# How good is Sergio Rodriguez?



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I wanted to do a comparison of all similar rookie guards that have ever come into the league to get a better idea of where Sergio ranks and possibly to predict the type of player he'll become. 

Criteria:

* Ranked Assists Per 40 min.
* Rookie Season
* Age during Rookie Season between 18 and 20
* Having played at least 41 games in Rookie Season


http://www.basketball-reference.com...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=AST&layout=full
Sergio was #1. Ahead of players such as TJ Ford, Isiah Thomas, Stephon Marbury, Chris Paul, Baron Davis, Magic Johnson, and Mike Bibby.

*I then compared how efficient his shooting was using the same criteria but ranked by True Shooting percentage.*

http://www.basketball-reference.com...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=TSP&layout=full
He was #12. Magic Johnson was tops with a tremendous .60 TS %. Other notable names ahead of Sergio were Arenas, Daniel Gibson, Paul, Bryant, Webster, Marbury, Richardson, Farmar, Dooling and Parker. Considering that 4 of the other 11 players had less than half the assists per 40 minutes than Rodriguez, Sergio's value becomes more evident. I find it intriguing that Tony Parker and Sergio Rodriguez are neck and neck at .49 TS %.

*Wanting to then check his ranking in Turn Overs ...*

http://www.basketball-reference.com...t&c4val=0&sortby=TOV&sortby_asc=1&layout=full
He was #23. Not too stellar until you eliminate the first three players that played prior to the NBA collecting TO stats and a couple of players that don't/didn't handle the ball very much, such as Daniel Gibson, Martell Webster (usage rates were low). So that brings him to #18. Also, of those 22 players ahead of Sergio, 14 had assist totals per 40 minutes that were less than half of his, making him as high as #11 if considering this. 

TOV numbers are most similar to Mike Bibby when factoring in players that had relatively high AST numbers.

*Player Efficiency Rating is a number I put a lot of stock in. Here's the ranking:*

http://www.basketball-reference.com...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PER&layout=full
SR ranked #11. 14.1 is a solid number in itself, certainly a rotation player. Other players that were closest were Isiah Thomas (14.5), Mike Bibby (14.8), and Rajon Rondo (13.1) have the same PER at that same age. Kobe Bryant is virtually the same (and Ron Artest was a little lower), but Kobe was two years younger and neither player plays the same style. 

*Lastly, looking at defensive numbers. Here are the listings for Stops and Defensive Player Rating.*

http://www.basketball-reference.com...t=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=Stops&layout=full
http://www.basketball-reference.com...&c4val=0&sortby=DRtg&sortby_asc=1&layout=full
Sergio is #20 in Stops and #26 in DRtg. Sandwiched between Tony Parker and Jamal Crawford for stops and Marbury and Bibby for DRtg.

*Summary*

He sure has a lot of similarities with Bibby at the same age. A few aspects of Parker's game show up too, defensively, speed, and shooting efficiency. 

*Questions*

Am I using the numbers correctly? Do you agree with my conclusions?

Who do you feel Sergio is most similar to at this young age with one year NBA experience?

Who do you feel Sergio will become most like in his prime?

Do you think Sergio's skils complement Roy, Aldridge, and Oden?

Can McMillian implement a system that uses Sergio's skills?

Would you trade Sergio for Mike Conley Jr.?

Would you trade Sergio for a very good small forward, such as Josh Childress or Mike Miller?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Interesting stats, but they don't tell the whole story. Sergio is one of my favorite players on the team, but I was pretty dissappointed this year to see him come into the summer league looking like the same skinny kid he was last year. Even Steve Nash eventually nutted up and hit the weights a little bit in order to be able to bring his body up to the competitive level needed in this league. A little bit of work in the gym would give Sergio the necessary tools he needs to bring the rest of his game up a level. The strength to keep from getting pushed off while playing defense. The ability to put some extra power on that pass he is trying to squeeze through in traffic, or to push the ball ahead. The ability to get a shot off after taking contact. I fully expected him to come in this year and have done the work necessary to move up a level, and from what I have seen so far, the only thing he has brought in with him is another years experience.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

interesting comparisons. I wasn't aware of this reporting feature. 

you get a tidier list if you limit the height to players 6'4 and shorter. that'll whittle it down to mostly point guards, and leave off only Magic (I think). obviously, Magic is a pretty important name to leave off, but we all know he's in a different stratosphere from Rodriguez. 

by doing that, you find that Rodriguez ranks 6th on the PER of the 19 individuals:
http://www.basketball-reference.com...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PER&layout=full

the guys above him? Paul, Arenas, Marbury, Bibby, Thomas. that's some pretty nice company. 

the only quality PG's appearing after Sergio on that list are Baron Davis and Tony Parker.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

According to Raptors fans, he's nothing compared to Caldron! Caldron's a top 5 PG, in the league!


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I suppose I'm not putting as much stock in Summer League. He played NBA basketball for 7 months in his first NBA season. It would have been nice for him to put some work in the gym, but I don't fault him for taking time off before starting Summer League, World Championship play, and then a full month early training camp leading up to the 2007-2008 NBA season. I think all of our expectations were a little too much.

What I wanted to see in Summer League was improvement. This did happen when we finally got to the last two games. 

I want to see him improve defensively and maintain control heading into the closing periods of games. Otherwise, I'm pretty excited about Sergio. I can't wait to watch him paly for Spain on their National Team!


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> interesting comparisons. I wasn't aware of this reporting feature.


Yet another fun way to waste time on the internet! Have a blast!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> interesting comparisons. I wasn't aware of this reporting feature.
> 
> you get a tidier list if you limit the height to players 6'4 and shorter. that'll whittle it down to mostly point guards, and leave off only Magic (I think). obviously, Magic is a pretty important name to leave off, but we all know he's in a different stratosphere from Rodriguez.
> 
> ...


also, of the top 7, Rodriguez had by far the lowest points scored. in other words, he got there by passing well and not turning the ball over, as opposed to shooting. 

I am sooooo tired of shoot-first point guards playing for the Blazers. Rodriguez can't mature fast enough for me.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> According to Raptors fans, he's nothing compared to Caldron! Caldron's a top 5 PG, in the league!


You know, Calderon is a pretty special player also. I'll have to go back and see where he is on these lists. I'm surprised about that.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Crimson the Cat said:


> You know, Calderon is a pretty special player also. I'll have to go back and see where he is on these lists. I'm surprised about that.


I agree, and JC, right now, is a much better player than Sergio (there is a reason Sergio backs him up at the Spanish national team and not the other way around). Having said that - Sergio's potential is higher, IMHO, than JC's - the question is - will he ever reach it?


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I should have known. Calderon first entered the league last year at age 24. It's really impossible to compare numbers until Sergio has a few more birthdays.

However, at 20, Sergio had a significantly higher PER (14.1 to 11.4) rating. And Calderon was 4 years older. Calderon incredibly increased his PER to 19.1 last year! This put him near Isiah Thomas (a little lower) and Andre Miller (a little higher).

I think those Toronto fans have a lot to be excited about.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> I suppose I'm not putting as much stock in Summer League. He played NBA basketball for 7 months in his first NBA season. It would have been nice for him to put some work in the gym, but I don't fault him for taking time off before starting Summer League, World Championship play, and then a full month early training camp leading up to the 2007-2008 NBA season. I think all of our expectations were a little too much.
> 
> What I wanted to see in Summer League was improvement. This did happen when we finally got to the last two games.
> 
> I want to see him improve defensively and maintain control heading into the closing periods of games. Otherwise, I'm pretty excited about Sergio. I can't wait to watch him paly for Spain on their National Team!



I agree with you that Sergio started playing much better the last 2 games. Maybe it was a matter of breaking the "Rust" off and getting to know his team mates a little better, since he had only played with 2 of them before, and one of those 2 wasn't playing.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> I should have known. Calderon first entered the league last year at age 24. It's really impossible to compare numbers until Sergio has a few more birthdays.
> 
> However, at 20, Sergio had a significantly higher PER (14.1 to 11.4) rating. And Calderon was 4 years older. Calderon incredibly increased his PER to 19.1 last year! This put him near Isiah Thomas (a little lower) and Andre Miller (a little higher).
> 
> I think those Toronto fans have a lot to be excited about.



Yep Calderon is a good player. Last year he did an excellent job for Toronto, and really nutted up in the playoffs when got his chance to get some minutes.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Out of this world potential. Much love to JC too. I think Sergio could be a 10+ assist per game type guy if he stays a pass-first PG. We will have some amazing alley-oops with him and our guys!


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

mook - last night I watched Terry Porter and the Blazers against the Spurs in Game 3 or 5 of the 1990 Semi-finals. The first half of the game Terry was unreal. 27 points in the first half and 6 clutch 3s. God I miss him! I think I'd be ok with shoot-first point guard, as long as the other parts of his game were there also. I can't stand guards that dribble, dribble, dribble and launch a shot. Get other players involved and if the ball comes back to you because your offense is breaking down or your open, THEN take the shots. Your job is to set up the offense!


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

Here's hoping he can turn that into real world 10 assists a game and be our true point guard that we need so dearly. If Miles comes back strong, it's scary to think of a mature Steve N..err Sergio dishing the ball to him and our crew of young (also then matured) studs. We'll be a great scoring team.

Awesome. I love finding new reasons to be anxious for the future of this team.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I'm not a big fan of numbers-per-40-minutes. It does not take into account things like fatigue or opportunity. If you're the best player on the "2nd unit" you may still only be the fifth best player on the "1st unit". You're only going to get so many chances, they may be spread out more, and quite frankly you're more than likely not going up against the same level of competition that the "1st unit" is. Of course, in today's age there's a lot of mixing between "units" and he would get some exposure against bigger names, but I don't think that's a real argument towards this analysis being conclusive.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> I'm not a big fan of numbers-per-48-minutes. It does not take into account things like fatigue or opportunity. If you're the best player on the "2nd unit" you may still only be the fifth best player on the "1st unit". You're only going to get so many chances, they may be spread out more, and quite frankly you're more than likely not going up against the same level of competition that the "1st unit" is. Of course, in today's age there's a lot of mixing between "units" and he would get some exposure against bigger names, but I don't think if anything that's a mark against this being conclusive.


That's true. These numbers were based on "per-40 minutes", but I see what you mean. I'm hoping that this year he'll be given a lot more minutes and can show us what he can do.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Yeah I'm going to agree with that too. Per 40 is as accurate as a lie detector in court. If not less.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

rodriguez is the best pg on this team bar none and those who would trade him for mike conley jr are wrong


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Those assist numbers do not grow on trees, even in relatively limited minutes. And as I have shown before, assist/48 are a stat that do NOT improve much over time in most great PGs (as opposed to shooting %, which usually is improved). And Summer Play does not count for that much - PGs need to know their teammates and know what to expect from them.

I think Sergio is a rare gem, and I'd hate to see the Blazers get rid of him. Given the team Portland has put together, I think he'll be the perfect player for us in 2-3 years. 

Be patient!

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Rookie year comparison:

Nash / Sergio
Age: 22-23 / 20-21
Minutes per game: 10.5 / 12.9 
2 FG%: 42% / 42%
3FG%: 42% / 28%
FT%: 82% / 81%
Boards: 1 / 1.4
Assist: 2.1 / 3.3
Turnover: 1 / 1.15
PPG: 3 / 3.7

Conclusions:

1: Nash was no Nash his rookie year. Heck, it took him quite a while (*9* years) to crack 10 assists/game. Talk about a late bloomer!
2: Sergio's numbers are worse for treys, better for assists, but otherwise remarkably similar to Nash's.
2: There is nothing here to conclude that Sergio cannot be as good.

Will he become that good? That is down to Sergio's work ethic, I think. I think he *can* be a truly great player, absolutely.

iWatas


----------



## ilPadrino (May 23, 2003)

CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> rodriguez is the best pg on this team bar none and those who would trade him for mike conley jr are wrong


I would trade Sergio for Mike Conley Jr. without even thinking twice about it.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Iwatas said:


> Rookie year comparison:
> 
> Nash / Sergio
> Age: 22-23 / 20-21
> ...


So I guess Serg will win back 2 back MVP's in 2017-18


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Nice analysis Crimson. The only problem is that Sergio played a LOT less than the majority of guys on that list (only 13 minutes per game). He was able to go as hard as possible, without really worrying about saving himself for later in the game. And since his minutes were so low, even a slight increase in a stat is tripled when the per 40 minute stat is calculated.

