.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 788

Thread: Official 2020 NBA Draft Thread

  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    They like Maxey too. But there are always levels to things.

    In the same way that Khris Middleton is a great shooter, but Steph is an all time shooter, there are levels to intangibles too
    Yeah except they're entirely unquantifiable, so it's much harder to evaluate.

    If you have a player you think is going to be really quite good, and who has very good intangibles (by whatever metric you're using to judge intangibles), do you pass on them for someone you think is going to be actually quite ineffective in most team contexts but who has intangibles you rate as being a touch better? Maybe, but it's a balancing act and I don't think I'd sacrifice huge chunks of ability for relatively small increases in ''intangibles''.

    Edit: and I'd also add that if we're talking intangibles, KG is like the Steph equivalent. Haliburton is not KG
    Basketball.

  2. #77
    Snarky Optimistic Guy msusousaphone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Lake Charles
    Posts
    4,739
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    I agree. I like Melli short term too. He has the right mentality. But yes, these three are correct. Now, imagine if you can add a 4th to that core that you get to have from his first day in the league and grow internally. Thats the goal tonight if they can make it happen.
    Haliburton certainly checks every box of my perception of SVGs style, too. I'm rooting for your inside info (and Girff's miracle deal) to pan out.
    BI, Zion, and CJ had a net rating of +3 when on the court together. BI and Zion had a +13.4, BI and CJ had a +13.2, Zion and CJ was just +5.4.

    BI and Zion worked. BI and CJ worked. It was CJ and Zion and all three together that didn't work.

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Yeah except they're entirely unquantifiable, so it's much harder to evaluate.

    If you have a player you think is going to be really quite good, and who has very good intangibles (by whatever metric you're using to judge intangibles), do you pass on them for someone you think is going to be actually quite ineffective in most team contexts but who has intangibles you rate as being a touch better? Maybe, but it's a balancing act and I don't think I'd sacrifice huge chunks of ability for relatively small increases in ''intangibles''.

    Edit: and I'd also add that if we're talking intangibles, KG is like the Steph equivalent. Haliburton is not KG
    There are some things teams use. There are tests and brain measurement technology that would blow your mind. Again, this is an area the average fan is far behind in knowing what teams use and what they value. There are teams who study these brain tests the same way you might view game film and look at Synergy.

    Its not as real to you because you dont have the measurement tools and the access. And nobody faults you for that. But I promise you that it is a far bigger part of the process for most teams than you can imagine.
    @mcnamara247

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    There are some things teams use. There are tests and brain measurement technology that would blow your mind. Again, this is an area the average fan is far behind in knowing what teams use and what they value. There are teams who study these brain tests the same way you might view game film and look at Synergy.

    Its not as real to you because you dont have the measurement tools and the access. And nobody faults you for that. But I promise you that it is a far bigger part of the process for most teams than you can imagine.
    *Thumbs up* Cool

  5. #80
    Draft time draft time

  6. #81
    and here we go.gif

  7. #82

  8. #83
    Snarky Optimistic Guy msusousaphone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Lake Charles
    Posts
    4,739

  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    oh NOW you decide to take calls

  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Win the lottery with no lottery prize.

  11. #86
    Blah blah Silver, get to the picks

  12. #87
    Wolves officially on the clock with 5 minutes

  13. #88
    Anthony Edwards...I'm 1 for 1

    Wiseman next

  14. #89

  15. #90
    Anthony ''Not really into it'' Edwards at number 1 is still funny.

  16. #91


    Meh

  17. #92
    Melo @ 3

    Williams @ 4?

  18. #93
    And next will be Lamelo. Charlotte wants the name.

  19. #94


    Nothing out of the expected so far

  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyman View Post
    And next will be Lamelo. Charlotte wants the name.
    Ant, Wiseman, Melo the top 3

    I think a grand total of 0 people alive are surprised by this trio lol

  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    Ant, Wiseman, Melo the top 3

    I think a grand total of 0 people alive are surprised by this trio lol
    It's not about the names it's about the order. Obviously.

  22. #97
    Snarky Optimistic Guy msusousaphone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Lake Charles
    Posts
    4,739
    Three guys most of us didn't want. Ok.

  23. #98
    They went from Weedplate Wiggins to Cold Leftovers Edwards

  24. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by msusousaphone View Post
    Three guys most of us didn't want. Ok.
    Yep, no real interest in any of them.

  25. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    They went from Weedplate Wiggins to Cold Leftovers Edwards
    Wiggins brain in a more muscular body

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •