Note on Ramon Sessions

I hate the fact that you are picking and choosing what stat you are looking at - Kidd has been an above average player based on PER (which does not really measure his defensive abilities which are better than Sergio's) in his first 3 years (Actually, he has never been a below-average starter as measured by PER despite his poor shooting).

Sergio has yet to crack the above average measure.

Time will tell, for sure - but it certainly does not look good for Sergio. He has the court vision that the best point guards have - but he is far from Steve Nash because Nash has always been a great shooter where Sergio has never been even a good one - and he is different from Kidd because Kidd was always a better defender than Sergio ever was - and at his prime - was an elite one. Add the fact that these guys improved their TOV% as they spent more time in the league - not got worse as Sergio did this year - and there is likely a lot more of wishful thinking on your part than any "proof".

Honestly - I have no problems with your belief that Sergio will turn it over and become great, a star or whatever - what I have a problem with your suggestion is that on paper he is as good as Sessions or that you can be a great PG without great shooting and bad defense. There are no prior examples I can see that match it - and Jason Kidd is not a good comparison because his defense was very stout until he got slow and old in the last 3 or so years.

 

Clarification on TO%

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rodrise01.html

Sergio's first 3 years: 23.5% 19.9% 24.7%

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html

Kidd's first 3 years:20.4% 18.6% 19.1%

 

Sergio has not seen the minutes, and he has not been in a system that allows him to play. I don't think he is a great player -- but it is clear he does one thing as well or better than any other player in the league. That is really exceptional. No other player in the league who plays so few minutes is even close in assists/48. See
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...lit=0&season=2009&seasontype=2&avg=48&pos=all . His is a very, very rare gift, and with a running offense, his assist totals would be off the chart.

I think Sergio's worst-case at this point is Brevin Knight - a journeyman with a long career in front of him if only because he can pass the ball.

I think the best-case is that he will be a star. I don't know why people find that so hard to believe. We've had players before who blossomed elsewhere: Jermaine O'Neal, Drazen Petrovic -- both players that could not see much PT here, and really made something of themselves when they had the chance. And Petrovic was no more well-rounded than Sergio is.

Of course Sergio is not Kidd, or Nash, or anyone else RIGHT NOW. I used to root for him in Portland, but we all know his future is not here. I'll root for him wherever he goes, because I happen to like beautiful team basketball.

iWatas

 

Thank you. My statement remains accurate.

iWatas

 

the post you quoted shows sergio's turnover percentages being worse than kidd's every year.

 

Huh? 20.4% is worse than 19.9%.

It is not factually correct to say that Kidd never had a worse percentage than Sergio.

iWatas

 

You're right Kidd and Sergio are pretty much the same ... why can't anybody else see this?

 

Niko, you either are deliberately looking to stir up a squabble, or you are not able to read the words I have written.

Welcome to my ignore list.

iWatas

 

We need a PG that can penetrate and create. Sessions is plan 1A in my opinion. Getting a good pg could make things much easier for Oden. Create some easy opportunities..........

 

I read everything you've been writing in this thread, you've consistently been making comparisons to players that I think just make no sense.

But hey you think this is so heated you need to ignore me? Works for me.

 

what?

i was referring to each year, sergio had a worse turnover percentage than kidd.

23.5 is worse than 20.4
19.9 is worse than 18.6
24.7 is worse than 19.1

understand?

 

Drazen was a GREAT shooter. Not just a good shooter, but a GREAT one. As a rookie, he shot 0.459 from 3-point range and 0.844 from the FT line. His career FG% was 0.506, which is absolutely stellar for a guard. His career 3-FG% was 0.437 and his career FT% was 0.841. His career TS% was 0.589 and his career eFG% was 0.544. Sergio has a career 0.391 FG% and a career 0.304 3FG%. Comparing Drazen to Sergio is beyond ridiculous. You might as well say Shaq was no more well-rounded than Sergio.

Kidd was one of the best defending guards of his generation. He made 1st team all-defense 4 times and 2nd team all-defense 5 times. That's nine season as one of the 4 best defending guards in the NBA.

Steve Nash is an elite shooter. He has shot above 0.500 from the field and above 0.430 from 3-point range for five consecutive seasons and is a career 0.900 FT shooter.

Sergio is an absolutely horrible defender and a hopeless shooter. Comparing him to Kidd or Nash is total nonsense. Even if he was as good at running an offense as Kidd or Nash (he's not - not even close), he'll never be half the player that Kidd or Nash have been.

He may someday be a star somewhere else, but it won't be in the NBA.

And yes, I love beautiful team basketball, too - at both ends of the court. Which is why I can't stand to watch Sergio play and can't wait for the Blazers to trade him. If some team is dumb enough to give us something for him great. If not, I'd be happy to send him and a couple of our many 2nd round picks to a team under the cap just to get the final year of his guaranteed salary off our books so we can use it in the pursuit of a quality PG like Andre Miller or Ramon Sessions.

BNM

 

Something about a PG who can't shoot 3's and isn't known as a lock down defender, scares me. On top of that, he couldn't beat out Luke Ridnour, so I don't know why I should think he's better than Blake.

 

OK, but the original poster said that Kidd never had a year as bad as Sergio. Kidd had 2-3 seasons worse at this stat than Sergio's best. The fact that they were not the same number of years in the league does not contradict my post, that is all.

I think much of this is silly. People seem fixated on misreading my posts, putting language there that is not there.

iWatas

 

I don't know why you continue to misread my posts. I compared Drazen to Sergio in two ways only: both did not see starter minutes at Portland - and Drazen went on to become a star. Remember that we gave Drazen away cheaply, and we'll do the same with Sergio.

And, of course, both are insanely (all-NBA) good at really only ONE thing. Drazen could shoot. Sergio can pass. In that one statistic alone, both showed tremendous possibilities. Drazen, when given the minutes, capitalized on them. Sergio.... we'll see if he does. I certainly think it is possible.

iWatas

 

+1

I couldn't have said it better.

 

I think the deal with Sessions is that he can attack the rim, which Blake can't. To me, that is why he is a better fit for Portland then Blake.

Then again, I don't think Blake would beat out Ridnour either. That isn't to say Luke is great. Rather, Blake is very, very poor.

 

Actually, we didn't give away Drazen rather cheaply. We got an established star in return (Walter Davis) who was averaging 18.7 PPG at the time of the trade. The goal was to add a proven, playoff tested veteran to help win a title. Unfortunately, Davis just didn't fit in well coming off the bench in Portland and was nearing the end of his career. The Blazers released him after just half a season in Portland and he went back to Denver to finish his career.

You seriously overestimate Sergio's passing skills. He's good at finding the open man before the defense gets set, but once the defense has established position, he's way below average at EVERYTHING. Teams know he can't shoot worth crap. So, in the half-court they simply back off him, play the passing lanes, let him dribble around pointlessly and dare him to shoot the ball. And, it works.

Drazen always had an above average PER, even in limited minutes. Sergio has always had a below average PER. This year, he played nearly 50% more than he did his rookie year, and his PER was lower, as was his AST%. His AST/TO ratio was also worse than his rookie year. Sergio has been in the league three seasons with over 2700 minutes of NBA playing time - and he's gotten worse than he was as a rookie. More playing time isn't the issue. He has not improved his weaknesses in three seasons, and by the mid-point of his rookie year opposing teams figured out how to negate his solitary strength and exploit his multiple weaknesses.

His stats would improve in a more up tempo offense, but he'll never be a star in the NBA. At best, he'll be a marginal starter on a losing team.

BNM

 

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. To me, if we were to sign Sessions, we need to keep Blake as a compliment. Roy is way more effective when 3 of his 4 teammates can space the floor. A lineup of Sessions, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden would really allow teams to sit back in the key and focus on keeping Roy and LMA out of the paint.

I agree that Blake has some serious limitations, but signing someone with just as many limitations (in different areas) for a big contract just doesn't make sense to me.