Four Concerns I have with Beasley
by Scotter on May 23, 2008 2:00 AM CDT
Email
Print[From the fanposts. -ed.]
I simply don't value high scoring 3/4 tweeners very highly. Based on watching the NBA, NBA history, and statistics, I don't believe they're as valuable when it comes to actually winning games as their offensive skill set suggests. For a forward to be a factor, they have to be more than a scorer and rebounder. They also have to either be a defense anchor or a great passer, preferably both. Here's four things that I question when it comes to Beasley.
1. Defense: The ability to be a defensive anchor at the PF and C position is far more important to me than low post scoring. Offense is extremely flexible. Any of the five players on the floor can score from the post or be the primary ball handler. Defense isn't that flexible, the bigs have to be able to guard their man and be strong help defenders. Someone has to convince me that Beasley guard All-Star caliber PFs and be a strong help defender.
2. Facilitating: Beasley being a scorer isn't enough. He has to be someone that the offense can run through. Players need to be able to cut off of him, and he needs to be able to find them in scoring position. He can't be a guy that scores mostly on isolation plays or quick hitters. He has to be a creator, not just a finisher. If the offense can actually run through him then I'd be willing to forgive some defensive weakness.
3. Jumpshooting: This may seem strange and I may be crazy, but when drafting potential stars I actually prefer that they don't enter the NBA with a jumpshot. My logic is that a player with a developed jumpshot will settle for the jumpshot when challenged by NBA defenders. The guy without the jumpshot is forced to figure out how to beat NBA defenders by attacking. And when they do develop their jumpshot, they haven't developed the habit of settling for low % jumpers. Shooting is also the easiest skill to work on in the summer. Once players go outside, it's hard to get them attacking the rim again. I believe many players wouldn't have been nearly as good if they entered the NBA with the jumpshot and many players never reached their potential because they were able to settle for jumpers when they got to the NBA. Their jumpers made Beasley, Durant, and Anthony awesome college players, but I have my doubts about their ultimate NBA effectiveness.
4. Character: I don't intend to make a bigger deal out of this stuff than it its. But, you can't pretend it doesn't raise flags. Whoever is picked gets at least a guaranteed 20+ million dollars, and becomes the face of the franchise. And if he becomes the team's best player as expected, he also becomes the defacto leader on a team without leadership. Why should I be comfortable with Beasley in that situation?
I'm not completely sold on Derrick Rose, yet. I don't believe having an elite PG is that important. Just look at a list of starting PGs on NBA champions over the last fifteen dollars. But, having at least one perimeter player regardless of position that can consistently get in the lane is nearly essential. I do believe Rose is a bigger risk in pure basketball terms than Beasley. There's a good chance Beasley turns out to be the better player, but I also believe Rose has the greater potential partly because he doesn't have the red flags I listed above. I seem to end up with a list of why Rose can be great and a list of limitations with Beasley.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
80 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good list.
All my points below are from a limited sample (3 or 4 games last summer at the Under 19 World Championships), maybe Beasley has improved dramatically since then but here we go :
About your point 1 : I somehow agree, he did let other PFs have good scoring games and seemed to lack size to be effective guarding that position.
Point 2 : Definitely agree with this. He seemed to look for his own shots, and when double-teamed or facing a very good euro-style defense, he would settle for a forced jumper (which would tend to have me agree with your point 3 too).
Point 3 : see above.
Point 4 : he looked amazing at the beginning of games, when the defense was loose, when he could penetrate and finish in traffic with both hands, showing amazing skills to be fair. But whenever the game would get “hot”, he would sort of disappear and the coach would substitute other interior players for him (Deon Thompson most of the time).
He just seemed to often tune out of games, look disinterested. Sometimes after he did not get the ball in his hands for a couple of plays (because other players on his team were not looking for him, or could not get to him because of the defense). In the latter cases, he would move to the perimeter to get the ball, and settle for forced jump shots inside the arc (Luol Deng range).
The Game chose him !
I dont watch college games so if you could answer a few of my questions too
-Whats his team like defensively, i mean how are the rest of the players on this team defensively.
-How is the competition like, are the pfs that scored well against on winning teams, or did some loser team have a game against them too.
-Did K-state play better with him on the floor or with him on the bench.
-Did the players look like they didnt like him or was there a lack of chemistry, or did they all get along.
-I get he didnt pass much, but was it because he was a ball hog or was it because no one was especially good at scoring or no one was open. If he did pass how was his passing, does he seem like a guy who can be a good passer, or does he not know how because he never does it.
-He shot like 50% from teh field, so if he forced a jumper did he miss more or hit them more. Did he seem bored at time when playing, did he leave an impression that he may be the best player on the floor for either team and that maybe he couldnt try as hard as he wanted.
