Pat Williams Discussion - Out 4-6 Mo (late Feb to late April)

[MGB8]

In his new season, OG Anunoby averaged 12.5 and 5 per36 , playing over 20 minutes per game. Didn’t do much more his next season, either - basically increasing efficiency to where Pat is now but raw numbers not much better.

Folks are way too impatient with Pat.

The problem isn't the numbers. He failed the eye test. Low motor. Low effort while everyone around him was putting up high effort. Are you really going to dispute this? He looks like Eddy Curry out there...has the physical tools but has not shown the desire or heart.

I disagree. Pat's numbers are pretty bad. Here are his career per36:
11.7p 5.8r 1.7a 10.4PER

People will pipe in and bring up a guy who had bad numbers early on and went on to play well. That's the exception, not the rule.

Here is Scottie Barnes, who looks much more like a future quality player at age 20:
15.6p 8.3r 3.4a 17.5PER

Pat Williams still has that new lottery pick smell and can fetch something in trade. IMO, they should do it because if he continues like this, he is going to be out of the league in a few years. The fact that the Bulls have Derozan playing like he is at his age just doubles the reason why you want to trade Pat now.

Ugh--- Barnes doesn't look like just a future quality player. He looks like a future top 20 player. There's a huge difference. Right now Barnes is arguable ROY, in competition with Evan Mobley. And, btw, Barnes is playing 36 minutes per game - take him down to 27.9 and his numbers drop about 12/6.5/2.8/0.9/0.8/0.49, 0.36...

Pat doesn't look like a future top 20 player - agreed. But his 5 games from this season coming back from injury don't tell you much (other than maybe to expect higher shooting percentages when surrounded by high end offensive talent) - so I wouldn't use them in any sort of way.

You need to compare his rookie year to other rookies, including eye test, with guys in similar roles.

Pat Williams Rookie stats: 9.2p/4.6r/1.4a/0.9s/0.6b/0.48, 0.39 (27.9m)
Harrison Barnes Rookies stats: 9.2p/4.1r/1.2a/0.2b. 0.44, 0.36 (25.4) - virtually identical per minute
OG (one year older as a rook): 5.9p/2.5r/0.7a/0.7s/0.2b, 0.47, 0.37 (20m)
Shawn Marion: 10.2p/6.5r/1.4a/0.7s/1b/ 0.47, 0.18 (24.7m)
Marvin Williams: 8.5p/ 4.8r/ 0.8a/ 0.6s/ 0.3b/ 0.44, 0.25 (24.7m)
Thad Young: 9.2p/ 4.2r/ 0.8a/ 1.0s/ 0.1b/ 0.54, .32 (21m)

etc.




Harrison Barnes rookie season -

[MGB8]

I had held out hope for a long time throughout his struggles, but the position switch did not yield better rebounding. That shook me. It used to look a little like the Bulls put him in a role that didn’t ask him to crash the boards. But then he was literally put into a role to crash the boards and nothing happened. He's a good kid and a good worker, but his instincts are questionable. One might guess that the same genetic thing that prevents him from going after rebounds is the same thing that stops him from going after shots and demanding the ball. He can defend better because it doesn’t require a decision to defend. You just do it because there is nothing else to do. The other parts of the game do require some different areas of the brain to fire up.

He played FIVE games while coming back from injury this year. His rebounding was down but actually started to pick up in game 5, and then he broke his wrist.

If that swung you from "holding out hope" to "not anymore" ... oy...

Come on, people.

[coldfish]

The problem isn't the numbers. He failed the eye test. Low motor. Low effort while everyone around him was putting up high effort. Are you really going to dispute this? He looks like Eddy Curry out there...has the physical tools but has not shown the desire or heart.

I disagree. Pat's numbers are pretty bad. Here are his career per36:
11.7p 5.8r 1.7a 10.4PER

People will pipe in and bring up a guy who had bad numbers early on and went on to play well. That's the exception, not the rule.

Here is Scottie Barnes, who looks much more like a future quality player at age 20:
15.6p 8.3r 3.4a 17.5PER

Pat Williams still has that new lottery pick smell and can fetch something in trade. IMO, they should do it because if he continues like this, he is going to be out of the league in a few years. The fact that the Bulls have Derozan playing like he is at his age just doubles the reason why you want to trade Pat now.

Ugh--- Barnes doesn't look like just a future quality player. He looks like a future top 20 player. There's a huge difference. Right now Barnes is arguable ROY, in competition with Evan Mobley. And, btw, Barnes is playing 36 minutes per game - take him down to 27.9 and his numbers drop about 12/6.5/2.8/0.9/0.8/0.49, 0.36...

Pat doesn't look like a future top 20 player - agreed. But his 5 games from this season coming back from injury don't tell you much (other than maybe to expect higher shooting percentages when surrounded by high end offensive talent) - so I wouldn't use them in any sort of way.

You need to compare his rookie year to other rookies, including eye test, with guys in similar roles.

Pat Williams Rookie stats: 9.2p/4.6r/1.4a/0.9s/0.6b/0.48, 0.39 (27.9m)
Harrison Barnes Rookies stats: 9.2p/4.1r/1.2a/0.2b. 0.44, 0.36 (25.4) - virtually identical per minute
OG (one year older as a rook): 5.9p/2.5r/0.7a/0.7s/0.2b, 0.47, 0.37 (20m)
Shawn Marion: 10.2p/6.5r/1.4a/0.7s/1b/ 0.47, 0.18 (24.7m)
Marvin Williams: 8.5p/ 4.8r/ 0.8a/ 0.6s/ 0.3b/ 0.44, 0.25 (24.7m)
Thad Young: 9.2p/ 4.2r/ 0.8a/ 1.0s/ 0.1b/ 0.54, .32 (21m)

etc.




Harrison Barnes rookie season -

You are cherry picking people. Beyond that, Pat got a ridiculous amount of entitlement minutes last year. If he had been the same guy except drafted 20th on a playoff team most nights he would have been a DNP-CD.

Lastly, if you agree that Pat doesn't look like a future top player like Barnes, why would you be interested in keeping him and developing him? Many of the type of players you are listing are MLE type guys that you can pick up any time.

[MGB8]

I disagree. Pat's numbers are pretty bad. Here are his career per36:
11.7p 5.8r 1.7a 10.4PER

People will pipe in and bring up a guy who had bad numbers early on and went on to play well. That's the exception, not the rule.

Here is Scottie Barnes, who looks much more like a future quality player at age 20:
15.6p 8.3r 3.4a 17.5PER

Pat Williams still has that new lottery pick smell and can fetch something in trade. IMO, they should do it because if he continues like this, he is going to be out of the league in a few years. The fact that the Bulls have Derozan playing like he is at his age just doubles the reason why you want to trade Pat now.

Ugh--- Barnes doesn't look like just a future quality player. He looks like a future top 20 player. There's a huge difference. Right now Barnes is arguable ROY, in competition with Evan Mobley. And, btw, Barnes is playing 36 minutes per game - take him down to 27.9 and his numbers drop about 12/6.5/2.8/0.9/0.8/0.49, 0.36...

Pat doesn't look like a future top 20 player - agreed. But his 5 games from this season coming back from injury don't tell you much (other than maybe to expect higher shooting percentages when surrounded by high end offensive talent) - so I wouldn't use them in any sort of way.

You need to compare his rookie year to other rookies, including eye test, with guys in similar roles.

Pat Williams Rookie stats: 9.2p/4.6r/1.4a/0.9s/0.6b/0.48, 0.39 (27.9m)
Harrison Barnes Rookies stats: 9.2p/4.1r/1.2a/0.2b. 0.44, 0.36 (25.4) - virtually identical per minute
OG (one year older as a rook): 5.9p/2.5r/0.7a/0.7s/0.2b, 0.47, 0.37 (20m)
Shawn Marion: 10.2p/6.5r/1.4a/0.7s/1b/ 0.47, 0.18 (24.7m)
Marvin Williams: 8.5p/ 4.8r/ 0.8a/ 0.6s/ 0.3b/ 0.44, 0.25 (24.7m)
Thad Young: 9.2p/ 4.2r/ 0.8a/ 1.0s/ 0.1b/ 0.54, .32 (21m)

etc.

Harrison Barnes rookie season -

You are cherry picking people. Beyond that, Pat got a ridiculous amount of entitlement minutes last year. If he had been the same guy except drafted 20th on a playoff team most nights he would have been a DNP-CD.

Lastly, if you agree that Pat doesn't look like a future top player like Barnes, why would you be interested in keeping him and developing him? Many of the type of players you are listing are MLE type guys that you can pick up any time.

I'm not cherry-picking, I picked a variety of guys who had similar "tweaner" traits coming in.

What I'm stating is fairly simple: anyone who is making a hard cold judgment that Pat isn't going to be a solid NBA player, maybe near all-star, right now - is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve to make any assessments about young players.

At the end of this year, maybe you'd have seen enough to *start* having a sense of where he's likely going to end up - except that he's already shown enough to show that he's a legitimate NBA player, not some sort of fringe guy.

He's shown more than Tony Snell did (and Tony Snell also showed NBA talent, but even greater hesitancy / wilting under pressure). He's shown that he fits fine with starters on the court. He's already shown more than guys like Troy Brown Jr., etc. As a result, he would not have gotten DNPS - in part because the Bulls roster sucked at the 3-4 last season (Chad, Valentine, Markkanen, TBJr.).

Edit: I could have included Moe Harkless - who also had similar stats to those guys as a 19 year old rookie. His stats then declined over the following 3 years, but the biggest issue with him was that he didn't show progress in learning where to be on offense and defense --- basketball IQ issues (similar complaints have been lodged against Kelly Oubre, for intance). Pat's already ahead of Harkless on that front. Whether he continues to progress is up to him (as well as any actual limitations he has).

[fleet]

I had held out hope for a long time throughout his struggles, but the position switch did not yield better rebounding. That shook me. It used to look a little like the Bulls put him in a role that didn’t ask him to crash the boards. But then he was literally put into a role to crash the boards and nothing happened. He's a good kid and a good worker, but his instincts are questionable. One might guess that the same genetic thing that prevents him from going after rebounds is the same thing that stops him from going after shots and demanding the ball. He can defend better because it doesn’t require a decision to defend. You just do it because there is nothing else to do. The other parts of the game do require some different areas of the brain to fire up.

He played FIVE games while coming back from injury this year. His rebounding was down but actually started to pick up in game 5, and then he broke his wrist.

If that swung you from "holding out hope" to "not anymore" ... oy...

Come on, people.

I didn’t say “not anymore”. I said I was shook when he didn’t play any differently at a position which required him to play differently. I will definitely say that I am not going to make any more circumstantially based excuses for his lack of production.

[MGB8]

I had held out hope for a long time throughout his struggles, but the position switch did not yield better rebounding. That shook me. It used to look a little like the Bulls put him in a role that didn’t ask him to crash the boards. But then he was literally put into a role to crash the boards and nothing happened. He's a good kid and a good worker, but his instincts are questionable. One might guess that the same genetic thing that prevents him from going after rebounds is the same thing that stops him from going after shots and demanding the ball. He can defend better because it doesn’t require a decision to defend. You just do it because there is nothing else to do. The other parts of the game do require some different areas of the brain to fire up.

He played FIVE games while coming back from injury this year. His rebounding was down but actually started to pick up in game 5, and then he broke his wrist.

If that swung you from "holding out hope" to "not anymore" ... oy...

Come on, people.

I didn’t say “not anymore”. I said I was shook when he didn’t play any differently at a position which required him to play differently. I will definitely say that I am not going to make any more circumstantially based excuses for his lack of production.

Circumstances make an impact - but circumstances or not, the real test is time.

If he continues to suck over the course of another more or less full season of games, even half-season of actual games that he's playing - now you have serious cause for concern. But right now... there simply hasn't been enough time to "pull the plug" - the talent / flashes are real

[coldfish]

Ugh--- Barnes doesn't look like just a future quality player. He looks like a future top 20 player. There's a huge difference. Right now Barnes is arguable ROY, in competition with Evan Mobley. And, btw, Barnes is playing 36 minutes per game - take him down to 27.9 and his numbers drop about 12/6.5/2.8/0.9/0.8/0.49, 0.36...

Pat doesn't look like a future top 20 player - agreed. But his 5 games from this season coming back from injury don't tell you much (other than maybe to expect higher shooting percentages when surrounded by high end offensive talent) - so I wouldn't use them in any sort of way.

You need to compare his rookie year to other rookies, including eye test, with guys in similar roles.

Pat Williams Rookie stats: 9.2p/4.6r/1.4a/0.9s/0.6b/0.48, 0.39 (27.9m)
Harrison Barnes Rookies stats: 9.2p/4.1r/1.2a/0.2b. 0.44, 0.36 (25.4) - virtually identical per minute
OG (one year older as a rook): 5.9p/2.5r/0.7a/0.7s/0.2b, 0.47, 0.37 (20m)
Shawn Marion: 10.2p/6.5r/1.4a/0.7s/1b/ 0.47, 0.18 (24.7m)
Marvin Williams: 8.5p/ 4.8r/ 0.8a/ 0.6s/ 0.3b/ 0.44, 0.25 (24.7m)
Thad Young: 9.2p/ 4.2r/ 0.8a/ 1.0s/ 0.1b/ 0.54, .32 (21m)

etc.

Harrison Barnes rookie season -

You are cherry picking people. Beyond that, Pat got a ridiculous amount of entitlement minutes last year. If he had been the same guy except drafted 20th on a playoff team most nights he would have been a DNP-CD.

Lastly, if you agree that Pat doesn't look like a future top player like Barnes, why would you be interested in keeping him and developing him? Many of the type of players you are listing are MLE type guys that you can pick up any time.

I'm not cherry-picking, I picked a variety of guys who had similar "tweaner" traits coming in.

What I'm stating is fairly simple: anyone who is making a hard cold judgment that Pat isn't going to be a solid NBA player, maybe near all-star, right now - is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve to make any assessments about young players.

At the end of this year, maybe you'd have seen enough to *start* having a sense of where he's likely going to end up - except that he's already shown enough to show that he's a legitimate NBA player, not some sort of fringe guy.

He's shown more than Tony Snell did (and Tony Snell also showed NBA talent, but even greater hesitancy / wilting under pressure). He's shown that he fits fine with starters on the court. He's already shown more than guys like Troy Brown Jr., etc. As a result, he would not have gotten DNPS - in part because the Bulls roster sucked at the 3-4 last season (Chad, Valentine, Markkanen, TBJr.).

Edit: I could have included Moe Harkless - who also had similar stats to those guys as a 19 year old rookie. His stats then declined over the following 3 years, but the biggest issue with him was that he didn't show progress in learning where to be on offense and defense --- basketball IQ issues (similar complaints have been lodged against Kelly Oubre, for intance). Pat's already ahead of Harkless on that front. Whether he continues to progress is up to him (as well as any actual limitations he has).

First off, you are most certainly cherry picking. There are countless, absolutely countless, wing players drafted early on who did little to start and then flamed out completely.

Secondly, don't refer to another poster as a blithering idiot. Just don't.

The reality is that most players taken in the draft that start out like this don't amount to much in the NBA. If you knew nothing about NBA players and just said "yeah, this guy won't amount to much", you would be right the vast majority of the time. When you add in actual player evaluation and look at his lack of aggressiveness and low motor (again, very Tony Snell like), it really doesn't look good.

If Pat goes on to be one of the rare exceptions who turns around his career, that's great. I'll be happy and gladly admit that I was wrong. Its just really unlikely.

Just as an example:
Stanley Johnson, tweener 3/4
Taken #8 in 2015 draft
Currently bouncing around the league on 10 day contracts
Age 19 per 36: 12.7p 6.5r 2.3a 8.7PER
Williams age 19: 11.9p 5.9r 1.8a 10.5PER

I try not to go through the hundreds of them because since Stanley Johnson isn't EXACTLY like Pat in every way, people will just discount him and every other example.

[sco]

You are cherry picking people. Beyond that, Pat got a ridiculous amount of entitlement minutes last year. If he had been the same guy except drafted 20th on a playoff team most nights he would have been a DNP-CD.

Lastly, if you agree that Pat doesn't look like a future top player like Barnes, why would you be interested in keeping him and developing him? Many of the type of players you are listing are MLE type guys that you can pick up any time.

I'm not cherry-picking, I picked a variety of guys who had similar "tweaner" traits coming in.

What I'm stating is fairly simple: anyone who is making a hard cold judgment that Pat isn't going to be a solid NBA player, maybe near all-star, right now - is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve to make any assessments about young players.

At the end of this year, maybe you'd have seen enough to *start* having a sense of where he's likely going to end up - except that he's already shown enough to show that he's a legitimate NBA player, not some sort of fringe guy.

He's shown more than Tony Snell did (and Tony Snell also showed NBA talent, but even greater hesitancy / wilting under pressure). He's shown that he fits fine with starters on the court. He's already shown more than guys like Troy Brown Jr., etc. As a result, he would not have gotten DNPS - in part because the Bulls roster sucked at the 3-4 last season (Chad, Valentine, Markkanen, TBJr.).

Edit: I could have included Moe Harkless - who also had similar stats to those guys as a 19 year old rookie. His stats then declined over the following 3 years, but the biggest issue with him was that he didn't show progress in learning where to be on offense and defense --- basketball IQ issues (similar complaints have been lodged against Kelly Oubre, for intance). Pat's already ahead of Harkless on that front. Whether he continues to progress is up to him (as well as any actual limitations he has).

First off, you are most certainly cherry picking. There are countless, absolutely countless, wing players drafted early on who did little to start and then flamed out completely.

Secondly, don't refer to another poster as a blithering idiot. Just don't.

The reality is that most players taken in the draft that start out like this don't amount to much in the NBA. If you knew nothing about NBA players and just said "yeah, this guy won't amount to much", you would be right the vast majority of the time. When you add in actual player evaluation and look at his lack of aggressiveness and low motor (again, very Tony Snell like), it really doesn't look good.

If Pat goes on to be one of the rare exceptions who turns around his career, that's great. I'll be happy and gladly admit that I was wrong. Its just really unlikely.

Just as an example:
Stanley Johnson, tweener 3/4
Taken #8 in 2015 draft
Currently bouncing around the league on 10 day contracts
Age 19 per 36: 12.7p 6.5r 2.3a 8.7PER
Williams age 19: 11.9p 5.9r 1.8a 10.5PER

I try not to go through the hundreds of them because since Stanley Johnson isn't EXACTLY like Pat in every way, people will just discount him and every other example.

