Jump to content

Bullet Club

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bullet Club

  1. Could we not sleep on the Lions every time we play them. Wtf
  2. You literally did on page 4. EDIT: I see the confusion. I meant to say worst defensive big men.
  3. Well considering you're using Jahlil Okafor, a guy who shoots 78% at the rim, 62% from the floor, and was widely considered a low post juggernaut coming out of college, I don't think that helps your case. He's not a bad NBA player because he's can't score down low. He's bad for a variety of other reasons. To think Jokic is one of the worst defensive big men in the NBA is an indefensible take.
  4. Considering you're citing one example consistently, I'll assume you fall into the first category and move on.
  5. You've either happened to watch an inordinate amount of off games from him or don't know what you're watching. Either way, he's a positive defender.
  6. Butler is so good. He's a winner bread for 90s ball playing in 2020.
  7. Your Bird comparison was apt. He looks weird and relatively unathletic so you naturally assume he sucks on D. In reality, his basketball IQ is through the roof and he plays good team D and solid post man D. Both guys are/were positives on defense. Though like you say he is prone to taking plays off.
  8. Literally every metric of defense paints him as a positive.
  9. I'm excited for the game tonight. Game 1 was a classic.
  10. Let's start with the offense argument. You're using numbers to pass Tatum off as similar to LeBron/Kobe/Wade but they aren't as close as you'd think. First, you have to account for era. Second, you have to account for pace and minutes played. On a per 100 possession basis, Tatum falls well short of those guys.Tatum is 33-10-4 this season, LeBron is 37/10/10 for his career, Kobe 36-7-7, and Wade 34-7-8, without factoring in era or scoring efficiency. Again those are career averages, not primes. Tatum's 33-10-4 is more comparable to Brandon Ingram's 33-8-6, than those other guys. I have no problem issuing absolutes when the evidence isn't there to suggest something will happen. Passing/playmaking is like athleticism, you can improve it but the elite ones just have it. If you don't, you never will. Luka is an elite passer/playmaker, Tatum isn't and never will be. That's not to say he can't be good at it (something I've backtracked on with him) but the difference between good and elite with passing is massive. The foundation of great offenses are guys who are elite scorers and elite playmakers (or great coaching). When going into IT/Trae/Luka, the thing is the more you look into them the less comparable they are. They only look similar statistically from a simplistic view of bulk numbers. Per 100 with advanced stats: Luka: 41.5 ppg 13.5 rpg 12.7 apg (46-32-76) 6.1 topg TS 58.5% PER 27.6 BPM 8.4 VORP 5.4 (shortened season) RPM 4.28 Trae: 39.1 ppg 5.6 rpg 12.3 apg (44-36-86) 6.4 topg TS 59.5% PER 23.9 BPM 3.9 VORP 3.1 RPM 0.97 IT: 42.4 ppg 4.0 rpg 8.6 apg (46-38-91) 4.1 topg TS 56.2% PER 26.5 BPM 6.7 VORP 5.6 RPM 2.48 Which of those guys are you taking? The numbers suggest you take the first guy pretty easily. He also happens to be the tallest, best defender (by a mile) and the youngest player in that group as well. I don't think it's particularly close and that's comparing him to Trae Young (a young star) and peak Isiah Thomas who was 2nd team All NBA that year. Funny enough, Luka already has a 1st Team under his belt which is more than both of those guys and Tatum combined, and he's younger than all of them. Also, I'm a huge proponent of Trae Young and firmly believe he's a top 30 player in the NBA with a chance to eventually be top 10. He's unfortunately saddled on a miserable team that went through an abundance of injuries this season but I see him being a superstar for years to come. I don't see the point in bringing up Westbrook because he doesn't understand basketball. He's a stat accumulator. Luka is a basketball genius. Look at the difference in their play this postseason. Westbrook handicapped the Rockets, while Luka (a decade younger) played fantastic and forced a competitive series with a heavy favorite. They are in no way comparable except in terms of raw numbers. It is true that Dallas did have a good offense this season when Luka was on the bench. That is not mutually exclusive from him being "the system" in Dallas. Rick Carlisle being a great coach and bench guy does not mean that Luka isn't the system. A one game sample size against Milwaukee doesn't show anything, they were essentially 7-9 without him and 36-23 with him. If Luka went to Boston, the offense would look different but would still heavily revolve around Luka, far more than it does Tatum. He's a much better on-ball creator, it's just logical to do that. We seem to be arguing different things. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting Luka is in an enviable position and puts up gaudy numbers because he's forced to be the man. Again, if I understand right, you say Tatum plays on a better team and thus his role/ability to produce numbers is restricted. I'm saying Luka would be the man anywhere because he's that good. Every system, like with LeBron, would cater to Luka no matter where he is. The numbers that come along with that are secondary. I'm saying Tatum could not do the things Luka does because he doesn't have the skillset to do them. It's not a numbers argument, it's a running an offense argument. I think I misspoke with Nash. Obviously him being a better defender helps, albeit I think it's largely negligible. To better explain my point, what I meant to say is that if you made Nash 5% worse on offense and 5% better on defense (pick any % you want), the team does not get better. His offense was easily the most valuable part of those teams, and no matter how good he was defensively, the foundation behind him would keep them from being a good defensive team. Semantics aside Kobe lite seems relatively doable, I don't