Merged: blazers linked to serge ibaka

Hey nerd, not everything is about stats. Literally every one of your posts has some kind of cherry picked stat to help whatever argument you're making.

But whatever, keep judging players with those advanced garbage time stats.

 

3 point % and 2 point % aren't "advanced stats."

They're about as basic as you can get.

 

No way tell me more

 

Wow, that's a bit harsh. Ibaka is still a top notch pick and roll defender, way better than anyone we have on our team.

BNM

 

No, it's not just about stats, it's about results. As soon as Jake Layman does something to prove he's a valuable trade piece, or someone we can build around in the future, I'll be glad to admit it.

Don't like the "advanced" stats I used. Find me one single stat, advanced, basic, or otherwise, that shows Jake Layman has done anything but flat out suck since that miracle 8 minutes in a 23-point blowout on November 1. Go ahead, if cherry picking stats to prove a point is so easy, prove yours. Pick any stat you like.

It's not like he's a 19-year old kid. He's nearly 23. His upside is limited and his current production just flat out sucks, any way you slice it.

Can he get better? One would hope. He was 0 for December and 1 for January from 3-point range.

BNM

 

I like Ibaka because he would immediately become our best offensive big man while also becoming our best defensive big man.

Definitely worth a gamble. And, having only a knife edge between us and the luxury tax, we NEED to make a gamble!

 

I don't subscribe to this theory that rookies/younger players can't improve because they are a certain age. The more you play in the NBA, the better you get. And layman isn't a typical 4 year college player. His athleticism suggested lottery pick, but his college production suggested more of a role player. That's not all his fault, although he self admittedly didn't get assertive until his senior year. Still, he wasn't used properly at Maryland and his game was always better fit for the NBA. His upside is hardly limited. There is nothing on a basketball court he hasn't shown flashes of being able to do.

 

It's about results? He's barely gotten a chance to produce results.

You're attitude is that the rookie missing a couple shots in every 1 out of 6 or 7 games means he can't shoot, or that that's what he is.

Building a rhythm is everything as a shooter, whether it be throughout the game or throughout the season.

 

Yes....and in the example I showed, he was shooting 42% overall so very close to his season mark. What it also showed (as much of the season has) is that he is either on fire or pretty darned cold. There are a lot of 50% and over from '3' games and a lot of games in the 20% range. There are a few also in between but his 44% average comes more from a combo of really hot and really cold games instead of being around 40% every game.

50% or greater = 20 games
33-50% = 4 games
21-33% = 8 games
20% or under = 18 games

That is the definition of a streaky shooter and not an elite one. That's the point I was trying to make. Only 12 times all season has Crabbe shot between even a poor 20% and a warm 50%. The other 76% of the time he is either on fire at over 50% from '3' or bricking it up at 20% or under.

 

I subscribe to the theory that if you aren't getting minutes, there's a good reason.

Considering the woes that this team was experiencing, if Layman was ripping it up in practice, I have to think that Stotts would have given him burn.

 

You can say "he's shown flashes of being able to do lots of things" and "he'd be way better if he just got more time" about every low-minutes scrub in the league. Literally every single one of them. Especially if you just toss out the stats. At that point, you're basically just in the province of, "Hey, who knows, right? Prove me wrong, just don't use any objective evidence."

It's great to be a fan of the team, but pretending that every player on the roster is either the best in the league or hidden gold and "the stats just don't tell the story" is a little silly. That said, it's par for the course on every large team forum.

 

Boob-No-More makes some of the best (if not the best) posts on this site (and with stats to back up his argument) -
But on this one stats be damned, I'm going to have to disagree about Jake Layman.

Jake has flashed talent in all areas on the court.
Has full range out to three, can move laterally (quickly) to defend (and looks eager to put the work in) along with excellent athleticism (swooping in baseline for one-hand reverse slam was beautiful)

Teen Wolf just needs some more court time and I believe he'd be a very serviceable NBA player. In fact I wish we'd have not signed Crabbe and given all of his minutes to Layman. IMO he'd soon be outproducing what we've seen from Crabbe. (especially defensively).

 

Sounds a lot like Klay this year.

Is Klay not elite?

You're an elite shooter if you shoot over 40% from 3pt on a big enough sample size. No matter how you get it.

I also believe elite shooters can be streaky shooters too.

 

You can't say that about every scrub. Connaughton, Quarterman, and Napier haven't come close to showing a complete skillset like Layman has.

 

They've all shown "flashes." I've seen them all make a nice pass, a nice shot, a nice rebound, etc. Every player who gets minutes in the NBA is capable of once in a while doing something good. What makes you actually good is doing those things consistently.

 

Yeah, but not every player is capable of doing everything good once and a while. Show me Connaughtons best pass, dunk, and shooting game and compare it to Layman (who has a way smaller sample size) and Connughton will make Layman look like a god.

 

Yeah, my point is not whether Connaughton is as good as Layman. It's that any scrub you want to make your pet cause, you can easily claim that they're actually great talents because they've shown "flashes" (definition of which is up to the person saying it), they don't get enough burn to get into the flow of the game and the stats mean nothing. There's no further point to discussion at that point because, like religion, it's not something that can be argued. You either believe it or you don't.

 

I can see (and agree) with both sides of the argument about Layman.

With such limited minutes it essentially comes back to the 'Eye Test' and what is your gut feeling telling you about Layman compared to other 2nd round picks.
My gut says he's versatile, can be a serviceable rotation player and was an extremely good value pick.