Bean Burrito / Nick Young Appreciation Thread.

[hands11]

Kyle Korver has never had a PER over 15 (it is currently 13) but he has always gotten steady minutes off the bench even on strong teams because of his ability to hit perimeter shots and space the floor. Floor spacing doesn't show up in PER but is a very important part of the game.

Hinrich is a goner so that leaves only Gil as a proven 3 point shooter.

Yeah. I think some people here have tainted views on Nick for the past.

Take a fresh look. Other then his goofy personality and immaturity of the past, he is kind of a nice find.

6-7. Young. Athletic. Can dunk. Can create separation and generate his own shot. He can hit from 3 range and has even shown some catch and shoot recently. He has a rare ability to shot and more often then not, his shot is just wet. Truly unique how smooth his shot can look. He just added like 10 pounds of muscle and I would expect him to put in another good summer and add some more. What he added seems to have helped him this year as he has had several highlight plays where he has scored off decent contact. And while not the perfect personality, he does get excited. He does care and gives effort and bring energy. And he has a basketball ego. He wants to matter. And he doesn't suck at D.

He may not be a Wade or a Kobe but he does have some serious skills. He is better Kolver type.

I think the kid is actually coachable. I'm starting to feel more confident that he want round out his game. He just needs to keep improving on rebounding and taking it to the hoop. We need him to be more of a finisher.

[GhostsOfGil]

nick young has nearly doubled his rebounding average this year! from 1 to 2!

on a serious note, nick is now averaging over 20ppg per 36 minutes on 57% ts%

[hands11]

nick young has nearly doubled his rebounding average this year! from 1 to 2!

on a serious note, nick is now averaging over 20ppg per 36 minutes on 57% ts%

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/playe ... ing-guards

And he is climbing the charts.

If he just keep up what he is doing that about 32 minutes and 20 pts and it put him around 6th in the league being Manu.

Thats better than Ray Allen and Vince Carter though Rays shooting % are amazing. .484 from 2 and .435 from 3 and .897 from the line.

[Kanyewest]

Come on, mhd. Do I need to list the non-lotto picks that have been all-stars, legit starters, and valuable rotation guys? Sure the odds are against that, but never up never in. I'd rather have a rookie with his entire rookie contract in front of him that Nick on an extension if it's for any more than $2.5-$3M/yr.

The only thing Nick has "shown" is that he can be a decent scorer on a terrible team. I'd be willing to bet anything that he ends the season with a sub-15 PER.

Here here! I've always been a firm believer in striking while the iron is hot. In Nick's case I'm not sure if it will get any hotter. Funny, I think I said the same thing after Antawn's & Caron's all-star appearances and got killed for it. No one knows Nick better than the organization & us Wizard's fans. If we truly believe that Nick can't keep up this level of play then we should be investigating ways to improve this team going forward. We aren't necessarily playing for this year as we trying to position ourselves to be very good a few years from now.

I don't know what type of value Nick has but a future 1st round pick would pique my interest. As would a package deal with maybe another marginal prospect or player to bring someone who could help us beyond this season.

As you alluded to, Nick's impending free agency plays a huge role in this. Do we really want to give another questionable IQ guy a long term deal? We've already got Blatche on the books for years to come. And likely, we'll want to re-up McGee based on his development. That might fill our quota of knuckleheads and right now I'm not against trading Blatche down the road based on what I've seen thus far.

Trading Nick Young for a late first round pick from the Bulls is not striking when the iron is hot. Nick Young is a quality sixth man and maybe a starter. As long as the Wizards don't overpay him, he's a valuable commodity. I don't think there were many (if any people) who wanted to keep Jamison as a longterm piece. If the Wizards want to move Young, they need to get at least a top 16 pick.

As for the fact that the Wizards have a share "knuckleheads", Young seems like he's been less of one this year than McGee or Blatche. He's playing better defense and can usually recover after missing a couple of jumpers.

[willbcocks]

Come on, mhd. Do I need to list the non-lotto picks that have been all-stars, legit starters, and valuable rotation guys? Sure the odds are against that, but never up never in. I'd rather have a rookie with his entire rookie contract in front of him that Nick on an extension if it's for any more than $2.5-$3M/yr.

The only thing Nick has "shown" is that he can be a decent scorer on a terrible team. I'd be willing to bet anything that he ends the season with a sub-15 PER.

Here here! I've always been a firm believer in striking while the iron is hot. In Nick's case I'm not sure if it will get any hotter. Funny, I think I said the same thing after Antawn's & Caron's all-star appearances and got killed for it. No one knows Nick better than the organization & us Wizard's fans. If we truly believe that Nick can't keep up this level of play then we should be investigating ways to improve this team going forward. We aren't necessarily playing for this year as we trying to position ourselves to be very good a few years from now.

I don't know what type of value Nick has but a future 1st round pick would pique my interest. As would a package deal with maybe another marginal prospect or player to bring someone who could help us beyond this season.

As you alluded to, Nick's impending free agency plays a huge role in this. Do we really want to give another questionable IQ guy a long term deal? We've already got Blatche on the books for years to come. And likely, we'll want to re-up McGee based on his development. That might fill our quota of knuckleheads and right now I'm not against trading Blatche down the road based on what I've seen thus far.

+1

If other teams are warming towards him, let's iron-hot this kid.

[nate33]

nick young has nearly doubled his rebounding average this year! from 1 to 2!

on a serious note, nick is now averaging over 20ppg per 36 minutes on 57% ts%

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/playe ... ing-guards

And he is climbing the charts.

If he just keep up what he is doing that about 32 minutes and 20 pts and it put him around 6th in the league being Manu.

Thats better than Ray Allen and Vince Carter though Rays shooting % are amazing. .484 from 2 and .435 from 3 and .897 from the line.

Young looks even better on a per-minute basis. Here are the league's shooting guards ranked by points per 36 minutes (20 MPG cutoff):

Code: Select all

Player           PTS  FGA  FTA  3PA  FG%  FT%  3P% eFG%  TS%   TO
bryant,kobe     28.2 21.7  8.9  4.7 .442 .833 .333 .478 .550  3.1
martin,kevin    25.1 15.9  9.6  5.6 .439 .919 .418 .513 .624  2.5
wade,dwyane     24.2 16.8  9.5  2.4 .498 .717 .288 .518 .578  3.5
gordon,eric     23.4 16.4  8.8  4.8 .455 .815 .270 .494 .576  2.8
ginobili,manu   22.2 15.0  6.4  7.4 .458 .902 .368 .548 .624  2.8
ellis,monta     21.4 17.5  5.1  3.6 .474 .697 .356 .511 .543  2.8
richardson,jaso 21.4 17.1  3.1  6.5 .474 .778 .440 .558 .582  1.4
young,nick      20.7 16.5  3.9  5.6 .468 .818 .367 .530 .568  1.2
hamilton,richar 19.6 17.3  4.2  4.2 .414 .887 .394 .461 .513  2.2
matthews,wesley 19.6 14.9  4.4  5.7 .468 .819 .370 .539 .583  2.1
roy,brandon     18.4 16.1  4.9  3.5 .399 .890 .347 .437 .504  1.8
barbosa,leandro 18.3 15.7  3.4  5.5 .445 .727 .343 .505 .533  2.0
carter,vince    18.3 14.6  4.1  4.3 .470 .747 .346 .521 .557  2.0
jackson,stephen 18.1 15.1  3.4  5.9 .426 .857 .388 .503 .546  3.3
terry,jason     18.0 14.7  3.3  4.8 .458 .871 .356 .516 .559  2.4
crawford,jamal  17.9 13.9  5.2  4.6 .431 .841 .347 .488 .554  2.5
johnson,joe     17.7 16.1  4.1  4.7 .409 .806 .256 .446 .494  1.8
smith,j.r.      17.4 14.3  4.6  5.5 .403 .758 .430 .485 .532  1.9
allen,ray       16.7 12.4  3.0  4.7 .484 .897 .435 .567 .610  1.6
meeks,jodie     16.0 11.4  3.3  6.5 .452 .818 .455 .583 .622  1.1

Young ranks 8th in the league. After factoring efficiency, he would surely jump ahead of Monta Ellis. Nick Young is arguably the 7th most offensively proficient shooting guard in the league.

[tontoz]

It is funny how people made such a big deal about Arenas not starting. If we go on the theory that the best scorer should be starting then Nick should certainly start.

[nate33]

Trading Nick Young for a late first round pick from the Bulls is not striking when the iron is hot. Nick Young is a quality sixth man and maybe a starter. As long as the Wizards don't overpay him, he's a valuable commodity. I don't think there were many (if any people) who wanted to keep Jamison as a longterm piece. If the Wizards want to move Young, they need to get at least a top 16 pick.

Exactly!

I completely understand the faction who are concerned that Young's production is unsustainable and therefore want to move him. That premise is fine with me. Where I differ is on what value we get in return. All this talk about trading Young for some late pick (like the Chicago pick) bugs me. Any pick in the 20's is a total crapshoot. Nick Young is a legit rotation player and possibly a starting-caliber player. When you have a guy like that who is only 25 years old, you don't give him away for a low pick.

