Well, we can always trade him to Detroit if he wants. Detroit is closer to London Canada than Toronto is, but I think it would be easier for his family just to move to Portland.
I agree with you 100% and really want to see Ant moved. I was just throwing out a ridiculous comparison. Should have used green font.
When Anfernee is hot, he is the most deadly shooter on this team. I guess in my world, it's not just "addition by subtraction" as much as some may think.
We don't need to trade Ant. Elite shooting has value. We just need him to be 6th man of the year. Sharpe Should be starting 2
The only way it makes sense is if the return is a young stud forward. How long have we been dreaming about that? Other teams tend to want to keep those types of players.
I would do an unprotected first and a young player, or two picks and a disgusting negative contract. You’re not going to get a 2way SF for Ant—those guys aren’t being traded for a reason.
I am good with this and I would figure many so called "Ant haters" would be good with this as well. Personally I would like to stay away from both back court players being shorter and the obvious fact Ant can not and will not play defense. Sharpe is taller and has the ability to learn to play passable defense.
I don't really want to get re-engaged in another Simons debate....but I am really curious what people think qualifies as "elite" for a shooter? (mainly because I think people throw out that label quite often and the meaning gets diluted) anyway, last season, Ant's shooting numbers ranked (from BBREF who has various game/minutes/attempts criteria for 'qualified): 3ptFG%: 71st out of 149 (52nd percentile) 2ptFG%: 72nd out of 123 (41st percentile) eFG%: 67th out of 123 (45th percentile) TS%: 107th out of 149 (28th percentile) obviously, there is a lot of missing context here. Start with the restrictions for qualified. 539 players appeared in NBA games last season, and the qualification criteria booted around 400 of them. That's pretty restrictive * if you set the restriction for 41 games minimum, 349 players qualified * if you set the restriction for 800 minutes, 313 players qualified * if, for instance, you set the 3ptFG% restriction at 100 attempts, 279 players qualified and, there's other adjustments I can't do like the difference in percentages between perimeter players and players that mostly score in the paint (and get to the FT lie at a high rate). And some kind of normalization for assisted FG rates. For instance Ant was assisted on 68% of his three's; Grant 97%; Brogdon 66%; Dame 52%. And, of course, you'd have to assign some gauge for volume eFG% does make a stab at adjusting for perimeter/inside players by accounting for 3ptFG<-->2ptFG and deleting FT's from the equation. It's kind of a noisy stat though last year, in 3ptFG%, Brogdon was elite. He was in the 97th percentile among 149. Maxey was in the 96th percentile; Curry was in 95th percentile; KCP was in the 92nd percentile which is kind of a long way and a lot of words to loop around to my initial question: what qualifies as 'elite' shooting in the NBA? I'm inclined to think, at minimum, it has to be at or above the 90th percentile among qualified players. In 3ptFG%, Brogdon was 97th percentile; Ant was 52nd percentile. Kind of clear what was elite shooting and what wasn't. Now, people might want to gauge for volume and assisted FG Rate, but still it's hard for me to see Ant as an elite shooter. And this is likely just me getting hung-up on the definition of a single word. Caffeine.
I did and I didn't feel that way at all. You're mistaking someone with a laid back affect for someone who is plotting a way to get back home. I thought he seemed happy and great. It turns out others have different opinions. I swear some people are looking for dark linings on silver clouds.
I think that looking at Ant's shooting makes more sense when he is not playing next to a ball dominant, score-first PG like Dame. In 2021-22 he was #57 in the league in TS% (vs. 107 next to Dame), 21th in 3P% (vs 71st next to Dame), If we look at the following which tries to combine location, shot clock, defenders etc... - Simons is indeed a shooting savant: I think it will be really interesting to see how good Simons is, as a shooter, next to a pass-first PG like Scoot. https://bestballstats.com/2022/09/1...ata from the previous,about 32.8% of the time.
I wouldn't trade Sharpe even for Barnes, and I think Barnes is good. I'm just super high on Sharpe, more than any other player on the team
I don't believe that I buy everything that guy is selling nor how he weights his gauges. Maybe I need to look closer, but I'm always suspicious when somebody comes up with a statistical formula that lands on significantly different conclusions than other more accepted gauges. On first glance. my take would be that any supposed elite shooting formula that has Herro, Ant, & Lonzo Ball in the top-10 when Stephen Curry didn't even make the top-30 is a funky set of gauges one question I have, is there a real difference between elite shooting and elite scoring? Which is more valuable? Points win games and championships, not the highest 3ptFG%; or some formula derived "true shooting ability" last season in the NBA, near as I can figure, the average points/shot was around 1.29 points (there's variance in that number). Portland averaged 1.33 points/shot. Simons averaged 1.25 points/shot, less than the NBA average; Sharpe averaged 1.22; Grant averaged 1.41; Dame averaged over 1.55 points/shot. So, I'd ask is there a more important gauge for determining elite shooting than points/shot? Obviously, all gauges need some context, but if I was assigning shooting value I'd say Dame's 1.55 points/shot is a lot more elite than Ant's 1.25 points/shot. And many of the context gauges make it even more elite for Dame. Ant was assisted on 46.9% of his shots and 68.4% of his three's. Dame was assisted on 31.5% of his shots and 51.6% of his three's. 51% of Ant's shot were taken with the closest defender being at least 4' away. 45% of Dame's shots were taken with the closest defender 4' or more away I've debated this before, mainly about CJ, and people will always bring up FT's as a factor that should be deleted when talking "pure" shooting, whatever that is and whatever value that has. But I've never heard a satisfactory reason for FT's not being a component of good shooting. Again, the purpose of shots is to score points. So I ask again, is there a better gauge of shooting than points/shot?
You say change is slow, but you also say you know exactly what to expect which implies no further growth. How do you explain his rather consequential growth as a player and how do you determine that he is a finished product? I think your post is kind of stupid.
Simon's raw 3P% in that year was 0.405 while Steph's was 0.38, the simple percentage points are hard to argue - what makes Steph amazing is so much more than his raw numbers - it's the distance he can shoot from, the fact that he is elite from both on the ball to off the ball and his ability to move off the ball to get himself shots and the longevity that he has been able to operate at with this amazing efficiency. But, this does not mean that he is the greatest raw shooter at any year in the NBA, from a raw number, I would say the Seth is likely a better shooter than Steph, he just does not do all the other things Steph is able to do. So, going back to the article, sure, this is not a very simple formula he created, but it does make sense (even if one chooses to disagree with the weights he puts on the different elements), but for a single year, Simons, when finally got a featured offensive role and did not have to play next to a ball dominant score first PG - showed that he is a very (eilte) good shooter. That's a valid question, it just moves the goal-posts and not what we discussed before. We were discussing how good of a shooter Simons is - and he has shown that he can be elite in this league. If it is sustainable over multiple years and if he can do it when playing next to a pass-first PG is to be determined, but iirc, that year he was among the top 3 in catch and shoot 3P shooters in the league, so I would argue that it is certainly worth investigating this. If we look at NBA.com's 3P% with 0 dribbles (catch and shoot) he was at 39.5% last year, 46.6% the year before (that's elite), 51% the year before on a much smaller sample size (still bonkers) - so there is an accumulated time that shows he can thrive as a catch and shoot target from the 3 in the league - exactly the kind of offensive threat every team needs especially if they have a gifted pass first PG - which there is a lot of hope Scoot is / will become. Again, no one is arguing that Dame is a better scorer than Ant. That's true for a whole lot of people and there is a reason he is making 1/2 the money Dame is making. But, Dame did not crack the .58 TS% stage until his 5h year in the league, Ant did it in his 3rd year in the league - so I am not ready to say that Ant has no chance of improving as a scorer either. So, the argument that Ant is not a great shooter does not hold water with me. The questions that we need to answer are: 1. Can he sustain it going forward 2. Can he be as great of a shooter as we have seen him in 2021-2022 when he is not the lead guard but he plays next to a pass first PG? If he can do #1 - there will always be a role for him in the NBA. If he can do #2 - he is very valuable for Portland as the Scoot / Shae era gets into gear. Finally, the next question that needs to be asked about him as a scorer (only since you brought it up) 3. Can he continue to advance as a scorer the way Dame became more and more efficient as the years got on? If he can do that, he will likely be an all star at some point in his career.
