khans2k5 wrote:
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
During last 30 years only 11 rookies have played more than 20 minutes per game with USG% above 20 and PER below 12. None of those players have been selected to all star game during their career and only Lavine and Brandon Knight seem to have still chance to make it. So force feeding minutes and responsibility to players that are not ready for it doesn't seem to be good strategy either.
Personally I believe that Lavine can still become star but I won't think it would be more probable if Martin is traded.
I agree with your final premise Mikkeman. I don't think shipping Martin out is going to make much difference. It still depends on individual improvement from LaVine that is unrelated to Martin's presence, unless there is evidence to support Martin is teaching LaVine bad habits/work ethic. My issue with Martin is strictly related to his defensive abilities, as well as his historically low "clutch" shooting ability. I do not want him in the game taking last second shots. I want him as a 6th man spark plug off the bench playing 20+ minutes, and if he's hot you can ride him longer, but I'm not sure I trust Flip to make that decision at the right time.
Somehow this thread got away from Bjelica and on to Martin, so I guess I'll try to redirect it. Bjelica appears to have some talent and may be a useful PF on our team. The one thing we can probably be comfortable knowing is he understands the game much better than Payne and Bennett, so I'd love to see him over here next year with a shot to make the roster. The only issue with that is it seems like it's going to cost us decent money, so we essentially need to make a commitment to him being on this team even if he doesn't pan out in years 1-2.
Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Goran Dragic
Eric Bledsoe
I think the major difference with LaVine is that he's a bigger project than most any player. Big skills on the kid, but very green.
I agree that minutes itself won't make players better. There are plenty of examples about players that got minutes right away but never got better and then there are players that played very little in first couple of seasons that still improved and earned their minutes.
Below more examples about all star (or near all star level) players that got around 20 minutes or less in at least their first two seasons:
Peja Stojakovic
Jermaine O'Neil
Tracy McGrady
Rashard Lewis
Hedo Turkoglu
Mehmet Okur
Michael Redd
Tyson Chandler
David West
Devin Harris
Marcin Gortat
J.J. Redick
Kyle Lowry
Arron Afflalo
DeAndre Jordan
Jeff Teague
Derrick Favors
Enes Kanter
And even guys like Kobe, Harden, Manu, Paul George and Jimmy Butler did play still less than 30 minutes in their 2nd season.
Wow, good work Hockey and Mikkeman.
So Khans, Can we please put to bed this notion that a young player MUST play 20+ minutes per game early in his career in order to improve and, in some cases, eventually become a star?
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
Kahns, you continue to have the cause-and-effect relationship reversed. The vast majority of stars got all those minutes to begin with in Year 2, 3, and beyond because they were actually really good!
As for LaVine, I agree he had a nice April - all 8 games of it! If he comes into training camp and pre-season playing at a similar or higher level, than Flip is going to get him minutes. Martin is a bridge, not a building block. He's not going to stand in the way of Zach LaVine if Zach is playing well.
So we should play guys in roles they are statistically worse and hope they improve in that role so they can get back to the role they prove to play better in? Lavine went from statistically the worst rotation player in the league to 4 points below league average in PER. That's how good his finish to the season was. The post all-star break stats show it. Martin gets 6 points more in similar minutes with slightly better shooting percentages and everything else worse. It's nice to say Flip will just start Lavine over Martin if Lavine proves to be better but we know that isn't the case. He had to trade away Brewer to open time. He had to trade away Thad to open time. Flip hasn't relegated vets to the bench outside of Mo who was already coming off the bench. That's why I'm not buying that argument. If Lavine is better than Martin to start the year expect a similar return as the Brewer, Mo Williams trades for Martin. At least my scenario gets us a first round pick.
If it were up to me I would start LaVine over Martin. I want LaVine to get the minutes so he can develop. I don't see us competing for the playoffs next year so player development is key.
bleedspeed177 wrote:JZ - Today during part 2 10 minute mark talks Bjelica. He thinks it is likely we trade him and Flip thinks he is not much better then Hummel.
http://www.105theticket.com/radioactive-sports/
I think this is the best way to go with bjelica. Use him as a trade bait/asset. Euro mvp who had a career year. He may be package along with our 2nds to move back into the first round or package with another player in a trade.
Im not sold on him. He doesnt do anything particularly well nor stand out physically or athletically. Yes, he may be better than payne or bennet but that is not saying much. Interesting if flip thinks he is not much better than hummel. We know hummel can be had for 1m and wont complain if he sits on the bench.
Im wary of going into the next season with kg/payne/bennet but I prefer that over kg/bjelica signed for 5m/yr for 3 years at age 27.
If Flip actually thinks Bjelica's not much better than Hummel, then I may need to find a new team to root for going forward as this team is doomed. Hummel can't hold Bjelica's jockstrap.
Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Goran Dragic
Eric Bledsoe
I think the major difference with LaVine is that he's a bigger project than most any player. Big skills on the kid, but very green.
I agree that minutes itself won't make players better. There are plenty of examples about players that got minutes right away but never got better and then there are players that played very little in first couple of seasons that still improved and earned their minutes.
Below more examples about all star (or near all star level) players that got around 20 minutes or less in at least their first two seasons:
Peja Stojakovic
Jermaine O'Neil
Tracy McGrady
Rashard Lewis
Hedo Turkoglu
Mehmet Okur
Michael Redd
Tyson Chandler
David West
Devin Harris
Marcin Gortat
J.J. Redick
Kyle Lowry
Arron Afflalo
DeAndre Jordan
Jeff Teague
Derrick Favors
Enes Kanter
And even guys like Kobe, Harden, Manu, Paul George and Jimmy Butler did play still less than 30 minutes in their 2nd season.
Wow, good work Hockey and Mikkeman.
So Khans, Can we please put to bed this notion that a young player MUST play 20+ minutes per game early in his career in order to improve and, in some cases, eventually become a star?
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
Kahns, you continue to have the cause-and-effect relationship reversed. The vast majority of stars got all those minutes to begin with in Year 2, 3, and beyond because they were actually really good!
As for LaVine, I agree he had a nice April - all 8 games of it! If he comes into training camp and pre-season playing at a similar or higher level, than Flip is going to get him minutes. Martin is a bridge, not a building block. He's not going to stand in the way of Zach LaVine if Zach is playing well.
So we should play guys in roles they are statistically worse and hope they improve in that role so they can get back to the role they prove to play better in? Lavine went from statistically the worst rotation player in the league to 4 points below league average in PER. That's how good his finish to the season was. The post all-star break stats show it. Martin gets 6 points more in similar minutes with slightly better shooting percentages and everything else worse. It's nice to say Flip will just start Lavine over Martin if Lavine proves to be better but we know that isn't the case. He had to trade away Brewer to open time. He had to trade away Thad to open time. Flip hasn't relegated vets to the bench outside of Mo who was already coming off the bench. That's why I'm not buying that argument. If Lavine is better than Martin to start the year expect a similar return as the Brewer, Mo Williams trades for Martin. At least my scenario gets us a first round pick.
Huh? So backing up Martin and playing against inferior competition will make Zach play worse? You are basically implying that Zach LaVine is only effective if given 30+ minutes per night against starters. But boy, if we put him up against inferior competition with fewer minutes, than he'll go to hell in a hand basket.....Silliness!
I'll buy that getting playing time - whether it's in the NBA or D-League - is part of a player's improvement. So is coaching. So is practice. So is getting comfortable with the NBA lifestyle and travel. So is diet. So is fitness. So is....it goes on. To simplify it into an arbitrary 20 or more minutes per game rule that you made up doesn't make sense to me. But you won't let go of it, so I give up at this point!
bleedspeed177 wrote:JZ - Today during part 2 10 minute mark talks Bjelica. He thinks it is likely we trade him and Flip thinks he is not much better then Hummel.
http://www.105theticket.com/radioactive-sports/
Zgoda, ugh. He's obviously very pro-Okafor and almost touchy about people questioning Flip's logic, who he seems to think is 100% behind taking Okafor #1 if we get the first pick. Then he goes off and casually dismisses Bjelica, the reigning Euroleague MVP.
I'm not necessarily opposed to trading Bjelica, but we'd damn well better get a decent asset in return. And God no, don't trade him to Dallas (something Zgoda threw out there in the broadcast), a team on the verge of having to totally rebuild. If we trade him, PLEASE find an Eastern Conference team! Pretty please!?
Camden wrote:If Flip actually thinks Bjelica's not much better than Hummel, then I may need to find a new team to root for going forward as this team is doomed. Hummel can't hold Bjelica's jockstrap.
I agree. I looked at this mix and Hummel can't do anything remotely close to what Bjelica can do.
