May 14th, Is Peja Samardziski for real?

[elindholm]

All I can think is that the words 'nothing' and 'something' are sufficiently vague that they could be adjusted so that only Jermaine satisfied what you had in mind.

I don't really know how O'Neal looked in his Portland days, so I was just preemptively dispensing with him as a counterexample. If he doesn't fit the argument, fine, leave him out.

I think we are in disagreement on how significant the "standard" improvement is from 18 to 22. Of course players get better during those four years, but they don't go from awful to great.

Tskitishvili and Milicic are, by NBA standards, awful right now. I contend that they will not become stars. Stoudemire and (especially) James, in spite of their youth, were ready to play almost as soon as they took the floor -- even though, yes, they should get even better later. Bryant, Garnett, and Kemp all looked like players from the beginning as well.

If a guy with "potential" is awful right now, it ain't happenin'. That's all I'm trying to say. If he is already an adequate player, he might get to be good, but we're not talking about players who are already adequate. We're talking about ones who suck.

 

[F-Dog]

I guess if you wanted to put a positive spin on it, you could say that Pao Gasol is the poster child for this.

Was Gasol a scrub in Europe? This is an honest question; I don't know the answer. I thought he was already pretty well established over there when he was drafted.

Gasol averaged 11/5 for Barcelona in the Spanish league his last year there. Of course, he was 20 then, which is a year or two older than the current crop of Euros. The previous year, he averaged 4/2.


Milicic averaged 9/4.5 his last year for Hemofarm, which is not nearly as good as Barcelona but plays a similar level of competition IIRC. He was 17 years old at the time.

Hmm, I don't follow you there. Didn't Johnson play two years in College? He showed flashes right away in his rookie year (when Pierce was injured), so the only progress he may have made since then would be in his mental approach -- and the jury's still out on that.

I think I'm having the same problem as the others--I don't see what you're looking for. Did Lampe 'show flashes' this year, in your opinion?

Here are some players: Kwame Brown, Ben Wallace, Darrell Armstrong, Jamal Crawford, Brad Miller, Sam Dalembert, Corey Maggette, James Posey, Al Harrington, Rafer Alston, Adonal Foyle, Mark Blount, Jeff McInnis. Did any of those players go from 'nothing to something', in your opinion?

 

[elindholm]

Gasol averaged 11/5 for Barcelona in the Spanish league his last year there. Of course, he was 20 then, which is a year or two older than the current crop of Euros. The previous year, he averaged 4/2.

Hmm, okay, he's one of the exceptions then, on the basis of his season at age 19.

I think I'm having the same problem as the others--I don't see what you're looking for.

Really? Are you sure you don't just disagree? I feel like my point is pretty clear, even if not everyone agrees with it. Bad players don’t become great just by “developing.” That’s all there is to it.

Johnson's rookie season doesn't compare at all to Lampe's. Johnson was pulling major minutes and looking like a future star in his first month in the NBA. Then Pierce came back and he disappeared, only to reappear (albeit sporadically) after being traded to the Suns. That's nothing like Lampe, who failed to earn any significant time in his first season, no matter which of his teammates were injured or unavailable.

Here are some players: Kwame Brown, Ben Wallace, Darrell Armstrong, Jamal Crawford, Brad Miller, Sam Dalembert, Corey Maggette, James Posey, Al Harrington, Rafer Alston, Adonal Foyle, Mark Blount, Jeff McInnis. Did any of those players go from 'nothing to something', in your opinion?

Brown: No. He went from an athletic guy who can't really play to an athletic guy who can sort of play. That's a small step. If Tskitishvili or Milicic makes a comparably-sized step, they will still suck.

Ben Wallace: Not really. I don’t know what the deal was with his rookie year (was he hurt?), but by his sophomore year, he was already earning solid minutes and putting them to good use.

Armstrong, Alston, McInnis: It’s easier for point guards to go from bad to “serviceable,” because (a) they usually don’t need to get stronger, (b) they never have to learn how to shoot – of those three, only McInnis cracked .400 this year -- and (c) they can improve a lot by learning to make better decisions. So those aren’t in the same category as the big men.

Maggette, Posey: These guys were clearly NBA-caliber as soon as they entered the league. I’m not even sure that Posey has improved, although Maggette clearly has.

Crawford: Possibly a good example; I confess I don’t have a good sense of him.

Harrington: Good example.

Dalembert, Foyle, Blount: These guys are still backup-caliber. The league threshold for “adequate backup center” is pretty low. Blount is probably the best of the group, but his per-minute numbers really haven’t changed that much since he finally made it to the NBA. And he’s 28 years old now. I do believe that, if they stay at it, Tskitishvili or Milicic could be a competent backup by age 28. Whoop de do.

Miller: An interesting case. Was he hurt during his rookie year (the lockout-shortened 1999 season)? I do remember that, as early as 2000-01, he was getting a lot of press as a promising young center, with numbers to back it up. It’s a bit hard to judge the development of someone who has been so injury-plagued.

I’ll concede that my original statement was too strong, but I’ll stick to this: if some unknown big man prospect “has the potential to be a star,” and then he gets to the NBA and doesn’t look like he even belongs in the league, he will not become a star. Disagree if you like, but please don’t tell me that you don’t understand what I mean!

 

[F-Dog]

I’ll concede that my original statement was too strong, but I’ll stick to this: if some unknown big man prospect “has the potential to be a star,” and then he gets to the NBA and doesn’t look like he even belongs in the league, he will not become a star. Disagree if you like, but please don’t tell me that you don’t understand what I mean!

I understand, but I disagree. I think big men in particular are hit-and-miss, and it's far too early to give up on players like Milicic, Lampe and Kwame Brown (even though none of them is a sure thing).


I think you're missing something with Dalembert. Every time I saw him in the second half of the season, he was an absolute monster.

 

[George O'Brien]

I understand, but I disagree. I think big men in particular are hit-and-miss, and it's far too early to give up on players like Milicic, Lampe and Kwame Brown (even though none of them is a sure thing).

Larry Brown has a reputation for hating rookies, so Milicic may be better than it has seemed. But he is a classic example of the problem of trying to develop a guy when the team's focus is on winning now. In that situation, he is a waste of space.

Kwame Brown is inconsistent on a bad team. He scored 30 against the Kings on March 17th and went scoreless on March 23 against the Jazz, only taking two shots. On March 28th he had 15 rebounds against the Kings, but only 3 the next day against the Suns. He can play, just not every day.

What about Lampe? He would look very good on some nights like March 27th when he shot 6 of 10 and grabbed 6 rebounds against the Spurs (he played 29 minutes in a blowout loss). Overall, he shot 48.9% from the field inspite of shooting mostly jumpers. If he could play defense, he would have played more because he can flat out shoot the ball.

BTW, Darko shot 26.2% from the field.

I think you're missing something with Dalembert. Every time I saw him in the second half of the season, he was an absolute monster.

I was very impressed with Dalembert. In only his second second season he is averaged 7.6 rpg in 28.8 minutes. After some injuries to other players, he became their starter and really took advantage of the situation.

BTW, Dalembert's rookie year he only played 177 minutes (about 50 less than Lampe this this year).

 

[Lars the Red]

This sounds like you are underrating the value of defense. You say the "Euros aren't allowed" to play as physical because of the officiating, which you say is done "properly".

I don't know about you, but if I'm playing defense against somebody, I will play defense, not stand 2 feet away and let the guy drive or shoot over me. I'm going to do my best to prevent him from getting the advantage. You were a power forward, and you claim to love playing physical--which is why it is difficult to understand why you think playing soft is such an asset.

Your absolutely right, it doesn't make much sense to stand back and let a guy shoot over you. I don't recall too many times when playing off allowed your opponent to drive by you though. It's possible to play good defense without the constant push, pull, clutch, grab, tackle, armbar, or other wise put your knee up some one's ass. It's also possible to make a move to the basket without shouldering off, booty in someone back, leaping into, or attempting to flail in the direction of the basket in hopes to draw a foul.

Yes I did enjoy playing physical. I am probably one of the best people I know at setting a teeth loosening screen. I believe in checking out on rebounds with gusto. I believe in hard, chest to chest fouls when someone decides they must drive the lane. Not undercuts, not elbows, but solid, body to body fouls. Now days, of course, that is considered flagrant, which is another reason for the lack of offensive skill in players. If no one is forced to be able to hit a pullup 10 to 15 footer then why develop it?

I love good ball movement, shooter oriented offenses. If that means I appreciate 'soft' basketball, so be it. You can play excellent defense without making it look like a variation of UFC.

 

[sly fly]

Your absolutely right, it doesn't make much sense to stand back and let a guy shoot over you. I don't recall too many times when playing off allowed your opponent to drive by you though. It's possible to play good defense without the constant push, pull, clutch, grab, tackle, armbar, or other wise put your knee up some one's ass. It's also possible to make a move to the basket without shouldering off, booty in someone back, leaping into, or attempting to flail in the direction of the basket in hopes to draw a foul.

Yes I did enjoy playing physical. I am probably one of the best people I know at setting a teeth loosening screen. I believe in checking out on rebounds with gusto. I believe in hard, chest to chest fouls when someone decides they must drive the lane. Not undercuts, not elbows, but solid, body to body fouls. Now days, of course, that is considered flagrant, which is another reason for the lack of offensive skill in players. If no one is forced to be able to hit a pullup 10 to 15 footer then why develop it?

I love good ball movement, shooter oriented offenses. If that means I appreciate 'soft' basketball, so be it. You can play excellent defense without making it look like a variation of UFC.

Lars, I'm looking for a banger. Our big guy just got kicked out of our league.

Anyways, you've brought up some good points.

Stern did promote individuals. It was no longer the Celts against the Lakers. It was Magic V. Bird. And, this lasted for years.

It only got worse with the two single-most (in my mind) destructive events in the development of hoops: The Fab Five and College 3 point shot. The long shorts. It was all about ME. The era started to turn into a fashion statement. Gone were the ball-huggers, knee-highs, and back-doors. In were the baggy-ass shorts and dunks.

I'm being a bit facetious, but you get the picture.

I think the younger American kids are starting to get the picture. Today's blue chippers are becoming more well-rounded. You can see it developing at the high school levels.

We'll get to see another true test of our "progress" with the coming Olympics. Lots of young and hungry Americans eager to dispel the Euro invasion.

 

[Lars the Red]

Stern did promote individuals. It was no longer the Celts against the Lakers. It was Magic V. Bird. And, this lasted for years.

It only got worse with the two single-most (in my mind) destructive events in the development of hoops: The Fab Five and College 3 point shot. The long shorts. It was all about ME. The era started to turn into a fashion statement. Gone were the ball-huggers, knee-highs, and back-doors. In were the baggy-ass shorts and dunks.

The college three needs to be the same as the international. It's just too easy. The uni's started to really creep me out. I don't mind socks down low, but shorts below the knees looks gay.

I think the younger American kids are starting to get the picture. Today's blue chippers are becoming more well-rounded. You can see it developing at the high school levels. .

I'm still not sure they do 'get it'. Guys still don't like to set picks. The 3 pointer is too popular. The passing game is not used enough, so we still have to endure the lame attempts by kids to individually breakdown an opponent.

We'll get to see another true test of our "progress" with the coming Olympics. Lots of young and hungry Americans eager to dispel the Euro invasion.

Looking at the American team so far, I like what I see from a lack of egomaniacs standpoint. I see a fair number that will hustle and not whine. That's going to be important, because playing in Greece is going to give a hell of an advantage to some of the Euro teams.

I loved the team aspect of hoops. It's great when you see some 8th or 9th guy off the bench come into a game and play a game that becomes part of team history.