I think Trent does tend to be a bit of a one-track mind when he gets the ball, I have a similar suspicion on Guy and Schofield. They’re all young though things can change, roles can change. At some point a player is kind of “what they are”, but I don't think that point has come for any of them.
I am not upset in the slightest. I am asking this: If someone doesn’t like a certain player because he is a black hole... and complains about them being on the team... Then says, but hey we could have gotten these players too... which are also black holes (and possibly worse) Why wouldn’t you suggest, I don’t know, players that aren’t black holes??? Lmao
Because...while he stated that he didn't like that aspect of Trent's game, his actual quibble was the cost of acquisition. Go back and read the post...again.
Guy and Schofield aren’t young in comparison to Trent Jr. 3 year players in comparison to 1 year. Guy and Schofield had a much more defined and free role than Trent Jr. Which is why I said the idea of being upset with Trent Jr,, but wanting to replace him with older, more known commodities makes very little logical sense.
Why. Suggest. Those. Players. Find players you’d actually want. That is the part of the post I *responded* to.
And my reply was, maybe suggest players you’d actually want before throwing your hands up in the air bitching about acquisition cost. What does cost of acquisition matter if there aren’t players you want? Lol
But they aren’t comparable value if he doesn’t want them. And they also aren’t comparable value due to... Age... Role... Injury history...
I already answered why even if they were black holes why I'd still prefer them over Trent. @PtldPlatypus tried to explain it to you nicely and you're still fixated on something that I never said.
Im thinking GTjr is being overlooked by all the hoopla around others, which is fine and understandable when it comes to fandom. But this guy has been programed and trained to excel in many different ways which will give him opportunity. He has an i/o game, can post up, nice mid-range game, beautiful fade, decent d and he's tough as nails. We saw how a un-drafted VanVleet was able to engineer shots and hit threes, I expect GTjr to do much the same.
Where did you answer why you would prefer them over Trent? All I saw was you’d prefer them because we would get to keep an extra pick. That doesn’t address why you like *their game* more than Trent to justify even drafting them.
I agree with this. Obviously 2nd round picks are good to have, but they are also fairly easy to replace if you need to use an extra one to get a player you really want. And quite frankly having an extra spot on your roster for a rookie free agent is just as valuable. Again I am not down playing the value of having extra 2nd round picks, but I would prefer they go after the one they feel most comfortable with because there are limited number of roster spots available.
Do you really think I just post bitching about acquisition cost and don't back up my posts? I didn't like what we gave up for Trent at the time. You can go back and read it if you want. Other than briefly acknowledging Bol Bol you've since dismissed him as the top player on my list. Not only could we have gotten him but we could've also kept Denver from getting him too. Now we have to hope his body is in as bad of shape as people are saying. He's a pretty unique player that I wouldn't have touched in the 1st round but that would've been great value at 40.
I remember listening to Calling All Sports - Ted Dawson (the guy that started sports talk radio in PDX) when we drafted a second rounder out of a small school in Cheese Country WI, and I was taken back by all the critical analysis of his game before he even had a chance to compete for a job by getting minutes. Well, he won everyone over eventually and we know the rest of the story.
I understand what you are saying but I am not sure if AST% is based on passes or actually assists that convert into baskets (percentage of assists per possessions used). If it is actually based on actual assists - I would not use it as an indicative statistics (it just makes no sense, mathematically). If it based on passes, I can see what you say. Maybe a (FGA/ (mp * usg%)) will be a better indicator. (or to make it easier, FGA per 36 / usg%) Based on this, GTJ has a shot per usg rate of 16.2 / 20.7 (using the per-36) = 0.78 Dame is at 19.4 / 29.3 = 0.66 CJ is at 18.8 / 25.5 = 0.74 ANT is at 16.1 / 24.3 = 0.66 Per this, Ant projects as the same kind of PG that Dame is, he shoots a lot, but he moves the ball. GTJ is a bit more like CJ - shoots more than he creates. Basketball Reference also has a FGA / 100 possessions - which in theory should be the same results, but there they have the order on Portland as Dame, CJ, GTJ, ANT where the calculation above shows it as GTJ, CJ, Dame/ANT (which really shows you that they are doing estimates for possessions too - and it seems likely that they are estimating it differently. Either way, the kid is not afraid to shoot.
Has Trent ever even been asked to facilitate? In college his role was minimized, had the lowest usage among dukes starters. He was relegated to spot up duty. Probably why he didn’t get drafted higher to begin with. In the NBA he’s only been in glorified pickup environments (summer league, g league, mop up duty.) It’s funny how there’s a microanalysis of a teenagers passing game, but not someone like Rodney Hoods, who has averaged less than 2 assists a game in his career, yet most would love to give him the full MLE (including me.) We need bucket getters on the second unit. Hood is a bucket getter. So is Trent. Time will tell how good, but I wouldn’t dismiss an entire part of his game just because we haven’t seen it yet.
