Author Topic: I still have Romeo over Nesmith  (Read 29470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #75 on: September 01, 2021, 01:10:51 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58537
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
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.

You could have said similar things about these two, as well, though:

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=korveky01&p1yrfrom=2004&player_id2=redicjj01&p2yrfrom=2007

Neither showed anything near as much as a rookie as they eventually did.  I think it’s too early to cap Nesmith.

I appreciate your observations, though.  It’s nice to see somebody provide the reasoning for an opinion.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #76 on: September 01, 2021, 03:45:43 PM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
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.

You could have said similar things about these two, as well, though:

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=korveky01&p1yrfrom=2004&player_id2=redicjj01&p2yrfrom=2007

Neither showed anything near as much as a rookie as they eventually did.  I think it’s too early to cap Nesmith.

I appreciate your observations, though.  It’s nice to see somebody provide the reasoning for an opinion.

Interesting stats and yes, both Nesmith and Langford still have time to improve their shooting.  The oddest thing with the stats is that Korver shot 39% from 3 and 35% overall FG%.  I don't think I recall seeing a player with that type of stat inversion.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #77 on: September 01, 2021, 05:02:01 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Nesmith is way more athletic than Korver or Reddick,  I don't think he has quite their shooting touch, but he seems to be a hard worker who gives his all.   

Quote
  The oddest thing with the stats is that Korver shot 39% from 3 and 35% overall FG%.

He was a specialist.

Quote
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. 

I thought Romeo showed some chops during summer league with the two dunks.   I am actually higher on him than I was prior and a lot of the guys think the opposite.  My big beef with Romeo is that he comes across as a passive player, no one can say that of Nesmith whose pace can be maniacal at times.   Hopefully, they both turn the corner.

Until both of them produce in NBA games it is moot

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #78 on: September 01, 2021, 05:04:32 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13068
  • Tommy Points: 120
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.

You could have said similar things about these two, as well, though:

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=korveky01&p1yrfrom=2004&player_id2=redicjj01&p2yrfrom=2007

Neither showed anything near as much as a rookie as they eventually did.  I think it’s too early to cap Nesmith.

I appreciate your observations, though.  It’s nice to see somebody provide the reasoning for an opinion.

Interesting stats and yes, both Nesmith and Langford still have time to improve their shooting.  The oddest thing with the stats is that Korver shot 39% from 3 and 35% overall FG%.  I don't think I recall seeing a player with that type of stat inversion.

Whenever I see talk of a player just needing to improve their shooting, or "learn better mechanics" and things like that, I remember many conversations about Rondo and his shooting each offseason....

I guess his 3 point shot got a bit better, but his FT shooting was always a problem.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #79 on: September 03, 2021, 07:46:03 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
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.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.

Except the comment is specifically about the team’s play. And the team did not play better with Romeo in the game. That’s incontrovertible.
No, it isn't, and it speaks to the problem with +/-.

The team could theoretically play better with Romeo on the court but if Romeo is always on the court against superior competition and off the court when the competition is worse the C's could win the minutes without Romeo.

Whether or not that's what happened, I don't think +/- is incontrovertible proof of very much.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #80 on: September 03, 2021, 07:49:53 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58537
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
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.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.

Except the comment is specifically about the team’s play. And the team did not play better with Romeo in the game. That’s incontrovertible.
No, it isn't, and it speaks to the problem with +/-.

The team could theoretically play better with Romeo on the court but if Romeo is always on the court against superior competition and off the court when the competition is worse the C's could win the minutes without Romeo.

Whether or not that's what happened, I don't think +/- is incontrovertible proof of very much.

In your hypothetical (which has no basis in reality), why isn't that pattern reflected with any other player?

But, as noted multiple times in this thread, it's not just our raw +/-, it's our net rating.  The Celtics were 12.9 points per 100 possessions better with Romeo on the bench.  Our Off Rtg is much worse, our eFG% was much worse, we turned the ball over significantly more, and our defense was only marginally better.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 07:55:29 PM by Roy H. »


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #81 on: September 03, 2021, 10:07:02 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
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.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.

Except the comment is specifically about the team’s play. And the team did not play better with Romeo in the game. That’s incontrovertible.
No, it isn't, and it speaks to the problem with +/-.

