How do we reach the next level ?

Good Bye, Will.....

https://hoopshype.com/rumor/pelicans...g-will-magnay/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Good Bye, Will.....

https://hoopshype.com/rumor/pelicans...g-will-magnay/

---

Nunnally is a three point specialist. This is an indication we are really trying to make the playoffs. Sorry 'Tank Fans'!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Nunnally is a three point specialist. This is an indication we are really trying to make the playoffs. Sorry 'Tank Fans'!!

---

He's 30 years old and a career 32% 3pt shooter on only 50 career attempts. He is far from a specialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

He's 30 years old and a career 32% 3pt shooter on only 50 career attempts. He is far from a specialist.

---

In the NBA... But over the last three years in Europe he shot .490 (and shot almost .900 from the line). Maybe he'll translate as good as Melli did, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

In the NBA... But over the last three years in Europe he shot .490 (and shot almost .900 from the line). Maybe he'll translate as good as Melli did, huh?

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

He's 30 years old and a career 32% 3pt shooter on only 50 career attempts. He is far from a specialist.

---

let us not forget miller....he went over seas and lit it up from the 3pt then came back to us and was still lighting it up from 3......this may be a cheap JJ we can get for 2 years....

man, we got to try something...

Call me homer if you must, but I would prefer JAXSON over every player named in this article except one.

https://fadeawayworld.net/2021/04/12...nto-nba-stars/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Call me homer if you must, but I would prefer JAXSON over every player named in this article except one.

https://fadeawayworld.net/2021/04/12...nto-nba-stars/

---

I Would've at least had Jaxson written in this article over RJ Hampton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erose

There is a reason why young teams do not win championships.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

true true


Those saying Van Gundy is the problem........ are nuts.


He's teaching those boys basketball. It usually cant be done within a year.. in general young dudes suck at team defense


When people compliment a team for being "well coached" it usually has nothing much to do about their current coach and everything to do with the coaches that have taught them and held them accountable throughout their time learning baskebtall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fullcourtpress

true true


Those saying Van Gundy is the problem........ are nuts.


He's teaching those boys basketball. It usually cant be done within a year.. in general young dudes suck at team defense


When people compliment a team for being "well coached" it usually has nothing much to do about their current coach and everything to do with the coaches that have taught them and held them accountable throughout their time learning baskebtall

---

I?m going to hold judgement of SVG as a coach until after he has a offseason and a full training camp and a regular non-COVID season with this team.

Right now my only true issue with the coach is that he doesn?t seem to know when to call timeouts. Last night in the Sacramento game, when Sac was making a run against his team, no timeout. What the hell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erose

I?m going to hold judgement of SVG as a coach until after he has a offseason and a full training camp and a regular non-COVID season with this team.

Right now my only true issue with the coach is that he doesn?t seem to know when to call timeouts. Last night in the Sacramento game, when Sac was making a run against his team, no timeout. What the hell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Bigger problems are the walking the ball up the floor especially with Kira in the game, is inexcusable.

As much as he gets on the team for lack of defense, he doesn't seem to help them. Meaning they never seem to play offensive defense. Always reactionary. Far too often a player like Fox gets cooking, and the team just keep playing these people straight up. No doubles, no traps, no pressure like BI and Zion see constantly.

And when he does do those things, again it's at obvious reactionary times. Never randomly throughout the game to catch the opposition off guard. Unlike when teams come out of a timeout in the 2nd quarter trapping Zion and BI.

My only two issues with SVG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigChris504

I Would've at least had Jaxson written in this article over RJ Hampton.

---

Agree. Also, THT is so overrated because he plays on the Lakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Would you?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dnt-see-coming

---

I'd be tempted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luckyman

Bigger problems are the walking the ball up the floor especially with Kira in the game, is inexcusable.

As much as he gets on the team for lack of defense, he doesn't seem to help them. Meaning they never seem to play offensive defense. Always reactionary. Far too often a player like Fox gets cooking, and the team just keep playing these people straight up. No doubles, no traps, no pressure like BI and Zion see constantly.

