Is Nick Young good enough to be a starting shooting guard on a good team?
by Rook6980 on Jan 27, 2011 4:15 PM EST
in Player Analysis
Email
PrintBlog buddy Kevin Broom wrote an article for the Washington Post where he attempts to prove how Nick Young's contribution to the team is "fools gold". Kevin's article is well written and very well thought out. He makes the same arguments against Nick Young that we've heard for his whole career. He's a scorer, but that's about it. He doesn't help the team in any other areas and as a result, he should not be considered a long term building block, or even better, traded for "real" assets while he's hot.
Broom specifically looks at Young's statistics since he became a starter and contends that since a big part of Nick's game is shooting long two-pointers, he cannot sustain the kind of productivity we've seen so far.
Is Young an exception? After all, he’s shooting an excellent 49.5% from that range so far this season. However, the season-long number obscures the fact that until Young became the starter, he was making 57.4% of his long twos. Since stepping up to more defensive attention and stiffer competition, Young has been shooting 42.9% — dropping closer and closer to the 40.5% he shot from that range in his first three seasons.
I've heard this argument before, from our own Mike Prada. It seems like a very valid point, and Broom thinks the Wizards should trade Nick Young before those shooting percentages start to drop. The problem is that those dropping two-point shooting percentages that Kevin quotes in his article don't explain why Nick Young's True Shooting Percentage has gone UP since he became a starter. Nick is currently sporting an excellent 57.0% TSP, 14th in the League for SG's. (right in the same area as Jamal Crawford and Dwyane Wade).
Everyone here knows that I'm a huge Nick Young fan, so before I started research for this article, I tried to put aside my personal bias to answer the following questions:
Can a team afford a high usage scorer that does little else to help the team?
Is Nick Young one of those players? (ie: does Nick do little else?)
Does Nick Young have any room for growth, or should the Wizards trade him?
We'll try to answer those questions below the jump.
Since the Arenas trade that made Nick Young the Wizards starting shooting guard, Young has averaged 20.7 points per game (57.0% True Shooting percentage), 3.6 rebounds, 2.0 assists and 3.98 free-throw attempts per game.
In order to formulate a counter argument, we need to look at where Nick stands in the League compared to other starting shooting guards in scoring, efficiency, assists and rebounds. Then we need to determine if Nick Young is done developing, or does he still have upside. Broom thinks Nick is who he is and won't get any better; certainly not good enough to be a starting SG.
What kind of player does he project to be? Is he a building block or a role player? While Young’s scoring has been nice, he doesn’t do enough to be a long-term building block, and his skill set is such that he doesn’t make much of a role player.
First, let's look at rebounding. Nick is certainly no Landry Fields, but as a starter this year, his 3.6 rebounds per game rank him right around 13th in the League - in the same area as shooting guards like Ray Allen, DeMar DeRozan and Monta Ellis. Not great, but not terrible either. However, I've noticed that Nick seems to be paying more attention to rebounding on the defensive glass in the last month or so. More and more, we're seeing Nick use his athleticism to come out of the pack with a tough rebound. The good news is that the stats seem to back up those observations and his rebounding numbers appear to be going up. He averaged 3.9 rebounds in January and almost five rebounds per game over his last seven games. Small smaple sizes to be sure, but combined with the visual evidence it seems to at least indicate a possible trend.
For right now though, and based on his whole body of work as a starter this year - let's just concede that Nick is a bit below average rebounder for a starting SG - RIGHT NOW.
As for assists - one of my running gags during game threads is to make a big production of Nick's assists, few and far between as they may be. Nick is averaging 2.0 assists per game this year as a starter. Yuck. Definitely an area that he needs to work on. Looking at other shooting guards in the League, it puts Nick around 40th (near the bottom of the League) - in the neighborhood of players like Jason Richardson, DeMar DeRozan (there's that name again), and OJ Mayo.
Again, watching Nick this season it seems like he IS passing more. He's certainly not dribbling as much - so where are all his assists? Why is Young not getting more assists? There is one big reason. The type of offense that Flip is running has Nick Young coming off screens - sometimes multiple screens. Flip is trying to get Nick to play more like Rip Hamilton (and Reggie Miller before him). One thing that I do agree with Broom is that Flip has simplified the game for Nick.
The coaching staff has expertly simplified his decision-making to a basic binary "catch-and-shoot" or pass it back to the PG.
Hard to get an assist when you're passing the ball back to John Wall. Young is averaging 2.0 assists since becoming a starter, but he is starting to get a few more here and there. In January, he's averaging 2.5 assists per game. That's not a huge gain, but then again, he doesn't need to go very far to be an "average" Shooting Guard (4.0 apg) as far as assists go. And 2.5 assists per game is much better than his putrid 1.4 assists per game from last year. Again, I think that since becoming a starter, Nick has settled in to his role - and I believe he will continue to expand his game.
As for turnovers - Nick Young has always been one of the best in the League at protecting the basketball. His Turn Over ratio is a ridiculously low 7.3%, and he has continued to bring that number down each year he's been in the League. With only 1.8 turnovers per game, Nick is one of the top 10 Shooting Guards in protecting the basketball.
So the conclusion that Broom comes to is that Nick Young will never be any better than what he is now. He goes on to say that while Nick is a good one-on-one defender, it's not enough to offset his other deficiencies.
While his defensive contributions are worthwhile, they’re not enough to offset the fact that his overall floor game is so deficient.
I could look at some of the other minor stats (steals, blocks, fouls, etc.) - but I think we have a pretty good picture of where Nick Young stands as a starting Shooting Guard after 20 games. He scores. He scores efficiently. He's a very good one-on-one defender but slightly below average rebounder and a poor passer.
Is that enough? Well, the Detroit Pistons did very well with Rip Hamilton (career 17.7 points per game, 52.7% TSP, 3.2 Rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.4 Free Throw attempts per game).... and Reggie Miller made a Hall of Fame career with similar stats (18.2 points, 61% TSP, 3.0 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 5.1 FTA per game), although Reggie's phenomenal 61% True Shooting Percentage certainly sticks out.
Remember Nick Young's starting numbers?
20.7 points, 57.0% TSP, 3.6 rebounds, 2.0 assists, 4.0 FTA
They stack up pretty well against Hamilton and Miller - and in my opinion, Young is a better defender than either of those players.
Now before I get tons of negative input from Reggie Miller fans, irate that I would even mention Nick Young in the same breath with the venerable Hall of Famer - I'm simply trying to point out that a team CAN afford to have a Shooting Guard that doesn't rebound much or drop a ton of assists. A team doesn't have to be constructed a certain way, or have to make concessions for the SG's "deficiencies".
There's one other point I'd like to make about Nick Young that Broom didn't mention. Nick Young's first two years were spent toiling under Eddie Jordan and later Ed Tapscott. Neither of those guys are known as icons of player development. Nick spent his first two years either picking splinters out of his shorts or getting yanked every time he missed a shot. To say his playing time was inconsistent is almost the definition of an understatement. Jordan and Tapscott's idea of player development was to have the young players watch from the bench as the veterans played all the significant minutes; even if those veterans were shooting 24 percent for the year. Their idea of "teaching" was to yank a young player for missing a shot or making a single mistake, but to keep veterans in even if they were hurt or hurting the team.
In my opinion, it wasn't until Flip Saunders was named Wizards Head Coach that Young received the first real coaching of his young professional career. For the first time, Young received regular playing time. For the first time, Young was held accountable for his defensive effort. For the first time, Young received specific instructions on how he would fit into the offense and was told in the off-season what to work on to be prepared for the season. For the first time, Nick Young received court time that was not regulated by whether he hit or missed his first shot.
The improvement in Young's game from last year to this year is nothing short of amazing, and has him being mentioned as a candidate for Most Improved Player. Is Nick Young's improvement really "fools gold"? Or is it the natural progression of a talented young player finally getting good solid coaching and regular, consistent playing time?
So - the question is this: do we consider Nick Young a fourth year player - with known flaws that cannot be changed. He's a shooter with no other attributes - a player that should be traded while he's hot and in demand?
OR -
Do we throw out his first two wasted years and think of Young as a 2nd year player that has improved immensely from last year due to playing time and better Coaching? Does Nick Young have more upside and can he bring more to the team than just efficient scoring and perimeter defense?
165 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nick Young is good enough to be Kobe ridiculous (my opinion)
In my opinion, as far i have seen Nick Young play. I was a huge Nick Young fan. I believe he has a huge upside. I believe that he has talent, Kobe level, well similar in ways. He just haven’t had enough playing time to really get to know who he is on the court. He doesn’t really know yet who he really is on the floor. At times you seem him not involve in the plays, just is left alone. Until he plays more and gets more comfortable. I think he can trully find success. Don’t even bother trying to mold him into someone who he is not. He just needs to be himself, and let himself do what he does best or whats to do. And once he gets that out. Hell well brought every night on the opposing team. I consider him a building block, at best role player. At this point. Unless he gets that trust in himself, he will only be like a average S.G. like J.R. Smith.
We need him to play like Nick Young, not Rip Hamilition. No catch and shoot. No catch and shoot. Just drive, create hell for opposing defender, pass, to open man, etc. Kobe, the black assassin. Nick has it. If we give another team the chance to open this part of Nick, we will surely lament.
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
He’s nowhere near Kobe, but he could be something close to a Rip. That’s worth keeping around to see if he comes at the right price.
Now if somebody would just shave his head …
Both his shooting and his overall floor contribution are substantially better this season
and you want him to go back to how he used to play?
To me, the catch-and-shoot game has been a revelation for him
Getting points within the offense as opposed to outside of it has been one of the biggest examples of growth he’s shown, right alongside his improved tenacity as a defender. I’d hate to see him go back to freelancing, especially because he’s already scoring prolifically the way he’s playing now.
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
I totally agree
I’d agree even if Nick’s personal numbers were down a bit this season – how can anyone argue for him to go back to the old style when it benefits the team more AND has increased his stats to be more catch-and-shoot?
Lets see him and AB with a winning coach before we judge them
no Flip isn’t my type of winning coach, but let’s see a coach with a real system and that will show me if they are “keepers”
No one said they were untouchable
We pointed out that he’s played better this season than in previous, so wondered why the first poster wants him to go back to his freelancing.
That said, Nick’s performing awfully darn well, and he’s showing a pretty well-rounded game under Flip. If anything the concern would be whether Nick can do the same on a good team (the numbers on a bad team argument) – but it’s not like he’s doing this as the centerpiece of the team.
He's earning the right to do some freelancing imo
I think people are forgetting he was on a team where he literally would not touch the ball again once he gave it up during a possession. He was also on the shortest of leashes, you could see the urgency and nervousness about having to produce or not play again for a week.
The revelation for me is the constant defensive effort he displays now, that’s what Broom mistakenly writes off as if it were a so-so aspect to his development. You kidding me? He’s been good on Wade, Lebron, and Kobe this season while scoring well on his own. I’ll take a guy who can do that ANYDAY over someone who cant but gets a couple more assists
That's ridiculous
Young has proven that he can’t take people off the drive because he makes bad decisions. Why would you want him to go back to doing that?
The artist formerly known as ledellforlife.
by Sean Fagan on Jan 27, 2011 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Nicks Potential: Blowing up for 30 against Artest/Kobe
In the game in LA Ron Artest guarded Nick in the first half and Kobe Bryant guarded him in the second half. Nick torched the Lakers for 30. That Bloom guy is a funny fellow. The Wiz invest 4 years so far on Nick and the minute Nick gets a chance to start and produce he is ready to ship him out. If Nick is put on the open market their will be endless offers for a young SHOOTING guard who can actually shoot.
by jmpalomo on Jan 27, 2011 4:45 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I watched the Laker game from floor level...
Nick Young was almost unstoppable.
Even when he was underutlilized, unschoooled and underappreciated as a rookie and second year player, I have to say that Nick Young was one of the few Wizards who was actually fun to watch play.
Put him on the trading block, Brother Broom, and you will see a long line of GMs with their tongues hanging out competing to make an offer… Nick Young would put the Bulls in serious play for a championship this year, and he could be the eventual replacement for Ray Allen in Boston. Oklahoma City would be a Western contender with him in their lineup. Deron Williams would probably like to play alongside Young too.
Philadelphia would probably give you that rookie from Ohio State even up in a heartbeat.
Maybe, I am channeling MaeJude but I am a serious Nick Young Fan…. I like what his game has become and I love his spirit.
by khrabb on Jan 27, 2011 4:54 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
(grinding teeth)
I have so many criticisms with Broom’s piece, but Rook already took a few good whacks and I’m sure others here will, too. A couple of thoughts:
Players are not stocks that you sell everytime they start to outperform in the short term what you perceive to be their future averages. If so, the Knicks should trade Amar’e.
Players also are not nuts and bolts that are easily swapped in and out. They are human beings who develop relationships, chemistry, and adapt to each other. There is a reason the best team in the league right now has a coach and three top players who have been together for, what, 8 to 10 years?
At the core of Broom’s argument is that other GMs are so stupid that they will overvalue Young while we are so smart that we have valued him correctly. Now, it may be true that Young’s skills would fit perfectly on a team that needs a SG who can do ONLY what Young currently does, and thus will offer more than he is worth to the Wizards. But what if as the Wizards develop it turns out that they need a SG like Young, either as a starter or sub? What then? Overpay in the market, most likely.
And if you extend Broom’s argument, he seems to be saying that as you rebuild, if a guy does not have a complete game, he will not be a good fit long term, so he should be moved. That means all the young players on the Wizards should be traded, except John Wall, because none of them has a complete game — yet. Correction — all OVERPERFORMING players other than Wall should be traded, leaving you with a team of John Wall, plus all the underperforming players on the team. When those underperforming players start to develop and thus “overperform,” then you trade them to a stupid GM. Yeah, great plan.
The biggest mistake Broom makes, however, is the mistake most people make in “Trade So-and-so” articles: he says nothing about what Young would fetch in a trade, and how that is better for the Wizards than Young. Broom just assumes that will be the case. Again, because other GMs are so stupid.
by disgrunted on Jan 27, 2011 4:58 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
I blame it partly on fantasy sports
I also really detest “Trade A for B” or “A doesn’t do enough” articles that ignore how a guy fits on and what he is asked to do for his particular team.
Particularly annoying are the “Team X can’t contend with so-and-so as their starting whatever.” Totally depends on the four other starters, which in turn depends on the relative contracts of each player, and on the coach’s scheme for best utilizing their talents. Every single championship team has had at least one player below average for their position.
by wjb1492 on Jan 27, 2011 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Very good point about fantasy sports
I never thought of that. And in fantasy sports, you really do have stupid GMs.
Well, in general defense
There is David Kahn and there was Isiah Thomas. Joe Dumars hasn’t been made to look too savvy recently either.
But I get your point and agree.
Kahn traded Randy Foye and Mike Miller for the #5 pick in the draft
Other fans may be able to laugh about Kahn, but not here in D.C.
Maybe he has a different opinion?
DavidDunn – you have an opinion about Nick Young and his development – or lack thereof?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
hmm...I guess I thought if it was a more reporting
than opinion. Is Box Seats considered parts of the news or opinion organization? Not critical, but that blog is new to me, and I am not sure if it is considered an endorsement and assumed to be edited column by the post, or is it simply a running blog primarily focused on opinion pieces by fans?
Box Seats is kinda like BF in that it's for fans by fans
But I will say this: Kevin knows his stuff. Used to be credentialed for Real GM and even did some work consulting with the Wizards as an advanced stats guy a few years back.
Nick has proven this year, that he can indentify and is willing to improve on his deficiencies.
I remember the criticism of, when he misses his first shot, well there goes the rest of his game." But the Boston game is where Nick Young really earned my trust. He went 1-13 from the field and still stayed on the court for 40 minutes. And we won the game. He chased Ray Allen around like his life depended on it, all night long. And that means he got picked, screened and rubbed by Boston’s bigs for most of the night.
That assignment gets frustrating for most defenders in the NBA, and for a guy known as a scorer like Nick, to top it off with a crappy shooting night, the Nick Young that Broom is talking about would have quit at some point. And the Nick that Broom is talking about, would have killed his team, being on the court for 40 minutes and doing nothing but going 1-13 from the field. No way we beat a team like Boston if 40 of our SG minutes are given to a scorer who isn’t especially good at anything else, and goes 1-13 from the field.
That Boston game, and all season long, Nick has been showing me improvement. This is honestly way more than I expected Nick to improve this year, and I am pretty friekin close to sold on the guy as a long-term building block.
I am going to keep cheering Gil, like it is 2005. Lets see some of that swag return, because that is why we loved you to begin with.
by returnofswagger on Jan 27, 2011 5:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
"Willing to improve on his deficiencies"
… deserves highlighting. What you want to see from any young player is the recognition of the flaws in their game and the effort to improve on them. For this along with many other reasons, I’ve been pushed solidly into the Nick Young fan camp.
I agree with Rook, bias aside
I wanted to write something similar defending Nick, but will just quote and kinda of use article on www.DCLandingStrip.com.
I think Nick’s defense is incredibly underrated. 1-on-1 he is great, and I think too much is made of his team defense. Rip Hamilton was an awful defender, and that only gets swept under the rug because he played on a team that played great team D, but that was because of Ben Wallace, Billups, and Prince; Rip was a matador in DC. The metrics consistently have had Nick as an excellent defender, and it has come to the point where it is not a coincidence or some fluke. Everyone judges him because he general expression is one of indifference, but that should not color your view of him as lazy and therefore a poor defender. Yes, he makes some bad mistakes on team D, and generally isn’t a great help defender, but his overall defensive impact is very good. Rant over.
I also agree that Nick is still growing as a player. This is just his 2nd season learning to play as a catch and shoot kind of guy, and his first season with regular PT. He remolded his game pretty dramatically and has already made huge steps forward. I find it hard to believe that 20 games into being a starter with a remodeled game he is done improving.
The Rip Hamilton comparison is that one that keeps coming to me because of the similar style of play. I don’t think Rip was a world beater in Detroit, but Nick right now compares favorably to him while playing a very similar type of game. Maybe more importantly, and I’m not saying Kevin said this, but Rip was not the focus of the offense in Detroit, the team was not built around him. This means Nick’s style of play can exist on a team that does not revolve around him.
I also think that Nick not hogging the ball and taking it to the rim and instead being a catch and shoot guy is a dramatic improvement. He was not good enough in that style to be so high usage. But as a catch and shoot guy, I think he is a much better fit, partly because he isn’t a good playmaker for his teammates – this style of play minimizes the really bad part of his game, and emphasizes the good.
I actually came into this season thinking that the only potential long term keepers on the Wiz were Wall, JaVale, and Nick. Young Sushi is and odd fit with those other 2, but I thought that if he could get used to being a catch and shoot guy a little more, then that type of game combined with his D would make him an excellent 6th man. It is safe to say now though, that he has exceeded those hopes.
Nick and Rip
Aren’t as similar offensively as people seem to be making out.
The biggest difference that come to me right off the top of my head is that Rip rarely ever fades away, instead, like Worthy used to do, he tends to make each shot as close as he can – a wonderful habit. Nick’s fadeaway is his bread and butter.
"Jesus got a sweet jumper!"
Young ran a pick and roll last week for the first time I can remember. Ever.
I personally think he’s very early in his evolution, and that binary thing (catch and shoot or pass back to the point) was probably the easiest (relatively speaking) and fastest way for Flip to make him a productive fit offensively.
He’s got a long way to go, but at some point, he needs to be able to initiate offense and create shots. That comes naturally for him, we know that much; he just needs to figure out how to do it without stagnating the offense, and when to pick his spots. That, I believe, will come with time, comfort level, and encouragement.
Also, aside from being a very good on-ball defender, he’s also doing well with team defensive concepts.
Agree 100%
I even like the terminology.
Young’s game is as binary as it gets, and he’s proving to be really good at it. But the problem is his game is one-pass offense (Wall-to-Young). And when another team is making a run, the last thing you want is to dribble down, make one pass, and then hoist up a shot. True, Nick is making a ton of hoists, but not enough to make up for the team’s horrific defense.
The next step in his evolution is to add a few 2s to his binary code. If he could develop a pick-n-roll game with one of our bigs, it would be like a phenom pitcher adding a slider to his repertoire.
Overall, I liked the article, Rook; Young’s done enough to show he’s a legit starter in this league. I also agree who ever said Blatche’s name should be inserted into the Broom article to make it correct; his inefficiency and inconsistency is staggering.
I will say it - the WaPo writer is way off base.
Anyone who after looking at the starting PGs in this league right now, would somehow decide Nick Young is not a legitimate starter in this league, doesn’t deserve to be writing about basketball. Period.
The guy is averaging 20 points with teams basically focusing their defense on him. He is athletic, a legitimate rebounder when he isn’t running to protect the backcourt while Wall is driving, a reasonable defender, and legitimate threat from 3 point range. Other than a lack of ball handling skills and strong slashing, he is what you need.
Who is going to start in front of him? Kyle Korver? Evan Turner? JJ Reddick?
We can look at stats all we want. But anyone that watches basketball, goes to the games, and understands what is needed in the NBA can see the basics.
Should he be the number 1 option on an NBA team? Heck no. Should the Wizards consider drafting a SG to replace NY instead of a SF/PF/C first? You have to be out of your mind.
This nonsense needs to stop. Let the guy grow. We have much bigger worries. What a waste of WaPo space.
That's unfair and ignorant
Broom wrote an articulate and well-researched piece that showed a much deeper understanding of the game than most columnists. Someone is not stupid if they disagree with you
Where did I say it was stupid, incarticulate, or well researched?
Tell me where I am off base.
I stand by my comment. It was a waste of space and way off base. Being articulate has nothing to do with it, and being well researched is meaningless if you don’t provide full context and start with your conclusion in search of facts to support it.
Oh...and if you are going to call someone ignorant
please be prepared to support it, otherwise you will only impact your credibility, not mine.
It was a well done article
The only gripe you seem to have with it is that you believe the author’s point of view is incorrect. That’s not a viable reason to call it “a waste of space” or say that the author doesn’t “deserve to be writing about basketball”.
by zl on Jan 28, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
And besides he has THE COOLEST HAIR IN THE NBA!
My wife and I were upset when he tried out the cornrolls.
Thank God he got smart and put his signature hair style back on.
The hair's gotta be the source of his game.
As Nick’s afro grows, so does his game. He’s our Samson guys!
Good article
The Wiz need Wall to turn into a superstar, McGee an all-star and get a superstar forward in the draft. Young would fit well with that line-up.
Huh?`
Ask an NBA coach what shot he would want his opponents to take in their half-court offense, and he’ll say the long two-pointer. That’s because long twos are converted only slightly more frequently than three-point attempts, but they don’t carry that bonus point. Long twos are the least efficient shots in the game, yet Young’s offensive game is built on it.
Sounds like Blatche should be the guy Broom is concerned about.
I don't like judging individuals games against a generality at all.
Yeah, it’s generally best to limit the long 2 – but a team’s going to have some of them. Yeah, you don’t want to rely on jump shots – but a team needs jump shooters to open up the inside. That really has nothing to do with how consistently Nick can hit the long 2. He’s actually better there than closer jump shots this season, and he’s never shot under 40% from that range.
Given all that, the conclusion that Nick’s consistency will tail off because shots from that range are generally low efficiency is not well grounded. He needed to look at what Nick personally does from the various ranges, as well as to consider how it will best benefit the team to divvy up those long shots.
by wjb1492 on Jan 27, 2011 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
I am much more concerned about a PF taking long 2s that a SG. If % is good, you can consider it, but a PF shouldn’t be out there due to the inability to hit the boards. It really messes up an offense unless it is planned.
Oh don't worry, he is
Pretty sure he wrote a trade Blatche thing earlier this year – will dig up the link.
Rook
I appreciate your analysis, but why in the world are you using per game numbers for NY? I can’t get a sense from this article at all as to whether NY is “improving” his rebounding and passing abilities.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Jan 27, 2011 6:44 PM EST reply actions
Because Nick is playing 38 minutes a game as a starter
His per-40 minute stats are almost the same as his per game stats….
Of course, when I compared Nick to other SG’s I used a per-40 basis……
So when I said NIck is getting 3.6 rebounds per game and is in the same league with Ray Allen, DeMar DeRozan and Monta Ellis. I was using per40 numbers to compare…
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I get the criticism of Nick Young's game....
I really do- By the middle of last year, I was as frustrated with Nick Young as everyone else.
What I don’t get is why everyone thinks every member of a team needs to be “well rounded”…. Let scorers score. Let rebounders rebound. Let passers pass. You don’t have to do everything well to be a valuable member of a team..
John Wall can’t shoot. He has trouble defending. He turns the ball over too much. But John Wall can do three things really well. He can pass. He can dribble (fast)….. and he can score on the one-man fast break. – He’s certainly not a “complete player”…but Bloom is not calling for John Wall to be traded
JaVale McGee can’t shoot. He’s a middling to poor defensive rebounder. He’s a poor one-on-one defender…. He turns the ball over too much….. Talk about a black hole – McGee gets less than 1/2 an assist per game………..but JaVale can score on the break and alley oop….. He can block shots like crazy…. ….. and he’s a good offensive rebounder…. He’s definitely not a well rounded player – why is Kevin Bloom not calling for the Wizards to trade McGee?
I think it’s great that Nick Young can do three things well – shoot, protect the ball and defend. Sure, he has holes in his game…. but so does JaVale McGee… and so does John Wall…
I’d love to see Nick start working on his pick-and-roll game. He would have many more opportunities for assists if he could work with one of the Wizards big men on the PnR. I’d love to see Nick drive to the hoop more – perhaps draw more fouls. He ran a beautiful PnR with either Blatche or McGee last game, and got a nice assist…. But It’s probably best if he learns the catch-and-shoot game first… get that perfected, then move on to learning something else.
Where Kevin Broom sees a negative in the high percentage of Nick’s shots being assisted- I happen to think the fact that a high percentage of Nick’s made baskets are assisted is a POSITIVE. What that tells me is that he’s not dribbling the ball too much; that he’s getting his points within the scope of the offense.
Where Kevin Broom sees a Nick’s declining shooting percentage of long 2-point field goals as a negative – I see Nick’s increasing True Shooting Percentage as a POSITIVE.
Where Kevin Broom sees the Wizard’s telling Nick to either catch-and-shoot, or pass back to the PG – as a negative – I see it as brilliant coaching move to get a player to break old bad habits – and I see that as a POSITIVE.
Where Kevin Broom sees a negative in Nick’s rebounding and assist statistics – I see improvement in those areas from last year as a POSITIVE… and an opportunity for Nick’s game to continue to develop.
The worst thing you can do to a young player is to expect them to be perfect. Expect them to have a well rounded game. Expect them to “get” everything the first time around. It’s tough to work on EVERYTHING all at once…… It’s better if they can do one thing well and concentrate on that… Use the off-season to work on one of the flaws in their game… then put it to use during the season… Then use the next off-season to work on something else….
Perhaps Nick can work on his ball handling this Summer….OR maybe work on a Pick-and-roll game….. OR perhaps work on his dribble drive….. PICK ONE…. and come back next year a better player..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jan 27, 2011 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
everything you say makes too much damn sense you and Prada should be making good money as analysts...
The only other people I like reading as much as you two are Ziller for SCRoyalty, Evan Dunlap, Sharp and whoever writes the Basketbawful blog(hilarious blog especially if you are a hardcore NBA fan.)
very, very well said
I guess it’s the classic glass half full, glass half empty situation. And if you are a fan of rebuilding team that is going with youth and player development, you better start appreciating the half of the glass that’s full.
This is the first year Nick looks really comfortable in this offense
for that reason I think to say there isn’t much upside is false. Even though Nick is older for being in his 4th year, he wasn’t exactly developed and may have been not mature enough his first couple years. So treating him like a 2nd or 3rd year player is fine with me. Trading him at this point sounds risky.
I love his game and the fact thats he’s trying to be more well rounded (rebounding and defensively mainly). The main parts of his game I would like to see him improve on are ball handling on offense and on defense getting around screens
Cursed with potential
Nick could be a super star or a bust.
We’ll know more by the end of this season.
Growing up and dropping the sulk after a bad call will be a good start.
Sulking led to at least one or two instances of his man beating him back for an easy 2 against the Nuggets.
He’s got the tools.
I think we will know more a month two or three months into next season
If he is going to regress into bust status. He is comfortable with his role now and is turning into a good counterpart along side John Wall.
Let’s see after we add another significant piece and he gets his contract, whether or not he can sustain this play. I am betting that this new Nick Young is the real Nick Young, but obviously, I will be much more confident once he has done it throughout an entire year, and then some other variables are added/removed.
I am going to keep cheering Gil, like it is 2005. Lets see some of that swag return, because that is why we loved you to begin with.
by returnofswagger on Jan 27, 2011 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know
he didn’t seem to sulk in the Boston game – when he went 1-13… but played stellar defense against Ray Allen all night long. He kept his head in the game, got his rebounds (4) , got his assists (2) made his free throws (4-5), didn’t turn the ball over much (1) and kept playing through a poor shooting night…..
I think that showed more growth than all his 25 point games put together.
I didn’t see any sulking in the Denver game… and I was watching. He got his free throws (6-8), his rebounds (5), assists (2) and played his usual good perimeter defense… and shot 10-19 with 26 points against a tough, physical defender in Arron Afflalo. He was even matched up with Carmello Anthony once… and contested a jumper (miss)….. I didn’t see any sulking.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
agree. nick has come a long way in that aspect
he use to be a guy that would miss first shot or two and he would be done for the game… i see more confidence and toughness coming from nick this year. now its just dray that misses his first and he’s done for the game..
I agree!
Me and my sister just recently said that Nick has stopped the sulking. We use to hate to see him hang his head down when he missed shots. I think it was maybe due to being pulled from the game when he made a mistake. He seems to have more confidence this year. I wouldn’t want to see him traded. I think we will be sorry if we do.
Long-Time Wizard Fan
he use to be a guy that would miss first shot or two and he would be done for the game…
Well, you gotta admit – those habits were probably burned into Nick’s psyche by the way Eddie Jordan and Ed Tapscott treated his minutes his first two years.
If Nick missed a shot – He would just start heading to the bench, because he knew Jordan was going to take him out…It became a self fulfilling prophesy, as Nick would put too much pressure on himself to hit that first shot – and he would inevitably miss… hang his head… and get yanked from the game. Nick was playing behind a guy that was shooting 24% from the field for pity’s sake.
That all changed last year – around the middle of the year – when Flip would leave Nick in the game as a reward for good effort on defense. Nick’s bad habit (sulking after a missed shot) was slowly being broken, and replaced with a new good habit (playing hard on defense). An absolutely brilliant Coaching move by Flip Saunders – and one that I don’t think enough people give him credit for.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Yeah you could obviously see that was wearing on Nick
I’m not saying it was his fault.. thats why I wrote earlier that i’m fine with throwing out the first two years. He wasn’t developed the right way at all.. for that reason I think its crazy to say he has reached his potential and doesn’t have much more to grow. As you pointed out his all around number are getting better and just by watching you can see the effort on D and trying to contribute in ways other than shooting the basketball. This is the first full year he looks really comfortable on the court, when he is that confident with his scoring ability he’s going to be hard to stop.
I also said earlier that two things I want him to work on our ball handling and getting around screens on D. But one more thing I think him and Wall need to do in the coming years is become a consistent offensive weapon throughout the game. Right now I would consider them high volume scorers.. both can go off for 8 or so points in a few minutes. Thats why you see us get off to fast starts or come fighting back after being down. But at the same time we all see us going cold and losing those leads because we’re not getting that same type of production for a stretch.
I think that comes with age though. Rashard does a good job of providing offense evenly throughout. And Jamison was someone that use to do that for us
Almost without question
that despite our criticism of Saunders’ coaching decisions, he sure as hell was able to develop Nick Young’s game. There are few “complete” players in the league anyway, and the best team is what matters. Which pieces of the puzzle work best together.
So Mike Prada
I think you’re probably right…. Nick won’t be able to sustain a 50% shooting percentage and a 60% TSP…..
Through 20 games as a starter, he’s shooting 48.9% and 57% TSP. That’s a quarter season – a relatively small sample size – but it’s clear that even one or two bad shooting games and his percentage will drop too low to get back to 50%.
On the other hand… I haven’t heard you weigh in on whether you think Nick Young, even with his shortcomings (poor passer, middling rebounder, too many mid-range shots) – can be THE starting SG on a Wizards Playoff team- Is Nick a potential building block?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
can be THE starting SG on a Wizards Playoff team- Is Nick a potential building block?
I think he can. The 2 has been a problem since Larry Hughes left and if this NY is the real deal then why not? He has been consistent on both ends of the floor and isn’t hurting the team a bit. The question you have to ask is if you remove Young, who can you insert that will help the team and what type of 2 would that be?
Wall and Young make a good back court, The other 3 positions from there are cloudy (with McGee also possibly set).
I'm with David Dunn
I have no idea how someone who watches lots of nba would think Nick isnt a legit starting 2 in the league.
It's a tough question
Trading him now seems silly – nobody’s giving up anything for him when they have to sign him this summer. I also don’t think this team is in a position to trade guys like that anyway.
Here, I think the new CBA provides a saving grace, in that it’ll drive his price down a bit. He’s right in the prime of his career, so my guess is there isn’t too much more growth to be done, and there’s also the reality that shooting percentages from year-to-year can be flukey. But I also agree with whoever is saying that he projects fairly well to Rip, for example.
I still think he’s best in the Jamal Crawford sixth-man role, but either way, probably a guy worth keeping. The one issue though is that you’re handing out deals to fourth or fifth men before you get the second and third guys, which can always be a bit dicey when the fourth and fifth men have to change their game to accommodate the others down the road.
In short: I don’t know. Still need to see how the rest of the season plays out, and it depends on the price. I’m not sure I’d give him more than what currently is the MLE.
I'm confused
The word trade keeps coming up and i don’t understand it at all. Nick has been playing good basketball and is basically the Wizards’ main source of offense. Young fits in the system and plays well off of Wall and is a pretty consistent shooter (which is something the Wizards severely lack at this point). He is still young and was drafted here. Just want to ask, if he would be considered for a trade
1)What would be the motivation for doing so?
2)What would the team receive in return, or more specifically, what would they want in return?
by qthaballa on Jan 28, 2011 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
IMO, the motivation for doing so would be that someone has offered us a highly desirable player
but insists on Nick being included in the trade. And at that point, Ernie isn’t doing his job if he doesn’t way the overall pros and cons of the trade for the future.
The people who are most in favor of trading him either feel it’s most likely his current play will tail off (e.g., the article under discussion), or are concerned about what it will cost to keep him and would prefer to get something else over paying Nick a big contract. But that’s hardly the majority opinion around here.
I personally can’t answer your second question, because to me that’s something you ask when you are actively looking to trade a player. I’d be more at the “make me an offer” stage – I don’t necessarily want to trade Nick, but I understand he’s not untouchable.
I don't understand
What criteria are you using to determine whether he should be a starter or the 6th man? Is it because he can get hot without warming up and you want a spark of the bench, ala All Star Ginobili for most of his career, or is it because you don’t think he is one of the best 30 SGs in the NBA?
Would he be a great 6th man on the Lakers? Yup. On the Wizards? Yeah..if you want to get down by 15 and have some pull you back into the game just for the heck of it.
I get if the question is a salary thing. If he asks for too much, you can discuss. But we have so many other holes to fill it seems just silly to even entertain this discussion about Nick Young’s ability to start in the NBA.
I'm saying long term on a playoff team, he's probably best in the Crawford role
For this team, he obviously needs to start.
Are you saying you don't think he is a legitimate
starter on a playoff team? Or are you saying he isn’t a starter on a championship team? That is very different.
Here were the SG starters in last year’s playoffs.
Jason Richardson, Brandon Roy, Thabo Sefolosha, Kobe Bryant, Caron Butler (3 F started, Jason Terry was really the 2), George Hill, Arron Affalo, Wes Matthews, Dwayne Wade, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Stephen Jackson, John Salmons, Joe Johnson, Kirk Hinrich, Anthony Parker.
That’s the 16. Not 30.
On the record, you are stating you don’t believe Nick Young is better now, or in 2-3 years than any of those folks. You don’t think Nick Young would have been as good or better than at least 6-8 of that 16?
You have very high expectations.
Is Nick Young an all-star? Maybe once or twice in his prime 2-3 years from now, but probably 0. Is Nick Young a reasonable, if not above average, SG with athleticism and scoring potential for a playoff team? I am having really hard time figuring out how one can say no to that question.
Just to clarify, is your position based on the need for a spark off the bench, or your belief that Nick Young does not have the talent to start as a PG on a playoff caliber team?
I suspect if we boot him out of DC, we are going to be in for a rude awakening. You don’t just find people that can dominate Kobe and Artest multiple times off the street.
And you're using a small sample size (the game against the Lakers)
to prove your point.
Yes, Nick Young is having a nice year. The point Mike and others are making is that the Wizards need to be careful before investing a lot of their future in Nick Young. For a player his age, to expect another “leap” is stretching matters. Nick Young is a nice piece. But for where the Wizards are right now, the rebuilding starts and ends with John Wall. You need to find that second piece first, before you begin overpaying sixth men.
The artist formerly known as ledellforlife.
I am not basing my comments on one game
I think it is disingenuous of you as a moderator to make that type of unfounded assertion. That was an exclamation point, not an attempt at proving all of the points above. As you say, let’s remain civil and not make hyperbolic statement that we know are not taking the context into account.
Please reread my comments. Here is what I actually said in the comment above Mike’s comment that you responded to:
I get if the question is a salary thing. If he asks for too much, you can discuss. But we have so many other holes to fill it seems just silly to even entertain this discussion about Nick Young’s ability to start in the NBA.
I explicitly said if this is a salary related concern, I understand. Which is why I asked for clarification from Mike about his position on Young outside of a discussion on salary.
I would be interested in your take as well. If a reasonable salary can be negotiated between Young and the Wizards (or any other team for that matter), do you believe Nick Young is a legitimate NBA starter for a playoff team, or is he better suited to come off of the bench?
Groan
Let’s all play “new guy wants to take on the moderators”.
Happens a lot till they figure out we’re all friends here. Mostly.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
I am not taking on the moderators
and I know better…so please do not twist my words. I was very respectful and am in know way attempting to be confrontational. I actually asked for his take.
Regardless of my relative time on this board, I would hope that I have the privilege of interacting with anyone who replies to my comment.
Your well reasoned and civil comments are VERY welcome.
Calling for a an opinion from someone “on the record” comes off as a little aggressive. As do “disingenuous” and “twist my words”.
But your comments are well thought out and I look forward to arguing in an adult manner for and against them in the future.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
thanks
That was not my intent. I wasn’t attempting to be aggressive.
Maybe I should have said “unfair”. But I did think it was wrong to say I used one game as the basis for my reply to Mike.
I know better than to get in a war with moderators on any forum. I wouldn’t have signed up if I didn’t view Mike and Sean as fair, intelligent, insightful, and true fans. I think the run a tight ship and I don’t sign up for many boards that don’t meet that criteria. My time is too valuable.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
What makes him a 6th man and not a starter?
I bet the Bulls would kill to have him right now, and we have seen 1st hand he is a better SG than Hinrich…who started in the playoffs last season. Looking at that list of starting SGs from last year’s postseason, I am not seeing where Nick doesnt fit in.
He’s been the best player on the team this season, and that includes Wall….so I’m not seeing why the team would want to move him and them have to fill another hole.
by DCrez on Jan 28, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Btw - I disagree with this statement
For a player his age, to expect another "leap" is stretching matters.
What is your basis for this assertion?
Here are some people that blossomed as NBA players at this point or later than Young’s current age with their year 3-4 statistics.
Chauncey Billups (Yr 4 8-2-3)
Steve Nash (Yr 4 8-4-2)
Gerald Wallace Yr 4 11-5-2)
Stephen Jackson (Yr 3 11-3-2)
Corey Maggette (Yr 3 11-3-2)
I will stop there, but I could go on…
In the NBA, you can learn late. You can get better. You can improve your shot. You can improve your D.
What do you think Nick Young’s upside is limited when this is the first time he getting significant playing time? How do we know his ceiling?
Exactly
What is a “leap” anyway?
The guy isn’t too old to improve. Please.
"Jesus got a sweet jumper!"
For me
I think you have to consider the word “better”. Is NY “better” than some of those guys? In some ways. They all have their strengths. To my mind NY’s strengths would be best utilized as the 6th man/microwave off the bench. Could a team make the playoffs with him as their starting SG? Of course they COULD. But that wasn’t really the question.
The question was “is he good enough to be a starting SG on a good team?” If “good” means top 4 in the conference then I’d say probably not. Then again Chalmers is starting PG for a top 4 team so there you go.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Nick could start for the Bulls tomorrow.
who knows, he may be next season
He also could have been a starter and earned 6 rings with the MJ era Bulls. That is not the point.
The question is not “is he better than the starting SG on any team who was ever considered good”. Yes, the Bulls have a terrible SG situation. He would be their best SG. Irrelevant. The question is “is he a high enough quality player to pencil in as your starting SG and be happy about it if you want to be a top team”. My answer is still “probably not”. He would be a great asset coming off the bench for that team.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
So what criteria are you using to determine
a legitimate starting SG? That is the question that I have been asking. If the assertion is he is a sixth man, what is he missing that drops him below the other 29 starters in the NBA as a complement to John Wall, who we all assume we should be building the team around.
Maybe we are talking past each other. Let’s define the criteria. What should the Wizards look for in a SG on a team led by John Wall?
Your question sets the bar at "Can we build a team around Nick Young?"
I’m not saying Nick makes us a top team, I am saying he is good enough to start for a few top teams and many playoff teams…so how on Earth is that not good enough for us going forward? What nba players would be a significant upgrade over Nick right now? The list is names like Kobe and Dwayne, not Wes and Thabo.
I guess the question is approximately “are we set at SG if we want to compete for a championship in 5 years”. Again to me the answer is “probably not”.
To answer DD I think a legit starting SG fits into the flow of a team offense more than I believe NY is able to do. That’s why I think he’d be a great microwave. He plays best when all he has to think about is “shoot now, yes or no”. He doesn’t seem great at looking at second or third options, although as I said elsewhere I see a glimmer of hope on that front. If you paired him with a couple of energy guys off the bench whose strengths include defense, rebounding, high motor but whose weaknesses include scoring then you have a great bench and a possible sixth man of the year.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
I can agree with this criteria
although I would like to see some concrete offensive expectations.
He plays best when all he has to think about is "shoot now, yes or no". He doesn’t seem great at looking at second or third options, although as I said elsewhere I see a glimmer of hope on that front.
I have seen real growth. Is it s glimmer, or something more? I think the latter and I don’t think enough people are even giving him credit for the glimmer.
Better shot selection, better defense, getting back on defense when appropriate, not sulking as much, fighting through a bad night while still playing D in Milwaukee, getting lit up by Ray Allen in the 1st half followed by great D the following half. These show a level of maturity.
Where can he improve? Better ball handling, better defense through screens, a better pick and roll (although Wall will and should be initiating most of these), and a habit of reverting to off balance shots just because (I wish someone would yell square up to remind him). But those can be corrected.
I can understand anyone who thinks we need a better 2nd option and make Nick the 3rd. That isn’t off the wall. But I really think his personality is well suited for the “Robin” role to Wall’s “Batman”. He has a low ego for an NBA star, unassuming, and has never really been “the man” at any level including high school where Farmar really was the star in LA at the time.
He has star potential. Will he realize it? I don’t know. Would I prefer finding out with him on the Wizards instead of another team? Absolutely.
And there is another item I haven’t seen mentioned. What message will Wall get if they send the number 1 scorer off unnecessarily? Ted has a build from within plan. If NY doesn’t fit that mold, I don’t know who does.
Bulls didn't re-sign Ben Gordon to better allocate the cap
It worked out well.
It all kind of depends on what it takes to keep Nick.
I've talked about them in other threads, but that was a while back
In general, I think a shooting guard next to Wall has to have a more well-rounded game – passing, pick and roll, etc. I’d rather have my small forward be the stand in the corner and do one thing on offense type. But you can figure out a way to reverse the roles.
Nick still feels like the kind of guy who can come in and provide a spark while finishing games. Crawford does that for Atlanta well, and Nick could be better because he’s a better defender.
Nick’s using almost 24 percent of the team’s possessions this year – that works with these surrounding options, but as the Wizards get more talent, it’s dicey when you want to establish Wall and the mythical post player from the future early in games. I also worry about massive spikes in shooting efficiency from year-to-year, even if the shots are better shots. Those tend not to sustain.
Completely agree
Nick is shooting very efficiently this year, but betting on that continuing for the rest of his career is a bad idea. Other stats are much more consistent, and we should focus on getting a complementary player that can really fit in well with the rest of the team. All we need at the wings are low usage, high efficiency players who grab the boards and pile up all the other unappreciated stats.
by zl on Jan 28, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
Wait...
I can understand not wanting to count on a continued efficiency when said player didn’t show that efficiency in the past… and they were playing the same way , for the same coach, on the same team… etc…
But if there is a REASON for the spike, there is a good possibility that the spike in efficiency WILL continue.
Nick started shooting more coming off screens and corner threes… In other words, he stopped dribbling so much, and stopped shooting contested jump shots – and instead is shooting OPEN shots.
It’s perfectly natural to assume that a very good shooter (and Nick has been known as a very good shooter since High School) – would have a jump in efficiency if he starts shooting only open shots….. It’s also perfectly natural to assume that if that player continues to shoot those same open shots, he should hit a similar percentage in subsequent years.
So, while I agree with you that if there’s no rational explanation for a certain player suddenly shooting 4 or 5 percentage points higher than their career average – that it would probably NOT continue in the future…. I disagree that is the case with Nick Young. I believe there IS a rational explanation for his increased efficiency – and I don’t see any reason why the Wizards and Flip Saunders would want to change Nick back to creating his own shot and shooting contested jumpers….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I actually think what you laid out is rational.
As I listed above, it is relatively easy to find NBA stars who “got it” in year 3-5. It is a different game. They could rely purely on their athleticism all the way through college. But the NBA is different, and most below the superstar level take a while to adjust.
I don’t understand why people put more credence in Nick Young’s stats coming off the bench cold and in the doghouse than they do with the pressure on him as the first option. Seems to me it is better to measure a player when expectations are high…
I understand.
Where we differ is that I don’t see this as a short term spike, at the moment. There has been too much consistency. I see untapped talent, not an overachiever.
He has been thrown into the fire and performed extremely well. That is a strong predictor in my opinion. When the pressure was put square on his shoulders, he has become more consistent not less.
As I said elsewhere, I am not going to argue with an assertion that the team may be better suited for the PG/PF combo as its core (Stockman/Malone, Magic/Worthy, etc)
But I don’t think Young takes away from that. I don’t see him being demotivated by playing a Byron Scott type role. As a matter of fact, he may appreciate the lack of pressure. I am not saying Nick Young is the key to future Wizards success. I am simply saying Nick Young a legitimate NBA SG, and can fit nicely with as a 3rd option if the Wizards get a power player on the inside. I just think trading Young takes a step back, not forward.
You are much more in the mix, obviously. Is Young and ego maniac and we don’t know it? Is he a cancer in the locker room?
Future salary demands will be the key. But I am not ready to say he is not a really good option given the right salary for the next 5 years to grow with a core of Wall, McGee and a SF/PF to be named later. That sounds a whole lot like Pistons championship teams to me. But maybe I am too much of an optimist.
Nick is more athletic than reggie and rip put together
With great shooters coming off of screens, but can’t we all agree that Nick not only shoots the lights out coming off a pick, bit that he has isolation moves that are things rip and regime never even imagined?
They never twirled to the hoop in deep focus, 360 in mid air avoiding contact. They never had the step back or back to the basket fadeaway that Nick has.
He’s a better scorer than both of them. Honestly, more versatile offensive than both ever were.
by DCeee on Jan 27, 2011 10:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Both great shooters coming off of screens*
by DCeee on Jan 27, 2011 10:15 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Nick’s our best jump shooter (actually kind of a fall away/jump shot) He’s really developing a good 3 from the corner. Why trade your best shooter? Makes no sense. His D has improved so far this year and by the end of the season I think His D will be solid. His rebounding can imprrove. As a true shooter, He feels a miss as He lets the ball go, and moves into position to grab his own rebound. If He could position to rebound other’s misses too the numbers wiil increase. Assists are few if you are the teams jump shooter. They will come when someone else can score cosistamtly. Trade Nick? No way! For who?
I like our nucleus, but We need a center who can teach McGee and start until He develops over the next few years.
by Janber on Jan 27, 2011 10:26 PM EST via mobile reply actions
he use to be a guy that would miss first shot or two and he would be done for the game…
I’m so tired of this BF legend. Look at his game logs. You’d expect a lot of 0-1 or 0-2 games if this were the case. Nope.
In Jordan’s last full year as coach Young averaged 15 minutes and 6.4 shots. As a rookie 3rd string SG on a veteran team. That’s not bad, especially since in those days his defense was pretty suspect. I’m just not sure you can expect a coach in that situation to be giving consistent minutes to guys so far down the depth chart. Those guys have to take what they can get.
The next year (mostly under Tapscott) he got 22 minutes and took 9.2 shots per game. He only played under 9 minutes 4 times all season. He only took less than 5 shots 9 times all season. I don’t see where he’s getting yanked all the time. And by the way there are plenty of 3-13, 2-12, 1-6, 3-9 etc games in there where he’s getting 20+ minutes.
‘Nick Young misses one shot and he gets benched’ is one of those things that just bounced around the BF echo chamber and became “fact” IMO. I didn’t see it then and I don’t see it now.
by MR on Jan 27, 2011 11:06 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
It all depends on his value
Scoring is greatly overvalued in this league, and Nick does it very well. So, if GM’s are giving us solid offers for him, then I would trade him. But I just don’t think that’s the case.
Any “trade him” argument has to hinge on what you’re trading the player for. In Blatche’s case, I’d trade him for any expiring contract. In Nick’s case, I just can’t think of any player the Wiz could get in return that is better. The Wiz would want youth in return, so why would a team trade a young wing player who does a lot of things well for a 25 year old pure scorer?
One player I can think of is Thabo Sefolosha, the polar opposite of Nick Young. He does pretty much everything well except score, and I do think he’s a much better player long-term than Nick. If we got Serge Ibaka as well, I’d probably have an orgasm. There’s also Taj Gibson; the Bulls need a SG and they’ve got Boozer at the 4.
Trade Machine:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4lzndan
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4hokz5o
You could substitute Josh Howard for Yi Jianlian in that second one. What do you think?
Trading Nick for Thabo
Essentially drains the Wizards’ offense completely. I agree about Wizards returns in any trade scenario though:
“I just can’t think of any player the Wiz could get in return that is better. The Wiz would want youth in return, so why would a team trade a young wing player who does a lot of things well for a 25 year old pure scorer?”
I dont think Sepholosha approaches Nick's upside long term
He plays with Durantula and Westbrook…averages 1.5asst/game. And we rip Nick for not racking up assists on a team with no scorers? Is Sepholosha THAT much better of a defender? Nick’s D has been on-point all season.
SHOOTING guard or SCORING guard….putting the ball through the hoop is priority #1
Thabo fits OKC perfectly
When your starting SF and PG have usage rates over 30 – and outputs that justify those usage rates – it’s not only possible but practically necessary to have a complimentary SG who doesn’t touch the ball much at all.
That would be a disaster here to straight-up swap Nick and Thabo, but I think it would be a bad move on OKC’s side as well.
by wjb1492 on Jan 28, 2011 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
I’d rather eventually draft a Thabo if we need to (i.e. if we pick a bunch of scorers to start) and make Young a sixth man.
That is my ideal view of Nick Young
Not a guy that always plays 38-40 minutes, but fills the role as a scorer when its needed, but doesn’t tie up the SG position completely.That way a Sefalosha can come in and get the energy/defense/intensity cranked up.
I am going to keep cheering Gil, like it is 2005. Lets see some of that swag return, because that is why we loved you to begin with.
by returnofswagger on Jan 28, 2011 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Nick is a much better offensive player
I think I still give the edge to Thabo on defense, but it’s a closer call. But my point was that it doesn’t really matter when you’re looking at value to a team. OKC would be stupid to look at Nick, decide he’s a better player than Thabo head-to-head, so make a trade for him. What makes Nick valuable would be largely lost, because OKC has guys better than Nick taking the majority of possessions. He’d still be good in the role they have, but not as good as he can be elsewhere.
Sorry if I’m belaboring, but I’m a huge advocate of fit. There are a billion examples – Ben Gordon falling off the face of the planet moving from Chi to Detroit, Beasley making a huge jump going from Miami to Minny, Kirk playing PG vs. SG, and so on.
i agree with you
my original response was to the assertion above that thabo is a much better player than nick in the long run…i would say the exact opposite is the case
Trade Nick NOW
Okay lets be real here. Nick Young can score h’s finally put together the consistancy the team has been looking for. He’s finally developed the mental toughness to shake off a bad start yet keep his effort high enough till he can get his shot going in a game he’s found out how to ride his hot hand in games.
But Nick is being used as our 1st option when he’s clearly not a 1st option talent. The ball and shots are coming his way in droves. He’s one of the better bad shot makers in the league. which is a blessing and a curse.
But Nick is a blackhole he overlooks wide open teammates on the regular can’t tell you how many times he comes off the curl and Javale or Blatch or whomever sets the screen . He’s no leader, he disappears on the road, has such a silly demeanor I think it undercuts the professionalism needed on a younger team.
I think like Blatche last season he’s a 3rd option guy getting 1st option touches on a bad team which are inflating his numbers.
he’d be a 6th man type on a good team not a starter. Guys that limited in other aspects of their full game just aren’t quality starters. Unless he specialized in something other than shooting the ball.
I could not DISAGREE with you more
Nick is our first option on offense because he can score.
He can actually put the round thing in the round thing.
This is Nick’s first chance to be THE MAN as the Starting SHOOTING guard. And he is doing a heck of a job.
Way, way better than I thought he would play.
I think you must have stopped watching the Wizards
months ago…
But Nick is a blackhole he overlooks wide open teammates on the regular can’t tell you how many times he comes off the curl and Javale or Blatch or whomever sets the screen . He’s no leader, he disappears on the road, has such a silly demeanor I think it undercuts the professionalism needed on a younger team.
Too bad…you have missed a great player mature.
Nick is paid to Shoot. John Wall is paid to Pass.
Pretty simple formula.
Stop watching the cheerleaders and get your head in the game.
Non responsive - your honor
Assists up, rebounds up, higher road average, less sulking, Flip yelling at the team to give Nick the ball more at halftime, pick and roll assists…
Other than that, Nick is the same old Nick. Just a black hole…
If you want to talk about blackholes, turn to Blatche. Nick recently has only force shots when the team was way down.
You are going to have a very hard time proving that Nick is shooting every time he touches the ball. The facts simply belie you accusation.
lol
Nick is averaging 1.3 assist per game I guess if you mean up from zero sure but thats an impossibly low standard.
Blatch is averaging 1.9 assist per game thats better than your shooting guard from your pf thats pathetic. Your 2 guard should have some playmaking ability seeming as he should be a better ball handler than your pf but both guys are black holes. for as much time as they spend with the ball pounding it.
Have you watched this season at all?
Nick doesnt pound the ball anymore. He either take a few dribbles and shoots, or he gets back to the PG (usually).
Guys
I appreciate your passion, but you can’t say “have you watched this season, or stop watching the cheerleaders, ect.” So please attempt to keep it civil
It doesn’t further the conversation. If you find yourself typing something like that, it’s time to take a step away from the keyboard and count to 10.
The artist formerly known as ledellforlife.
A PF that we (attempt) to run the team through sometimes.
And most of our backcourt’s assists go to the guy we have to get assists. If you want Nick to try and be a facilitator more that leaves Wall as a scorer more often. So basically, you want our best scorer to try and be more of an assist guy(which is a weakness) so that our assist guy can try and do more catch and shoot(which is is weakness). Let the guy fill his role.
If he is not getting assists then he is either 1.)passing it without getting assist(definitely not harmful to a team), 2.)making a shot or getting to the line, 3.)missing a shot (in regards to 2 and 3, his TS% is great so when he is deciding to score with the ball, it is working) 4.) turning it over(which he is not doing much of at all). So basically he is doing what he is good at and doing it well, and not hurting the team with the mistake of going out of his skill set. And getting criticized for it. That’s like saying if Seraphin doesn’t start hitting that 20-footer he is hurting our team.
I am going to keep cheering Gil, like it is 2005. Lets see some of that swag return, because that is why we loved you to begin with.
by returnofswagger on Jan 28, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
Unless this was actually intended as a response
to the post above..because I agree with your first post. Nick is playing well and doing what he is supposed to do…
Recently I posted about Nick Young's poor passing ability.
I would bet that if you watched a tape of every assist he ever got they would almost all be kickouts, bailouts, or passes to open shooters. A perfect example this season would have been his pullup jumper on a fast break while a wide open Seraphin (?) stood all alone under the basket.
However shortly after that post I saw something I don’t ever recall seeing before. Nick Young made a great pass to a cutting team mate. An assist that was based on Young seeing what was going on around him for an entire play, not just in the instant that he needed to decide whether to shoot or bail out.
I think NIck has poor court vision. His entire life he’s been able to hit tough shots often enough that he’s used to taking them. He hasn’t had to develop that other side of his game, the passing side.
Well since that play I’ve noticed that his passing has gotten much better. He’s made several assists that show more court vision and awareness then I’ve ever seen from him. Maybe his tunnel vision is widening.
I agree
most of his passes are bailouts he only passes when the scoring opportunity is cut off. He hardly ever intends to pass to make the game easier for teammates.
Its not enough to say he is an unwilling passer he doesn;t care nor understand how passing will make the game easier for him to score.
The man is averaging 1 assist per game this season thats absolutely terrible.
1 assist per game is based on when he was on the bench
Full year starters such as Vince Carter, DeRozan, Wes Matthews, Jason Richardson are under 2. Dunleavy and B. Gordon are just over 2.
Last 10 games he is at 2.4, basically the same as Ray Allen, Kevin Martin.
Is it really terrible? Or is that hyperbole?
Assist stats are crap
Who cares about assists per game or assists per 36 minutes of time on the court? Those numbers don’t mean anything because there is such huge variation in the number of touches that different players get.
A far better metric than raw assist numbers would be assists per minute that the ball is in a player’s hands. By that metric, I bet Nick would look pretty good.
Actually
that stat (if it were possible to measure) would be to the benefit of guys that don’t touch the ball much. Young has the ball in his hands as much as anyone on the team aside from the PGs. I think he’d look even worse.
I have a hard time believing that
Blatche has the ball more from what I have seen, and possibly Heinrich.. Not sure if their is a metric though. Obviously that is a guess by me based on how many isos are run for Dray and how often he just dribbles into oblivion.
Blatche would be murdered by that stat this year. Hinrich is generally a PG.
Now of course this is all conjecture because we’re discussing a nearly un-measureable stat. But my feeling is that if that stat existed Blatche would be worst on the team and NY would be second (PGs aside).
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
If we could get assists per minute of possession, we could also get turnovers per minute of possession. The two numbers together would give a much clearer picture than simple box score numbers.
Nick isn’t as bad of a passer as his box score numbers suggest. He’s also not as good at taking care of the ball as his box score numbers suggest. I think the per minute of possession numbers would give a much clearer picture of reality.
Blatche has been terrible this year, and these numbers would definitely back that up.
One of my favorite stats is points contributed per possession used
It doesn’t do what you want, but it’s a decent way of balancing the value of scoring against the value of assists, controlling for attempts and turnovers.
Jazzy1-
My point is that I’ve seen a change over the last 5-8 games. Granted that could be a start of something or just a blip. But he did demonstrate with a few passes recently that he is capable of thinking about something other than how to get off his own shot on offense. I found it encouraging.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting take....
Nick never had to have good court vision or good passing skills – because he was such a good shot maker and shot creator…. that he never had to look at other options…
But since he’s being required to either shoot (ONLY WHEN OPEN) or pass the ball – you think he’s starting to see those other options?
That’s an interesting premise and one that is easy to test – If Nick continues to increase his assists (and he is up to 2.5 assists per game in January) – there may be something to your theory.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Rook
I’d like to see some analysis as to what has happened to Nick’s game since he went for 43.
I’m fond of saying that he “crossed the Rubicon” and it seems to me that his confidence has taken another jump, and I wonder if the stats reflect it.
"Jesus got a sweet jumper!"
Nick is better than his stats
He does a great job of coming off screens and knocking down shots, which puts pressure on the defense even when he doesn’t have the ball in his hands. Even though Nick doesn’t have the ball yet, other defenders have to help out whenever he comes off a screen. That extra pressure on the defense creates opportunities for other Wizards. Nick doesn’t get any box score love, but his teammates get extra points, rebounds, and assists because of the pressure Nick puts on the defense with his off ball movement and shooting ability.
I agree however, that Nick is not a well rounded player who contributes with passing and rebounds. Also agree that Nick will always depend on other players to get him the ball. I wouldn’t keep him if we went back to running the Princeton or tried to convert to the Triangle. I’d only keep Nick if we planned to build our team around a good point guard. Like, say, John Wall.
The Detroit Pistons
with Billups, Hamilton, Prince, R. Wallace, B. Wallace is a team that was well rounded and everyone knew their role. This has got to be the team to have won a championship without a superstar. We talk about needing Carmelo Anthony to come save us, but the building of the Pistons was piece by piece until finally getting R.Wallace to put them over the edge.
I think Nick Young can be the starting SG next to Wall with the idea that our SF for the future might need to compensate and be a solid passer and rebounder. I think Young is still getting better and he’s been a good teammate, stayed out of trouble, and is a fun personality.
Before the season I was hoping to land Rudy Fernandez or O.J. Mayo in some sort of deal, but Young is more athletic than most SGs while actually having talent and being a solid shooter. I don’t see any reason to want to trade him when he’s building chemistry with Wall and playing well.
by DaGribb on Jan 28, 2011 1:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Most of these comments bash John Wall like crazy.
In your attempts to talk up Young, you put down Wall. Is that what we really want to do? lol
I must defend John Wall a little. He isn’t a good shooter right now, whether or not his injuries are effecting him now, its ludicrous to expect Wall not to improve his jumpshot in the coming years. His mechanics are great and with his work ethic, he can become a great shooter. If you don’t think mechanics matter, look at Rashard Lewis. An ugly shot so his age has severely hurt what used to be his greatest asset. John Wall is the opposite of Lewis.
John Wall does turn the ball over a lot now, mainly because his athleticism outweighs his basketball maturity. As the years go on, he will become a great player, possibly one of the great players of all time.
It’s funny how we all forget what we knew in the offseason, “John Wall won’t win Rookie of the year, but his potential makes him by far the best player in the draft. 2-3 years down the road he will be a top point guard.” John Wall will improve in all areas, he won’t just be good at “three things.”
If I were to choose between John Wall and Blake Griffen, I would take Wall. I want the guy who will have the ball in his hands as the clock is winding down, the guy who controls the offense, the guy who will be not only a threat driving to the rim but also as a shooter and the guy who will one day be able to outplay every player at his position.
Skins rule
Really?
Griffin is demonstrating Hall of Fame potential.
Wall would be RoY in any other year, would you really prefer a Wall over Griffin.
It isn’t a runaway decision, but it is pretty bold statement.
I think Griffin is the runaway ROY.
He has earned it and he is an amazing player. The thing about Griffin is that he is more of a finished product. He will still improve his jumpshot and hopefully his defense, but he isn’t a raw player. Based purely on potential, I think Wall’s has an advantage. It’s very rare for players to reach their full potential, but Wall only needs to come close to his to be one of the top 5 players in the league. If in three years, both Wall and Griffen are as good as each other, then I would want Wall because of his position and because he will have the ball in his hands when the clock is winding down.
If they were in the same draft, it’s not like I would be upset that if my team ended up with Griffen, he is a monster, but I would prefer Wall.
The only knock I have against Griffen is that although he is an elite player, his flash makes him seem better than he is. Tim Duncan is the model I would want my PF to follow. He isn’t flashy, but he is a player who take his team to the championship. After having Arenas and his flash for a few years, I now prefer someone who will take us to a championship.
Skins rule
Griffin is playing like a top5 player in the league.
I am thrilled we have Wall, but elite PGs are getting more and more common. Beast big men are what every team wants
True, but what I would want most is a player who you want to have the ball in his hands at the end of the game.
John Wall’s 3 free throws against the 76ers to tie the game were the first sign of his clutchness. Arenas missing the free throws in the playoffs against the Cavs still hurts to think about.
His demeanor as a rookie at the end of games is surprisingly mature, as he becomes healthy and improves his jumpshot he can become what LeBron pretends to be.
It’s like asking who would you rather have on your team, LeBron or Wade? I’ll choose Wade because he is one of the best finishers in the game, and even though he isn’t as talented as LeBron or as flashy, he still is very talented and flashy.
Skins rule
It's small comment after small comment on here.
When you read it together it adds up and feels like bashing.
Skins rule
Sorry, don’t mean to call you out about it, but can you give me an example? I just don’t think I’ve seen ANY Wall bashing on this site EVER, at least since we drafted him. I’ve seen criticism, but almost universally followed by praise for his ‘potential’.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
"Most" was a poor choice of word. Just a few (mostly correct) critisms here and there.
“John Wall can’t shoot. He has trouble defending. He turns the ball over too much. But John Wall can do three things really well. He can pass. He can dribble (fast)….. and he can score on the one-man fast break. – He’s certainly not a "complete player"…but Bloom is not calling for John Wall to be traded.”
That was the main thing that strung the criticism together for me. Not that it is wrong in logic or wrong to write, but it strung it together for me.
Skins rule
I see where you're coming from
I guess I agree with all of those things. But I don’t mind because those are all things I have confidence that he’ll get better at. I think we all know the guy is raw. Personally I don’t take that as bashing.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
That was a single post though
I just searched for his name and found several very positive comments about John. And since you agree the one post noting his deficits is largely correct, I don’t see the bashing allegation either.
I'm not seeing anyone putting down John Wall at all...
by Mike Prada on Jan 28, 2011 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll give it a try
Wall turns the ball over too much
Wall can’t shoot the basketball
Wall gets beat on defense too much…..
But of course, he’s a young player and should be given the chance to improve his deficient areas….. and given his history and work ethic, I am confident he will work hard to get better.
SARCASM KEY DEPRESSED:
Unlike another player on the team who don’t get assists, is a poor rebounder, and is not a good help defender – He should be traded immediately before his shooting percentages come back to earth…..
SARCASM KEY UN-DEPRESSED
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
No his mechanics are not great.
His mechanics are ok. He flicks the ball and doesn’t elevate enough when he shoots.
"Jesus got a sweet jumper!"
All those other shooting guards
Had a plethora of excellent rebound big men. Reggie had the Davis boys and Rik Smits, Rip had the Wallace boys and Tayshaun Prince, Ray Allen had Garnett, Perkins, Glen Davis.
I think Nick Young has improved tremendously this year, and it isn’t necessary to have a 2 guard who rebounds. He is a great shooter and very good defender. If he is part of the plan, they need to make sure they have enough big rebounders to make up for the balls Nick isn’t going to grab. I think that is the point of drafting big tough forwards.
Why keep a player you need to make up for?
He’s not a good enough scorer to justify building a team around. With a better all-around player, you don’t have to compensate for their deficiencies and just worry about each position as it relates to John Wall. He’s the one we should be building the team around, not Nick.
by zl on Jan 28, 2011 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
That sounds so either/or
If a chance to upgrade at SG that doesn’t otherwise screw up the team comes along, take it – I just have a hard time imagining this happening.
If a chance to upgrade another area comes along that requires Nick to be involved, evaluate the specific trade for the overall impact on the team.
But there aren’t specific issues relative to Nick fitting with John that I see – just because the org is building around John doesn’t mean everyone else has to go. Meanwhile, the guards are the least of my concerns as far as needs – they are implicated because of the salary cap, and for me that’s the only issue with Nick. You don’t keep a player you have to make up for if he costs $12M/year, but you don’t dump a player at the MLE because he’s not an All-Star either.
True
It really does all depend on the money. I’d easily pay Nick the MLE, but anything over that is iffy.
by zl on Jan 28, 2011 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
What MLE? I don't think that's gonna be around when Nick's ready to ink.
by MR on Jan 28, 2011 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
I worry about every move EG makes
But it sometimes seems like you have conflated you belief the EG will overpay with NY’s ability to be a starting SG in the league.
They are related, but I think they should be evaluated independently.
In theory, anyone can start in this league with the right conditions around them
Hell, Keith Bogans is starting right now.
Whether one is starting caliber goes hand-in-hand with what he makes and what is around him.
Who has argued build the team around him?
Is the goal to find a SG to build around?
I thought we just drafted the guy to build around?
So
We should trade John Wall – because he doesn’t shoot a good percentage… We shouldn’t have to justify building a team around him because he is not an all-around player…
JaVale too – he’s has some serious flaws – he;s definitely NOT an all-around player – we shoulnd’t have to compensate for his poor defensive rebounding, poor one-on-one defense, and poor shot selection in the half court. He should be traded for a better all-around player…
Andray Blatche – not an all-around player – difficulties playing defense consistently. Streaky shooter. Not much of a post scorer… needs to go..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Blatche needs to go
but I consider JaVale and Wall to be good all-around players
by zl on Jan 28, 2011 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
No way.
Wall is a good all around player, McGee is not.
McGee is a one-trick pony who has a long long way to go before he could be even remotely considered a good all-around player.
Sorry, but with the current state of his game, he could never start on a contender.
"Jesus got a sweet jumper!"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