Nonetheless, his assist numbers are impressive, especially for someone that just turned 21. While the Nash comparisons are extremely wishful, they should make apparent the fact that good PG's usually take a while to fully develop. So don't be too shocked/annoyed if he doesn't live up to the massive hype surrounding him so early in his career.


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

ilPadrino said:


> I would trade Sergio for Mike Conley Jr. without even thinking twice about it.


Anyone with any sort of sense would too. Not only is he a better prospect (and younger), but he's also best friends with your franchise big man.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Then call me senseless. Because Conley may be a decent player, but he is unlikely to be all-star quality. Sergio is special.

iWatas


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

I don't think he'll definitely become an all-star level player, but why do u think he's unlikely to ever become one?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

bmac said:


> I don't think he'll definitely become an all-star level player, but why do u think he's unlikely to ever become one?


Ignorance, mostly. The few clips I have seen, and the reports on him, suggest he doesn't have any special zing to him. I think he was drafted so high because Atlanta was drafting by position and not talent. This draft had a LOT of talent in it, but the PG crop was, by common assent, as weak as it has been in a long time.

As of March 17, Conley was considered a "probable first round pick". And then later he was "even a possible lottery pick". But to me, one super tournament does not usually make a player. And 6'1" point guards often struggle in the NBA (Chris Paul excepted).

I have no problem being wrong on this. Conley may indeed become very good. But I think Sergio's court sense and talent passing the ball is on another level.

iWatas


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

I assume that's just a typo, but he actually went to Memphis at #4 (who also needed a PG). 

While i agree with u about the weak PG draft class probably improving his draft position, everything i've seen and read about him suggests he not only has excellent court vision and dribble penetration, but is also a very cerebral player. Also, to average over 6 assists with only 2 turnovers a game is outstanding, particularly for a freshman PG.

And there are a lot of players who have dramatically improved their stock with a good showing in the NCAA tournament or an eye-opening pre-draft workout. If u can elevate your game against the best competition u are obviously going to get noticed.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Then call me senseless. Because Conley may be a decent player, but he is unlikely to be all-star quality. Sergio is special.
> 
> iWatas


I have nothing against Sergio, iWatas, but I'd have to bring up Exhibit A, the "Telfair reports". Everyone thought Telfair was going to be a great player and he didn't pan out...yet. I'm curious what your opinion of Telfair was and how you think Sergio is going to overcome some of the same limitations. I obviously realize that Sergio is taller and had more assists, but I meant your interpretation from a fundamental style of play point of view.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Looking at some comparison stats with Jarret Jack and other 23-year olds in their second season with similar strengths (high TS %, moderate assists) and Jack doesn't come out looking so hot. 

http://www.basketball-reference.com...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PER&layout=full
In fact, when I turned to defensive numbers, I was shocked. Jarrett was ranked as one of the worst defensive guards at this stage of his career (Stop Rating and Defensive Player Rating).

I even tried to add in his rookie year, but this didn't help him whatsoever. Unfortunately, at least from his stats, Jack will likely be, at best, an average starter in this league. I can see why KP is trying to deal him while his stock is relatively high.

There is no freaking way that Sergio doesn't get more minutes this season. KP has come out previously saying that his young players will get their court time. It's their time to grow. Portland wants to develope their young talent. And when he's speaking of young talent, he's certainly meaning Rodriguez. If Jack stays on this club, he'll do so as the back-up shooting guard. IMO, if that happens Jack's value decreases.

Jack will be moved before the start of the season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> *There is no freaking way that Sergio doesn't get more minutes this season.* KP has come out previously saying that his young players will get their court time. It's their time to grow. Portland wants to develope their young talent. And when he's speaking of young talent, he's certainly meaning Rodriguez. If Jack stays on this club, he'll do so as the back-up shooting guard. IMO, if that happens Jack's value decreases.
> 
> Jack will be moved before the start of the season.


Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part. Blake will cut into the available PG minutes, and Jack IS one of the young players... so while his minutes might go down some with the addition of Blake, I'm not sure that there will be a lot of extra ones for Sergio.

Playing Jack at the backup PG would be silly; he'd be undersized and it wouldn't help him shoot any better.

I hope that Jack is moved (for value), rather than being relegated to the backup shooting guard position.

Ed O.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Iwatas said:


> 1: Nash was no Nash his rookie year. Heck, it took him quite a while (*9* years) to crack 10 assists/game. Talk about a late bloomer!
> 2: Sergio's numbers are worse for treys, better for assists, but otherwise remarkably similar to Nash's.
> 2: There is nothing here to conclude that Sergio cannot be as good.
> 
> ...


The problem with this is that Nash's career path is very unusual (same with comparing Jack to Billups, IMO). I'm not saying Sergio can't be as good, but statistical comparisons with Nash don't really work for me. 
As for Conley vs. Sergio, Sergio is taller and has demonstrated a remarkable ability to pick up assists. I wouldn't want to trade him for Conley... I have a feeling Telfair would've been almost as good had he gone to college.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> I have nothing against Sergio, iWatas, but I'd have to bring up Exhibit A, the "Telfair reports". *Everyone* thought Telfair was going to be a great player and he didn't pan out...yet. I'm curious what your opinion of Telfair was and how you think Sergio is going to overcome some of the same limitations. I obviously realize that Sergio is taller and had more assists, but I meant your interpretation from a fundamental style of play point of view.


not everyone was convinced of Telfair's impending greatness. He had a lot of very obvious things to like about him (speed/ability to drive), but the limitations to his game (size/outside shooting) were right on the surface to be noticed as well. His backers here argued that he would eventually develop into an outside threat and keep defenses honest but I always thought that was far from a given.

Comparing ST to Sergio is apples and oranges as far as style of play. While both dominate the ball somewhat, Sergio drives to set up the pass while ST was (usually) looking for an opening to finish around the hoop. I think that Sergio is much better at involving his teammates and especially like his ability to deliver passes on the pick and roll. Either style can be an effective element for a winning team but it's a matter of how far the player can take their game. If posters want to project Sergio's game to hopefully project into Nash like effectiveness, I think Tony Parker would be a good ceiling projection for Sebastian. Of course it wasn't until Parker was able to vastly improve his outside game that he became a dominant player. 

I'm not convinced SR will end up being a great player, but I like his chances of reaching the level of _quality starter_ on a good team better then I ever liked Telfair's.

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> not everyone was convinced of Telfair's impending greatness. He had a lot of very obvious things to like about him (speed/ability to drive), but the limitations to his game (size/outside shooting) were right on the surface to be noticed as well. His backers here argued that he would eventually develop into an outside threat and keep defenses honest but I always thought that was far from a given.
> 
> Comparing ST to Sergio is apples and oranges as far as style of play. While both dominate the ball somewhat, Sergio drives to set up the pass while ST was (usually) looking for an opening to finish around the hoop. I think that Sergio is much better at involving his teammates and especially like his ability to deliver passes on the pick and roll. Either style can be an effective element for a winning team but it's a matter of how far the player can take their game. If posters want to project Sergio's game to hopefully project into Nash like effectiveness, I think Tony Parker would be a good ceiling projection for Sebastian. Of course it wasn't until Parker was able to vastly improve his outside game that he became a dominant player.
> 
> ...


Its funny how you mention that. I thought Telfair had a chance to be an ok player, but overall during that period of time I was just grabbing my ankles and praying to the dark ones that ANY one of our PG turned out to be worth a damn.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The only way Sergio gets increased minutes without a trade is if Martell Webster doesn't play at all, giving Jack the 13 backup minutes available at SG. 

Here's an unrealistic minutes breakdown with Martell completely out of the equation (which he won't be):

Blake 25; Sergio 13; Jack 10;
Roy 35; Jack 13;
Outlaw 25; Jones 23;
Aldridge 28; Frye 20;
Oden 29; Przybilla 16; Frye 3;

1. Roy
2. Oden 29
3. Aldridge 28
4. Blake 25
5. Outlaw 25
6. Jack 23
7. Jones 23
8. Frye 23
9. Przybilla 16
10. Sergio 13

11. Martell DNP
12. McRoberts DNP

I made that projection in an attempt to get each player close to his MPG totals last year. In reality, Aldridge will get more minutes, Outlaw will get more minutes, and whoever starts at point guard will get more minutes. And it's possible Roy will play like 40-45 minutes a night, because with our dearth of consistent scoring we're going to need him to.

Not that it's KP's job to make his players happy, but there are going to be some long faces if this is the roster we carry into training camp. Someone will be taking a huge minutes hit, and my guess is it's Sergio or Martell, two guys who won't progress without minutes. 

I hope they like potatoes...


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Not that it's KP's job to make his players happy, but there are going to be some long faces if this is the roster we carry into training camp. Someone will be taking a huge minutes hit, and my guess is it's Sergio or Martell, two guys who won't progress without minutes.


Sergio, Green and McBob could see heavy minutes leading the Idaho whatstheycalled to the D-League championship... Wish we could still send Martell with them...


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> I'm curious what your opinion of Telfair was and how you think Sergio is going to overcome some of the same limitations. I obviously realize that Sergio is taller and had more assists, but I meant your interpretation from a fundamental style of play point of view.


I was initially high on Telfair, but once I did the numbers, I cooled on him fast. You can look at my old posts - after his rookie year, I concluded that Telfair was very unlikely to ever be a great passer. I *think* that halfway through his rookie season I was starting to come to that conclusion.

The analysis I did as to PGs learning to pass vs. learning to shoot was because of Telfair. Once I crunched the numbers, it became clear that Telfair may learn to shoot, but he was not going to be a good point guard.

I am old school in this respect. I want a point guard who keeps the court fluid, who makes things happen for his teammates, who can make them better. It makes for much more beautiful - and fun - basketball.

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

June 6, 2005, I wrote:

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...-passing-raw-talent-shooting-can-learned.html



> So let's take Sebastian Telfair. His rookie year was 0.17. Not great. Terry Porter-like numbers. We should probably cut him a little slack, since he joined the league considerably younger than the HOFers given above. And I cut him some slack because he does not have any good catch-and-shoot players to deliver the balls to (with Zach injured and no outside threat on this squad).
> 
> But by year two, or perhaps year three, the Bassy we see will be as good a playmaker as he will ever be. All the other skills (reducing turnovers, shooting, defense, etc.) can and will improve. But that critical ability for a point guard to make magic happen is revealed very early, and it does not get markedly better after year 2 or 3.


edit: This analysis, BTW, is exactly why I think Jack should be traded if we can get value. He is not a good *point guard*. Jack's assists/minute last year were 0.157, up from 0.14 rookie year. In other words, he was a lousier passer last year than Telfair was his rookie year (0.17), several years younger.

iWatas


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

If Sergio isn't playing next year, I'd rather see him in Europe than playing in the D-League.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Sergio is nowhere near where we all envision him in 3 years.

This is probably why KP decided to sign Blake to a 2-3 year deal while Sergio adjusts and builds his game.

Blake is arguably a strong makeup of what sergio will be in a few years, without as much potential.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

I cannot believe the amount of people who want conley over sergio

1) Conley cant shoot a lick 
2) Hes totally reliant on his speed,he has no other discernable talent
3) Being odens best friend is an appalling reason to give a guy a roster spot 

Sergio is better now and always will be than conley jr,conley is one of the most overrated players in recent memory,how he went no 4 in that draft defies belief.

Personally i think the blazers have made a major mistake in bringing back steve blake,ok he`s a fan favourite but all he`s doing is stunting sergios progress,dont forget this is a kid who has been playing in the pro leagues since he was 16yo( as opposed to conley who`s been riding odens coat tails for a few years playing aau and hs ball).

I hope sergio gets traded to a team that will allow him to develop,memphis tried to trade for sergio a few months back and im damn sure they only drafted conley at 4 because they knew they could get a good package for him via a trade(hence him not signing yet)

Prepare for memphis to pull off daylight robbery by getting webster and sergio for conley(or something similar) and then for conley to fail miserably


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> 1) Conley cant shoot a lick


Just like Sergio, unfortunately.



CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> 2) Hes totally reliant on his speed,he has no other discernable talent


not exactly, he is also a good defender (wish we could say anything like that about Sergio), a fantastic assist man (he had 6 games of 10 or more assists last year), a good scorer for a PG (21 times last year he was in double figures) - he finishes close to the basket much better than Sergio does and it just helps open the passing lanes and he is an exceptional athlete (not just quick - but also leaping ability).



CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> 3) Being odens best friend is an appalling reason to give a guy a roster spot


Yes, let's cut McBob, then - he is GO's best friend and occupies a roster spot that can be given to the best (most of the year) or 2nd best (after GO started to recover from the wrist injury) player on the team that made it all the way to the NCAA finals game last year. Reminder, he was a freshman at the time. 

MC Jr. is an upgrade over Sergio at this point in time. He might not have the "wow" factor that Sergio has setting people up and crazy handles - but he is quicker, jumps higher, scores better, makes less mistakes (kinda important for a PG) and a much better defender.

Sergio could become something special if all the stars align just right and the right system is built around him - but he is more likely to be "white chocolate" than Steve Nash...


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Playing Jack at the backup PG would be silly; he'd be undersized and it wouldn't help him shoot any better.
> 
> Ed O.


That's a rediculous statement to make. Jack has plenty of size for the PG position and would never be considered undersized. I can only assume you meant playing him at the backup *SG* position would be silly.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

andalusian said:


> MC Jr. is an upgrade over Sergio at this point in time.


Until MC Jr actually plays some NBA ball, this is very hard to support. Plenty of high draft picks don't pan out, and while Sergio still has room to grow, it is clear that he plays at an NBA level. 

iWatas


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> That's a rediculous statement to make. Jack has plenty of size for the PG position and would never be considered undersized. I can only assume you meant playing him at the backup *SG* position would be silly.


Yep. Brain cramp. I meant SG, as the next sentence ("I hope that Jack is moved (for value), rather than being relegated to the backup shooting guard position.") indicates. My bad.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

More and more I'm thinking Pritchard really wants to see Blake push Jack and Rodriguez but that he's still open to Jack being the PG for this team down the road. And I could see it working, with Roy and Fernandez both being pretty handy with the ball. And _that_ said, I'm even more intrigued by the idea of Roy and Fernandez starting at both guard spots and Rodriguez ultimately being the first guard off the bench.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> More and more I'm thinking Pritchard really wants to see Blake push Jack and Rodriguez but that he's still open to Jack being the PG for this team down the road. And I could see it working, with Roy and Fernandez both being pretty handy with the ball. And _that_ said, I'm even more intrigued by the idea of Roy and Fernandez starting at both guard spots and Rodriguez ultimately being the first guard off the bench.


Could also do a lineup of Sergio, Fernandez, Roy, Aldridge, and Oden if Sergio/Fernandez progress well enough.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

LameR said:


> Could also do a lineup of Sergio, Fernandez, Roy, Aldridge, and Oden if Sergio/Fernandez progress well enough.


Indeed. With the flexibility of Roy and, to a lesser extent, guys like Fernandez, Aldridge, Jones, and Outlaw, there are some pretty intriguing ways this might all pan out. It'll be interesting to see, ten years from now, if Roy is generally thought of as a PG, SG, or SF, or if he'll be one of those rare players not really thought of as a position player, perhaps like a KG or Pippen.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Yep. Brain cramp. I meant SG, as the next sentence ("I hope that Jack is moved (for value), rather than being relegated to the backup shooting guard position.") indicates. My bad.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree. I believe that Pritchard already had a deal in place that would have netted us another pick in exchange for Jack and perhaps fillers such as Przybilla and or Webster. I wish it could have happened as I think we'd be better off playing Blake and Rodriguez over Jack. I'd hope Pritchard can get a good SF out of Jack before the season.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

simple fact is portland have got go to scorers and a legitimate big man combo all they need is a guy who can get them the ball in scoring positions...rodriguez is better than blake,jack,conley jr and anyone else u care to consider in this aspect 

people say rodriguez cant shoot but ive seen him hit plenty of tough shots over the years and john stockton was`nt the greatest shooter either,did`nt need to be because he delivered the ball to guys who could

time to wake up and realise what you`ve got


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Sergio_Continued-220265-1218.html

you`d rather have mike conley jr ...bah !!!


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

I think people are too hard on him. And I think he had a better rookie year than Lamarcus Aldridge.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

One of reported issues Nate had with Rodriguez last year was his defense. As long as he can manage to stay in front of his man enough that the bigs aren't constantly reaching and/or out of position to cover for him, it shouldn't matter as much this year.

Another problem last year is that he was at least occasionally making a great pass to the wrong person -- someone who wasn't ready and/or couldn't handle the pass. We won't really know until the season starts but it seems to me Pritchard has done a pretty good job bringing in more of the right people from that perspective -- guys with decent basketball IQs, decent hands, good speed, and with Jones someone who's already used to those kinds of passes from Nash.

Finally, Rodriguez not only has a year under his belt with the team but now has a summer league that he missed last season and he'll presumably be here early with the rest of the team getting more and more comfortable. In all, I suspect he'll end up having a pretty good year.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> people say rodriguez cant shoot but ive seen him hit plenty of tough shots over the years and john stockton was`nt the greatest shooter either,did`nt need to be because he delivered the ball to guys who could


If I'm understanding this fine prose correctly, I think you're saying John Stockton wasn't a good shooter. He had a career 52 FG% and 38% from 3's. Those are outstanding numbers and part of why he was so great.



> time to wake up and realise....


yeah

STOMP


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> If I'm understanding this fine prose correctly, I think you're saying John Stockton wasn't a good shooter. He had a career 52 FG% and 38% from 3's. Those are outstanding numbers and part of why he was so great.


C'mon, Stomp. Tell the whole story!

Stockton was NOT a good shooter in the beginning. He had little-to-no jump shot, and the few shots he made were close to the hoop, albeit at a high percentage. It took *4 years* to crack 19% for threes or to score more than 8 points a game, even in 22 minutes per season.

But one thing is true - Stockton always was a superb passer. His rookie year was 0.28 assists/minute, en route to 0.33 assists/minute for a career average.