-I think this is a question for ku fans but, when he played ku how was he in regards to all the questions i asked above (i think the only team he would really want to beat is ku due to the two schools being huge rivals).
Thanks to anyone and everyone who answers my questions
im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.
Didn't watch college games either, apart from final 4.
I’m in Europe, so don’t get those games on TV. I was refering to games I saw from the Under 19 World championships.
Well, he had a couple of good options to pass to, since they were a collection of good to great talents from NCAA (Stephen Curry can shoot, I think). He just would not pass that much the ball, and would rather force a jumber when he could not drive, most of the time they would not go in too. I only saw him score on drives, I think he missed most of his jump shots.
Yes, he did seem bored at times, not trying as hard as he could.
Those are only my impressions of Michael Beasley based on 3 or 4 games last summer. But there were red flags, as well as amazing potential.
The Game chose him !
Against KU
The game in Manhatten, Beasley guaranteed a win before the game, in spite of the fact that K-State had never beaten Kansas @ K-State over the previous 24 years. He went for 25 and 6 that night:
Always double- and sometimes triple-teamed when he touched the ball inside, Beasley was held to only eight points in the first half but scored six in a row in the first few minutes after intermission and No. 2 Kansas (20-1, 5-1 Big 12) never caught up.Beasley was 4-for-4 from behind the 3-point arc as the Wildcats (15-4, 5-0) took over first place in a Big 12 conference they’ve never even competed in, let alone won.
I don’t recall him looking bored at all in that game, or really in any of the Big 12 games I saw. He had 28 double-doubles out of 33 games, and two other games he missed a double-double by a single rebound.
The game @ KU, Kansas was obviously motivated for some revenge and did win the game. Beasley got in early foul trouble, which certainly helped KU. He still went for 39 and 11 that night, on 11 of 23 shooting and 13 of 16 free throws.
Kansas finally discovered an effective strategy against Michael Beasley.Get the super freshman in early foul trouble, frantically build a big lead while all he can do is watch, and then hold on for dear life.
Once Beasley got rolling Saturday night, he scorched the Jayhawks for 39 points and 11 rebounds, tying for the fourth-most points any opponent ever scored in 53-year-old Allen Fieldhouse.
My Bulls may suck, but my Jayhawks are National Champs!
Your concerns
1. There is no reason to think he can’t gaurd NBA bigs. He’s plenty, big, strong, physsical, and athletic to do so. Plus, he will ideally be paired inside with a more defesive minded big like Noah, who could draw some of the tougher assignments depending on who matches up better.
2. He’s actually a pretty good facilatator and has a good feel for the game that will get better as he matures. You can give him the ball posting or facing and he can score or make plays. You can run pick & roll or pick & pop with him too. All of these things will help take attention away from the other guys on the floor and get them easier shots.
3. This one is just plain stupid. You would rather have a guy who can’t shoot? Whatever, I don;t really even know how to argue this one, because it is so dumb. I think Bealsey will be abale to beat guys and make plays in alot of ways like I mentioned in #2. I think having a coach who emphasizes attacking and not settling for jumpers all the time will be important if that is your point. But don’t say you’d rather have a guy who can’t shoot.
4. This one is legit. If there are too many red flags with his character that he becomes too big a risk then don’t take him. I’m sure Pax and his team will do their homework on this. I think both guys are close and I can see either argument, but if Beasley’s character stuff comes out too scary then definitely take Rose.
agreed on #3
it seems like he’s just trying to turn Rose’s biggest question mark into a positive and find another reason to like him over Beasley.
yes, it's a ruse
Hey, aren’t you a profeshunal who shouldn’t be intimating that someone is being dishonest? Isn’t that like a big deal?
#1 He's also already well built, and there aren't alot of indiciations
that he’s going to bulk up much beyond what he already is. I care about his help defense more than his 1 on 1 defense. He can get help from double teams and hedging guards with his man, but he has to be there on the help defense. If I got wasn’t a significant factor blocking shots and getting steals in college, he’s far less likely to be a factor in the NBA.
3 I’ve thought this one through over a number of years. Outside of the pure shooting guys, the vast majority of the most effective offensive players didn’t enter the league with a jumpshot. I’ve yet to find a memorable example of a guy who entered the league with a tendency to fade out to the perimeter corrected that habit when they went pro. It usually got worse, and they never reached their potential because they settled for jumpers.formerly sbulls
This jumpshot idea is interesting
Never heard the concept described before, but it’s intriguing to me. I see your point and think you may have something here.
Have you read or seen anyone that follows the pro game for a living offer a similar analysis?
by NBA Observer on May 23, 2008 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
I haven't read or seen this theory anywhere else
I formed looking at the careers of hundreds of NBA players. Looking at who breached the highest levels of efficiency, and who didn’t. Who played key roles on a championship caliber teams. It stuck out to me as a trend. I think the logic behind makes sense.
formerly sbulls
Is Wade your first example?
I never thought of him as a particularly strong shooter coming out of Marquette, but he could slash and attack the rim. With the Heat, the jumpshot came around with practice and pro teaching, but the slashing was something that was instinctual more than transferable.
by NBA Observer on May 23, 2008 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
one question I have with regard to the jumpshooting
Was Beasley taking those jumpshots when he was triple teamed, or knew there was help coming from either side on a drive? It’s one thing to be Lamarcus Aldridge, but if you are a team’s number one scoring option and you know you can’t get past two or three guys, the jumpshot is the right choice. I didn’t see Beasley at all, so I can’t answer that, but I think it’s a really good theory.
2008 or bust.
Ray Allen?
Always was a smooth jump shooter, but eventually learned to drive in too. Or What about scottie pippen?
im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.
by piccolomair on May 23, 2008 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Not a jump shooter
Pippen wasn’t a great jump shooter ever. He was more of a scorer. Jordan had a good jumper, remember the NC Final Four title game? He did make it a lot better with age though.
I think you might be mistaken
If jordan was a great shooter, then it was only a midrange game he had. He was never really good from beyond the arch. Big hands or something…. Pippen was a better shooter, he could be trusted to take shots from the perimeter, although jordan was probably more clutch sort of like dwade…
im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.
Yes, Jordan wasn't really much of a jump shooter...
...when he came into the league. He slashed to the basket more often then not. He did get better though, and eventually became a great jumpshooter. Most noteworthy the fadeaway jumper he perfected as he got older. It’s amazing the way he adapted.
I agree about Pippen. He’s probably one of the most underated players out there IMO.
Diane
Being a good jump shooter does not mean you have "a tendancy to fade out to the permieter"
By all accounts Beasley plays much more on the inside than the outside.
by californiachicagoan on May 23, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Reasons
1-The reason to think that he has weaknesses defensively is because he has yet to show any strengths in that department. Granted, I did not see a lot of his games but the ones I did see were not shining examples of how to play defense. The NBA is littered with guys who are physically capable of playing great defense but we have to suffer through a league whose defensive stalwarts have names like Bowen and Posey. Just because he has the body doesn’t mean he’ll get the results and, thusfar, he hasn’t displayed an ability to do so… ...at least in comparison to his scoring ability.
2-facilitator is not necessarily making plays and drawing attention, it’s what one does once they have drawn attention. I have not seen a lot of Beasley passing the rock magnificiently when getting the double. Rather, he seems inclined to charge harder at the hoop. This is certainly my main question with Beasley: when double teamed, will he be able to make a pass over the double team to an open shooter (not pass to a guy that has to pass to a guy, etc.).
3-I also question this one but I do think the larger point is relevant. There are plenty of guys that come in with that shot and try to settle for it. However, what I have seen of Beasley leads me to believe he will not be one of those guys. He seems happy to pull the defender closer with a couple of shots and then start charging the rack.
4-The other posts seem to nail this one.
I like this post as it raises many of the same questions I have with Beasley. I just don’t see him carrying over to the NBA his success at college. I see him being solid, for sure, but I am not sure he will be as special. He really is between a SF and PF and I don’t mean that in a good way. Certainly, other players can take advantage of that but it still doesn’t thrill me… ...besides, we already have one of those guys and his ‘flop’ is much more developed. ;)
"...Keeping 'SlowHand' alive since aught-five"
Lamar Odom's game last night
Makes me wonder if it really is so bad to be a SF/PF tweener.
Sure it can come in handy
But, I don’t want Beasley to be another Odom….a guy who has insane amounts of talent, but rarely tried/gave a crap for most of his career, and only succeeds when he’s not asked to do too much….that is not what I want a #1 overall pick to be.
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 24, 2008 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Height and weight
How good is he going to be on the blocks at 6 foot 8 230 pounds? The 6 foot 8 is generous hes an inch taller than Bill Walker whos listed at 6 foot 6. Is he even a 4 or a long 3? I think everyone is seeing the easy fix here take what you need and if Beastly is that Amare – Dirk combo player were good. The point gaurd position is the most important especially in the playoffs. You have to have a great PG to win it all Wade handled the ball for the Miami – Dallas series, Chauncey, Parker, even in 99 Avery Johnson played great against the Knicks the one exception of that rule is the triangle offense. If were to take Beastly maybe we could get Pippen on our staff to teach these guys about the triangle but Rose and Calapari is nice too. Whatever happens Pax cant take the wrong guy its just what he does after the pick that counts.
Neither Amare nor Dirk have won
Dirk, you could say because he settles for jumper, and isn’t a power player- Amare, to be fair, doesn’t have the offense setup around him. Kerr is going to fix that though, I think..
I think the height weight issue isn't that big of a problem
Elton Brand, Boozer, David West etc are all considered shorter than the prototypical PF but they all seem to be doing fine. Yes he is only 230 lbs right now, but he just finished his first year of college. He has the frame to put on more weight unlike somebody like Noah. Plus he has a near 7 ft wing span and is uber athletic to make up for the height.
Also as far the PG concern goes, only Billups is the last true PG to win a championship in the last 15 years. Parker is really just a 2 guard in a PG guard’s body, and the Spurs offense really revolves around Duncan. Wade handled the ball a lot but he played a 2 guards role. In my opinion, I think a low post threat is more important than the PG. But either Rose or Beasley, it’s win win for the Bulls.
Off the court issues were a problem in high school.. Seriously, how do you go to 5 different high schools? But last year in college he seemed to do OK. I remember Amare had a lot of off the court problems in high school so he dropper to 9 in the draft. Phoenix surrounded him with the right players and he has yet to have a Stephen Jackson moment.
I think the biggest red flag on Beasley should be why did he pick Kansas State as his college. I wonder why he didn’t play for an elite team like UNC. Did he just not want to face tough competition night in and night out?
I think you missed a part regarding 'PG'
“having at least one perimeter player regardless of position that can consistently get in the lane is nearly essential.”
Thus, the body-snatching Tony Parker
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, this is what "breaking down the defense"
is all about.
Somebody has to able to go from the outside in, and (obviously, from Bulls history stand point) that player does not need to be a point guard…but he does have to be a frightening and scary guy to see with the ball in his hands eying the paint.
I’d say Rose qualifies.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
Agree
What I meant to say is that you don’t necessarily need a “Pure PG” like a CP3 or Deron to run an offense. You just need a perimeter player who can beat his man off the dribble and finish inside. Obviously the Bulls lack someone like that too, but it’s easier to find a perimeter player than an inside player.
WHAT THE HELL IS A PURE POINT ANYWAY?!?!?!
AAARRRGGGHHH!!! I’m seriously confused. I always thought a “pure” point was someone like Chris Duhon or Brevin Knight. Someone who can run an offense, maybe pass alright, play defense but can’t score.
Now, it’s like, if a guy is 6’3” or under and can dribble really well, he’s all of a sudden a pure point.
Seriously, though, WTF is a pure point?
Pure Points aren't made, they're anointed
When someone deems a PG as “pure”, the Pure Point Fairy comes around and sprinkles upon them magical dust that give the PG the ability to make the players on his team better. So, if you close your eyes and wish really hard and say “Kirk is a Pure Point” 100 times, he might make a visit. Of course, this is a holiday weekend, so the Pure Point Fairy is probably busy sniffing modeling glue with the Warranty Fairy.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
If you want an objective approach there's
John Hollinger’s pure point ratio. But, Kirk Hinrich probably looks too pure by this stat for the defenders of purity to accept it, despite its name. Look at the PPR column.
formerly sbulls
My def
A pure point guard is a player that promotes the offense through two channels in this order. First, the primary objective a pure point is identifying the defense, setting up the offense, and attacking the defense based on its weaknesses to generate the best shot possible for one of your four teammates on the floor at the time. The second objective is to do the same as the first objective but instead score the field goal themselves.
Point: Create opps for others, get them for yourself
Guard: just the position
The reason so many guards get the “combo guard” tag is because they can do the court vision thing well, but slack on the passing or they do the scoring well, but have little vision for others or they can score whenever THEY want and not create opps for anyone else.
by NBA Observer on May 23, 2008 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
So like... when Hinrich has played with multiple guys who have shot 50%...
...for a season, including a small forward, and has had a back court mate who has one of the higher career FG% around, he’s not pure enough, huh? Oh, and he’s averaged 15 a game, too.
Beasley picked KSU
because of Bob Huggins. Some schools didn’t recruit Beasley because most saw him as a one and done player. Huggins didn’t even stick around KSU to coach Beasley.
by NBA Observer on May 23, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Beasley did not pick K-State because of Huggins
MB had an extremely strong connection with Dalonte Hill from his days with the AAU in DC. Beasley originally had committed to play at Charlotte, and yes I said Charlotte – which is where Hill was coaching. Bob Huggins then hired Dalonte Hill to be a part of his staff so naturally Beasley followed Hill to Manhattan. After Huggins left K-State for Morgantown, KSU’s atheletic department made a frantic move and promoted Frank Martin and Dalonte Hill in order to keep the top recruiting class in the nation. Sure having the oppurtunity to play for Huggins was a good selling point, but Dalonte Hill was the real reason MB came to K-State.