think he'll be the scoring talent or quality of facilitator Kobe was but he certainly seems more willing to make plays for others. I think his play-style is more PG 2.0 or Durant lite though. I don't know how to find Bubble only stats (though Luka was 1st Team All-Bubble), so let's use the current season and postseason for these guys. The gap between these guys offensively is pretty large, and that's a big part in why Luka at age 21 made All NBA 1st Team and Tatum made the 3rd team (albeit should've made 2nd, still he had no argument for 1st). Remember that Luka also played a straight up better opponent in the postseason. Per 100 possessions: Tatum RS: 33.0 ppg 9.8 rpg 4.3 apg (45-40-81) 3.3 topg PS: 32.1 ppg 13.2 rpg 5.4 apg (44-41-79) 3.2 topg Luka RS: 41.5 ppg 13.5 rpg 12.7 apg (46-32-76) 6.1 topg PS: 40.7 ppg 12.9 rpg 11.4 apg (50-36-66) 6.8 topg The numbers aren't close. If KP was healthy, it's certainly possible that they send the Clippers home in round one. Simplifying it down to "this guy won a few series and this guy didn't" isn't analysis. Tatum has never beaten an opponent in the playoffs at the level of this years Clippers. So he's played easier opponents, been in the league longer, been on better teams, and was a role player for some of those wins. Again, any time Tatum has played a team on the level of this years Clippers he lost. Luka's performance in his one playoff series against the Clippers is better than any Tatum has had. That's not all that arguable. I'm not sure what you are bringing into the argument by saying basketball is position-less. That only helps Luka. he's nearly the same size as Tatum and has guarded 1-4 as well (albeit as a way to hide him). Tatum is a better defender but Luka guarding different positions isn't an issue. He's a PG on offense being he's too skilled to be used anywhere else. He's already better offensively than virtually every player you named too. Luka is primed to dominate the NBA for the next decade plus. He's younger than Tatum, he made a much larger jump from year 1 to year 2, and he's already better than him. Based on what we've seen it seems likely that the gap only grows going forward.
  11. Yeah, he was better than both.
  12. It's fine if you disagree. Just know that it's an extremely unpopular position you're taking. Of course Luka's never going to be the defender Tatum is. Like Tatum will never be the offensive player Luka is. However, history has shown that wing offense is a hell of a lot more valuable than wing defense. If you're an elite scorer and elite playmaker the odds are good that you'll be more valuable and dynamic than any two way player who isn't an elite playmaker. Think LeBron vs. Kawhi. Nash is actually a great example of how I believe we differ in our thinking. He led a top two offense nine years in a row with three or four different coaches and a ridiculous amount of different teammates. Some people look at that and say that system/style can't work in the playoffs. I look at it and ask why? Nash didn't wilt in the playoffs, he often performed better, and the offense wasn't the problem. The problem was he never had a legitimate rim protector. If Nash is a good defender that doesn't change anything because the foundation behind him on that end was still weak. If Amare played defense those Suns would've been a dynasty. Big man defense is more valuable than perimeter defense and they didn't have that. The offense was always there. Now, I have and will again admit I undersold Tatum big time. His handle and pull up game are much better than I originally stated and he is a two way beast. I have him ~13 right now. I could see him getting to the #5 range like a better, secure, more likable PG. However, I believe Luka right now is better offensively, and overall than Tatum will ever be, and that Luka is going to be the best player in the NBA sooner than later. You say he plays a bigger role, and that's correct. It's because he is in the system and anywhere he goes that would be true. It doesn't make sense to run a system that doesn't cater to a basketball savant. Tatum is not capable of being that guy. Luka's ability to carry an offense is on a completely different level. His one playoff series is a tier above anything Tatum has ever managed in the postseason and he's younger/less experienced there. Plus wing defenders rarely become successful defensive anchors.
  13. 2nd was Paul/Lillard/Leonard/Siakam/Jokic 3rd was Simmons/Westbrook/Butler/Tatum/Gobert I'd swap Butler or Tatum for Siakam and replace Simmons/Westbrook altogether personally.
  14. Well yeah, no one was because it was obvious he wasn't near that tier. Like it was obvious early on this year that Luka was. No, it's not. It's not debatable. Luka is better. The only reason anyone would argue otherwise is they are a Boston fan.
  15. You can't claim how right you are when you were the last person to get on board with a guy who is clearly better than Tatum. The playoff argument was always nonsense. It's not like Tatum had any legitimately great postseason series before you anointed him.
  16. Interesting you say that when you were one of the last people in on Luka
  17. They haven't been good in a while. They've forgotten what it's like to be the best team in town.
  18. I do have to eat crow on Tatum though. While I still have plenty of issues with how he plays he's not that far off from being top 10 right now. So it's not hard to envision him being a top 10 guy anymore.
  19. I understand this point but as a society we really need to get the **** over how things things look and do what's right. Optics are irrelevant.
  20. Kawhi bouncing from a great team, picking his running mate and getting sent home in embarrassing fashion has to be in the back of Giannis' mind right now. The Bucks lucked out that the Clippers are now the scapegoats of the postseason.
  21. Yeah, people forget that Kawhi's postseason run last year was great yet still worse than every Bron postseason from 16-18.
  • Create New...