New Orleans Pelicans MLE Tournament

[Mythrol]

So it looks like we agree - Hamilton could be a nice backup if he comes super cheap, but if he is starting for us next year, we are in serious trouble.

I would be ore than fine with Webster and Hamilton. I would be less than thrilled if Hamilton was getting significant minutes though.

I see it more as I'd take Hamilton as a starter if it meant getting a guy like Blatche because I think when we move Gordon we need to go after a SF. This all goes back to my view as AD the long term Center option.

Keep in mind this came up because you asked someone to make the case for Hamilton. Although I will say after looking into it that I like Hamilton a lot more. I certainly don't know if I see a 5M/yr difference between Tucker and Hamilton anymore with Hamilton gives you pretty close to the same on offense (haven't looked into synergy for defense yet). I'll have to sleep on all this and see because I had Tucker as 2nd on my Bigboard.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Don't look at Synnergy stats for defense. Pointless. Remember, according to them, Robin Lopez was the 7th best pick and roll defender in the entire league the year he was with us. There is still no individual way to measure defense. Gotta watch the video.

When you do, you will see the closest thing this league has had to Bruce Bowen since he left in PJ Tucker. Tucker's offense is a bonus. He would instantly become our best defensive player- yes better than Jrue and AD. Can cover 1-4. Hamilton is just another guy on that end.

And Tucker is a better offensive player than Bowen was too. Bottom line to me is whatever you think Bowen would be worth in today's NBA, that is what you give Tucker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pelifan]

Bottom line, we need a guy that defenses are afraid to lay off of or a guy who can make threes if they do. Only Memphis mad less threes than us last season. Having Jrue and Ryan back helps. I think defense is a bigger issue to address, and I wouldn't mind tucker if I knew he could be that one on one perimeter stopper, but most of defense is scheme and cohesiveness. Ad at center so he plays near the rim. I don't care about the post stuff or battling with centers.

[HornetGuru]

Tucker would be a great get.

For everyone wanting a 3 and D, he is one of the best ones.

[Ludiculous]

Don't look at Synnergy stats for defense. Pointless. Remember, according to them, Robin Lopez was the 7th best pick and roll defender in the entire league the year he was with us. There is still no individual way to measure defense. Gotta watch the video.

When you do, you will see the closest thing this league has had to Bruce Bowen since he left in PJ Tucker. Tucker's offense is a bonus. He would instantly become our best defensive player- yes better than Jrue and AD. Can cover 1-4. Hamilton is just another guy on that end.

And Tucker is a better offensive player than Bowen was too. Bottom line to me is whatever you think Bowen would be worth in today's NBA, that is what you give Tucker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MM give me a percentage on the chance that we can swipe tucker from phoenix

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Mythrol]

Don't look at Synnergy stats for defense. Pointless. Remember, according to them, Robin Lopez was the 7th best pick and roll defender in the entire league the year he was with us. There is still no individual way to measure defense. Gotta watch the video.

When you do, you will see the closest thing this league has had to Bruce Bowen since he left in PJ Tucker. Tucker's offense is a bonus. He would instantly become our best defensive player- yes better than Jrue and AD. Can cover 1-4. Hamilton is just another guy on that end.

And Tucker is a better offensive player than Bowen was too. Bottom line to me is whatever you think Bowen would be worth in today's NBA, that is what you give Tucker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah maybe so. I just wonder if it's not better to make a play on a SF next year. I'd rather not tie up 6-7M in a guy that I then look to replace next year. That's why I've always had Ariza as my No. 1 option because he's the only one I see this year that I think we don't look for an upgrade unless it's KD / LBJ or someone like that.

I don't know. Digging deep down into the offensive numbers I wonder if Tucker is enough for what we are trying to do. This is his first year shooting the 3 really and he didn't do it that much. Still likes to go inside far more. I don't know. His offensive numbers are so close to someone you consider garbage offensive that it makes me wonder how much is it trying to sell ourselves on a defensive, rebounding SF that had "enough" of an offensive game.

Honestly, atm I'm feeling I'd rather trade into the draft and pick up Ingles since he has the defense already and is much higher upside offense. Do a S&T for Webster (or Tucker I guess if there is a piece they want from us) and get Ingles for the future maybe a PJax + a bought 2nd to move into the late 1st.

Geez I'd rather have not looked up the stats and dug into it. I was much more content last night. Lol

[HornetGuru]

Agree, I would like to get a SF on a year deal, doubt tucker does that though.

[MichaelMcNamara]

MM give me a percentage on the chance that we can swipe tucker from phoenix

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

My guess is 30% he leaves. They will target some big name guys this summer with their assets and picks. If they land a SF, he is gone. If they move a wing like Green in one of those deals, they probably keep him at all costs.

They won't just let him walk if someone offers him $4 mil if they haven't landed a clear upgrade at SF, but if they do, I think a S&T where they take back a cheap asset that fits their system like Pierre or Babbitt makes a lot of sense for them.

People always worry about getting restricted free agents, but IMO, almost all free agents are restricted. If the team really wants them back, the agent will always go back to the old team with the best offer and allow them to match, unless there was some turmoil. So, restricted/unrestricted - don't matter. Dell has landed 3 RFA in the last two summers, so if he wants the guy, he has a chance.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Yeah maybe so. I just wonder if it's not better to make a play on a SF next year. I'd rather not tie up 6-7M in a guy that I then look to replace next year. That's why I've always had Ariza as my No. 1 option because he's the only one I see this year that I think we don't look for an upgrade unless it's KD / LBJ or someone like that.

I don't know. Digging deep down into the offensive numbers I wonder if Tucker is enough for what we are trying to do. This is his first year shooting the 3 really and he didn't do it that much. Still likes to go inside far more. I don't know. His offensive numbers are so close to someone you consider garbage offensive that it makes me wonder how much is it trying to sell ourselves on a defensive, rebounding SF that had "enough" of an offensive game.

Honestly, atm I'm feeling I'd rather trade into the draft and pick up Ingles since he has the defense already and is much higher upside offense. Do a S&T for Webster (or Tucker I guess if there is a piece they want from us) and get Ingles for the future maybe a PJax + a bought 2nd to move into the late 1st.

Geez I'd rather have not looked up the stats and dug into it. I was much more content last night. Lol

You gotta start somewhere. Read my piece on Tucker tomorrow and then decide. Bruce Bowen came out of nowhere at a later age and kept improving his 3. Didn't hit his prime until the age of 31. Stayed in prime until 35.

If you look at PJ Tucker as Miami Bruce Bowen, then you can see what he can be over next few years for us. And honestly, if he stayed the exact same offensive player, I would take it. Davis is gonna be a 25+ ppg monster. Add Jrue, Tyreke, and Ryno or whomever you get for him and one more FA in 2015 - and how many shots do you want the SF taking? I think a Bruce Bowen would be far better for this team than a Dale Ellis.

[Jabberwalker]

Depending how our offseason plays out I can see multiple scenarios where Id rather do a S&T for Webster than only bring in Hamilton. Most of my liking him has to do with how cheap he can come, which is great for a backup. I guess I'm in the camp of wanting to bring in 2 SFs this offseason because I don't think Aminu has shown enough for his price and I don't think Miller has shown enough in any way to still be in the NBA. I think it was a big mistake to not sign one of the many mid level SFs last offseason just to try and lie to Gordon about what Reke was coming to do.

Totally agree that we need two SFs. I don't see many people on here talking about that. I'm glad most people seem to be on board with Aminu being gone. I like three guard lineups but I think we need a more tried and true backup. Maybe a veteran presence Richard Jefferson kind of guy, maybe a Jordan Hamilton gamble since he's only expected to play small minutes (injuries willing). Assuming that and the fact that I have so little Pels stuff to speculate about I'm gonna make a list of the SFs I'd go after in order. This is also the realistic SFs to go after so there is no Jeff Green (even though he may be obtainable I very much doubt we get him) kind of players.

1. PJ Tucker - seriously, I love the intangibles this guy brings to the table. I like stats but they can be so misrepresentative in basketball. For example, I don't think Evan Turner is a net positive on nearly any team. I don't think AD is yet as good as most people on here think, I think there are plenty of players who don't provide many stats or just don't see the floor much who could provide useful roles. PJ Tucker gives decent stats and so much more. He's tough. He holds guys accountable. Think of a D West personality. I don't care how much we pay him or how inferior of a C we have to get if we land this one guy. I think he makes the locker room tougher by himself. I would actually be okay with Morrow leaving if it meant bringing in Tucker.

2. Thabo Sefelosha - I love going after proven guys after a down year. There is the risk that the down year is the beginning of a trend but I'd rather bet on the anomaly and take the discount. His defense is awesome. He can put the ball on the floor. He can shoot the three. He is okay with not being the center of attention. He is another player I would be totally okay with getting an inferior center if it meant acquiring him.

3. Martell Webster - Again, I love going after a player after a down year. With Webster there is a greater risk that his up year was the anomaly but I still believe he can do everything we need him to. He can shoot the three and play decent defense. His personality isn't quite the normal Dell and Monty type but I think he would be a valuable addition. He shoots the three from the corner, above the break, on the wings, he shoots without a conscience which is both a positive and a negative but I think he has such talent and the thought of him as the least talented of the finishing five makes me feel very good about how we close out close games.

4. Jared Dudley - Again with the down year players, Dudley was a very scrappy player in Phoenix. He was never a great shooter but was a willing defender and he is a season removed from shooting 40% from three. He always played very well off the ball too. I don't know what was wrong with him this last year but I am sure the Clips want to shed him at this point and I'd be lined up to take him. He is much tougher than he seems too. I think he is smart so I think people undervalue that aspect of him.

5. Trevor Ariza - We know who he is. Hopefully when asked to do less playmaking this time around he could be better. Not that he was ever bad here. The contract year thing I think is overblown but I do worry about his lack of enthusiasm playing with a young team who hasn't won much lately and a 21 year old leader.

6. Mike Dunlveavy - I really like what he can do but I would worry about his defense. If he is part of the finishing five then I think we'd need AD and Reke to both step up their defense to compensate. The dude is a lights out shooter though.

7. Quincy Pondexter - He hasn't proven to be healthy for a full year. I'd like him as a backup. He has the humbleness to be the prototypical three and D and great work ethic. He has a great personality and could be the next PJ Tucker. He just needs to prove he can stay healthy.

8. Jordan Hamilton - already said my thoughts on him above.

9. Dorell Wright - I really got my hopes up that we'd pull him last year. He wasn't signed for a long time and ended up getting a smaller deal than I thought he would. His defense isn't great but his shooting is pretty good. This last season he also had a disappointing season but he has years of doing exactly what we'd need him to and he's a plus rebounder to boot.

10. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist - Totally not the type of player I want at the position but he is so smart, such a hard worker, and such a good defender who will only get better through time. I don't like the idea of adding raw, undeveloped players to the roster. I think the organization is trying to make the playoffs now and a proven vet who can shoot the ball takes us further and I worry a lot about the Reke/MKG pairing, but the potential for two or three years from now with them is fantastic. I hate looking at a player and saying "if only they could fix this one thing" but if you took that gamble on a player with MKG's potential then it could pay off in a huge way. I just don't see how we get what it would take to acquire him.

[Jabberwalker]

Not a big stat guy, but this is about as good of an stat argument as you can make. MM does seem to be off base attacking Hamilton in favor of Tucker. Just off of advance stats, which is just a portion of what a player really does IMO.

I miss the days when MM was all eye test. Stats can be representative. MJ was an awesome shooter and his stats showed that. Some players have a lower FG% because they are forced into being the main offensive options on their teams which changes the dynamics of how they are guarded and if they can't pass well, don't have good options, or generally aren't put in good positions to succeed by the coach/front office, the stats will just look like they aren't as good of a shooter. RoLo was not a good pick and roll defender, but the stats showed that he was. Some players are good pick and roll defenders and the stats may or may not show that.
Stats are only there to represent the story and the extreme dynamics of basketball make stats difficult to be truly reflective of the whole story. But the problem with the eye test is that it is so subjective. For example, I struggle to see team defense. I generally focus on the on ball defense and I have to watch plays several times to see how the off the ball defense was. So my eye test opinion could be skewed because of that. There are people who's eye-test I trust more and MM is one of them. It seems like when he goes to the film I agree with him far more than when he uses stats. And what's funny is that the other person I agree with when it comes to the eye test is you, Tron, even though you and MM disagree. I wish you were on 'In the NO' as a guest because I'd love to hear an actual debate between you and MM instead of Gerry V who really doesn't resonate with me at all, and Schwan, who is great, but usually agrees with MM or uses advanced stats entirely instead of watching any film.

[Pelifan]

I really like those trade targets. Dudley still shot 36% from 3. Martell 39%.

I see a lot more potential in the trade market than in FA

[MichaelMcNamara]

I miss the days when MM was all eye test. Stats can be representative. MJ was an awesome shooter and his stats showed that. Some players have a lower FG% because they are forced into being the main offensive options on their teams which changes the dynamics of how they are guarded and if they can't pass well, don't have good options, or generally aren't put in good positions to succeed by the coach/front office, the stats will just look like they aren't as good of a shooter. RoLo was not a good pick and roll defender, but the stats showed that he was. Some players are good pick and roll defenders and the stats may or may not show that.
Stats are only there to represent the story and the extreme dynamics of basketball make stats difficult to be truly reflective of the whole story. But the problem with the eye test is that it is so subjective. For example, I struggle to see team defense. I generally focus on the on ball defense and I have to watch plays several times to see how the off the ball defense was. So my eye test opinion could be skewed because of that. There are people who's eye-test I trust more and MM is one of them. It seems like when he goes to the film I agree with him far more than when he uses stats. And what's funny is that the other person I agree with when it comes to the eye test is you, Tron, even though you and MM disagree. I wish you were on 'In the NO' as a guest because I'd love to hear an actual debate between you and MM instead of Gerry V who really doesn't resonate with me at all, and Schwan, who is great, but usually agrees with MM or uses advanced stats entirely instead of watching any film.

You need both. I find that people that completely dismiss stats do so because they dont understand them and how to use them in proper context. Eye test is good in context, but it is hard to transfer because systems are so different.

So I use stats more to gauge skill sets. If you can shoot from the corner, you can shoot from the corner. If you can rebound outside of your area, you can rebound outside of your area.

Here's the thing: Eye test can not be debated. It is purely subjective. Cant write articles, do podcasts, and have debates off of eye test. I still use it, but after making observations you have to back it up with something. Example: Eye test told me that Evans/Holiday combo was better than Gordon/Jrue. To go on the podcast or to have an argument here just based off the eye test would have been lazy. I went to the stats and they backed it up, so I used that as evidence.

[Jabberwalker]

You need both. I find that people that completely dismiss stats do so because they dont understand them and how to use them in proper context. Eye test is good in context, but it is hard to transfer because systems are so different.

So I use stats more to gauge skill sets. If you can shoot from the corner, you can shoot from the corner. If you can rebound outside of your area, you can rebound outside of your area.

Here's the thing: Eye test can not be debated. It is purely subjective. Cant write articles, do podcasts, and have debates off of eye test. I still use it, but after making observations you have to back it up with something. Example: Eye test told me that Evans/Holiday combo was better than Gordon/Jrue. To go on the podcast or to have an argument here just based off the eye test would have been lazy. I went to the stats and they backed it up, so I used that as evidence.

And I get that. No one has enough time to learn every team, system, player, etc... so we have to rely on stats. But honestly, I trust you, Zach Harper, Zack Lowe, Matt Brooks, Ethan Strauss, Amin Ehsan, and a handful of people here's eyes. If they mention something then I'll look to see if I agree or not. Those are people who don't just use talking points but understand the game and discuss the real world aspects of it. I don't always agree with everything, but I trust all of them because I've agreed so often. When I first found Sabermetrics I was stoked. I hold a degree in computer science and consider myself rather analytical. I loved the prospect of what advanced stats could tell us but the more I dived into it I found them nearly as damaging as they were helpful. I could find stats to support or attack nearly any player. But so often I see them used as the final say. For example I saw you propose Nick Young's stats. I completely disagree with Nick Young as a fit here (which could be a debate elsewhere, I'm just using it as an example). The stats you gave all sound great but since I'm in AZ (I'm sure you have the same problem in Utah) I see mostly west coast games which means a lot of Lakers. I watched him play and still wanted nothing to do with him. I see the stats you give and it looks great but I have a hard time believing that you watched that player this last season and believe that he can be a net positive on this team, however, you can find stats that would make it look like he is the missing piece. Like I said, maybe he is, maybe he isn't, the point isn't him per se, but that advanced stats don't help us when they give conflicting results. But people who use them don't acknowledge that, they throw out advanced stats like rebounding percent without seeing how players get the rebounds (see the Kevin Love argument on the other thread). I think we can get there with advanced stats with the cameras (I forget what that technology is called and the finals is on so I don't feel like looking it up), but we aren't there yet.

I would also like to add that my opinions on the podcast and on here are appreciated and I have nothing but respect and appreciation for your opinions even when they differ with mine.

[Mythrol]

And I get that. No one has enough time to learn every team, system, player, etc... so we have to rely on stats. But honestly, I trust you, Zach Harper, Zack Lowe, Matt Brooks, Ethan Strauss, Amin Ehsan, and a handful of people here's eyes. If they mention something then I'll look to see if I agree or not. Those are people who don't just use talking points but understand the game and discuss the real world aspects of it. I don't always agree with everything, but I trust all of them because I've agreed so often. When I first found Sabermetrics I was stoked. I hold a degree in computer science and consider myself rather analytical. I loved the prospect of what advanced stats could tell us but the more I dived into it I found them nearly as damaging as they were helpful. I could find stats to support or attack nearly any player. But so often I see them used as the final say. For example I saw you propose Nick Young's stats. I completely disagree with Nick Young as a fit here (which could be a debate elsewhere, I'm just using it as an example). The stats you gave all sound great but since I'm in AZ (I'm sure you have the same problem in Utah) I see mostly west coast games which means a lot of Lakers. I watched him play and still wanted nothing to do with him. I see the stats you give and it looks great but I have a hard time believing that you watched that player this last season and believe that he can be a net positive on this team, however, you can find stats that would make it look like he is the missing piece. Like I said, maybe he is, maybe he isn't, the point isn't him per se, but that advanced stats don't help us when they give conflicting results. But people who use them don't acknowledge that, they throw out advanced stats like rebounding percent without seeing how players get the rebounds (see the Kevin Love argument on the other thread). I think we can get there with advanced stats with the cameras (I forget what that technology is called and the finals is on so I don't feel like looking it up), but we aren't there yet.

I would also like to add that my opinions on the podcast and on here are appreciated and I have nothing but respect and appreciation for your opinions even when they differ with mine.

I just want to point out there are plenty of stats that point to Young being a bad fit here too. Look at his usage rate, rebound %, amount of shots taken, etc.

I think people who use only one or the other is doing themselves a disservice. If you are only a stats guy then you don't take into account situation, play style, hustle, and a handful of other things that only the tape can show. If you are only an eye's guy then you are ignoring plenty of helpful stats that can give you more perspective on a player. I also feel like stats are far better for offensive analysis.

Too often on here people act like its one or the other when really it should be both.

[HornetGuru]

We don't need our small forward to be a great scorer. He well be the fifth option behind jrue tyreke ryno and ad. Just hit the 3 and play d. Tucker is the perfect piece.

[Jabberwalker]

I just want to point out there are plenty of stats that point to Young being a bad fit here too. Look at his usage rate, rebound %, amount of shots taken, etc.

I think people who use only one or the other is doing themselves a disservice. If you are only a stats guy then you don't take into account situation, play style, hustle, and a handful of other things that only the tape can show. If you are only an eye's guy then you are ignoring plenty of helpful stats that can give you more perspective on a player. I also feel like stats are far better for offensive analysis.

Too often on here people act like its one or the other when really it should be both.

Agreed. There are so many aspects to something that should be as simple as field goal percentage. Think of Jason Smith this year. When Ryno wasn't on the floor, Smith was the release valve. If the play fell apart it seemed the go to play was give it to Smith for a pick and pop or jumper off the screen and curl. Although Smith's FG% was still really good and he hit those, there are players on other teams who have that role and are forced into bad shots adversely affecting their percentages. They are smart enough not to take bad shots but are forced into bad shots. There are plenty of adverse effects in the game that cause stats to be misrepresentative of the actual effect a player has. I don't think stats are terrible, but people need to recognize before spouting out stats that they are prone to misrepresentation and that because of that they should be taken with a grain of salt. People should trust themselves and those who put more time into it than them when watching and hopefully we'll eventually do better and have a better system for stats in basketball.

[HornetGuru]

You need both. I find that people that completely dismiss stats do so because they dont understand them and how to use them in proper context. Eye test is good in context, but it is hard to transfer because systems are so different.

So I use stats more to gauge skill sets. If you can shoot from the corner, you can shoot from the corner. If you can rebound outside of your area, you can rebound outside of your area.

Here's the thing: Eye test can not be debated. It is purely subjective. Cant write articles, do podcasts, and have debates off of eye test. I still use it, but after making observations you have to back it up with something. Example: Eye test told me that Evans/Holiday combo was better than Gordon/Jrue. To go on the podcast or to have an argument here just based off the eye test would have been lazy. I went to the stats and they backed it up, so I used that as evidence.

I see you believe PJ Tucker is a great defender, as do I. Does he defensive rating of 106 back this up? His defensive rating has gotten better every year which supports that he is a late bloomer like bruce bowen.

Also he shot only 31% from 3 his first year and this year he shot 39%. What leaves you to believe his 3pt shooting will stay and wasn't a fluke? Thanks.

I've been doing a lot of reading on him. It appears he is a good 3pt shooter, defender, AND rebounder, exactly what this team needs at the SF spot. Also said he is actually quite athletic, above average.

What I was worried about was getting a 3 and D who couldn't rebound, his rebound % is incredible actually.

In no way is he as good as Kawhi Leonard but he will give us the same that leonard gives the spurs. 3pters, rebounding, and defense.

If I had to pick the best in game comparison to him I would go with Matt Barnes, do you agree?

He wins.

[Mythrol]

MM was right. That PJ Tucker video sold me.

[Ludiculous]

MM was right. That PJ Tucker video sold me.

yup, it got me too.

[Ludiculous]

When do we find out who made it to the 2nd round?

[HornetGuru]

MM was right. That PJ Tucker video sold me.

where can i find this video?

[Mythrol]

where can i find this video?

It's embedded in the BSS MLE article about Tucker vs Granger.

[Kurgan]

Anyone who punches that flopper is welcome on this team

[DroopyDawg]

Francisco Garcia used to be a decent defender and knock-down shooter... I think he's a FA too. I wonder why he's never really panned out.