Why "selling high" on DeMar doesn't make sense

[sleepz]

Ohhh man.

Good points. Advanced statistics have isolated the impact of chemistry, talent and leadership and have clearly proven that talent is the cause for productive play in Memphis and San Antonio.

/end sarcasm

There is talent everywhere in the league. Every team has talent. These guys have all performed at the very top level of basketball for over a decade.

What even is talent? Long arms and high jumps? What else falls under the category of talent?

What you're doing is seeing strong on court results and pointing to talent. But wouldn't leadership and chemistry improve on court results?

Would Randolph have reached his potential without the Grizzlies franchise? Would Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili even still be in the league if they were drafted by the Bucks?

The point is, we don't know.

But anyone who's ever played sports at a semi-serious level can tell you that the proper atmosphere can really decide how much you care for the game, how much you want to improve and how you go about improving. You need the right stimulus from your coach and from your peers to truly reach that ceiling that you're capable of. Some people are able to do it without that, but they aren't in the majority.

Talent and ability are just as intangible as leadership and chemistry, it's impossible to separate them. All you're doing is pointing to results and saying, "look! talent!". I could do the same and say "look! chemistry!". The real reason for success obviously lies in between, a combination of talent and leadership are required.

Gasol wasn't all that in LA, Randolph wasn't all that until he came to Memphis. Look at all the cast off players that San Antonio is able to take in and "fix". Carmelo, Amare, Chandler and JR Smith (who slayed the NCAA btw) couldn't make it work in NY. Look at the Pacers, for crying out loud. Dallas has used players who didn't fit elsewhere, brought them in to an excellent organization with top of the line leaders, coaching and staff, and look at what's happened there. The Bucks took in a bunch of semi-functional players that have become wholly dysfunctional. I could go on and on about players performing below or beyond themselves given the situation into which they're placed.

What is talent? Are you serious? Every team has NBA players but they are not all the same. There are degrees to which some players are more talented than others. Not even sure I need to provide examples to support this.

Randolph was killing it in Portland previously so he was doing fine without the Grizz. He went to Memphis after he had some run-ins and maturity issues, but he has always been Z-Bo. would Tony Parker or Ginobili still be in the league if they played for the Bucks? Yes they would.

Proper atmosphere trumping actual abilities? Can't say I agree with that either. Coaches can help a player develop and reach their potential but the abilities have to be inherent in that player. And the original post I was responding to had to do with the players leadership being the driving force behind the team. Still don't think anything you've said supports that original premise.

M.Gasol never played in LA. If you are referring to his brother, you better believe he was a killer prior to his trade to the Lakers. Prior to coming to Memphis, Randolph was a beast with Portland and the Knicks. Check the stats if you don't believe me.

Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.

[stooley]

What is talent? Are you serious? Every team has NBA players but they are not all the same. There are degrees to which some players are more talented than others. Not even sure I need to provide examples to support this.

Randolph was killing it in Portland previously so he was doing fine without the Grizz. He went to Memphis after he had some run-ins and maturity issues, but he has always been Z-Bo. would Tony Parker or Ginobili still be in the league if they played for the Bucks? Yes they would.

Proper atmosphere trumping actual abilities? Can't say I agree with that either. Coaches can help a player develop and reach their potential but the abilities have to be inherent in that player. And the original post I was responding to had to do with the players leadership being the driving force behind the team. Still don't think anything you've said supports that original premise.

M.Gasol never played in LA. If you are referring to his brother, you better believe he was a killer prior to his trade to the Lakers. Prior to coming to Memphis, Randolph was a beast with Portland and the Knicks. Check the stats if you don't believe me.

Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.

What I'm saying is, how in the hell do you separate talent from performance?

How many players become as good as they possible can? 1%? The rest settle in somewhere short of their ceiling. Leadership and chemistry help you reach that.

And yes, when I ask you "what is talent?" It's a real question. Because it's different than performance, and I'm not sure you're recognizing that.

