Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?
Moderators: fatlever, JDR720, Diop, BigSlam, yosemiteben
Re: Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?
- Diop
- Forum Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 40,372
- And1: 20,736
- Joined: Jul 24, 2004
- Location: Diop Dead Ugly
-
Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?
- JMAC3
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,224
- And1: 6,242
- Joined: May 22, 2010
-
Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?
Najee12 wrote:
Arguing whether a player was a top prospect or the best player for a team are two different things. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist was considered a top prospect in the 2012 class but he was a poor selection for a Charlotte team that needed a potential scorer and offensive player in the worst way. I believe some of you people are forgetting when Charlotte had the No. 2 pick in the 2012 draft, the then-Bobcats were coming off THE WORST SEASON IN NBA HISTORY: a 7-59 record with a team field goal percentage of .415 and scoring 87 points per game. Those are not bad numbers, but arguably the worst shooting percentage and lowest scoring average in the modern, post dead-ball era NBA.
The best player comparison to Kidd-Gilchrist is Tony Allen: a potentially top-level man-to-man defender and hustle player. The general thought was Kidd-Gilchrist's hustle and style of play would change the culture of a team that had a historically horrible season. But his offensive limitations were a major question mark then, so it made no sense for a team that couldn't score or shoot to select a player who couldn't score or shoot.
I guess people are forgetting how much of a horrible form Kidd-Gilchrist had on his jump shot and that he shot in the low 30 percent range beyond 15 feet. Even with Mark Price helping him overhaul his shot, Kidd-Gilchrist still is a poor shooter. Again, it's something scouts expected and predicted (his scouting reports even projected Kidd-Gilchrist as having limited upside). Having a small forward with limited offensive skills and no other particularly unique skills is a major liability in the NBA.
Like it or not, but you don't spend the No. 2 pick on the draft on a player with Tony Allen upside (or maybe the Atlanta Hawks-era Stacey Augmon if he developed a more rounded offensive game) -- especially if your team is one of the worst offensive teams in NBA history. Charlotte desperately needed a player who could score and knock down shots. Kidd-Gilchrist became exactly what scouts and experts predicted he would become.
Maybe you should try comparing MKG to Stacy Augmon or Tony Allen, I don’t think you have done that yet. Look we get it MkG did not turn out to be worth the number 2 pick and a lot of his concerns that he had in college ended up being real problems at the next level.
Yes it must be really easy to look at player in HINDSiGHT with problems and say it was obvious they didn’t turn out once it happened. Every player in the draft has problems and redflags, things they need to work on, physical limitations. All you can do as an organization is use that knowledge to make the best pick possible.
Example being Kemba Walker, he was barely 6 foot tall,inconsistent shooter and not a natural point guard. I remember watching him his rookie year and seeing each three pointer he shot look different. However, he worked hard on his ball handling and shooting and after a few years became an All-Star PG. Even after posting historically bad shooting numbers his first few years and many fans on this board writing him off. If he didn’t work out, it would be easy to say “well obviously this was a bad pick as he was a short chucker and would be a 6th man at best”.
Everyone knows that MKG had some flags, but all prospects do. He was a good physical specimen when we drafted him at 6-7 with a wingspan over 7 foot and was also the youngest player in draft. Coming off a season where he was the leader of a team that won a national championship. Showing he could not only defend at an all NBA level but consistently score (12 ppg) on a national title team with 6 future NBA players on the team. Although he struggled shooting the ball he did shoot 75% from the line which is usually a good indicator of future shooting. He was considered to have an elite work ethic so it was believed he would only get better and better on the offensive end.
All the prospects in that draft except Davis had their worries. Mkg-shooting, Beal- handling the ball(played almost completely off the ball in college at sf position), Barnes- didn’t impact game other than scoring (turned out true), Lillard-played against weak competition, Drummond- poor work ethic and lack of production, Thomas Robinson- size concerns and limited skill, Dion waiters- head case and limited sample size, Royce White- head case, Kendall Marshall-too unathletic.
I believe that an organization molds the players they have and are a huge influence on how they turn out. Hence players drafted by Hornets, Magic, Kings and Suns have really been bad over the last 5-7years. You see some of this changing now- I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Bridges and Monk are starting to turn the corner with a new Head coach and Gm combo this year. Or that all of sudden Sacramento is seeing some solid player development in Fox, Hield and Bogdanovich under Vlade and Joerger.
Each year out of the top 14 players drafted in the league, all of them have talent to be in NBA. Usually one or two players are just so nautically gifted it’s impossible for them to fail (Davis,LeBron, Ben Simmons). Three to five of them are destined to fail right away because of personal choices, injuries, not treating basketball like a profession.
The other half are really defined by how the organization develops them. Reasons why Spurs, Celtics, Warriors, Raptors, Thunder and Nuggets have really had great success. They aren’t just heads and shoulders above other teams drafting and identifying talent. Sure they probably do a solid job in that department, but it’s more about the culture, the implication of their skill set, bringing them along at a good speed, and giving them every opportunity to be successful.
Then you have 2-3 guys who really just put their heads down and become the best player they possibly can be regardless of limitations or narratives those are the guys you want, but not easily found. Usually said to have chips on their shoulders that’s how Kemba worked out.
I firmly believe that under our old coaching, development team and organization a lot of players wouldn’t simply get slotted into a hornets or bobcats environment and be the same players they are today. I doubt Kawhi is who he is, I don’t think Gobert transforms into the DPoY, McCollum probably would of never made it out Cliffords dog house, Donovan Mitchell wouldn’t of been given the keys to the car, and Draymond would be a MKG clone. Sure Greek Freak probably would still be a freak, Ben Simmons would be running all over the place, and Doncic would be lightning in a bottle because they are all just too talented.
Hopefully Mitch and JB are on the right path and we start to see major changes in the types of talent we draft, but more importantly we start to see some great strides made in our player development department. That is the secret sauce to winning, not just getting lucky with ping pong balls.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
MKG is who we thought he was
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 999
- And1: 883
- Joined: May 18, 2015
-
MKG is who we thought he was
JMAC3 wrote:Yes it must be really easy to look at player in HINDSiGHT with problems and say it was obvious they didn’t turn out once it happened. Every player in the draft has problems and redflags, things they need to work on, physical limitations. All you can do as an organization is use that knowledge to make the best pick possible.
Once again, another person making an unfounded assumption that someone retroactively is evaluating Michael Kidd-Gilchrist on 2012 based on what he is now. Look, I understand it may be a strange concept to you that there were people in 2012 who cited Kidd-Gilchrist as being a player with limited upside and that is how he turned out, but that's not hindsight -- that's based on seeing players with his profile, weaknesses and comparison to similar type of players.
JMAC3 wrote:Everyone knows that MKG had some flags, but all prospects do. He was a good physical specimen when we drafted him at 6-7 with a wingspan over 7 foot and was also the youngest player in draft. Coming off a season where he was the leader of a team that won a national championship. Showing he could not only defend at an all NBA level but consistently score (12 ppg) on a national title team with 6 future NBA players on the team. Although he struggled shooting the ball he did shoot 75% from the line which is usually a good indicator of future shooting. He was considered to have an elite work ethic so it was believed he would only get better and better on the offensive end.
Wow, sounds like Stacey Augmon when he came out of UNLV in the 1991 draft (I am assuming you know who Stacey Augmon is). Augmon was a three-time college basketball national defensive player of the year, three-time all-American and the second best player of the UNLV Runnin' Rebels juggernaut team of 1990 and 1991. Just like Kidd-Gilchrist, Augmon also showed he could be a potentially top-level wing defender with his long wingspan (hence the nickname "Plastic Man"). Like Kidd-Gilchrist, Augmon scored primarily on hustle and running the floor but developed some semblance of a jump shot. Work ethic, intensity, focus? Augmon had those intangibles in spades as well.
Same background, same pedigree, same body type. I don't know (nor do I care) what your baseline knowledge is, but Augmon is the player to whom I (not you, not your online friends, but me) compared Kidd-Gilchrist in 2012. So unless you want to argue some preposterous notion you know me or knew what I was saying in 2012, you have to take my comments on face value.
I'm also trying to see how comparing Kidd-Gilchrist to Tony Allen (a six-time all-NBA defensive team member) is somehow an insult to Kidd-Gilchrist. Very similar players, builds and playing styles. Allen led Oklahoma State to the 2004 Final Four and actually was a good scorer in college (more than 1,000 points in two seasons at Oklahoma State). Each player suffered a major injury early in their NBA careers (Allen missed most of his third season with ACL and MCL tears).
The difference is Allen (who was considered a better offensive player than Kidd-Gilchrist at earlier stages) became even more defensive-oriented after his injury and became an elite all-NBA defender. Kidd-Gilchrist never became more than an above-average defender; if Kidd-Gilchrist did become an Allen-level defender, Charlotte could justify starting him despite being the same player on offense he was when he came into the NBA (he does have a better shooting form and can hit an occasional jumper).
JMAC3 wrote:Hopefully Mitch and JB are on the right path and we start to see major changes in the types of talent we draft, but more importantly we start to see some great strides made in our player development department. That is the secret sauce to winning, not just getting lucky with ping pong balls.
Obviously, an organization can be a factor into the development of some players more than other players (see Kawhi Leonard at San Antonio). But I didn't see Kidd-Gilchrist developing into more than a hustle player offensively. His shooting form was even worse than Lonzo Ball's; even with Mark Price working with him on rebuilding his shot, Kidd-Gilchrist still is a below-average shooter. He showed nothing in terms of improvement (some of that is on Kidd-Gilchrist, but he also was seen as being a low-upside player by scouts). If some of you people thought he was comparable to Andre Iguodala, Gerald Wallace or much less Scottie Pippen, that speaks more of bad evaluation on you than what Kidd-Gilchrist showed.
At the end of the day, scouts saw Kidd-Gilchrist as a defensive-minded player with limited upside. It's not a surprise -- if anything, he became a lesser version of Allen and the Atlanta-era Augmon.
Kevin Johnson isn't "Michael Jordan" famous ... he's "Mitch Richmond" famous
Re: Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?
- Diop
- Forum Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 40,372
- And1: 20,736
- Joined: Jul 24, 2004
- Location: Diop Dead Ugly
-
Re: Kemba's staying no matter what, right or wrong?
I'm locking this, there is no point in arguing on how much potential MKG might have had when he was drafted.
It's just rehashing boring old arguments.
It's just rehashing boring old arguments.