Sergio's rookie year? 0.26 assists/minute. Pretty darn amazing. At 28% for threes, Sergio has not yet shown that he can shoot well. But any comparison to Stockton (who was 22 his rookie year, 2 years older than Sergio) should point out that Sergio was the better deep threat as a rookie than Stockton was.

iWatas


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> C'mon, Stomp. Tell the whole story!
> 
> Stockton was NOT a good shooter in the beginning. He had little-to-no jump shot, and the few shots he made were close to the hoop, albeit at a high percentage. It took *4 years* to crack 19% for threes or to score more than 8 points a game, even in 22 minutes per season.


So to you the best way to tell the whole John Stockton story is to emphasize the importance of the first 4 of his 19 seasons? The first 3 of those years were the lowest MPG he ever averaged and the 4th was the 5th least. It seems to me that to tell the _WHOLE_ story you'd emphasize his overall excellence and how good he was when he was at his best and earning the HOF status that we're hoping (right here) that Sergio will someday approach.

I do not believe it's common for players to develop from poor to great outside threats midway into their careers like John Stockton did. Of course I hope that SR is an exception to this like John. I think thats more likely then the chances he'll someday become a solid defender. It's good for him that he'll have some stud shotblockers behind him.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I do not believe it's common for players to develop from poor to great outside threats midway into their careers like John Stockton did.
> STOMP


I'm with you, Stomp. There _are_ plenty of individual examples like Stockton, but they're nearly all All-Star level and better players, such as Payton and, of course, Jordan.

It'd be great if Rodriguez one day ranks among players like the above three but it seems unlikely. Still, if he really works at it it might happen for him, and hanging out with Aldridge as much as he apparently is can't hurt.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm in with the group that likes Sergio more as a prospect than Conley. His passing ability and court awareness is something you just can't teach. Give him some time to mature and learn from his mistakes and I think were looking at a good, possibly great point guard.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> So to you the best way to tell the whole John Stockton story is to emphasize the importance of the first 4 of his 19 seasons? The first 3 of those years were the lowest MPG he ever averaged and the 4th was the 5th least. It seems to me that to tell the _WHOLE_ story you'd emphasize his overall excellence and how good he was when he was at his best and earning the HOF status that we're hoping (right here) that Sergio will someday approach.


I am all for it. I agree that lots of players will never get to Stockton's level. But Sergio, in assists/minute, is there. If you want to compare the two players honestly, you cannot ignore the fact that Stockton, his first few years, was NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread -- except in assists/minute! Which is exactly where Sergio is so notable!



STOMP said:


> I do not believe it's common for players to develop from poor to great outside threats midway into their careers like John Stockton did.


It is not a matter of belief. It is an objective fact that players can and do improve their shots. From http://www.basketballforum.com/port...-passing-raw-talent-shooting-can-learned.html



> To weed out driving layups and the like, I am measuring shooting skill purely by percentage from the 3. I recognize that some players' numbers are low when they take few shots, but I assert that any player who avoids taking a 3 does so because they know they don't have the skills to make the shot.
> 
> John Stockton:
> Rookie year: 18%
> ...


In other words, any Sergio/Stockton comparison needs to accept that assists/minute was the dominant critical stat early in the career, and that shooting can, and usually does, improve with age. Sergio has the key ingredient for a 2nd year HOF-to-be-PG. And now he has to do what HOF PGs do for the rest of their careers: work on shooting, defense, the rest of the game.

iWatas


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Iwatas,

I really enjoy your posts on this topic. 

Something I always wonder about though - were a lot of the players that you use as examples great shooters in college?

Was it just an adjustment to the NBA defense and the farther out 3-point line that took time, or were they genuinely medicre shooters before entering the pros?

For that matter - what about Sergio? His NBA shooting hasn't been great, but how has he fared in other levels of competition?


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

Let's wait till he's played more than 13 minutes a game for ONE season before we start calling him the next John Stockton...


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Since someone mentioned Gary Payton - who was not the greatest passer:

He played 27 minutes/game as a rookie - heavy minutes. He was 22 years old.

3% in the league his first 2 years: 0. As in a donut. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. The man could not hit the broad side of a barn at point blank range on a sunny day.

Career average? 31%.

2FG% was 41% as a rookie, and he averaged a respectable 44% for his career.

But Gary was decent at passing from the beginning. His assists/minute rookie season were 0.24. In fact, this was one of his BEST seasons -- his career average went DOWN, to a Jarrett-Jack-like .15. Again, Sergio's assists/minute last year was 0.26 and Stockton his rookie year was 0.28.

iWatas


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Payton was a excellent defender.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I really enjoy your posts on this topic.


Thanks! 



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Something I always wonder about though - were a lot of the players that you use as examples great shooters in college?
> 
> Was it just an adjustment to the NBA defense and the farther out 3-point line that took time, or were they genuinely medicre shooters before entering the pros?
> 
> For that matter - what about Sergio? His NBA shooting hasn't been great, but how has he fared in other levels of competition?


I wish I could tell you. Does anyone who has the time to check this want to give it a twirl? I think a lot of people would like to know.

iWatas


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Something that I do not believe has been addressed in this thread was that Sergio had to learn the language better before he and the coach were able to deal with the sutle point of the games. Most other players did not have that rookie obstical.

gatorpops


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> It is not a matter of belief. It is an objective fact that players can and do improve their shots. From http://www.basketballforum.com/port...-passing-raw-talent-shooting-can-learned.html


My statement was not that it couldn't be done, but that it is not commonly done. Listing some of the greatest exceptions to this truism doesn't make it any less so. From superstars like Jason Kidd to the many Omar Cooks of the world, learning to shoot well from the perimeter midcareer is not anything close to a given even if the player works at it. Sorry.

I also don't believe you're making a honest argument on this when you're listing guys who were known as great shooter/scorers in college (Mullin, JJohnson, Horny) who struggled early on in the league to find their way/role, and then came on once they settled in. In other words, if Adam Morrison shoots a respectable percentage from 3's this year, I won't be buying that he learned to shoot while in the league. While I'm happy that SR's on the team and root for his improvement in this and all areas, Sergio (to the best of my knowledge) has never been known as a shooter so it's not like he just needs time to settle in. To my eye he looks shaky with his mechanics and confidence when pulling up. 

Here's hoping he proves an exception

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP brings up an interesting point--has Sergio ever been known as a decent or good shooter on the Spanish national team or CB Estudiantes? I did a quick search and I couldn't find any numbers on his FG% or 3%.

The thing is that he doesn't have a great FG%, nor a great 3pt%, and yet he's not one of those Andre Miller/Omar Cook-type pass-first point guards who look like they dread being left open on the perimeter. He takes the three point shot with a lot more courage than his stats seem to warrant. (Not in an Antoine Walker way though. Just in the flow of the offense.)

He seems to have decent form. Is he really a decent three point shooter, but just hasn't played enough to get into a rythm? I'd be really interested to see what his three point % was prior to the Blazers, if anyone knows where to find it.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

http://www.fibaeurope.com/cid_iJ7TP2,GGekpCLisWN9AJ0.coid_b0eaOU4wHegfV,9cb4bVR2.articleMode_on.html



> He averaged 8.5 ppg, 3.2 apg and shot 51.4% in the ACB before his side were knocked out of the play-offs at the semi-final stage by arch rivals and eventual champions Real Madrid.


Could not find any pre-NBA 3pt%.

iWatas


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

...and during that same year during the regular season he averaged 6.4 PPG on 41.9%

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

STOMP said:


> ...and during that same year during the regular season he averaged 6.4 PPG on 41.9%
> 
> STOMP


I might be wrong, but I think this is not the way it works. The ACB (where he shot 51%) is the Spanish league. The Euroleague (where he shot 42%) is the international play where the teams play against teams from other European countries.

European teams play for multiple championships/trophies - in the country and out of the country.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> My statement was not that it couldn't be done, but that it is not commonly done. Listing some of the greatest exceptions to this truism doesn't make it any less so. From superstars like Jason Kidd to the many Omar Cooks of the world, learning to shoot well from the perimeter midcareer is not anything close to a given even if the player works at it. Sorry.


The only way to answer this definitively is to look at the statistics, instead of the one-off anecdotes that we have been bringing. 

I gave it a shot. 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi

I found the 3%FG for all guards <6'5" aged 21-22 (a much bigger statistical pool than 20-21 year olds). Then I did the same thing for players aged 26-27. I eliminated all players who did not make a single three-pointer all season, as well as all players for whom stats were not collected.

Just for reference: Sergio shot 0.282 last year for threes.

The average "slot" for 21-22 year olds was the 288th player, some dude named Isiah Thomas. 

21-22 year olds: 0.288 

22-23 year olds: 0.292

26-27 year olds: 0.318

28-29 year olds: 0.335

I think this, though it is only a sample, shows that you are incorrect. The average NBA guard COMMONLY improves their shot in their career. And I add to this that I think it obvious that players who work on their shots do better than average in the improvement department.

Sir, will you yield?


iWatas


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Get ready to kill me.

So here is what I think part of the problem is with Sergio. He is either not smart or not on the same page as others. Sure, he has great bball IQ which helps him instinctively get the ball where it needs to go, but as a PG you are expected to be a leader and part of that includes more then just on the court smarts. 

I know he does not speak the language well, but reading and listening to his interviews he strikes me as someone who says stuff that other PG's would not say and he comes off like a bonehead. It could be because he does not speak English well, but I always just get the feeling there is something else wrong. 

The good news is that his skill set is awesome and he might not need to be the typical leader that PG's are expected to be since he plays next to Roy, who is by all accounts very smart on and off the court. I would certainly rather have Sergio than Conely, and think Sergio is the eventual starter for the Blazers, but I think that his intelligence could cause some problems in the future.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> The only way to answer this definitively is to look at the statistics, instead of the one-off anecdotes that we have been bringing.
> 
> I gave it a shot.
> 
> ...


really, really good post. 

makes me think twice, three times, four times about Martel Webster and Adam Morrison. seems pretty clear that the odds are reasonably good they will come into form on the shooting side of their game at some point. 

also makes you realize why pure shooters aren't always that highly sought after in the draft, and Webster was such a reach. GM's figure that it takes a couple of years for them to transfer their shooting skills to the NBA, while an uber-athlete is an uber-athlete right from the get go. by the time a guy like Webster becomes a competent shooter, the GM has long since been fired for making a bad pick. (again, John Nash and Webster are a great example.)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> I think this, though it is only a sample, shows that you are incorrect. The average NBA guard COMMONLY improves their shot in their career. And I add to this that I think it obvious that players who work on their shots do better than average in the improvement department.
> 
> Sir, will you yield?


I'd do that if you'd make a decent case showing what I said isn't so, but you don't come anywhere close. No where do I say that marginal improvement doesn't happen, in fact I acknowledged that it does happen somewhat as guys settle in and mature. What I'm claiming doesn't commonly happen is for guys to go from poor outside shooters to good ones. But if Sergio improves his outside shot from 28% to the low 30's, he'll still be a poor outside shooter.

Instead of jumping to the "obvious" conclusions you're hoping for your sample to prove, you might want to factor in that it doesn't reflect the countless talented guards who fell out of the league because of their inability to hit an outside shot at a consistent rate. If your contention that becoming a perimeter threat was just a matter of working on it, don't you think that the whole league wouldn't be giving up on guys like Omar early on with their best years ahead of them? 

It's utterly ridiculous for you to claim a cause and effect exists that those who work on their outside shot do better then average as I'm sure you aren't privy to NBA players offseason workouts. I find it pretty likely that Isiah (career 29% from 3's), Jason Kidd, Jamaal Tinsley, Andre Miller, etc... all put in the work... guys just don't slack their way into multi-million dollar contracts. I'd venture a guess they've worked extensively with everyone from shot doctors to sports psychologists and taken countless shots along the way trying to improve. But year after year defenses back off them daring them to shoot like they did last year with Sergio. 

STOMP


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

GOD said:


> Get ready to kill me.
> 
> So here is what I think part of the problem is with Sergio. He is either not smart or not on the same page as others. Sure, he has great bball IQ which helps him instinctively get the ball where it needs to go, but as a PG you are expected to be a leader and part of that includes more then just on the court smarts.
> 
> ...


I say bull to that.:biggrin: He is just struggling to find the right words to say the right thing. I thnik he is very smart and will get better as an interview. However, bing good in an interview is not being smart basketball wise. If he could express himself in Spanish he would do very well. Tony Parker has improved very well in the speach department (maybe that beautiful wife of his had something to do with that) and so will Sergio. 

This year he will begin to show us some real potential and a lot of excitement. Remember he is working with Nate M and Nate has a way that he thinks the PG position is to be played, (especially in the half court) and Sergio is trying to adapt to it. 

On the National Spanish team they play all out pressure on both ends of the court. This is not Nate's style. Give him time, he will be great, if not for the Blazers them for someone else.

gatorpops


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

GOD said:


> I know he does not speak the language well, but reading and listening to his interviews he strikes me as someone who says stuff that other PG's would not say and he comes off like a bonehead. It could be because he does not speak English well, but I always just get the feeling there is something else wrong.


I got that sense a little too. However, I interpreted it differently. 

I lived in Mexico for six months when I was his age, and for a while there it felt like this goofy fantasy world. people relied on this goofy looking Monopoly money. they talked in a different language. even though I spoke spanish, I had a hard time understanding on an innate level that the people around me thought in Spanish as well as spoke in it. 

it was really easy for me to say dumb things because I didn't really internalize everything I said. it was kind of a "game." everybody treats a foreigner with crude language skills a little like a child. it's often just not possible to go beyond a 5 year old conversation level with such a limited vocabulary. 

only after I'd lived there long enough to actually start thinking in Spanish did I start to get taken seriously as an adult. 

Rodriguez was in much the same situation. given that and his age, it's no surprise he wasn't much of a leader.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> What I'm claiming doesn't commonly happen is for guys to go from poor outside shooters to good ones. If Sergio improves his outside shot from 28% to the low 30's, he'll still be a poor outside shooter.
> 
> Instead of jumping to the "obvious" conclusions you're hoping for your sample to prove, you might want to factor in that it doesn't reflect the countless talented guards who fell out of the league because of their inability to hit an outside shot at a consistent rate. If your contention that becoming a perimeter threat was just a matter of working on it, don't you think that the whole league wouldn't be giving up on guys like Omar early on with their best years ahead of them?


Then let's agree on search criteria that will give us useful results. I don't think Sergio is in any danger of falling out of the league, and I think you know that. 

How is this for something useful?

Point guards who are in the league for 10 years, between 6'2" and 6'4", and who shot less than 30% from treys their rookie year? If we could run this analysis, and it found that the player DID become a decent outside shooter later in their career, would you be satisfied? Then, again, we have to define "commonly". If 40% of these players improved that much, would it be "common"?




> It's utterly ridiculous for you to claim a cause and effect exists that those who work on their outside shot do better then average as I'm sure you aren't privy to NBA players offseason workouts.


*Utterly* ridiculous? When everyone knows "Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard"? Do you really think shooting is just a natural thing - you have it or you don't? Hard work is a positive, just like drug use is a negative. 

Sergio may or may not become a good shooter. Given the numbers, he is sure to improve somewhat, as we agree. Given his other physical talents, whether he becomes a very good shooter has a lot more to do with his work ethic than with anything else. I think this is a pretty reasonable assertion.

iWatas


----------



## fer (Dec 6, 2006)

Acb is the best professional league after the nba (Euroleague isn't a regular league at all), I wouldn't compare it with lower leagues in usa, anyways for what matters:

http://www.acb.com/stsacum.php?cod_competicion=LACB&cod_edicion=50&cod_equipo=EST&totales=0

regular season in the topside, under it play offs.

In the national team he hasn't played much cause he's very young, but in the U-18 U-17 etc he was the star, and in the last world cup he was one of the keys in the most important match against Argentina, we had the game lost and then sergio came in...


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Iwatas said:


> The only way to answer this definitively is to look at the statistics, instead of the one-off anecdotes that we have been bringing.
> 
> I gave it a shot.
> 
> ...


While I pretty much agree, and feel Sergio will improve, you're making those stats work for you. Those stats could just as easily show that poor shooters are out of the league by the time they get to 26-29.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

LameR said:


> While I pretty much agree, and feel Sergio will improve, you're making those stats work for you. Those stats could just as easily show that poor shooters are out of the league by the time they get to 26-29.


It is why I am not a statistician. It is hard to define the fields to actually make a watertight argument.

Here's one to show that good shooters get better:

22-23 year old guards who shoot more than 30 3FGs at more than a 35% clip.... There were only 69 incidences of this happening in the history of the three point shot. 27-28 year olds with the same stats? That has happened 112 times.

Does that prove anything? I think so.

I have a harder time finding the specific example that would help parallel Sergio: Point guards who average 28% or so from threes, and their shooting percentage 5 years later. I think my first post did a pretty good job showing that stars and superstars often -- even "commonly" -- have done precisely this, but since Sergio is not a star (yet), the logic is circular.

Anyone?

iWatas


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> *Utterly* ridiculous? When everyone knows "Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard"? Do you really think shooting is just a natural thing - you have it or you don't? Hard work is a positive, just like drug use is a negative. Players who practice are better than those who do not hardly seems utterly ridiculous.


So your saying Isiah, Kidd, Miller, Tinsley didn't/don't practice or work hard? Whats utterly ridiculous is for you to claim a cause and effect of practice equals success from the outside when you have zero clue of the work the individuals put in. I'd be pretty surprised if the guys I just listed didn't/don't put in regular practice though... their respective teams simply wouldn't back them if they were total slackers which your model (if true) would seem to indicate.



> Do you really think shooting is just a natural thing - you have it or you don't?


Well my opinion is probably colored somewhat by my personal experience playing hoops. I've always been a good shooter back to the days when I was heaving a volley ball with both hands from my chest. Maturation, better mechanics, and zillions of jumpers improved this, but I always have had a feel for what it would take to make the shot.

Much like having great athleticism or court vision, I believe that shooting ability is largely something a player has or doesn't have. Body type makes up some of this as does having an innate ability to judge distance on a shot. As one scout on an ESPN article I read was quoted on Kevin Durant recently, "Even when he misses, his shot is just so damn gorgeous." Of course players can improve some with practice, but it's my belief that no amount of practice was going to make Clyde the outside shooter that Petro or Paxson was anymore then those guys focusing their offseason training on becoming more explosive would give them Drexler's hops. That shooting ability isn't a readily attainable skill is why smallish and/or unathletic guys like Morrison and Reddick often go in the lotto. They'll never be big or fast relative to other NBA players, but they can shoot. 

STOMP


----------

