Dat2U wrote:payitforward wrote:Dat2U wrote:Jones had a TS% of. 398 in 143 minutes!
Bonga had a TS% of .240 in 120 minutes!
I don't think it's a sure bet either SHOULD make a roster.
Respectfully, Dat, I think you are all wrong about Jones. For one thing, the Lakers FO was said to be extremely high on him. In addition look at my post on what his numbers look like when seen together in the context of reality.
Consider the following: a guy goes up for a shot inside & makes it. 2 points for his team. Versus the following: a guy goes up for a shot inside & misses it but grabs the rebound & puts it in. 2 points for his team. Difference in time elapsed, maybe 1 second.
Between these 2 cases, what is the difference to the guy's numbers? Well, in the first case his TS% is higher. In the 2d case, his TS% is lower, but his offensive rebounds are up.
Between these 2 cases, wha i's the difference to the team & its chance of winning the game? No difference.
If Jones also had a high TS% (& the minutes were significant of course) he'd be one of the best players in the league. Those are 2 big "ifs," of course. But, what he did was outstanding, however. He gives his team possessions by the fistful. The above example emphasizes the meaning of an offensive rebound in re: TS% -- but he also dominates the defensive glass.
There's plenty of evidence that spacing matters. If a guy can't hit the broad side of a barn, especially at wing position, he makes it harder for his teammates to pick up the slack. Just like good offenses take advantage of a weak defender, a good defense can game plan against a non-shooter.
As for Jones & Bonga obviously it's a ridiculously small sample size. I'm not saying they cannot play, I've never watched them! Just pointing out they got some work to do!
Absolutely, spacing matters: it affects the efficiency of your offense in scoring the ball. But, the other half of the equation is: how many opportunities do you have to score the ball. If I have 8 opportunities to score the ball for every 10 opportunities my opponent has, then I have to be way more efficient than my opponent in order to post anywhere near as many points as my opponent.
IOW, to increase the number of points my team scores in 48 minutes, I have to do one or both of two very different things: either I have to make more of my shots, i.e. increase efficiency (spacing helps with that) or I have to increase the number of shots I get to take (offensive rebounds, steals, low turnovers help with that), or both.
If you look at the last 5 games of the Lakers' season, leaving out 1 of them in which Jones only played 1 minute, they went 2-2 in the other 4. The wins were by 4 points & 5 points, & both of them can be traced to the fact that LA played Jones big minutes & he dominated the boards, esp. on offense. One of the two losses was by 3 points (on a buzzer beater).
In all those games, the Lakers got to take more shots than their opponents -- b/c of Jones. In the 3-point loss, Caruso turned the ball over 7 times -- & they still got to take more shots than the Blazers. Because of Jemarrio Jones. His defensive rebounding means the other team only gets one shot, his offensive rebounding means his team is likely to get more chances to score each time it has the ball.
That is not to say that this kind of play is scalable: if Jemerrio took twice as many shots he wouldn't get twice as many offensive boards. That's where you run into his limits &, overall, the limits of his kind of player. But... other kinds of players also have limits. Overall, Jones is a tremendously useful, positive force when he's on the floor.
A guy who gets tons of offensive rebounds, tons of defensive rebounds, & has 35% more steals than turnovers... that is a terrific player. A guy who helps you win. If he also shot the 3 well, he'd be a star in the league. He doesn't. But, he is still a very very positive pick up for us. & he costs next to nothing (well... in that world!). I will be surprised if he doesn't have a long, productive NBA career. With us, I hope.
