Point Guard

[madmaxmedia]

I agree completely, Ring Colluder.

Harrell has a very useful role. Sure, can't shoot or hit free throws, but hustle and muscle are valuable.

Let's go back a generation and a half - why was Kurt Rambus so valuable for the fLakers? Because of his elegant dribbling?

It's over, why keep arguing about it, but I think bottom line is he was not retained because of his horrible playoff performance, and he never really got in the game after he returned from his extended bereavement time off.

I don't wish him ill... except that he now is a fLaker.
[I am struggling with Rondo but telling myself the fLaker stank wore off during his months in the ATL.]

I liked Harrell a lot for who he was, and for what he was able to bring to the team, I also wish him well whatever teams he plays on in the future.

One difference between Harrell and Rambus is that Harrell is not particularly good at defense and rebounding. Had he been, we would have never let him go.

[UnFadeable21]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Some first half Rondo

He can do what no point guard on the clippers can do and that’s run offense.

[esqtvd]

For sure, Luke shoots 47% from 3PT, which is 4th in the NBA and hits 40% or higher 61% of his games where he's attempted a three as a Clipper. That's only "inconsistent" (in the most loose sense of the word) if we're comparing him to Joe Harris who is 3rd in the league at 48.5% and hits 40% or higher 67% of the time.

Of course that's a bit of an illiogical take in that case as calling a player who is in the 95th percentile of consistency inconsistent would require a new word for other players who are actually inconsistent.

Luke's playmaking just hasn't come through on this squad though. We've gotten some flashes here and there, but nothing consistent in that aspect with him still looking unsure about attacking vs not, etc.

Yes. Percentages mean little or nothing. An offensive player who doesn't add much else who needs to be spoonfed his shots BETTER hit his freebies.

Bev brings manic D, amazing rebounds, some assists and still hits his freebies at 40%. Let's not take him for granted.

Percentages are relevant based on what is being discussed. If the question is whether Luke Kennard is a consistent shooter, his percentages are extremely relevant, it's basically the definition for that conversation. If you're asking other questions, well they are other questions.

Claiming Kennard is not a consistent shooter as someone did because he sucks at other areas is mixing up conversations. Being a consistent shooter doesn't mean being a consistent shot creator defender, impact player or anything else, it is a singular discussion point.

Players who are spoonfed their shots don't shoot as well as Kennard has shot. That's the whole point. If you got a random sample of 20 guys in the league and as them the exact same shots Kennard gets, you'd have a chance of maybe 1 or at best 2 shooting as well and as consistently. There are many players in similar stand and wait for other guys to create open shots roles around the league, and only 3 guys are hitting a higher percentage, why? Because it's still difficult at the NBA level to hit that high a percentage against NBA level close-outs.

When you don't have to be spoonfed your shots, you get more of them. The problem with many players is they can't scale up their production at the same efficiency, because the shots aren't as easy. Same goes for Zubac here and DeAndre Jordan before him. I don't care what his FG% is, you're just not going to make a 20 ppg scorer out of him. They take what they're given, from their teammates and from the defense.

You'd rather 20 ppg from a guy hitting 40% from three than 10 ppg from a guy hitting 45. The scoreboard rewards production, not percentages.

[UnFadeable21]

Reggie Jackson has no vision at all

[UnFadeable21]

This team has 25+ games to get some much needed chemistry

[og15]

Yes. Percentages mean little or nothing. An offensive player who doesn't add much else who needs to be spoonfed his shots BETTER hit his freebies.

Bev brings manic D, amazing rebounds, some assists and still hits his freebies at 40%. Let's not take him for granted.

Percentages are relevant based on what is being discussed. If the question is whether Luke Kennard is a consistent shooter, his percentages are extremely relevant, it's basically the definition for that conversation. If you're asking other questions, well they are other questions.

Claiming Kennard is not a consistent shooter as someone did because he sucks at other areas is mixing up conversations. Being a consistent shooter doesn't mean being a consistent shot creator defender, impact player or anything else, it is a singular discussion point.

Players who are spoonfed their shots don't shoot as well as Kennard has shot. That's the whole point. If you got a random sample of 20 guys in the league and as them the exact same shots Kennard gets, you'd have a chance of maybe 1 or at best 2 shooting as well and as consistently. There are many players in similar stand and wait for other guys to create open shots roles around the league, and only 3 guys are hitting a higher percentage, why? Because it's still difficult at the NBA level to hit that high a percentage against NBA level close-outs.

When you don't have to be spoonfed your shots, you get more of them. The problem with many players is they can't scale up their production at the same efficiency, because the shots aren't as easy. Same goes for Zubac here and DeAndre Jordan before him. I don't care what his FG% is, you're just not going to make a 20 ppg scorer out of him. They take what they're given, from their teammates and from the defense.

You'd rather 20 ppg from a guy hitting 40% from three than 10 ppg from a guy hitting 45. The scoreboard rewards production, not percentages.

We're veering off, if the question is whether he is a consistent shooter, the answer is yes, there's no need for any qualifiers there, he is, the rest is a whole different discussion.

[esqtvd]

Percentages are relevant based on what is being discussed. If the question is whether Luke Kennard is a consistent shooter, his percentages are extremely relevant, it's basically the definition for that conversation. If you're asking other questions, well they are other questions.

Claiming Kennard is not a consistent shooter as someone did because he sucks at other areas is mixing up conversations. Being a consistent shooter doesn't mean being a consistent shot creator defender, impact player or anything else, it is a singular discussion point.

Players who are spoonfed their shots don't shoot as well as Kennard has shot. That's the whole point. If you got a random sample of 20 guys in the league and as them the exact same shots Kennard gets, you'd have a chance of maybe 1 or at best 2 shooting as well and as consistently. There are many players in similar stand and wait for other guys to create open shots roles around the league, and only 3 guys are hitting a higher percentage, why? Because it's still difficult at the NBA level to hit that high a percentage against NBA level close-outs.

When you don't have to be spoonfed your shots, you get more of them. The problem with many players is they can't scale up their production at the same efficiency, because the shots aren't as easy. Same goes for Zubac here and DeAndre Jordan before him. I don't care what his FG% is, you're just not going to make a 20 ppg scorer out of him. They take what they're given, from their teammates and from the defense.

You'd rather 20 ppg from a guy hitting 40% from three than 10 ppg from a guy hitting 45. The scoreboard rewards production, not percentages.

We're veering off, if the question is whether he is a consistent shooter, the answer is yes, there's no need for any qualifiers there, he is, the rest is a whole different discussion.

"Consistent shooter" without context is unhelpful. If you spoonfeed him wide-open 3s will he hit them? This is not a rare talent anymore in the NBA. Our discussion is whether Kennard can produce points when not spoonfed his shots. He does NOT get himself open. He stands around watching. In a pickup game like today, with the Lakers missing half their rotation, open looks were the rule not the exception.

Percentages vs production. I don't give a sh*it about your percentages and neither does the scoreboard.

As a thought experiment, OG [and I respect you and this discussion], drag in the stats on "wide-open" shots vs contested shots. In today's NBA even bigs can hit 10 in a row with nobody in their face.

And as a thought experiment, Kyle Korver. You can see where I'm going with this.

[og15]

When you don't have to be spoonfed your shots, you get more of them. The problem with many players is they can't scale up their production at the same efficiency, because the shots aren't as easy. Same goes for Zubac here and DeAndre Jordan before him. I don't care what his FG% is, you're just not going to make a 20 ppg scorer out of him. They take what they're given, from their teammates and from the defense.

You'd rather 20 ppg from a guy hitting 40% from three than 10 ppg from a guy hitting 45. The scoreboard rewards production, not percentages.

We're veering off, if the question is whether he is a consistent shooter, the answer is yes, there's no need for any qualifiers there, he is, the rest is a whole different discussion.

"Consistent shooter" without context is unhelpful. If you spoonfeed him wide-open 3s will he hit them? This is not a rare talent anymore in the NBA. Our discussion is whether Kennard can produce points when not spoonfed his shots. He does NOT get himself open. He stands around watching. In a pickup game like today, with the Lakers missing half their rotation, open looks were the rule not the exception.

Percentages vs production. I don't give a sh*it about your percentages and neither does the scoreboard.

As a thought experiment, OG [and I respect you and this discussion], drag in the stats on "wide-open" shots vs contested shots. In today's NBA even bigs can hit 10 in a row with nobody in their face.

And as a thought experiment, Kyle Korver. You can see where I'm going with this.

I don't disagree with the distinction between a scorer and a role player shooter. Everyone is going to take a guy scoring 20 ppg and shooting 40% 3PT over a guy scoring 10 ppg and shooting 45% 3PT assuming everything else is equal (so it's not like 10 ppg in 16 minutes vs 20 ppg in 32 minutes, and the guy shooting 40% 3PT isn't inefficient overall and shooting 39% inside the arc or something while the 10 ppg guy shoots 50% inside the arc).

If all isn't equal though, maybe not. Many people might say for their team, they would prefer Joe Ingles (11.8 ppg / 48% 3PT) to Andrew Wiggins (18.2 ppg / 40% 3PT).

My point is that it is a different discussion from whether a player is a consistent shooter, which is what was being challenged.

Whether a player is a consistent shooter (specifically 3PT shooter here) we can only measure from the shots they are taking and their shot attempt rate. Kennard takes 6.5 3PA/36 mins, 8.9 3PA/100 possessions. 8.9 3PA/100 puts him at 75th in the league, so he's in the top 1/6th in the league in 3PT attempt rate. On the top end, he's 0.4 - 0.5 3PA/100 possessions from guys like Jamal Murray, Trae Young and Lebron James. So when it comes to 3PT shots, he's up there in rate.

So for a guy in the top 1/6th of the league in 3PA rate, regardless of whether he is taking shots created by others or creating shots, his 3PT% is not only consistent, it has been elite for his attempt rate. Among the top 100 players in 3PA/100, only Ingles (9.9 3PA.100), Harris (10.4 3PA/100) are shooting better than him. (Marcus Morris is close at 0.1% lower). Compared to other players who get their shots primarily created, he out-shoots them.

So if we're asking the question, "is Luke Kennard a consistent shooter", especially talking about 3PT shooting, the answer based on his rate of 3PA and his percentages is an easy yes. If we're asking "is Luke Kennard a consistent shot creator or scorer", then we can add all these other elements to the discussion.

[esqtvd]

My point is that it is a different discussion from whether a player is a consistent shooter, which is what was being challenged.

I'm not. It's right there at Basketball Reference. I'm saying you have to spoonfeed him. In 2021 almost every NBAer is expected to hit the wide-open 3. We have a half-dozen guys who can do that, and who add other things too.

[og15]

My point is that it is a different discussion from whether a player is a consistent shooter, which is what was being challenged.

I'm not. It's right there at Basketball Reference. I'm saying you have to spoonfeed him. In 2021 almost every NBAer is expected to hit the wide-open 3. We have a half-dozen guys who can do that, and who add other things too.

I'm not sure I really understand what you mean here. How do we measure how consistent a shooter a player is? The rate of shot attempts, percentage, and how much you fluctuate and we compare to players in a similar role. Kennard checks all those boxes for a player in his role.

Almost every NBA player is expected to hit the wide open 3, certainly, and here's what the average team does:
Wide-Open 3PT: ~39% | Kennard 46.5% (+6.5%)
Open 3PT: ~35% | Kennard 49.2% (+13%)
Tight 3PT - ~31% | Kennard 40.0% (+9%)

Kennard barely shoots tight 3PT shots, the average team only takes 3-4 tight 3PT shots, obviously, since it isn't what teams want. The only guy that really takes a decent amount of tight 3PT attempts on the team is Paul George who hits at almost 38%. Kennard though actually shoots better on open 3PT shots than wide open ones, he's not in the NBA because he can only hit if no one is around him or closing out.

I'm still not understanding what is going on here, you're debating whether or not Kennard is better than other guys who can do other things, when what was being rebutted was the assertion that he is not a consistent shooter. So is he a consistent shooter or not? If you don't believe he is, sure, though I'd be interested to see the support for that.

If you do believe he is, what are you disagreeing with in relation to the specific line of discussion? If you are debating whether his level of 3PT consistency is good enough to get him more minutes on this team over other guys who do more and can also shoot, fine, but that's not what was being responded to, so I don't really get it.

[esqtvd]

My point is that it is a different discussion from whether a player is a consistent shooter, which is what was being challenged.

I'm not. It's right there at Basketball Reference. I'm saying you have to spoonfeed him. In 2021 almost every NBAer is expected to hit the wide-open 3. We have a half-dozen guys who can do that, and who add other things too.

I'm not sure I really understand what you mean here. How do we measure how consistent a shooter a player is? The rate of shot attempts, percentage, and how much you fluctuate and we compare to players in a similar role. Kennard checks all those boxes for a player in his role.

Almost every NBA player is expected to hit the wide open 3, certainly, and here's what the average team does:
Wide-Open 3PT: ~39% | Kennard 46.5% (+6.5%)
Open 3PT: ~35% | Kennard 49.2% (+13%)
Tight 3PT - ~31% | Kennard 40.0% (+9%)

Kennard barely shoots tight 3PT shots, the average team only takes 3-4 tight 3PT shots, obviously, since it isn't what teams want. The only guy that really takes a decent amount of tight 3PT attempts on the team is Paul George who hits at almost 38%. Kennard though actually shoots better on open 3PT shots than wide open ones, he's not in the NBA because he can only hit if no one is around him or closing out.

I'm still not understanding what is going on here, you're debating whether or not Kennard is better than other guys who can do other things, when what was being rebutted was the assertion that he is not a consistent shooter. So is he a consistent shooter or not? If you don't believe he is, sure, though I'd be interested to see the support for that.

If you do believe he is, what are you disagreeing with in relation to the specific line of discussion? If you are debating whether his level of 3PT consistency is good enough to get him more minutes on this team over other guys who do more and can also shoot, fine, but that's not what was being responded to, so I don't really get it.

At this point I don't know what you were responding to lol--I skip over when the know-nothing jerks hassle you.

We're having this discussion while watching the Portland game. 11 Clippers have seen the court. Only Kennard, Coffey, and Oturu have not seen the court.

For reasons given.

[TheNewEra]

In other news Rondo looked sharp the second game. Had a bogus TO on a obvious kick ball but man this guy knows how to lock in defensively and clearly can hear him communicating

[Clemenza]

Well two former first round picks of the Clipps are currently out of the league. Kabengele and now Jerome Robinson. Sheesh!!

Read on Twitter

[og15]

I'm not. It's right there at Basketball Reference. I'm saying you have to spoonfeed him. In 2021 almost every NBAer is expected to hit the wide-open 3. We have a half-dozen guys who can do that, and who add other things too.

I'm not sure I really understand what you mean here. How do we measure how consistent a shooter a player is? The rate of shot attempts, percentage, and how much you fluctuate and we compare to players in a similar role. Kennard checks all those boxes for a player in his role.

Almost every NBA player is expected to hit the wide open 3, certainly, and here's what the average team does:
Wide-Open 3PT: ~39% | Kennard 46.5% (+6.5%)
Open 3PT: ~35% | Kennard 49.2% (+13%)
Tight 3PT - ~31% | Kennard 40.0% (+9%)

Kennard barely shoots tight 3PT shots, the average team only takes 3-4 tight 3PT shots, obviously, since it isn't what teams want. The only guy that really takes a decent amount of tight 3PT attempts on the team is Paul George who hits at almost 38%. Kennard though actually shoots better on open 3PT shots than wide open ones, he's not in the NBA because he can only hit if no one is around him or closing out.

I'm still not understanding what is going on here, you're debating whether or not Kennard is better than other guys who can do other things, when what was being rebutted was the assertion that he is not a consistent shooter. So is he a consistent shooter or not? If you don't believe he is, sure, though I'd be interested to see the support for that.

If you do believe he is, what are you disagreeing with in relation to the specific line of discussion? If you are debating whether his level of 3PT consistency is good enough to get him more minutes on this team over other guys who do more and can also shoot, fine, but that's not what was being responded to, so I don't really get it.

At this point I don't know what you were responding to lol--I skip over when the know-nothing jerks hassle you.

We're having this discussion while watching the Portland game. 11 Clippers have seen the court. Only Kennard, Coffey, and Oturu have not seen the court.

For reasons given.

nice, nice!

[MartinToVaught]

Read on Twitter

It's time to move on from Beverley. He just can't stay healthy.