The team could theoretically play better with Romeo on the court but if Romeo is always on the court against superior competition and off the court when the competition is worse the C's could win the minutes without Romeo.

Whether or not that's what happened, I don't think +/- is incontrovertible proof of very much.

In your hypothetical (which has no basis in reality), why isn't that pattern reflected with any other player?

But, as noted multiple times in this thread, it's not just our raw +/-, it's our net rating.  The Celtics were 12.9 points per 100 possessions better with Romeo on the bench.  Our Off Rtg is much worse, our eFG% was much worse, we turned the ball over significantly more, and our defense was only marginally better.
It has not basis in reality? Coaches don't play their best players against the better competition and let their benches play against other benches (in other words, worse competition)? You don't think the level of competition affects +/- or net rating for individuals?

I don't know how common it is but I recall a lot of conversation when "the numbers" said Kawhi was dragging down the Spurs' defense a couple of years ago even though he's a great defender: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6arl1x/why_is_the_spurs_defense_so_much_better_this_year/

The likely reason is the Spurs have a good defensive system that carries over to the bench and so their bench outperformed other benches to a high degree while Kawhi, because of how good of a defender he is, was only on the court when the best offensive competition was as well.

Romeo, because he wasn't part of the regular bench rotation, might not have had the benefit of playing against other benches the way someone like Teague, even though he was shipped out because he was bad, did, thus inflating his +/-.

The point isn't to defend Romeo. I just don't think +/- is proof of much of anything.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #82 on: September 06, 2021, 07:33:42 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164
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.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.

Except the comment is specifically about the team’s play. And the team did not play better with Romeo in the game. That’s incontrovertible.
No, it isn't, and it speaks to the problem with +/-.

The team could theoretically play better with Romeo on the court but if Romeo is always on the court against superior competition and off the court when the competition is worse the C's could win the minutes without Romeo.

Whether or not that's what happened, I don't think +/- is incontrovertible proof of very much.

In your hypothetical (which has no basis in reality), why isn't that pattern reflected with any other player?

But, as noted multiple times in this thread, it's not just our raw +/-, it's our net rating.  The Celtics were 12.9 points per 100 possessions better with Romeo on the bench.  Our Off Rtg is much worse, our eFG% was much worse, we turned the ball over significantly more, and our defense was only marginally better.
It has not basis in reality? Coaches don't play their best players against the better competition and let their benches play against other benches (in other words, worse competition)? You don't think the level of competition affects +/- or net rating for individuals?

I don't know how common it is but I recall a lot of conversation when "the numbers" said Kawhi was dragging down the Spurs' defense a couple of years ago even though he's a great defender: https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/6arl1x/why_is_the_spurs_defense_so_much_better_this_year/

The likely reason is the Spurs have a good defensive system that carries over to the bench and so their bench outperformed other benches to a high degree while Kawhi, because of how good of a defender he is, was only on the court when the best offensive competition was as well.

Romeo, because he wasn't part of the regular bench rotation, might not have had the benefit of playing against other benches the way someone like Teague, even though he was shipped out because he was bad, did, thus inflating his +/-.

The point isn't to defend Romeo. I just don't think +/- is proof of much of anything.

Raw +/- doesn’t control for opponents and it also doesn’t control for teammates. Net ratings have the same issues.

There are various species of adjusted plus-minus. The problem with them is that the differences between players can be minuscule. That has led to statisticians folding in ‘box score priors’ to amplify the numbers, to create more meaningful rankings. The best-known version of this is ESPN’s Real Plus-Minus. The trouble with this approach is that there are players who help their team without putting much in the box score, so they’re under-ranked by this stat.

That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t use those statistics (I do) - just that you ought to take into account their limitations when you do.

When it comes to Romeo, the sample size is tiny. You need to ‘add salt’ to his numbers, including +/-.

In the end there’s just no getting around it: you need to be a little bit of a coach and watch a player play basketball. That means rewinding a lot and listening to experts - not watching the ball and listening to Charles Barkley or the bros on CLNS. Oh and a dose of humility helps.

As to Romeo. I see a future in the NBA for him, but not in Boston. Richardson and Smart will take a lot of wing minutes, and Nesmith’s emerging ability to create good shots off the dribble is just too valuable. I think that Romeo is the odd man out.
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #83 on: September 06, 2021, 08:45:56 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43394
  • Tommy Points: 3150
I think Romeo and Nesmith are both very talented young guys. The main difference I see for watching both, in admittedly limited minutes, is that Nesmith wants it more. Nesmith plays his ass off every minute he's on the floor. That eventually will lead to separation. Romeo needs to play harder.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #84 on: September 16, 2021, 09:35:55 AM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
I think Romeo and Nesmith are both very talented young guys. The main difference I see for watching both, in admittedly limited minutes, is that Nesmith wants it more. Nesmith plays his ass off every minute he's on the floor. That eventually will lead to separation. Romeo needs to play harder.
I think Romeo will play as hard as Nesmith. I think played harder than him in summer league. Romeo was a  top 5 recruit. He is going to rise this year. He is more gifted than Aaron as well.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #85 on: September 16, 2021, 09:41:30 AM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9168
  • Tommy Points: 412
I believe Nesmith will have a better career than Romeo
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #86 on: September 16, 2021, 09:54:39 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58537
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
Romeo was a  top 5 recruit

We hear this a lot about guys who were once on these high school lists.  Some of those guys pan out, but a lot of them turn out to be fringe NBA players.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #87 on: September 16, 2021, 12:10:50 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Quote
Romeo was a  top 5 recruit

We hear this a lot about guys who were once on these high school lists.  Some of those guys pan out, but a lot of them turn out to be fringe NBA players.
Bol Bol was 4th that same year.  Barrett, Williamson, Reddish were 1, 2, 3.  Starting at 6 you had Nassir Little, Keldon Johnson, Quentin Grimes, Anfernee Simons, Jalen Smith.  Then a whole bunch of people no one has ever heard of (and I mean actually doing something at the pro level) like Louis King at 11, EJ Montgomery at 14, Charles Bassey at 18, Simisola Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.tu at 19, and Ashton Hagans at 20.  Obviously a high ranking is an indication of some level of talent, but high school talent doesn't often really translate to college talent, which most certainly doesn't always translate to pro talent. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #88 on: September 16, 2021, 12:19:43 PM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2720
  • Tommy Points: 306
Quote
Romeo was a  top 5 recruit

We hear this a lot about guys who were once on these high school lists.  Some of those guys pan out, but a lot of them turn out to be fringe NBA players.
Bol Bol was 4th that same year.  Barrett, Williamson, Reddish were 1, 2, 3.  Starting at 6 you had Nassir Little, Keldon Johnson, Quentin Grimes, Anfernee Simons, Jalen Smith.  Then a whole bunch of people no one has ever heard of (and I mean actually doing something at the pro level) like Louis King at 11, EJ Montgomery at 14, Charles Bassey at 18, Simisola Edited for profanity.  Please do not do it again.[/color]tu at 19, and Ashton Hagans at 20.  Obviously a high ranking is an indication of some level of talent, but high school talent doesn't often really translate to college talent, which most certainly doesn't always translate to pro talent.
When spelling a guy's name right goes wrong.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #89 on: September 16, 2021, 12:25:28 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Quote
Romeo was a  top 5 recruit

We hear this a lot about guys who were once on these high school lists.  Some of those guys pan out, but a lot of them turn out to be fringe NBA players.
Bol Bol was 4th that same year.  Barrett, Williamson, Reddish were 1, 2, 3.  Starting at 6 you had Nassir Little, Keldon Johnson, Quentin Grimes, Anfernee Simons, Jalen Smith.  Then a whole bunch of people no one has ever heard of (and I mean actually doing something at the pro level) like Louis King at 11, EJ Montgomery at 14, Charles Bassey at 18, Simisola Edited for profanity.  Please do not do it again.[/color]tu at 19, and Ashton Hagans at 20.  Obviously a high ranking is an indication of some level of talent, but high school talent doesn't often really translate to college talent, which most certainly doesn't always translate to pro talent.
When spelling a guy's name right goes wrong.
Yep.  Awful name, feel bad for him in that regard.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip