leave. Comming back or not.

Sure, I don’t doubt that, I just wanted to point out that the MJ example was a bad one, because the situations aren’t the same.

[Nikson]

And in time he was out of the league, the only thing it proves is that he was not good enough for the NBA.?
Sure not.

I am glad you agree on all my other statements too.

I think the key difference there is that MJ was out of the league because he wanted to be out, not because he wasn’t good enough. I don’t think that’s a good example at all.

There are other examples too. Who returns to NBA is obviously not “not good enough “ for NBA.

One cannot be sure Marbury, Beasley and likes were not good enough for NBA when they leave. Comming back or not.

[Nikson]

I think the key difference there is that MJ was out of the league because he wanted to be out, not because he wasn’t good enough. I don’t think that’s a good example at all.

There are other examples too. Who returns to NBA is obviously not “not good enough “ for NBA.

One cannot be sure Marbury, Beasley and likes were not good enough for NBA when they leave. Comming back or not.

Sure, I don’t doubt that, I just wanted to point out that the MJ example was a bad one, because the situations aren’t the same.

Yes I agree completely!
The whole bolded and underlined Razor statement is wrong.
MJ is just an extreme exemple.

My point was more on 1,2,3.

[Mirotic12]

He was overhyped because of "skills" he flashed against inferiror competition that will never touch an NBA hardwood, just like Doncic. I never said Doncic is going to suck (liek Rubio does), I said he's not a guy you take in the top 5 when the class also has Ayton, Bagley, Jackson Jr, Bamba, Young. Those guys may play against other kids, but at least some of those other kids are still NBA bound. No one Doncic is facing on a regular basis is

You can't convince anyone here that the competition in college is better than euroleague/acb. When we talk about how well somebody is doing currently we look at the competition they are facing today, not in 3 years. Doncic faced ex-NBA and current NBA players and did really well against all of them, how well did these NBA bound lottery picks you talk of do against NBA level talent this past year?

I never understood why that argument is used. If a player is ex-NBA, that only proves that he's not good enough to be in the NBA.

There are all kinds of reasons why players can prefer to not be in the NBA.

Playing time
role in a team
more money
prefer to live elsewhere
prefer to be closer to family
prefer the lifestyle (very common for guys playing in Europe)

On the better EuroLeague teams, usually half the players on the team have regularly turned down NBA contracts.

Then you have the fact that NBA has almost all guaranteed contracts. So even if they want to have all the best players on the team from camp, they very rarely do. NBA isn't NFL, where you don't perform and you get cut. NBA is always full of like 1/3 of players that are totally dead weight that teams cannot discard for contract issues. If NBA was suddenly changed to being totally merit based, then all kinds of players would be instantly cut - probably like 1/3 of the league.

NCAA DI
G-League
all kinds of leagues in Europe
some clubs in Latin America, Australia, Asia...

have players that are very clearly better than guys on NBA rosters. In fact, when you look at guys in the 11-15 man roles in NBA, very few of them could make it as rotation players in good EuroLeague teams. Every season we see multiple guys from end of NBA benches be total busts in EuroLeague, and most of them get cut by their EuroLeague teams rather quickly.

Heck we regularly see NBA rotation players go to EuroLeague and be busts. And the argument it's because they are not good enough for either league does not really hold water. Often times, a rotation players leaves the NBA, goes to EuroLeague and busts, then within a year or two is back as an NBA rotation player. All kinds of such examples.

NBA has what 450 players or something? No way in the world are those the top 450 players in the world. Not even close.

I don't think a similar player even existed. You're probably not going to like a "substantially less athletic mix of LeBron & Harden".

There really hasn't been many other tall point-guards and/or point-forwards that had Doncic's skills in combination with his strong body/strength. Players with his skill-set are usually rather weak, except for players like LeBron & Harden. But you're correct, those comparisons aren't the best either, to say the least.

His unique combination of all-around skills and a strong body is also one of the reasons (along with his unprecedented actual production) why comparing him to European players doesn't make much sense. Nobody is even remotely comparable. Maybe Papaloukas (who never went to the NBA), but he was nowhere near the scorer (and even rebounder) that Doncic is. A year ago they seemed a lot more comparable.

Interesting. my posts have been more reactionary to all the guards that came over that have not even remotley lived up to their draft status. Granted it happens very often with the NCAA guys, but I honestly can't name a single guard from Europe/Australia (except maybe Parker, who had Pop and Duncan) that lived up to where they were drafted. Whereas the bigs (Gasol, Giannis, Jokic, and my all time fave, Dirk Diggler) seem to have a few who have not only met it, but shattered it. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I'm a "I'll believe it when i see it" type that Doncic is finally going to be that guy to break the glass ceiling.

The skepticism is understandable, however, there's Petrovic and Ginobili (it's hard to deny that Manu would have been a perennial All-Star had he played on most other teams; he sacrificed a whole lot for the good of the team/dynasty).

