KO lack of progress - body

[nickagneta]

The one defensive stat that shows KO to be poor is defensive rebound %. He's awful at it. It confirms that he gets pushed around easily. His overall rebounding % last year was embarrassing given his size.

[DarkAzcura]

You are never going to make D.o.S. understand KO's value. His opinion is clearly tilted based on his comments about his hair and dumb stereotypes like "token white guy." If you don't see what KO brings to the floor and how he helps the offense by significant margin because of his dribble drives and general offensive diversity, you really don't get how the modern day NBA offense works. Plain and simple.

You don't simply get rid of players because they won't turn into all stars or high level starters. There's no reason to get rid of a player with his offensive diversity with his averages of 10/5. Even if he never gets better than that, he is an incredibly value piece to any team with his skillset. I doubt he maxes out at 10/5 anyway. Getting rid of him for the sake of getting rim of him is nonsensical unless you are getting an all star back.

[D.o.s.]

As someone who had longer hair than olynyk's for a very long period of time and who's second favorite Celtic ever is Bill Walton, I would like to point out that those phrases about the hair and the token-whiteness are made and should be taken as tongue in cheek, despite DarkAzcura's obvious lust for them to be non-ironic. But please, continue to tell me about how my opinion is clearly tilted. I'm sure it will be very enlightening and contribute positively to this conversation.


As to your second point, I think the almost-statement "I'd only get rid of Kelly Olynyk if it brought back an all star" says something about your understanding of the relative merits of various NBA players, but that would be rude.

[DarkAzcura]

As someone who had longer hair than olynyk's for a very long period of time and who's second favorite Celtic ever is Bill Walton, I would like to point out that those phrases about the hair and the token-whiteness are made and should be taken as tongue in cheek, despite DarkAzcura's obvious lust for them to be non-ironic. But please, continue to tell me about how my opinion is clearly tilted. I'm sure it will be very enlightening and contribute positively to this conversation.


As to your second point, I think the almost-statement "I'd only get rid of Kelly Olynyk if it brought back an all star" says something about your understanding of the relative merits of various NBA players, but that would be rude.

Really? I totally understand the merits of various NBA players. Your last post with your throwing out statements about why you would want to "get rid of him" so nonchalantly really shows how little you understand about KO's game and his value. KO's dribble drives and kicks are actually really valuable to the Celtics offense. I'm sorry you don't see it, but it's true, and Stevens always talks about how valuable that is (along with his shooting ability). It's weird how it went over your head, but the point is that there is no reason to simply get rid of KO unless there is actual value coming back. His diversity is incredibly valuable to this team and any trade that does not bring back actual tangible value is not worth it. He's still on a rookie contract. He's cheap. He can shoot, dribble, pass, and run all of the Celtics' schemes out of the high post. Wanting to "get rid of him" says a lot more about your understanding, bud.

There's a reason the guy is at the top of our real +/- lists for two years running despite the Celtics winning only 25 games two seasons ago and 40 this season. So I'll say it again and again, there's no reason to get rid of KO in a package unless it brings back real value (ie an all star or high level starter/fringe all star). His money, skillset, and work ethic makes him incredibly valuable to this team in specific.

[D.o.s.]

my singular statement was "I think we should get rid of him because he's unlikely to get significantly better than he is right now." Do you disagree with the assessment, or do you disagree with the idea behind the assessment -- that the Celtics should be developing players who will more likely contribute to the next 'serious' season we have?

Perhaps he is on top of the real +/- for a pair of sub .500 teams for a reason. No need to get upset.

[DarkAzcura]

my singular statement was "I think we should get rid of him because he's unlikely to get significantly better than he is right now." Do you disagree with the assessment, or do you disagree with the idea behind the assessment -- that the Celtics should be developing players who will more likely contribute to the next 'serious' season we have?

Perhaps he is on top of the real +/- for a pair of sub .500 teams for a reason. No need to get upset.

I do disagree with that statement. I already said two posts again that even if he never develops to be more than a 10/5 player, we should keep him because his contract is really good and his skillset is very diverse. You are unlikely to get fair trade value back for him, and any trade would likely be a sideways move. It's not worth it at all even if he never improves.

What does your last sentence even mean? If I had said he was on top of the +/- list after his rookie year (25 win season), you would have said the same thing...but this very year in his second season, he comes back and is still one of the most positive impact players in terms of real +/- on a 40 win team. The team is getting better, and he is still providing valuable positive impact in their improvement. There's no reason to believe he can't continue to have a positive +/- once the team reaches the 50 win realm. Who should we keep then? All the guys with negative +/-'s? What does that say about the rest of the players? We should get rid of one of the few players who has had a positive impact on the floor when he is still on cheap money? Doesn't really make sense.

For his short career, he has a 1.3 BPM. He's a 0.11 WS/48 minutes player and has already racked up 6.5 win shares in his career. He has a 55% TS and actually had a 60% TS in his second year before his injury. He's one of the few players on this team that actually positively impacts the game when he plays (Sully, Smart, IT, Zeller, KO, and Crowder). I want to keep the guys who actually keep the team in the positives.

[D.o.s.]

Fair enough.

I would point out that as your stance seems to be "we should keep him even if he doesn't get any better" we might have reached the point of no-return as far as finding an agreement here. I don't hold with that notion for any player on a team that's looking to rebuild -- you have to measure worth by their ceilings, IMO.

We're defining his fair trade value as "a significant portion of the Celtic's contribution to a trade for an All-Star caliber player" for the purposes of this discussion? I would say that it is unlikely to get that back for him, but I would suspect it's an overestimation of his worth on your part, rather than something approaching fact.

To the paragraph you've added: No need to get upset means exactly that -- there's no need to get upset. It's just a disagreement in assessment.

[D.o.s.]

Also, how many times are you going to edit that post? It makes it hard to respond properly when you've added twice as much information to it after the fact. 

[DarkAzcura]

Fair enough.

I would point out that as your stance seems to be "we should keep him even if he doesn't get any better" we might have reached the point of no-return as far as finding an agreement here. I don't hold with that notion for any player on a team that's looking to rebuild -- you have to measure worth by their ceilings, IMO.

We're defining his fair trade value as "a significant portion of the Celtic's contribution to a trade for an All-Star caliber player" for the purposes of this discussion? I would say that it is unlikely to get that back for him, but I would suspect it's an overestimation of his worth on your part, rather than something approaching fact.

To the paragraph you've added: No need to get upset means exactly that -- there's no need to get upset. It's just a disagreement in assessment.

I only get upset because most people ride hard on KO for no reasons at all. Maybe that's not you, but most here do. It's quite annoying. People love to ignore facts when it comes to KO.

I'm not really overvaluing him. I only don't think he is worth trading unless a serious impact player comes back in the package. I never said KO himself, but I spoke about a potential package which would likely include draft picks. Like I edited in, the guy has a .11 WS/48 minutes. Already has 6.5 win shares on his career. He posts a 55% TS and posted a 60% TS before his injury. He's a positive plus/minus guy in almost all metrics. Yet with an understanding of all this, people who enjoy what KO brings to the floor have to deal with comments like "he's soft. his hair is too long. he's a hippie." etc etc. It gets quite annoying. This isn't Bargs out here. KO actually helps this team a ton, and it's sad that some ignore it for nonsensical aesthetic reasons. Again not speaking to you, but that's why guys like me and I guess Celtics18 can get overly annoyed at the drop of a pin when it comes to KO.

[Pucaccia]

https://instagram.com/p/5qFjNWgcll/

Recent photo at the Olynyk Klynyk camp.   Does not look like his body has improved at all from last season. 

I'm a fan of KO but this upcoming season will be highly critical of his play.  After 2 seasons, you would think one would learn.  He got pushed around the 1st 2 seasons, and really needs to come to camp at the best shape of his life. Especially in the strength department

He comes to training camp with the body we see from his KO  Klynyk camp, and I will be the 1st one to start a thread to trade him.   

Thanks for the post bro...but...

He is wearing a TShirt!  What about that pic makes you think he is not progressing? Do you want him to look like Bill Laimbeer or Dwight Howard? Genetically he is a what he is. How many 7 footers have point guard ball handling and 3 point shooting that stretches the offense? As the Big Tuna says, you are what you are. 

Don't worry, all he has to do is get better at what he does and he will be very valuable.

[droopdog7]

https://instagram.com/p/5qFjNWgcll/

Recent photo at the Olynyk Klynyk camp.   Does not look like his body has improved at all from last season. 

I'm a fan of KO but this upcoming season will be highly critical of his play.  After 2 seasons, you would think one would learn.  He got pushed around the 1st 2 seasons, and really needs to come to camp at the best shape of his life. Especially in the strength department

He comes to training camp with the body we see from his KO  Klynyk camp, and I will be the 1st one to start a thread to trade him.   

Far and away my biggest pet peeve on the internet.  People always want to trade someone they don't like.  Nobody ever wants to trade a good player (i.e., someone they like). 

If you don't like the player, what makes you think you deserve to get something you like back?  Jeez.

[SHAQATTACK]

Just given his size , he is not tiny built , not really super slow,  and youth ., seems pretty intelligent......you'd kinda figure he d get more his share of rebounds.

This just me to believe he is just not tuff enough to deal with the ruff NBA play in the paint.

He was too used to College smaller and less aggressive players . 

Again , he refuses to use his body on defense to any extent ,  not blocking out , getting In front of his player using his body to stop the opponent .  Very poor .

Just poking at the ball , slapping at the ball...picking up cheap stupid fouls.

For me this show lack of mental confidence and grit .

Think like Sully .....this has to be his year to step up and show WHO he is going to,be.

[PhoSita]

The key to Kelly becoming a consistent contributor is not making himself look like a body builder.

[D.o.s.]

Fair enough.

I would point out that as your stance seems to be "we should keep him even if he doesn't get any better" we might have reached the point of no-return as far as finding an agreement here. I don't hold with that notion for any player on a team that's looking to rebuild -- you have to measure worth by their ceilings, IMO.

We're defining his fair trade value as "a significant portion of the Celtic's contribution to a trade for an All-Star caliber player" for the purposes of this discussion? I would say that it is unlikely to get that back for him, but I would suspect it's an overestimation of his worth on your part, rather than something approaching fact.

To the paragraph you've added: No need to get upset means exactly that -- there's no need to get upset. It's just a disagreement in assessment.

I only get upset because most people ride hard on KO for no reasons at all. Maybe that's not you, but most here do. It's quite annoying. People love to ignore facts when it comes to KO.

I'm not really overvaluing him. I only don't think he is worth trading unless a serious impact player comes back in the package. I never said KO himself, but I spoke about a potential package which would likely include draft picks. Like I edited in, the guy has a .11 WS/48 minutes. Already has 6.5 win shares on his career. He posts a 55% TS and posted a 60% TS before his injury. He's a positive plus/minus guy in almost all metrics. Yet with an understanding of all this, people who enjoy what KO brings to the floor have to deal with comments like "he's soft. his hair is too long. he's a hippie." etc etc. It gets quite annoying. This isn't Bargs out here. KO actually helps this team a ton, and it's sad that some ignore it for nonsensical aesthetic reasons. Again not speaking to you, but that's why guys like me and I guess Celtics18 can get overly annoyed at the drop of a pin when it comes to KO.

Understood, rereading surface level stuff that you don't agree with is definitely draining.

Also I think Bargs has always been a little better than most people assume, and a lot of the hate is due to the expectations of his draft position. That and the hilarious/cruel "I believe I can fly" video

[PhoSita]

Regarding the dribble drive thing, I agree with others that it looks like Stevens wants to run a 5-out system similar to Atlanta, and having big men who can hit a spot up three or pump fake, attack the closeout, and then get to the rim or kick it out to a shooter is an important ingredient to successfully running such a system.

I don't know if Kelly has the quickness or decisiveness to regularly do that, but he's shown some ability there.

Anyway, Kelly is an efficient and productive offensive role player.  His rebounding needs improvement and he could stand to be more assertive taking shots from outside.  He presents as a rich man's version of Matt Bonner, which is not a diss considering that Bonner, with his limited skillset, has contributed in a very real way to multiple Finals teams.


Still, the issue for Kelly right now is that he's one of 5 or 6 guys vying for playing time as a "big" on this team.  If the team doesn't see him as a significant part of the rotation moving forward, they ought to sell on him while he's still viewed as a stretch big with starting potential, rather than a guy who can't get playing time on a 45 win team.