Matas Progress Tracker

[Ice Man]

Of course I meant play him with a big and 3 guards, not with a big and 4 guards, which is what I wrote. But we would be a better team if we had 6 players on the court.

[MGB8]

No, not really. Forwards can be wings, but so can guards. Typically describe a wing as a guard-forward - a 2/3. Buz is closer to a modern 4 than a modern 3, to the extent that they are differentiable now (which is slight). Buz for now is a 3/4, though will likely eventually be primarily a 4. Just like George was a 2/3, now just a pure 3.

You have plenty of wings that are more 2 than 3, including guys like LaVine. Kobe was a wing.

Might be the most semantic debate ever, but I usually view a wing as 3/4 tweener. I don't know that there's a standard definition, but I usually think of a SF that would play up to PF in some lineups. More or less 3/4 tweener where you aren't sure they have the physicality / size to be the four. That said, if you asked me this 10 years ago, I'd have thought more of a 2/3 that doesn't have the ball skills / passing skills to be a passer / dribble attacker. I think the way the term has been used has changed a lot over time, especially with teams going smaller and requiring more perimeter skills from all players.

Paul George has played 12% of his minutes at SG, 65% at SF, 21% at PF, 1% at C over his career (per basketball-reference anyway), so is more of a PF than SG over his career, FWIW.

To me, Matas seems like a classic "wing" definition player, he's got a lot of the ball skills of a perimeter player and the speed / athleticism to play the three but the size to also potentially play the four.

I guess here is my view. A "wing" is generally a perimeter player who is switchable on defense due to size.

PG = generally not a wing
SG = often a wing, but an undersized guy might not be described as one
SF = basically always a wing
PF = used to be more of a banger and not a wing, but these days more typically a wing
C = not a wing

I view Matas as a wing, but not a guard. I feel like the most typical NBA lineup these days is a PG, 3 wings, and a C. There probably isn't a "real" definition of it, I suppose.

https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/guide/player_positions

CTG groups players into 5 position groupings which more naturally fit how players play in today's NBA. They are: point, combo, wing, forward, and big.

A point is someone who primarily plays point guard.

A combo splits time between point guard and shooting guard.

A wing splits time between shooting guard and small forward, or exclusively plays one of those two positions.

A forward splits time between small forward and power forward.

A big primarily plays either power forward or center or splits time between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swingman

In basketball, the term "swingman" (a.k.a. "wing" or "guard-forward") denotes a player who can play both the shooting guard (2) and small forward (3) positions, and in essence swing between the positions.[1][2]

https://thehoop.blog/basketball-positions-explained-5-basic-4-hybrid/

T

he Wing Player Position

As we move on from the combo guard position, let us now focus our attention on the wing player position. The wing player is typically located at the sides of the court and plays an important role in both offensive and defensive strategies. On offense, the wing player is responsible for scoring points by driving towards the basket or shooting from outside. On defense, they are tasked with guarding opposing players who are skilled at shooting or driving towards the basket.

The offensive role of a wing player requires excellent shooting skills, speed, agility, and creativity. They must be able to take advantage of any opening in their opponent’s defense and create scoring opportunities for themselves and their teammates. Some notable players who excel in this position include Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Kevin Durant. These players have consistently demonstrated their ability to score points through various techniques such as jump shots, layups, dunks, and three-pointers.

On the defensive end, a wing player must have quick reflexes to keep up with their opponents’ movements. They are often required to switch between defending multiple opponents during a game while also preventing them from scoring points. A good example of a player who has excelled in this aspect is Kawhi Leonard. He has established himself as one of the league’s most dominant defenders by using his long arms and quick feet to disrupt his opponent’s game plan.

.

[dougthonus]

Lots of debating about what is pretty clearly an imprecise term, especially in the era of positionless basketball.

In the end, Matas is going to be a perimeter oriented player that likely plays most of his time in the traditional PF slot while having a play style matching a traditional SG/SF on offense, and versatility to do a lot of things on defense.

[MGB8]

Lots of debating about what is pretty clearly an imprecise term, especially in the era of positionless basketball.

In the end, Matas is going to be a perimeter oriented player that likely plays most of his time in the traditional PF slot while having a play style matching a traditional SG/SF on offense, and versatility to do a lot of things on defense.

See, I think positionless basketball is complete BS. Hence why “wing” has a meaning, and it isn’t “forward.”

has enough ball handling and perimeter defending ability to play some on the wing, but he is more a Giannis type than a KG big wing (using outlier examples), much less a Middleton classic wing.

Footspeed and short area quickness matter - it’s why, IMO, teams that play “positionless”, without true guards or wings, often struggle.

[dougthonus]

See, I think positionless basketball is complete BS. Hence why “wing” has a meaning, and it isn’t “forward.”

has enough ball handling and perimeter defending ability to play some on the wing, but he is more a Giannis type than a KG big wing (using outlier examples), much less a Middleton classic wing.

Footspeed and short area quickness matter - it’s why, IMO, teams that play “positionless”, without true guards or wings, often struggle.

I don't think anyone views "wing" or "guard" as a position when talking about positionless basketball, they're mainly talking about removing the classical 5 positions, and it generally just means all players should have all skills (or as many as possible) so that they are more interchangeable on the court. A positionless team is probably starting almost all wings and guards, they'd never start no wings and guards.

The blue print for a positionless team is probably the Celtics with Jrue, Brown, White, and Tatum all being positionless, do-everything players that can all switch with each other defensively without significant harm, and can all pass, dribble, shoot, drive, etc...



I don't really have strong feelings about the semantic argument, I don't think you're wrong in the way you are defining the words, but the simple fact is many other people are using the word differently. As I believe it was Jcool quoted from like 5 different draft profiles of Matas, including our GM, called him a wing, despite the fact that he's a forward by your definition.

And as I said, Matas will play the traditional PF spot in the lineup, probably defend the traditional 3/4 spots (forwards by your definition) most of the time but have some flexibility and on offense play a wing style of game on the perimeter built around dribble drives and outside shooting. If you want to call that a forward or a wing, it doesn't really matter to me, I wouldn't debate it one way or the other, and think it's more useful just to talk about skills / traits.

[Jstock12]

Read on Twitter

This is huge imo. Of course these are just flashes over the entire season, but it demonstrates enough court-vision / awareness where I think it could scale up well over the course of his career. I won't be surprised if he starts averaging 2-3 apg soon.

[sco]

Gotta shout out Matas' defense on Chet

Read on Twitter

?

[MGB8]

See, I think positionless basketball is complete BS. Hence why “wing” has a meaning, and it isn’t “forward.”

has enough ball handling and perimeter defending ability to play some on the wing, but he is more a Giannis type than a KG big wing (using outlier examples), much less a Middleton classic wing.

Footspeed and short area quickness matter - it’s why, IMO, teams that play “positionless”, without true guards or wings, often struggle.

I don't think anyone views "wing" or "guard" as a position when talking about positionless basketball, they're mainly talking about removing the classical 5 positions, and it generally just means all players should have all skills (or as many as possible) so that they are more interchangeable on the court. A positionless team is probably starting almost all wings and guards, they'd never start no wings and guards.

The blue print for a positionless team is probably the Celtics with Jrue, Brown, White, and Tatum all being positionless, do-everything players that can all switch with each other defensively without significant harm, and can all pass, dribble, shoot, drive, etc...



I don't really have strong feelings about the semantic argument, I don't think you're wrong in the way you are defining the words, but the simple fact is many other people are using the word differently. As I believe it was Jcool quoted from like 5 different draft profiles of Matas, including our GM, called him a wing, despite the fact that he's a forward by your definition.

And as I said, Matas will play the traditional PF spot in the lineup, probably defend the traditional 3/4 spots (forwards by your definition) most of the time but have some flexibility and on offense play a wing style of game on the perimeter built around dribble drives and outside shooting. If you want to call that a forward or a wing, it doesn't really matter to me, I wouldn't debate it one way or the other, and think it's more useful just to talk about skills / traits.

The reason that I harped on the (semantic) distinction is exactly re skills that you are mentioning. Based on the terms as used by others (and me, too) guards (by being somewhat smaller) have the footspeed / short area to “get anywhere they want” on offense and similarly defend big footspeed opponents. And in the modern era they need to be able to shoot from range to have impact on the perimeter.

Wings, with greater height / length but typically somewhat less shot area quickness, still need to be able to handle and create from the perimeter (and thus also shoot) and usually their greater length offsets slightly less footspeed on defense - but their are outlier issues on both ends where the extra short quickness can make a big impact in terms of chase on outside and moving inside (especially with the ball).

Forwards, a bit bigger/longer but less quick than wings, start having more issues on chase on D (we’re focusing on man based, w/ or w/out switches) and need to create less, but in the modern NBA for spacing they still need to be able to shoot from range some. Offsetting reduced chase you get more interior defense, and offsetting reduced creation with the ball you get better finishing about by simple virtue of larger size.

Bigs are where you get most post play, your main interior defense, your main interior rebounding (though much more team) - but modern game also loves the unicorns who can switch, defend more in space, shoot from range, etc. but unicorns tend to give up size/power vs. big bangers; bangers don’t have the speed to switch much.

Old NBA was one or two guards, one or two wings, maybe 1 forwards, 2 bigs (a bigger big and a smaller one).

New NBA is one or two guards, one or two wings, one or two forwards, and maybe a big (or maybe just a big forward). Occasionally 2 bigs, too, but that is almost never base unless the 2nd big is a unicorn and basically just a giant sized forward (Giannis, Mobley).

If you consider wings and forwards the same thing, it leads to odd roster constructions. Like when we had DDR at the 4 (granted, less by design and more by necessity). Can get away with no forward, 1 big lineups (or even no big, one forward) for stretches but downsides. Or Toronto’s 4-forwards, 1 big lineups that failed.

If you look at Pat as a “wing”, he lacks footspeed to chase or create much from perimeter - you would never really want to play him at the 2. Ditto Giddey. As opposed to even a DDR or Zach or Lonzo or Terry. There is a distinction between a 2/3 … G/F and a combo or pure F (3/4), much less a pure 4.

[2weekswithpay]

Watch on YouTube

[DASMACKDOWN]

The question is, does Matas count as AKME picking good in the draft?

Or he shouldn't get that much credit since Matas fell in his lap?

We do know that Matas did not schedule a workout with the Bulls. So they never had him in pre-draft workouts. Probably because they figured he wouldn't be in position to grab him. So that much is clear.

I am not saying they didn't scout Matas. He was in G league, so plenty of teams obviously saw him. Also AKME has the close ties factor - (Chicago kid, Lithuanian etc.)

But to me Matas should NOT be included in how we measure AKME and his drafting capabilities.

Sometimes decisions are made for you. If the Bulls get lucky lottery balls and we pick Flagg, that doesn't suddenly make AKME great at drafting if you understand what I mean.

[cocktailswith_2short]

Akme are definitely going to benefit from matas . Other gms screwed up but they still made the easy decision to draft him . It's not good drafting really because matas should have never been there.

[kodo]

Count as good drafting but no credit for team rebuilding since Matas wasn't supposed to be there.
Similarly Rose was a good draft call by Paxson (Beasley was supposed to go #1 before we won the lotto), but Paxson never intended to be that bad that season and it was all just luck being in the spot to draft him.

[sco]

I asked AI to find me 10 examples of NBA players who I might expect Matas' future performance level to reach in 3 years. It shows both the good and bad of AI, both interesting and amusing:

Okay, let's break down Matas Buzelis' profile and project where he might land in about three years based on his tools and rookie campaign.

Player Profile:

Measurements: 6'10", 209 lbs (with room to add strength). He possesses good size and length for a forward. (Source, Source)
Rookie Year Insights: Showed significant improvement as the season progressed, particularly after the All-Star break, seeing increased minutes and production (including a 31-point game). He averaged 14.1 points in the G League and showed flashes offensively late in the NBA season. Defensively, he displayed good instincts, especially as a help-side shot blocker (averaging 2.1 BPG in the G League). (Source, Source, Source, Source)
Skills & Potential: Athletic, fluid mover for his size. Shows potential as a three-level scorer (needs shooting consistency), capable driver, and versatile defender. His defensive timing and ability to contest shots are notable strengths. Needs to improve strength, shooting consistency, and decision-making. (Source, Source, Source)
Projected Performance Level & Player Comparisons (3-Year Outlook):

Considering his trajectory, size, and two-way potential, Buzelis projects as a valuable, versatile forward in three years. He likely won't be a primary superstar creator by then, but could be a high-level starter or crucial rotation player whose impact is felt on both ends. Here are 10 current NBA players whose performance level and role might represent Buzelis' expected output around year four (age 22-23):

Franz Wagner (ORL): Often cited as a comparison. Similar size and offensive versatility as a secondary creator and scorer. Represents a solid starting forward level Buzelis could reach.
Trey Murphy III (NOP): A tall wing known for athleticism and sharpshooting. If Buzelis' outside shot becomes consistent, he could fill a similar, high-impact 3&D+ role.
Jaden McDaniels (MIN): Elite, switchable defender with length. McDaniels' offensive game is still developing, similar to the projection for Buzelis focusing initially on defensive impact with offensive upside.
Deni Avdija (WAS): A versatile forward who impacts the game through defense, rebounding, and connective passing, with improving scoring. Represents a potential outcome where Buzelis leans into his versatility.
Keegan Murray (SAC): Efficient scorer, reliable shooter, and solid defender who fits well within a team concept. A good model for a dependable two-way starting forward role.
Jeremy Sochan (SAS): Similar size, known for defensive energy, versatility, and developing point-forward skills. Represents a path where Buzelis becomes a high-energy, multi-positional defender and connector.
Lauri Markkanen (UTA): While reaching Markkanen's current All-Star level is a high-end outcome, his development into an elite-shooting big who can attack closeouts is a path Buzelis could follow stylistically, perhaps reaching Markkanen's earlier Utah performance level in 3 years.
Herb Jones (NOP): An elite defensive player whose offensive contributions come from cuts, transition, and improved spot-up shooting. Represents a defense-first outcome where Buzelis becomes an impactful role player.
Patrick Williams (CHI): Another Bulls forward with good physical tools and 3&D potential. While development has been inconsistent, his profile represents a potential baseline outcome as a versatile forward.
Kyle Kuzma (WAS): A score-first forward with good size who can create his own shot. If Buzelis' offensive game develops rapidly, he could take on a similar role as a secondary/tertiary scoring option.
The key for Buzelis will be consistent development in his outside shooting and adding strength while refining his decision-making. His late-season surge and G League performance suggest the potential is certainly there to reach the level of these types of impactful NBA forwards within three seasons.

[Jcool0]

Count as good drafting but no credit for team rebuilding since Matas wasn't supposed to be there.
Similarly Rose was a good draft call by Paxson (Beasley was supposed to go #1 before we won the lotto), but Paxson never intended to be that bad that season and it was all just luck being in the spot to draft him.

FWIW it was probably 60-40 Rose over Beasley before the draft lottery. Leading Memphis to the Championship game really vaulted Roses stock. Once Beasley came in shorter then expected it was pretty much over for him in the running for #1.

[CROBulls]

Count as good drafting but no credit for team rebuilding since Matas wasn't supposed to be there.
Similarly Rose was a good draft call by Paxson (Beasley was supposed to go #1 before we won the lotto), but Paxson never intended to be that bad that season and it was all just luck being in the spot to draft him.

FWIW it was probably 60-40 Rose over Beasley before the draft lottery. Leading Memphis to the Championship game really vaulted Roses stock. Once Beasley came in shorter then expected it was pretty much over for him in the running for #1.

I remember. Bulls would still take Rose being Chicago's kid. I know this wasnt "thing back then" like it is now, but I still feel Pax would go with Chicago picking Chicago's own kid even if it was 50-50.

And only reason it was just 60-40 was because Bulls just few years ago drafted Hinrich and had backcourt set between him and Gordon. And nobody was seeing Hinrich being back up PG that young.

[cocktailswith_2short]

Rose draft was good times . Most bulls fans knew Rose was the guy but there was a large contingent beating the table for Beasley . Pax nailed the pick and the rest is history.

[Jcool0]

Count as good drafting but no credit for team rebuilding since Matas wasn't supposed to be there.
Similarly Rose was a good draft call by Paxson (Beasley was supposed to go #1 before we won the lotto), but Paxson never intended to be that bad that season and it was all just luck being in the spot to draft him.

FWIW it was probably 60-40 Rose over Beasley before the draft lottery. Leading Memphis to the Championship game really vaulted Roses stock. Once Beasley came in shorter then expected it was pretty much over for him in the running for #1.

I remember. Bulls would still take Rose being Chicago's kid. I know this wasnt "thing back then" like it is now, but I still feel Pax would go with Chicago picking Chicago's own kid even if it was 50-50.

And only reason it was just 60-40 was because Bulls just few years ago drafted Hinrich and had backcourt set between him and Gordon. And nobody was seeing Hinrich being back up PG that young.

It was 60-40 because Beasley was who was supposed to go #1 and Rose was the guy on everyone's TV leading Memphis to the NT game. Beasley had one of the best freshman seasons ever, but when he measured at 6'8" he became to slow to play SF and to small for PF. Classic tweener. He also had "maturity" issues. I kind of remember Miami not being thrilled to take Beasley at #2 and they did get rid of him after two seasons. Rose was probably the most athletic PG ever at that point. I dont remember if he was called generational but he was that type. Bulls did look into #1 for Wade. No idea how far that got. So i'm sure Pax had a thing for Chicago guys.

[ScrantonBulls]

Count as good drafting but no credit for team rebuilding since Matas wasn't supposed to be there.
Similarly Rose was a good draft call by Paxson (Beasley was supposed to go #1 before we won the lotto), but Paxson never intended to be that bad that season and it was all just luck being in the spot to draft him.

Rose was the clear #1 pick by the time the draft came. It was a no brainer. I don't think Pax deserves credit for drafting him.

[Jstock12]

A good pick is a good pick. AKME deserve the credit, even if it's just a little credit for not overthinking and screwing it up.

[drosestruts]

A good pick is a good pick. AKME deserve the credit, even if it's just a little credit for not overthinking and screwing it up.

Not giving credit to the front offices for drafting Matas or Rose just reeks of hating.

However obvious you view the picks in hindsight they still had to be made.

And I don't feel like Matas was as big of a no brainer as people are making him out to be.


Topic, who we still haven't seen, Ware, McCain, and Missi could all be argued for.