Unfortunately, losing a year will put him on a different developmental curve...more like WCj now.

What I look for in rookies are flashes of high-level play, and I definitely saw that in Pat, but that's where I try to stop projecting. Future success comes from the combination of IQ (in terms of understanding the subtle complexity of the game) and work ethic. The mentality part is hard to draw conclusions right now. All I will say is that he isn't naturally a chucker. Given our current team make-up, it's unlikely he'll be put in a 1st or 2nd scoring option role for the next couple years, at least.

[fleet]

All these names being mentioned. He currently reminds me of Andrew Wiggins in terms of that somehow undefinable thing that afflicts some enigmas. That is scarier than the guys that make over aggressive and dumb physical mistakes sometimes. Wiggins has had some good moments this season surrounded by talent. But you know, moments. Im glad Pat has heard the criticism, and had that SL in response. Got hurt trying a very aggressive.dunk. It hasn’t been a consistent recognition of what the veterans have gotten in his ear about.

[dougthonus]

I'm not cherry-picking, I picked a variety of guys who had similar "tweaner" traits coming in.

What I'm stating is fairly simple: anyone who is making a hard cold judgment that Pat isn't going to be a solid NBA player, maybe near all-star, right now - is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve to make any assessments about young players.

They would be almost as big of blithering idiots as the people whom think the all-star level player is more than a fringe, extraordinarily unlikely possibility.

[fleet]

A thought I have had watching him play is that when he does actually force aggression on offense, it is usually a train wreck. He might know that when he plays at top speed, volume and effort, he can’t execute because his skills are not there. That doesn’t explain his rebounding though.

[MGB8]

You are cherry picking people. Beyond that, Pat got a ridiculous amount of entitlement minutes last year. If he had been the same guy except drafted 20th on a playoff team most nights he would have been a DNP-CD.

Lastly, if you agree that Pat doesn't look like a future top player like Barnes, why would you be interested in keeping him and developing him? Many of the type of players you are listing are MLE type guys that you can pick up any time.

I'm not cherry-picking, I picked a variety of guys who had similar "tweaner" traits coming in.

What I'm stating is fairly simple: anyone who is making a hard cold judgment that Pat isn't going to be a solid NBA player, maybe near all-star, right now - is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve to make any assessments about young players.

At the end of this year, maybe you'd have seen enough to *start* having a sense of where he's likely going to end up - except that he's already shown enough to show that he's a legitimate NBA player, not some sort of fringe guy.

He's shown more than Tony Snell did (and Tony Snell also showed NBA talent, but even greater hesitancy / wilting under pressure). He's shown that he fits fine with starters on the court. He's already shown more than guys like Troy Brown Jr., etc. As a result, he would not have gotten DNPS - in part because the Bulls roster sucked at the 3-4 last season (Chad, Valentine, Markkanen, TBJr.).

Edit: I could have included Moe Harkless - who also had similar stats to those guys as a 19 year old rookie. His stats then declined over the following 3 years, but the biggest issue with him was that he didn't show progress in learning where to be on offense and defense --- basketball IQ issues (similar complaints have been lodged against Kelly Oubre, for intance). Pat's already ahead of Harkless on that front. Whether he continues to progress is up to him (as well as any actual limitations he has).

First off, you are most certainly cherry picking. There are countless, absolutely countless, wing players drafted early on who did little to start and then flamed out completely.

Secondly, don't refer to another poster as a blithering idiot. Just don't.

The reality is that most players taken in the draft that start out like this don't amount to much in the NBA. If you knew nothing about NBA players and just said "yeah, this guy won't amount to much", you would be right the vast majority of the time. When you add in actual player evaluation and look at his lack of aggressiveness and low motor (again, very Tony Snell like), it really doesn't look good.

If Pat goes on to be one of the rare exceptions who turns around his career, that's great. I'll be happy and gladly admit that I was wrong. Its just really unlikely.

Just as an example:
Stanley Johnson, tweener 3/4
Taken #8 in 2015 draft
Currently bouncing around the league on 10 day contracts
Age 19 per 36: 12.7p 6.5r 2.3a 8.7PER
Williams age 19: 11.9p 5.9r 1.8a 10.5PER

I try not to go through the hundreds of them because since Stanley Johnson isn't EXACTLY like Pat in every way, people will just discount him and every other example.

Sigh. Stanley Johnson could be included, although his rookie stats weren’t nearly as efficient as Pat’s - he had issues shooting from day 1 - and that never improved.

Guess what, anyone making hard cold judgments about Stanley Johnson after his rookie year about his chances f being a solid player (as opposed to, say, being a superstar - which is more often evident da6 1 as opposed to via a late bloomer)… would also be an idiot.