Big time college programs
probably new that he was a one and done player and so didn’t recruit him as heavily as players that they thought they could build their program around.
Did you say that Noah doesn’t have a frame to put on more weight? He’s the prototypical beanpole!
I think that in the last few years the NBA has changed the rules so that wing players and PGs can dominate a game more easily. This is not to say that low post studs aren’t important, they are, but I think the importance of a great PG/SG has gone through the roof.
The important of point guards
What I’m wondering is how strongly a great point guard is associated with winning, and is it causation or association? Off the top of my head, when I think of great points, they’re always associated with successful teams – Paul, Williams, Parker, Nash, Stockton. The question is whether it’s just an association (i.e., the successful team facilitates the point guard’s statistical success) or causal (the point makes the team good). So let’s look at the criteria for causality over association.
1) Strength of association. I’m not sure how you’d calc an Odds Ratio/Rate Ratio here, but from eyeballing it, it looks to be pretty high. The only example of a bad team with a great point guard I can think of is the Kidd-led Nets. Kidd was great; they were awful. Otherwise every great point I can think of played for a great team. So I’d say: HIGH.
2) Temporality. Is the team good before the point gets there? In the case of Phoenix, New Orleans, and Utah, those were above-average teams that became excellent teams when their point guards arrived. Kidd, again, is the opposite case. Dallas was worse with him than without; though this may have to do with Devin Harris being a better fit than was Kidd.
3) Negative causation. Does a good team become bad when it loses its point guard? I can’t think of any examples of elite points getting injured, and the effect on the team. Could use a little help here, all.
4) Dose-dependence. Is a team with a terrible point guard terrible, an average point guard average, a great point guard great? My gut tells me, no way. Again, to get serious results we would need to determine criteria for point guard “eliteness” (or perhaps a purity index?), tabulate winning percentages, and control for an absolutely obscene number of confounders (team offense, time period, age). So instead of wasting a good part of my life, I’ll just stick with “no.”
5) Concordance. Does this fit with an established body of basketball knowledge? Well, I’m not sure if that exists. And if it does, at this site it exists so that we can happily flout it. But I do think the prevailing sentiment is that the most “important” positions are point and center. And I think Paxson shares that sentiment.
Upshot is: in the absense of a detailed study, I have to guess that point guards do actually cause their teams to be good. But I’m in no way convinced. In fact I only posted these 5 criteria because (a) they’re the easiest (not best!) way we have for determining causation versus association and (b) I wanted you all to fill in the analysis.
Here’s to hoping the collective, hectic BaB brain will come up with something good….
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
NO and Utah were bad
that’s how they got the picks to get CP and DW. And NO was bad for two more seasons. This is the first time NO made the playoffs with CP. Good PG’s need good teammates around them, too.
2008 or bust.
by bullshooter on May 23, 2008 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
good clarification
you’re right, they must’ve been bad to get those lotto picks
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
actually
Utah was bad, but did technically trade up to get Williams (#3)
for #6, #27, and conditional 2006 1st rounder (turned out to be #30)
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2008 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions
A great PG is as important as a great player at any other position
1) How many bad teams can you think of with a great SG, SF, PF, or C? (What’s the definition of bad? Sub .500? Miss the playoffs?)
2) As bullshooter said, NO was bad before drafting Paul and filled in talent around him later. Utah won 26 games before drafting Williams while getting 51 games from Boozer and 41 games from AK47. Phoenix improved greatly after adding Nash, but Dallas didn’t exactly fall off the face of the earth after losing him. Plus, the addition of Nash was far from the only reason for their 30 win improvement.
3) Any team will be negatively affected by losing a starter. The quality of the player lost and the quality of his replacement determines the loss of value.
4) Quality of team is determined by over all quality of entire roster, not just one position.
5) Conventional wisdom is usually bullshit. Again, a player’s position never matters as much as their quality and production.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
Whenever Steve Nash has been injured
over the past few seasons, Phoenix has become positively ordinary.
1. Defense: Noah & TT (with his shotblocking) will be the defensive anchors at the PF and C position. We need SCORING. We don’t have anyone who can score from the post consistently. There is nothing that indicates that Beasley will not be a strong help defender. Granted he will need to develop his defensive skills more, but he certainly has the capacity to become good on defense as well.
2. Facilitating: I agree. But this is not a concern because the whole point of Beasley will be that the offense will eventually run through him.
3. Jumpshooting: Have you actually seen Beasley play? Jump-shooting is only a small part of his game. He can post, he has a soft touch around the basket, he dunks and he has developed a hook shot.
4. Character: Beasley’s character is EXACTLY what the Bulls need. No more Mr Nice Guys. We need someone hungry for success who is not afraid to lead this organisation over the next 10 years. A BIG TICK on the character issue in my opinion.
I agree with you 100% when you say that “I don’t believe having an elite PG is that important.” I think that we DO have perimeter players (Kirk, Thabo, BG) that with Beasley down low will consistently get in the lane, and nevertheless we also have enough pieces to trade for one if necessary. Players with the on-court presence and dominating figure of Beasley do not come about that often. It will be criminal to not pick this future mega-star as the face of our franchise…
The No 1 Chi -Town sports fan in Europe!
by Vangelis on May 23, 2008 9:42 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
#4
doesn’t Rose have this ‘big tick’ in his character as well? (and should they both get it checked out by a doctor?)
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2008 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Thabo is the only one listed who actually looks sort of successful going to the hole.
And he needs alot more reps to get good at it. Kirk and BG have already demonstrated their midgetness, and having a big body who doesn’t pass isn’t going to help matters.
He may look the part
but Thabo turns the ball over like crazy.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2008 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
He wouldn't be primary ball handler now-
He would catch and shoot, or be dished to for a dive to the hole.
He could be a trade throw-in too!
Because he’ll never be a good ball handler or shooter, and someone has to tell Hinrich to keep his chin up on the trading block.
Agreed on 3
I think this is a great point some people are misunderstanding—of course it’s better for an elite NBA player to have a jumper, but if it becomes their primary weapon because they’ve already refined it, then the increased athleticism/speed/physicality of defenders in the pro game might cause you to become a primarily jump-shooting player, which does not a star make. The jumpshot should evolve as a countermove to high percentage shots from driving and posting up, otherwise you become a career low-percentage gunner. Even though you need to develop a jump shot to become a dominant star player (ala Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Wade), having one before you go pro can slow and ultimately hurt the development of your supreme talent.
Note: “no jumper” means when the entered the league.
1984 #1 The Dream - no jumper, 2 rings
1985 #1 Ewing - jumper, no rings
1986 #1 Daugherty - jumper, no rings
1987 #1 The Admiral - no jumper,
1998 #1 Manning - jumper, no rings
1989 #1 Pervis Ellison - no clue, no rings
1990 #1 Coleman - jumper, no rings
1991 #1 LJ - jumper, no rings
1992 #1 Shaq - ha, 4 rings
1993 #1 Webber - jumper, no rings
1994 #1 Big Dog - jumper, no rings
1995 #1 Joe Smith - jumper, no rings
1996 #1 AI - jumper, no rings
1997 #1 Duncan - did he have that bank shot in college? 4 rings
1998 #1 Khandi - oy vey
1999 #1 Brand - jumper, no rings
2000 #1 K-Mart - no jumper, no rings
2001 #1 Kwame - ...
2002 #1 Yao - jumper
2003 #1 LeBron - no jumper
#3 Melo - jumper
#5 Wade - no jumper
OK, it's not like a prerequisite for superstardom
Guys without developed jumpers could still shoot, they just didn’t have great form or proper mechanics. that’s what may qualify as a positive for Rose. Since his shot is so odd, the Bulls staff could help him refine it, and he won’t have any attachments to it. It’s like FT shooting. When you start shooting free throws like an idiot and no one corrects you (Shaq and Duncan), the habit sticks, no matter how much coaching someone gives you. Knocking Beasley for having a jumper is stupid. If anything, that just means he can work even harder on other parts of his game to fulfill his beastly(lol) potential.
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 23, 2008 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Name me some guys who relied heavily on their jumpshot
before entering the NBA that worked hard on other parts of their game to fulfill their “beastly potential.” This is something I noticed looking through the careers of hundreds of players, and I can’t think of a single player that did what you described. I’d be happy to see some examples there has to some exceptions.. I’m not concerned with how good a player is in the next 2-3 years, I’m interested in their sustained career.
formerly sbulls
More recently
Kobe, Dirk, Deron Williams, Michael Redd, Kevin Martin, Rudy Gay, Yao Ming, Chris Bosh, Rip Hamilton.
When I first read the no-jumpshot idea, I liked it, but I’m not sure there’s a whole lot of evidence to back it up. Of the 20+ppg scorers in the NBA this year, the only ones who’ve marketedly improved their shot after joining the NBA are LeBron, Chris Paul, Jason Richardson, Joe Johnson and David West.
I think it’s more correlation than causation. No-jumpshot top picks normally turn out pretty good not because they eventually develop a jumpshot (most don’t). They turn out pretty good because they have to be supremely athletic to dominate without one, and it’s rare to see an NBA all-star who isn’t a supreme athlete.
The jumpshot theory is narrowly focused on the difference between
being really good and being great. It’s applies to a much narrower group. The high picks with enough athletic ability to get to the rim and score without a well developed jumpshot. Kobe is good, but he should be better. He’s talented enough that he should be more productive than he is. Kobe came into the league putting up 3s. I think he’d be a more effective player now if he wasn’t launching jumpshots when he was 19. Dirk, Redd, Martin, and Hamilton had to e jumpshooters, they don’t have the athletic ability to survive without being jumpshooters. Ming’s entire game is built on size and skill, and doesn’t really apply as a 7’6” center. It’s too early too make a judgement on Gay, yet. But, maybe he bucks a trend. Deron has improved his shot in the leauge, and he was never someone I thought settled in college or the NBA. Maybe Bosh is a counter example.. I’m talking about a difference that manifests itself as maybe a 5-10 point difference in Ortg.
The theory applies on the negative side to guys who got in the habit of settling for jumpers in college. Guys who developed less than ideal shot selection against less challenging competition, carry that over in the NBA when facing tougher challenges. And the vast majority of guys who play 5+ years in the NBA develop at least a reliable midrange shot. I believe Derrick Coleman for example would have been better off, he didn’t have a jumpshot when he enter the NBA. Webber would have been better. Carmelo Anthony would be better. And a long list of other really talent high picks with the talent an ability to have been able to score without their jumpshots.
formerly sbulls
Never Nervous Pervis!
I completely forgot that he was a #1 pick
I agree
There isn’t much more to say. I don’t really know anything about either player. Beasley presents more risks, and a seemingly lower payoff.
And we desperately want it to be true
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 23, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
#4
Is it just me, but looking at the youtube vids of Beasley and the ipod, he reminds me of Charles Barkley
My thoughts on Beasley...
First, why did Paxson say he views him as a 4? I don’t know if he said definitely, but he sounded pretty confident about it in one of his interviews.
Second, if they draft Beasley and he’s made a 3, doesn’t that take some of the “defensive-stalwart” thing out of the equation? Maybe he won’t be as good defensively against some of the SF’s, but why assume that? Granted, Deng probably showed more defensive effort in his only college year, but someone like Luol can move from PF to SF, why not someone who’s probably quicker and definitely stronger?
The biggest reason I wouldn’t be bothered by the Bulls drafting Beasley is: if Beasley and Thomas both fulfill their potential, you’re looking at two of the toughest matchups in all of basketball—a SF who can post up and PF who can take you off the dribble.
The reason I don’t like them taking him is because it might mean that Thomas is expendable to Paxson, and the ruins any good feelings I’d have about drafting him.
Drafting Beasley affects this roster moreso than Rose
They draft Rose, essentially Kirk is thrown into flux, but they can still retain him as 6th man/SG (I’m convinced he will succeed in this limited role).
Draft Beasley, and basically we tell Tyrus “Sorry we don’t need you, even though we never gave you a chance to succeed in the 2 years you were here.” Keep Tyrus and Beasley, then you are basically telegraphing to Deng that he is highly expendable, which may hurt his productivity and confidence even more.
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 23, 2008 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions
well he's an RFA
so they don’t have to be too committed to Deng and his supposedly fragile ego (and here I thought it was his Achilles tendon).
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions
all these things are true
but the impact of both players to the team really matters.
these things will affect the bulls when they draft beasley, but the things i see when they really get him are these:
this team,let’s be honest, is broken right now and if you insert beasley in the lineup, surely he will score, maybe dominate and be the new leader and face of the franchise. But what i don’t like and people overlook this a lot, that if they make the bulls depend on beasley alone and view him as their new hope, it won’t work for them. Beasley is a good player but he’ll be a rookie in the NBA and if the bulls put too much dependence to beasley, it would turn this young and very talented team to a stagnant one and the only outlet will be beasley. the other players will hold the ball less and shoot less, and everything will depend on beasley.much like the Cavaliers.without Lebron they’re probably be 0-82 in the regular season.
the things above will be evident next season.
but if they draft rose
everything will be different.
he will make the most out of every talent in the bulls (new) roster next season and that’s better i think rather than a player who impacts the game but not his teammates. maybe he will but a rose is a PG. they compare beasley to tim duncan but duncan’s character is the best ive ever seen in a NBA player,and beasley is not like that as you’ve just mentioned above.
go for rose pax. remember your team has talent. its like this, your players are like screws,they need a screwdriver and that’s a good PG, but the actual one who’ll turn the screwdriver is the man, the COACH..so please get a good coach first pax..please
I find it hilarious that relying on Beasley to score is too much for a rookie,
yet asking Rose to not only learn the NBA point position and play it well, but also to raise the level of play of the rest of the team is not.
