The Official Kyle Kuzma Thread

[payitforward]

...—Bad shooter who shoots frequently
—Good defensive rebounder and good passer

With Beal and Porzingis Kuz won’t be any better than option three as a scorer; however, his rebounds and assists will be useful.

Makes perfect sense.

Although Kuz's best year so far was 20-21 (his last year in LA) his year with us was almost as good, & in fact it was better in most ways. & not as good in a few others.

Better: both his defensive rebounding & his assists jumped significantly. Blocks & steals were up a little bit, & fouls were a little down.

Moreover, he scored more points, while his TS% didn't drop from the year before. I'll come back to this point in a moment.

Two negatives stand out:

a) His offensive boards dropped significantly from the previous year. Now... the previous year had been substantially higher than any previous one -- so maybe it's unlikely that he'll jump back up. Still...

b) His turnovers jumped from the previous year -- & all previous years. No doubt this reflects his having attempted more shot-creation, trying to do more off the bounce, than ever in his past. & indicates that it's not a strong point.

You can think of TOs & offensive boards sort of as the opposite of one another. One of them takes away a chance to score, while the other one adds an extra chance to score. Obviously, high on TOs & low on offensive boards is not a winning combination.

Leave out those two numbers, & Kuz had his best year by far. In fact, just on defensive boards, assists, blocks, steals & fouls -- he was a way above average NBA 4 last year. He was really good.

Which more or less tells the story: to me Kuz looks like he's hit his ceiling. For him to continue to develop, he would have to do at least 1 of 3 things:

1. Become good at shot-creation. This would help increase his below average scoring efficiency, & it would cut down his turnovers.

2. Become a consistently better 3 point shooter. He's gone up & down over his 5 years, but he's never been particularly good.

3. Improve on the offensive glass.

You don't usually see any of these things improve significantly in a 27 year old guy who's heading into his 6th season. But... never say never.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

...—Bad shooter who shoots frequently
—Good defensive rebounder and good passer

With Beal and Porzingis Kuz won’t be any better than option three as a scorer; however, his rebounds and assists will be useful.

Makes perfect sense.

Although Kuz's best year so far was 20-21 (his last year in LA) his year with us was almost as good, & in fact it was better in most ways. & not as good in a few others.

Better: both his defensive rebounding & his assists jumped significantly. Blocks & steals were up a little bit, & fouls were a little down.

Moreover, he scored more points, while his TS% didn't drop from the year before. I'll come back to this point in a moment.

Two negatives stand out:

a) His offensive boards dropped significantly from the previous year. Now... the previous year had been substantially higher than any previous one -- so maybe it's unlikely that he'll jump back up. Still...

b) His turnovers jumped from the previous year -- & all previous years. No doubt this reflects his having attempted more shot-creation, trying to do more off the bounce, than ever in his past. & indicates that it's not a strong point.

You can think of TOs & offensive boards sort of as the opposite of one another. One of them takes away a chance to score, while the other one adds an extra chance to score. Obviously, high on TOs & low on offensive boards is not a winning combination.

Leave out those two numbers, & Kuz had his best year by far. In fact, just on defensive boards, assists, blocks, steals & fouls -- he was a way above average NBA 4 last year. He was really good.

Which more or less tells the story: to me Kuz looks like he's hit his ceiling. For him to continue to develop, he would have to do at least 1 of 3 things:

1. Become good at shot-creation. This would help increase his below average scoring efficiency, & it would cut down his turnovers.

2. Become a consistently better 3 point shooter. He's gone up & down over his 5 years, but he's never been particularly good.

3. Improve on the offensive glass.

You don't usually see any of these things improve significantly in a 27 year old guy who's heading into his 6th season. But... never say never.

Makes perfect sense?


You say IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE...well



I said it. OF COURSE IT DOES MAKE PERFECT SENSE!

(I had a college prof who used to say "It should be intuitively obvious to even a casual observer...")


(All I did was ... u no ... uh, agree wit ma elder mistuh PIF)

https://seinfeld.fandom.com/wiki/Jackie_Chiles

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

pif

luv u man

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Watch on YouTube

[payitforward]

pif

luv u man

Aawww, shucks....

Back at you, man!
Keep fighting the good fight.

[doclinkin]

You can think of TOs & offensive boards sort of as the opposite of one another. One of them takes away a chance to score, while the other one adds an extra chance to score. Obviously, high on TOs & low on offensive boards is not a winning combination.

Leave out those two numbers, & Kuz had his best year by far. In fact, just on defensive boards, assists, blocks, steals & fouls -- he was a way above average NBA 4 last year. He was really good.

Which more or less tells the story: to me Kuz looks like he's hit his ceiling. For him to continue to develop, he would have to do at least 1 of 3 things:

1. Become good at shot-creation. This would help increase his below average scoring efficiency, & it would cut down his turnovers.

2. Become a consistently better 3 point shooter. He's gone up & down over his 5 years, but he's never been particularly good.

3. Improve on the offensive glass.

Though the above should be considered in a team context. TOs and Offensive boards often are often reflective of a player's role. If Kuz is shifted off of heavy use as a ball-handler, then his TOs will drop as teams won't game plan to force him into those ready turnovers. If a player is posted as a face-up big then naturally his offensive board opportunities will drop. The fact that he is proficient on defensive boards suggest his low offensive board totals have to do more with role than effort and aptitude.

Not making any predictions, just saying there is a chance Kuz' numbers look better even if he doesn't radically improve. One would hope that a 2nd year coach installing his preferred system, adjusting to the personnel he has, and starting the year with a floor general who is familiar with his sets should help the offense to become more efficient. That includes not forcefeeding Kuzma, but hitting him when he is open, or has a mismatch. By himself he need not become a radically different player in order to score more efficiently. The players we picked up all post solid assist numbers, Wright and Morris in particular have stingy TO rates for their careers.

The fact that all 3 are shooters, and with Rui and Kispert coming on strong in this regard, means we should see better spacing, and players like Kuz will be open when the scouting report tells defenders to stay at home on the shooters.

Offensive rebounding may not see an uptick, since I expect Kuz will still play as a face-up player in a tall version of small ball sets. But extra attention focused on Porzingis and Beal should free players like Kuz and Kispert to attack backdoor, crash the glass when they are left unmarked. Put back opportunities show up with better spacing, and long rebounds are available on teams that shoot from outside, especially if opposing bigs have to mark a 7'3" above the FT line. If Porzingis regains his outside shot then things radially improve here.

Much is on Wes though. Many good coaches struggle early until their system and personnel are in place. We don't know if Wes will be good as a head coach, but he earned accolades for being a player development guy as an assistant coach. Development requires time, and consitency. He has some interesting pieces to play with here, and to my way of thinking what Kuz does well is necessary on this team. Who else is a dominant rebounder at their position? Who else do we have that is a triple double threat? If Wes can manage what Kuz does less efficiently, then he will look like a better player, even if what primarily changes is scheme, usage, and line-ups.

[gambitx777]

My god Kuz went off.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

Though the above should be considered in a team context. TOs and Offensive boards often are often reflective of a player's role. If Kuz is shifted off of heavy use as a ball-handler, then his TOs will drop as teams won't game plan to force him into those ready turnovers. If a player is posted as a face-up big then naturally his offensive board opportunities will drop. The fact that he is proficient on defensive boards suggest his low offensive board totals have to do more with role than effort and aptitude.

This cannot be repeated enough. Offensive rebounding is highly overrated because there are sacrifices made in going after offensive rebounds (transition defense) that aren't necessarily charged to the person going after the offensive board. Indeed, by some metrics, there has generally been a negative correlation between team offensive rebounding and winning:



Here's an old article from Zach Lowe about it:
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/14505051/transition-defense-left-offensive-rebounds-cutting-room-floor

The bottom line is that you just can't look at offensive rebounding totals of an individual player and know whether or not he is helping the team win. You have to track how many additional points the offensive rebounding has added while also subtracting the points lost in transition defense.

[payitforward]

This is old territory. & the correlation you post is misleading. Not intentionally misleading just the result of not thinking through the issue.

At the team level, you would expect a negative correlation between offensive rebounding & wins. The reason should be obvious. Sufficiently so that I'll put it in a spoiler & ask you (nate or anyone reading this) to think for a moment & come up with that obvious reason on their own.

Why is it bad for a team to be one of the league leaders in offensive rebounding?

Spoiler:

1. What's the necessary condition for an offensive rebound to occur? A missed shot. Made shots produce zero offensive boards.
2. What's the single team-level team stat with the strongest positive correlation with wins? Made shots (i.e. TS%). &, once again, made shots produce no offensive boards.
3. Which teams produce the most "made shots?" I.e. the stat that holds down offensive rebounds. Teams that win a lot or teams that lose a lot?
4. Which teams produce the most "missed shots?" I.e. the stat that pushes up offensive rebounds. Teams that win a lot or teams that lose a lot?

Why is it good all the same for an individual on a given team to do well in offensive rebounding?

Spoiler:

1. What's the necessary condition for an offensive rebound to occur? A missed shot. Made shots produce zero offensive boards.
2. Given that your team has just missed a shot (every team misses lots of them, obviously), which is better -- to get an offensive rebound, or for the other team to get a defensive rebound?
3. On a given team, some players will simply be better at getting offensive boards than other players -- just as some players will simply be better than others at shooting FTs or getting assists or grabbing defensive boards or blocking shots, etc.

What does any of this have to do with whether a team should make "getting more offensive rebounds" a matter of strategy?

Spoiler:

Absolutely nothing. & in fact to my knowledge no team does make it a matter of strategy -- & certainly not at the expense of being able to get into defense efficiently after a missed shot.

Nor did I suggest anywhere that a team should make this a point of strategy. No one would.

Do teams that get more offensive boards get them as a result of such a strategy?

Spoiler:

Obviously not!

Neither the team w/ the most offensive boards nor the team with the least offensive boards gets that position on the list as a matter of strategy. At the team level, the overwhelming cause of lots of offensive boards is bad shooting. At the team level, the overwhelming cause of getting few offensive boards is good shooting. Duh.

But, on a given team, in a given single situation, any situation on offense that starts with your team taking a shot:

Spoiler:

1. the best result is to make the shot
2. the 2d best result is to get the ball back
3. the 3d best result is to be ready to defend effectively to force the opponent into a difficult shot -- so that you "get the ball back" w/o giving up points
4. the worst result is to be unable to defend effectively, so that the next time you "get the ball back," you are taking it out under the opponent's basket after a make by them.

The above list is unrelated to strategy. It is analytic from the defining structure of the game. Thus,

Spoiler:

1. being able to make shots at a high % is a talent (& hard work, & brains to know which shots to take, etc.)
2. being able to get more offensive rebounds than others is a talent (& hard work, & brains to know the variables that increase your chances, etc.)
3. being able to defend effectively (all aspects of defense, including defensive rebounding) is a set of talents (& hard work, brains, etc.).
4. being a bad defender is the negative of a talent (& the negative of hard work, brains, etc.).

In other words:

Spoiler:

1. when Kyle Kuzma got more defensive boards his first year with us than he had in any previous year of his career, that was "good." It was a good thing.
2. when Kyle Kuzma got more offensive boards in 2020-21 than he had in any previous year of his career, that was also "good." A good thing.
3. when Kyle Kuzma got fewer offensive boards with us than he his previous average, that was "not good." It was not a good thing.

Period. & this is true in each case, no matter the reasons for any of these things.

A good thing is good -- no matter the reason.
A not good thing is not good -- no matter the reason.

[nate33]

This is old territory. & the correlation you post is misleading. Not intentionally misleading just the result of not thinking through the issue.

At the team level, you would expect a negative correlation between offensive rebounding & wins. The reason should be obvious. Sufficiently so that I'll put it in a spoiler & ask you (nate or anyone reading this) to think for a moment & come up with that obvious reason on their own.

Why is it bad for a team to be one of the league leaders in offensive rebounding?

Spoiler:

1. What's the necessary condition for an offensive rebound to occur? A missed shot. Made shots produce zero offensive boards.
2. What's the single team-level team stat with the strongest positive correlation with wins? Made shots (i.e. TS%). &, once again, made shots produce no offensive boards.
3. Which teams produce the most "made shots?" I.e. the stat that holds down offensive rebounds. Teams that win a lot or teams that lose a lot?
4. Which teams produce the most "missed shots?" I.e. the stat that pushes up offensive rebounds. Teams that win a lot or teams that lose a lot?

Why is it good all the same for an individual on a given team to do well in offensive rebounding?

Spoiler:

1. What's the necessary condition for an offensive rebound to occur? A missed shot. Made shots produce zero offensive boards.
2. Given that your team has just missed a shot (every team misses lots of them, obviously), which is better -- to get an offensive rebound, or for the other team to get a defensive rebound?
3. On a given team, some players will simply be better at getting offensive boards than other players -- just as some players will simply be better than others at shooting FTs or getting assists or grabbing defensive boards or blocking shots, etc.

What does any of this have to do with whether a team should make "getting more offensive rebounds" a matter of strategy?

Spoiler:

Absolutely nothing. & in fact to my knowledge no team does make it a matter of strategy -- & certainly not at the expense of being able to get into defense efficiently after a missed shot.

Nor did I suggest anywhere that a team should make this a point of strategy. No one would.

Do teams that get more offensive boards get them as a result of such a strategy?

Spoiler:

Obviously not!

Neither the team w/ the most offensive boards nor the team with the least offensive boards gets that position on the list as a matter of strategy. At the team level, the overwhelming cause of lots of offensive boards is bad shooting. At the team level, the overwhelming cause of getting few offensive boards is good shooting. Duh.

But, on a given team, in a given single situation, any situation on offense that starts with your team taking a shot:

Spoiler:

1. the best result is to make the shot
2. the 2d best result is to get the ball back
3. the 3d best result is to be ready to defend effectively to force the opponent into a difficult shot -- so that you "get the ball back" w/o giving up points
4. the worst result is to be unable to defend effectively, so that the next time you "get the ball back," you are taking it out under the opponent's basket after a make by them.

The above list is unrelated to strategy. It is analytic from the defining structure of the game. Thus,

Spoiler:

1. being able to make shots at a high % is a talent (& hard work, & brains to know which shots to take, etc.)
2. being able to get more offensive rebounds than others is a talent (& hard work, & brains to know the variables that increase your chances, etc.)
3. being able to defend effectively (all aspects of defense, including defensive rebounding) is a set of talents (& hard work, brains, etc.).
4. being a bad defender is the negative of a talent (& the negative of hard work, brains, etc.).

In other words:

Spoiler:

1. when Kyle Kuzma got more defensive boards his first year with us than he had in any previous year of his career, that was "good." It was a good thing.
2. when Kyle Kuzma got more offensive boards in 2020-21 than he had in any previous year of his career, that was also "good." A good thing.
3. when Kyle Kuzma got fewer offensive boards with us than he his previous average, that was "not good." It was not a good thing.

Period. & this is true in each case, no matter the reasons for any of these things.

A good thing is good -- no matter the reason.
A not good thing is not good -- no matter the reason.

Sigh.

You took an awful lot of time to make an unnecessary point that does not refute what I was saying. When I referred to the inverse correlation of offensive rebounding to winning, I wasn't talking about total offensive rebounds per game. That would be stupid. I'm talking about offensive rebounds per FGA attempt, or offensive rebounding percentage. And the stats show that offensive rebounding percentage does not consistently correlate to winning. Decades ago, it did. But in the past couple of decades, that correlation has tended to be negative. This makes sense in an era of more 3-point shooting leading to longer rebounds (over the heads of offensive rebound crashers) and leading to more fast breaks (it's easier to run a break off a long rebound than a short rebound).

Guys like Popovich and Spoelstra aren't stupid. On balance, the latest trend is that going for offensive rebounds is a self-defeating strategy. That's not always the case. If you have unusually effective offensive rebounders and lots of poor shooting, then maybe an offensive rebounding emphasis makes sense.

[payitforward]

Sigh.

You took an awful lot of time to make an unnecessary point that does not refute what I was saying. When I referred to the inverse correlation of offensive rebounding to winning, I wasn't talking about total offensive rebounds per game. That would be stupid. I'm talking about offensive rebounds per FGA attempt, or offensive rebounding percentage. And the stats show that offensive rebounding percentage does not consistently correlate to winning. Decades ago, it did. But in the past couple of decades, that correlation has tended to be negative. This makes sense in an era of more 3-point shooting leading to longer rebounds (over the heads of offensive rebound crashers) and leading to more fast breaks (it's easier to run a break off a long rebound than a short rebound).

Guys like Popovich and Spoelstra aren't stupid. On balance, the latest trend is that going for offensive rebounds is a self-defeating strategy. That's not always the case. If you have unusually effective offensive rebounders and lots of poor shooting, then maybe an offensive rebounding emphasis makes sense.

I don't know that the point was "unnecessary," & I wasn't particularly trying to "refute" anything, but... it cannot be denied that I took an awful lot of time!

On the other hand, since what you write above has nothing to do with the issue, maybe I needed to take an even longer time so that I was clearer.

No one would deny, or at least I wouldn't, that "going for offensive rebounds is a self-defeating strategy." In fact, I made a point of being in agreement about that.

&, "if you have unusually effective offensive rebounders and lots of poor shooting, then" what you need to do is get some better shooters! A make contributes more to winning than a miss plus an offensive rebound -- kinda obvious, right?

IOW, "...offensive rebounds per FGA attempt" doesn't tell us anything useful about the effect of offensive rebounding on winning. Now... maybe you meant a team's % of offensive rebounds per missed FGA attempt? I guarantee you that running regressions on that alone would show a positive statistical effect on wins. It has to.

Think of it this way: run regressions on "% of missed FGAs followed by opponent rebounding the ball" to quantify (at the statistical level) the effect on wins/losses of increases in that %. The effect will be negative. It cannot fail to be negative.

Now run regressions on "% of missed FGAs followed by one of your guys rebounding the ball" to quantify (at the statistical level) the effect on wins/losses of increases in that %. It's not possible for increases to have a negative statistical effect on wins. But, that is not the same as to say "all 5 guys should go after the rebound on every miss 1 of the 5 takes." They aren't related at all.

His first 3 years in the league, Kyle Kuzma averaged @ 1.25 offensive boards per 40 minutes. His 4th year the number jumped to 2.25. All other things being equal that's a good thing. As a Wizard, that # went back down to where it was his first 3 years in the league. Probably to be expected. But it would have been nice to see it stay at that higher level.

But, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that had Kuz sustained that bump in offensive rebounding we'd have won 57 games the way the Lakers did that year Kuz had that little jump.

[popper]

This is old territory. & the correlation you post is misleading. Not intentionally misleading just the result of not thinking through the issue.

At the team level, you would expect a negative correlation between offensive rebounding & wins. The reason should be obvious. Sufficiently so that I'll put it in a spoiler & ask you (nate or anyone reading this) to think for a moment & come up with that obvious reason on their own.

Why is it bad for a team to be one of the league leaders in offensive rebounding?

Spoiler:

1. What's the necessary condition for an offensive rebound to occur? A missed shot. Made shots produce zero offensive boards.
2. What's the single team-level team stat with the strongest positive correlation with wins? Made shots (i.e. TS%). &, once again, made shots produce no offensive boards.
3. Which teams produce the most "made shots?" I.e. the stat that holds down offensive rebounds. Teams that win a lot or teams that lose a lot?
4. Which teams produce the most "missed shots?" I.e. the stat that pushes up offensive rebounds. Teams that win a lot or teams that lose a lot?

Why is it good all the same for an individual on a given team to do well in offensive rebounding?

Spoiler:

1. What's the necessary condition for an offensive rebound to occur? A missed shot. Made shots produce zero offensive boards.
2. Given that your team has just missed a shot (every team misses lots of them, obviously), which is better -- to get an offensive rebound, or for the other team to get a defensive rebound?
3. On a given team, some players will simply be better at getting offensive boards than other players -- just as some players will simply be better than others at shooting FTs or getting assists or grabbing defensive boards or blocking shots, etc.

What does any of this have to do with whether a team should make "getting more offensive rebounds" a matter of strategy?

Spoiler:

Absolutely nothing. & in fact to my knowledge no team does make it a matter of strategy -- & certainly not at the expense of being able to get into defense efficiently after a missed shot.

Nor did I suggest anywhere that a team should make this a point of strategy. No one would.

Do teams that get more offensive boards get them as a result of such a strategy?

Spoiler:

Obviously not!

Neither the team w/ the most offensive boards nor the team with the least offensive boards gets that position on the list as a matter of strategy. At the team level, the overwhelming cause of lots of offensive boards is bad shooting. At the team level, the overwhelming cause of getting few offensive boards is good shooting. Duh.

But, on a given team, in a given single situation, any situation on offense that starts with your team taking a shot:

Spoiler:

1. the best result is to make the shot
2. the 2d best result is to get the ball back
3. the 3d best result is to be ready to defend effectively to force the opponent into a difficult shot -- so that you "get the ball back" w/o giving up points
4. the worst result is to be unable to defend effectively, so that the next time you "get the ball back," you are taking it out under the opponent's basket after a make by them.

The above list is unrelated to strategy. It is analytic from the defining structure of the game. Thus,

Spoiler:

1. being able to make shots at a high % is a talent (& hard work, & brains to know which shots to take, etc.)
2. being able to get more offensive rebounds than others is a talent (& hard work, & brains to know the variables that increase your chances, etc.)
3. being able to defend effectively (all aspects of defense, including defensive rebounding) is a set of talents (& hard work, brains, etc.).
4. being a bad defender is the negative of a talent (& the negative of hard work, brains, etc.).

In other words:

Spoiler:

1. when Kyle Kuzma got more defensive boards his first year with us than he had in any previous year of his career, that was "good." It was a good thing.
2. when Kyle Kuzma got more offensive boards in 2020-21 than he had in any previous year of his career, that was also "good." A good thing.
3. when Kyle Kuzma got fewer offensive boards with us than he his previous average, that was "not good." It was not a good thing.

Period. & this is true in each case, no matter the reasons for any of these things.

A good thing is good -- no matter the reason.
A not good thing is not good -- no matter the reason.

I think I'm going to hang myself.

[AFM]

Classic PIFism poast. I'm gonna tell my grandchildren about him.

[payitforward]

Easy there, big guy... it's just a game.... & anyway we all know that if your teammate shoots but misses, & the ball comes off the backboard in your direction, you should *definitely* not grab it. That is a terrible thing to do!

[payitforward]

Classic PIFism poast. I'm gonna tell my grandchildren about him.

Make sure you putter that poast when you serve it.

But... you're not saying you have grandchildren, are you? Just an aspiration, right...? I've got 7 of them.

[payitforward]

Perhaps we can turn back to talking about Kuzma & his development while dropping the pointless & divisive squabbling about offensive boards.

I wrote that

...just on defensive boards, assists, blocks, steals & fouls -- he was a way above average NBA 4 last year. He was really good....

So, it seems like for him to continue to develop, the most obvious path would be to improve in 1 (or both of the following 2 ways:

1. Become a better shot-creator. This would help increase his until-now always below average scoring efficiency, & it would cut down his turnovers.

2. Become a consistently better 3 point shooter. Again, this would increase his scoring efficiency.

To me at least, it seems more likely that he improve his 3 than that his shot-creation becomes significantly better in what will be his 6th year in the league. Does that make sense to you?

But... can Kuzma take a real jump as a 3-point shooter? In his 5 seasons so far, he's gone up & down, but he's never been particularly good shooting the 3, so I have to wonder.

If so, does anyone have a take on Kuz's inconsistency shooting the 3?
For example, have the kind of attempts he favors changed from year to year?

[doclinkin]

Perhaps we can turn back to talking about Kuzma & his development while dropping the pointless & divisive squabbling about offensive boards.

I wrote that

...just on defensive boards, assists, blocks, steals & fouls -- he was a way above average NBA 4 last year. He was really good....

So, it seems like for him to continue to develop, the most obvious path would be to improve in 1 (or both of the following 2 ways:

1. Become a better shot-creator. This would help increase his until-now always below average scoring efficiency, & it would cut down his turnovers.

2. Become a consistently better 3 point shooter. Again, this would increase his scoring efficiency.

To me at least, it seems more likely that he improve his 3 than that his shot-creation becomes significantly better in what will be his 6th year in the league. Does that make sense to you?

But... can Kuzma take a real jump as a 3-point shooter? In his 5 seasons so far, he's gone up & down, but he's never been particularly good shooting the 3, so I have to wonder.

If so, does anyone have a take on Kuz's inconsistency shooting the 3?
For example, have the kind of attempts he favors changed from year to year?

I've looked at Kuzma's enigmatic and erratic statistical history. A couple things stood out. I expected to see that in years when his role posted him closer to the basket (lower % of 3pt fg attempts) that his offensive rebounding numbers would be worse. Nope. In fact the year he shot well from 3 was the same year he collected more rebounds at that end. And shot more 3's than he had in years past.

So I decided to pick through his point guards to see if he had good PGs delivering passes to him those years. Answer: not really. The best point guard he has had is LeBron. And the rookie version of Lonzo Ball. Otherwise he has had Shroeder, an aged Rondo who didn't really wake up until the playoffs, defensive specialists Caruso, Avery Bradley. But it is hard to tell if PG play had an effect on his shooting, in part because LeBJ dominates the ball so much you really don't need a true Point on court with him. Lonzo was fine though, the others not really.

Then I looked at usage % to see if Kuz was featured vs if he was playing a supplemental role, and which role made a difference. Didn't seem to matter. His numbers were upsy-downsy whether he was with starters or no.

So I looked at line-ups by minutes, to see who he played the most with. Was he coming off the bench, playing against back-ups? etc.

That is where things seemed to click.

Starter/Bench didn't seem to matter. What mattered was if he was on court with other scorers. Seems like the years where his shooting %'s suffered was when he was on court with non-shooters like Rondo, the rookie Ball, Dwight Howard and JaVale. (Likewise his offensive rebounding numbers were better the times he didn't have to battle with non-shooters for space in the front court). His best shooting years he was sharing the court with better shooters. Seems like he played well on court with the late career Marc Gasol who had developed his outside shot to a significant weapon. Or with Unibrow and LeBJ also showing their outside game.

Makes sense. If teams are loading up to stop other gunners, especially Bigs, they have to put a smaller guy on Kuz, where he can take advantage. If you want to maximize what he does, you put him on court with shooters and a Big Man who can invert the court. Where he has a mismatch is essentially playing SF at 6'10" tall.

So. Again, I don't think it is on Kuz to "become a better shot creator". It is on the coach to use him for what he does well. Rebound. Pass a little bit. Force teams to stay honest by hitting open shots. Pencil him in for double doubles. And ride him the games when he is on a hot streak. Because as I have shown elsewhere he seems to have significant statistical variance. Some nights he will give you an efficient 30 from the outside in. Some nights he will gun as if he thinks he is going for 30, and miss most of them. He averages out to 'inefficient', but more than most players he rides a roller coaster to get there.

So. Could be Team is the difference maker. It is up to the point guard and coach to know if he is hot, and when to swing it to him, or find another answer. But the team around him is what will make the difference. Can the coach and PG create easy shots for him. And more importantly can the GM and coach to create mismatches for him by surrounding him with line-ups where he has an advantage. Shooters at all positions, especially center, may be the key. If so then Kuz should have a pretty good year.

[AFM]

Classic PIFism poast. I'm gonna tell my grandchildren about him.

Make sure you putter that poast when you serve it.

But... you're not saying you have grandchildren, are you? Just an aspiration, right...? I've got 7 of them.

Can't tell if you're bragging or just stating, but no I'm about 30+ years too young. Actually you're old enough to be my grandfather

[dorianwrite]

Classic PIFism poast. I'm gonna tell my grandchildren about him.

Make sure you putter that poast when you serve it.

But... you're not saying you have grandchildren, are you? Just an aspiration, right...? I've got 7 of them.

Can't tell if you're bragging or just stating, but no I'm about 30+ years too young. Actually you're old enough to be my grandfather

Of course he's bragging. He rarely does anything but.

[penbeast0]

Hey, if you can't brag on your grandchildren, what's the point of living past 50?