I still have Romeo over Nesmith

[Roy H.]

There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.

except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.

More evidence that WAR is garbage, I guess.  Jabari and G. Williams are in the top-five as well.  Really digging the Jabari / Grant / Romeo core.

Carsen Edwards led the team in BPM.  He more than doubled Tatum.  Championship.

[Vermont Green]

In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

I don't think there is any conclusive stat that is going to settle the argument as to whether Langford or Nesmith is the more valuable, higher ceiling prospect or who is the better player right now.  Neither has done enough for long enough for it to be considered a track record.

But these plus minus stats, regular season vs. playoffs, are indicative of why it is hard to peg exactly what Langford could be.  Langford played his best basketball in the playoffs in 2019-20 (based on my subjective interpretation of what I saw on the court) and also played decent in the playoffs against the Nets.  He has it in him.  You see it at times, just not all the time.  He has been very much two steps forward, one step back (or three).

Nesmith to me has been more of a somewhat steady improvement without the periods of regression.  Coming out of college, I understood he was a natural shooter but maybe not a high level athlete.  On the Celtics, he has been the opposite.  He flies around the court and has surprising (at least to me) hops but has not developed a consistent shot or a quick enough release.

If I had to pick one to be included in a trade right now, I would send out Langford.  If I had to guess who will play more meaningful minutes at the start of the season, that might be Langford (maybe not the case by the end of the season though).

[tstorey_97]

As this is Langford v Nesmith, I would just do the straight stats.

Langford combined reg season and post career totals

Games - 61
MPG - 13:30
FGA 63/181 - 34.8%
3PT - 17/64 - 26.4%
FT 32/43 - 74.4%
TRB - 89
AST - 33
TO - 24
STL - 18
BLK - 15
PTS 181

Nesmith combined totals

Games - 51
MPG - 14:54
FGA - 83/196 - 42.3%
3PT - 44/122 - 36%
FT 24/30 - 80%
TRB - 140
AST - 24
TO - 25
STL - 16
BLK - 10
PTS - 234

[Moranis]

There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.

except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.

well yeah in the 5 playoff games in a series Boston got crushed in which Langford played in only 4 games, the team was actually better with him on the court in 1 of those 4 games.  Way better to the tune of +21 in his 27 minutes, but they were -3, -13, and -7 in the other 3 games he played.  That said the overall on/off differential for Langford in the playoffs (so that includes the 11 point loss in game 1) did show the team was better with him on the floor than off it.  Of course Tacko Fall led the team in the playoffs in that with Parker 2nd, and Robert Williams 3rd before getting to Langford. 

[Celtics4ever]

Langford is better on D, Nesmith is better in about every other area except neither of them can pass.

[gouki88]

There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.

except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.

More evidence that WAR is garbage, I guess.  Jabari and G. Williams are in the top-five as well.  Really digging the Jabari / Grant / Romeo core.

Carsen Edwards led the team in BPM.  He more than doubled Tatum.  Championship.

Romeo, Jabari and Grant is the new Big 3. Our best one yet

[footey]

There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.

except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.

More evidence that WAR is garbage, I guess.  Jabari and G. Williams are in the top-five as well.  Really digging the Jabari / Grant / Romeo core.

Carsen Edwards led the team in BPM.  He more than doubled Tatum.  Championship.

Romeo, Jabari and Grant is the new Big 3. Our best one yet

Ha ha.

My point all along is that Stevens valued Romeo more than Aaron toward the end of last season, given the playoff minutes and assigning him starting role.  Maybe with all the off season maneuvering, neither one of them will get much burn this season.  Nesmith fills a bigger need (outside shooting) than Romeo.  Will be interesting to see what happens. 

[gouki88]

There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.

except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.

More evidence that WAR is garbage, I guess.  Jabari and G. Williams are in the top-five as well.  Really digging the Jabari / Grant / Romeo core.

Carsen Edwards led the team in BPM.  He more than doubled Tatum.  Championship.

Romeo, Jabari and Grant is the new Big 3. Our best one yet

Ha ha.

My point all along is that Stevens valued Romeo more than Aaron toward the end of last season, given the playoff minutes and assigning him starting role.  Maybe with all the off season maneuvering, neither one of them will get much burn this season.  Nesmith fills a bigger need (outside shooting) than Romeo.  Will be interesting to see what happens.

He did, but I think the context, as in our roster construction, changes the discussion a bit. Last season we had more perimeter shooting in Fournier and Kemba, but we needed defence desperately. This season it's sort of the reverse - lots of above average defensive players, but not much shooting.

[footey]

There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.

except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.

More evidence that WAR is garbage, I guess.  Jabari and G. Williams are in the top-five as well.  Really digging the Jabari / Grant / Romeo core.

Carsen Edwards led the team in BPM.  He more than doubled Tatum.  Championship.

Romeo, Jabari and Grant is the new Big 3. Our best one yet

Ha ha.

My point all along is that Stevens valued Romeo more than Aaron toward the end of last season, given the playoff minutes and assigning him starting role.  Maybe with all the off season maneuvering, neither one of them will get much burn this season.  Nesmith fills a bigger need (outside shooting) than Romeo.  Will be interesting to see what happens.

He did, but I think the context, as in our roster construction, changes the discussion a bit. Last season we had more perimeter shooting in Fournier and Kemba, but we needed defence desperately. This season it's sort of the reverse - lots of above average defensive players, but not much shooting.

I agree.

[Walker Wiggle]

Completely agree with the OP and will do him one better… Romeo will shoot a better 3p% this year than Nesmith. Get your chuckles in now.

[trickybilly]

Completely agree with the OP and will do him one better… Romeo will shoot a better 3p% this year than Nesmith. Get your chuckles in now.

Really??? What's the policy on here for wagering money?

[SHAQATTACK]

Langford is better on D, Nesmith is better in about every other area except neither of them can pass.

Omg ….there you go again shooting us down with the facts 

[droopdog7]

Langford is better on D, Nesmith is better in about every other area except neither of them can pass.

This was part of the original post, but it's not that simple.  Romeo is a good defender; very confident of that.  Nesmith has more offensive potential, and certainly romeo has underwhelmed on offense, but is nesmith a good offensive player or will he be?  That is is not so clear to me.  We can't confirm that he is an above average shooter and it doesn't look like he'll be any more than that. 

[Roy H.]

We can't confirm that he is an above average shooter and it doesn't look like he'll be any more than that.

What are you basing that on?

[droopdog7]

We can't confirm that he is an above average shooter and it doesn't look like he'll be any more than that.

What are you basing that on?

Let me start by saying that I don't know what average is anymore but he shot 37% last year and 36% in summer league.  But three things stand out to me outside of the numbers.  His shot is a bit mechanical and slow (which is well documented), so I wonder about his ability to shoot under duress.  Second, I've seen some horrible misses that I would not expect from an elite shooter.  Perhaps that is nerves or whatever but there are many examples of that.  Finally, I am disappointed in his percentage on wide open threes.  I mean, I don't have the stats or anything but the baseline for a great shooter is to hit the shots he's supposed to at a high clip.  I'm not sure he does that.

At the of end of the day, I think he needs to be a 40% 3 pt shooter on a variety of types of shots to be effective because I don't see much of anything else in his offense.  And I'm not convinced the shot is there.