Both Petrovic and Ginobili were the best guards in Europe before they came to the NBA. Rubio wasn't close, Hezonja MILES away (he probably wasn't even top50 among guards), while Doncic can actually claim to be just that (but obviously not as dominant as Manu and Drazen, understandably so because he's only turning 19 in a couple days, while Manu & Drazen were both in mid-20s).

I'm not sure about Manu even being best guard in Europe before he came to NBA. You had guys like Ford, Brown, Rakocevic, Basile, Holden, Jasikevicius, Papaloukas, Vujanic, Lakovic, Giricek, Navarro, Djordjevic, Naumoski, Kutluay, Myers, Jaric, Rigaudeau, Udrih, etc.

Manu wasn't nearly as good in that time, as he ended up being in later years. Highly debatable to say he was the best guard in Europe at that time.

As far as Papaloukas - Doncic, that was never a very good comparison. Doncic is a way, way better scorer and shooter, while Papaloukas was way more athletic and light years better at court vision and passing. They were never that similar.

[daoneandonly]

You can't convince anyone here that the competition in college is better than euroleague/acb. When we talk about how well somebody is doing currently we look at the competition they are facing today, not in 3 years. Doncic faced ex-NBA and current NBA players and did really well against all of them, how well did these NBA bound lottery picks you talk of do against NBA level talent this past year?

I never understood why that argument is used. If a player is ex-NBA, that only proves that he's not good enough to be in the NBA.

There are all kinds of reasons why players can prefer to not be in the NBA.

Playing time
role in a team
more money
prefer to live elsewhere
prefer to be closer to family
prefer the lifestyle (very common for guys playing in Europe)

On the better EuroLeague teams, usually half the players on the team have regularly turned down NBA contracts.

Then you have the fact that NBA has almost all guaranteed contracts. So even if they want to have all the best players on the team from camp, they very rarely do. NBA isn't NFL, where you don't perform and you get cut. NBA is always full of like 1/3 of players that are totally dead weight that teams cannot discard for contract issues. If NBA was suddenly changed to being totally merit based, then all kinds of players would be instantly cut - probably like 1/3 of the league.

NCAA DI
G-League
all kinds of leagues in Europe
some clubs in Latin America, Australia, Asia...

have players that are very clearly better than guys on NBA rosters. In fact, when you look at guys in the 11-15 man roles in NBA, very few of them could make it as rotation players in good EuroLeague teams. Every season we see multiple guys from end of NBA benches be total busts in EuroLeague, and most of them get cut by their EuroLeague teams rather quickly.

Heck we regularly see NBA rotation players go to EuroLeague and be busts. And the argument it's because they are not good enough for either league does not really hold water. Often times, a rotation players leaves the NBA, goes to EuroLeague and busts, then within a year or two is back as an NBA rotation player. All kinds of such examples.

NBA has what 450 players or something? No way in the world are those the top 450 players in the world. Not even close.

Interesting. my posts have been more reactionary to all the guards that came over that have not even remotley lived up to their draft status. Granted it happens very often with the NCAA guys, but I honestly can't name a single guard from Europe/Australia (except maybe Parker, who had Pop and Duncan) that lived up to where they were drafted. Whereas the bigs (Gasol, Giannis, Jokic, and my all time fave, Dirk Diggler) seem to have a few who have not only met it, but shattered it. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I'm a "I'll believe it when i see it" type that Doncic is finally going to be that guy to break the glass ceiling.

The skepticism is understandable, however, there's Petrovic and Ginobili (it's hard to deny that Manu would have been a perennial All-Star had he played on most other teams; he sacrificed a whole lot for the good of the team/dynasty).

Both Petrovic and Ginobili were the best guards in Europe before they came to the NBA. Rubio wasn't close, Hezonja MILES away (he probably wasn't even top50 among guards), while Doncic can actually claim to be just that (but obviously not as dominant as Manu and Drazen, understandably so because he's only turning 19 in a couple days, while Manu & Drazen were both in mid-20s).

I'm not sure about Manu even being best guard in Europe before he came to NBA. You had guys like Ford, Djordjevic, Naumoski, Kutluay, Myers, Jaric, Rigaudeau.

Manu wasn't nearly as good in that time, as he ended up being in later years.

As far as Papaloukas - Doncic, that was never a very good comparison. Doncic is a way way better scorer and shooter, while Papaloukas was way more athletic and light years better at court vision and passing. They were never that similar.

Are you talking about Antoine Rigaudeau? If so, you are not helping your argument cause that guy was the definition of a bum on the Mavericks.

[Mirotic12]

Are you talking about Antoine Rigaudeau? If so, you are not helping your argument cause that guy was the definition of a bum on the Mavericks.

Dallas isn't in Europe.

[daoneandonly]

Are you talking about Antoine Rigaudeau? If so, you are not helping your argument cause that guy was the definition of a bum on the Mavericks.

Dallas isn't in Europe.

Exactly my point, success in Europe does not mean success in the big leagues, for guards especially it translates less often than not

[Nikson]

Are you talking about Antoine Rigaudeau? If so, you are not helping your argument cause that guy was the definition of a bum on the Mavericks.

Dallas isn't in Europe.

Exactly my point, success in Europe does not mean success in the big leagues, for guards especially it translates less often than not

Have to agree. And have to add, sucking in Europe translates to sucking in big leagues more often than less often.
Therefore it is still better be good in Europe than being bed in Europe, I guess.
Logic is pretty much an exact science. Combined with real mathematical statistics often become too hard for a lot of people and metaphorically speaking takes toys out of child’s hands and left kid crying in the sand. But eventually they shut up.

[SportsGuy8]

Interesting. my posts have been more reactionary to all the guards that came over that have not even remotley lived up to their draft status. Granted it happens very often with the NCAA guys, but I honestly can't name a single guard from Europe/Australia (except maybe Parker, who had Pop and Duncan) that lived up to where they were drafted. Whereas the bigs (Gasol, Giannis, Jokic, and my all time fave, Dirk Diggler) seem to have a few who have not only met it, but shattered it. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I'm a "I'll believe it when i see it" type that Doncic is finally going to be that guy to break the glass ceiling.

The skepticism is understandable, however, there's Petrovic and Ginobili (it's hard to deny that Manu would have been a perennial All-Star had he played on most other teams; he sacrificed a whole lot for the good of the team/dynasty).

Both Petrovic and Ginobili were the best guards in Europe before they came to the NBA. Rubio wasn't close, Hezonja MILES away (he probably wasn't even top50 among guards), while Doncic can actually claim to be just that (but obviously not as dominant as Manu and Drazen, understandably so because he's only turning 19 in a couple days, while Manu & Drazen were both in mid-20s).

I'm not sure about Manu even being best guard in Europe before he came to NBA. You had guys like Ford, Brown, Rakocevic, Basile, Holden, Jasikevicius, Papaloukas, Vujanic, Lakovic, Giricek, Navarro, Djordjevic, Naumoski, Kutluay, Myers, Jaric, Rigaudeau, Udrih, etc.

Manu wasn't nearly as good in that time, as he ended up being in later years. Highly debatable to say he was the best guard in Europe at that time.

As far as Papaloukas - Doncic, that was never a very good comparison. Doncic is a way, way better scorer and shooter, while Papaloukas was way more athletic and light years better at court vision and passing. They were never that similar.

Personally I don't really think it's that debatable. He was already a beast in his last year playing for Kinder, clearly better than the majority of players you mentioned (many of them were putting up big numbers playing for much worse teams). Some from that list ARE debatable and subject to one's preferences, though, that I agree, but personally I really couldn't put them above 2002 Manu. That 2002 Kinder team was STACKED, yet Manu was clearly their best player.

As for Papaloukas - Doncic. I'm quite sure that you were the one who originally made the comparison, around a year ago! I mostly agree, though, things have changed since then, with Doncic being a much better scorer now. As for passing and court vision, I think we need to wait a bit here. Doncic's clearly looking to pass a lot less this year (his numbers are similar, but last season he had the ball in his hands a whole lot less). I seriously doubt that's going to be the case in the NBA, with much better talent surrounding him than this injury depleted Real's team from 1st half of this season.

[SportsGuy8]

Are you talking about Antoine Rigaudeau? If so, you are not helping your argument cause that guy was the definition of a bum on the Mavericks.

Dallas isn't in Europe.

Exactly my point, success in Europe does not mean success in the big leagues, for guards especially it translates less often than not

He's a special and weird case, though, since he played less than 100 minutes in the NBA, briefly joining the NBA/Mavs MID-SEASON!?! I really don't know/remember what that was all about.

I really think it's a MYTH that guards don't translate well. Guards that translated well:
- Petrovic
- Manu
- Marciulionis was very good
- Fernandez had a good rookie year, then Ariza permanently damaged his back
- Navarro had a decent rookie year (but unfortunately he didn't like the NBA and how selfish some teammates were playing, so he immediately went back; slightly ironically since he was also always a shoot-first player).
- even Udrih was decent
- Giricek was decent

Guards that not only translated well, but were/are actually BETTER in the NBA:
- Parker
- Schroeder
- Rubio
- Calderon

Guards that didn't translate well:
- Spanoulis (but he had mental/emotional momma's boy issues )
- Jasikevicius (it's not like he was a total scrub, but he disappointed, mostly because he's really athletically/physically challenged)
- Rakocevic
- Roko Ukic (but he wasn't even that good in Europe)

Questionables:
- Djordjevic (questionable because he didn't necessarily translate badly, he did OK in extremely limited minutes and basically said "screw you guys, I'm going home" )

I seriously cannot remember other supposed "busts" that didn't translate? I'm sure I probably missed a couple (someone please help), but this whole thing about Euro guards not translating is still a MYTH.

P.s.: Speaking of Rigaudeau, now that's a guy that's actually somewhat comparable to McDermott. Today's game would have been perfect for him, he was a deadly shooter, almost on Korver's level.