Chet Holmgren destroys Kobe Bryants career

[ArbitraryWater]

https://i.gyazo.com/867c7f1a5c9af82aa26f97eec5f1b2c1.jpg


Damn.

[ImKobe]

Apparently Kobe averaged more FGA than points for his career. Nice one OP.

[Nb1]

Apparently Kobe averaged more FGA than points for his career. Nice one OP.

Kobe choked like there's no tomorrow so many times :oldlol:. I still remember his 8 pts on a finals game with like 20 shots. Dude just bricked everything he could :roll:.

But truth be told he took advantage of it. If you're terrible anyway, people will still talk more abut you if you scored 30 (even tho you bricked 80% of your shots) than if you only took 4 shots and made them all.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Holmgren shouldn't be dragged into you guys' dumbass Kobe/Bron rivalry. Good young player doesn't deserve to have idiots twist his words to fit your agenda.

[Wardell Curry]

Getting 35 points on a lot of shots when you're the only one able to create on your team and ball movement isn't working because nobody on your team can shoot does indeed make you a great scorer.

There's so much context to any given situation/team that it's just a stupid statement to make. He's boxscore obsessive, even worse FG% obsessive, and will never win anything unless the team that Presti puts around him is overwhelmingly good, and that appears to possibly be the case.

[ArbitraryWater]

Holmgren shouldn't be dragged into you guys' dumbass Kobe/Bron rivalry. Good young player doesn't deserve to have idiots twist his words to fit your agenda.

What Kobe/Bron rivalry? :oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

Apparently Kobe averaged more FGA than points for his career. Nice one OP.

He‘s making a point about efficiency, are you this slow?

[bdonovan]

Needs to be said. EFG% should be part of every basic box score. Ideally there should be a stat showing +/- the difference between the players EFG in the game vs. the average EFG across the NBA so we know if the player was a net positive or negative.

[Xiao Yao You]

Needs to be said. EFG% should be part of every basic box score. Ideally there should be a stat showing +/- the difference between the players EFG in the game vs. the average EFG across the NBA so we know if the player was a net positive or negative.

apparently EFG% only tells you a player isn't very skilled. The most skilled ones don't have a high EFG%

[tontoz]

apparently EFG% only tells you a player isn't very skilled. The most skilled ones don't have a high EFG%


Jokic had an EFG of 66% last season.

[ImKobe]

He‘s making a point about efficiency, are you this slow?

So Kobe wasn't above league average in efficiency? People only want to bring up the bad stuff on this forum but when you actually go into the numbers he was high-50s in TS% numbers while scoring 30 a game in the late 2000s in both RS & POs and close to Lebron in that '08-'10 Playoff stretch as well as I've pointed out dozens of times (56.9%TS vs Lebron's 58.3%), but was deemed a chucker because people only focused on his FG% while disregarding the volume 3s and the FTs.

Kobe was 2-4%TS above the league average for most of his prime and some of his post-prime years as well. Luka in his last 3 seasons has been 0.5%-2.8%TS above league average.. I don't see anyone calling Luka inefficient though.

[tpols]

When Kobe averaged 35 a game he did it on 27 shots per game and a very efficient 114 ORTG while leading trash help to a top 10 offense and top 10 assist team.

So your hate is misplaced and not rooted in reality arby.

[Hey Yo]

He still holds the record for most missed FGA in a game with 30. That was against Boston when he went 17-47

[3ba11]

Holmgren isn't a good enough scorer to take 35 shots in any game

It actually does demonstrate tremendous scoring ability to get off 35 shots and command that many shots

So Holmgren is naive and thinking a very basic way about the game..

And what if the player has no help and is forced to take that many shots?.. High shot volume regardless of efficiency controls game flow and is infact a strategy to win games - high volume from 1 player spurs high offensive rebounds while dictating a grinding game flow - it's a strategy to win that was used effectively by the goat in the 93' and 98 Finals or the 01' Sixers and many more (like Kobe)

[highwhey]

am a big fan of Holmgreen, he's 100% right. High IQ player :applause:

[tontoz]

Holmgren isn't a good enough scorer to take 35 shots in any game

It actually does demonstrate tremendous scoring ability to get off 35 shots and command that many shots

So Holmgren is naive and thinking a very basic way about the game..

And what if the player has no help and is forced to take that many shots?.. High shot volume regardless of efficiency controls game flow and is infact a strategy to win games - high volume from 1 player spurs high offensive rebounds while dictating a grinding game flow - it's a strategy to win that was used effectively by the goat in the 93' and 98 Finals or the 01' Sixers and many more (like Kobe)



How much have you watched Chet? He's 7'1" with an elite jumper and good handles.

He's only played 11 games in his career and he's averaging 19 pts per 36 with a 67% TS. He absolutely has the look of a guy who can be an elite scorer.

[3ba11]

Holmgren isn't that good of a scorer and will never even command 20 shots, let alone having a team rely on him to take 35

A player that is capable of getting off 35 shots at sub-40% shooting is a vastly superior scorer than someone that can only command 15 shots

So Holmgren a basic thinker with a robotic playing style suited for today's spaced-out, beginner format - he'll get destroyed in international play and real basketball format (less spacing + physicality) just like our other NBA players routinely get exposed and destroyed in a real basketball format

[tontoz]

Holmgren isn't that good of a scorer and will never even command 20 shots, let alone having a team rely on him to take 35

A player that is capable of getting off 35 shots at sub-40% shooting is a vastly superior scorer than someone that can only command 15 shots

So Holmgren a basic thinker with a robotic playing style suited for today's spaced-out, beginner format - he'll get destroyed in international play and real basketball format (less spacing + physicality) just like our other NBA players routinely get exposed and destroyed in a real basketball format


:roll:

I wonder how long it will take for him to completely reverse this take.

[3ba11]

:roll:

I wonder how long it will take for him to completely reverse this take.


offensively, he's a spot-up shooter - think ryan anderson

his mechanics at getting of his jumper are weak so he'll never be able to dominate with the jumpshot like say, Dirk or Wemby (in the future)

btw, the only takes that i reversed was my curry take

[Kblaze8855]

apparently EFG% only tells you a player isn't very skilled. The most skilled ones don't have a high EFG%

Is what it is. About 5 of the top 25 all time are players anyone would call skilled. It’s mostly….


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2311162325510346.jpeg



You can be a jumping Jack who can’t do much on offense, you can be a spot up shooter who can’t do much, or very very rarely a special talent(Jokic…Steph).

Most likely path to the top is not being good enough to be trusted to take any shot that requires talent to make.

Dunk when someone gives you the ball 2 feet away.

That will do it. All other paths are much tougher and less likely you get you there.

[tontoz]

offensively, he's a spot-up shooter - think ryan anderson

his mechanics at getting of his jumper are weak so he'll never be able to dominate with the jumpshot like say, Dirk or Wemby (in the future)

btw, the only takes that i reversed was my curry take


When have you actually watched him play?

[tpols]

How much have you watched Chet? He's 7'1" with an elite jumper and good handles.

He's only played 11 games in his career and he's averaging 19 pts per 36 with a 67% TS. He absolutely has the look of a guy who can be an elite scorer.

Chet looks to be a great player... but hes nowhere in the same planet, galaxy, or universe as great a scorer as Kobe was.

And it's very unlikely he'll be as good an overall player either unless people think he'll finish top 10 all time. I view his ceiling as McHale with better ball handling which is super nice, but not quite in the same tier as top 10 GOATs.

[tontoz]

He shows a pretty full arsenal against the warriors. He can score off the dribble routinely. Pretending he is just a catch and shoot guy is ridiculous.


https://youtu.be/qZqlbaklT2E?si=P5tx17vbLywErcVq

[3ba11]

When have you actually watched him play?


Just did (the video above) - he only takes good shots because he has help - if he was forced to "force it" on shots and use a little more ad-hoc, off-the-cuff ability and take some less quality shots, you would see that he isn't a great scorer and never will be

[tpols]

He shows a pretty full arsenal against the warriors. He can score off the dribble routinely. Pretending he is just a catch and shoot guy is ridiculous.


https://youtu.be/qZqlbaklT2E?si=P5tx17vbLywErcVq

3ball always does this with new guys. He thought of Curry the same 5 years ago. Chet is legit, but he ain't close to peak Kobe unless some crazy shit happens. Which it could but I don't think it will.

[tontoz]

Just did (the video above) - he only takes good shots because he has help - if he was forced to "force it" on shots and use a little more ad-hoc, off-the-cuff ability and take some less quality shots, you would see that he isn't a great scorer and never will be

Exactly. You hadn't watched him at all yet you are making declarations about what he can and can't do. Typical screwball nonsense.

A lot of his "good shots" are ones he creates off the dribble.

[3ba11]

Exactly. You hadn't watched him at all yet you are making declarations about what he can and can't do. Typical screwball nonsense.

A lot of his "good shots" are ones he creates off the dribble.


When we look at the game-by-game stats, we see that the 5 games where Holmgren's usage was below 18%, he shot amazing.. But once it creeps over 18, he starts having bad shooting nights on every other night.

it's a pretty clear trend that i expect to continue.. robots shoot great at low usage and start to misfire at medium to high usage.

So here's what's going to happen.. The Thunder will have a decent year and likely make playoffs.. In the playoffs, Holmgren will get locked down if his usage is higher than 20%.

when i compare dirk and holmgren, i see that dirk was an expert at bodying defenders to create space and had one of the best pull-ups or turnaround jumpers ever.. Holmgren will never be this caliber of player - his jumpshot is robotic and easy to stop.. and he has baby hands, while dirk had big hands that helped control his release.. ditto bird

[SaltyMeatballs]

When have you actually watched him play?

I don't think he has. He just compared Chet to Ryan freaking Anderson :roll:

[tontoz]

When we look at the game-by-game stats, we see that the 5 games where Holmgren's usage was below 18%, he shot amazing.. But once it creeps over 18, he starts having bad shooting nights on every other night.

it's a pretty clear trend that i expect to continue.. robots shoot great at low usage and start to misfire at medium to high usage.

So here's what's going to happen.. The Thunder will have a decent year and likely make playoffs.. In the playoffs, Holmgren will get locked down if his usage is higher than 20%.

when i compare dirk and holmgren, i see that dirk was an expert at bodying defenders to create space and had one of the best pull-ups or turnaround jumpers ever.. Holmgren will never be this caliber of player - his jumpshot is robotic and easy to stop.. and he has baby hands, while dirk had big hands that helped control his release.. ditto bird


Dirk averaged 8 ppg shooting 40% as a rookie :roll:

[3ba11]

Dirk averaged 8 ppg shooting 40% as a rookie :roll:


Let's go back 3 years ago when Holmgren was 18 years old - do you think he could drop 52 points on Scottie Pippen like Dirk did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TxcLux7do

it was a different era back then where rookies usually didn't play and of course 8 ppg back then is like 13 ppg today, which is close to where Holmgren will be.

Again, the physicality and lack of spacing in previous eras produced superior players

[tontoz]

Let's go back 3 years ago when Holmgren was 18 years old - do you think he could drop 52 points on Scottie Pippen like Dirk did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TxcLux7do

it was a different era back then where rookies didn't always play and of course 8 ppg back then is like 13 ppg today, which is close to where Holmgren will be.



Why are you going back 3 years? Dirk was 20 as a rookie :roll:

[3ba11]

McHale .


uh, gonna have to disagree with you here - McHale was FAR better at what he did (post and interior scoring) than what Holmgren does (jumpshooting and rim-running).. McHale was a goat-level post player and repertoire, while Holmgren will never be goat-level at his strengths or any area of the game.

[3ba11]

Why are you going back 3 years? Dirk was 20 as a rookie :roll:


I addressed Dirk as a rookie in my post - rookies didn't play in that era and 8 ppg as a 20 year old is similar to 14 ppg today as a 21-year old.

The overriding point is that can you imagine Holmgren dropping 50 with jumper after jumper?.. He isn't that kind of player.. He's a robot like many of today's players, which is what today's format yields.

[tontoz]

uh, gonna have to disagree with you here - McHale was FAR better at what he did (post and interior scoring) than what Holmgren does (jumpshooting and rim-running).. McHale was a goat-level post player and repertoire, while Holmgren will never be goat-level at his strengths or any area of the game.

You have no clue what Holmgren will be. He's only played 11 games and you haven't watched any of them.

I can only imagine what you must have been saying about Dirk in his rookie year.

[ralph_i_el]

I addressed Dirk as a rookie in my post - rookies didn't play in that era and 8 ppg as a 20 year old is similar to 14 ppg today as a 21-year old.

The overriding point is that can you imagine Holmgren dropping 50 with jumper after jumper?.. He isn't that kind of player.. He's a robot like many of today's players, which is what today's format yields.

I disagree with this. I think Chet has had great navigational efficiency for a young big, and seems to thrive in tight spaces that usually lead to embarrassing plays for young bigs.

[3ba11]

You have no clue what Holmgren will be. He's only played 11 games and you haven't watched any of them.

I can only imagine what you must have been saying about Dirk in his rookie year.


Dirk was only 20 as a rookie, but 21-year old Dirk > current Holmgren

btw, Holmgren's numbers will continue to decline as the year progresses because his skinny frame will wear down and opponents will catch on to his game more

[3ba11]

I disagree with this. I think Chet has had great navigational efficiency for a young big, and seems to thrive in tight spaces that usually lead to embarrassing plays for young bigs.


His navigational efficiency IS actually excellent.. the problem is that it has limited use for a 7-footer that isn't quick enough to consistently go off-the-dribble.. He'll end up a jumpshooter, but without the physicality or nuance that Dirk developed in the unspaced eras

[tontoz]

His navigational efficiency IS actually excellent.. the problem is that it has limited use for a 7-footer that isn't quick enough to consistently go off-the-dribble.. He'll end up a jumpshooter, but without the physicality or nuance that Dirk developed in the unspaced eras

Chet is certainly quicker than Dirk who looked like he was playing in combat boots. He has already shown the ability to get past guys off the dribble and finish. You would know if he actually watched him play.

[3ba11]

Chet is certainly quicker than Dirk who looked like he was playing in combat boots. He has already shown the ability to get past guys off the dribble and finish. You would know if he actually watched him play.


he isn't much quicker and turnaround jumpers don't require quickness, and pull-ups don't really require it either.

he's a good ball-handler for his size but not quick or good enough to be a high-producer in that aspect

[FultzNationRISE]

Holmgren isn't a good enough scorer to take 35 shots in any game

It actually does demonstrate tremendous scoring ability to get off 35 shots and command that many shots

So Holmgren is naive and thinking a very basic way about the game..

And what if the player has no help and is forced to take that many shots?.. High shot volume regardless of efficiency controls game flow and is infact a strategy to win games - high volume from 1 player spurs high offensive rebounds while dictating a grinding game flow - it's a strategy to win that was used effectively by the goat in the 93' and 98 Finals or the 01' Sixers and many more (like Kobe)


Some truth to this maybe, but it's also kind of a semantic argument.

His point was clearly that it doesnt automatically mean your scoring is beneficial for the team. Many people see the point totals and dont put them in context. What he's saying is that there's a context to how valuable a 30 point performance actually was.

It's possible to be a talented scorer and a detriment to your team at the same time.

[ArbitraryWater]

Chet is certainly quicker than Dirk who looked like he was playing in combat boots. He has already shown the ability to get past guys off the dribble and finish. You would know if he actually watched him play.

not a rookie Dirk..

[sdot_thadon]

not a rookie Dirk..

Yeah rookie Dirk was alot more mobile and probably spent more time at sf than anywhere else. As for the topic I wouldn't take that as a shot at Kobe because that wasn't Kobe every game although he tended to swing that way more often than the guys he gets comparisons with. He was a gunner and when it worked he looked amazing, when it looked bad it looked really bad. If you show me a 10-30 from the field statline I'm more likely going to think Kobe before anyone else lol. Perhaps it had more to do with his stubbornness but yeah Chet's not coming in here dissing any legends.

[3ba11]

Some truth to this maybe, but it's also kind of a semantic argument.

His point was clearly that it doesnt automatically mean your scoring is beneficial for the team. Many people see the point totals and dont put them in context. What he's saying is that there's a context to how valuable a 30 point performance actually was.

It's possible to be a talented scorer and a detriment to your team at the same time.


this post makes sense except that most of the time when a guy takes 35 shots, it's because he has no help and the team would have no offense without it.. Like the 2001 Sixers have no offense without Iverson, or the Bulls without MJ, or the 06' Lakers without Kobe.. no offense without those 35 shots.. Look at MJ in the 98' Finals where he had very weak scoring help and therefore had to set the record for percentage of points scored and take nearly 30 shots per game.. He shot like crap, but the Bulls had zero chance without the foundation that his offense provided.. the 35 shots is normally the foundation for a weak team's offense.

[Axe]

Exactly. You hadn't watched him at all yet you are making declarations about what he can and can't do. Typical screwball nonsense.

A lot of his "good shots" are ones he creates off the dribble.
:oldlol:

Anyone who calls him a 'goat' poster is certainly a braindead mongoloid.

[tontoz]

https://youtu.be/xxkviKFflt0?si=0ScQo_XxvY6gS5_w

[3ba11]

https://youtu.be/xxkviKFflt0?si=0ScQo_XxvY6gS5_w


Flow points from Holmgren.. that's all i saw.. and bad closeout defense against him that only occurs in regular season

Ultimately, Wemby is a 1st option; Holmgren is not.. Holmgren's efficiency will always suffer at higher volumes and usages

[tontoz]

Flow points from Holmgren.. that's all i saw.. and bad closeout defense against him that only occurs in regular season

Ultimately, Wemby is a 1st option; Holmgren is not.. Holmgren's efficiency will always suffer at higher volumes and usages


Sure, just like Durant struggles with high usage.:facepalm