Admiral Schofield

[closg00]

The kid has skilz, dunno why we couldn't have taken a flyer. Last post on him here. Thx

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[nate33]

He's not going to amount to anything in this league. He won't stay healthy, and by all reports, he has an attitude problem.

[payitforward]

I don't think you give a guy 2 plus guaranteed years & put him in the G League.

I dunno. The Raptors have been doing this for a while and it seems like it works out pretty well for them. Obviously you have to scout well first, but it becomes a trust-building commitment for both parties involved. On one hand, the team commits to actually paying the player they believe in rather than offering little or no guaranteed money. The player buys in, knowing that the team invested in him and is willing to use that time to effectively allow him to learn the system in the g league. That buy-in allows them to be better prepared when their time comes to showcase what they can do making it more likely that they also earn more money on their next contract, too. It works out great. So far, the Raptors have done it with Delon Wright, Norman Powell, Pascal Siakam, Fred VanVleet and they're doing it again with Dewan Hernandez this season and I sort of suspect that they were planning on doing the same with Terence Davis and Matt Thomas only they played their way onto the roster immediately.

I'm legitimately shocked more teams aren't doing it. Teams can still call those guys up later, and keep them with the team once they're convinced the player has the system under control. Unless the player is already really damn good, which isn't true in most cases, you aren't actually losing much by investing some time and money into the player and the potential reward is significant. I'm happy the Wizards are taking the long view here. I don't know of Schofield will turn out or not but the practice of what the team is doing just plain makes sense.

Kinda like a 1st rounder in baseball might get a 3 million bonus but still spend 3 years in the minors.

Just sloppy writing on my part. Of course he can/should spend some time in the G League -- above all, b/c it means he gets to play. I meant something more like "stick him" there or "leave him" there. I was hoping to see him spend some more time w/ the Wiz -- &... here he is!

[Ruzious]

He's not going to amount to anything in this league. He won't stay healthy, and by all reports, he has an attitude problem.

If he stays healthy (which is a big if) and can put on some weight (a second big if), he'll be a special player in the NBA. His shooting touch is amazing for a 7 footer - easily better than Porzingis' - for example. People here were saying he wasn't going to be healthy enough to play this season, and there he is.

[payitforward]

Never say never, of course. & the talent is there; otherwise, no one would have talked about him or do so now. Yet, given those 2 risk factors (health & weight) along with the 3d risk factor (at least rumored: attitude), he is obviously quite a long shot. Which is why he dropped. Duh.

If one considers that a player like Schofield -- good not great in college, a senior, etc -- is unlikely to have a high ceiling, one could view him as easily replaceable, the kind of guy you can get pretty easily. In that sense, it'd be pretty easy to justify rolling the dice on Bol Bol.

OTOH, if we factor in the "reset the culture" factor, maybe that third risk ruled him out?

[Ruzious]

Never say never, of course. & the talent is there; otherwise, no one would have talked about him or do so now. Yet, given those 2 risk factors (health & weight) along with the 3d risk factor (at least rumored: attitude), he is obviously quite a long shot. Which is why he dropped. Duh.

If one considers that a player like Schofield -- good not great in college, a senior, etc -- is unlikely to have a high ceiling, one could view him as easily replaceable, the kind of guy you can get pretty easily. In that sense, it'd be pretty easy to justify rolling the dice on Bol Bol.

OTOH, if we factor in the "reset the culture" factor, maybe that third risk ruled him out?

That last factor was probably a major reason they chose the Admiral - an admirable reason - if they're forming a Boy Scout group.

[BearlyBallin]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

And he’s back in g league...

[DCZards]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

And he’s back in g league...

It's good to see Admiral knocking down the 3 ball. I expect that to be one of his major (and most important) strengths at the next level.

[payitforward]

Never say never, of course. & the talent is there; otherwise, no one would have talked about him or do so now. Yet, given those 2 risk factors (health & weight) along with the 3d risk factor (at least rumored: attitude), he is obviously quite a long shot. Which is why he dropped. Duh.

If one considers that a player like Schofield -- good not great in college, a senior, etc -- is unlikely to have a high ceiling, one could view him as easily replaceable, the kind of guy you can get pretty easily. In that sense, it'd be pretty easy to justify rolling the dice on Bol Bol.

OTOH, if we factor in the "reset the culture" factor, maybe that third risk ruled him out?

That last factor was probably a major reason they chose the Admiral - an admirable reason - if they're forming a Boy Scout group.

I thought that was the strategy? Didn't they hire some guy from the Boy Scouts to do their "culture" analytics?

[BearlyBallin]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[closg00]

Now that he's gotten some reps in, hopefully he won't play scared like he was initially, he may get his number called soon.

[BearlyBallin]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

5 for 10 from 3pt range in a road loss to the Skyhawks.

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

5 for 10 from 3pt range in a road loss to the Skyhawks.

When the big lights are on he has yet to deliver, perhaps he needs a bump in playing-time (unlikely) to gain some confidence.

[BearlyBallin]

Watch on YouTube

Read on Twitter

?s=20

I was going to post this here but got distracted and forgot. Lol I’m old.

[nate33]

I liked what I saw in the Detroit game. He worked hard on defense and he is a threat to hit catch-and-shoot 3's.

Over the long term, I'm not sure he has a position in the NBA. He just doesn't seem agile enough to play SF. Against Detroit, we used him as a smallball PF/C and it worked out okay, but that was against a team that didn't really have any starting-caliber NBA bigs. A legit PF with offensive skills would probably be too big for him.

We will have to see if he can remake his body to be a bit more wiry and quick twitchy so he can defend the SF position.

[dckingsfan]

I liked what I saw in the Detroit game. He worked hard on defense and he is a threat to hit catch-and-shoot 3's.

Over the long term, I'm not sure he has a position in the NBA. He just doesn't seem agile enough to play SF. Against Detroit, we used him as a smallball PF/C and it worked out okay, but that was against a team that didn't really have any starting-caliber NBA bigs. A legit PF with offensive skills would probably be too big for him.

We will have to see if he can remake his body to be a bit more wiry and quick twitchy so he can defend the SF position.

It will be interesting if a personal trainer could make a difference on that end... I would think so.

[payitforward]

Well... I really didn't like the pick of Schofield, but I'm pretty sure that I was wrong. I'm not worried about his body type. He may not be particularly quick, but he isn't slow. Above all, he's showing he can shoot. I'm not expecting him to maintain his .759 TS% -- that would be asking a lot! -- but he's opportunistic around the rim (80% on 2-pointers! & that's where he's getting them), he makes his FTs (83.3%), & he can obviously make open 3-pointers from the top of the key (47% 3pt. shooter so far -- & that's where he's getting them), a shot that is often available.

Unless a player is seriously hamstrung physically (by being small, very slow, unathletic), just knowing where you are & what you should be doing, combined with strong effort, should allow a guy to be an adequate defender.

I'm not suggesting Admiral has some big upside, but so far at least he looks like he'll a solid NBA journeyman. Now... 117 minutes isn't a sufficient basis for long-term optimism -- but not for pessimism either! He's a rookie. So far so good.

I liked the interview with him a few posts up from here. He's smart, focused, articulate, & confident. & he seems to have a genuine grip on what he's being asked to do, what he has to learn, etc. Comes across as the kind of kid who is successful at what he undertakes.

[payitforward]

Moving this here...

One notable difference is that PJ had a reported 7-foot wingspan which allows him to play much taller than he is. Admiral's wingspan is fairly long for his height (6'-9.75) but it's not freakishly long. He also never demonstrated the quick hands and steal-generating ability that Tucker showed in college.

They're not exact matches. You'll never truly get that with anyone. Tucker hit two 3s total in his entire college career and he didn't hit any as an NBA rookie. He had to go to Europe and return to the NBA at age 27 to figure that part out and even then he only gradually adopted the 3.

It's more about the kind of role Admiral fits into. I'm not sure if he'll be as good as, worse than or better than Tucker. Who knows at this point? He's going to be a smallball PF/C that can score from range. If he doesn't improve at all, he's not going to last in the league, just as Tucker didn't at first. He seems to have a solid attitude and is largely coachable. I don't see a star but I think he has a reasonable chance of being a solid role player - it's just a rather rare kind of role player that people aren't used to. He isn't an SF and trying to make him one won't work.

I don't disagree. I do think PJ Tucker is probably the prototype that Schofield should strive for. I just don't think it's possible for him to reach Tucker's level of effectiveness defensively, and I certainly don't think he can be effective as a small ball center. He can be a poor man's Tucker, and only at PF.

The other guy with a similar body type but a bit more in the SF mode is Jae Crowder. Schofield and Crowder have very similar physical and statistical profiles:
http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=jae-crowder--admiral-schofield

I wish those statistical profiles were just a little more similar!

Crowder was a better college player than Admiral. By a lot not a little. More points on lower usage. More boards, more... almost everything.

Right now, however, it's the opposite: Admiral is scoring more on lower usage. Of course, he's played a lot less than Crowder! Not suggesting anything definitive! Still, overall, Admiral's numbers are quite good. so far.

Is there a concern over who he's going to defend? I guess so. But, I think it's a little soon to draw any firm conclusions --135 minutes.

[pcbothwel]

Moving this here...

They're not exact matches. You'll never truly get that with anyone. Tucker hit two 3s total in his entire college career and he didn't hit any as an NBA rookie. He had to go to Europe and return to the NBA at age 27 to figure that part out and even then he only gradually adopted the 3.

It's more about the kind of role Admiral fits into. I'm not sure if he'll be as good as, worse than or better than Tucker. Who knows at this point? He's going to be a smallball PF/C that can score from range. If he doesn't improve at all, he's not going to last in the league, just as Tucker didn't at first. He seems to have a solid attitude and is largely coachable. I don't see a star but I think he has a reasonable chance of being a solid role player - it's just a rather rare kind of role player that people aren't used to. He isn't an SF and trying to make him one won't work.

I don't disagree. I do think PJ Tucker is probably the prototype that Schofield should strive for. I just don't think it's possible for him to reach Tucker's level of effectiveness defensively, and I certainly don't think he can be effective as a small ball center. He can be a poor man's Tucker, and only at PF.

The other guy with a similar body type but a bit more in the SF mode is Jae Crowder. Schofield and Crowder have very similar physical and statistical profiles:
http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=jae-crowder--admiral-schofield

I wish those statistical profiles were just a little more similar!

Crowder was a better college player than Admiral. By a lot not a little. More points on lower usage. More boards, more... almost everything.

Right now, however, it's the opposite: Admiral is scoring more on lower usage. Of course, he's played a lot less than Crowder! Not suggesting anything definitive! Still, overall, Admiral's numbers are quite good. so far.

Is there a concern over who he's going to defend? I guess so. But, I think it's a little soon to draw any firm conclusions --135 minutes.

Whats interesting is like Rui, Admiral may have more upside than his age would suggest due to coming to basketball relatively late. He's big, strong, long, and has a grittiness about him that lends me to believe he'll end up being a pretty good defender, even if he lacks quickness on the perimeter.
So long as the 3 ball goes in, I see a really nice career for him.

[payitforward]

Alas, Admiral has slid seriously in his last several games, proving to be exceedingly non-productive. He needs to go back down to the GoGo's, get some consistent pt, & work on his game.