LaMelo Ball amazing 50-point game tonight

[Kblaze8855]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2411240937320353.jpeg

[Kblaze8855]

https://youtu.be/jqx7jWn191g?si=eiYhUnJqAERIHBUt

[highwhey]

walking meme

[Meticode]

He'll get some high scoring games throughout his career.

Honestly, I'm not sure he's improved much over the last few years. He's scoring almost five points per game better this season compared to the last two seasons, but he's taking four more shots a game too on the same efficiency (low 40s from the field).

In no way am I saying he's like Allen Iverson, but his splits offensively and efficiency is very Iverson-esque. High volume scoring with meh efficiency.

[RRR3]

He'll get some high scoring games throughout his career.

Honestly, I'm not sure he's improved much over the last few years. He's scoring almost five points per game better this season compared to the last two seasons, but he's taking four more shots a game too on the same efficiency (low 40s from the field).

In no way am I saying he's like Allen Iverson, but his splits offensively and efficiency is very Iverson-esque. High volume scoring with meh efficiency.
He's playing with utter crap offensively which is part of it but the main issue is despite him being a great shooter, he's very weak so he struggles mightily to finish inside. Also doesn't get to the line a ton. I'd still love him on the Heat tho.

[Meticode]

He's playing with utter crap offensively which is part of it but the main issue is despite him being a great shooter,

Another thing that reminds me of Iverson with him. The 2001 76ers that went to the Finals... Iverson was the leading scorer with 31/4/5 on 42/32/81. His second leading scorer on the team? Theo flippin' Ratliff with 12.3 PPG on 50/0/76. :lol

[ShawkFactory]

Brandon Miller with 32 as well. Might be an unpopular opinion but if I’m a hornets fan and I’m not going to be competitive anyway..I’d probably choose Miller moving forward given the choice between the two.

Maybe.

[Kblaze8855]

Ratliff got traded at the deadline for Mutombo. The second option actually scored less than either of them though people have been talking him up for 20 years. He won sixth man for 11ppg. Very different league.

[Meticode]

Ratliff got traded at the deadline for Mutombo. The second option actually scored less than either of them though people have been talking him up for 20 years. He won sixth man for 11ppg. Very different league.

I know, but Ratliff played with the team most of the season (50 games vs 26). And he had more points than Mutumbo did for the team. So I wanted to make a point that even though Ratliff had more points than Motumbo for the team there was still that much of a gap between #1 option and #2 option.

And I'm not saying the league wasn't different. Of course it was..

[RRR3]

Brandon Miller with 32 as well. Might be an unpopular opinion but if I’m a hornets fan and I’m not going to be competitive anyway..I’d probably choose Miller moving forward given the choice between the two.

Maybe.
Miller hasn’t shown anything to be taken over LaMelo.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ridiculous thought: if Jamal Crawford had been drafted to be a franchise player with superstar expectations and completely let loose to do whatever he wanted to do however and whenever he wanted to do it could he have been like Ball? Ball has reached greater heights but I've never seen a move shot or pass by Ball that Crawford could not have done. But the volume of shooting and ball dominance in general got multiplied by a factor of 10.

[RRR3]

Ridiculous thought: if Jamal Crawford had been drafted to be a franchise player with superstar expectations and completely let loose to do whatever he wanted to do however and whenever he wanted to do it could he have been like Ball? Ball has reached greater heights but I've never seen a move shot or pass by Ball that Crawford could not have done. But the volume of shooting and ball dominance in general got multiplied by a factor of 10.
There’s still time to delete this.

[Real Men Wear Green]

There’s still time to delete this.

Nah.

[Im Still Ballin]

They need Mark Williams to get healthy. They need a legit center.

[ShawkFactory]

Miller hasn’t shown anything to be taken over LaMelo.

Not yet, although he’s on back to back 30+ point games and when playing with confidence is fantastic. I’m not saying Miller is better but just thinking big picture.

Lamelo is Trae Youngish to me. I think we pretty much know what we’re going to get with him. It’ll look pretty and be effective at times but not something you can ultimately win with.

Miller may not ever be a #1 on a championship team, but getting rid of Lamelo and tanking to get someone who will be the 1 and Miller the 2? You could have something there.

As it is, Melo is just good enough to keep you fairly mediocre.

[ImKobe]

He'll get some high scoring games throughout his career.

Honestly, I'm not sure he's improved much over the last few years. He's scoring almost five points per game better this season compared to the last two seasons, but he's taking four more shots a game too on the same efficiency (low 40s from the field).

In no way am I saying he's like Allen Iverson, but his splits offensively and efficiency is very Iverson-esque. High volume scoring with meh efficiency.

His efficiency has gone up while he's upped his volume though. From 55%TS career average to putting up the highest volume in his career w/ a ~57%TS. He's taking more 3s and getting to the line more and his efficiency inside 3 FT has gone up from high 50s to low 60s over the last 2 years, albeit the sample size is small right now.

With better spacing around him and a decent 5 he can be a legitimate top 10 player in the league with how good he is offensively. You can call it AI-lite & him just chucking but I believe he's the best 4th quarter player in the league right now. He's shooting 51.4%FG 41.5%3PT in the 4th. For whatever reason he's been abysmal in 1st halves but gets better as the game goes on.

[tpols]

Ridiculous thought: if Jamal Crawford had been drafted to be a franchise player with superstar expectations and completely let loose to do whatever he wanted to do however and whenever he wanted to do it could he have been like Ball? Ball has reached greater heights but I've never seen a move shot or pass by Ball that Crawford could not have done. But the volume of shooting and ball dominance in general got multiplied by a factor of 10.


The difference is Jamal Crawford was a tunnel vision scorer, over dribbler, and below average passer. So it wouldn't work especially considering the last point and how it relates to team play. Unless we want to see 100 Jamal isos and 500 crossovers per game. Lamelo can actually dime and QB an offense. He had 10 assists in this game.

[ArbitraryWater]

17/37

[Real Men Wear Green]

The difference is Jamal Crawford was a tunnel vision scorer, over dribbler, and below average passer. So it wouldn't work especially considering the last point and how it relates to team play. Unless we want to see 100 Jamal isos and 500 crossovers per game. Lamelo can actually dime and QB an offense. He had 10 assists in this game.

Crawford once averaged 5 assists despite not being the regular starting point guard. Melo is more of a point guard but it's something Crawford could do. Recent trends in basketball have made coaches more open to freewheeling players and that's part of what makes it possible for Ball to do what he does. Guys from the past like Crawford and Jason Williams may not have been great players in this era but definitely would have done more if they were allowed to fully play their styles in star roles.

[RRR3]

Crawford once averaged 5 assists despite not being the regular starting point guard. Melo is more of a point guard but it's something Crawford could do. Recent trends in basketball have made coaches more open to freewheeling players and that's part of what makes it possible for Ball to do what he does. Guys from the past like Crawford and Jason Williams may not have been great players in this era but definitely would have done more if they were allowed to fully play their styles in star roles.
https://i.imgflip.com/9bh34y.jpg

[RRR3]

Not yet, although he’s on back to back 30+ point games and when playing with confidence is fantastic. I’m not saying Miller is better but just thinking big picture.

Lamelo is Trae Youngish to me. I think we pretty much know what we’re going to get with him. It’ll look pretty and be effective at times but not something you can ultimately win with.

Miller may not ever be a #1 on a championship team, but getting rid of Lamelo and tanking to get someone who will be the 1 and Miller the 2? You could have something there.

As it is, Melo is just good enough to keep you fairly mediocre.
What does "can't win with" mean? Can't win as the number one on a title team? So what, that's like a handful of guys in the league. If you think they couldn't win as 2nd or 3rd options on title teams, that's just not true considering we've seen worse guys win in those roles. This isn't even getting into the fact that Trae Young very possibly has a ring as the first option if he doesn't get hurt in the 2021 playoffs :lol

[Real Men Wear Green]

https://i.imgflip.com/9bh34y.jpg

Except that I didn't say they would be superstars so you failed to make an argument. With scoring as easy as it's been in decades he's a career 21 ppg on 43%. If he can keep that 30 ppg up all season I'll tip my cap but that is at the least thrown off by scoring 50 in a 16 game to date season. And still shooting 43%. Crawford didn't have that kind of green light.

[tpols]

Crawford once averaged 5 assists despite not being the regular starting point guard. Melo is more of a point guard but it's something Crawford could do. Recent trends in basketball have made coaches more open to freewheeling players and that's part of what makes it possible for Ball to do what he does. Guys from the past like Crawford and Jason Williams may not have been great players in this era but definitely would have done more if they were allowed to fully play their styles in star roles.

Crawford had plenty of opportunity to do whatever he wanted when he played... he just wasnt a good passer or creator for teammates. His whole style was microwave iso scorer 6th man. It would be like saying JR Smith could QB an offense like Lamelo. They just don't have that dimension of awareness or capability on offense to orchestrate for the whole team, just themselves mostly.

[Charlie Sheen]

What does "can't win with" mean? Can't win as the number one on a title team? So what, that's like a handful of guys in the league. If you think they couldn't win as 2nd or 3rd options on title teams, that's just not true considering we've seen worse guys win in those roles. This isn't even getting into the fact that Trae Young very possibly has a ring as the first option if he doesn't get hurt in the 2021 playoffs :lol

Lamelo is not a bad player but would it be in the Hornets long term interest to chase a perfect storm of events to reach a conference finals and never come close to that level of success again?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Crawford had plenty of opportunity to do whatever he wanted when he played... he just wasnt a good passer or creator for teammates. His whole style was microwave iso scorer 6th man. It would be like saying JR Smith could QB an offense like Lamelo. They just don't have that dimension of awareness or capability on offense to orchestrate for the whole team, just themselves mostly.

JR Smith isn't that kind of ballhandler and creator so that makes no sense. Ball's coaches are fine with him dribbling 6 to 8 seconds, crossing back and forth and then launching a contested jumper from 5 feet behind the three point line. If Crawford took a shot like that it would just be viewed as Crawford being stupid. His career isn't ancient history but even 10 years ago the style of basketball Ball is permitted to play was not accepted.

One of the funniest lines I recall from Tom Heinsohn was about Jason Williams: "He shoots you out of the game, he shoots you into the game, he shoots you out of the game, and the you shoot yourself. " and that's just how playground style players were viewed.

[tpols]

JR Smith isn't that kind of ballhandler and creator so that makes no sense. Ball's coaches are fine with him dribbling 6 to 8 seconds, crossing back and forth and then launching a contested jumper from 5 feet behind the three point line. If Crawford took a shot like that or would just be viewed as Crawford being stupid. His career isn't ancient Gosport but even 10 years ago the style of basketball Ball is permitted to play was not accepted.

One of the funniest lines I recall from Tom Heinsohn was about Jason Williams: "He shoots you out of the game, he shoots you into the game, he shoots you out of the game, and the you shoot yourself. " and that's just how playground style players were viewed.

I mean... that literally was Crawfords whole game. Spam crossovers and jack shots inefficiently. Lamelo has a passing gear he doesn't and is a truly crafty team player. He just so happens to be on a shit team so there's not much more he can do.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ball is efficient?

[ShawkFactory]

What does "can't win with" mean? Can't win as the number one on a title team? So what, that's like a handful of guys in the league. If you think they couldn't win as 2nd or 3rd options on title teams, that's just not true considering we've seen worse guys win in those roles. This isn't even getting into the fact that Trae Young very possibly has a ring as the first option if he doesn't get hurt in the 2021 playoffs :lol

The Hawks absolutely did not “very possibly” win a ring in 2021 if he doesn’t get hurt. The Bucks were a better team regardless. They were EXTREMELY lucky to get past the 6ers. Absolutely no way in hell they beat Phoenix in the finals if they do get past Milwaukee.

[GOBB]

He'll get some high scoring games throughout his career.

Honestly, I'm not sure he's improved much over the last few years. He's scoring almost five points per game better this season compared to the last two seasons, but he's taking four more shots a game too on the same efficiency (low 40s from the field).

In no way am I saying he's like Allen Iverson, but his splits offensively and efficiency is very Iverson-esque. High volume scoring with meh efficiency.

Everyone in the nba is efficient but AI? And the game back then was tougher to score vs now. You honestly think AI efficiency would be identical than it was in 2001? Honest question.

One last question are you watching Lamelo play or most of it is stat based? No need to get offended. Not everyone can watch every game in the NBA. It’s impossible. But your post just comes across as one where it’s stat based. Which doesn’t always tell the story. Meaning you said he didn’t improve much. Is that from the EYE test?

[tpols]

Lamelo is producing on 57%TS and 113 ORTG for the year. That's not inefficient at all.

[tpols]

The Hawks absolutely did not “very possibly” win a ring in 2021 if he doesn’t get hurt. The Bucks were a better team regardless. They were EXTREMELY lucky to get past the 6ers. Absolutely no way in hell they beat Phoenix in the finals if they do get past Milwaukee.

The Suns would've smoked the Hawks. They should've beat the Bucks up 2-0 and then one of the worst chokes ever in Game 4 which could've gave them a strangle hold on the series.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Lamelo is producing on 57%TS and 113 ORTG for the year. That's not inefficient at all.

Crawford has 56 and 57 TS % seasons (whatever that really means) and is 53 career to Ball's 55.

But you are saying that Ball is efficient?

[tpols]

Crawford played a long 20 year career and 57%TS was his highest mark ever. He was below that in every other year.

And Jamals career ORTG was 106 while Lamelos right now this year is 113 and for his career 110... while operating on higher scoring volume, more than double the assist volume, and being a full time starter and not 6th man playing against bench defense.

It's just a poor comparison. Lamelo laps him as a baller.

[RRR3]

Crawford has 56 and 57 TS % seasons (whatever that really means) and is 53 career to Ball's 55.

But you are saying that Ball is efficient?
Crawford never faced remotely the same defensive attention LaMelo is facing rn, nor did he ever have close to the same volume. When was Crawford the best scorer on his team? The only times he ever lead his teams in PPG he put up TS% of 48.6 and 52.8

[Real Men Wear Green]

Crawford played a long 20 year career and 57%TS was his highest mark ever. He was below that in every other year.

And Jamals career ORTG was 106 while Lamelos right now this year is 113 and for his career 110... while operating on higher scoring volume, more than double the assist volume, and being a full time starter and not 6th man playing against bench defense.

It's just a poor comparison. Lamelo laps him as a baller.

I'm guessing that ORTG (whatever that means) is influenced by the outsized effect of a50 point game on a16 game season. I will begin to care about 110 vs 106 when you show me the math that created these two numbers in the first place. And this is worth the modern three point spam game Taoism efficiency. Crawford didn't play for coaches that wanted him to take threes the way that modern players do. At most Crawford 6+ 3s per game which was actually a lot for the time but these days Ball is averaging 13 and has 9 and 10 per game seasons while Ball was normally getting 5 or 6.

The idea that bench players don't match up with starters is silly. Especially a guy like Crawford that was a high minute bench player.

[RRR3]

I'm guessing that ORTG (whatever that means) is influenced by the outsized effect of a50 point game on a16 game season. I will begin to care about 110 vs 106 when you show me the math that created these two numbers in the first place. And this is worth the modern three point spam game Taoism efficiency. Crawford didn't play for coaches that wanted him to take threes the way that modern players do. At most Crawford 6+ 3s per game which was actually a lot for the time but these days Ball is averaging 13 and has 9 and 10 per game seasons while Ball was normally getting 5 or 6.

The idea that bench players don't match up with starters is silly. Especially a guy like Crawford that was a high minute bench player.
Crawford couldnt shoot like LaMelo :confusedshrug: LaMelo takes that many 3s because he's good at them, the volume is particularly insane because he has to carry a garbage cast. Crawford played 20 years and was quite literally a below average 3PT shooter relative to the league he played in (-2% career efficiency wise)

[tpols]

ORTG is just your overall shooting efficiency + your assists and turnovers. It's the ultimate umbrella for offensive efficiency since it incorporates everything. Turnovers are even worse than missed shots.

Lamelos is higher in all ways despite having way higher offensive volume and being the 1st option starter on a team having to face maximum defensive attention.

To suggest that Jamal Crawford could do what Lamelo is doing when he couldn't even come close to doing it in a reduced role facing less defensive attention just doesn't add up.

[RRR3]

The Hawks absolutely did not “very possibly” win a ring in 2021 if he doesn’t get hurt. The Bucks were a better team regardless. They were EXTREMELY lucky to get past the 6ers. Absolutely no way in hell they beat Phoenix in the finals if they do get past Milwaukee.
The Bucks were not a better team without Giannis though, he was hurt when Trae went down and they likely close it out if Trae stays healthy, you can't seriously claim the Bucks without Giannis were some formidable opponent. like I said circumstances almost gave Trae a ring as the first option that year. As Kblaze says it's funny to judge people on such circumstantial stuff.

[Kblaze8855]

https://i.imgflip.com/9bh34y.jpg


This is his final real game(he played 6 more minutes his career) at 39 after 19 seasons a few years ago



https://youtu.be/zStYhN-KOWk?si=7Sw4dADoWwTCSuct


And he didn’t have to shoot terribly like Kobe’s last game to do it. He shot 60%. He could cook a mismatch for 20 years.

A prime Jamal Crawford in a league that just wants to spread itself out and have people attack mismatches with high screens and ice play could definitely score 25 a game. He was doing 21 a game on a team playing at a 91 pace, which is considerably slower than any team plays right now. They didn’t start freedom of movement emphasis till he was 34.

it isnt old men who don’t play who have the idea that Crawford would have a different career these days. That conversation comes from players mostly in the league. Kevin Durant was in a press conference trying to get him into the Hall of Fame. Youre free to think he wasn’t that good but the idea that it is old out of touch fans who think he could be a star in today’s league is simply disregarding how many people in the league have a deep respect for him.

Hell JJ Is the one who started the whole wave of saying old players were against plumbers and firemen. He’s pretty much the anti-old man complaining about the current league. He praises Jamal more than anybody. They ended up doing some podcasts after he had Jamal on to talk about it.

True or not true the idea that he would be a star today is factually not coming from old people who hate the league.

[RRR3]

I didn't say he would suck, but he wouldn't suddenly become a superstar. Saying he could score 25 PPG doesn't really mean anything, Jalen Green scored 22 PPG a few years ago and he's very much a below average starter for the NBA's standards.

Also using one game from a season in which Crawford performed terribly (not using that season to judge him as a player at all, he was 39, pretty much everyone is done by then) is equivalent to saying Tony Delk was a beast because he scored 50 once.

[999Guy]

Ridiculous thought: if Jamal Crawford had been drafted to be a franchise player with superstar expectations and completely let loose to do whatever he wanted to do however and whenever he wanted to do it could he have been like Ball? Ball has reached greater heights but I've never seen a move shot or pass by Ball that Crawford could not have done. But the volume of shooting and ball dominance in general got multiplied by a factor of 10.
Eh. Pointless comparison. Peak Jamal Crawford on the Hawks? Sure, he could probably scale it up to this level for a while. But he'd never do it while playing decent defense(not that LaMelo is, but LaMelo was pretty good on D as a rookie and sophomore), and he'd be 29 to LaMelo's 23 right now.

LaMelo is projecting to be a little worse than prime James Harden based on ability at his age. Being this good at 23 is no joke.

When Crawford was 23? Absolute trash compared to this.

BTW - people are way too hard on LaMelo. Super talented. Probably the best first step at his height I've seen and can think of. He moves like a PG but has SF/PF type push shots and bigger guy finishes in the lane.

What guys go on to do and how they develop is really unpredictable but saying he's a loser already who you can't win with is absurd.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Crawford couldnt shoot like LaMelo :confusedshrug: LaMelo takes that many 3s because he's good at them, the volume is particularly insane because he has to carry a garbage cast. Crawford played 20 years and was quite literally a below average 3PT shooter relative to the league he played in (-2% career efficiency wise)

Ball's career 3pt %age is 37. Crawford is at 35 with a few years over 37. Let's not act like Ball is Steph Curry out there.

[Kblaze8855]

ORTG is just your overall shooting efficiency + your assists and turnovers. It's the ultimate umbrella for offensive efficiency since it incorporates everything. Turnovers are even worse than missed shots.

Lamelos is higher in all ways despite having way higher offensive volume and being the 1st option starter on a team having to face maximum defensive attention.

To suggest that Jamal Crawford could do what Lamelo is doing when he couldn't even come close to doing it in a reduced role facing less defensive attention just doesn't add up.



this is one of those intersections between analytics and understanding how basketball is played that creates problems. Supreme one on one guys don’t play worse with higher volume because the number of shots they take is often rising with an increase of the shots they want to take. Is not the kind of thing you can Google and answer to because all you can find is Shotta temps compared to makes which doesn’t tell the nature of shots. The so called “bucket” players?

From the top where Kobe and Bird types live to the upper middle class where Crawford and Lou Williams live who can take over any game and be relied on to take the big shot all the way to the bottom where nobodies like John Lucas come in and get 2 shots to show if they have it that night?

Playing the team game doesn’t get them as many of the shots they specialize in taking.

A guy like Melo as a role-player would be doing a lot Less facing up and bullying himself into position for shots that leave defenders hopeless. Guys like Kobe and Bird Would definitely shoot better if they set out to score on more of their touches. That’s why they were both able to look right at you tell you what they were going to do then make it.

Playing the total game relies on so much more. You could get better shots from the perspective of shot tracking and distance of closest defender, but you would get less shots a guy like that is comfortable making.

Volume guys work themselves into the game. They get you where they want you over and over and over and over and over. It’s disruptive to an offense operating a lot of plays and especially disruptive to the kind of basketball that was played for 100 years that was mostly Inside Out. It’s considerably less disruptive today when running a good offense is mostly about the defense choosing to respect you than it’s about the shot going in.

this is a discussion that leans more on the Y and the how so looking at only statistical results won’t really get us anywhere.

Half the league studied this guy. He is the entire reason the entire NBA started falling down on three-pointers like jackasses. He had more four-point plays than the rest of the players and NBA history combined before everyone else caught on. I’m not necessarily calling that positive, but I’m saying he was exactly the kind of ultra skilled crafty guard who you just give the ball at 28 feet today and see him go crazy.

Him creeping up to star levels of point production is probably just a matter of pace. I don’t think he would even need to play better. If you’re trying to mandate him doing it, while being on a great team, you would have to change the definition of star throughout all history. I think pistol Pete was only on two 500 teams and one of them was when he had a cuppa coffee playing with Larry Bird at the end.

“But would the team be good?” has never really been a standard that decided if a teams top scorer was good at basketball or not. Somewhere along the way as we were deciding the regular season didn’t count, but still being mad the players came to agree that the regular season didn’t count we started doing that stupid “If I’m trying to win the championship” Thing that disregards that the extreme majority of all basketball ever played in the NBA was not 14 team that was going to win the championship.

you start getting to stupid arguments like Derek Fisher being better to win a championship than Nick VanExel or Marbury, and people not having the common sense to realize that if he is, it’s only because him being worse at basketball justifies less consideration of his input, which increases the role of the kind of legendary players you need to win a championship in the first place. it’s being more suitable as result of being worse. Obviously, Derek Fisher couldn’t take a team to the playoffs like Marbury or go take apart Gary Payton, and knock out a good sonic team like Nick. But the response people will give you is that they aren’t trying to build a playoff team. They want a champion.

And then trying to sound smart, they disregard that they are working with the presumption. They already have someone to get them to the playoffs in the first place. It’s easy to choose to take to build a team that already has players that will make it good with or without them. That isn’t what anyone can do unless they are hired to Put the finishing touches on it already good team.

Players are as good as they are. They aren’t equal to the role you would like them to have on the small minority of teams already set up to win. Most of the NBA aren’t the five true contenders. It’s the 25 others who have to put a team on the floor that wont embarrass them every night.

I think it’s a big part of the disconnect between fans and players. Fans are stuck on what they believe wins in the playoffs. Players are just talking about who plays basketball the best because they understand being the best doesn’t necessarily translate that way and that it absolutely doesn’t apply to most situations.

well over 20 teams in the NBA know with absolute certainty they aren’t going to win in the playoffs. Most of them don’t have the kind of superstar you need to make that happen. They can still evaluate each other as basketball players. It’s fans that have a hard time looking at things other than results.

if Jamal is out there scoring 27 a game on some shitty pelicans or Blazer team and has the long career he did he would be remembered as a star just like the people who didn’t win 40 years ago are still legends. There are two people in the top 75 list who played together for their entire primes and I don’t think they won a playoff series for 10 years. You probably don’t even know who I mean because there is no reason for you to know. In the end, nobody really gives a shit.

You arent great because you win and you don’t necessarily win because you were great individually. It takes a lot to build a winning franchise. If the standard for being a star is being one of the 15 or 20 guys in the history of the world who would make you good regardless, we might as well get rid of the word. We only have like three at a time.

A prime Jamal would score a lot today. What label you want to give him when it happens is a matter of how you want to spin it.

i’m thinking you’re looking at a Zach Levine situation on most teams you would put him on. Maybe higher ppg one slightly worse efficiency. But even efficiency whores don’t care that much. Lavine did 27 a game on 51/42/85 and nobody cares. Team wasn’t good. I’m thinking that’s about what would happen most years with different shooting numbers.

Hed be an all star some years. Probably score 25000 points or more. He scored 19 as it is. He was damn near the same player for like 15 or 16 years straight. He would have absolutely staggering totals with his game and longevity. Regards of the label we put on him he would go down as a more highly regarded player to the public. He’s already pretty highly regarded to the players.

[RRR3]

Ball's career 3pt %age is 37. Crawford is at 35 with a few years over 37. Let's not act like Ball is Steph Curry out there.
LaMelo is on double the volume with more defensive attention. And he’s still been above league average.

[Real Men Wear Green]

ORTG is just your overall shooting efficiency + your assists and turnovers. It's the ultimate umbrella for offensive efficiency since it incorporates everything. Turnovers are even worse than missed shots. This might be the factors of the formula but is not the formula itself. Bust out the (3x-2y^2)/0.7(2reb^3) that these formula normally are.


Lamelos is higher in all ways despite having way higher offensive volume and being the 1st option starter on a team having to face maximum defensive attention. It's the Hornets. Most opponents wouldn't double him because he's not a truly dominant offensive player. Even the game where he got 50/10 that 50 came on 17/37. He rarely has the kind of performance the opponent can't live with.


To suggest that Jamal Crawford could do what Lamelo is doing when he couldn't even come close to doing it in a reduced role facing less defensive attention just doesn't add up. Ball is a career 21ppg scorer. Crawford has multiple seasons over 19 ppg. If he can keep up this season's 30 then that's different but you are acting like he's had this untouchable career when that just isn't the case.

[RRR3]

There’s a pretty big difference between being untouchable and being better than Jamal Crawford. You might as well compare LaMelo to Malik Monk because that’s who Crawford would be today. Not ****ing LaMelo who’s one of the better points in the league

[Real Men Wear Green]

LaMelo is on double the volume with more defensive attention. And he’s still been above league average.

Who is doubling Ball? I'll admit I don't see him much outside of Celtic games and highlightsbut so long as he stays out of the paint the Celtics don't do it. Unless he's isolated with a big or trying to back down Pritchard the Cs aren't sending help. He'll get a little more attention attacking th he basket but that's true of everyone.

[RRR3]

Also you guys are acting like Crawford is some old school player who this board hasn’t seen. Most of us witnessed him still in his prime on the Clippers. He was a 6th man. He was never considered one of the better guards in the league, he was thought of the same way Malik Monk or Bogdan Bogdanovic are thought of today.

[Kblaze8855]

I didn't say he would suck, but he wouldn't suddenly become a superstar. Saying he could score 25 PPG doesn't really mean anything, Jalen Green scored 22 PPG a few years ago and he's very much a below average starter for the NBA's standards.

Also using one game from a season in which Crawford performed terribly (not using that season to judge him as a player at all, he was 39, pretty much everyone is done by then) is equivalent to saying Tony Delk was a beast because he scored 50 once.


No, it isn’t. If Tony Delk were a multiple time 18-21 a game scorer who scored almost 20,000 points in the NBA and scored 50 on 4 different teams he wouldn’t be Tony Delk. People reference Tony Delk because of a 50 point game. Not a 50 point game and then the other 50 point game and then the other 50 point game and then the other 50 point game and And then all the 40 point games and all the 30 point games and so on. If Tony Delk had all that nobody would reference his 50 point game because it wouldn’t be unusual.

Jamal could score at 19 or 39. People who are still young players today were out there while he was scoring 50 as an old man. The idea that he could be more highly regarded in this much more open league that would increase his production off nothing but pace and a style much more suitable to his approach while also not coming up in the toughest defensive era in history isnt out of line.

It’s a perfectly reasonable opinion and is as a simple matter of fact, not something coming from deluded old men. It’s coming from some people in this very league youre talking about. Players in it. Coaches in it. Like I said you can say they’re wrong but you can’t act like the old people are the ones who think it.

The old people didn’t like Jamal Crawford in the first place. The people ripping Jamal Crawford are generally the same ones who hate everybody out there now. The Jamal Crawford supporters are current basketball players and basketball basketball people. The people who would tell the old men shaking at clouds to shut the **** up about the old days are the ones who would tell you to shut the **** up about Jamal Crawford.

[RRR3]

Who is doubling Ball? I'll admit I don't see him much outside of Celtic games and highlightsbut so long as he stays out of the paint the Celtics don't do it. Unless he's isolated with a big or trying to back down Pritchard the Cs aren't sending help. He'll get a little more attention attacking th he basket but that's true of everyone.
Yeah if you think teams are sending the same level of defender at LaMelo that they were at Crawford in 100% of cases you’re just being disingenuous. Crawford was very rarely the main focus of an opponents defense. LaMelo is, it’d be silly to deny it.

[RRR3]

No, it isn’t. If Tony Delk were a multiple time 18-21 a game scorer who scored almost 20,000 points in the NBA and scored 50 on 4 different teams he wouldn’t be Tony Delk. People reference Tony Delk because of a 50 point game. Not a 50 point game and then the other 50 point game and then the other 50 point game and then the other 50 point game and And then all the 40 point games and all the 30 point games and so on. If Tony Delk had all that nobody would reference his 50 point game because it wouldn’t be unusual.

Jamal could score at 19 or 39. People who are still young players today were out there while he was scoring 50 as an old man. The idea that he could be more highly regarded in this much more open league that would increase his production off nothing but pace and a style much more suitable to his approach while also not coming up in the toughest defensive era in history isnt out of line.

It’s a perfectly reasonable opinion and is as a simple matter of fact, not something coming from deluded old men. It’s coming from some people in this very league youre talking about. Players in it. Coaches in it. Like I said you can say they’re wrong but you can’t act like the old people are the ones who think it.

The old people didn’t like Jamal Crawford in the first place. The people ripping Jamal Crawford are generally the same ones who hate everybody out there now. The Jamal Crawford supporters are current basketball players and basketball basketball people. The people who would tell the old men shaking at clouds to shut the **** up about the old days are the ones who would tell you to shut the **** up about Jamal Crawford.
Jamal could not in fact score at 39. He had one game similar to Tony Delk but he scored very badly otherwise that year.

He could score when he was young but not on the same level as LaMelo is doing rn and even if he could the passing gap is so massive that comparing them as players is ridiculous.

[Kblaze8855]

Also you guys are acting like Crawford is some old school player who this board hasn’t seen. Most of us witnessed him still in his prime on the Clippers. He was a 6th man. He was never considered one of the better guards in the league, he was thought of the same way Malik Monk or Bogdan Bogdanovic are thought of today.


Who said he was considered one of the better guards in the league? That isn’t the issue.

even at 8:35 the game wasn’t nearly as open as it is now. The Steph/KD warriors Well, when he was like 37 and we just had a topic on how they were shooting less threes than anyone in the league now.

The barely tweaked itself and turned Steve Nash from a guy his team let go to give the same money to Eric Dampier to a multiple time MVP Nobody could guard. The difference between 2025 and the year 2000 when Jamal came in is hard to overstate. He transitioned as well as he could, but he was already old.

An entire career in a league that doesn’t bench you for an off the dribble three? When they emphasize spreading everyone out and attacking mismatches up top? In the era of bag culture?

There is no telling what he would be. But it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t be considerably more comfortable. If he were the exact same thing, just given the extra possessions and longer leash he would be more productive.

things out here scoring 140 with nobody even batting an eye. You realize he was on a Bulls team that scored 88 points a game? The Bulls score 118 a game now. Which would be shocking if the Cavs didn’t score 124.

it is an absurdly different environment. Nobody would blink an eye at him doing things he used to get pulled out of the game for.

One thing nobody can question. Everything about his game would be better suited than it was in his prime. Hard to imagine he isn’t considerably more productive.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yeah if you think teams are sending the same level of defender at LaMelo that they were at Crawford in 100% of cases you’re just being disingenuous. Crawford was very rarely the main focus of an opponents defense. LaMelo is, it’d be silly to deny it.

Crawford would rarely be worse than his team's second best perimeter scorer and plenty of the time would be the best perimeter scorer for his team at the time. Averaged 20 once himself. You are acting like Ball is prime Kobe or something. He's very good very talented but hasn't done anything to be labeled as a true great yet.

[RRR3]

Crawford would rarely be worse than his team's second best perimeter scorer and plenty of the time would be the best perimeter scorer for his team at the time. Averaged 20 once himself. You are acting like Ball is prime Kobe or something. He's very good very talented but hasn't done anything to be labeled as a true great yet.
What teams was the best perimeter scorer on? The 04 Bulls? :roll: The 07 Knicks? :oldlol: I watched a lot of his career he spent most of the time I watched getting carried by CP3 and Blake Griffin while often losing minutes to the likes of Randy Foye.

[RRR3]

Who said he was considered one of the better guards in the league? That isn’t the issue.

even at 8:35 the game wasn’t nearly as open as it is now. The Steph/KD warriors Well, when he was like 37 and we just had a topic on how they were shooting less threes than anyone in the league now.

The barely tweaked itself and turned Steve Nash from a guy his team let go to give the same money to Eric Dampier to a multiple time MVP Nobody could guard. The difference between 2025 and the year 2000 when Jamal came in is hard to overstate. He transitioned as well as he could, but he was already old.

An entire career in a league that doesn’t bench you for an off the dribble three? When they emphasize spreading everyone out and attacking mismatches up top? In the era of bag culture?

There is no telling what he would be. But it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t be considerably more comfortable. If he were the exact same thing, just given the extra possessions and longer leash he would be more productive.

things out here scoring 140 with nobody even batting an eye. You realize he was on a Bulls team that scored 88 points a game? The Bulls score 118 a game now. Which would be shocking if the Cavs didn’t score 124.

it is an absurdly different environment. Nobody would blink an eye at him doing things he used to get pulled out of the game for.

One thing nobody can question. Everything about his game would be better suited than it was in his prime. Hard to imagine he isn’t considerably more productive.
Steve Nash was multiple time all-nba before he won MVPs. Crawford showed me noting to separate himself from Malik Monk whose best PPG output is 15.4.

[Real Men Wear Green]

What teams was the best perimeter scorer on? The 04 Bulls? :roll: The 07 Knicks? :oldlol: I watched a lot of his career he spent most of the time I watched getting carried by CP3 and Blake Griffin while often losing minutes to the likes of Randy Foye.

Sure they were bad teams but what do you think Charlotte has been for Ball's whole career?

[RRR3]

Sure they were bad teams but what do you think Charlotte has been for Ball's whole career?
You would have a point if Crawford scoring on those teams was impressive. Ball is averaging 30. Crawford was putting up like 17 on godawful efficiency on that Bulls team.

And LaMelo has been the best player on a team that finished over .500. Crawford cannot say that.

[Kblaze8855]

Jamal could not in fact score at 39. He had one game similar to Tony Delk but he scored very badly otherwise that year.

He could score when he was young but not on the same level as LaMelo is doing rn and even if he could the passing gap is so massive that comparing them as players is ridiculous.

As I tried to explain this is just a difference in understanding what you’re seeing vs reading numbers. Being able to score isn’t the same as your ppg or efficiency. It’s just hard for fans to get their heads around. It’s not something I can easily explain to someone too far down the numbers rabbit hole.

All I can do is tell you to go watch post nba Michael Beasley types go give bucket after bucket after bucket to nba players playing seriously. Melo today gives bucket after bucket. So would Jamal. Or Lou Williams.

The reason that isn’t reflected in efficiency is because being a “bucket” isnt all an nba team is looking for. All 5 players can’t do that at once. Someone has to screen. Space the floor. Box out. Cut.

Being able to score individually makes you redundant in 100% of nba locker rooms because only one or two people can play that way at a time.

If the other parts don’t measure up you’re taking one of those spots from someone who can do that scoring…and other things.

So what happens is scorers have reduced roles and get put into a round peg with square skillets.

You turn a man to man scorer to a spectator and 20 years of work goes out the window. They go shoot 2-6 when they could go 9/18 or better if asked to play comfortably.

Would the team be great?

Unlikely…because they don’t do the other things that are the reason they don’t normally get the star role to begin with.

They end up scoring inefficiently…not because they can’t score…but because being pure scorers isn’t ideal for playing off someone else who has a larger role because they are better total players.

A bucket getter makes a bad role player which is why they end up 6th men who play a star role in the minutes they are allowed to be without redundant teammates but have to Be hybrids most of the rest of the time.

Thats why you can give old Jamal the ball and say “Run wild”.

Hes built to run wild. It just doesn’t show to number crunchers because a box score can’t tell if you went 7-17 on your shots or playing off someone else in opposition of your nature.

NBA players aren’t telling you these guys are buckets because they are fooled by fancy handles. They say it because they personally get lit up by them and understand the difference between being hard to guard and being likely to finish an nba game as 1 of 5 with a high shooting percentage. Most of basketball even on offense is not scoring. NBA teams will not necessarily cater to the strength of their best pure scorer because one person scoring 30 of 90 is less useful than if he scores 16 of 110.

How good a scorer you are and how efficient your shooting numbers will be at the end of an NBA season are simply not the same question.

If guys like Jamal and and plenty of others had less ability? They could shoot better due to settling into roles more traditionally occupied by the untalented. Just the wing version of dunkers versus big men who have skills. Hakeem will never be as efficient as Rudy Gobert because he’s too good at basketball. The difference just isn’t as pronounced the further from the basket you get.

A tremendous number of players shoot worse from the field because they are better scorers and apparently that is too foreign a concept for some fans to grasp.

Being too good a scorer while not being one of those era defining gods like Jokic or KD nothing can be a gift or a curse, depending on the situation. But the root of the problem isn’t any lack of scoring ability. Its deployment and team fit for scoring ability to lead the total team success.

Thinking there was any point of his career where Jamal Crawford couldn’t score Suggest a fundamental lack of understanding to me. just a straight up “I don’t know what I’m talking about but these numbers will convince other people who also don’t that we are astute observers.” shit.

The case that Jamal Crawford couldn’t score is one easy to make on the Internet to people who have no ****ing idea what they’re talking about and becomes increasingly difficult the closer you get to people playing a game of basketball. So I don’t expect the Internet to agree with me. “ If he were worse, he would be more efficient because teams wouldn’t send him out there to take tough shots without getting into a rhythm” Is apparently too large a concept to fit into the heads of fans who don’t care that much.

[RRR3]

I never said Crawford couldn't score well. I said he couldn't score well when he was 39. The list of players who did is what LeBron, Malone and Kareem? If you want to suggest Crawford has similar longevity to those guys, well..

[Kblaze8855]

I never said Crawford couldn't score well. I said he couldn't score well when he was 39. The list of players who did is what LeBron, Malone and Kareem? If you want to suggest Crawford has similar longevity to those guys, well..


Again the problem is your inability to separate ability and production. Lebron, Malone, and Kareem weren’t the only ones to be able to score at 39. There have been bums who could score at 39. The difference is them having other factors that allowed them to continue being featured. Well 2 of them at least. Kareem had too much respect and one unstoppable shot that made him an asset. But Lebron and Malone were still well rounded players who justified heavy PT.

Being a scorer who does nothing else as you get old and slow down will generally not allow you a big enough role to show that you can still score. There are people out of the league 32 who can give bucket after bucket to NBA players at 45. That isn’t the part you lose. You lose everything else. And then you lose the ability to do it one night and get up in the morning and have your knees still work.

A bucket often stays a bucket long after they stop being able to play quality NBA basketball on a daily basis.

[RRR3]

I mean his efficiency had been in decline for a good bit e even when he had his usual volume. To act like he was the same scorer he used to be at 39 is pretty silly. I remember he started to lose some of his scoring ability after 2014, although they stupidly gave him 6MOY over Iguodala in 2016 regardless of that.

I'm not even not a hater of Crawford, I liked those Clippers teams but I remember him getting worse while he was still on the Clippers, long before he went to the suns. Also guys generally get reduced workloads because the coach is seeing they can't produce at the same level they used to. It's not just looking at stats.

[highwhey]

What does "can't win with" mean? Can't win as the number one on a title team? So what, that's like a handful of guys in the league. If you think they couldn't win as 2nd or 3rd options on title teams, that's just not true considering we've seen worse guys win in those roles. This isn't even getting into the fact that Trae Young very possibly has a ring as the first option if he doesn't get hurt in the 2021 playoffs :lol

:roll: are you on crack?

[RRR3]

:roll: are you on crack?
We all saw the Suns poop their pants in a series they should have won. Meltdown.

[Kblaze8855]

Taking the same number of shots is not the same thing as the offense getting you the shots your game flourishes taking. You can take 12 shots in the wrong role or 9 of “your” shots. The 12 shows higher volume, but the nine were you being played through and taking your shots. There is no number anywhere to represent this. It is one of the widest disconnects in all sports. Great nba level defender tells you he can’t stop the guy. Fan sees he shoots 39 percent so he must be easily stopped. These two camps cannot be reconciled because they are asking fundamentally different questions.

[RRR3]

Crawford's role never changed on the Clippers. He was getting his same kind of shots. His efficiency declined anyways. You keep acting as if I didn't watch the dude play a ton of games.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You would have a point if Crawford scoring on those teams was impressive. Ball is averaging 30. Crawford was putting up like 17 on godawful efficiency on that Bulls team.

And LaMelo has been the best player on a team that finished over .500. Crawford cannot say that.

Ball's career average is 20.8. Crawford had these seasons averaging over 19 including one year of 20.6.

[RRR3]

Ball's career average is 20.8. Crawford had these seasons averaging over 19 including one year of 20.6.
Ball is currently averaging 30. Jaylen Brown aversged 20.3 at Balls age guess hes a Crawford level scorer

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ball is currently averaging 30. Jaylen Brown aversged 20.3 at Balls age guess hes a Crawford level scorer

If Ball keeps that 30 up or changes things but we're only talking about 16 games in one of which he went for 50. If you want to say JB wsn,'t ahead of peak Crawford as a shooter when he was 23 I wouldn't argue. The discussion is about the player Melo has been, not the player he may become in the future.

[Kblaze8855]

Crawford's role never changed on the Clippers. He was getting his same kind of shots. His efficiency declined anyways. You keep acting as if I didn't watch the dude play a ton of games.


I don’t doubt you’ve seen Jamal Crawford play basketball. I doubt you understand what you’re seeing. As I said the cap between “I can’t guard this guy” to “He’s shooting 40%” is too wide to bridge. It’s using the same words to speak a different language.

The argument exists from the top of the game to the bottom.

You have people who are all D explain “He’s too strong. Too quick. Can post and go over either shoulder. Jump hook. Quick rise on the jumper facing up. Blows by if you don’t honor the jab step. Finished through contact. Can’t sag off. Range to 30 feet. No weak hand. Fadeaway unblockable. Can’t box him out. Toughest assignment in the league”

And a response of

“.525 TS%? Should have passed more.”

And there’s just no point in continuing.

There is no getting them to understand that one doesn’t translate to the other regardless of circumstances. A whole lot happens between skill set and season average percentages that just isn’t gonna be taken into consideration by the kind of people who use such things.

And that’s when you’re comparing to people in the same league. Much less comparing somebody a decade or more removed.

Whatever legitimate use there are for such things is almost totally thrown out the window comparing different eras in leagues that deliberately made it easier to score for the sake of excitement. Not like it’s an opinion. Trying to “open up” the game was in the press releases and emails about points of emphasis. They quite literally made it harder to stop people from scoring and we still act like the percentages and numbers should be compared across time when primes 15-18 years apart.

Hell people still out here throwing efficiency numbers around comparing people from 1985 to now so I certainly don’t expect any consideration paid to the difference difference between 2010 and now.

As I said, the second wave of Changes happened when he was like 35 and even from that point, it has expanded at a ridiculous rate. Basketball is simply not played the same. He was on the highest scoring team in the nba a decade ago and they took 25 threes a game. The Hornets take 45.

The difference in how both sides of the ball play are so profound there is little value in even comparing the numbers but here we are anyway. The hornets are on Local here. I’ve turned through games and seen Grant Williams at the five standing in the bottom corner spotting up.

And that’s fine. The game changes. Might be better might be worse. That’s personal preference. But the fact is it is designed to be easier for attacking guards. It just is. The league rigged itself for this outcome. Which is probably why plenty of people playing in it realize Jamal would flourish.

Like I’ve been telling you, you don’t have to think it’s true. But it isn’t some weird old person opinion. You’re free to disagree. Don’t act like it’s some unfathomable take that comes from out of touch fans.

[RRR3]

There's a difference in saying he'd be able to succed in the league and saying he's as good as LaMelo Ball, which IS an unfathomable take if you watch LaMelo. I have seen LaMelo do plenty of shit Crawford was flat out incapable of doing. A lot of it is passing, but that's part of offense. RWMG flat out said he's never seen LaMelo do passes Crawford didn't make which is crazy talk.

Also I really don't care what players think about how difficult someone is to stop because they are basing that on one-on-one situations which is not what determines how difficult someone is to stop in a game played 5 on 5. If Michael Beasley was actually difficult to stop he would have had a good career. He was a fantastic 1 on 1 player, he used to beat LeBron 1 on 1. That didn't change the fact that he wasn't very effective in 5 on 5 basketball. If you're a 1 on 1 guy who can't adapt to 5 on 5 basketball scoring wise, then I don't see the point in praising their abilities because it's frankly irrelevant in winning basketball games. You brought up guys like Kobe but Kobe was a fantastic 5 on 5 scorer, which is completely different to guys like Crawford. Crawford was a nice 5 on 5 scorer, but he wasn't ever in the upper echelon of guys you just tell "go get me 30" and feel confident he'll do it without hurting the team in the process.

[RRR3]

If Ball keeps that 30 up or changes things but we're only talking about 16 games in one of which he went for 50. If you want to say JB wsn,'t ahead of peak Crawford as a shooter when he was 23 I wouldn't argue. The discussion is about the player Melo has been, not the player he may become in the future.
Well it's about the player he is right now, and that guy is averaging 30. I'm not sure why you would expect it to stop, he has the green light and is still improving due to his age.

[Real Men Wear Green]

There's a difference in saying he'd be able to succed in the league and saying he's as good as LaMelo Ball, which IS an unfathomable take if you watch LaMelo. I have seen LaMelo do plenty of shit Crawford was flat out incapable of doing. A lot of it is passing, but that's part of offense. RWMG flat out said he's never seen LaMelo do passes Crawford didn't make which is crazy talk.

Also I really don't care what players think about how difficult someone is to stop because they are basing that on one-on-one situations which is not what determines how difficult someone is to stop in a game played 5 on 5. If Michael Beasley was actually difficult to stop he would have had a good career. He was a fantastic 1 on 1 player, he used to beat LeBron 1 on 1. He wasn't very effective in 5 on 5 basketball.
Not "didn't," "couldn't." Crawford had a highlight reel too.

Well it's about the player he is right now, and that guy is averaging 30. I'm not sure why you would expect it to stop, he has the green light and is still improving due to his age.I don't expect him to get 50 with regularity. You know how averages work?

[RRR3]

Not "didn't," "couldn't." Crawford had a highlight reel too.
I don't expect him to get 50 with regularity. You know how averages work?
He was averaging 28.9 before the 50 piece, am I supposed to believe he's just Jamal Crawford if he averages 28.9 instead of 30? If Crawford could make the passes LaMelo makes, he would have been trusted to be a starting point guard. He was a bench scorer for a reason.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He was averaging 28.9 before the 50 piece, am I supposed to believe he's just Jamal Crawford if he averages 28.9 instead of 30? If Crawford could make the passes LaMelo makes, he would have been trusted to be a starting point guard. He was a bench scorer for a reason.

It's 16 games. We see strange crap in early numbers all the time.

Crawford was not often trusted to be a starting guard, period. His style was viewed as too wild and he was a poor defender. That doesn't mean he didn't have his share of flashy passes.

[Kblaze8855]

If Michael Beasley was actually difficult to stop he would have had a good career.



The idea that being hard to guard means you automatically have a successful nba career is so far from reality I don’t see any point in talking to you about it. I’m gonna go put my meatloaf in the oven and try to forget this conversation happened. Good day.

[RRR3]

The idea that being hard to guard means you automatically have a successful nba career is so far from reality I don’t see any point in talking to you about it. I’m gonna go put my meatloaf in the oven and try to forget this conversation happened. Good day.
I didn't say he couldn't be hard to guard in one on one situations. He was. But he wasn't someone that would bust defensive schemes or ruin a coaches gameplan on anything remotely resembling a consistent basis. He wasn't Ben Wallace out there but in 5 on 5 NBA basketball Michael Beasley was very far from unstoppable at scoring. Klay Thompson was an infinitely more difficult player to stop offensively, despite having nowhere near the one on one skill. Beasley would destroy Klay if they played 1 on 1. Klay was far better on offense though. So I don't really see how Beasley's 1 on 1 skill is really relevant when analyzing their 5 on 5 impact.

[Charlie Sheen]

You reached pretty far back for the Delk comp... did you just forget Brandon Jennings existed? :lol

[RRR3]

You reached pretty far back for the Delk comp... did you just forget Brandon Jennings existed? :lol
Yeah that's a good one, although he managed to be a high usage starter for a while. Certainly wouldn't say he was a good scorer in 5 on 5, but he wasn't useless and he ran offense pretty well iirc.

[Charlie Sheen]

Re: Beasley

You either have to be in the 99th percentile of nba talent like KD or find the perfect support system like Lamar Odom if you want to smoke weed and hoop past the age everyone else stops doing it. Otherwise talent is never going to lead to success.

That is true of any profession really. Talent is only going to matter for your first job. After that... unless you are generational like KD in basketball... you are going to get outworked and become a spectator as life passes you by.

[RRR3]

Re: Beasley

You either have to be in the 99th percentile of nba talent like KD or find the perfect support system like Lamar Odom if you want to smoke weed and hoop past the age everyone else stops doing it. Otherwise talent is never going to lead to success.

That is true of any profession really. Talent is only going to matter for your first job. After that... unless you are generational like KD in basketball... you are going to get outworked and become a spectator as life passes you by.
This seems to be implying KD doesn't work hard which is very far from true. Just since he entered the NBA he improved massively on defense and passing. Doesn't happen without a ton of hard work.

[Charlie Sheen]

This seems to be implying KD doesn't work hard which is very far from true. Just since he entered the NBA he improved massively on defense and passing. Doesn't happen without a ton of hard work.

Yeah... I let my personal feelings peek through there because I do not like him :lol

You are correct :cheers: