I think the fact is that Lonzo is an AMAZING basketball player, but right now he’s a terrible terrible shooter. If Lonzo could raise his shooting averages to what Mitchell did during the season, which is pretty low bar honesty (43% FG, 34% from 3) he’d be one of the best 2 way players in the game. He’s never going to put up 25 shots a game like DM does, so the scoring numbers won’t be there, but scoring isn’t the only thing that can be done on the court to help your team win.
Okay, but once again, PG is a scorer's position in the current NBA. If Ball can't develop a shot and can't average at least 18-20 points, then his ceiling is Rondo or Rubio. That's not terrible, but it would be disappointing.
I think the fact is that Lonzo is an AMAZING basketball player, but right now he’s a terrible terrible shooter. If Lonzo could raise his shooting averages to what Mitchell did during the season, which is pretty low bar honesty (43% FG, 34% from 3) he’d be one of the best 2 way players in the game. He’s never going to put up 25 shots a game like DM does, so the scoring numbers won’t be there, but scoring isn’t the only thing that can be done on the court to help your team win.
Okay, but once again, PG is a scorer's position in the current NBA. If Ball can't develop a shot and can't average at least 18-20 points, then his ceiling is Rondo or Rubio. That's not terrible, but it would be disappointing.
Agreed. If he averaged 20 PPG and shot 45%/38%/75% he’d be one of the best players in the league. He’s not even close right now, he can’t finish around the rim...can’t shoot FT’s....no midrange game...his 3 is very inconsistent. But that’s the goal.
It’s gonna take a while, if he can get to like 13-14 ppg next year on 40/35/60 at least he will be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately right now, the one hole he has in his game is shooting and it’s what most people care the most about...a lot of it is optics, but it needs to improve dramatically.
I just posted basically to refute the notion that he isn’t very good, he’s actually pretty decent overall...he’s just really really bad at some important things .
I think the fact is that Lonzo is an AMAZING basketball player, but right now he’s a terrible terrible shooter. If Lonzo could raise his shooting averages to what Mitchell did during the season, which is pretty low bar honesty (43% FG, 34% from 3) he’d be one of the best 2 way players in the game. He’s never going to put up 25 shots a game like DM does, so the scoring numbers won’t be there, but scoring isn’t the only thing that can be done on the court to help your team win.
Okay, but once again, PG is a scorer's position in the current NBA. If Ball can't develop a shot and can't average at least 18-20 points, then his ceiling is Rondo or Rubio. That's not terrible, but it would be disappointing.
Agreed. If he averaged 20 PPG and shot 45%/38%/75% he’d be one of the best players in the league. He’s not even close right now, he can’t finish around the rim...can’t shoot FT’s....no midrange game...his 3 is very inconsistent. But that’s the goal.
It’s gonna take a while, if he can get to like 13-14 ppg next year on 40/35/60 at least he will be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately right now, the one hole he has in his game is shooting and it’s what most people care the most about...a lot of it is optics, but it needs to improve dramatically.
I just posted basically to refute the notion that he isn’t very good, he’s actually pretty decent overall...he’s just really really bad at some important things .
If he has those numbers next year, he’ll have an all star caliber player type impact. He won’t make the all star team, but he’ll be that valuable with everything else he does.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:28 am Post subject:
I think you want Zo to get into the 16-18 PPG range minimum. I don't think the 18-20PPG range is necessary. What's more important is his 3pt%, his % at the rim and his FT%. If he can get those three up, then everything else falls into place and the scoring numbers naturally appear.
In his prime years, give me averages of at least 16/9/6 at a 53%+ TS% with the D he's already show, and we're good in my mind. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
I don't think Zo would score 20ppg even if he had the skill to do so. Just not that kind of player. The highest Kidd ever averaged was 18.7 at the age of 29. I could see Zo's peak being around there.
I think prime Zo will be putting up 17 ppg but with 12 apg and 8 rpg and elite defense.
His finishing and inconsistent shooting combined with his unselfishness makes it hard for me to ever seen him being a 20 ppg scorer even with improvements in the first 2 areas.
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 6572 Location: Oceanside Ca
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:49 am Post subject:
The Juggernaut wrote:
I think prime Zo will be putting up 17 ppg but with 12 apg and 8 rpg and elite defense.
His finishing and inconsistent shooting combined with his unselfishness makes it hard for me to ever seen him being a 20 ppg scorer even with improvements in the first 2 areas.
THIS^^^^
Only time he scores more the 18 is if his defender leaves him to double team due to all the dimes he drops.
I think the fact is that Lonzo is an AMAZING basketball player, but right now he’s a terrible terrible shooter. If Lonzo could raise his shooting averages to what Mitchell did during the season, which is pretty low bar honesty (43% FG, 34% from 3) he’d be one of the best 2 way players in the game. He’s never going to put up 25 shots a game like DM does, so the scoring numbers won’t be there, but scoring isn’t the only thing that can be done on the court to help your team win.
Okay, but once again, PG is a scorer's position in the current NBA. If Ball can't develop a shot and can't average at least 18-20 points, then his ceiling is Rondo or Rubio. That's not terrible, but it would be disappointing.
Agreed. If he averaged 20 PPG and shot 45%/38%/75% he’d be one of the best players in the league. He’s not even close right now, he can’t finish around the rim...can’t shoot FT’s....no midrange game...his 3 is very inconsistent. But that’s the goal.
It’s gonna take a while, if he can get to like 13-14 ppg next year on 40/35/60 at least he will be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately right now, the one hole he has in his game is shooting and it’s what most people care the most about...a lot of it is optics, but it needs to improve dramatically.
I just posted basically to refute the notion that he isn’t very good, he’s actually pretty decent overall...he’s just really really bad at some important things .
disagreed. people still dont quite understand how the game works. they only go by "whats the trend RIGHT NOW" just like the trend is to not have a big man that can post up. but thats not actually the trend. the trend is shooting 3's big or small. but you can post up right at the basket and kill your man kill a double team with a nice kick out for ....another wide open 3 ball.
The only reason the league trended completely away from the post was not all analytics. it was due to the lack of high level post player skill.
It's much harder to find shaq, hakeem, duncan, Embid, then it is to find Deandre jordan, Capella, name any other pick and dunk types or pick and pop types.
Now with all that said. back to the pg discussion. just because the nba's pg's are putting up the numbers doesnt mean thats the best way to win it all.
The reason gstate win so much is not due to steph being a pg. its due to steph, klay never missing their shots, no matter what position you want to move steph into. it wont matter. if he played sg. he would still drop 30 in his mvp year.
Dllliard just proved to you all that scoring aint whats it cracked up to be.
Just being a super scorer at PG like Dlil or Westbrook aint enough. unless of course the rest of your team is full of allstars at minimum.
You do not need your pg to score 20ppg. you dont. not if he's excellent at passing, defense, and rebounding which ball already is. if ball can give us a high fg%(48% or higher)/ high 3pt%(40% or higher) and guard respectable 80% from the FT line. at around 14 to 18 a game. he's doing all he needs to do for any team out there.. It's on the FO at that point to put the other pieces together around him. the guys who can score 50 on any given night.
James harden is not a pg. he's a shooting guard playing pg in an inflated offense of MDA's. thats like putting prime kobe at pg in a mda offense and letting him go. that aint a pg. and that scoring output is not to be expected from a true pg.
I think you want Zo to get into the 16-18 PPG range minimum. I don't think the 18-20PPG range is necessary. What's more important is his 3pt%, his % at the rim and his FT%. If he can get those three up, then everything else falls into place and the scoring numbers naturally appear.
In his prime years, give me averages of at least 16/9/6 at a 53%+ TS% with the D he's already show, and we're good in my mind.
It depends on what you mean by “necessary.” If you mean necessary to be an effective, NBA quality starter, sure. If you mean necessary to be an all-NBA caliber player, he’ll need to do better than that.
I realize that some people will regard that as an unfair standard, but Ball was the #2 pick in a draft that had a decent amount of talent. We had three #2 picks, and in each case we took the player that most talent scouts would have rated at that spot. If none of them turn out to be all-NBA caliber players, that will be frustrating.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:59 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
I think you want Zo to get into the 16-18 PPG range minimum. I don't think the 18-20PPG range is necessary. What's more important is his 3pt%, his % at the rim and his FT%. If he can get those three up, then everything else falls into place and the scoring numbers naturally appear.