This whole discussion is really moot anyhow. It's real difficult to trade an expiring contract who in the next season is likely to cost the MLE or less. Any team that wants him has a reasonable chance of signing him in free agency. As such, they're not going to give up anything of significant value to get him. We're only going to get offers for 2nd round picks or maybe late 1sts (in the mid-to-late 20's). I wouldn't give up Young for a pick that low.

The only possibility I see where we can get fair value and the other team won't feel like they're just throwing away an asset is if they trade us a similarly promising young player on the last year of his deal in return. Basically, I'm talking about swapping Young for another reasonably good guy from his draft class who for whatever reason doesn't fit on his current roster. Guys like Carl Landry, Thad Young, Corey Brewer and Josh McRoberts might make some sense.

[fishercob]

Nate, I agree that the point is likely moot. Especially given the CBA uncertainty EG is likely to try to keep Nick on the relative cheap and let him walk if he gets a big money offer elsewhere. It's important to keep in mind that we've seen precious few restricted free agents change teams the past several offseasons.

However, if the org indeed believes that Nick's current production is unsustainable, I have no problem with them trading him for a mid-late first. It's indeed a crapshoot, but the more bites we have the apple, the more likely we are to find a diamond in the rough. It's important to remember where Boozer, Rondo, Gilbert, Manu, Granger, etc were drafted.

[pancakes3]

now that the stats are out, i'll come out and say it - the new nick young reminds me of a raw manu ginobili. he's about 2 rpg and about 3 FTA/game away from it but the pieces are there.

[willbcocks]

Maybe it's just me, but absolutely nothing about Nick Young reminds me of Manu Ginobli. In fact, I would describe them as polar opposite shooting guards.

The elite player Nick reminds me the most of is Kobe Bryant, though of ourse that's a kobe stripped of his basketball knowledge and mental edge.

[Nivek]

I have never watched Nick Young and been reminded of Manu Ginobili. I've never watched Ginobili and been reminded of Young. I've never looked at their stats and thought -- these guys are remarkably similar.

IF Ginobili shot worse, rebounded less, stopped passing, and stopped stealing the ball -- then yeah, they'd be just alike.

I know some are looking for something good to latch onto from this season. Nick Young being a starter or 6th man for a good team is wishful thinking. There is more to the game than scoring, and Nick doesn't do any of it. Well, he is an okay on-ball defender. On a good team, Young has an "instant offense off the bench" role. Not the first guy off the bench, but a valued scorer for the second unit.

Yes, his scoring is nice, but we always knew he could score. But, consider where he stands in the other facets of the game. There are 40 players at b-r classified as guards who stand 6-5 or taller. Here are Nick's ranks in non-scoring stat categories:

REB% -- 35th
AST% -- 40th
STL% -- 31st
BLK% -- 9th

He's low turnover (1st in tov%), which is good, but that's primarily because he shoots the ball before he can turn it over. If Nick wants to be a starter or a 6th man, he still needs to do something on the floor besides shoot it. Even if he's shooting it well. As he's playing now, on a good team he's an 8th or 9th man. A SG/SF combo who's the 4th guard and the 3rd SF.

[nate33]

I agree that Young is nothing like Ginobili. I disagree that one must have a well-rounded game to be anything better than an 8th or 9th man. If Young can score at a reasonably high volume and maintain his efficiency, he's a 5th or 6th man - particularly in an offense where the PG dominates the ball.

If (and it's a big if) Young continues to score like he is, we're talking about a top 6-10 scorer in the league from the SG position. Factor in his pretty good on-the-ball defense and I just don't see why he can't be a starter. He's basically a more efficient prime Rip Hamilton, but with tunnel vision.

To put it into perspective, this guy was an all-star:

Code: Select all

hamilton,  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO   PF eFG%  TS%  PER
2007-08   19.5  3.7  4.7  1.1  0.2  2.1  2.7 .515 .552 18.2
2006-07   20.6  3.9  4.0  0.8  0.2  2.2  3.2 .486 .551 18.2
2005-06   21.9  3.5  3.7  0.7  0.2  2.4  2.8 .512 .553 18.2

Why is this guy a 9th man?

Code: Select all

young,nic  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO   PF eFG%  TS%  PER
2010-11   20.7  3.2  0.9  0.9  0.5  1.2  2.6 .530 .568 17.0

3 assists per game (along with one extra turnover a game) is the difference between an All-Star and a bit role player?

To me, the real question is whether or not he can maintain this scoring pace. I still have plenty of doubts.

[Nivek]

Hamilton did that as a starter and the #1 option for his team's offense. He was the focus of the opposition's defense. Opposing coaches game-planned for him and tried to stop him. Nick is coming off the bench for a terrible team. No one game plans for him because they don't need to. Nick can score 30 and it won't change the outcome of the game because the Wizards suck. I don't believe Young would do this well as the alpha offensive player for a team with high expectations. To be blunt, his basketball IQ isn't good enough for him to adjust once defenses started gearing up to take away his favorite moves.

If Nick is starting, but not the #1 offensive option, how is he going to contribute? That puts him back on the bench, but with the same issues. If he's the 6th man, he's going to need to enter the game as that #1 option. If he's on a good team, opposing teams will game plan for him and we're right back to the same old questions: How does he contribute when he's not scoring? How will he adjust when good defensive teams take away his pet moves?

All that is before getting to whether his improved efficiency is sustainable. I think it's not because he's shooting so many **** shots at such a high percentage. That **** shot percentage is markedly different than his shooting from that range in previous years (40%, 40%, 41% to 57%). My expectation is that the percentage will start to drop -- especially if defenses start game-planning him. And then the question becomes, how does he contribute when he's less of a scorer? We're in his 4th season now, and the answer is still the same as it was when he was a rookie.

[fishercob]

All in all, people are being taken in by Nick's 20-some game performance as a good scorer on a terrible team. Shades of Courtney Alexander, really.

[nate33]

Hamilton did that as a starter and the #1 option for his team's offense. He was the focus of the opposition's defense. Opposing coaches game-planned for him and tried to stop him. Nick is coming off the bench for a terrible team. No one game plans for him because they don't need to. Nick can score 30 and it won't change the outcome of the game because the Wizards suck. I don't believe Young would do this well as the alpha offensive player for a team with high expectations. To be blunt, his basketball IQ isn't good enough for him to adjust once defenses started gearing up to take away his favorite moves.

If Nick is starting, but not the #1 offensive option, how is he going to contribute? That puts him back on the bench, but with the same issues. If he's the 6th man, he's going to need to enter the game as that #1 option. If he's on a good team, opposing teams will game plan for him and we're right back to the same old questions: How does he contribute when he's not scoring? How will he adjust when good defensive teams take away his pet moves?

All that is before getting to whether his improved efficiency is sustainable. I think it's not because he's shooting so many **** shots at such a high percentage. That **** shot percentage is markedly different than his shooting from that range in previous years (40%, 40%, 41% to 57%). My expectation is that the percentage will start to drop -- especially if defenses start game-planning him. And then the question becomes, how does he contribute when he's less of a scorer? We're in his 4th season now, and the answer is still the same as it was when he was a rookie.

I don't disagree with much of this. Young certainly has to prove that he can maintain those numbers as a starter and a primary option. (I think it's overstating things a bit to say that Rip was a #1 option. Detroit distriubted the offensive load pretty evenly between Rip, Sheed, Billups, and to a lesser extent, Prince). My reponse was to your original post which seemed to imply that Nick can't start specifically because he's a bad rebounder and a terrible passer. I think those deficiencies aren't that big of a deal provided that he can score like he is doing now (assuming he does it as a a starter over 35 minutes a game).

I agree that Nick hasn't yet proved he can do this.

[hands11]

Trading Nick Young for a late first round pick from the Bulls is not striking when the iron is hot. Nick Young is a quality sixth man and maybe a starter. As long as the Wizards don't overpay him, he's a valuable commodity. I don't think there were many (if any people) who wanted to keep Jamison as a longterm piece. If the Wizards want to move Young, they need to get at least a top 16 pick.

Exactly!

I completely understand the faction who are concerned that Young's production is unsustainable and therefore want to move him. That premise is fine with me. Where I differ is on what value we get in return. All this talk about trading Young for some late pick (like the Chicago pick) bugs me. Any pick in the 20's is a total crapshoot. Nick Young is a legit rotation player and possibly a starting-caliber player. When you have a guy like that who is only 25 years old, you don't give him away for a low pick.

This whole discussion is really moot anyhow. It's real difficult to trade an expiring contract who in the next season is likely to cost the MLE or less. Any team that wants him has a reasonable chance of signing him in free agency. As such, they're not going to give up anything of significant value to get him. We're only going to get offers for 2nd round picks or maybe late 1sts (in the mid-to-late 20's). I wouldn't give up Young for a pick that low.

The only possibility I see where we can get fair value and the other team won't feel like they're just throwing away an asset is if they trade us a similarly promising young player on the last year of his deal in return. Basically, I'm talking about swapping Young for another reasonably good guy from his draft class who for whatever reason doesn't fit on his current roster. Guys like Carl Landry, Thad Young, Corey Brewer and Josh McRoberts might make some sense.

