It’s about as possible the Kings pick outside the top 10 as I have of starting at the 3 for the Celtics this year. They are an abysmal franchise with not much hope. It’s more likely they are #1 than #11.
The terribly mediocre Lakers
- Thread starter smastroyin
- Start date
I don’t disagree with you, I’m on record on this site that the fate of the Eastern Conference for the next decade might swing on where the Sac pick falls. The variance is even more than you laid out; the Sac pick is top 1 protected so nightmare Door 1 should be Philly 2018 #1, Boston 2019 #25-30 with Philly picking #1 again in 2019. EDIT: I took too long!
And in that nightmare scenario, the trade is still a slight win for Boston if they were going to take Tatum at 1 because as has been pointed out Philly would have had those two picks and become dominant regardless, the only value the Sixers gained in that case is Fultz over the alternative (which is probably marginal at best if they picked Tatum). There really wasn’t another trade Boston could make and still be guaranteed Tatum (I don’t believe the Lakers were going to give up value to trade up a spot and I’m not sure Tatum makes it past Philly). Boston picked up another first, saved some cap space on Tatum’s rookie deal and tied up the tradability of the picks for Philly. Not as much excess value as getting an extra top 5 pick but not nothing.
Still going to be sweating the lottery for the next two years, especially with the odds flattening next year. This year I’ll be optimistic at a <50% chance of getting the Lakers pick and next year pessimistic at a >85% chance of getting the Kings pick.
Yeah, it's a pretty safe pick. They do have some promising pieces but no great ones. I could see a scenario where they become a deep team that finishes in the 8-10 range, rather than 4 or 5. Kinda like the Lakers this year, who may end up being a bottom 5 team anyway. The absolute worst case scenario is Lakers pick is #1 this year, one of the Kings or Sixers pick is #1 in 2019, and the one that isn't is #30.
I think LA takes Fultz over Ball given the opportunity, and if not would assume a pretty high probability of them posturing that way enough to squeeze an asset out of Philly. Given that Philly gave up a potentially high value asset to guarantee they got Fultz, I think either way he ends up a Sixer with an asset leaving Philly’s stash.
Couldn't the Sixers trade the Lakers/King pick in a package with the condition that the team receiving the pick gets the pick the Celtics doesn't receive, and the lower of the Sixers/King pick if that ends up being an issue?
They theoretically could, but they’d be hard pressed to find a trade partner agreeing on the value of it this season, or until the 2018 lottery locks in which pick is conveying to Boston really. The Kings pick is basically untradeable on its own right now: Kings pick if 1, otherwise a pick likely to be in the mid-20s? How do you value that? Even adding the Lakers pick portion its tough as it stands - what trade would be worth giving up the #1 protection on either pick, that the receiving team would still be ok with potentially getting a late 2019 first? Who is accepting Lakers pick if 6 or worse, Kings pick only if 1, otherwise late 2019 first? It only made sense for Boston to accept the complicated protections because it was only dropping two draft slots and still getting a player they loved.
I could maybe see a team trading a star and accepting a package of the two picks not conveyed to Boston (receiving team is guaranteed one lottery pick and might get a #1 and another lottery pick) but why would Philly agreewhen they have Embiid/Simmons/Covington locked up plus max space, plus Fultz’s potential?
I have spent an unhealthy amount of time gaming this out.
This year, sure. Next year? Who can predict anything 18 months in advance, besides astronomers?
It’s quite possible that I missed it but do we know who put the 2-5 restriction on the LA pick? Was it Ainge because he didn’t want a potential 2018 pick around #10 and would have preferred to let it ride in 2019? Or, was it Philly because they wanted to limit the chance of it conveying in 2018?
Don't recall where, but think I heard it was Philly. They didn't want the bad optics of potentially trading a #1 pick to get a #1 pick, so then Ainge added the downside protection as a compromise.
I could be wrong but I didn't think a team could trade a pick that was already encumbered.
My understanding is any pick that is owned unconditionally can be sent in separate trades with exclusive protection ranges (I.e.the Sixers can trade the Lakers pick to the Celtics if 2-5 and another team if 6-10) but a pick received conditionally cannot have further protections added to it (I.e. the Celtics can’t trade the Lakers pick protected 1-3). I’m having trouble finding the official trade rules, all I can dig up is this article saying it’s allowed.
Happy to bet 100 to the Jimmy Fund that the Kings are inside the top 10 next year.
The only thing like this I can remember was the grizzlies had either number 1 overall or nothing and I think that mkuhht have even been LeBron draft I forget.
I think ainge wanted it if it was top 5, but the Sixers wouldn't allow it to be 1st overall.
Interesting really lot of top end talent so it was kind of I'll get a stud big or punt.
But draft is getting deeper imo.
I'm sure I would be lit if I had rookie Tatum but he's not going to shoot 50%+ on 3s forever you know. It's remarkable how everyone is sure Tatum is a superstar and fultz is a bust. It looks like Tatum is better than expected (and was expected to be good) but sorry I'm not convinced he's the best shooter of all time.
I honestly find it so weird why people shift views on players so fast in this sport when they won't elsewhere. Kyrie is playing defense, otherwise he's identical to Cleveland and here you have people who didn't have him in their top 20 putting them in their top 5. Writing off players who haven't played and expecting hot shooters to be outliers forever.
Putting your Fultz persecution complex aside for a moment, you know why the views on Tatum have changed, because it's been discussed here before. The Jayson Tatum pre-draft sample size was 27 college starts. With now 25 NBA starts under his belt, we have nearly twice the sample on which to judge him and his potential.Among other things, he's been validated as a shooter (now a 41% 3FG% after over 50 games, FT% remains above 80%), a rebounder, and defense (including his steal and block rate). Fultz may or may not be a bust, but because his post-draft sample has been small and he declined to take any shots even in that small sample, he hasn't answered any of the questions (primarily as a shooter based on his poor free throw shooting) surrounding his game. Whether or not Danny was being truthful that he would have taken Tatum #1 pre-draft, it's absolutely clear that he would now.
I've posted this before, but Tatum's entire college career consisted of 29 games. Between summer, preseason, and NBA action, he now has 35 professional games under his belt. Rapidly shifting priors in a case like this is just a reflection that our priors shouldn't have been very strong in the first place.
Also, this.
I'm not referring to rookies, that's understandable it's more about kyrie.
It's kind of weird to me he's changed so drastically for anyone when his numbers offensively are the same.
It's just laundry and exposure. But whatever.
And as for Tatum is your claim he's going to shoot 50% from three forever?
The thing that is impressive about Tatum is he looks so calm and his defensive is better than his college tape. If you think he's a stud because he's shooting 50% I've got a bridge to sell you. What's his rate when it settles down? One of the best big shooters ever?
I mean just looked it up careers of 6'8" and above players who shot 40% or more for their career before this year, and it's less than 10 and 3 EVER who shot within 100 points of Tatum.
Basically he's the greatest three point shooting big guy of all time by a vast factor.
I think as a rookie declaring he's the best big shooters ever seems a bit of a reach, which means he's like to have a period he shoots a lot worse this year. It takes a long time for 3 point percentage to settle, frankly it may never as skill changes before it settles. But if he settled around 400 he's be one of the top 5 ever. Think this is early to declare.
It's kind of weird to me he's changed so drastically for anyone when his numbers offensively are the same.
It's just laundry and exposure. But whatever.
And as for Tatum is your claim he's going to shoot 50% from three forever?
The thing that is impressive about Tatum is he looks so calm and his defensive is better than his college tape. If you think he's a stud because he's shooting 50% I've got a bridge to sell you. What's his rate when it settles down? One of the best big shooters ever?
I mean just looked it up careers of 6'8" and above players who shot 40% or more for their career before this year, and it's less than 10 and 3 EVER who shot within 100 points of Tatum.
Basically he's the greatest three point shooting big guy of all time by a vast factor.
I think as a rookie declaring he's the best big shooters ever seems a bit of a reach, which means he's like to have a period he shoots a lot worse this year. It takes a long time for 3 point percentage to settle, frankly it may never as skill changes before it settles. But if he settled around 400 he's be one of the top 5 ever. Think this is early to declare.
The point isn't that he's going to shoot 50% from three, but that he's so good at 19 overall that it's tough not to get excited. As seen in that link, he's currently one of eight teenagers to post a positive (above average) BPM. If his three-point shooting drops to 33% on similar volume, then his BPM collapses all the way to 1.3, which leaves him...still one of only eight teenagers to have a positive BPM.
The 50% shooting is why he's near the top of that list. It's not why people are excited about him.
The 50% shooting is why he's near the top of that list. It's not why people are excited about him.
Arbitrary cutoff there at 6'8", but are you really asking whether it's possible he's as good a shooter as Matt Bonner, Jason Kapono, and Joe Ingles? Yeah, I think it's quite possible.
His season percentage will undoubtedly drop below 50%, and his career percentage is likely to be below 40% as his volume increases and he takes more off the dribble. But would a percentage of 40% during his prime years be a big surprise? Not to me.
EDIT: In terms of bigger shooters, there have only been 7 qualified players (who had at least a five-year career) at least 6'6" to shoot at least 40% from 3pt in their rookie years. Four of them maintained 40% over their career (Mike Miller, Brent Barry, Klay, and Wesley Person). The other three are Larry Bird, Paul Pierce, and Vlad Radmanovic. (Pierce's was the shortened season, and Vlad only played 61 games.)
Last edited:
So 41/79 sounds like a small sample size (he went 2/3 tonight from three, his miss being a 3/4 court heave) but if one question is whether he can sustain a 40% rate then IF his shot selection stays the same (Needler points out this is likely to change) it would be pretty unusual to get to 41/79 with a, say, 37% probability for each individual event right? 37% would be 29/79 so 41 is pretty far out on the Bell Curve.
Just a reality check for you: no one is claiming these things about Tatum, at least that I see around here.
There are certainly streaky shooters, and a lapse in mechanics might change the each individual event dynamic. For example, Robert Covington, whom LondonSox has definitively declared to be better than Tatum on numerous occasions (despite many metrics indicating to the contrary) was shooting 50% from 3 through his first 82 shots this season. He's a career 36% shooter, and has shot .330 since.
Tatum has given no indication thus far that he's such a streaky shooter.
The shifting attitudes on Tatum and Fultz are because one is having a historically great season for a rookie and one is sidelined with the yips. The former is likely to come back to earth to being "great NBA player" whereas the latter is likely to....??? We truly have no idea. There is not a ton of precedent for a guy getting this shook that he has to be sat down.
Forget 50%, the list of rookies to shoot better than 40% from 3 on more than 2 attempts per game AND average 5 rebounds per game is currently this:
Paul Pierce
Jayson Tatum
Tatum has a lot of room to regress shooting from deep and still be a special player. The skills he’s showing at 19 (playing in the flow of the offense, hit the open three, attacking closeouts, creating space, getting to the basket, finishing at the rim through contact) are impressive and don’t even really showcase the midrange iso ability that was supposed to be his biggest strength. 25 games in he looks like a guy with no holes in his offensive game even with the inevitability that he regresses from 3.
Paul Pierce
Jayson Tatum
Tatum has a lot of room to regress shooting from deep and still be a special player. The skills he’s showing at 19 (playing in the flow of the offense, hit the open three, attacking closeouts, creating space, getting to the basket, finishing at the rim through contact) are impressive and don’t even really showcase the midrange iso ability that was supposed to be his biggest strength. 25 games in he looks like a guy with no holes in his offensive game even with the inevitability that he regresses from 3.
Plus in those 29 college games, he was hurt for some of them AND he retooled his jump shot last spring.
And defense.
The idea that opinions shouldn’t change as circumstances change is really weird.
NBA experts have boosted Kyrie this year too.
The fear around Kyrie was based on adaptation to the Celtics offensive and defensive schemes. Nobody had ever seen anything from him besides "iso Kyrie" who doesn't play defense. Now we have. It's simple really.
Regarding the Lakers, wonder how they'd look with Russell at PG and Tatum at the wing next to Ingram.
Some of us always pointed to the way that Kyrie’s Minime had excelled in this offense as an indicator that once he adapted he was going to be a killer. However, in fairness, I wasn’t expecting the change to happen this quickly.
Right, we were basically sold (by media, analysts, etc etc) a version of Kyrie that was not really appreciably better at defense than IT. He—and by extension the team—is in fact appreciably better than IT. Some flat out argued that Kyrie vs. IT was at best a wash and maybe even a net loss when you consider the emotional attachment and fan-favorite status of the latter. Incredulity at the widespread change of opinion in the face of objective evidence is pretty funny.
Been covered by others but the TatumGOAT/FultzBUST thing is a strawman, plain and simple.
ESPravda just put up an impressive ballwashing of Luke Walton and the Lakers organization in general. Terrible journalism even for them. They emphasize how much this is a process and how growing pains were expected this year...declining to mention that three months ago people were talking about them going to the playoffs, that a growing portion of the Laker fanbase seems to want Walton fired, and that having a moderately successful team this year was a lynchpin of their broader strategy of attracting multiple max guys next summer.
If people let themselves get sold that Kyrie was as bad as IT on D, that's their fault. There's a big difference between bad, and almost unplayably awful, which is what IT was going both by RPM and the eye test in the playoffs.
Kyrie, both statistically and to the eye, was "very bad at defense and better when he tries in the playoffs."
The two simply weren't comparable, even before this season, where Kyrie isn't even bad anymore. They looked similar because of lazy analysis and lumping all of "bad" into one category.
Yes, people actually did see this from Kyrie and shared it on the board. It was mentioned by myself and others. We saw his unselfishness at Duke and in multiple NBA All-Star games while seeing him play defense very well in the playoffs. The anti-Kyrie crew wasn't hearing any of it.
I admit that may be an exaggeration. I’ve seen that sentiment on Lakers boards but extrapolating to the whole fan base is probably wrong.
Prolific Laker message-boarders JavarPaul67, BBBetterThanJordan, and ForgetYoLaneIt'sMyDamnHighway.
That says all you need to know about these Laker fans. Walton has a team of young misfits who haven't yet figured out the NBA competing and playing hard every night with a rookie PG. They have a bunch of nice wins and "almost wins" under their belt already for a team many had as a bottom-5 team. Do Laker fans miss Byron Scott that much?
Guys, Kyrie's assists per 100 possessions this year are at career average. They are lower than they were last year in Cleveland. They are lower than they were his first few seasons in the league. He is playing well but I wouldn't say his offensive game is much different than what I thought it would be. He is who he's always been on that end.
And again to be the turd man in the Kyrie punch bowl (although I love Kyrie now) he still makes a lot of decisions that are some real head scratchers, we just don't remember them that much because they are winning games and this isn't happening in the finals. I would love to see his Synergy numbers leading fast breaks because he has had some major botch jobs on the break.
For my eyes it's all about the defense with Kyrie. That is the difference.
The one difference on offense for Kyrie is he is hitting more of his 2 point FG %. This is the 5th year in a row he has improved. Right now he is at 54.5%, last year was his career high at 50.5. Who knows how sustainable it is, but a lot of it is due to him finishing inside 3 feet to 70% this year. His career rate is 60%.
Still, it's mostly defense.
Still, it's mostly defense.
I grudgingly gave up control of the TV at halftime. But it sure as shit looked like the Lakers were getting all of the 50-50 balls last night.
No idea how good Walton is or isn't, and I'm sure that there is variation in focus/motor with a young roster like that, but they seem pretty motivated to me so far. I have only caught them a few times.
What exactly do Lakers fans expect?
