khans2k5 wrote:Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.
I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.
Yes I am suggesting that his rookie season is putting him on the path to Greatness that's what setting the rookie three-point Bulls record and putting up stats that only LeBron and Dario saric have done is. It's very telling that your argument is based around the fact that he put up good stats on a bad team, besides exceptions like Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell, that is what you're going to get 99% of the time unless you're one of those Debbie downers that tears down every promising rookie due to the fact that he wasn't playing on winning team? What exactly did you think would happen? In all honesty you if don't think putting up numbers only LeBron and one other player have doesnt put a rookie on the path to being a great offensive player than you may want to try a different sport to follow.
The other offensive player is Dario Saric and I don't know anyone who considers Saric a great offensive player. You're using Lebron and rookie records for one franchise out of 30 as your whole argument. Just wow.
Let me try to dumb it down for you even more since I'm getting sick of explaining the same thing in multiple different ways to you, LeBron is arguably the greatest player of all time and Saric has already been in the league for a few years and that's after being old for a rookie in general before he was able to put up those numbers. Markkanen put up these numbers as a ROOKIE. Now read that as slowly as you can so we don't have to go through this again ok?
khans2k5 wrote:Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.
I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.
Yes I am suggesting that his rookie season is putting him on the path to Greatness that's what setting the rookie three-point Bulls record and putting up stats that only LeBron and Dario saric have done is. It's very telling that your argument is based around the fact that he put up good stats on a bad team, besides exceptions like Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell, that is what you're going to get 99% of the time unless you're one of those Debbie downers that tears down every promising rookie due to the fact that he wasn't playing on winning team? What exactly did you think would happen? In all honesty you if don't think putting up numbers only LeBron and one other player have doesnt put a rookie on the path to being a great offensive player than you may want to try a different sport to follow.
The other offensive player is Dario Saric and I don't know anyone who considers Saric a great offensive player. You're using Lebron and rookie records for one franchise out of 30 as your whole argument. Just wow.
Let me try to dumb it down for you even more since I'm getting sick of explaining the same thing in multiple different ways to you, LeBron is arguably the greatest player of all time and Saric has already been in the league for a few years and that's after being old for a rookie in general before he was able to put up those numbers. Markkanen put up these numbers as a ROOKIE. Now read that as slowly as you can so we don't have to go through this again ok?
You are comparing him to LEBRON fucking JAMES because of cumulative points and rebounds. Just stop already.
Moving on to something else before my head explodes from something so dumb. Budenholzer is being allowed to meet with the Suns. How do we fire Thibs right now to make this happen?
khans2k5 wrote:Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.
I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.
Yes I am suggesting that his rookie season is putting him on the path to Greatness that's what setting the rookie three-point Bulls record and putting up stats that only LeBron and Dario saric have done is. It's very telling that your argument is based around the fact that he put up good stats on a bad team, besides exceptions like Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell, that is what you're going to get 99% of the time unless you're one of those Debbie downers that tears down every promising rookie due to the fact that he wasn't playing on winning team? What exactly did you think would happen? In all honesty you if don't think putting up numbers only LeBron and one other player have doesnt put a rookie on the path to being a great offensive player than you may want to try a different sport to follow.
The other offensive player is Dario Saric and I don't know anyone who considers Saric a great offensive player. You're using Lebron and rookie records for one franchise out of 30 as your whole argument. Just wow.
Let me try to dumb it down for you even more since I'm getting sick of explaining the same thing in multiple different ways to you, LeBron is arguably the greatest player of all time and Saric has already been in the league for a few years and that's after being old for a rookie in general before he was able to put up those numbers. Markkanen put up these numbers as a ROOKIE. Now read that as slowly as you can so we don't have to go through this again ok?
You are comparing him to LEBRON fucking JAMES because of cumulative points and rebounds. Just stop already.
Uhh yes I did compare them because he put up overall points, rebounds, and 3 pointers that only LEBRON fucking JAMES and one other player have this season like I've said for the 10th time now. Congrats on being able to make it through my post this time! I'm sorry your feelings are hurt by him being in that company but could you go be emotional somewhere else now please?
longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.
Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.
Markkanen was my number 1 pick. Tatum was close too. I was just so intrigued by his size and agility as well as being a strong shooter. He has a nice year. He could easily move up his percentages a few points too.
If we kept him and LaVine, moved Dieng for a backup wing, kept Dunn, we might be in better shape long term. That was what I wanted or trade Wiggins instead. I don't like poor 3 point shooters in todays NBA.
khans2k5 wrote:Moving on to something else before my head explodes from something so dumb. Budenholzer is being allowed to meet with the Suns. How do we fire Thibs right now to make this happen?
What a great thought, Kahns!!! Then Thibs can go coach the Suns. :)
I have some draft darlings I personally like that should/could be available when Minnesota's on the clock via the Oklahoma City first-round pick. It's poor timing to discuss the draft when we're approaching our first playoff series in more than a decade -- I know that -- but if the board likes, I could do a short write-up of 'my guys' at some point and share it.
I thought about doing an overall big board as well like I have in the past, but with us not having a lottery pick, would it generate enough discussion to be worth it?
Camden wrote:I have some draft darlings I personally like that should/could be available when Minnesota's on the clock via the Oklahoma City first-round pick. It's poor timing to discuss the draft when we're approaching our first playoff series in more than a decade -- I know that -- but if the board likes, I could do a short write-up of 'my guys' at some point and share it.
I thought about doing an overall big board as well like I have in the past, but with us not having a lottery pick, would it generate enough discussion to be worth it?
I'm all ears!
I would love to see your write-up on prospects and I'd welcome a big board thread. I think it would generate discussion even though we don't have a lottery pick. The Wolves franchise is almost 30 years old and has never made productive use of the lower first round or the second round. So perhaps we're due. It's almost more interesting to speculate on what gems might be available when we're on the clock with what should be the 23rd pick. If we could end up with a Kyle Kuzma or even a Josh Hart, I'd be thrilled.
I wasn't a fan of picking Markkanen but in the games I have seen I was actually pretty impressed with him. Hisoffense ai though was fine it was the other stuff that was a concern. His rebounding was decent and his defense was far from disasterous at times he actually looked pretty good. Maybe I watched the good games and LST watched an unimpressive game. Lol He fits the new NBA and is basically a 7' shooter that is far from a bad athlete. He exceeded my expectations. The Bulls have some pieces to work with either going forward on their roster or to make a deal for another player.
