nwagrizzfan

Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

Recommended Posts

chipc3    0
18 minutes ago, Blackwatch said:

For the first time in his career.

That is true. However your comment that "the reason they don't even average 20 a game is that for every night they go off for 30, there will be 3 or 4 where they score just 10" is factually incorrect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackwatch    0
50 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

That is true. However your comment that "the reason they don't even average 20 a game is that for every night they go off for 30, there will be 3 or 4 where they score just 10" is factually incorrect. 

In a 10 year career, Conley averages 20pts/gm once and you want to claim him as a 20 pts/gm scorer? Over his career, he only averages 14.2pts/gm. With the larger sample size of his entire career, I would think that the 20.4 he averaged last year was an outlier and that it would be more precise to note that Conley probably is considered more of a 14pts/gm scorer rather than a 20 pts/gm scorer at this point in his career. Would you agree? Besides, I didn't say those players were not 20pt/gm scorers last year, I said they were not 20 pts/gm scorers period. Conley doesn't score 20 a game over his career, one would hardly consider him one now after only one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael D    0
31 minutes ago, Blackwatch said:

In a 10 year career, Conley averages 20pts/gm once and you want to claim him as a 20 pts/gm scorer? Over his career, he only averages 14.2pts/gm. With the larger sample size of his entire career, I would think that the 20.4 he averaged last year was an outlier and that it would be more precise to note that Conley probably is considered more of a 14pts/gm scorer rather than a 20 pts/gm scorer at this point in his career. Would you agree? Besides, I didn't say those players were not 20pt/gm scorers last year, I said they were not 20 pts/gm scorers period. Conley doesn't score 20 a game over his career, one would hardly consider him one now after only one season.

By that logic, Kyle Lowry, who has only had two 20pts/gm seasons and who also averages about 14/pts/gm for his career is not an elite scorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackwatch    0
6 minutes ago, Michael D said:

By that logic, Kyle Lowry, who has only had two 20pts/gm seasons and who also averages about 14/pts/gm for his career is not an elite scorer.

Please define elite scorer? At least give me some consistency. Lowery has averaged more points each year, Conley has been erratic. If Conley gives me two more years of more than 20pts/gm, than we can call him a  "reliable scorer". But 20pts is hardly elite, when you consider the likes of Harden, Westbrook, LeBron, etc. To be elite at least average in the top 10 scorers in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael D    0
48 minutes ago, Blackwatch said:

Please define elite scorer? At least give me some consistency. Lowery has averaged more points each year, Conley has been erratic. If Conley gives me two more years of more than 20pts/gm, than we can call him a  "reliable scorer". But 20pts is hardly elite, when you consider the likes of Harden, Westbrook, LeBron, etc. To be elite at least average in the top 10 scorers in the league.

Wait, hold up.  Conley has improved steadily throughout his career as far as his scoring and shooting.  I think he's three years younger than Lowery who is 31.  He reached 20pts/gm before Lowery did in his career.  But yeah, I'm fine with calling him a reliable scorer.  He and Lowery do an efficient job running the offense, which includes setting everyone else up.  They are both elite point guards.

I just chimed in to say Conley is up there.  Um elite scorer, yeah you are right, he is more in line with the tag reliable scorer.  He is a **** good point guard though.  Optimally the Grizz would have an elite scorer like Lowery has in Demarr or at least two solid options in the starting lineup with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael D said:

Wait, hold up.  Conley has improved steadily throughout his career as far as his scoring and shooting.  I think he's three years younger than Lowery who is 31.  He reached 20pts/gm before Lowery did in his career.  But yeah, I'm fine with calling him a reliable scorer.  He and Lowery do an efficient job running the offense, which includes setting everyone else up.  They are both elite point guards.

I just chimed in to say Conley is up there.  Um elite scorer, yeah you are right, he is more in line with the tag reliable scorer.  He is a **** good point guard though.  Optimally the Grizz would have an elite scorer like Lowery has in Demarr or at least two solid options in the starting lineup with him.

 

2 hours ago, Blackwatch said:

Please define elite scorer? At least give me some consistency. Lowery has averaged more points each year, Conley has been erratic. If Conley gives me two more years of more than 20pts/gm, than we can call him a  "reliable scorer". But 20pts is hardly elite, when you consider the likes of Harden, Westbrook, LeBron, etc. To be elite at least average in the top 10 scorers in the league.

conley has been an above avarge score for atleast the last 4 years...we had this discussion years ago wonder how good conley would be in a more free flow offense and a lot of us agreed he would average way more than 14pts a game...based on the style and pace that we played at those 14pts a game was more like 18-20pgs a game...now look and behold we a more free flow offense and conley is averaging 20pts a game...I which I knew how to look up old thread for we could see that conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grizz1016    0
On 8/6/2017 at 6:58 AM, Father Pat said:

Tony only played in 2 games against Leonard during the regular season. In those games, Tony shot .368 % from the field (7-19). The results in victories were split, and in the game the Spurs lost, Parker and Mills shot a combined 4-16, compared to them hitting 10 of 20 in their win. Leonard was 6-15 in their loss and 7-15 in their win, not a huge difference. 

Tony guarding Leonard had less of an impact than you would like to think.

Wrong. Leonard's shooting percentages were below 40% when TA guarded him. Whether you like it or not, that would have played a significant role in the POs where Kawhi basically carried them against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grizz1016    0
On 8/7/2017 at 10:32 AM, Father Pat said:

 I provided factual information that was the body of work vs an assumption.  You are hyper focused on what Kawhi may not have been able to score had Tony played. What you fail to take into account is the negative impact(s) that Tony would have brought. Tony on the floor means more flexibility for opponent double teaming and less offensive effectiveness. Against another team Tony may have been impactful, but not the Spurs. Just because Kawhi had an easier time without Tony does not mean the Spurs would have failed as a team against the Grizzlies. To imagine that the Spurs would not have adjusted their team play and lost is ridiculous. 

The past performances against the Spurs very much suggest that Tony would not have made an impact, and undoubtedly he would not have made "a huge impact". In the past, keeping Kawhi from scoring 30 plus was not the magic recipe of success against the Spurs. Why you would think it suddenly would have been during the playoffs is simply imagined. Tony's negative impact(s) would have once again been exploited as they have been many times before. The Grizzlies were the worst shooting team in the league last season. Had Tony played during the playoffs it would have only made it easier for Popovich to exploit that fact.

Kawhi went ham against us.

Kawhi had trouble scoring, driving or setting up folks when TA guarded him. When TA went to the bench in the games he played, Kawhi would go off against our other defenders. TA in the POs against this version of the Spurs, that solely relies on Kawhi being a stud, would have made an impact. When TA went down, almost every analyst and sports reporter predicted a sweep. Credit to Conley especially for taking this team to 6 games.

If we ever made it past the Spurs, then TA IMO wouldn't have an impact in the 2nd round onwards. But the Spurs were the perfect opponent if TA had been healthy. The over-reliance on a stud player makes this version of the Spurs different from the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gman1    0
On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:16 AM, smit-tay griz said:

No smack downs will probably be necessary.  You  mods have trained us all to be pretty well behaved most of the time.:P

But I probably need to keep an eye on Chip, eh?! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
16 hours ago, grizz1016 said:

Wrong. Leonard's shooting percentages were below 40% when TA guarded him. Whether you like it or not, that would have played a significant role in the POs where Kawhi basically carried them against us.

Sure. The Grizzlies lost 4 games in that series by an average of 16 points per game, but Super Tony would have made so much of a difference that the Spurs would have lost 2 more games in that series. It's also why every team in the league is throwing crazy money at Super Tony now that he is a free agent. It's not every day that such NBA difference makers are available.  But why stop at Tony? If Parsons was healthy that would have also been a big help. If Vince was ten years younger, why that would have been huge. If...

Get over it. Tony did not play in the playoffs. Citing stats of what Leonard's shooting percentage was when Tony guarded him, which did not result in more Grizzly victories than loses, is totally irrelevant and pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
1 hour ago, Father Pat said:

Sure. The Grizzlies lost 4 games in that series by an average of 16 points per game, but Super Tony would have made so much of a difference that the Spurs would have lost 2 more games in that series. It's also why every team in the league is throwing crazy money at Super Tony now that he is a free agent. It's not every day that such NBA difference makers are available.  But why stop at Tony? If Parsons was healthy that would have also been a big help. If Vince was ten years younger, why that would have been huge. If...

Get over it. Tony did not play in the playoffs. Citing stats of what Leonard's shooting percentage was when Tony guarded him, which did not result in more Grizzly victories than loses, is totally irrelevant and pointless.

You keep going back to the team aspect. No one is denying the Spurs were the better team. No one has suggested that the Grizzlies would have won the series if Tony had played. This entire discussion began with the discussion that Selden did well guarding Leonard. My premise was that he didn't and Tony would have made 'a huge difference' defending him.

At no time did any suggest Tony would have sent the Grizzlies into the 2nd round. The closest comment I have seen in that regard was the suggestion that "if [the Grizzlies] ever made it past the Spurs, then TA IMO wouldn't have an impact in the 2nd round onwards. But the Spurs were the perfect opponent if TA had been healthy. The over-reliance on a stud player makes this version of the Spurs different from the past."

The argument that the Spurs had to change their defense because of Selden is false as well. It would make some sense if Seldon shot better than Tony but he didn't. Selden shot 34.6% from the field against the Spurs and hit 18.2% of his 3 point attempts. If anything it could be argued that the Grizzlies would have been better with Allen offensively than Selden last year.

Selden was a worse rebounder than Tony, worse shooter and worse defender. I still doubt having a fully healthy Tony would have made a difference in the season but to suggest Selden made up for his poor defensive effort with a superior offensive game doesn't balance with his actual shooting numbers in the playoffs. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
1 hour ago, chipc3 said:

You keep going back to the team aspect. No one is denying the Spurs were the better team. No one has suggested that the Grizzlies would have won the series if Tony had played. This entire discussion began with the discussion that Selden did well guarding Leonard. My premise was that he didn't and Tony would have made 'a huge difference' defending him.

At no time did any suggest Tony would have sent the Grizzlies into the 2nd round. The closest comment I have seen in that regard was the suggestion that "if [the Grizzlies] ever made it past the Spurs, then TA IMO wouldn't have an impact in the 2nd round onwards. But the Spurs were the perfect opponent if TA had been healthy. The over-reliance on a stud player makes this version of the Spurs different from the past."

The argument that the Spurs had to change their defense because of Selden is false as well. It would make some sense if Seldon shot better than Tony but he didn't. Selden shot 34.6% from the field against the Spurs and hit 18.2% of his 3 point attempts. If anything it could be argued that the Grizzlies would have been better with Allen offensively than Selden last year.

Selden was a worse rebounder than Tony, worse shooter and worse defender. I still doubt having a fully healthy Tony would have made a difference in the season but to suggest Selden made up for his poor defensive effort with a superior offensive game doesn't balance with his actual shooting numbers in the playoffs. 

 

 

I agree with most of what you are saying, but what they are saying about shooting cant be judged in numbers. Its a respect factor.  With almost every perimeter player in the NBA, the other team usually thinks "I need to stay in his vicinity and try to atleast close out if he gets the ball." To my memory, Tony Allen and Andre Roberson are the only perimeter players where it appears that the other team invites them to shoot and makes no visible attempt to close out on a consistent basis.

Raw percentage doesnt accurately gage respect which is really what people are talking about. For example, Steph Curry was 15th in 3 point percentage. However, is there any doubt who the most respected and feared shooter the game is? There is no stat that can really judge how two and three men had eyes on him on a fast break while other guys waltzed down the lane for a layup.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
1 hour ago, chipc3 said:

You keep going back to the team aspect. No one is denying the Spurs were the better team. No one has suggested that the Grizzlies would have won the series if Tony had played. This entire discussion began with the discussion that Selden did well guarding Leonard. My premise was that he didn't and Tony would have made 'a huge difference' defending him.

At no time did any suggest Tony would have sent the Grizzlies into the 2nd round. The closest comment I have seen in that regard was the suggestion that "if [the Grizzlies] ever made it past the Spurs, then TA IMO wouldn't have an impact in the 2nd round onwards. But the Spurs were the perfect opponent if TA had been healthy. The over-reliance on a stud player makes this version of the Spurs different from the past."

The argument that the Spurs had to change their defense because of Selden is false as well. It would make some sense if Seldon shot better than Tony but he didn't. Selden shot 34.6% from the field against the Spurs and hit 18.2% of his 3 point attempts. If anything it could be argued that the Grizzlies would have been better with Allen offensively than Selden last year.

Selden was a worse rebounder than Tony, worse shooter and worse defender. I still doubt having a fully healthy Tony would have made a difference in the season but to suggest Selden made up for his poor defensive effort with a superior offensive game doesn't balance with his actual shooting numbers in the playoffs. 

 

 

No kidding I keep going back to the team aspect. Isn't that what it's all about?  -  "TA not playing Kawhi was a huge impact." If the team still loses when Tony played, how was only his not playing a huge impact? The end result was the same. They lost when he played and they lost when he didn't play, but him not playing was a huge impact because Kawhi scored more in those losses than the other losses. I don't believe I made any argument about Selden either. Don't know where you pulled the "Spurs had to change their defense because of Selden" stuff out of. 

 You ignore the damage he causes to team offensive output. The point is the end result of what the team did, not what he had done or may have done only on defense against just one opponent. His positive contribution without stating his negative contribution fails to honestly state his total impact. An extreme example would be to point out Thabeets shot blocking ability and not mention the rest of his game.

A huge impact by any player makes the difference in a win or a loss, not just what one player does against the Grizzlies while they still lose. You say that Kawhi didn't score as much when Tony played against him, so Kawhi would have scored less in that series had Tony played, but the Grizzlies still could not have beaten the Spurs. Big stinking deal. You are only recognizing a small part of the story.

One dimensional players can only help a team if their faults can be hidden or covered by the rest of the team. The worst shooting team playing a guy that adds to that problem because he can slow down one opponents scoring doesn't make for a net gain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pjoe    0

What the heck ... I'll say it.  If Tony was 100%, the Grizzlies would be wearing championship rings.  There!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, pjoe said:

What the heck ... I'll say it.  If Tony was 100%, the Grizzlies would be wearing championship rings.  There!

el.oh.el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grizz1016    0
12 hours ago, Father Pat said:

Sure. The Grizzlies lost 4 games in that series by an average of 16 points per game, but Super Tony would have made so much of a difference that the Spurs would have lost 2 more games in that series. It's also why every team in the league is throwing crazy money at Super Tony now that he is a free agent. It's not every day that such NBA difference makers are available.  But why stop at Tony? If Parsons was healthy that would have also been a big help. If Vince was ten years younger, why that would have been huge. If...

Get over it. Tony did not play in the playoffs. Citing stats of what Leonard's shooting percentage was when Tony guarded him, which did not result in more Grizzly victories than loses, is totally irrelevant and pointless.

Tony ain't super. If that's what you understood from my post, then your reading comprehension needs major help.

Tony has been a thorn for Kawhi. The matchup was right for him. If you keep denying that, then you cannot be helped. Tony against any other PO team is a detriment. Tony against the Spurs who unusually relied on one star player this year would have been a big help for the Grizz. Your TA hatred is clouding any objectivity and common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 4:18 PM, Blackwatch said:

Over an 82 game season, the only consistent, proven "Alpha" Scorer in that line-up is ... not there. Conley and Gasol can get hot, and when they are, they are All-star caliber players. But there is a reason why Conley has never been an All-Star (inconsistency) and Gasol has only been named one because there are only 4 true centers left in the league. 15 years ago, Gasol may not start at center for a good team because of his lack of low post scoring/skills and rebounding. Everyone else in that starting line-up is either unproven or injured. So, I wonder what paper you read that tells you that this is a "heck of a starting five" ?  

Just thought i'd post these stats on Players Playtype Post Up from last season.  This is just to show you that Marc is a much better scorer than you give him credit for. 

http://stats.nba.com/players/post-up/#!?sort=PPP&dir=1&CF=PossG*G*2

Marc on 6.3 poss  has a .94ppp(points per play) on 32%FREQ 

Zbo on 5.1poss has a .82ppp on 32%FREQ

This shows that its better to throw it to Marc in the post than it is to Zbo.   The stats also show that Gasol goes in to the post at the same rate(FREQ) as Zbo.     Top 5 players that postup the most were Al Jefferson(46%), Aldridge(32%), Zbo(32%), Embiid(32%), and Marc(32%).

Literally the only skill Zbo is better than Marc at (in this stage of his career) is rebounding.    

Unrelated note the most efficient PostUp Player in the NBA last season was none other than Rudy Gay (1,14ppp). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackwatch    0
38 minutes ago, GrizzTigerFan said:

Just thought i'd post these stats on Players Playtype Post Up from last season.  This is just to show you that Marc is a much better scorer than you give him credit for. 

http://stats.nba.com/players/post-up/#!?sort=PPP&dir=1&CF=PossG*G*2

Marc on 6.3 poss  has a .94ppp(points per play) on 32%FREQ 

Zbo on 5.1poss has a .82ppp on 32%FREQ

This shows that its better to throw it to Marc in the post than it is to Zbo.   The stats also show that Gasol goes in to the post at the same rate(FREQ) as Zbo.     Top 5 players that postup the most were Al Jefferson(46%), Aldridge(32%), Zbo(32%), Embiid(32%), and Marc(32%).

Literally the only skill Zbo is better than Marc at (in this stage of his career) is rebounding.    

Unrelated note the most efficient PostUp Player in the NBA last season was none other than Rudy Gay (1,14ppp). 

With all of those stats, are you saying that Marc Gasol has a better low post game than ZBo? I'd be curious to see what kind of shots in the low post Gasol took vs. what kinds ZBo took. Gasol, for his size, does not post up nearly enough, and taking those 3's negates his size advantage. Most times, when he is on the post, he takes a turnaround, fade away jumper, a high-degree-of-difficulty shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blackwatch said:

With all of those stats, are you saying that Marc Gasol has a better low post game than ZBo? I'd be curious to see what kind of shots in the low post Gasol took vs. what kinds ZBo took. Gasol, for his size, does not post up nearly enough, and taking those 3's negates his size advantage. Most times, when he is on the post, he takes a turnaround, fade away jumper, a high-degree-of-difficulty shot.

Zbo may have a more diverse array of lowpost moves or "shots" but the numbers show that he isn't more effective in the post than Marc when it comes to producing points(btw most important stat).    Numbers also show that he isn't in the post more than Marc is either.   So if you believe Marc isn't in the post nearly enough then you need to criticize Zbo too.  

Personally i don't care how the shot looks when it goes up as long as it goes in.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
2 hours ago, GrizzTigerFan said:

Zbo may have a more diverse array of lowpost moves or "shots" but the numbers show that he isn't more effective in the post than Marc when it comes to producing points(btw most important stat).    Numbers also show that he isn't in the post more than Marc is either.   So if you believe Marc isn't in the post nearly enough then you need to criticize Zbo too.  

Personally i don't care how the shot looks when it goes up as long as it goes in.  :P

Yeah but being able to score with contact in the post matters when the defense turns it up a notch. I dont know about overall numbers but thats why I find Gasols scoring to be so unreliable and inconsistent. For a guy his size and limited athleticism he cant score with contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dwash said:

Yeah but being able to score with contact in the post matters when the defense turns it up a notch. I dont know about overall numbers but thats why I find Gasols scoring to be so unreliable and inconsistent. For a guy his size and limited athleticism he cant score with contact.

Pretty sure its hard to avoid contact when you are in the post, so safe to assume a lot of that scoring is in spite of contact.  Besides, the numbers show his post scoring is more reliable than Zbo's plus add in his outside shot is also more effective as well.  Overall that shows me that he is a more reliable consistent scorer than Zbo (last years).    

 Now if anybody wants to compare him to Kareem or Hakeem then yes i agree with any criticism.  I am solely focusing on the statements, in regards to Marc, being unable to match or exceed zbo scoring impact from a skills and production standpoint.   Zbo will always win the toughness and mentality debate over Marc anyday of the week. 

Mike and Marc have the talent to be legit primary scorers for any team in the league.  Sole issue is that only Mike has the mentality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackwatch    0
10 minutes ago, GrizzTigerFan said:

Pretty sure its hard to avoid contact when you are in the post, so safe to assume a lot of that scoring is in spite of contact.  Besides, the numbers show his post scoring is more reliable than Zbo's plus add in his outside shot is also more effective as well.  Overall that shows me that he is a more reliable consistent scorer than Zbo (last years).    

 Now if anybody wants to compare him to Kareem or Hakeem then yes i agree with any criticism.  I am solely focusing on the statements, in regards to Marc, being unable to match or exceed zbo scoring impact from a skills and production standpoint.   Zbo will always win the toughness and mentality debate over Marc anyday of the week. 

Mike and Marc have the talent to be legit primary scorers for any team in the league.  Sole issue is that only Mike has the mentality. 

I'm pretty sure those efficiency numbers are affected by the fact that Z-Bo came off the bench most of the year. I would like to see the numbers when he started, preferably in the playoffs. Also, Gasol has a size advantage over Z-Bo, and he definitely was not getting double teamed as much in the post as Z-Bo was, mainly because teams knew that Z-Bo was much more of a low post scoring threat. Heck, Gasol was shut down on the low post by Draymont Green, a player 6 inches shorter than Gasol. Name one player in the league that is 6'2" and can shut down Z-bo on the low post? Yeah, the stats would indicate that Gasol was a more effective scorer on the post than Z-Bo, but the eye test and experience says Z-Bo is a way better post player than Gasol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now