Sixers' players parents heckling/criticizing organization

[BballTim]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

  It really isn't. Just for your edification, "out of context" and "straw man" aren't just phrases people randomly spew when they can't defend their claims. They have specific meanings and should only be used in certain situations.

[MBunge]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

  It really isn't. Just for your edification, "out of context" and "straw man" aren't just phrases people randomly spew when they can't defend their claims. They have specific meanings and should only be used in certain situations.

And just to be clear...

Out of context refers to taking a portion of a statement to prove or argue something while leaving out another portion of the same statement that disproves or weakens the argument you are trying to make.

"Straw man" refers to constructing deliberately weak arguments, assigning them to your opponents and then demolishing them to supposedly prove your point.

Mike

[MBunge]

I agree completely on the Stauskas/Smart point. I know nothing about Stauskas, but we shouldn't give special considerations to Celtics prospects that we don't give to guys at a similar stage of development on other teams.

Bottom line is that he was taken 8th a year ago. 

Which means...what?  What is that supposed to prove?  Teams never make mistakes?  The 8th pick in the first round is less likely to be a bust than other picks?

Mike

[Eddie20]

I agree completely on the Stauskas/Smart point. I know nothing about Stauskas, but we shouldn't give special considerations to Celtics prospects that we don't give to guys at a similar stage of development on other teams.

Bottom line is that he was taken 8th a year ago. 

Which means...what?  What is that supposed to prove?  Teams never make mistakes?  The 8th pick in the first round is less likely to be a bust than other picks?

Mike

Not many lottery picks are traded within a year of being drafted. I can think of Thomas Robinson, but I'm struggling to recall others. So not only did the Kings see enough of Stauskas to abandon ship on him, but now he's on the worst team in sports and still struggling.

For being such a "shooter" he really sucks at it...

FG% 35.1
FT% 65.7
3PT% 30.3

[BballTim]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

troll

There's just no point in debating about Lebron's tutoring ability in a thread about Nik stauskas getting minutes over Kendall Marshall for racial reasons.

  Oh sure. It's perfectly fine for you to bring up LeBron's tutoring ability in 4-5 separate posts when you're trying to run away from a nonsensical comment that you made, but when someone asks you whether your claims of LeBron's tutoring ability are based on anything beyond thin air the topic's suddenly out of bounds for the thread you've been discussing it in. Nobody will ever see through that tactic.


 

[fairweatherfan]

Redick did nothing his first 2 years in the league. Only came on late in 2nd half of 3rd season.

It's still too early to write Stauskas off. His offensive potential at least. Clearly he will always have defensive issues in the league.

Agree it's still too early to write off Stauskas, but Redick at least showed he could shoot reasonably well his first couple years.  Stauskas is at .359/.313/.759, through his first two years Redick was at .422/.390/.862.  To be fair Redick entered the league a year older, but the comparison of this stage of their careers is sharply in Redick's favor:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=redicjj01&y1=2008&p2=stausni01&y2=2016&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

[LarBrd33]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

troll

There's just no point in debating about Lebron's tutoring ability in a thread about Nik stauskas getting minutes over Kendall Marshall for racial reasons.

  Oh sure. It's perfectly fine for you to bring up LeBron's tutoring ability in 4-5 separate posts when you're trying to run away from a nonsensical comment that you made, but when someone asks you whether your claims of LeBron's tutoring ability are based on anything beyond thin air the topic's suddenly out of bounds for the thread you've been discussing it in. Nobody will ever see through that tactic.


 

There was a time on this forum where I really couldn't tell one person from another.  I'm not good with names.  I just focused on the points people were making and responded to them.  Then I started noticing patterns with a couple people.  Now, there's a few folks that consistently respond to my comments that I read the first couple words and either skim or ignore the rest.  I'm sure people do that with me too, so it's no big deal.   But sometimes it's just not really worth my time to feed the trolls.  There's a handful of attention seeking folks on this forum that like to railroad conversations by randomly parading around out of context comments I've made in the past or trying to lure me into a straw man.  No thanks. 

Bottom line is that I stand by my comments about stauskas.  If Boston had taken a guy in the top 8 who was putting up those kind of dreadful offensive stats a couple months into his sophomore season, I'd still want to see us give him a shot on the court.  Judging by how people here seem to mostly think Marcus smart (a historically weak offensive player even on the college level) will figure it out on offense, I tend to think that most here would agree.  Top 8 picks are big investments.  You have to at least give them a few years to see if they can figure it out.   Stauskas didn't get much of an opportunity last year.  He's getting his opportunity this year.  So far he's more or less failing, but I still get why he's playing over Kendall Marshall. Not to mention, marshall doesn't even play the same position.  Philly needs a shooter to help spread the floor for their bigs... Of all the candidates on that team to develop into a shooter... You think the former college stud a year removed from being selected 8th might have a better chance than the random d leaguers making up that roster ?  I sure do.  It's a tanking team with little interest in winning games this year.  They'd be foolish not to let stauskas play through his mistakes right now.  Also, it's really not that common that pure shooters lose the ability to shoot.   Adam Morrison is a bad example, because he was creating his own shot on the college level and didn't have then physical tools to do that against NBA defenders.  That has nothing to do with stauskas (by all respects a fantastic shooter) bricking wide open shots. 

I know people lose their minds when I use Celtic players as examples, but it's the only way I can get through to some of the home fans here.   So look at RJ Hunter.  By all respects, a nice shooter on the college level.  He's been bricking shots since summer league, but most here still have faith in him to start hitting shots.   We are talking about a borderline 2nd rounder though.   Stauskas was taken top 8.   He was a massive low risk/high reward acquisition for Philly this summer.  They loved him last year (supposedly even ainge was considering taking him).  Now they are seeing if he will pay dividends.  He can't do that without getting minutes.

[LarBrd33]

Redick did nothing his first 2 years in the league. Only came on late in 2nd half of 3rd season.

It's still too early to write Stauskas off. His offensive potential at least. Clearly he will always have defensive issues in the league.

Agree it's still too early to write off Stauskas, but Redick at least showed he could shoot reasonably well his first couple years.  Stauskas is at .359/.313/.759, through his first two years Redick was at .422/.390/.862.  To be fair Redick entered the league a year older, but the comparison of this stage of their careers is sharply in Redick's favor:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=redicjj01&y1=2008&p2=stausni01&y2=2016&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

Agree on reddick.  It's what makes stauskas struggles so puzzling.  He's missing wide open shots.  How does one just lose the ability to shoot ?  Fluctuating role, rhythm, confidence, surrounding talent and injuries could impact that.  Stauskas has dealt with all of that.  So you can at least see the partial logic in him getting force-fed minutes right now.  He started last night and played 29 minutes.   They must think that this is the year to give him a shot to play through the mistakes.  If he fails throughout the remaining 50 games, he's in trouble because Philly will have an entirely different roster next year and it will be far more difficult for stauskas to play through mistakes. 

But how confident are you that stauskas is incapable of finding a rhythm over the next 50 games ?   He shot 42%/40%/86% over the second half of last season.   Is it unthinkable that he will find a grove ?   Can you blame philly for giving it a shot since they literally made the trade to acquire him with hopes of him finding a grove ?   Or do you agree with marshall's dad that stauskas is playing because he's white?:  http://deadspin.com/kendall-marshalls-dad-thinks-the-sixers-are-racist-and-1751107978

"How are you a "shooter" and shooting 27% from three?  Can't guard but play a lot.  What do you think the reason is?... I always said there was racism in sports.  White guys in basketball are getting every chance to succeed even when they aren't doing (squat)" - Kendall Marshall's dad

Well Kendall Marshall's dad, I'm pretty sure I just explained the reason. 

[BballTim]

No thanks, Tim.  Peddle your straw man elsewhere.

  Is the straw man my asking you if LeBron had ever done for another player what you were expecting him to do for Bennett? If so, that might be another phrase you should study up on before you use.

Classic straw man

troll

There's just no point in debating about Lebron's tutoring ability in a thread about Nik stauskas getting minutes over Kendall Marshall for racial reasons.

  Oh sure. It's perfectly fine for you to bring up LeBron's tutoring ability in 4-5 separate posts when you're trying to run away from a nonsensical comment that you made, but when someone asks you whether your claims of LeBron's tutoring ability are based on anything beyond thin air the topic's suddenly out of bounds for the thread you've been discussing it in. Nobody will ever see through that tactic.


 

There was a time on this forum where I really couldn't tell one person from another.  I'm not good with names.  I just focused on the points people were making and responded to them.  Then I started noticing patterns with a couple people.  Now, there's a few folks that consistently respond to my comments that I read the first couple words and either skim or ignore the rest.  I'm sure people do that with me too, so it's no big deal.   But sometimes it's just not really worth my time to feed the trolls.  There's a handful of attention seeking folks on this forum that like to railroad conversations by randomly parading around out of context comments I've made in the past or trying to lure me into a straw man.  No thanks. 

  Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to name a poster who's comments are as designed to generate attention as yours. In general (at least over much of the last year), I recognize what you've posted as such and frequently manage to talk myself out of responding to them. That's why you're welcoming me back to the blog now when I've been posting on and off for months. I'm somewhat surprised that you don't want me commenting on your posts based on the number of times in the past I've checked out threads that I'd never been in with one or more posts of yours addressing me by name, but whatever.

  While I don't generally consider myself to be a troll, I would commend you on using it at least somewhat appropriately, as opposed to your misguided attempts at "out of context" and "straw man". So at least there's that.

[obnoxiousmime]

Generally I am very suspicious of any early draft pick that is let go by their team before their rookie deal is up for a lot less than their perceived worth. Teams don't give up on players they drafted so high unless it's for a superstar or if they know deep down the guy is a bust and are just cutting their losses.

Guys like Anthony Bennett, Thomas Robinson, and Derrick Williams fit the bill. At the time the reaction is always, "wow, what a great gamble. They got this guy for very little and he might turn out to fulfill his promise." Problem is, the new team eventually finds out what the original team discovered very quickly: the guy cannot play, is a head case, or both.

I don't know if Stauskus is a bust, but it certainly smells fishy.

[fairweatherfan]

Redick did nothing his first 2 years in the league. Only came on late in 2nd half of 3rd season.

It's still too early to write Stauskas off. His offensive potential at least. Clearly he will always have defensive issues in the league.

Agree it's still too early to write off Stauskas, but Redick at least showed he could shoot reasonably well his first couple years.  Stauskas is at .359/.313/.759, through his first two years Redick was at .422/.390/.862.  To be fair Redick entered the league a year older, but the comparison of this stage of their careers is sharply in Redick's favor:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=redicjj01&y1=2008&p2=stausni01&y2=2016&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

Agree on reddick.  It's what makes stauskas struggles so puzzling.  He's missing wide open shots.  How does one just lose the ability to shoot ?  Fluctuating role, rhythm, confidence, surrounding talent and injuries could impact that.  Stauskas has dealt with all of that.  So you can at least see the partial logic in him getting force-fed minutes right now.  He started last night and played 29 minutes.   They must think that this is the year to give him a shot to play through the mistakes.  If he fails throughout the remaining 50 games, he's in trouble because Philly will have an entirely different roster next year and it will be far more difficult for stauskas to play through mistakes. 

But how confident are you that stauskas is incapable of finding a rhythm over the next 50 games ?   He shot 42%/40%/86% over the second half of last season.   Is it unthinkable that he will find a grove ?   Can you blame philly for giving it a shot since they literally made the trade to acquire him with hopes of him finding a grove ?   Or do you agree with marshall's dad that stauskas is playing because he's white?:  http://deadspin.com/kendall-marshalls-dad-thinks-the-sixers-are-racist-and-1751107978

Well, I hear there are a lot of groves in Europe so I imagine his career will take him to one sooner or later.   

I agree it makes total sense for the Sixers to keep feeding him minutes; it's a lost season, he was a good shooter in college with good NBA size, and there's no compelling alternative on the roster.  But I don't blame Marshall or his family for being upset because as lackluster as his career's been he's still accomplished more as a player than Stauskas has.  The whole conversation started because I disagreed with a poster claiming it was clear he had a bright future in the league.  I stand by that because there's very little evidence to support it so far.  But I've also been consistent that it's not too late to turn it around, he'll just need to be drastically better than he's been.

RE: Marcus, despite similarly lousy shooting Smart's been good enough in other areas that I don't think anyone seriously expects him to be out of the league anytime soon (barring injury); Stauskas relies on his shooting to keep him in the league so his position is much more tenuous.  That's all.


EDIT:  Looking at that Deadspin article there's clearly a shot at Stauskas but it looks like Dad Marshall may have more of a beef with TJ McConnell taking Kendall's minutes.  Makes more sense since McConnell's a PG and Marshall's never played SG.

[BballTim]

Redick did nothing his first 2 years in the league. Only came on late in 2nd half of 3rd season.

It's still too early to write Stauskas off. His offensive potential at least. Clearly he will always have defensive issues in the league.

Agree it's still too early to write off Stauskas, but Redick at least showed he could shoot reasonably well his first couple years.  Stauskas is at .359/.313/.759, through his first two years Redick was at .422/.390/.862.  To be fair Redick entered the league a year older, but the comparison of this stage of their careers is sharply in Redick's favor:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=redicjj01&y1=2008&p2=stausni01&y2=2016&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

Agree on reddick.  It's what makes stauskas struggles so puzzling.  He's missing wide open shots.  How does one just lose the ability to shoot ?

  An aside, but Randy Wittman comes to mind in that category. Can't remember the full story though.

[kraidstar]

Generally I am very suspicious of any early draft pick that is let go by their team before their rookie deal is up for a lot less than their perceived worth. Teams don't give up on players they drafted so high unless it's for a superstar or if they know deep down the guy is a bust and are just cutting their losses.

Guys like Anthony Bennett, Thomas Robinson, and Derrick Williams fit the bill. At the time the reaction is always, "wow, what a great gamble. They got this guy for very little and he might turn out to fulfill his promise." Problem is, the new team eventually finds out what the original team discovered very quickly: the guy cannot play, is a head case, or both.

I don't know if Stauskus is a bust, but it certainly smells fishy.

keep in mind we're talking about the sacramento kings. not exactly the pillars of good decision-making.

[obnoxiousmime]

I had a thought that these expectations surrounding Stauskus are at least partially due to him being taken at no 8 by the Kings, hardly the best franchise at selecting talent. If he goes 4-5 picks later, we probably aren't sitting here thinking how logical it is for the Sixers to keep force-feeding him minutes despite his lackluster production. If the Kings don't take him, what pick does he end up going? Would we still have such lofty expectations for him then?

[kraidstar]

i tend to agree that stauskas still has potential as shooter, and maybe more. he has a natural stroke, much like james young. both guys look like they're pressing at the NBA level.

the knock on stauskas coming out of college was that, while he has a decent handle, he shrinks against good defense. it's a flaw he needs to overcome. if he could pump-fake, beat his man off the dribble, and kick it out, he'd be a much more useful player, even if his shot isn't falling, a-la kelly olynyk.