In his prime years, give me averages of at least 16/9/6 at a 53%+ TS% with the D he's already show, and we're good in my mind.
It depends on what you mean by “necessary.” If you mean necessary to be an effective, NBA quality starter, sure. If you mean necessary to be an all-NBA caliber player, he’ll need to do better than that.
I realize that some people will regard that as an unfair standard, but Ball was the #2 pick in a draft that had a decent amount of talent. We had three #2 picks, and in each case we took the player that most talent scouts would have rated at that spot. If none of them turn out to be all-NBA caliber players, that will be frustrating.
Here's where I got 16-18PPG (for an all-NBA player) from. Here are the prime PPG #s of all of the first team All-NBA "traditional PGs" since the 2000-2001 season:
Steve Nash Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '02-'08): 17.9, 17.7, 17.7, 14.5, 15.5, 18.8, 18.6, 16.9 (17.2 PPG average)
Chris Paul Prime PPG (Ages 27-32; '13-'18): 16.9, 19.1, 19.5, 18.1, 18.6 (18.4 PPG average)
Jason Kidd Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '01-'07): 16.9, 14.7, 18.7, 15.5, 14.4, 13.3, 13.0 (15.2 PPG average)
By "traditional PGs" I mean point guards who are/were pass first, score second. Specifically, I've excluded the following 1st team all-nba PGs - Westbrook, Curry, Rose and Iverson. Obviously, they each averaged in the neighborhood of 20+ PPG, but they aren't the same kind of category of player Ball hopes to be. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Zo would add 5 points to his average by being a better finisher and free throw shooter in and of itself, and that's not including an improved 3 point shot yet. _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Here's where I got 16-18PPG (for an all-NBA player) from. Here are the prime PPG #s of all of the first team All-NBA "traditional PGs" since the 2000-2001 season:
Steve Nash Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '02-'08): 17.9, 17.7, 17.7, 14.5, 15.5, 18.8, 18.6, 16.9 (17.2 PPG average)
Chris Paul Prime PPG (Ages 27-32; '13-'18): 16.9, 19.1, 19.5, 18.1, 18.6 (18.4 PPG average)
Jason Kidd Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '01-'07): 16.9, 14.7, 18.7, 15.5, 14.4, 13.3, 13.0 (15.2 PPG average)
By "traditional PGs" I mean point guards who are/were pass first, score second. Specifically, I've excluded the following 1st team all-nba PGs - Westbrook, Curry, Rose and Iverson. Obviously, they each averaged in the neighborhood of 20+ PPG, but they aren't the same kind of category of player Ball hopes to be.
But you specified a .53 TS%. That takes Nash and Paul out of the discussion. Nash was regularly over .60, and Paul was close to that number (and over .60 the past couple years).
Kidd is a better analogy for your position, but the last time he made the all-NBA team was 2004. He was not all-NBA in the last three years you list. That was about the time that the league started to change. 2005 was the first year of the six seconds or less Suns. I don't know that a player like Jason Kidd is all-NBA is the current league.
This is not to say that value must be measured by league norms. Splash is correct about this (though the shooting percentages that he suggests for Ball would put him close to a .60 TS%, roughly the same as Chris Paul). The fact that Ball may not conform to the current norms does not mean that he cannot be an effective player. However, the league norms are not just a passing fad. The reason why the league has turned into a three point shooting contest is that this is a more effective way of scoring points.
Zo would add 5 points to his average by being a better finisher and free throw shooter in and of itself, and that's not including an improved 3 point shot yet.
Indeed, but he's also got to turn himself into somewhat of a scoring thread when he's ran off the 3pt line and is forced into a decision. Like Magic said, teams are expecting him to pass, so he should develop a goto move or two (would love to see a 5-10 foot floater in his game) and not be committed to the pass when forced into making a decision. Luckily these problems are all very fixable with time.
disagreed. people still dont quite understand how the game works. they only go by "whats the trend RIGHT NOW" just like the trend is to not have a big man that can post up. but thats not actually the trend. the trend is shooting 3's big or small. but you can post up right at the basket and kill your man kill a double team with a nice kick out for ....another wide open 3 ball.
The only reason the league trended completely away from the post was not all analytics. it was due to the lack of high level post player skill.
It's much harder to find shaq, hakeem, duncan, Embid, then it is to find Deandre jordan, Capella, name any other pick and dunk types or pick and pop types.
How can you claim that people don't understand how the game works then spout out that blatant falsehood? That has been debunked numerous times. The center position is considerably deeper in years past than the 90s. That had nothing to do with going away with the ancient and inefficient post-play of the 90s and early 00s. _________________ If Brandon Knight were to come out, I would take him number 1 in the draft. - Magic Johnson Mar 27, 2011
For all of you out there questioning Jimmer Fredette of BYU, he is the real deal. - Magic Johnson Mar 20, 2011
I don't think Zo would score 20ppg even if he had the skill to do so. Just not that kind of player. The highest Kidd ever averaged was 18.7 at the age of 29. I could see Zo's peak being around there.
This is a fair point. Expecting Zo to be a scorer would vastly undermine his skill set. Sure, he might be able to conjure up good scoring performances from time to time, but the team is arguably at their best when he's trying not to score. Lakers thrive when they are an extension of his passing, his transition play. Even when he was out, they were running other teams out of the building. However, he still needs to be a threat from the perimeter at all times. I anticipate his shooting will improve as he gets more acclimated to the game.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:18 am Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
Here's where I got 16-18PPG (for an all-NBA player) from. Here are the prime PPG #s of all of the first team All-NBA "traditional PGs" since the 2000-2001 season:
Steve Nash Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '02-'08): 17.9, 17.7, 17.7, 14.5, 15.5, 18.8, 18.6, 16.9 (17.2 PPG average)
Chris Paul Prime PPG (Ages 27-32; '13-'18): 16.9, 19.1, 19.5, 18.1, 18.6 (18.4 PPG average)
Jason Kidd Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '01-'07): 16.9, 14.7, 18.7, 15.5, 14.4, 13.3, 13.0 (15.2 PPG average)
By "traditional PGs" I mean point guards who are/were pass first, score second. Specifically, I've excluded the following 1st team all-nba PGs - Westbrook, Curry, Rose and Iverson. Obviously, they each averaged in the neighborhood of 20+ PPG, but they aren't the same kind of category of player Ball hopes to be.
But you specified a .53 TS%. That takes Nash and Paul out of the discussion. Nash was regularly over .60, and Paul was close to that number (and over .60 the past couple years).
No it doesn't, unless you are moving the goal posts. The original debate between you and I was about PPG. You said 18-20PPG, I said 16-18PPG. My requirement that Ball also shoot over 53% TS% was used to point out that if he can get there, he will naturally then meet then 16-18PPG requirement - another shot or two and the increased TS% will get him there alone.
However, that Kidd is looked at as a top 10 PG in NBA history, yet still stunk as a shooter and only averaged under 16PPG in his prime is a perfect example of the fact that being a top scorer as a PG is not a requirement. It can be made up for in other ways such as winning and defense. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
disagreed. people still dont quite understand how the game works. they only go by "whats the trend RIGHT NOW" just like the trend is to not have a big man that can post up. but thats not actually the trend. the trend is shooting 3's big or small. but you can post up right at the basket and kill your man kill a double team with a nice kick out for ....another wide open 3 ball.
The only reason the league trended completely away from the post was not all analytics. it was due to the lack of high level post player skill.
It's much harder to find shaq, hakeem, duncan, Embid, then it is to find Deandre jordan, Capella, name any other pick and dunk types or pick and pop types.
How can you claim that people don't understand how the game works then spout out that blatant falsehood? That has been debunked numerous times. The center position is considerably deeper in years past than the 90s. That had nothing to do with going away with the ancient and inefficient post-play of the 90s and early 00s.
That's true. There are more high quality big men in the league than ever. It's the low post game that has diminished. There are a number of reasons for this, including everything from analytics to the difficulty of executing post entry passes in an era of fast and long defenders. But some people -- including a lot of the old coaches who are analysts -- still dream of a dominant low post scoring center. It's not that a player like that couldn't be effective (Embiid shows otherwise). It's that there is no good reason to build an offense around that sort of player.
Here's where I got 16-18PPG (for an all-NBA player) from. Here are the prime PPG #s of all of the first team All-NBA "traditional PGs" since the 2000-2001 season:
Steve Nash Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '02-'08): 17.9, 17.7, 17.7, 14.5, 15.5, 18.8, 18.6, 16.9 (17.2 PPG average)
Chris Paul Prime PPG (Ages 27-32; '13-'18): 16.9, 19.1, 19.5, 18.1, 18.6 (18.4 PPG average)
Jason Kidd Prime PPG (Ages 27-33; '01-'07): 16.9, 14.7, 18.7, 15.5, 14.4, 13.3, 13.0 (15.2 PPG average)
By "traditional PGs" I mean point guards who are/were pass first, score second. Specifically, I've excluded the following 1st team all-nba PGs - Westbrook, Curry, Rose and Iverson. Obviously, they each averaged in the neighborhood of 20+ PPG, but they aren't the same kind of category of player Ball hopes to be.
But you specified a .53 TS%. That takes Nash and Paul out of the discussion. Nash was regularly over .60, and Paul was close to that number (and over .60 the past couple years).
No it doesn't, unless you are moving the goal posts. The original debate between you and I was about PPG. You said 18-20PPG, I said 16-18PPG. My requirement that Ball also shoot over 53% TS% was used to point out that if he can get there, he will naturally then meet then 16-18PPG requirement - another shot or two and the increased TS% will get him there alone.
However, that Kidd is looked at as a top 10 PG in NBA history, yet still stunk as a shooter and only averaged under 16PPG in his prime is a perfect example of the fact that being a top scorer as a PG is not a requirement. It can be made up for in other ways such as winning and defense.
No, I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm responding directly to what you said. 16-18 ppg with a .53 TS% will not get the job done. Ball would need to score more points than that. We can argue whether 16-18 ppg would be good enough if Ball turned out to be a 50/40/90 guy like Nash. I think it probably would not be good enough. But it doesn't matter, because Nash isn't a comparable player.
Lots of players from the past are regarded as top 10 players in history at their positions. That does not mean that they could walk into the modern NBA and be stars. Most of them would need to adapt, and some of them would be unable to do so.
The cold, hard fact is that Kidd suddenly ceased to be an all-NBA player after 2004. His stats really didn't change that much. He didn't go from first team to second team, or first team to third team. He went from first team to no team, and he never made it again. But he still made the all-defense team for three more years. Who replaced him? Steve Nash.
The league has changed. Prime Jason Kidd would not be all-NBA today. He might be an all-star, but then again, he might not. Curry, Harden, Westbrook, Irving, Lowry, and Lillard would all rate over him. This doesn't mean that all of those players are better than Kidd when we consider the historical context, but in the context of 2018, those players would be valued more highly than Kidd.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:06 am Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Prime Jason Kidd would not be all-NBA today.
hard to accept, but likely true
Two NBA Finals appearances does a lot for your reputation. Winning overwhelms stats. Regardless though, I could see Ball putting up Paul or Nash numbers with slightly worse shooting %s, but better D, more wins and, thus, even higher impact. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
I think prime Zo will be putting up 17 ppg but with 12 apg and 8 rpg and elite defense.
His finishing and inconsistent shooting combined with his unselfishness makes it hard for me to ever seen him being a 20 ppg scorer even with improvements in the first 2 areas.
THIS^^^^
Only time he scores more the 18 is if his defender leaves him to double team due to all the dimes he drops.
I believe he's gonna be the kind of player that explodes to 30+ games every now and then, when given too much freedom. But will frequently score on single digits, when they give him the passing lanes. On average, 16-17ppg. _________________ ....
LaVar Ball predictably pulls sons LaMelo, LiAngelo from Lithuania over coaching dispute
Quote:
You will be shocked to learn LaVar Ball is pulling his sons LaMelo and LiAngelo off their Lithuanian professional team over a dispute with BC Vytautas Prienai coach Virginijus Seskus regarding LiAngelo’s playing time, according to Lithuanian basketball and Ball family beat reporter Donatas Urbonas.
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
.
