MGB8 wrote:coldfish wrote:MGB8 wrote:
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.
On basketball-reference they rate players by "Value Over Replacement Player" by draft. Roughly 2/3 of all players drafted have a 0 or less. That is to say, they can be replaced by a random pick up in free agency at any time and as such, have little value. Players like Justise Winslow, Romeo Langford, Troy Brown Jr., Nassir Little, Isaac Okuru, Josh Jackson, Nik Stauskas, Ben McLemore, Dion Waiters, etc.
Like I said, just taken at random, 2/3 of all drafted players end up being less than replacement value. When you actually segregate them based on how they started in their first year, that number gets much more slanted. Most of the good players show it early and aren't giving out 10PER level rookie production with low motor vibes.
If Patrick goes on to become significantly better than replacement value, he is going to be in a rare group who starts out bad and turns it around.
And yes, by the eye test there are some big concerns right now:
- His aggressiveness level on both sides of the court is low. He is really overrated defensively and I hope that players like Javonte with his limitless energy has exposed that.
- He has a high loose dribble. On the times he is aggressive in traffic, he frequently gets stripped.
- His shot is very slow to the point where he has to be wiiiiiide open to get it off comfortably.
- He doesn't have any go to moves. Again, this is kind of hidden by his lack of aggressiveness but on the few times he got the ball into traffic, he had nothing to bring to score.
Again, you keep straw manning me on this. There is a chance that he could end up being a positive player but by the eye test, stats and historical results, its pretty damned unlikely.