And when he does do those things, again it's at obvious reactionary times. Never randomly throughout the game to catch the opposition off guard. Unlike when teams come out of a timeout in the 2nd quarter trapping Zion and BI.

My only two issues with SVG.

---

I completely agree with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luckyman

Bigger problems are the walking the ball up the floor especially with Kira in the game, is inexcusable.

As much as he gets on the team for lack of defense, he doesn't seem to help them. Meaning they never seem to play offensive defense. Always reactionary. Far too often a player like Fox gets cooking, and the team just keep playing these people straight up. No doubles, no traps, no pressure like BI and Zion see constantly.

And when he does do those things, again it's at obvious reactionary times. Never randomly throughout the game to catch the opposition off guard. Unlike when teams come out of a timeout in the 2nd quarter trapping Zion and BI.

My only two issues with SVG.

---

That's a by-product of "Point Zion". Then when he makes the initial pass and settles in the blocks for a return pass, the shot clock is already at four or five or, if he is denied, the ball is stuck out 25 feet from the basket in the hands of one of our many "non-shooters". In either case, the result is a "Chinese Fire Drill", or a hope and a prayer (can anyone forget the Bledsoe double clutch in front of the basket last night in crunch time or BI's desperation Air Ball from the corner?).

Bottom line, "Point Zion" is a gimmick that should be used sparingly. Truth is, "Point Brandon" is much more efficient, and even that should be used sparingly. Zion is a finisher...not an initiator. But the basis of this team is:

ALL ZION...ALL THE TIME!!!

...and that not basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

That's a by-product of "Point Zion". Then when he makes the initial pass and settles in the blocks for a return pass, the shot clock is already at four or five or, if he is denied, the ball is stuck out 25 feet from the basket in the hands of one of our many "non-shooters". In either case, the result is a "Chinese Fire Drill" or a hope and a prayer (can anyone forget the Bledsoe double clutch in front of the basket last night?).

Bottom line, "Point Zion" is a gimmick that should be used sparingly. Truth is, "Point Brandon" is much more efficient, and even that should be used sparingly. Zion is a finisher...not an initiator. But the basis of this team is:

ALL ZION...ALL THE TIME!!!

...and that not basketball.

---

Yet our offensive efficiency skyrocketed when we started Point Zion. Your Zion hate is really puzzling. I can imagine if you were a Bulls fan back in the late 80’s. “The problem is that we let our shooting guard take way too many shots, even shots in the paint. This is a big man league we need to keep getting the ball down low to Bill Cartwright”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

Yet our offensive efficiency skyrocketed when we started Point Zion. Your Zion hate is really puzzling. I can imagine if you were a Bulls fan back in the late 80’s. “The problem is that we let our shooting guard take way too many shots, even shots in the paint. This is a big man league we need to keep getting the ball down low to Bill Cartwright”

---

I don't hate him; he's amazing. He will go down as the best of his generation.

He's simply incapable of doing it all (as he is being asked to do). You do realize that BI has about 50 more dimes then Zion does this year, don't you? But Brandon is accused of too much ISO Ball and Zion is lauded for the same, even though he leads the league in having his shot blocked by a large margin. "Fans" "oooh" and "aaah" over the "poster dunks" and uncanny body control, and kind of turn a blind eye to his many foibles (yes, he's the worst defender in the starting five).

Bottom Line: If you are inferring that I am more of a Pelicans Fan than a Zion Fan? Guilty as Charged!!! But, that doesn't make me a "Zion Hater".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

I don't hate him; he's amazing. He will go down as the best of his generation.

He's simply incapable of doing it all (as he is being asked to do). You do realize that BI has about 50 more dimes then Zion does this year, don't you? But Brandon is accused of too much ISO Ball and Zion is lauded for the same, even though he leads the league in having his shot blocked by a large margin.

Bottom Line: If you are inferring that I am more of a Pelicans Fan than a Zion Fan? Guilty of Charged!!! But, that doesn't make me a "Zion Hater".

