I think both Stewart and Banchero will be able to shoot threes. Stewart is still very young and shoots 33% on low volume. I’m high on Stewart because he’s the kind of switchable big man suited for the playoff basketball. And Banchero just looks like he’ll be able to shoot.
Well, Sheed. And Laimbeer before him, and Sam Perkins, and Jack Sikma IIRC. When you think about it, it’s kind of curious that it took SVG having Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu as forwards for the four-out offense to really gain traction.
2 Likes
Great discussion. Vote in the poll above if you haven’t done so. Interested to see how this one turns out.
1 Like
Great idea starting the polls.
Yeah, I’m not saying he is the first big to ever shoot 3’s, but I think he is the genesis of the modern trend. Bosh took as many 3’s in his age 30 and 31 seasons as Laimbeer did in his career, and more than Sikma did. Miami playing 5 out to spread for Lebron and Wade was pretty unique.
1 Like
Good comp but Chris Bosh would be an amazing accomplishment for Smith
1 Like
Interesting that I’ve found I don’t disagree with the assessments of each players strengths and weaknesses, but have disagreed with people on what makes a good roster. (For ex, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have two on-ball creators.)
1 Like
I think people like to talk about fit but mostly what they’re talking about is players not being as good as they’d like. There are extreme player types that make this somewhat less true but it’s rarely the case that the marginal drafted player has to deal w that kind of thing.
1 Like
Of course you’re right that Bosh would be a 1 in 10 outcome for Smith. However, everybody shoots better now than they did back then. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Smith is a better shooter than Bosh (and worse in the post). as @mgl says, Bosh didn’t really start stretching until late. Both players (nearly all players) are shaped by their era.
2 Likes
I’ll take a stab at this since I’ve done that to myself. He’s a 6’10” dude who shot 42% on 6 attempts from three per game, hardly any of those being open catch and shoot attempts. He has a face up game that is absolutely killer. Has the footwork and length to just catch and shoot over anyone even at the NBA level and the shot is deadly. He’s likely an offensive option 1A iso cornerstone type (KD, Tatum-like iso scorers if he really hits), but if he never gets to that level he’s still a phenomenal #2 and off ball guy.
No questions on him physically at the next level (which factors into him vs. Chet). He flashes similar “other stuff” that Banchero does. 14% assist rate as a freshman frontcourt guy, good steal/block %s. He’s by far the safest of the three top picks, and I’d argue his ceiling might still be the highest too. Chet is a unicorn but even the best offensive bigs in the NBA usually don’t translate to winning playoff teams without primary scoring/playmakers as the #1 option next to them. I think Jabari can be that.
2 Likes
OK I need to research better - for some reason, I had smith at like 6’8" in my head.
1 Like
To me, the idea that George is a better finisher than creator isn’t a “fit” problem with another player. It’s a function of his own limitations that are sometimes lifted playing with great players. Which is what I think most people are actually thinking of when they think about why somebody’s “fit” is bad. I’m open to the idea that negative fit effects between stars exist but I’d like to see some careful attempt to measure it before I was willing to believe in large effects.
Re: minutes, if you have 2 players who are truly disastrous together but need minutes, 95th percentile for minutes played is like 2400 minutes a year ~ 30 mpg. So they have to share the court 12 minutes a game if you really need to avoid losing as much as possible. Which unless you’re good, you don’t. And to me the plausible effect size (something like max 2 pts per 100 poss they share the floor?) there ends up on the order of <= 25 points (which equals 1 win) per season pretty quickly. And that’s assuming you can even predict negative fit effects in the draft, which I’m very skeptical of.
Specific to the case you’re talking about w George/Westbrook/Kawhi, nothing about it to me screams obvious negative fit effect. George’s worst and best seasons of his extended prime are both with Westbrook, who is now clearly in terminal decline.
The Westbrook combo is what I was pointing at - George became a much more prolific scorer the moment the ball was taken out of his hands (and put into Russell’s). Not that George is a bad on-ball player, but being in an eco-system where his primary role was to finish and not create was beneficial to him.
That 2017-18 season doesn’t look like that’s what happened. His usage declined and his TS% was flat. He was just worse. Then he took back a bunch of usage and his AST% rebounded and he was more productive in Westbrook Year 2. The net of the 2 years doesn’t look different from his peak w the Pacers and is worse than his Kawhi seasons where they played a bunch of iso ball.
We’re really testing the patience of a Michigan board here getting into the nitty gritty of Paul George’s career, but I think while his usage was relatively similar in his second OKC year, you need to consider that he took 4 more shots a game than his post-injury Pacers career, and his assist/to rates dropped. So his usage “re-mixed”.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone except the Kings think having two on ball creators is a bad thing. Just in terms of maximizing the value of each player, you’d prefer both of them to also be good shooters so they provide some off ball value by preventing teams from packing the paint. They don’t have to be a Steph Curry off ball type, even players like Lilliard or Harden who just kinda stand around if they don’t have the ball, they are good shooters so their defenders have to stay on them, and they provide spacing.
In regards to Ivey, the question is whether he’ll be a good enough shooter to provide the spacing when Cade is creating on ball. If he doesn’t, than we’re not maximizing Cade while he’s on ball. It also means that in order to maximize the value we get from Ivey, he’ll need to be on the ball more at the expense of Cade, which is not ideal unless he is able to develop into a guy who is a high level playmaker rather than merely a high level scorer.
If you have two primary on ball creators, and one of them is good off ball while the other isn’t, it is better if the better creator of the two is the guy who isn’t good off ball. It’s mostly that you want your team to be greater than the sum of its individual parts, and an Ivey and Cade pairing probably wouldn’t be.
All that said, if Ivey is able to be a high level scorer as a primary on ball guy, it’s OK if you aren’t getting the absolute maximum value out of both your stars. Just focusing on getting high level players before you worry about perfect fits and maximizing the value of the entire roster.
3 Likes
That seems like the best possible outcome for Jabari.
I wish he wasn’t a body-double (not to mention having the same last name and first initial) for Joe Smith. I can’t unsee the resemblance, but I have also seen some clips that are more encouraging.
I am hoping for Jabari Smith for the Pistons and if not I would prefer they go with Shaedon Sharpe.
3 Likes
I remember watching NBATV 2 or 3 years ago, and hearing Isiah say that they didn’t even really practice 3-pointers in the 80’s. It was pretty much only a strategic go-to when down big. Now, with analytics, as well as they way the game is refereed to favor freedom of movement, it’s a completely different game. The current era isn’t my favorite, but it is amazing to see some of the shooting displays that guys like Curry, Lillard, Young, and (not this year) Duncan Robinson have put on.
The Cade/Shaed marketing bonanza would be something!