And would you take any of them for Nick ?

Well, he is here right now and he is our knuckhead in recovery so GAME ON MR NICK. YOU MADE ME A FAN.

I understand Flips being slow to change anything Nick is doing well after all his up and downs. The kid needed stable success. He needs that to become a part of his mental identify. He needs to believe. I see that happening. Nick as a starter is defiantly in the future given what he is doing. And with Wall out, now is the perfect time to do it.

[Nivek]

I don't disagree with much of this. Young certainly has to prove that he can maintain those numbers as a starter and a primary option. (I think it's overstating things a bit to say that Rip was a #1 option. Detroit distriubted the offensive load pretty evenly between Rip, Sheed, Billups, and to a lesser extent, Prince). My reponse was to your original post which seemed to imply that Nick can't start specifically because he's a bad rebounder and a terrible passer. I think those deficiencies aren't that big of a deal provided that he can score like he is doing now (assuming he does it as a a starter over 35 minutes a game).

I agree that Nick hasn't yet proved he can do this.

The bolded statement is true only in one of the 3 years you cite -- 07-08. In 05-06, Rip's usage rate was 27.4, highest on the team. Among the regulars, next highest was Billups at 22.9. In 06-07, Rip's usage was 25.9. Next highest again was Billups at 21.5. In fact, 07-08 was the lowest usage season of Rip's Pistons career. Rip has been the number one option since he got to Detroit.

[hands11]

Maybe it's just me, but absolutely nothing about Nick Young reminds me of Manu Ginobli. In fact, I would describe them as polar opposite shooting guards.

The elite player Nick reminds me the most of is Kobe Bryant, though of ourse that's a kobe stripped of his basketball knowledge and mental edge.

A ballsy statement to make ( I have done it before ) but there are parts of his game that are that way. True, the mental fire/edge that is Kobe and that was MJ is a huge difference maker. What those players have is hard to find. But Nick does have fire. What he lacks is smarts. That deep understanding of the game and momentum and drive.

But with regards to physical talents, the next big leap Nick needs to add is... taking it to the rack. They is one way a Kobe or an MJ was change the game and break a teams spirit.

The part of his game that he has that looks kind of Kobe is the quick accurate outside shot. It's the threw the legs jook to get separation. It's the smooth wet stroke. So yeah, sections of his game shows similar.

The kid is athletic and can leap also and has just a good size. If he can add some drives along with a pump fake to get contact move so he gets to the line some more, he can be a major impact on a game. Even more than just getting points, he can change the energy of a game with strong finishes and getting the other team to foul.

I would in no way let this kid slip away right now. He will never be Kobe or MJ, but he could have a huge impact on a game if he keeps expanding his skills.

[hands11]

Hamilton did that as a starter and the #1 option for his team's offense. He was the focus of the opposition's defense. Opposing coaches game-planned for him and tried to stop him. Nick is coming off the bench for a terrible team. No one game plans for him because they don't need to. Nick can score 30 and it won't change the outcome of the game because the Wizards suck. I don't believe Young would do this well as the alpha offensive player for a team with high expectations. To be blunt, his basketball IQ isn't good enough for him to adjust once defenses started gearing up to take away his favorite moves.

If Nick is starting, but not the #1 offensive option, how is he going to contribute? That puts him back on the bench, but with the same issues. If he's the 6th man, he's going to need to enter the game as that #1 option. If he's on a good team, opposing teams will game plan for him and we're right back to the same old questions: How does he contribute when he's not scoring? How will he adjust when good defensive teams take away his pet moves?

All that is before getting to whether his improved efficiency is sustainable. I think it's not because he's shooting so many **** shots at such a high percentage. That **** shot percentage is markedly different than his shooting from that range in previous years (40%, 40%, 41% to 57%). My expectation is that the percentage will start to drop -- especially if defenses start game-planning him. And then the question becomes, how does he contribute when he's less of a scorer? We're in his 4th season now, and the answer is still the same as it was when he was a rookie.

You must have missed the Lakers game. There main focus was to try to stop Nick and the Wizard has few if any other threats on the court. Kobe took it as a personal challenge to put the kid back in the box after what he did to them the game before.

Nick still scored 20 and he was 0-4 from 3 in doing it.

What Nick needs to do to be more dominate, I have seen signs of his trying to do this year and that is rebounding, scrapping for loss balls, passing the ball when needed and for Gods sack, TAKING IT TO THE RACK.

He needs to use all of his athleticism to have the biggest impact on the game that he can. He needs to be a basketball player and not just a scorer. He has to develop that mentality that he is going to will his team to winning by whatever means necessary.