"You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"Bruno Caboclo
Not sure how he can be ranked third, he takes the most FGA per game of any shooting guard with one of the lowest FG%, no handles and generally slacks off on D. His only real strength is getting to the free throw line and having a top points per game stat because of his high usage. That and great character and work ethic.
His style of play can work during the regular season, but I just don't see us ever having much success ( beyond the first round) in the playoffs if he's jacking up 25 shots a game below 40%. Especially when his 3pt % is even worse.
But I agree with the initial post insofar as would I trade him for a draft pick past #5? probably not. I would definitely look at selling high though this off season, but don't consider a pick outside of 1-5 high enough.
It seems like so many people are bamboozled by the number of points DD scores ignoring the fact that he isn't a very efficient scorer and is a sieve on defence.
Some one said DD is the best player by far on the Raptors. LOL. Lowry is the best player and it's not really close IMO.
DD made the all-star team sure but the SG position is historically weak at the moment. All-star selections aren't all that meaningful anyway and no question DD is one of the worst players to make the all-star game this year.
Don't get me wrong, I like DD, like his attitude, and like the fact that he is improving. I'm not saying trade him or don't, that always depends on what we get back but he's nowhere near as good as some people seem to think he is. His defence is abysmal and as long as that doesn't change, he will continue to be overrated.
Also, there are still way too many times when he chucks it from far away wasting a possession. He look good when the shots are falling but when they're not ...
Last edited by avocado; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 01:06 PM.
Good points. Advanced statistics have isolated the impact of chemistry, talent and leadership and have clearly proven that talent is the cause for productive play in Memphis and San Antonio.
There is talent everywhere in the league. Every team has talent. These guys have all performed at the very top level of basketball for over a decade.
What even is talent? Long arms and high jumps? What else falls under the category of talent?
What you're doing is seeing strong on court results and pointing to talent. But wouldn't leadership and chemistry improve on court results?
Would Randolph have reached his potential without the Grizzlies franchise? Would Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili even still be in the league if they were drafted by the Bucks?
The point is, we don't know.
But anyone who's ever played sports at a semi-serious level can tell you that the proper atmosphere can really decide how much you care for the game, how much you want to improve and how you go about improving. You need the right stimulus from your coach and from your peers to truly reach that ceiling that you're capable of. Some people are able to do it without that, but they aren't in the majority.
Talent and ability are just as intangible as leadership and chemistry, it's impossible to separate them. All you're doing is pointing to results and saying, "look! talent!". I could do the same and say "look! chemistry!". The real reason for success obviously lies in between, a combination of talent and leadership are required.
Gasol wasn't all that in LA, Randolph wasn't all that until he came to Memphis. Look at all the cast off players that San Antonio is able to take in and "fix". Carmelo, Amare, Chandler and JR Smith (who slayed the NCAA btw) couldn't make it work in NY. Look at the Pacers, for crying out loud. Dallas has used players who didn't fit elsewhere, brought them in to an excellent organization with top of the line leaders, coaching and staff, and look at what's happened there. The Bucks took in a bunch of semi-functional players that have become wholly dysfunctional. I could go on and on about players performing below or beyond themselves given the situation into which they're placed.
Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 01:39 PM.
Randolph was killing it in Portland previously so he was doing fine without the Grizz. He went to Memphis after he had some run-ins and maturity issues, but he has always been Z-Bo. would Tony Parker or Ginobili still be in the league if they played for the Bucks? Yes they would.
Proper atmosphere trumping actual abilities? Can't say I agree with that either. Coaches can help a player develop and reach their potential but the abilities have to be inherent in that player. And the original post I was responding to had to do with the players leadership being the driving force behind the team. Still don't think anything you've said supports that original premise.
M.Gasol never played in LA. If you are referring to his brother, you better believe he was a killer prior to his trade to the Lakers. Prior to coming to Memphis, Randolph was a beast with Portland and the Knicks. Check the stats if you don't believe me.
Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.
How many players become as good as they possible can? 1%? The rest settle in somewhere short of their ceiling. Leadership and chemistry help you reach that.
And yes, when I ask you "what is talent?" It's a real question. Because it's different than performance, and I'm not sure you're recognizing that.
Finally, I don't think anyone's saying that leadership is the one and only driving force behind a team. We're just saying that it plays a big role.
edit: oh and woops, I thought Marc played a couple seasons in LA before he was traded.
and yes, kobe and shaq didn't like each other, but they had one of the greatest leaders ever in Phil Jackson guiding them. I'm not sure they'd have been as successful without him. Either way, that's one team that met expectations with poor chemistry.
Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 02:30 PM.
Production is how talent is measured, because outcomes are what matter in sports. And if you look at all the best players, yes, they are in fact productive, even if on bad teams. And maybe they become MORE productive with better teams, but they sure show signs of that productivity well before then.
So performance is actually measuring a plethora of variables that affect that person, one of which is the leadership present on his team, or as he developed.
My question of what is talent was in response to the statement that talent is the only thing that matters, period.
So, a player's attitude obviously affects his own performance. To further that, what effect does it have on his team mates beyond the on court aspect of the game?
Like if you put JV on the Bucks for these past couple of years, does he have 3 DUIs by now? And has he put in less time bulking up and working on his game? And does he ever become great?
Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 02:42 PM.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)