Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:27 pm Post subject: Hollywood Hoops: Tracy Murray says Magic Johnson, Lonzo Ball Winners, Both Would Help Lakers
Hey all,
Here's my latest Hollywood Hoops podcast - guest was really good, Tracy Murray who talks Bruins and Lakers - and how Lonzo Ball is a winner who would help the Lakers as is Magic.
He said Lakers will be under the "watchful eye of a champion."
That's always been an aspect I've wanted to say about Lonzo, the kid is a winner and that is a very big factor, seeing what he's been able to do for the teams he's been with, what he's done to turn around UCLA and other things.
Kid's a winner and he helps bring that kind of success to a team and I love that aspect of him.
That's always been an aspect I've wanted to say about Lonzo, the kid is a winner and that is a very big factor, seeing what he's been able to do for the teams he's been with, what he's done to turn around UCLA and other things.
Kid's a winner and he helps bring that kind of success to a team and I love that aspect of him.
Right. But you have to balance that with how he'd transition to NBA play, aside from his heart. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I wonder if that "watchful eye" remark might allude to him thinking the youngsters need that, and need to work harder.
I spoke to him about shooting, and he actually opened up that "players aren't the same today. They don't want it as bad. They don't wanna work as hard" ..About our youngsters..
Joined: 13 Apr 2001 Posts: 11882 Location: Looking outta the window, watching the asphalt grow ...
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:37 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
MJST wrote:
That's always been an aspect I've wanted to say about Lonzo, the kid is a winner and that is a very big factor, seeing what he's been able to do for the teams he's been with, what he's done to turn around UCLA and other things.
Kid's a winner and he helps bring that kind of success to a team and I love that aspect of him.
Right. But you have to balance that with how he'd transition to NBA play, aside from his heart.
Agree. I generally heed to or, at the very least, allow Mike AT LG's thoughts on prospects to challenge my own views and so I think the question marks on Ball are legitimate. And I really like Lonzo too. Every player comes with question marks so it's important to discuss them with intellectual honesty.
Personally, I think Lonzo has the ability to fit in quite well with the current Laker team, even in the same backcourt as DLo but the questions about how his game translates into the NBA are not unfounded. I tend to think, like emplay's podcast co-host, that he's a lot like Kidd with a more effective (but even uglier) shot and better hops. But since the game has changed so much since Jason's day, how well does he fit in now? Can he become the type of defender Kidd was and how much is his play benefited by playing in a system and alongside players that suit his style?
Like all prospects, it's all about how he adjust and adapts. The scouting report in college has already caught up to him. But I think what others see is how he steps up in the big moments of games and finds a way even if he's struggling the rest of the game. We'll see. _________________ We back.
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 13 Apr 2001 Posts: 11882 Location: Looking outta the window, watching the asphalt grow ...
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:52 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
No, totally agree. It's why Miles Simon got drafted. Why Evan Turner was even considered (however strong or mildly) as the top prospect in his draft class at some points during the college season. _________________ We back.
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
True, but anyone who watched that Duke team knew Winslow and Jones were the "winners" who pushed them to the championship. Of course, Jones is likely a career backup and Winslow may never be more than a situational defender, so they don't contradict your main point.
That's always been an aspect I've wanted to say about Lonzo, the kid is a winner and that is a very big factor, seeing what he's been able to do for the teams he's been with, what he's done to turn around UCLA and other things.
Kid's a winner and he helps bring that kind of success to a team and I love that aspect of him.
Right. But you have to balance that with how he'd transition to NBA play, aside from his heart.
Agree. I generally heed to or, at the very least, allow Mike (@) LG's thoughts on prospects to challenge my own views and so I think the question marks on Ball are legitimate. And I really like Lonzo too. Every player comes with question marks so it's important to discuss them with intellectual honesty.
Personally, I think Lonzo has the ability to fit in quite well with the current Laker team, even in the same backcourt as DLo but the questions about how his game translates into the NBA are not unfounded. I tend to think, like emplay's podcast co-host, that he's a lot like Kidd with a more effective (but even uglier) shot and better hops. But since the game has changed so much since Jason's day, how well does he fit in now? Can he become the type of defender Kidd was and how much is his play benefited by playing in a system and alongside players that suit his style?
Like all prospects, it's all about how he adjust and adapts. The scouting report in college has already caught up to him. But I think what others see is how he steps up in the big moments of games and finds a way even if he's struggling the rest of the game. We'll see.
Question, why does Lonzo always get kid comparisons but you rarely see any of college Penny Hardaway?
I mean Exum got Penny Hardaway comparisons, don't see why Ball wouldn't. 6'7 point guard after all.
It was an era that people played more inside the arc but even still, I see a lot of Jason Kidd comparisons for Ball but I don't really see it, I honestly see more Penny than I do Jason in his game, though you could make comparisons either way. Though I'm sure it'd be said that he needs to attack the basket more to be Penny. But even still from what I saw of Penny in college, Lonzo is closer to him than he is to Jason. If we're making comparisons. I'm not gonna say that he's gonna be as great as Penny COULD have been if not for injuries, but Lonzo's closer to the Penny I saw in college than the Kidd I saw at UC that broke up with Gabrielle Union when he was in high school.
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
Duke is always a contender though. Even in down years, they are still a top 25 team. Ball turned a below 500 team into a legit title contender
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
Duke is always a contender though. Even in down years, they are still a top 25 team. Ball turned a below 500 team into a legit title contender
It's certainly a bullet point in his resume. But obviously have to weigh that with a ton of other factors. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
Duke is always a contender though. Even in down years, they are still a top 25 team. Ball turned a below 500 team into a legit title contender
It's certainly a bullet point in his resume. But obviously have to weigh that with a ton of other factors.
Of course. I just think winning is often overlooked and undervalued.
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
Duke is always a contender though. Even in down years, they are still a top 25 team. Ball turned a below 500 team into a legit title contender
It's certainly a bullet point in his resume. But obviously have to weigh that with a ton of other factors.
Of course. I just think winning is often overlooked and undervalued.
There are other examples where it was overvalued, i.e. Mateen Cleaves for example. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
The "winner" factor is a factor, not an overriding one. Lots of draftees were "winners" at various levels. I'm obviously down for a Ball/DLO or Fultz/DLO or (insert top 3 PG)/DLO pairing. Just not sure how much stock you put into being a "winner." KD didn't go far in the NCAA while Okafor won a championship for example.
Duke is always a contender though. Even in down years, they are still a top 25 team. Ball turned a below 500 team into a legit title contender
It's certainly a bullet point in his resume. But obviously have to weigh that with a ton of other factors.
Of course. I just think winning is often overlooked and undervalued.
There are other examples where it was overvalued, i.e. Mateen Cleaves for example.
He went 17-12, and .500 in conference his freshman year. Building a winning program over 4 years is commendable but very different from changing the culture of a team the second you step on the court for them.
I'm just pointing to the often-times illusory and temporary effect of winning the NCAA for example. Has propelled many sub-optimal NBA talent to a higher place than otherwise.
With Ball, that should be just 1 of dozens of considerations.
With guys like Fultz (on a horrific team) or even Ben Simmons, their teams performances belie their individual talent. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I'm just pointing to the often-times illusory and temporary effect of winning the NCAA for example. Has propelled many sub-optimal NBA talent to a higher place than otherwise.
With Ball, that should be just 1 of dozens of considerations.
With guys like Fultz (on a horrific team) or even Ben Simmons, their teams performances belie their individual talent.
But when you change a team that quickly and that drastically, it's because you do things that make others better. High IQ plays, getting guys the ball in right spots, rotating on time defensively etc etc. Things many people don't notice. Often times a guy who works hard and approaches the game the right way can change the culture over time but it takes talent AND that stuff to drastically change a team that quickly.
I'm just pointing to the often-times illusory and temporary effect of winning the NCAA for example. Has propelled many sub-optimal NBA talent to a higher place than otherwise.
With Ball, that should be just 1 of dozens of considerations.
With guys like Fultz (on a horrific team) or even Ben Simmons, their teams performances belie their individual talent.
But when you change a team that quickly and that drastically, it's because you do things that make others better. High IQ plays, getting guys the ball in right spots, rotating on time defensively etc etc. Things many people don't notice. Often times a guy who works hard and approaches the game the right way can change the culture over time but it takes talent AND that stuff to drastically change a team that quickly.
Right, but I think the "he's a winner" mentality is more of an old school scout. The skills you identified can show up in other quantifiable traits and analysis. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I'm just pointing to the often-times illusory and temporary effect of winning the NCAA for example. Has propelled many sub-optimal NBA talent to a higher place than otherwise.
With Ball, that should be just 1 of dozens of considerations.
With guys like Fultz (on a horrific team) or even Ben Simmons, their teams performances belie their individual talent.
But when you change a team that quickly and that drastically, it's because you do things that make others better. High IQ plays, getting guys the ball in right spots, rotating on time defensively etc etc. Things many people don't notice. Often times a guy who works hard and approaches the game the right way can change the culture over time but it takes talent AND that stuff to drastically change a team that quickly.
Right, but I think the "he's a winner" mentality is more of an old school scout. The skills you identified can show up in other quantifiable traits and analysis.
Which often go overlooked in favor of one on one moves, athleticism, length, shooting form etc. That's all I'm trying to say.
I'm just pointing to the often-times illusory and temporary effect of winning the NCAA for example. Has propelled many sub-optimal NBA talent to a higher place than otherwise.
With Ball, that should be just 1 of dozens of considerations.
With guys like Fultz (on a horrific team) or even Ben Simmons, their teams performances belie their individual talent.
But when you change a team that quickly and that drastically, it's because you do things that make others better. High IQ plays, getting guys the ball in right spots, rotating on time defensively etc etc. Things many people don't notice. Often times a guy who works hard and approaches the game the right way can change the culture over time but it takes talent AND that stuff to drastically change a team that quickly.
Right, but I think the "he's a winner" mentality is more of an old school scout. The skills you identified can show up in other quantifiable traits and analysis.
Which often go overlooked in favor of one on one moves, athleticism, length, shooting form etc. That's all I'm trying to say.
Right, I'm just saying you don't choose Shabazz Napier over Fultz b/c Napier took an otherwise decent but not great UCONN team to the NCAA championships while Fultz's team maybe didn't even make the NCAA.
Now if you have Anthony Davis and Fultz and you want to give Davis a special consideration for winning the NCAA, sure. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Last edited by yinoma2001 on Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
That's always been an aspect I've wanted to say about Lonzo, the kid is a winner and that is a very big factor, seeing what he's been able to do for the teams he's been with, what he's done to turn around UCLA and other things.
Kid's a winner and he helps bring that kind of success to a team and I love that aspect of him.
Right. But you have to balance that with how he'd transition to NBA play, aside from his heart.
Agree. I generally heed to or, at the very least, allow Mike [AT] LG's thoughts on prospects to challenge my own views and so I think the question marks on Ball are legitimate. And I really like Lonzo too. Every player comes with question marks so it's important to discuss them with intellectual honesty.
Personally, I think Lonzo has the ability to fit in quite well with the current Laker team, even in the same backcourt as DLo but the questions about how his game translates into the NBA are not unfounded. I tend to think, like emplay's podcast co-host, that he's a lot like Kidd with a more effective (but even uglier) shot and better hops. But since the game has changed so much since Jason's day, how well does he fit in now? Can he become the type of defender Kidd was and how much is his play benefited by playing in a system and alongside players that suit his style?
Like all prospects, it's all about how he adjust and adapts. The scouting report in college has already caught up to him. But I think what others see is how he steps up in the big moments of games and finds a way even if he's struggling the rest of the game. We'll see.
Question, why does Lonzo always get kid comparisons but you rarely see any of college Penny Hardaway?
I mean Exum got Penny Hardaway comparisons, don't see why Ball wouldn't. 6'7 point guard after all.
It was an era that people played more inside the arc but even still, I see a lot of Jason Kidd comparisons for Ball but I don't really see it, I honestly see more Penny than I do Jason in his game, though you could make comparisons either way. Though I'm sure it'd be said that he needs to attack the basket more to be Penny. But even still from what I saw of Penny in college, Lonzo is closer to him than he is to Jason. If we're making comparisons. I'm not gonna say that he's gonna be as great as Penny COULD have been if not for injuries, but Lonzo's closer to the Penny I saw in college than the Kidd I saw at UC that broke up with Gabrielle Union when he was in high school.
Penny had elite athleticism before knee injuries did him in. He was considered an MJ/Magic hybrid. Not sure why Exum had those comparisons...99.9% of everyone saw nothing but a very tiny handful of highlights on the guy. Hell his stock went UP the less people saw of him the year leading up to the draft.
That's always been an aspect I've wanted to say about Lonzo, the kid is a winner and that is a very big factor, seeing what he's been able to do for the teams he's been with, what he's done to turn around UCLA and other things.
Kid's a winner and he helps bring that kind of success to a team and I love that aspect of him.
Right. But you have to balance that with how he'd transition to NBA play, aside from his heart.
Agree. I generally heed to or, at the very least, allow Mike AT LG's thoughts on prospects to challenge my own views and so I think the question marks on Ball are legitimate. And I really like Lonzo too. Every player comes with question marks so it's important to discuss them with intellectual honesty.
Personally, I think Lonzo has the ability to fit in quite well with the current Laker team, even in the same backcourt as DLo but the questions about how his game translates into the NBA are not unfounded. I tend to think, like emplay's podcast co-host, that he's a lot like Kidd with a more effective (but even uglier) shot and better hops. But since the game has changed so much since Jason's day, how well does he fit in now? Can he become the type of defender Kidd was and how much is his play benefited by playing in a system and alongside players that suit his style?
Like all prospects, it's all about how he adjust and adapts. The scouting report in college has already caught up to him. But I think what others see is how he steps up in the big moments of games and finds a way even if he's struggling the rest of the game. We'll see.
Question, why does Lonzo always get kid comparisons but you rarely see any of college Penny Hardaway?
I mean Exum got Penny Hardaway comparisons, don't see why Ball wouldn't. 6'7 point guard after all.
It was an era that people played more inside the arc but even still, I see a lot of Jason Kidd comparisons for Ball but I don't really see it, I honestly see more Penny than I do Jason in his game, though you could make comparisons either way. Though I'm sure it'd be said that he needs to attack the basket more to be Penny. But even still from what I saw of Penny in college, Lonzo is closer to him than he is to Jason. If we're making comparisons. I'm not gonna say that he's gonna be as great as Penny COULD have been if not for injuries, but Lonzo's closer to the Penny I saw in college than the Kidd I saw at UC that broke up with Gabrielle Union when he was in high school.
Lonzos father said Lonzo compares to penny more than kidd in a recent interview
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
