I think Ty Lawson is a pretty weak defensive player. He is really limited by his lack of size. Very weak on shot-contests. Dead in the water any time he is forced to switch onto a bigger player. Less effective in double teams. Can't defend post-ups. Just a lot of issues. Good pressure defender on ball-handlers but far more negatives than positives defensively. A net negative defensively. I also consider him a below par rebounder. Not a good possession creator but not too large a negative either. I think Lawson's size will always limit him as a defender/rebounder and do not see much upside here.
Offensively, a good scorer (16-18ppg). Very efficient (TS% 57-59%). Pretty good shooter.
But again, Ty Lawson's size limits him. There are a large number of times where he gets dribble penetration (into the paint or that midrange area) but is unable to get off a quality shot attempt against the size and length of opposing teams (much more often than most PGs). In fairness to him, Lawson is smart enough to realize this and doesn't waste possessions away on low percentage shots in those situations and passes it the ball back out.
But that does make me believe that Lawson is already pretty close to his ceiling as a scorer because he can't create that needed room to get extra shots off without it taking a big dent in his scoring efficiency. Plus, on a Denver team that was desperate for go-to scoring, Lawson was unable to provide that extra scoring punch. So I think he is best off in that 15-18ppg bracket as a third option (very efficient) type scorer. I don't see a lot of upside for him as a scorer.
As a passer, again, I think his size limits him. A lot like Jameer Nelson, there are lot of passes that he is unable to make. Opportunities that he doesn't capitalize on. Maybe he finds a way to improve that in time, maybe he doesn't.
On the plus side - Lawson is a good floor general, smart decision maker, controls the tempo very well and enables good ball movement. Quick decision maker as well as a good one. Not much wasted action. Very strong drive and kick game (much better than a guy like Jameer Nelson). His speed enables that part of his game to be very consistent as a playmaker.
His passing/playmaking, I think this is the area where Lawson has the best chance for growth over the next few years. I think changes to his scoring and defense/rebounding will be more minor in nature but there is a good chance for strong improvement as a playmaker.
------------------------------------------
I have Ty Lawson ranked around 12th or 13th amongst starting PGs. Down around Goran Dragic and Mike Conley. I don't consider him a near All-Star or borderline All-Star. I have him as a slightly above average starter.
I guess I could go to $8-9 million per annum for Lawson. Not comfortable going over the $10 million threshold.
As others have noted about Bradley's size and his defensive abilities, I think Lawson's size is being largely over rated in your evaluations of him as a basketball player and ability to play defense and offense. He is a half inch shorter than Chris Paul with a longer standing reach and is faster than Paul. I have never heard anyone criticize Paul's defense or ability to pass because of his size.
I find these criticisms of Lawson to be somewhat nonsensical.
Okay, I'll try to say it differently:
(1) Chris Paul is a far more varied and versatile scoring threat. Ty Lawson is too reliant on shots right at the rim and long distance jump shots. He lacks the midrange game of Chris Paul and those short floaters Paul uses to avoid shot-blockers which is why Ty Lawson is often unable to get off quality shot attempts on his dribble penetration. Lawson also has that odd (slow?) release on his jump-shot which I think makes him need more space to get off his pull-up jump shots.. Ty Lawson's lack of skill (as a shooter/scorer especially in midrange and short range areas) combined with his physical limitations, limits his ability as a scorer.
(2) Ty Lawson's vision and passing ability are good but unexceptional. CP3's vision and ability to thread the needle in close spaces is exceptional.
(3) Chris Paul is a good but unexceptional defensive player. He is not an elite defender because of his lack of size. He shares some of the same flaws as Ty Lawson. That lack of size/length and inability to contest shot-attempts at a high level especially on close-outs. Chris Paul also provides strengths that Ty Lawson does not have which allow him to be better defender. Paul is far more active on team defense, gets more deflections, makes more defensive plays and creates turnovers at a very high level. He also has a lot more physical toughness and defensive smarts. Those added positive contributions (that Lawson does not have) make Chris Paul a plus defender despite some of the problems his lack of size creates (problems which stop him being a top class defender).
To compare Lawson to another small PG in Aaron Brooks. Both guys have similar flaws in allowing opposing PGs shoot a good percentage on them and an inability to close out on perimeter shooters at an effective level. Unlike Brooks, Lawson has much more physical strength which allows him to compete better defensively in numerous areas and helps Lawson be a superior defender to Brooks (who is atrocious on defense).
(4) Chris Paul is a very good possession creator. He rebounds well and creates lots of turnovers. He is great at picking up extra possessions for his team.
Forgot to say earlier, Ty Lawson does a really good job protecting possessions and avoiding turnovers. He doesn't create extra possessions but he does a very good job protecting possessions.
--------------------------------------------
(a) In terms of Chris Paul's defense, he does get criticism on defense and it is related to his lack of size. It's not common but it is out there.
(b) Size can be an important weapon in many instances in passing ability. Being able to see over the top of your defender is a good advantage (in pick and rolls, post entry passes, post ups). It's not a "be all and end all" but it does play a role.
----------------------------------------------
Size without skill is meaningless. Skill without size can be meaningful.
Skill plus size can be deadly.
Topic: Is Ty Lawson the next star to be traded? (Extended $48 over 4 years) (Read 6221 times)