I doubt the Bulls suddenly turn into the Cavs where everyone stands around and watches one player, unless Pax makes a really bad choice in a coach.
My Bulls may suck, but my Jayhawks are National Champs!
I don't think Mike Brown is available...yet
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 23, 2008 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions
The current issue of ESPN The Magazine has an interesting article on shot clock usage, pointing out
percentages of regular season 1st action possessions that ended in FG or FTA by time.
NBA team average
0-6 seconds 55%
7-12 seconds 45%
13-18 seconds 43%
19-24 seconds 39%
Chicago Bulls
0-10 seconds 51.5%
11-15 seconds 46.2%
16-20 seconds 43.6%
21-24 seconds 39.5%
The Jazz and the Lakers were the highest efficiency playoff teams. I realize there is not a perfect correlation of these comparitive stats, but they do seem to indicate that Mike D’Antoni’s 7 second or less philosophy argues for an uptempo offensive strategy, since %’s diminish as time ticks away and the Bulls were much more effective when executing earlier in the clock, even with thier present lineup.
It also demonstrates that to be successfull over the long haul, each team needs one or more go-to guys who can consistently beat defenders off the dribble to beat the clock, such as Kobe, LeBron, CP3, Williams, Duncan, Parker, Pierce, etc. The Bulls relied heavily on Gordon with limited success since they really didn’t have a ball handler who could go one-on-one or a guard who could penetrate and distribute or shoot in those pressure situations.
Which points in my estimation to three obvious conclusions leading to the same result.
1) We need a solid point guard who can handle this pressure (pass, penetrate, shoot, rebound) late in the clock…...solution ROSE
2) We need someone who wants the ball in his hands and can create his own shot if all the options break down…....solution ROSE
3) We need someone who can quarterback an uptempo offense to take advantage of the young Bulls athleticism and consistently make smart decisions with the rock…...solution ROSE
Finally, we need a coach who can maximize this style of offense….which rules out Avery Johnson and any coach who is locked into half-court sets as his primary philosophy. D’Antoni would have been ideal for this team. Thanks Jerry for your interference and screwing up what should have been.
Who is out there that can still bring us a winner? I hope Pax knows.
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names.
Elbert Hubbard
by Tyrusmancrush on May 24, 2008 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I like this
as it nicely quantifies what we all thought: the bulls offense was stagnant and bogged down, resulting in too many forced shots late in possessions (and by players who don’t excel at creating). I agree with you that Rose helps us here, and I think that he’s the right pick for several of the reasons you mentioned. Foremost among them that he’ll accelerate our sluggish tempo to better utiilze athletes like T2 and Noah.
However, I think Beasley supporters would argue that those stats are beside the point. This being that we don’t need to get shots up quicker, we need to acquire a player (Beez) who can get and make his shot at any time – first or last seven seconds. MB is the kind of player you can just dump the ball into say ‘okay (sorta) big guy, score.’ In other words: the would say Beasley is a better option for #1 and #2 or your conclusions.
I think it’s a toss up between 1 and 2, frankly. But #3 takes the taco for me.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
Durant Senior Year vs Beasley
GP MPG PPG FG% APG RPG BPG SPG
Durant 35 35.9 25.8 47.3 1.3 11.1 1.9 1.9
Beasley 33 31.5 26.2 53.2 1.2 12.4 1.6 1.3
Draw your own conclusions.
May I conclude....
....that Beasley won’t play any defense, in addition to being an inch or two shorter than Kevin Durant?
fyi – Those are the stats from Durant’s Freshman Year – same year as Beasley. It’d be easy enough to show that Derrick Rose’s stats from his frosh season at Memphis stack up fine against Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis, Jason Kidd at the same age, but I’m not sure that’s what the debate is about.
by BullsFanInSeattle on May 28, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Do you watch college basketball?
I don’t know why an argument is whether Beasley plays defense. He’s a good defender when he’s not in foul trouble. A lot of the fouls that got him in trouble was when he was hustling on D to rotate to help out a teammate.
I don't know if they'd stack up well against all those players
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 29, 2008 1:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Rose has low assist totals for a PG (due to Memphis’ style of play), and guys like Baron and Kidd absolutely dominated the ball when they were in college, the complete focal point of the offense.
Rusty Longley v 2.0
by Ozzie Montana on May 29, 2008 1:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
