CWood21 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 2 hours ago, champ11 said: It seems like you're dinging Murray for having a similar usage percentage his second year to his first year, no? And to me that is looking at that stat, based on an expectation, without using the context that A) He went from the role of being an off ball scorer off the bench as a rookie (where you would expect him to have a higher usage rate next to bench players) to being the starting PG and playing mainly with starters in his 2nd year B) He had the 3rd highest usage rate on the team in 2017-2018....behind Mudiay and Jokic. So the second highest usage rate with the starters. So yeah I don't really know why you picked that part of my post to disagree with but I went along with this really random tangent regardless. If he'e essentially the starting PG as a sophomore, you'd anticipate his USG% rate to be higher. Not higher than as an "off ball scorer". That's my point. His overall numbers outside of his scoring efficiency didn't improve and his usage rate didn't go up. So he's essentially the same player as a rookie as he was as a sophomore except he was scoring more efficiently. There's nothing there to indicate that he's suddenly going to improve as a rebounder or passer or defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 49 minutes ago, CWood21 said: If he'e essentially the starting PG as a sophomore, you'd anticipate his USG% rate to be higher. Not higher than as an "off ball scorer". That's my point. His overall numbers outside of his scoring efficiency didn't improve and his usage rate didn't go up. So he's essentially the same player as a rookie as he was as a sophomore except he was scoring more efficiently. There's nothing there to indicate that he's suddenly going to improve as a rebounder or passer or defender. Well actually..........I still don't think you would. At all. I'd have an issue if he had a higher usage percentage than Jokic and he had the second highest usage on the team. That's exactly where I would want him to be. And there's the context of the Nuggets being a ball movement offense that spreads the shots around. I think his usage was high his rookie year with bench scoring being his role and there wasn't much room for a large jump. Murray had a completely different role as the lead ball-handler even though the assist #'s didn't make a huge jump. I'm assuming you're looking at his basketball reference page or whatever, but his playmaking and ability to lead the offense improved from his rookie year where he straight up didn't do that. So you can say that he didn't improve outside of scoring (significantly) more efficiently...which is a funny thing to brush off in the first place...but I'd disagree. I think he can keep improving from there. Like I said, I want to see a jump this year as his second year at PG and first healthy offseason. Your argument is coming from an angle that is trying to prop Lonzo up so I understand why you are approaching it this way. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom cody Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Went with Jamal Murray on this 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted August 15, 2018 Author Share Posted August 15, 2018 Yeah, I'm just taking Lonzo because of all-around play, but the NBA is now a shooter's league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grubs10 Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 On 8/13/2018 at 3:06 PM, CWood21 said: I'll be honestly, historically speaking I don't remember a whole lot of players who see most of their improvements between Year 2 and Year 3. IIRC, most of that improvements comes between the first two seasons. I don't even get this. I'm not gonna waste time trying to lookup examples, but I really doubt this to be true. And even hypothetically if it was true for some strange reason, there's hundreds of circumstances that could delay the jump a player would have made between year one and two in a different circumstance, over to his third season. Its just a weird claim to make. But I guess we can expect Brandon Ingram to be a role player for his career because he didn't become a superstar in year 2. I would adamantly disagree with you but you claim to have the historical evidence on your side. Jamal Murray was a combo guard coming out of college drafted to a team that was competing for the playoffs and he slotted perfectly in as a scorer off the bench for them. Going into his second year he had to adjust to being the starting PG but also playing with an elite playmaker in Jokic in a ball movement offense. Point guard in the NBA is generally considered the hardest position to learn and it was expected coming out that Murray would take some time to evolve from a combo guard to a point guard. If you can't understand why its very possible he takes a huge leap this year, after the flashes he showed last year, than your just being obtuse. Downplaying Murray's advantage as a shooter/scorer and how much weight that has when determining the value of players by stating he is "limited when his shot isn't falling" is disingenuous as well. Plenty of players have been great without being great scorers, but at the end of the day a players ability to get a bucket for his team when it matters the most is extremely