tontoz wrote:I feel like the only guy on this board that hasn't seen him play. I am assuming he has a high motor, something that i see as an underrated skill. Active players find opportunities that more passive players dont see.
Faried was a high energy player who fits the same profile. He scored around the rim and got a lot of rebounds. However his lack of size made him a liability on d inside and he never developed range on his shot....
This is actually the first sensible, questioning comment or comparison on Clarke that anyone has yet posted -- not just in this thread but on the board. Well done!
At the same time, obviously, its relevance might be limited by the fact that you've never seen Clarke play!
How much did you see Faried play?
Not at all in college, I assume (b/c you've said that you don't follow college ball, not to mention that Faried went to Morehead State!). How about as a pro? Not much, I would guess -- but I may be wrong: am I wrong?
If I'm right, then are you really sure Faried was a "liability" in the league -- in any way at all? Can you find that "liability" by looking anywhere in his numbers, for example? I'm not being critical; I'm actually interested to know!
Last year, for example, Faried scored 20+ points per 40 minutes at a TS% of .622. That means he missed only 6.2 shots to rack up the 20+ points. Thing is... in that same 40 minutes, he grabbed 5.4 offensive boards on his & teammates' missed shots. Plus, he turned the ball over at a lower rate than an average big. That's kind of an amazing level of offensive efficiency at pretty high usage, right?
The opponent would have to be able, essentially, to score at will off of you to counteract its effect. Now, he did foul at a somewhat worse rate than average for a big @ .9 more times in 40 minutes: that gives something to the opponent, no doubt. But, his steals & blocks were at an average level & his defensive rebounding was better than average.
Not definitive, but I wonder how much of a defensive liability he really was overall. &, since his offensive contribution was over the top in effectiveness (on above average in usage too!), it looks like he was a very positive force as a player.
I guess that's why, overall, Kenneth Faried was +5 per 40 minutes on the floor last year. Where's the "defensive liability" in that, I wonder?
tontoz wrote:If Clarke continues to hit 3s they might be able to play him at the 3. There he could be an Ariza type player. Ariza couldnt even dribble but he was an effective player for us.
Hard to know what to say to that.... These two guys are absolutely nothing like each other! Zero.
It's possible that you actually have to see a guy play, not to mention look carefully at his numbers, to make a really useful comment on him -- what do you think?