---

I actually opened myself up a bit in my post. Because Phil Jackson did start to limit Jordan’s possessions a little bit in his triangle offense, and did get the ball to a post up center more. I was wondering if you would pick up on it.

But back to the main point. I’m not sure that I agree with your basic premise. Zion is pretty comfortable in the point-Zion role. It also prohibits one of our team’s biggest issues in the beginning of the season, in that there were too many possessions where Zion never touched the ball.

The problem with BI ISO when Zion is in the game, is that on too many possessions Zion just stands in the corner. Zion ISO is 1. More efficient because no matter how many times Zion’s shots are blocked his shooting percentage is still much higher than BI. He scores at a phenomenal rate in ISO situations. BI’s efficiency is much less. 2. BI’s skill set allows him to play off Zion better than Zion does playing off of BI. BI is a much better shooter, especially as a spot up shooter.

Now I get it that BI is still a little uncomfortable in this role. But in my opinion, he needs to change his mindset a bit and start to defer to Zion. Zion is simply much more efficient in scoring the basket.

And while BI is a good playmaker, so is Zion. It’s just that Zion doesn’t need to pass as much as BI. My guess is that BI’s turnovers are a lot higher than Zion’s as well.

In an ideal world we should start seeing a lot more two man sets between the two as they get more comfortable playing with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

And while BI is a good playmaker, so is Zion. It’s just that Zion doesn’t need to pass as much as BI. My guess is that BI’s turnovers are a lot higher than Zion’s as well.

---

Zion and Ingram have very similar turnover and assist percentages.

Zion: 19.6%AST, 11.0%TOV
Ingram: 22.0% AST, 11.0% TOV

Of course, these don't tell the whole story because these are season long stats and Zion's on-ball role didn't really start up until around February, but suffice it to say they're both similar in terms of AST/TO ratio right now.

Just adding that in to clear things up.

I view the responsibility of the point differently to you. You are hell-bent, to get the ball in Zion's hands; "Point Zion" certainly accomplishes this end.

I see the point as the initiator of the offense (assuming you have one). By my definition the main purpose of the point is to distribute the ball. You infer that "Point Zion" doesn't need to pass the ball. So we are at odds.

When the ball is in Zion's hands at the top of the key, he is not a threat in crunch time. The defense builds a wall inside, forces him to give it up (see last night), and by time he re-positions himself, the clock is in the red. In my mind, lowly Sacramento, the worst defense in the NBA, masterfully exposed the weaknesses in the "Point Zion" by putting us in scramble mode possession after possession in crunch time last night.

Again, Zion is great; he's not God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

I actually opened myself up a bit in my post. Because Phil Jackson did start to limit Jordan’s possessions a little bit in his triangle offense, and did get the ball to a post up center more. I was wondering if you would pick up on it.

But back to the main point. I’m not sure that I agree with your basic premise. Zion is pretty comfortable in the point-Zion role. It also prohibits one of our team’s biggest issues in the beginning of the season, in that there were too many possessions where Zion never touched the ball.

The problem with BI ISO when Zion is in the game, is that on too many possessions Zion just stands in the corner. Zion ISO is 1. More efficient because no matter how many times Zion’s shots are blocked his shooting percentage is still much higher than BI. He scores at a phenomenal rate in ISO situations. BI’s efficiency is much less. 2. BI’s skill set allows him to play off Zion better than Zion does playing off of BI. BI is a much better shooter, especially as a spot up shooter.

Now I get it that BI is still a little uncomfortable in this role. But in my opinion, he needs to change his mindset a bit and start to defer to Zion. Zion is simply much more efficient in scoring the basket.

And while BI is a good playmaker, so is Zion. It’s just that Zion doesn’t need to pass as much as BI. My guess is that BI’s turnovers are a lot higher than Zion’s as well.

In an ideal world we should start seeing a lot more two man sets between the two as they get more comfortable playing with each other.

---

BI's ast % is 21.8% (2nd highest on the team) and his ast/to ratio is 1.91. Zion's is 18.5% and 1.44. BI's turnover ratio in 9.2 and Zion's is 9.6. So your guess would be wrong.

BI does not need to change his mindset. That defeats the entire purpose of having 2 all stars. You make it easier for the opposition by trying to put the weight of the team on one player that can only score within 5 ft of the rim.

Makes even less sense when these negative clutch issues for BI have been gone for at least 2 months now.

Neither of them should be deferring to the other. You use both because you need both. If BI defers to Zion when things got tight last night, there is a good chance they lose that game. When one team commits to shutting down one, it's nice to have another very capable player you can go to. Keep doing that.

Also, as far as deferring, BI is putting up those numbers on a slightly lower usage rate than Zion and most of his wing peers.

I wonder what numbers are actually important to some people. The offense has been, inarguably, better since Zion took on more responsibilities as a ballhandler. The team's success has gone up, his assist rate has gone up, the team's efficiency has gone up, and the team's record with both Ingram and Zion healthy but with Zion getting his current rate of offense is 9-3, which is well above the standard win rate of the season. Yes, part of that is due to the team's we've played and circumstance, but it's something to be taken into account.

Further, as Zion's usg% in the clutch has increased, the team's clutch time ORTg has gone up as well; these are not difficult numbers to find.

So why is it that some people are so utterly opposed to the idea of Zion being Point Zion when it's clearly benefiting the team overall and is, generally, resulting in more wins as well?

Of course you need to give Ingram time with the ball in his hands, he's an on-ball threat and he's proved himself to be very good at creating offense for himself and for others. He's earned those minutes and those responsibilities and he's also getting them, he runs the offense a lot when he's on the floor in general and splits it about 50/50 with Zion when they're both on the floor; then Zion generally gets ballhandler run with the bench unit (the Kira-Jax-Zion bench trio annihilates other bench units, by the way), what's wrong with that? Where's the issue?

Am I misunderstanding the conversation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luckyman

Bigger problems are the walking the ball up the floor especially with Kira in the game, is inexcusable.

As much as he gets on the team for lack of defense, he doesn't seem to help them. Meaning they never seem to play offensive defense. Always reactionary. Far too often a player like Fox gets cooking, and the team just keep playing these people straight up. No doubles, no traps, no pressure like BI and Zion see constantly.

And when he does do those things, again it's at obvious reactionary times. Never randomly throughout the game to catch the opposition off guard. Unlike when teams come out of a timeout in the 2nd quarter trapping Zion and BI.

My only two issues with SVG.

---

I think the issue last night of walking the ball up had as much to do with fatigue than anything else. Even though Zion scored 30, you could tell in the second half he was tired. His missed free throws were all short.

Concerning the defense, again I want to see them after an off season. I do think it is harder to ingrain the up and coming kids on the importance of defense. They just aren?t taught to play it any more. Offense is king and defense don?t get you drafted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I wonder what numbers are actually important to some people. The offense has been, inarguably, better since Zion took on more responsibilities as a ballhandler. The team's success has gone up, his assist rate has gone up, the team's efficiency has gone up, and the team's record with both Ingram and Zion healthy but with Zion getting his current rate of offense is 9-3, which is well above the standard win rate of the season. Yes, part of that is due to the team's we've played and circumstance, but it's something to be taken into account.

Further, as Zion's usg% in the clutch has increased, the team's clutch time ORTg has gone up as well; these are not difficult numbers to find.

So why is it that some people are so utterly opposed to the idea of Zion being Point Zion when it's clearly benefiting the team overall and is, generally, resulting in more wins as well?

Of course you need to give Ingram time with the ball in his hands, he's an on-ball threat and he's proved himself to be very good at creating offense for himself and for others. He's earned those minutes and those responsibilities and he's also getting them, he runs the offense a lot when he's on the floor in general and splits it about 50/50 with Zion when they're both on the floor; then Zion generally gets ballhandler run with the bench unit (the Kira-Jax-Zion bench trio annihilates other bench units, by the way), what's wrong with that? Where's the issue?

Am I misunderstanding the conversation?

---

You are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I wonder what numbers are actually important to some people. The offense has been, inarguably, better since Zion took on more responsibilities as a ballhandler. The team's success has gone up, his assist rate has gone up, the team's efficiency has gone up, and the team's record with both Ingram and Zion healthy but with Zion getting his current rate of offense is 9-3, which is well above the standard win rate of the season. Yes, part of that is due to the team's we've played and circumstance, but it's something to be taken into account.

Further, as Zion's usg% in the clutch has increased, the team's clutch time ORTg has gone up as well; these are not difficult numbers to find.

So why is it that some people are so utterly opposed to the idea of Zion being Point Zion when it's clearly benefiting the team overall and is, generally, resulting in more wins as well?

Of course you need to give Ingram time with the ball in his hands, he's an on-ball threat and he's proved himself to be very good at creating offense for himself and for others. He's earned those minutes and those responsibilities and he's also getting them, he runs the offense a lot when he's on the floor in general and splits it about 50/50 with Zion when they're both on the floor; then Zion generally gets ballhandler run with the bench unit (the Kira-Jax-Zion bench trio annihilates other bench units, by the way), what's wrong with that? Where's the issue?

Am I misunderstanding the conversation?

---

No, you're not. Basically he said that since he saw a bad play in last night's game, and Zion gets blocked a lot, he wants to get rid of point Zion. Oh and Brandon's assists numbers are higher. I'm pretty sure he's kind of low key trolling us on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

No, you're not. Basically he said that since he saw a bad play in last night's game, and Zion gets blocked a lot, he wants to get rid of point Zion. Oh and Brandon's assists numbers are higher. I'm pretty sure he's kind of low key trolling us on this.

---

I said none of that.

You either...

A.) have a comprehension problem.

or

B.) you are a sick puppy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "A".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

No, you're not. Basically he said that since he saw a bad play in last night's game, and Zion gets blocked a lot, he wants to get rid of point Zion. Oh and Brandon's assists numbers are higher. I'm pretty sure he's kind of low key trolling us on this.

---

Did you know the single most blocked player of all time is Tim Duncan? Followed by Carmelo, AI, Kobe, Pau Gasol, and Paul Pierce in the top ten.

Zion gets blocked a lot because he takes an all time record volume of shots at the rim. If more players could get there as often as he does, they'd be blocked more as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Did you know the single most blocked player of all time is Tim Duncan? Followed by Carmelo, AI, Kobe, Pau Gasol, and Paul Pierce in the top ten.

Zion gets blocked a lot because he takes an all time record volume of shots at the rim. If more players could get there as often as he does, they'd be blocked more as well.

---

A blocked shot is akin to a turnover if the ball is lost. In this case, it represents a lost possession and chance at scoring. If you can't deal with reality, who am I to convert you? Or even try?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

I said none of that.

You either...

A.) have a comprehension problem.

or

B.) you are a sick puppy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "A".

---

You lost all credibility when you said ISO Brandon is more effecient than ISO Zion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

You lost all credibility when you said ISO Brandon is more effecient than ISO Zion.

---

Didn't say that either.

I did say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

But Brandon is accused of too much ISO Ball and Zion is lauded for the same

---

Yep, it's definitely a comprehension problem!!

Ingram isnt a better iso option, but he has the ability to threaten the defense from all 3 levels. I have asked this for months, and will continue to ask -- Can anybody name a reliable, top level closer who could only score from one level?

Now, if people believe Zion will eventually develop a solid iso mid range game, that might one day evolve into an off the dribble 3 point threat as well, then that is one thing. But to argue he can be a reliable closer now would be to argue he is an outlier of all outliers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Ingram isnt a better iso option, but he has the ability to threaten the defense from all 3 levels. I have asked this for months, and will continue to ask -- Can anybody name a reliable, top level closer who could only score from one level?

Now, if people believe Zion will eventually develop a solid iso mid range game, that might one day evolve into an off the dribble 3 point threat as well, then that is one thing. But to argue he can be a reliable closer now would be to argue he is an outlier of all outliers.

---

Embiid. If he wanted to, he could easily score from one level. There is no reason for him to leave the paint. He just does it because he is lazy, not because of any scheme. Also, looking back, the most recent and most
Obvious is shaq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heybigmatt

Embiid. If he wanted to, he could easily score from one level. There is no reason for him to leave the paint. He just does it because he is lazy, not because of any scheme. Also, looking back, the most recent and most
Obvious is shaq.

---

Embiid can only score from all three levels, and does. Zion? Maybe one day.

SHAQ parked his butt on the blocks and posted up. That's a far different animal than ISO-ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Didn't say that either.

I did say:



Yep, it's definitely a comprehension problem!!

---

It's a comprehension problem only in that you don't really understand what "Point Zion" is. Zion isn't running the team like a point guard by setting up the offense. It means putting the ball in Zion's hands and letting him initiate the action in half court sets. So Zion attacks the basket and plays off of what the other team does.
Brandon does the same thing. He gets the ball in his hands and either drives to the basket or tries to get to certain spots in the court for a mid range jumper.

Zion is clearly more effecient, even taking into account Brandon's higher assist numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

It's a comprehension problem only in that you don't really understand what "Point Zion" is. Zion isn't running the team like a point guard by setting up the offense. It means putting the ball in Zion's hands and letting him initiate the action in half court sets. So Zion attacks the basket and plays off of what the other team does.
Brandon does the same thing. He gets the ball in his hands and either drives to the basket or tries to get to certain spots in the court for a mid range jumper.

Zion is clearly more effecient, even taking into account Brandon's higher assist numbers.

---

HUH?!?!? This is contradictory and just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

HUH?!?!? This is contradictory and just silly.

---

Sigh. Let’s put it this way forget “point” and forget “iso” because neither Zion nor Brandon truly play a “point” position with the team. And both players often at least rely on screens from their teammates when they initiate the offense so it’s probably unfair to truly call it “iso” ball.

The issue is whether the offense is more effective when Brandon is forcing the action or whether Zion is forcing the action. And clearly the answer is Zion is the more effective than Brandon in this role. It’s really not up for debate.

Now if you’re arguing that we’re putting too much stress and energy on Zion by having him bring the ball up the court and initiate the action, that’s another issue. You may have an argument there. But so far he seems to be handling it just fine.

SVG probably decided to go to this strategy because we had way too many possession where Zion never touched the ball on the offense. And yes, many of those possession were Brandon completely controlling the ball throughout. When you have the most efficient offensive player in the league, you have to give him the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyfamilyreuni

The issue is whether the offense is more effective when Brandon is forcing the action or whether Zion is forcing the action. And clearly the answer is Zion is the more effective than Brandon in this role. It’s really not up for debate.

---

The issue isn't Brandon vs. Zion at all. A valid point was made by Luckyman that the team was walking the ball up late in the game. I responded that the reason was a "By-Product of Point Zion". Frankly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

As far as who is better in that role (Zion or BI) , my good friend, dae's, post proves that it is open to debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Embiid can only score from all three levels, and does. Zion? Maybe one day.

SHAQ parked his butt on the blocks and posted up. That's a far different animal than ISO-ball.

---

Just because he ?can? isn?t operative. If he wants to only score in the post he can - and the same is true if he were a 0 percent shooter from every other place on the floor. His ability to score at the other levels in no way opens up his ability to score in the post. Those areas are independent of each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heybigmatt

Just because he ?can? isn?t operative. If he wants to only score in the post he can - and the same is true if he were a 0 percent shooter from every other place on the floor. His ability to score at the other levels in no way opens up his ability to score in the post. Those areas are independent of each other.

---

So a question please.

If you know a player can only really hurt you at the rim, wouldn't you forsake the rest of "his game" and build a defense to take the rim away from him?

That is precisely what the lowly Sacramento King Defense did yesterday in crunch time. ...and what all teams do in crunch time against us.

Remind me, how many leads have we squandered this year late in crunch time?

(Disclaimer: This is not a knock on Zion; rather, it's a knock on the philosophy.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

So a question please.

If you know a player can only really hurt you at the rim, wouldn't you forsake the rest of "his game" and build a defense to take the rim away from him?

That is precisely what the lowly Sacramento King Defense did yesterday in crunch time. ...and what all teams do in crunch time against us.

Remind me, how many leads have we squandered this year late in crunch time?

(Disclaimer: This is not a knock on Zion; rather, it's a knock on the philosophy.)

---

I don't know why you are quoting me, because I was simply answer Mac's question about a consistent high tier closer that can only score at one level. I answered Embiid and Shaq.

To specifically answer your question, yes if a player can only score at the rim, you try and take that away. How do you take that away, by putting more bodies at the rim. How do you stop teams from putting all their players at the rim? Get other players who shoot well from 3. Right now we do not have that. MJ relied on Kerr and Paxson to win games.

Also worth noting, Mac said that if you think Zion can get it done only at the rim you have to believe he is an outlier of all outliers for that to be a realistic path to a title.

The reality is that if you inspect any of the statistics, he does appear to be precisely that level of outlier.

There are two players in NBA history who have ever posted the scoring volume Zion has posted this year, on the efficiency Zion has posted this year. Two.

One is Zion (2020-21), the other is Steph Curry, who did it in 2015-16, 2017-18, and this year.

Nobody else has even really come particularly close. The closest anyone else comes is Adrian Dantley in '83-'84, and he was averaging almost 3 points per 100 fewer and still not meeting Zion and Steph's efficiency.

Here's a chart from Seth Partnow, writer for the Athletic and ex-head of analytics for the Milwaukee Bucks showing how truly outlier Zion's scoring is.

I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of figuring out ways to illustrate Zion’s absurdity. pic.twitter.com/L6eL2axqNT

— Anchorage Man (@SethPartnow) April 12, 2021

Nobody at least in the last decade and a half has come anywhere even in the vague vicinity of Zion's rim pressure, and this is without taking his offensive rebounding into account; he gets his own and puts it back more than once per game, which drives up the practical efficiency a touch higher.

Of course, it's only been one season and we need to see it in the playoffs and we need to see it in a normal year that isn't so weird, but the reality is that if you think Zion might be that outlier of all outliers, the data thus far is on your side :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heybigmatt

I don't know why you are quoting me, because I was simply answer Mac's question about a consistent high tier closer that can only score at one level. I answered Embiid and Shaq.

To specifically answer your question, yes if a player can only score at the rim, you try and take that away. How do you take that away, by putting more bodies at the rim. How do you stop teams from putting all their players at the rim? Get other players who shoot well from 3. Right now we do not have that. MJ relied on Kerr and Paxson to win games.

---

Only because you quoted me.

I agree with every word of your last paragraph.

That's why Point Zion is a bad idea in crunch time. All of our players have to get engaged, and Zion should be working off of them rather than the other players working off of Zion. Putting the rock in Zion's hands 25 feet from the basket actually limits his ability to be a finisher. I remember seeing an article one time that said about 60%+ of Zion's points are assisted (more if you you factor in the FT's that would have been assisted FG's had he not been fouled). Why limit him in crunch time? Unfortunately, the pace, when in 'Point Zion' mode, comes to a screeching halt and it becomes impossible for Zion to play off his teammates. If we had a Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Duncan Robinson, or Bogdan Bogdanovic I might feel differently, but we don't.

Bottom Line: We dare opponents to cash in on threes and get murdered by it. Opponent dare us to cash in on threes in crunch time and we mis-fire time, after time, after time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heybigmatt

I don't know why you are quoting me, because I was simply answer Mac's question about a consistent high tier closer that can only score at one level. I answered Embiid and Shaq.

To specifically answer your question, yes if a player can only score at the rim, you try and take that away. How do you take that away, by putting more bodies at the rim. How do you stop teams from putting all their players at the rim? Get other players who shoot well from 3. Right now we do not have that. MJ relied on Kerr and Paxson to win games.

---

But neither Shaq or Embiid have shown themselves yo be high quality closers. Shaq needed Kobe and Wade to have that role and Embiid will consistently get beat in playoff series until he gets a closer too.

Its not knocking a guy when you are talking the best of the best. Giannis isnt a scrub when he gets to the playoffs, he just loses to a Kawhi or a Butler. This year, Durant.

History says you need a 3 level scorer. I can give a few examples of guys who were only two. But in the last 30-40 years, cant give an example of a guy who was only 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Ingram isnt a better iso option, but he has the ability to threaten the defense from all 3 levels. I have asked this for months, and will continue to ask -- Can anybody name a reliable, top level closer who could only score from one level?

Now, if people believe Zion will eventually develop a solid iso mid range game, that might one day evolve into an off the dribble 3 point threat as well, then that is one thing. But to argue he can be a reliable closer now would be to argue he is an outlier of all outliers.

---

More and more each day Zion is showing that he that outlier. If no one can stop you from getting to the rim, why do anything else?

That being said, I do not think Zion at this time is a ?closer?, or do I think BI is one either. A closer is something this team has missed since Chris Paul was traded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because nobody can stop Giannis either. And then they suddenly do in the playoffs. And does he stink? No, its just another guy is slightly better

Again, this is an issue with discourse. We have to clarify EXACTLY what we are saying. I am talking about Zion being the guy who leads his team to 4 playoff series wins one day. My point is that the guy who does that is always a multi level scorer and creator. He isnt getting his buckets at the rim in those levels of games.

Sure, any one-trick-pony offense can be countered with concerted effort and detailed planning over a 7-game series. Which is why you need failsafes built in. Zion’s trick is a very potent one, but he will need to develop counters, expand his range and tighten up his ball handling and passing. I have every confidence he can do those things.

So to will the team need to surround him with better shooting as his massive gravitational pull sucks defenders into the paint. The images of Cavs defenders the other night literally turning their backs on Bledsoe, Lewis and other Pels spacers as they tried to keep Zion from penetrating the lane was comical.

And Zion will need help from alternate ball handlers who allow him to move off ball for stretches to force defenses to change and adapt and account for him moving freely in space.

The great thing is it is now apparent that Zion can threaten opponents from multiple platforms and last time I checked you really can’t just have bunch of guys stand around in front of the rim to stop him. If he can stay healthy and take his conditioning up a strake or two he is absolutely a player you can build a contender around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Because nobody can stop Giannis either. And then they suddenly do in the playoffs. And does he stink? No, its just another guy is slightly better

Again, this is an issue with discourse. We have to clarify EXACTLY what we are saying. I am talking about Zion being the guy who leads his team to 4 playoff series wins one day. My point is that the guy who does that is always a multi level scorer and creator. He isnt getting his buckets at the rim in those levels of games.

---

I disagree with your assessment of Shaq. He dominated in the playoffs. Sure he had Kobe, but that doesn?t mean he still did not dominate. I think his playoff numbers are some of the greatest ever.

Embiid, if he cared and wanted to could do the same as Shaq. And he would hit his free throws.

The fact that I can only think of two guys, proves your point. But the only ones you are going to find are centers. Kareem, Wilt, Olajuwon. Two level guys - Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Duncan, etc.

Again....closer. Two minutes left, down 1. Who gets the ball there and outperforms the opponents alpha?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heybigmatt

I disagree with your assessment of Shaq. He dominated in the playoffs. Sure he had Kobe, but that doesn?t mean he still did not dominate. I think his playoff numbers are some of the greatest ever.

Embiid, if he cared and wanted to could do the same as Shaq. And he would hit his free throws.

The fact that I can only think of two guys, proves your point. But the only ones you are going to find are centers. Kareem, Wilt, Olajuwon. Two level guys - Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Duncan, etc.

---

Embiid has nowhere near the dominance of Shaq

Put some respek on the man's name