What's new
By:

Following Potential 2025 Draftees

KqWIN said:
It's funny, I actually don't like this archetype. I feel like the tall, create a player type of prospect often fails and even when they can shoot it doesn't necessarily mean they are a star. IMO, it's more unique than it is useful.
Click to expand...

The thing is, when a player is out on the perimeter it doesn't make much difference if he's a wing or a big. It's nice that a big can shoot and play out on the perimeter, it helps space the floor, but the question is--would you rather have your big make a play from out there than your guard or wing? And the answer normally comes back, no. Unless the big is someone like Jokic who can make an impact from literally anywhere on the floor, it makes sense to let the guards and wings do that stuff.

In other cases, you want your big to help provide vertical spacing by playing near the rim, so that's usually the 5-man's first job on offense.
 
Ferguson_Mellochill said:
The thing is, when a player is out on the perimeter it doesn't make much difference if he's a wing or a big. It's nice that a big can shoot and play out on the perimeter, it helps space the floor, but the question is--would you rather have your big make a play from out there than your guard or wing? And the answer normally comes back, no. Unless the big is someone like Jokic who can make an impact from literally anywhere on the floor, it makes sense to let the guards and wings do that stuff.

In other cases, you want your big to help provide vertical spacing by playing near the rim, so that's usually the 5-man's first job on offense.
Click to expand...
It’s about balance to me. If a big can protect the rim and space the floor it opens up 5 out without compromising defense. It’s part of the reason Boston is so dominant and OKC made such an unnatural jump. The 3 that can also make a play off a close out is nice but that guy can’t protect the rim and is easier to find. If the big can do some close to the basket and roll/screen stuff that is great too.
 
KqWIN said:
It's funny, I actually don't like this archetype. I feel like the tall, create a player type of prospect often fails and even when they can shoot it doesn't necessarily mean they are a star. IMO, it's more unique than it is useful.
Click to expand...
I think it fails cuz either the defense/rim protection isn’t real or the shooting isn’t. Having a floor spacing rim protector is very much still a cheat code. If they do more than that it’s fantastic.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think it fails cuz either the defense/rim protection isn’t real or the shooting isn’t. Having a floor spacing rim protector is very much still a cheat code. If they do more than that it’s fantastic.
Click to expand...

A sneaky reason why the Bucks became elite was Brook Lopez.

Incidentally, the most Brook Lopez-like player in the '24 draft, I think, is Kel'el Ware.
 
Ferguson_Mellochill said:
The thing is, when a player is out on the perimeter it doesn't make much difference if he's a wing or a big. It's nice that a big can shoot and play out on the perimeter, it helps space the floor, but the question is--would you rather have your big make a play from out there than your guard or wing? And the answer normally comes back, no. Unless the big is someone like Jokic who can make an impact from literally anywhere on the floor, it makes sense to let the guards and wings do that stuff.

In other cases, you want your big to help provide vertical spacing by playing near the rim, so that's usually the 5-man's first job on offense.
Click to expand...

Right, and unlike wings, bigs can passively provide value at the basket whereas perimeter players cannot. I don't think it's clear cut that a stretch 5 provides that much more value (if at all) to an equivalent rim running/offensive rebounding big. Sometimes you get these bigs hanging around the perimeter all game and the actual effect is that you just get a mediocre shooter.

Handlogten's Heros said:
It’s about balance to me. If a big can protect the rim and space the floor it opens up 5 out without compromising defense. It’s part of the reason Boston is so dominant and OKC made such an unnatural jump. The 3 that can also make a play off a close out is nice but that guy can’t protect the rim and is easier to find. If the big can do some close to the basket and roll/screen stuff that is great too.
Click to expand...

Eh...Is that the magic of a stretch 5 or is it simply having good players? The bulk of Chet's offensive value, for example, is his ability to create shots around the basket and convert them at a very high level. His shooting obviously opens that up a bit, but if he couldn't shoot a 3 pointer, he'd still be a massive factor for OKC. If you kept his shooting, but took away his ability around the basket I don't think that jump would have happened. Likewise with BOS, Porzingis is an awesome shooter but he's just an awesome player in general. Had it been Gobert going to BOS, I think BOS would still be as dominant as they are. Chet and Porzingis are both great players, any team that adds a player of that caliber (without losing talent) is going to see a huge jump.

I do think it's a big bonus if a C can shoot, but I do think it's gotten to a point where it's overvalued. I guess this really comes into play when you have multiple non shooters. Like I don't think Giannis/Porzingis is the same as Giannis/Gobert. So while that definitely has value, I think the extent to which it is valuable has probably been overstated.
 
KqWIN said:
Right, and unlike wings, bigs can passively provide value at the basket whereas perimeter players cannot. I don't think it's clear cut that a stretch 5 provides that much more value (if at all) to an equivalent rim running/offensive rebounding big. Sometimes you get these bigs hanging around the perimeter all game and the actual effect is that you just get a mediocre shooter.



Eh...Is that the magic of a stretch 5 or is it simply having good players? The bulk of Chet's offensive value, for example, is his ability to create shots around the basket and convert them at a very high level. His shooting obviously opens that up a bit, but if he couldn't shoot a 3 pointer, he'd still be a massive factor for OKC. If you kept his shooting, but took away his ability around the basket I don't think that jump would have happened. Likewise with BOS, Porzingis is an awesome shooter but he's just an awesome player in general. Had it been Gobert going to BOS, I think BOS would still be as dominant as they are. Chet and Porzingis are both great players, any team that adds a player of that caliber (without losing talent) is going to see a huge jump.

I do think it's a big bonus if a C can shoot, but I do think it's gotten to a point where it's overvalued. I guess this really comes into play when you have multiple non shooters. Like I don't think Giannis/Porzingis is the same as Giannis/Gobert. So while that definitely has value, I think the extent to which it is valuable has probably been overstated.
Click to expand...
Its all of the above. But even a guy like Brook Lopez is highly impactful. I don't know that it is overstated... I just think its rare that guys are good at both. And yes the flexibility with who they can play with is a big factor. Its not the Holy Grail... but it can open up so much. I also think it works at the highest levels of basketball. Whereas the toolsy offensive centers like Sabonis/Sengun might have flaws that limit how far a team can go without another big that can provide those elements.

its still something I would look to find if possible.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I like him... Every time I see a huge guy that can shoot a little I think... how could this fail. Then I remember Mo Bamba. I like the idea of Sarr. I like the idea of Maluach as well. If you select a big like Sarr in 2024 and then end up in the position where this is the best player on the board in 2025 that kinda sucks.

The top 10ish guys next year are really intriguing right now. Glad ignite is done and many of these guys will play in college next year.
Click to expand...
I just cant draft this year think who MIGHT be available next year. Jazz need to always draft BPA. That is my thought going into this draft and that includes drafting Dillingham if the Jazz see him as BPA. Get the talent first then figure out how it all works next. If players have to be traded then so be it.
 
If the Cavs trade Donovan -- likely to the Nets, since the Nets have assets from PHX -- the Cavs would probably pick up a few rotational players and a heavy pick package. The Cavs' pick in '25 could very easily end up in the lottery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top