|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jordan-esque
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 10265
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nash Vegas wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | clutchkobe wrote: | | great players show their greatest right away. They have a higher motor than anyone else and they are aggressive. Ingram and ball show no such thing. I think Ingram will be a good player but i think ball is not good. He has no confidence and he is not aggressive. Tatum was the better pick but we missed out and you move on. |
Do they?
Did KG and Tracy McGrady show their greatest, right away? What about Klay Thompson, Stephen Curry, and Draymond Green? How about James Harden and Clint Capela?
The list is a lot longer than that.
The *greatest* players show their greatness right away AND still improve. But, there are plenty of recent Hall-of-Fame types that didn't show their greatness right away. |
That's true. Add Chauncey Billups to that list too. |
Garnett at 20 years old was already an All-Star in just his 2nd year. So he shouldn’t be clumped with the late bloomers on that list
As for McGrady, Curry, Klay, Draymond ironically none of those players were #2 Picks. All those players were drafted 7th - 35th so the expectations from them were nowhere close as magnified as our #2 Picks. They had more “freedom” to grow into their own without immediate pressure of being the face of the franchise. The pressure being picked #2 is much much much bigger than being picked 7th - 35th.
Like I said on the 1st page of this thread, if our guys were picked much later in the draft, we would be mostly content with their production. They may even be doing even better without the added pressure. Not every player is built for pressure.
Also for every Billups and Nash, there are also Wesley Johnson’s, Hasheem Thabeet’s, Michael Beasley’s, and Kwame Brown’s.
So bringing up past players to argue whether our own will become stars just ends up fruitless because no one player is the same. Really, no one can predict who will end up a star. |
The draft is basically a gamble. Even after you drafted your players, your cards are still on the table.
You either continue holding your deck and being patient and wait, or bluff the other team and cut your cards lose before it’s too late.
But, you already should have a general idea what kind of cards you’re holding right now.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clark Kent
Star Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As for McGrady, Curry, Klay, Draymond ironically none of those players were #2 Picks. All those players were drafted 7th - 35th so the expectations from them were nowhere close as magnified as our #2 Picks. They had more “freedom” to grow into their own without immediate pressure of being the face of the franchise. The pressure being picked #2 is much much much bigger than being picked 7th - 35th.
Like I said on the 1st page of this thread, if our guys were picked much later in the draft, we would be mostly content with their production. They may even be doing even better without the added pressure. Not every player is built for pressure. |
This is something no one here has really delved into.
There was an article that was posted here a few years ago during I think the 2015 D'Angelo Russell draft that said only about 12 players chosen no. 2 in the last 40 years or so ended up making at least 1 all-star appearance.
That's about 30%, which is a little less than 1 out of 3, meaning 70% of no. 2 draft picks won't live up to their lottery expectations, the opposite of a no. 1 pick player who ends up being an all-star about 70% of the time.
Why is that?
No. 2 overall picks who are talented but not exactly more talented to be picked 1st tends to settle on their landing spots. Those no. 2 picks who do not have that fire, that chip on his shoulder, and that drive to prove doubters why he should've been picked no. 1 usually is also a player who probably cannot handle adversity too well or the expectations that come with being a high lottery pick. They become mentally unfocused and end up shrinking to the pressure to later on be labeled as either a bust or simply not a good pick for the no. 2 spot. In this case, a player's drive becomes as important or maybe even more important than the talent.
Teams don't tank their season in hopes to just land a role player. There's a reason why teams are tanking to get a top 3 lottery pick, higher chances of selecting that player that could be a star.
Lakers have had 3 chances in a row to do that now.
We all know that the Lakers selections of Russell, Ingram, Ball have the talent to be picked that high. But the question everyone should be asking is, do you see the drive in them?
If you do, they may make it to the 30% group who may become a star. If not, 70% chance they may still end up as a solid role player but they probably shouldn't have been picked so high - to put it nicely.
_________________
The butter is getting hard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
methdxman
Star Player
Joined: 31 Jan 2002
Posts: 6879
Location: Los Angeles/Barcelona
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | clutchkobe wrote: | | great players show their greatest right away. They have a higher motor than anyone else and they are aggressive. Ingram and ball show no such thing. I think Ingram will be a good player but i think ball is not good. He has no confidence and he is not aggressive. Tatum was the better pick but we missed out and you move on. |
Do they?
Did KG and Tracy McGrady show their greatest, right away? What about Klay Thompson, Stephen Curry, and Draymond Green? How about James Harden and Clint Capela?
The list is a lot longer than that.
The *greatest* players show their greatness right away AND still improve. But, there are plenty of recent Hall-of-Fame types that didn't show their greatness right away. |
Whilst you're right that those players listed above did not "max out" their potential in the first 2 years or so, but their potential was dead clear for all of these players. TMac in particular looked spectacular already in his second season, and he had to play behind the fan favorite and superstar Vince Carter. Klay Thompson, from the minute he entered the league was an absolute dead-eye 3 point shooter with crazy good shooting mechanics/stroke. Curry wasn't an MVP in his first few seasons but he showed a solid, solid game.
In the case of both Harden and TMac, neither of them had superstar seasons before joining their 2nd teams, but they both commanded pretty impressive contracts (extension in the case of Harden and new contract in case of Tmac) given their non-all star performance because their talent was so clear.
KG was a clear superstar from the get-go. He was an absolute DOG from the beginning and his effort and passion was clear.
At this point, even the most die hard Lonzo fan is hard pressed to still think his ceiling is a superstar. Most Laker fans are merely hoping he can regain his confidence and be more aggressive and would be happy with an above average point guard. Nobody is counting on him to be a superstar.
And the WAY he plays and fights through adversity is worrying us all. He is clearly different from everyone you named above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nash Vegas
Star Player
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 7239
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clark Kent wrote: | | Quote: | As for McGrady, Curry, Klay, Draymond ironically none of those players were #2 Picks. All those players were drafted 7th - 35th so the expectations from them were nowhere close as magnified as our #2 Picks. They had more “freedom” to grow into their own without immediate pressure of being the face of the franchise. The pressure being picked #2 is much much much bigger than being picked 7th - 35th.
Like I said on the 1st page of this thread, if our guys were picked much later in the draft, we would be mostly content with their production. They may even be doing even better without the added pressure. Not every player is built for pressure. |
This is something no one here has really delved into.
There was an article that was posted here a few years ago during I think the 2015 D'Angelo Russell draft that said only about 12 players chosen no. 2 in the last 40 years or so ended up making at least 1 all-star appearance.
That's about 30%, which is a little less than 1 out of 3, meaning 70% of no. 2 draft picks won't live up to their lottery expectations, the opposite of a no. 1 pick player who ends up being an all-star about 70% of the time.
Why is that?
No. 2 overall picks who are talented but not exactly more talented to be picked 1st tends to settle on their landing spots. Those no. 2 picks who do not have that fire, that chip on his shoulder, and that drive to prove doubters why he should've been picked no. 1 usually is also a player who probably cannot handle adversity too well or the expectations that come with being a high lottery pick. They become mentally unfocused and end up shrinking to the pressure to later on be labeled as either a bust or simply not a good pick for the no. 2 spot. In this case, a player's drive becomes as important or maybe even more important than the talent.
Teams don't tank their season in hopes to just land a role player. There's a reason why teams are tanking to get a top 3 lottery pick, higher chances of selecting that player that could be a star.
Lakers have had 3 chances in a row to do that now.
We all know that the Lakers selections of Russell, Ingram, Ball have the talent to be picked that high. But the question everyone should be asking is, do you see the drive in them?
If you do, they may make it to the 30% group who may become a star. If not, 70% chance they may still end up as a solid role player but they probably shouldn't have been picked so high - to put it nicely. |
Exactly! Great post!
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clark Kent wrote: | | Quote: | As for McGrady, Curry, Klay, Draymond ironically none of those players were #2 Picks. All those players were drafted 7th - 35th so the expectations from them were nowhere close as magnified as our #2 Picks. They had more “freedom” to grow into their own without immediate pressure of being the face of the franchise. The pressure being picked #2 is much much much bigger than being picked 7th - 35th.
Like I said on the 1st page of this thread, if our guys were picked much later in the draft, we would be mostly content with their production. They may even be doing even better without the added pressure. Not every player is built for pressure. |
This is something no one here has really delved into.
There was an article that was posted here a few years ago during I think the 2015 D'Angelo Russell draft that said only about 12 players chosen no. 2 in the last 40 years or so ended up making at least 1 all-star appearance.
That's about 30%, which is a little less than 1 out of 3, meaning 70% of no. 2 draft picks won't live up to their lottery expectations, the opposite of a no. 1 pick player who ends up being an all-star about 70% of the time.
Why is that?
No. 2 overall picks who are talented but not exactly more talented to be picked 1st tends to settle on their landing spots. Those no. 2 picks who do not have that fire, that chip on his shoulder, and that drive to prove doubters why he should've been picked no. 1 usually is also a player who probably cannot handle adversity too well or the expectations that come with being a high lottery pick. They become mentally unfocused and end up shrinking to the pressure to later on be labeled as either a bust or simply not a good pick for the no. 2 spot. In this case, a player's drive becomes as important or maybe even more important than the talent.
Teams don't tank their season in hopes to just land a role player. There's a reason why teams are tanking to get a top 3 lottery pick, higher chances of selecting that player that could be a star.
Lakers have had 3 chances in a row to do that now.
We all know that the Lakers selections of Russell, Ingram, Ball have the talent to be picked that high. But the question everyone should be asking is, do you see the drive in them?
If you do, they may make it to the 30% group who may become a star. If not, 70% chance they may still end up as a solid role player but they probably shouldn't have been picked so high - to put it nicely. |
I think it's more basic. Fans don't realize how few players in any draft class become stars, so they have exaggerated expectations. On average, only about 5-10% of the players in a particular draft class even make one all-star team, so hitting 30% with the second pick is about what you'd expect if teams did a good analysis of potential.
Some guy actually counted how many all-stars were produced by the draft positions. His system counts total appearances, so a 10-time all-star is worth 10 times more than a guy who makes one team. The results show the drafting is actually pretty good:
Pick 1: 240 selections (16.8% total)
Pick 2: 144 selections (10.1% total)
Pick 3: 134 selections (9.4% total)
Pick 4: 98 selections (6.87% total)
Pick 5: 117 selections (8.2% total)
^by now this is already over half of all All-star selections
Pick 6: 72 selections (5% total)
Pick 7: 36 selections (2.5% total)
Pick 8: 60 selections (4.2% total)
Pick9: 69 selections (4.8% total) Nowitzki and Havlicek account for 26 of these
Pick 10: 55 selections (3.85% total)
Pick 11: 33 selections (2.3% total)
Pick 12: 29 selections (2% total)
Pick 13: 32 selections (2.2% total)
Pick 14: 52 selections (3.6% total)
^ over 82% total in lottery
Pick 15: 11 selections (0.8% total)
***
Basically, the draft is a crapshoot, but the higher you draft the more likely you are to get a star. The problem is that once you get passed the 1st pick, getting a star is unlikely at every draft position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I downloaded career data by draft position and put it up on charts. The range of the data I pulled was 1990 to 2010. Also, Basketball-Reference only had data like Win Shares so I had to use that, I wish I could have pulled PER but I couldn't.
Anyway, I charted Win Shares, Minutes Played, and Points per Game. What you're seeing is Draft Pick on the x-axis and the corresponding data point on the y-axis.
So we may conclude that the draft is a crapshoot, but there is clearly a relationship between production, and draft selection as a general rule.
Don't know how to embed an image so here is the link: https://image.ibb.co/kEWAaV/Agg-Player-Data-by-Draft-Position.png
If you're wondering why I picked 1990 to 2010, let me know, I'll tell you =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lonzo-Lite
Star Player
Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 5090
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clark Kent wrote: | | Quote: | As for McGrady, Curry, Klay, Draymond ironically none of those players were #2 Picks. All those players were drafted 7th - 35th so the expectations from them were nowhere close as magnified as our #2 Picks. They had more “freedom” to grow into their own without immediate pressure of being the face of the franchise. The pressure being picked #2 is much much much bigger than being picked 7th - 35th.
Like I said on the 1st page of this thread, if our guys were picked much later in the draft, we would be mostly content with their production. They may even be doing even better without the added pressure. Not every player is built for pressure. |
This is something no one here has really delved into.
There was an article that was posted here a few years ago during I think the 2015 D'Angelo Russell draft that said only about 12 players chosen no. 2 in the last 40 years or so ended up making at least 1 all-star appearance.
That's about 30%, which is a little less than 1 out of 3, meaning 70% of no. 2 draft picks won't live up to their lottery expectations, the opposite of a no. 1 pick player who ends up being an all-star about 70% of the time.
Why is that?
No. 2 overall picks who are talented but not exactly more talented to be picked 1st tends to settle on their landing spots. Those no. 2 picks who do not have that fire, that chip on his shoulder, and that drive to prove doubters why he should've been picked no. 1 usually is also a player who probably cannot handle adversity too well or the expectations that come with being a high lottery pick. They become mentally unfocused and end up shrinking to the pressure to later on be labeled as either a bust or simply not a good pick for the no. 2 spot. In this case, a player's drive becomes as important or maybe even more important than the talent.
Teams don't tank their season in hopes to just land a role player. There's a reason why teams are tanking to get a top 3 lottery pick, higher chances of selecting that player that could be a star.
Lakers have had 3 chances in a row to do that now.
We all know that the Lakers selections of Russell, Ingram, Ball have the talent to be picked that high. But the question everyone should be asking is, do you see the drive in them?
If you do, they may make it to the 30% group who may become a star. If not, 70% chance they may still end up as a solid role player but they probably shouldn't have been picked so high - to put it nicely. |
That's actually some really good points!
Out of all 3 regarding any type of drive or fire:
- D'Angelo seemed like he had that fire or at least that swagger about him to be a good player (ice in his veins), but after hearing about him in the locker room and issues with the coaching staff, it felt like he already thought he was a star.
- Ingram is hard to get a good read on him since he's so quiet. I can see he wants be good, not sure I see he wants to prove doubters wrong that he should've been the first pick. He wants to be a good player to play well and fit in.
- Lonzo is also hard to get a read on because he's also quiet and also because LaVar was doing a lot of the talking. The drive he has seems to be to let doubters know he can play and belongs in the NBA. I think that's the drive he has for now.
_________________
Tacos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nash Vegas
Star Player
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 7239
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lonzo-Lite wrote: | | Clark Kent wrote: | | Quote: | As for McGrady, Curry, Klay, Draymond ironically none of those players were #2 Picks. All those players were drafted 7th - 35th so the expectations from them were nowhere close as magnified as our #2 Picks. They had more “freedom” to grow into their own without immediate pressure of being the face of the franchise. The pressure being picked #2 is much much much bigger than being picked 7th - 35th.
Like I said on the 1st page of this thread, if our guys were picked much later in the draft, we would be mostly content with their production. They may even be doing even better without the added pressure. Not every player is built for pressure. |
This is something no one here has really delved into.
There was an article that was posted here a few years ago during I think the 2015 D'Angelo Russell draft that said only about 12 players chosen no. 2 in the last 40 years or so ended up making at least 1 all-star appearance.
That's about 30%, which is a little less than 1 out of 3, meaning 70% of no. 2 draft picks won't live up to their lottery expectations, the opposite of a no. 1 pick player who ends up being an all-star about 70% of the time.
Why is that?
No. 2 overall picks who are talented but not exactly more talented to be picked 1st tends to settle on their landing spots. Those no. 2 picks who do not have that fire, that chip on his shoulder, and that drive to prove doubters why he should've been picked no. 1 usually is also a player who probably cannot handle adversity too well or the expectations that come with being a high lottery pick. They become mentally unfocused and end up shrinking to the pressure to later on be labeled as either a bust or simply not a good pick for the no. 2 spot. In this case, a player's drive becomes as important or maybe even more important than the talent.
Teams don't tank their season in hopes to just land a role player. There's a reason why teams are tanking to get a top 3 lottery pick, higher chances of selecting that player that could be a star.
Lakers have had 3 chances in a row to do that now.
We all know that the Lakers selections of Russell, Ingram, Ball have the talent to be picked that high. But the question everyone should be asking is, do you see the drive in them?
If you do, they may make it to the 30% group who may become a star. If not, 70% chance they may still end up as a solid role player but they probably shouldn't have been picked so high - to put it nicely. |
That's actually some really good points!
Out of all 3 regarding any type of drive or fire:
- D'Angelo seemed like he had that fire or at least that swagger about him to be a good player (ice in his veins), but after hearing about him in the locker room and issues with the coaching staff, it felt like he already thought he was a star.
- Ingram is hard to get a good read on him since he's so quite. I can see he wants be good, not sure I see he wants to prove doubters wrong that he should've been the first pick. He wants to be a good player to play well and fit in.
- Lonzo is also hard to get a read on because he's also quiet and also because LaVar was doing a lot of the talking. The drive he has seems to be to let doubters know he can play and belongs in the NBA. I think that's the drive he has for now. |
Lonzo’s drive isn’t to prove doubters he should’ve been taken 1st, that’s for sure. Lonzo just wanted to be picked wherever the Lakers was picking, he was pretty much content to just be picked by his hometown team.
His drive right now is hoping he plays well enough so he doesn’t get traded.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Ziggy wrote: | | Kobe was destroying pro players in pickup games and workouts at 17 years old. I wouldn't say he was a project personally. |
Took him at least 2 years to get a clue of shot selection without completely shutting out his teammates.
Took him another 1-2 years to figure out what defense was, because he used to be pretty bad.
The weird part is, how far advanced Lonzo is there by age, but Kobe gets the pass because scoring. Forget the decision-making. |
It is ridiculous to compare a young Kobe to any of our recent draft picks. Jerry West knew he was a transcendent player before he even saw the legendary workout where Kobe destroyed Michael Cooper 1-1. You can't say anything close to this about any of your young guys.
Lest we forget, here is an article about Kobe's dominance in that workout:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2108226-kobe-bryants-predraft-workout-has-become-stuff-of-lakers-and-nba-legend
Some highlights from Jerry West himself:
"Never in my life have I seen a workout like that," wrote West in his 2011 book, West by West: My Charmed, Tormented Life, about Bryant's session. "When I said I had seen enough, I meant it. I knew who he was, and just from looking at his eyes, I knew what he wanted.
"Even though he was only 17 years old, Kobe was a once-in-a-lifetime player who could cast his shadow on the franchise for years to come. His fierce, competitive drive was innate, could not be purchased on the street or in a store or anywhere.
"You need to possess more than a little nastiness to play basketball at the highest level, and Kobe had that in abundance. You need to have the cold-bloodedness of an assassin, and he possessed that, too." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Ziggy wrote: | | Kobe was destroying pro players in pickup games and workouts at 17 years old. I wouldn't say he was a project personally. |
Took him at least 2 years to get a clue of shot selection without completely shutting out his teammates.
Took him another 1-2 years to figure out what defense was, because he used to be pretty bad.
The weird part is, how far advanced Lonzo is there by age, but Kobe gets the pass because scoring. Forget the decision-making. |
It is ridiculous to compare a young Kobe to any of our recent draft picks. Jerry West knew he was a transcendent player before he even saw the legendary workout where Kobe destroyed Michael Cooper 1-1. You can't say anything close to this about any of your young guys.
Lest we forget, here is an article about Kobe's dominance in that workout:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2108226-kobe-bryants-predraft-workout-has-become-stuff-of-lakers-and-nba-legend
Some highlights from Jerry West himself:
"Never in my life have I seen a workout like that," wrote West in his 2011 book, West by West: My Charmed, Tormented Life, about Bryant's session. "When I said I had seen enough, I meant it. I knew who he was, and just from looking at his eyes, I knew what he wanted.
"Even though he was only 17 years old, Kobe was a once-in-a-lifetime player who could cast his shadow on the franchise for years to come. His fierce, competitive drive was innate, could not be purchased on the street or in a store or anywhere.
"You need to possess more than a little nastiness to play basketball at the highest level, and Kobe had that in abundance. You need to have the cold-bloodedness of an assassin, and he possessed that, too." |
Kobe was still a project. He was 17 years old and was not a sure thing. Having good workouts doesn't mean anything. And Jerry West wasn't infallible either. He was wrong, several times.
DLO was a passing savant, remember folks?
Now obviously, Kobe panned out and then some, but to say he wasn't a project is revisionist history and that's putting it nicely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | I downloaded career data by draft position and put it up on charts. The range of the data I pulled was 1990 to 2010. Also, Basketball-Reference only had data like Win Shares so I had to use that, I wish I could have pulled PER but I couldn't.
Anyway, I charted Win Shares, Minutes Played, and Points per Game. What you're seeing is Draft Pick on the x-axis and the corresponding data point on the y-axis.
So we may conclude that the draft is a crapshoot, but there is clearly a relationship between production, and draft selection as a general rule.
Don't know how to embed an image so here is the link: https://image.ibb.co/kEWAaV/Agg-Player-Data-by-Draft-Position.png
If you're wondering why I picked 1990 to 2010, let me know, I'll tell you =) |
One thing to notice in the link/chart above, is how Win Shares falls off a cliff after the 5th overall pick. Interesting and perhaps gives the crazy fans who squeal over the draft lottery some credence =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cthroatgtr
Star Player
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 1375
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russell - Still may prove to be a very good player. It was a weak draft. Okafor has proven to be the wrong choice. May have missed out on Kristap but overall it wasn't an awful pick. For all of the first round, DLO may still be the 3rd or 4th best player.
Ingram - I still believe in him and believe he was the second best player could even prove to be the best. Another really weak draft so if you look at the others picked afterwards, Lakers picked correctly for the most part.
Ball - Here is where I think Magic was so convinced he saw the second coming ignored some obvious issues. The shot, the motor, the dad. In retrospect I think there were much better options than Ball. I want him to prove me wrong, but right now, I don't see it. Not quite the bust that is Fultz but there are several better options in that draft the Lakers missed on. They hit on Hart & Kuzma that same draft however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26309
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russell and Randle are coming into their own and starting to have their breakout years on other teams.
Ingram and Ball are also on pace to have their breakout years as well... right after the Lakers move them because they're impatient.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drae
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Posts: 16144
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | Russell and Randle are coming into their own and starting to have their breakout years on other teams.
Ingram and Ball are also on pace to have their breakout years as well... right after the Lakers move them because they're impatient. |
Di'angelo Russell 2018 - 22 years old, 28 minutes, 17 points, 42% shooting, 3.5 rebounds, 5.5 assists.
De'aaron Fox 2018 - 20 years old, 33 minutes, 18 points, 49% shooting, 4 rebounds, 7 assists.
Coming into their own? Pffft. Should've chosen Fox, then we would've laughed at Russell  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| methdxman wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | clutchkobe wrote: | | great players show their greatest right away. They have a higher motor than anyone else and they are aggressive. Ingram and ball show no such thing. I think Ingram will be a good player but i think ball is not good. He has no confidence and he is not aggressive. Tatum was the better pick but we missed out and you move on. |
Do they?
Did KG and Tracy McGrady show their greatest, right away? What about Klay Thompson, Stephen Curry, and Draymond Green? How about James Harden and Clint Capela? Yeah, Klay Thompson can shoot. He was still pretty awful at defense and wasn't an All-Star player until he actually could defend. That took time.
The list is a lot longer than that.
The *greatest* players show their greatness right away AND still improve. But, there are plenty of recent Hall-of-Fame types that didn't show their greatness right away. |
Whilst you're right that those players listed above did not "max out" their potential in the first 2 years or so, but their potential was dead clear for all of these players. TMac in particular looked spectacular already in his second season, and he had to play behind the fan favorite and superstar Vince Carter. Klay Thompson, from the minute he entered the league was an absolute dead-eye 3 point shooter with crazy good shooting mechanics/stroke. Curry wasn't an MVP in his first few seasons but he showed a solid, solid game.
In the case of both Harden and TMac, neither of them had superstar seasons before joining their 2nd teams, but they both commanded pretty impressive contracts (extension in the case of Harden and new contract in case of Tmac) given their non-all star performance because their talent was so clear.
KG was a clear superstar from the get-go. He was an absolute DOG from the beginning and his effort and passion was clear.
At this point, even the most die hard Lonzo fan is hard pressed to still think his ceiling is a superstar. Most Laker fans are merely hoping he can regain his confidence and be more aggressive and would be happy with an above average point guard. Nobody is counting on him to be a superstar.
And the WAY he plays and fights through adversity is worrying us all. He is clearly different from everyone you named above. |
With some of those players, we're referring to flat out HOF play.
There's nothing about Clint Capela or Draymond Green that said "wow, definite All-Star" in year two.
Also, I can't stand any facts about "The #2 pick only makes the ASG 30% of the time".
It's more like, they were perceived as the 2nd best player in the draft, as if the franchise/coaches/situation had nothing to do with their successes or failures.
Over time, this fleshes out, only because the guys that work the hardest AND do the best job of implementing their new skills to the NBA AND are put in positions to succeed... end high as high quality players.
It's not like BI isn't trying. But do we really think coaches are putting Ingram in the best places to succeed?
I sure as hell don't.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LandsbergerRules
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 11197
Location: The Other Perspective
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: |
It is ridiculous to compare a young Kobe to any of our recent draft picks. Jerry West knew he was a transcendent player before he even saw the legendary workout where Kobe destroyed Michael Cooper 1-1. You can't say anything close to this about any of your young guys.
Lest we forget, here is an article about Kobe's dominance in that workout:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2108226-kobe-bryants-predraft-workout-has-become-stuff-of-lakers-and-nba-legend
Some highlights from Jerry West himself:
"Never in my life have I seen a workout like that," wrote West in his 2011 book, West by West: My Charmed, Tormented Life, about Bryant's session. "When I said I had seen enough, I meant it. I knew who he was, and just from looking at his eyes, I knew what he wanted.
"Even though he was only 17 years old, Kobe was a once-in-a-lifetime player who could cast his shadow on the franchise for years to come. His fierce, competitive drive was innate, could not be purchased on the street or in a store or anywhere.
"You need to possess more than a little nastiness to play basketball at the highest level, and Kobe had that in abundance. You need to have the cold-bloodedness of an assassin, and he possessed that, too." |
Great quotes, Surfitall.
_________________
"Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ That post gave me Batguano flashbacks =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilkes52
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 2415
Location: Far from home
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't expect much immediate payoff from Ingram, so not much concern there.
Perhaps Ball's perimeter sharpshooting didn't transfer from his UCLA days the way I'd anticipated, but on the other hand I think he's becoming an adequate NBA defender quicker than I'd figured too.
I'd thought D'Lo the highest risk choice of the three for this club from the get-go, and I'm glad the Laker chose to go another way for leadership this quickly.
Overall, not concerned so much as waiting and watching for what we hoped for.
_________________
“These GOAT discussions are fun distractions while sitting around waiting for the pizza to be served.”
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Overall, not concerned so much as waiting and watching for what we hoped for.
|
A lot of people want instant results, and yet, I feel like I of the few that have noticed these guys with drop offs.
Fultz
Tatum
Josh Jackson
Donovan Mitchell
Bam Adebayo
Justin Jackson
Kyle Kuzma
etc.
Maybe next time rookies shouldn't have good starts, just have a better 2nd year.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
