LVSL - RAPTORS vs MAVS - 6pm

[3inthekeon]

You're not alone. I fail to see athleticism when I look at boxscores either. BTW, who is this "everyone else"?

Watch him play at least a few games, then make a judgement.

[Primer]

You're not alone. I fail to see athleticism when I look at boxscores either. BTW, who is this "everyone else"?

Watch him play at least a few games, then make a judgement.

Haha, amazing job. "I can tell from the box score that guy has zero athleticism."

[MACK11]

You're not alone. I fail to see athleticism when I look at boxscores either. BTW, who is this "everyone else"?

Watch him play at least a few games, then make a judgement.

Typical response

[Primer]

Typical response

He was just laying the sarcasm on thick after iblastoff said Bruno wasn't athletic due to looking at box scores.

[Superjudge]

I am really concerned of Bruno's atheleticism

You're concerned about an 18 year old boys athletcism? Ok fuck, this is funny. Or you're concerned that he is a young kid? Or you're concerned that he isn't as ripped as a 25 year old big??? I' mean fuck man, what are you "concerned" about. How ripped were you or any of your buddies NOT on the juice at 18????? How many of um grew two feet in 8 years? Not many methinks. Lets not worry about this stuff just yet.

[Superjudge]

Demar is a good comparison. He definitely came into the league with less to offer than Bruno. He had no shot, no handles, no defense. Literally just athleticism and work ethic.

Ok I am seeing this written more and more on this forum and I want it to stop. It isn't remotely accurate. Demar Derozan was plenty good when he came in. Plenty. Any of what you guys are starting to try to rewrite in the history books is simply fantasy.

[Superjudge]

He does take a lot of tough ones (though that is another criticism of his game). Nonetheless, his conversion rate on midrange shots was 39.6% - worse than Vasquez, Amir, and Patterson. The issue is that he took 700+ mid range shots (the others all took in the vicinity of 100). League wide, when you look at players who take that many mid range shots, DD comes up on the low end as well. Aldridge, 42%; Melo, 44%; DD 40%; Dirk 50%; Al Jeff 38%; Wall 37%; Beal 37%; Durant 44%; Henderson 40%. Those are all the players with 500+ shots, in order of attempts.

DD compares favourably with Wall and Beal, but neither are known to be good midrange guys. The mid-range guys (Dirk, Melo, Durant) all have significantly higher percentages. The issue though is not his efficiency. It is the volume. He just takes too many at that efficiency - if he was elite like Dirk, fire away. Heck, if he was a big like Aldridge, and was screwing with opponents' defences by taking that shot (even at his decent but not great efficiency), fire away as well. But a shooting guard taking a mid range shot is not exactly going to bend defences out of shape. And at the rate he hits them, it's not hurting the opposition's D to give up 700 of those attempts over the season.

You're comparing positions. And its not accurate to do that. There are few small guards hitting mid range for high percentage, less so when they are primary attackers in the offence. Bigs, and some SF's get those mid range shots in less contested pick and pops etc. its these precise reasons I sometimes dont' like stats....they don't always tell the whole story.

[Superjudge]

Well, I was looking only at high midrange attempt players. If I want a decent sample of players to look at, I needed to use all positions. If I look only at SG's, it means looking at players who take a lower volume (which may or may not imply all sorts of different things with the data).

But since you asked, looking at the top 20 or so guards in attempts, DD seems about average, but is far away from the elite shooters. A lot of guys floating around that 40% mark, several just a shade above or below, Kemba Walker, Rodney Stuckey and Kevin Martin embarrassing themselves shooting under 37%, and the few elites (Afflalo, 45%; Curry, 49%; Paul, 45%; Parker 45%; Crawford 45%) well above that mark. DD is probably a shade below average in that group.

And took as many attempts as Parker and Curry combined.

How often do the "elite" shooters get to the line? game in the game dan. there's mor eto it than just numbers and percentages man. Anyhow, he was eons ahead of Coboclo when he was drafted. period.

[thead]

There are times when I feel the numbers are lying to me and I just trust my gut...this is one of those times

[Superjudge]

nah, dan is usually pretty bang on, but here, I don't buy it. But I guess I have my own biases too

[white men can't jump]

Ok I am seeing this written more and more on this forum and I want it to stop. It isn't remotely accurate. Demar Derozan was plenty good when he came in. Plenty. Any of what you guys are starting to try to rewrite in the history books is simply fantasy.

No, he wasn't, not from a skill set perspective. He couldn't shoot, couldn't dribble, couldn't pass (the 3 basic fundamentals of basketball) at anything resembling a high quality level for a pro...Not even close. He was drafted fully as a project, and he panned out because he busts his ass every day.

[thead]

FTAs need to be factored into 2pt%

Also if someone is a first option and forced into contested 2s in end of shot clock situations it is different then if Terrence Ross
just ran a pick n pop with Patterson and got you a wide open baseline 2pt shot (which you better hit at a high percentage)

Also a big's 2pt% can have a lot to do with tip ins, and low post high percentage shots.

The situation matters

[enlightenment]

If the majority of your midrange is at the end of a good play (Patterson), then you are likely to have a higher FG%.

If the majority of your midrange is at the end of a broken play (Derozan), then you are likely to have a lower FG%.

This is why comparing dry FG% at the midrange, is a terrible measure of who the better midrange shooter is. Imagine all of our broken offensive plays, and give them all to Ppat... do you think his FG% will be just as high? Demar is always the one with the ball after a broken play. Take that into account before you compare.

[thead]

No, he wasn't, not from a skill set perspective. He couldn't shoot, couldn't dribble, couldn't pass (the 3 basic fundamentals of basketball) at anything resembling a high quality level for a pro...Not even close. He was drafted fully as a project, and he panned out because he busts his ass every day.

ahem cough

USC is doing a good job of playing to DeRozan’s strengths lately, and trying to minimize his weaknesses. They like to bring him off cuts and curls, putting him in a situation where he can dribble the ball once or twice and then elevate for a soft finish. His production is up from the last time we profiled him, and he’s making a good amount of his two-point shots (56%), while getting to the line at a decent rate. He looks smarter and more aggressive these days for sure, doing a much better job of utilizing his athleticism, which is obviously his biggest strengths. This showed up primarily in his work on the offensive glass, an area that he’s been quite effective in thanks to his size, length and leaping ability.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz37b38s27i
http://www.draftexpress.com

cough cough cough

DeRozan knocked down a number of mid-range jumpers in this game, something that he’s been doing fairly often from the film we took in after the game. His stroke looks very nice, with range out to about 18 feet, particularly when he has a moment to set his feet and get his shot off.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz37b3QNDsV
http://www.draftexpress.com

god this cough is killing me...everytime I cough more facts come out...cough cough

DeRozan compiled 63 points and 27 rebounds in three games in Los Angeles, looking far more confident and aggressive than we’d seen him at any point this season thus far. He hit a 3-pointer in every game, doubling the amount of 3-pointers he’s made, and breaking his previous record for free throw attempts in a single game (seven)

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz37b3qBcvS
http://www.draftexpress.com

aaahhhhh cough

Clearly DeRozan has a solid knack for operating in the mid-range area, which should serve him well in the more spacing-friendly NBA. He’s also a good offensive rebounder—a testament to his excellent physical tools.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz37b46sOEi
http://www.draftexpress.com

DROPS MIC

[white men can't jump]

God, seriously? These scouting snippets are always incomplete pictures of what a player does. They focus on the things they show promise in to show that a player can develop strengths. But were any of these things actual strengths for DeMar going from USC to the NBA?

Dribbling to ball once or twice and finishing in the lane doesn't make him "plenty good". Hitting some mid-range jumpers doesn't make him a good shooter. His shot was flat and kinda ugly early in his career, and he had very limited range. He could get it off, but it wasn't good enough to build his O around until he came back in his 2nd year with improved form, especially with more lift in it giving a better arc. In his first year, his range pretty much stopped at 10-15 ft, which is awful range for a SG/SF and tough to utilize when the guy can't dribble worth a damn, because it's hard to create set plays getting him opportunities in that range.

Put it this way, if DeMar was in this year's draft, where does he go based on what tools he had coming out of college? Probably around James Young's spot at 17 at the best-case, and as low as GR3 at 40 as his floor. In other words, a player lacking skills and who'd have to work very hard to be more than a role player.

The fact that DeRozan’s jumper doesn’t have much range (he’s shooting just 2/22 from 3-point range), he cannot play pick and roll, is not a great passer, possesses just an average basketball IQ, and his understanding of how to operate in the half-court is limited, makes him a clear-cut project for the NBA. The main question is, how much he is going to improve over the next few years? The answer to that largely depends on his work ethic and character, which draws strong reviews from those around him. Some teams are not that opposed to taking a player who obviously possesses great upside, especially once you get outside of the lottery. One GM we spoke to compared him to Gerald Wallace as a freshman, saying how he was even more limited a player at the same point in his career.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz37b70fq8N
http://www.draftexpress.com

He was taken on upside, and not for any skills which could be obviously used to contribute to the team immediately.