valuable. While you seem to disagree, I would argue the scoring/playmaking ability that Jamal has shown in the NBA so far is quite easily more than the playmaking/rebounding/defending that Lonzo has shown so far when it comes to point guard play. Murray is much less likely to have a bad shooting night because he is a tremendous shooter off the catch and the dribble while also being able to get to the rim. On top of that, even when Murray is cold, you still have to guard him tight because he has shown the propensity to get pretty hot from deep at any moment. I'm not comparing him to Steph so don't even try, but Steph isn't just one of the best players because of the shots he makes. Its also how much he opens things up in the half court because of the gravity he has on the perimeter. Jamal has his own level of gravity on the perimeter and is a very good passer with good ball skills. He's just not a natural playmaker yet because of how natural he was at scoring the ball his whole life. All that said, I'm not sure the answer still isn't Lonzo. If he can grow into his body and be able to knock down open shots to the point where he can score 15-20 when his teamates are struggling, then he is the most valuable type of PG to have in the league. Helps out a little bit everywhere, controls the tempo of the game, keeps the ball moving and makes a bucket when the offense is stalling. Pair that with a ball dominant superstar wing and/or bigman and you've got a great recipe for success. Jury is still out though IMO because I think Jamal is a special scorer who will be an amazing fit with Jokic long-term, and Lonzo has more problems offensively than just his perimeter shot. He sucked at the free throw line, barely ever pulled up from mid range, and didn't finish that great at the basket. Other than his passing ability and vision, he is a pretty predictable player when it comes to the tools he has and what he can do with the ball in his hands. I expect him to improve on all of these things, but it is very possible that he doesn't improve enough and that would severely spike his value to me. Marcus Smart out here everyday proving its not automatic that a guard will improve at shooting from the perimeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Not really a fair comparison. Murray doesn't have that super heavy baggage of a father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Danger said: Not really a fair comparison. Murray doesn't have that super heavy baggage of a father. So Ball can't be compared to anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YogiBiz Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 On 8/13/2018 at 12:25 PM, J-ALL-DAY said: Ball is already an borderline elite defender at the PG position and has the potential to be the best defender at that spot BOI y'all need to stop disrespecting the Smokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, YogiBiz said: BOI y'all need to stop disrespecting the Smokes Average more than 10 PPG and then I will take notice. We don't pay not attention to this little baller brand ish where a guy is averaging less than 6 PPG. You better be locking up if your offense is so damn bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Danger said: Not really a fair comparison. Murray doesn't have that super heavy baggage of a father. Murray plays for the Denver Nuggets. That's heavy baggage right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, champ11 said: Murray plays for the Denver Nuggets. That's heavy baggage right there I mean... y'all have strong Jokic, he's pretty strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 On 8/19/2018 at 8:08 PM, grubs10 said: I don't even get this. I'm not gonna waste time trying to lookup examples, but I really doubt this to be true. And even hypothetically if it was true for some strange reason, there's hundreds of circumstances that could delay the jump a player would have made between year one and two in a different circumstance, over to his third season. Its just a weird claim to make. But I guess we can expect Brandon Ingram to be a role player for his career because he didn't become a superstar in year 2. I would adamantly disagree with you but you claim to have the historical evidence on your side. You're more than welcome to find it. There are a few that go from being total unknowns for the first two years in the league, and then explode but they're usually few and far between. Most often, you're going to see the jump from their rookie to sophomore year in terms of improving their game and having better efficiency. But generally after Y2, you're talking about guys who are adjusting to a bigger workload. Not because their game improved that much, but because their team is asking them to handle a bigger responsibility. And those who do make those adjustments after Y2 are generally on the younger side when they make those late jumps. Giannis is one of those players who kept getting better. The players drafted that make those late jumps are usually young and considered raw coming out of college, much like Giannis was. Ingram probably fits that mold more than say Ben Simmons. And I'm pretty sure Ingram has already shown he's much more than a role player. On 8/19/2018 at 8:08 PM, grubs10 said: Jamal Murray was a combo guard coming out of college drafted to a team that was competing for the playoffs and he slotted perfectly in as a scorer off the bench for them. Going into his second year he had to adjust to being the starting PG but also playing with an elite playmaker in Jokic in a ball movement offense. Point guard in the NBA is generally considered the hardest position to learn and it was expected coming out that Murray would take some time to evolve from a combo guard to a point guard. If you can't understand why its very possible he takes a huge leap this year, after the flashes he showed last year, than your just being obtuse. That's kinda my point. Lonzo Ball had the keys to the Lakers offense from Day 1, and he still played incredibly well despite his shot not falling. Murray had a year to learn the offense, and his numbers didn't really improve. That's my issue. And let's not pretend like the Lakers didn't play in a ball movement offense. On 8/19/2018 at 8:08 PM, grubs10 said: Downplaying Murray's advantage as a shooter/scorer and how much weight that has when determining the value of players by stating he is "limited when his shot isn't falling" is disingenuous as well. Plenty of players have been great without being great scorers, but at the end of the day a players ability to get a bucket for his team when it matters the most is extremely valuable. While you seem to disagree, I would argue the scoring/playmaking ability that Jamal has shown in the NBA so far is quite easily more than the playmaking/rebounding/defending that Lonzo has shown so far when it comes to point guard play. Murray is much less likely to have a bad shooting night because he is a tremendous shooter off the catch and the dribble while also being able to get to the rim. On top of that, even when Murray is cold, you still have to guard him tight because he has shown the propensity to get pretty hot from deep at any moment. I'm not comparing him to Steph so don't even try, but Steph isn't just one of the best players because of the shots he makes. Its also how much he opens things up in the half court because of the gravity he has on the perimeter. Jamal has his own level of gravity on the perimeter and is a very good passer with good ball skills. He's just not a natural playmaker yet because of how natural he was at scoring the ball his whole life. No. My argument simply was that Murray's impact on the game over Lonzo was strictly in terms of shooting. If that's a dealbrekaer for you, I don't have an issue with that. But Lonzo is a better passer, rebounder, defender, etc. than Murray. That's my argument. Murray isn't as likely to have a bad shooting night, but when he does he's going to be a net negative because he doesn't really offer anything besides that. Even when Lonzo's shot isn't falling, he's still impacting the game with his passing, rebounding, defense, etc. And he's not an elite shooter. I think he can be, but I think he needs to show more. And the whole not being a "natural playmaker" is hogwash. We've got guys in the league like Damian Lillard and James Harden who can light up the league in scoring, but they're still averaging a TON of assists. We haven't seen Murray do that, and that's where he needs to take his game to the next level. I don't think he's done that yet, and I don't think he will. Maybe he will, I guess we will find out. On 8/19/2018 at 8:08 PM, grubs10 said: All that said, I'm not sure the answer still isn't Lonzo. If he can grow into his body and be able to knock down open shots to the point where he can score 15-20 when his teamates are struggling, then he is the most valuable type of PG to have in the league. Helps out a little bit everywhere, controls the tempo of the game, keeps the ball moving and makes a bucket when the offense is stalling. Pair that with a ball dominant superstar wing and/or bigman and you've got a great recipe for success. I believe as I and bk have said, if Lonzo becomes even a respectable shooter (think Jason Kidd), this is Lonzo by a country mile. But nothing Murray has done up until this point has shown that he's got a clear lead on Lonzo outside of his shooting. And given that there is history of Lonzo shooting well, it's not unreasonable to think that Lonzo's shooting issues were an anomaly last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 It's hard to take the "impact the game in other ways" angle completely seriously when you keep acting like Jamal Murray's rebounding as a point guard matters that much @CWood21. His rebounding is completely fine. And even if a shooter is having an off night their spacing and gravity is incredibly valuable to an offense...while a player that you don't have to guard on the perimeter has the inverse effect. You know this. If you were to list the most valuable skills a guard can have, shooting and finishing would be high on the list, so glossing over them in this argument is kind of interesting. I think you have a fair argument about his passing (by the numbers) not improving from year one to year two. I think it's fair to expect improvement there due to injury and development at the position. You apparently think it's impossible to improve drastically past year 2. We'll see. He's freakin younger than Donovan Mitchell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 32 minutes ago, champ11 said: It's hard to take the "impact the game in other ways" angle completely seriously when you keep acting like Jamal Murray's rebounding as a point guard matters that much @CWood21. His rebounding is completely fine. And even if a shooter is having an off night their spacing and gravity is incredibly valuable to an offense...while a player that you don't have to guard on the perimeter has the inverse effect. You know this. If you were to list the most valuable skills a guard can have, shooting and finishing would be high on the list, so glossing over them in this argument is kind of interesting. I think you have a fair argument about his passing (by the numbers) not improving from year one to year two. I think it's fair to expect improvement there due to injury and development at the position. You apparently think it's impossible to improve drastically past year 2. We'll see. He's freakin younger than Donovan Mitchell. If you don't think rebounding affects the ability to win a game, I don't think we're going to have much of a discussion. Of the 10 teams who led in RPG, only one (Charlotte) failed tor each the playoffs. Of the 10 worst teams in rebounding, only three (Milwaukee, Cleveland, and New Orleans) made the playoffs. Now if you're guards aren't really getting rebounds, your bigs need to. Just for comparison, Denver had at least 9 players who averaged at least 3 RPG and played in at least 30 games. In comparison, the Lakers had 9. Why the big discrepancy? The Lakers leading rebounder was Julius Randle at 8, and Lonzo was second at 6.9. The Nuggets were led by Jokic at 10.7, while Murray came in 8th. That means that Lonzo was responsible for more of the Lakers' rebounds than Murray was, hence the reason why he impacts more that way. Regardless, you can't diminish the impact a player has just because it doesn't "fit" the criteria of what a guard should have. If he impacts the game, he impacts the game. I mean, nobody is going to diminish the impact that guys like Jason Kidd and Rajon Rondo had simply because they were good rebounders. No, I don't think it's impossible for him to improve. I just don't think it's going to be drastic. Zebras don't change their stripes, and basketball players don't overhaul who they are. If you're not a great rebounder, you're probably not going to be one. And part of that is mentality. I don't think I've seen anything from Murray that has shown me he wants to be a great rebounder. I just don't see Murray as a 20/5 guy. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't see that improvement unless they put him an offense that is less motion-based. As for Donovan Mitchell, I honestly don't see a whole lot of projection left with him. I think who he is now is what he's going to be, and Utah is clearly happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champ11 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 24 minutes ago, CWood21 said: If you don't think rebounding affects the ability to win a game, I don't think we're going to have much of a discussion. Of the 10 teams who led in RPG, only one (Charlotte) failed tor each the playoffs. Of the 10 worst teams in rebounding, only three (Milwaukee, Cleveland, and New Orleans) made the playoffs. Now if you're guards aren't really getting rebounds, your bigs need to. Just for comparison, Denver had at least 9 players who averaged at least 3 RPG and played in at least 30 games. In comparison, the Lakers had 9. Why the big discrepancy? The Lakers leading rebounder was Julius Randle at 8, and Lonzo was second at 6.9. The Nuggets were led by Jokic at 10.7, while Murray came in 8th. That means that Lonzo was responsible for more of the Lakers' rebounds than Murray was, hence the reason why he impacts more that way. Regardless, you can't diminish the impact a player has just because it doesn't "fit" the criteria of what a guard should have. If he impacts the game, he impacts the game. I mean, nobody is going to diminish the impact that guys like Jason Kidd and Rajon Rondo had simply because they were good rebounders. No, I don't think it's impossible for him to improve. I just don't think it's going to be drastic. Zebras don't change their stripes, and basketball players don't overhaul who they are. If you're not a great rebounder, you're probably not going to be one. And part of that is mentality. I don't think I've seen anything from Murray that has shown me he wants to be a great rebounder. I just don't see Murray as a 20/5 guy. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't see that improvement unless they put him an offense that is less motion-based. As for Donovan Mitchell, I honestly don't see a whole lot of projection left with him. I think who he is now is what he's going to be, and Utah is clearly happy with that. Of course rebounding matters. The Nuggets are an elite rebounding team - 2nd best differential in the league behind Philly - so they don't need Murray to worry about defensive rebounds. I obviously know Lonzo is a better rebounder. It's just like.....Murray being a better shooter than Lonzo is much much much more important that Lonzo being a better rebounder than Murray. When it doesn't really matter if Murray rebounds or not. It's just an odd thing to harp on. But that's to be expected. Let's just agree to see how it goes this season huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.