Odin

Makes me wonder what types of numbers Zion would be putting up on a less stacked team. Maybe it wouldn't be that much more, but surely his production, at least in pure counting numbers, is down as there are other "top talents" on the team with him. He is only taking ~13 shots a game and is still putting up over 20 a game.

Just FYI- it should be "piqued my interest" not "peeked my interest". And these companies ask for money because they are companies and want to be paid for their work. I think synergy specifically markets itself as for teams and journalists anyway. I don't think people like us are their target audience. Other people who publish their numbers on-line either are doing it to try to prove their statistical models and ideas, angling for a job, or getting paid in some other way.

That's all well and good, but they still only have a 14% chance at the #1 pick.

Man, was just looking at the schedule for today. The game is going to be over before I even leave work. Stupid early games on holidays that lots of people don't have.

Shouldn't it be important to note that the numbers seem to be a function of the role he is being asked to fill? Last year he had an assist % of 29.5% and a turnover rate of 14.9% This year: 22% and 20.7% Rozier, on the other hand, has never had an assist rate of over 17.5%. Sure, he has a lower turnover rate, but he isn't really functioning in the way of a PG. Those are more ball handling SG numbers. Fournier, for example, has a higher assist rate this season than Rozier ever has had. Obviously, the increased turn overs are somewhat worrisome, but they are not the end of the world.

Also: These are just total counting numbers. You play less minutes or get injured for a few games, and suddenly you drop off this list.

I don't think Zion is like Lebron. If anything, he fits into the Barkley mold (which is still a darn good player). Or, another way to put it is, if he is like LeBron, then he is what would happen if Lebron had less point type skills and more big man skills. But Zion is playing 6 less minutes than Barrett and here are their numbers matched up: (per 40 minutes to standardize): https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2019.html Barrett isn't bad, but Zion is a wrecking ball. He is shooting 74% (!?!?!?!) from 2. He gets to the line. He gets both steals and blocks (averaging almost 2 a game for both). He is a good rebounder. While you aren't going to be running an offense with him as the primary ball handler, at least not right away, he is a willing and able passer. (16% assist rate is not bad). He is probably the best College Basketball player in at least a decade: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/zion-williamson-is-the-best-college-basketball-player-in-at-least-a-decade/ (This was ten games in, but his advanced metrics have not dropped much if any.) Unless you are getting an absolute haul for him, you take him. He is not only as close to a "can't fail" type player as there is, but he also has loads of potential where he can still improve. He is the definition of a high floor, high ceiling player.

Are they purely using those metrics though, or do they try to contextualize them within the game? These metrics line up decently well with our understanding of the abilities for some players. But you have Drummond 3rd here, when he has never been a good defender. Drummond always looks good on these though, especially as he grabs a lot of defensive rebounds.

This is a pretty dumb thing. Theoretically, what if a player grabbed every available defensive rebound but allowed opposing players to shoot 80% against him (with the other 20% being blocks for this unrealistic player). Is this really one of the "smartest basketball minds" writing this though?

So, I understand the odds are slim, but say we miss the playoffs and luck into the #1 pick. We have to draft Zion, right? Like, I understand that he absolutely doesn't really fit with our team right now, especially as he is a PF, but he is one of those players that you just say "screw it all" and draft and figure out everything afterwards, right?

Probably. I think we are tied for the best odds to get him, but there are other possibilities out there too.

Yeah, I read this and thought "why would either team want to do this?" Honestly, it makes Portland lose what makes them special (yes, we all saw the playoffs last year, but we all know these things can change. Portland could easily be a second round team this year.), and it makes us a worse team, in my opinion. (Gordon + Ross for McCollum and filler is terrible.) I don't know if it would be a "bad" trade for Portland, but I don't know if it is a trade that immediately and clearly makes them better either. And I think it is a trade that absolutely makes us worse. (Then again, I've never really been a McCollum fan). Portland is sitting in the 4th seed spot right now. Do they really want to mess with that team? Honestly, this seems like a "lose, lose" trade, or at least a "meh, meh" trade.

Am I the only one who is confused by Isaac's shooting this season? How is a guy that is 82% from the line for his career shooting under 30% from the 3? (He has only shot 99 free throws in his career so far, but that isn't a terrible sample size).

I think it isn't only an AG thing. I think we have a number of players who would do well in an up tempo offense.

More from the Ringer on Magic: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/1/14/18181720/nba-misused-players-justise-winslow I agree with a lot of this, besides the final conclusion. (What is with the national media always wanting us to trade away any youngster that shows any ability? Then when we invariably do (Because this team is sometimes not very smart) they go 'hahaha, look at the Magic trading away any player that ever becomes good.') But it is kind of funny that they publish this article after two of his better games this season.

Edit: Wrong thread.

The overall conversation around Vuch nationally is weird. On one hand, every writer points out his statistical performance this season and states things like "Despite Vucevic being the only thing keeping Orlando from turning into a dumpster fire, the issue with acquiring him might not be Orlando’s asking price." But in return for trade value, it is almost like the Magic should accept any crap offered for him, like the other team is doing the Magic a favor in taking him. I definitely understand the issues with Vuch. But this whole "the Magic should be willing to take the other team's crap because they are the Magic and should be thankful for anything at all" is getting out of hand. No, we don't want your young center who can't even hit 40% from the field. No, we don't want your expiring scraps. Other teams might as well sign a one armed player with a bad limp to trade to the Magic and the Magic should be thankful. And for as much as I have written that Vuch might just be an incremental improvement for another team, sometimes that is all you need. While an incremental improvement doesn't mean much to us- Vuch is who he is and we need to give our other guys time to grow- for a capped out team challenging for the championship, don't you want to improve your team as much as you can? Why shouldn't the Lakers trade high on one of their inconsistent youngsters for a center who has been very consistent this year and is in his prime? A center who is better than all of their centers combined? If the Magic would absolutely fall apart without him, then why does he have absolutely no value anywhere else? It is either one or the other. Either he is good and valuable to teams, or he is not. But don't make it out to be somehow both.

Gordon hit 6 threes last year.

So, a thought- Unless the center in question is a transcendent player- think Jokic or Embiid- the center position these days can be filled with a “low skilled” energy guy (I don’t think these guys are truly low skilled, but I think everyone knows the type) without losing much. Honestly, insert a player like Birch into any team’s starting lineup. How much worse would they fare? Most, probably not that much. And, while I think Birch is a nice player, he is hardly irreplaceable. I don’t think the same could be said for any other position. And this goes to show why the value for Vuch doesn’t seem to be there. I would argue he is better than the main centers on most of the playoff teams. Yet he would, in my opinion, likely cause any team to improve only minimally. That isn’t to say centers are not important. In the scheme of the game they are still very important, and their role is very important. But the difference between one and another, beyond the individual playing style, is minimal in comparison to other positions. In a way, centers are becoming the running backs of the NBA. Immensely important to the game, but not valued that highly because another center that can provide 80-90% for much cheaper isn’t that hard to find.

Birch again!

Birch!

I think one of our main issues is that our team has players for basically two different systems of play on both ends that don't mesh together that well. On offense, we have some guys that should be well suited in a fast tempo, lots of movement and cutting, getting up the court, style of play. (Gordon, Isaac, Simmons, Bamba) Then we have guys that are better suited for a slowed down, half court, methodical style of play. (Vucevic, Augustin). Then we have maybe two guys that are maybe ok in either system. (Fournier, Ross). On defense, it is the same story. We have guys built for a defense that switches a lot (Gordon, Isaac, Ross especially), and guys that can't really switch at all without being put in a bad position (Vucevic, Augustin especially). You are going to have issues if the pieces struggle to fit together like ours sometimes do.

2. We are passing the ball, but the movement seems to be down. Could just be me though, I haven't re-watched the beginning of the game. 4. I agree that they are a bit due to shot clock situations, but I watched him multiple times put himself bad positions. I don't think it is necessarily by design, but he also is not doing himself any favors. 9. Yeah, I think that might be a better way to put it. Basically, one player would go to help or take a switch, another player would rotate over to the vacated guy, then, boom, open guy in the opposite corner.

So, a few things that I kept thinking during the game: 1. Fox is fun. 2. What happened to our ball sharing/ movement based offense? There was a lot of selfish play with players forcing bad shots. 3. We need a point guard that can get some guys some easy shots. 4. Gordon is developing some bad habits. Those long turn around twos are not a good look. 5. You are going to lose when you miss open shots. 6. There was a lot of sloppy/ lazy play out there, which lead to those bad turnovers. This happens way too much. 7. Isaac is finding himself in good places, but needs to finish those shots. 8. When Vuch was the only one that could make shots in the first 6 minutes, you know the game might be a bit rough. Then that atrocious start to the second, and our team was done. 9. Are we over helping on defense? We were giving up way too many open shots through defensive breakdowns, where the opposing shooter had no one close to them. 10. At the beginning of the broadcast, the Sac announcers said that the Kings couldn't play down to their competition. I thought this was insulting. Maybe it was the truth.

Isaac does though. And he might be in the conversation of best on-ball defender in the league eventually. (But you have to be of Kawhi's caliber to be considered DPOY candidate as a on-ball wing defender- DPOY is basically a center's award). Also, was just looking through prior winners. KG only has one DPOY and Duncan has zero, which doesn't sound right.