He’s in the Moe Harkless class - guys with serious potential who for whatever reason never developed. In Harkless’ case, he never developed the requisite BBall IQ. In Stanley Johnson’s. Are, he never learned to shoot or play well off ball.

Pat has demonstrated bath shooting ability and basketball IQ, his issue is aggression. It is certainly possible that never improves, or even that he regresses.

But absent being Pat’s coach or shrink, you have zero clue as to what type of percentages were talking about. And anybody making those sorts of judgments right now on Pat is profoundly lacking in judgment. It’s the same as cutting bait on LaVine after his 2nd or 3rd year, cutting bait on Jimmy at the same time, cutting bait on Lonzo two years ago.

The chances that Pat doesn’t improve over his rookie production is less than 50%, and significantly so. It’s not zero, but that what we are talking about isn’t “BBall idiot” a la Harkless or “can’t shoot to save his life” Stanley Johnson (or MKG, or Winslow, both of whom were then hurt by injuries) r a combo of lacking BBall IQ and lack of shooting (RHJ)…. unlikely.

And he doesn’t have to improve much over his 19 year old production to be a vey solid NBA player.

[MGB8]

A thought I have had watching him play is that when he does actually force aggression on offense, it is usually a train wreck. He might know that when he plays at top speed, volume and effort, he can’t execute because his skills are not there. That doesn’t explain his rebounding though.

His rebounding in the 5 games this year was literally at half his rookie level - where he was pretty steady (slight decline post trade but also hitting rookie wall). Do you really think that, with a smaller team, he suddenly became that much worse a rebounder?

He doesn’t look like an elite rebounder, more in the OG or Harrison Barnes 5-7 rb per game mold.

As for the other thought, you may well be right. Or he simply may not trust himself enough, since he has looked pretty good in bail out spots where he has no chance to “think”.

[coldfish]

I'm not cherry-picking, I picked a variety of guys who had similar "tweaner" traits coming in.

What I'm stating is fairly simple: anyone who is making a hard cold judgment that Pat isn't going to be a solid NBA player, maybe near all-star, right now - is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve to make any assessments about young players.

At the end of this year, maybe you'd have seen enough to *start* having a sense of where he's likely going to end up - except that he's already shown enough to show that he's a legitimate NBA player, not some sort of fringe guy.

He's shown more than Tony Snell did (and Tony Snell also showed NBA talent, but even greater hesitancy / wilting under pressure). He's shown that he fits fine with starters on the court. He's already shown more than guys like Troy Brown Jr., etc. As a result, he would not have gotten DNPS - in part because the Bulls roster sucked at the 3-4 last season (Chad, Valentine, Markkanen, TBJr.).

Edit: I could have included Moe Harkless - who also had similar stats to those guys as a 19 year old rookie. His stats then declined over the following 3 years, but the biggest issue with him was that he didn't show progress in learning where to be on offense and defense --- basketball IQ issues (similar complaints have been lodged against Kelly Oubre, for intance). Pat's already ahead of Harkless on that front. Whether he continues to progress is up to him (as well as any actual limitations he has).

First off, you are most certainly cherry picking. There are countless, absolutely countless, wing players drafted early on who did little to start and then flamed out completely.

Secondly, don't refer to another poster as a blithering idiot. Just don't.

The reality is that most players taken in the draft that start out like this don't amount to much in the NBA. If you knew nothing about NBA players and just said "yeah, this guy won't amount to much", you would be right the vast majority of the time. When you add in actual player evaluation and look at his lack of aggressiveness and low motor (again, very Tony Snell like), it really doesn't look good.

If Pat goes on to be one of the rare exceptions who turns around his career, that's great. I'll be happy and gladly admit that I was wrong. Its just really unlikely.

Just as an example:
Stanley Johnson, tweener 3/4
Taken #8 in 2015 draft
Currently bouncing around the league on 10 day contracts
Age 19 per 36: 12.7p 6.5r 2.3a 8.7PER
Williams age 19: 11.9p 5.9r 1.8a 10.5PER

I try not to go through the hundreds of them because since Stanley Johnson isn't EXACTLY like Pat in every way, people will just discount him and every other example.

Sigh. Stanley Johnson could be included, although his rookie stats weren’t nearly as efficient as Pat’s - he had issues shooting from day 1 - and that never improved.

Guess what, anyone making hard cold judgments about Stanley Johnson after his rookie year about his chances f being a solid player (as opposed to, say, being a superstar - which is more often evident da6 1 as opposed to via a late bloomer)… would also be an idiot.

He’s in the Moe Harkless class - guys with serious potential who for whatever reason never developed. In Harkless’ case, he never developed the requisite BBall IQ. In Stanley Johnson’s. Are, he never learned to shoot or play well off ball.

Pat has demonstrated bath shooting ability and basketball IQ, his issue is aggression. It is certainly possible that never improves, or even that he regresses.

But absent being Pat’s coach or shrink, you have zero clue as to what type of percentages were talking about. And anybody making those sorts of judgments right now on Pat is profoundly lacking in judgment. It’s the same as cutting bait on LaVine after his 2nd or 3rd year, cutting bait on Jimmy at the same time, cutting bait on Lonzo two years ago.

The chances that Pat doesn’t improve over his rookie production is less than 50%, and significantly so. It’s not zero, but that what we are talking about isn’t “BBall idiot” a la Harkless or “can’t shoot to save his life” Stanley Johnson (or MKG, or Winslow, both of whom were then hurt by injuries) r a combo of lacking BBall IQ and lack of shooting (RHJ)…. unlikely.

And he doesn’t have to improve much over his 19 year old production to be a vey solid NBA player.

Just stop with the idiot comments. You are way over the line.

Secondly, you aren't getting it at all. Most players who start out like Pat go on to be mediocre at best players. You can cherry pick whatever people you want but it has nothing to do with reality. We are talking probabilities here. If a guy doesn't take off right from the get go like Barnes, they *probably* aren't going to amount to much. That's not a particularly insightful nor controversial point. Its like saying a 20% 3p shooter is probably going to miss his next 3 point shot.

Like I said, hopefully Pat is the exception, the rare exception, but IMO its foolish for the franchise to bank on that happening.

[MGB8]

First off, you are most certainly cherry picking. There are countless, absolutely countless, wing players drafted early on who did little to start and then flamed out completely.

Secondly, don't refer to another poster as a blithering idiot. Just don't.

The reality is that most players taken in the draft that start out like this don't amount to much in the NBA. If you knew nothing about NBA players and just said "yeah, this guy won't amount to much", you would be right the vast majority of the time. When you add in actual player evaluation and look at his lack of aggressiveness and low motor (again, very Tony Snell like), it really doesn't look good.

If Pat goes on to be one of the rare exceptions who turns around his career, that's great. I'll be happy and gladly admit that I was wrong. Its just really unlikely.

Just as an example:
Stanley Johnson, tweener 3/4
Taken #8 in 2015 draft
Currently bouncing around the league on 10 day contracts
Age 19 per 36: 12.7p 6.5r 2.3a 8.7PER
Williams age 19: 11.9p 5.9r 1.8a 10.5PER

I try not to go through the hundreds of them because since Stanley Johnson isn't EXACTLY like Pat in every way, people will just discount him and every other example.

Sigh. Stanley Johnson could be included, although his rookie stats weren’t nearly as efficient as Pat’s - he had issues shooting from day 1 - and that never improved.

Guess what, anyone making hard cold judgments about Stanley Johnson after his rookie year about his chances f being a solid player (as opposed to, say, being a superstar - which is more often evident da6 1 as opposed to via a late bloomer)… would also be an idiot.

He’s in the Moe Harkless class - guys with serious potential who for whatever reason never developed. In Harkless’ case, he never developed the requisite BBall IQ. In Stanley Johnson’s. Are, he never learned to shoot or play well off ball.

Pat has demonstrated bath shooting ability and basketball IQ, his issue is aggression. It is certainly possible that never improves, or even that he regresses.

But absent being Pat’s coach or shrink, you have zero clue as to what type of percentages were talking about. And anybody making those sorts of judgments right now on Pat is profoundly lacking in judgment. It’s the same as cutting bait on LaVine after his 2nd or 3rd year, cutting bait on Jimmy at the same time, cutting bait on Lonzo two years ago.

The chances that Pat doesn’t improve over his rookie production is less than 50%, and significantly so. It’s not zero, but that what we are talking about isn’t “BBall idiot” a la Harkless or “can’t shoot to save his life” Stanley Johnson (or MKG, or Winslow, both of whom were then hurt by injuries) r a combo of lacking BBall IQ and lack of shooting (RHJ)…. unlikely.

And he doesn’t have to improve much over his 19 year old production to be a vey solid NBA player.

Just stop with the idiot comments. You are way over the line.

Secondly, you aren't getting it at all. Most players who start out like Pat go on to be mediocre at best players. You can cherry pick whatever people you want but it has nothing to do with reality. We are talking probabilities here. If a guy doesn't take off right from the get go like Barnes, they *probably* aren't going to amount to much. That's not a particularly insightful nor controversial point. Its like saying a 20% 3p shooter is probably going to miss his next 3 point shot.

Like I said, hopefully Pat is the exception, the rare exception, but IMO its foolish for the franchise to bank on that happening.

You are simply incorrect. This isn’t Chandler Hutchinson type production and minutes.it’s not Denzel Valentine. Most rookies who do as well as Pat did as a rookie don’t end up as garbage; it’s a very mixed bag and it lets you draw very little conclusion. Big red flags are inability to shoot (where a good number never develop) and very poor basketball IQ (Tyrus Thomas, Corey Benjamin). Also a serious athletic or defensive limitations are major flags. Those aren’t present in Pat.

And making hard judgments after 1 season of a 19 year old (who didn’t even start in college), and then 5 post injury games of a 2nd season with a new lineup… Afix any label you want - the point remains the same - it is completely not logically supportable.

This isn’t about whether you might trade or not trade Pat for a guy who could help make a push this year - then you get into kore nuance. But saying “I know Pat is not ever going to amount to much…” well, I hope that person doesn’t use that same type of logic in their day job…. You have to know when you clearly don’t have enough data, and what the amount of data you do have can reasonably tell you. You want to argue that it’s exceedingly unlikely that Pat will be a top 20 player given what he did as a rookie (where guys like Giannis and Kawhi are ultra rare and you usually see more production off the bat)… won’t get an argument from me.

You want to argue that there is only a small chance that Pat ends up a legit starting level player in 2-3 years given 19 year old production and lack of shooting or serious BBall IQ issues…. yeah… no basis to make that claim from what we have seen so far.

[MrSparkle]

If the previous regime was trying to force these kids down our throats, I’d assume largely something was wrong.

I have a very hard time imagining that AKMEBD collectively think Pat is a lost cause with a Snell ceiling, and that he was getting entitlement minutes to jack value for a trade or save face on the pick.

I think they just understand the negative presents cost of playing a future asset. They’ve gotten rid of a lot guys they didn’t want to bother with (inc. Lauri and Wendell, who’ve actually player better than expected).

This FO seems very confident in what type of player they want, and in their development. Time is really the only factor here, along with trade value and opportunity.

And my eyes are my eyes; I saw Pat start and play big minutes, help compete or win NBA games last year on a team sorely lacking talent (and healthy bodies). 22yo rookie Snell looked lost as hell on a very good team with elite structure and leadership.

[BackBreaker]

Secondly, you aren't getting it at all. Most players who start out like Pat go on to be mediocre at best players. You can cherry pick whatever people you want but it has nothing to do with reality. We are talking probabilities here. If a guy doesn't take off right from the get go like Barnes, they *probably* aren't going to amount to much. That's not a particularly insightful nor controversial point. Its like saying a 20% 3p shooter is probably going to miss his next 3 point shot.

Like I said, hopefully Pat is the exception, the rare exception, but IMO its foolish for the franchise to bank on that happening.

Most players turn out to be mediocre at best players just by strict definition. He's had a rough start to his career with injury and finding his place on the team. However, he's only played 76 games in his NBA career. Seems awful quick to make any definite judgements other than he won't be another LBJ or working at McDonald's in a couple of years.

Yes, a lousy 20% 3p shooter will most likely miss his next shot as well as an excellent 49% 3p shooter. Not a good example of an uninsightful nor non-controversial point.

Time is what will determine what he will become. But who wants to wait for the ultimate answer? I certainly don't. I wish I knew what the franchise is thinking but I trust them more than any poster on this board.

[fleet]

A thought I have had watching him play is that when he does actually force aggression on offense, it is usually a train wreck. He might know that when he plays at top speed, volume and effort, he can’t execute because his skills are not there. That doesn’t explain his rebounding though.

His rebounding in the 5 games this year was literally at half his rookie level - where he was pretty steady (slight decline post trade but also hitting rookie wall). Do you really think that, with a smaller team, he suddenly became that much worse a rebounder?

He doesn’t look like an elite rebounder, more in the OG or Harrison Barnes 5-7 rb per game mold.

As for the other thought, you may well be right. Or he simply may not trust himself enough, since he has looked pretty good in bail out spots where he has no chance to “think”.

You just said the reason I should know he isn’t this bad at rebounding is because he was worse than he was last season. Which was pretty bad btw.

[HomoSapien]

Usually a mistake to assume someone will be something they’ve never really shown to be.

[fleet]

Usually a mistake to assume someone will be something they’ve never really shown to be.

Cliff Robinson famously suddenly turned it all on in the pros after he had the off switch stuck.


The funny thing about him is, you have people willing to believe their eyes, and people such as myself who haven’t been. (And I was just advised that I should go back to not believing my eyes again.)

I’ve literally had nothing to base my disbelief on other than extreme youth (reasonable), small sample size (reasonable), oft unused physical tools (reasonable to expect them to get used at some point). But yeah, we have seen players become what they look like most of the time. I came into the season totally willing to wash away his rookie season, but this year he had even less asked of him, and he delivered less for sure. Looked like Pat