Finally, I don't think anyone's saying that leadership is the one and only driving force behind a team. We're just saying that it plays a big role.

edit: oh and woops, I thought Marc played a couple seasons in LA before he was traded.

and yes, kobe and shaq didn't like each other, but they had one of the greatest leaders ever in Phil Jackson guiding them. I'm not sure they'd have been as successful without him. Either way, that's one team that met expectations with poor chemistry.

[DanH]

What I'm saying is, how in the hell do you separate talent from performance?

How many players become as good as they possible can? 1%? The rest settle in somewhere short of their ceiling. Leadership and chemistry help you reach that.

And yes, when I ask you "what is talent?" It's a real question. Because it's different than performance, and I'm not sure you're recognizing that.

Finally, I don't think anyone's saying that leadership is the one and only driving force behind a team. We're just saying that it plays a big role.

edit: oh and woops, I thought Marc played a couple seasons in LA before he was traded.

Ultimately, the only value talent has lies in the performance it produces. So in the context of talent versus production - the answer to the question "What is talent?" is "Who cares?"

Production is how talent is measured, because outcomes are what matter in sports. And if you look at all the best players, yes, they are in fact productive, even if on bad teams. And maybe they become MORE productive with better teams, but they sure show signs of that productivity well before then.

[stooley]

Ultimately, the only value talent has lies in the performance it produces. So in the context of talent versus production - the answer to the question "What is talent?" is "Who cares?"

Production is how talent is measured, because outcomes are what matter in sports. And if you look at all the best players, yes, they are in fact productive, even if on bad teams. And maybe they become MORE productive with better teams, but they sure show signs of that productivity well before then.

Ok well, I'm arguing that talent isn't the only factor in performance. There is a mental aspect as well which can be nurtured by the right kind of leaders.

So performance is actually measuring a plethora of variables that affect that person, one of which is the leadership present on his team, or as he developed.

My question of what is talent was in response to the statement that talent is the only thing that matters, period.

So, a player's attitude obviously affects his own performance. To further that, what effect does it have on his team mates beyond the on court aspect of the game?

Like if you put JV on the Bucks for these past couple of years, does he have 3 DUIs by now? And has he put in less time bulking up and working on his game? And does he ever become great?

[JawsGT]

Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.

Phil Jackson's leadership?

[DanH]

Ok well, I'm arguing that talent isn't the only factor in performance. There is a mental aspect as well which can be nurtured by the right kind of leaders.

So performance is actually measuring a plethora of variables that affect that person, one of which is the leadership present on his team, or as he developed.

My question of what is talent was in response to the statement that talent is the only thing that matters, period.

So, a player's attitude obviously affects his own performance. To further that, what effect does it have on his team mates beyond the on court aspect of the game?

Like if you put JV on the Bucks for these past couple of years, does he have 3 DUIs by now? And has he put in less time bulking up and working on his game? And does he ever become great?

Fair enough, I guess, with the off court stuff. But on court, typically, what you see is that talent shines through. The best players are going to be the best. And part of what makes them the best is their mental make-up, and no, I don't think that can be achieved through mentorship on a good team. Mentorship on a good team can probably help a player with less mental fortitude avoid big problems, but no way does it elevate your average player to the level of the greats.

And ultimately, without that high level talent, you can have all the leadership in the world on your team, and you still aren't going to win much.

[stooley]

Fair enough, I guess, with the off court stuff. But on court, typically, what you see is that talent shines through. The best players are going to be the best. And part of what makes them the best is their mental make-up, and no, I don't think that can be achieved through mentorship on a good team. Mentorship on a good team can probably help a player with less mental fortitude avoid big problems, but no way does it elevate your average player to the level of the greats.

And ultimately, without that high level talent, you can have all the leadership in the world on your team, and you still aren't going to win much.

Yeah that's fair.

I guess in my mind, a team of Dirk and a bunch of solid role players (SA style minus the other 2 HOFers) could beat Lebron with a bunch of scrubs.

Plus I think it does impact young guys. Like maybe Beasley, Mayo, etc., become really good players on San Antonio. Maybe Kawhi Leonard is just another scrub if he wasn't mentored by Pop, Duncan and Ginobili.

[DanH]

Yeah that's fair.

I guess in my mind, a team of Dirk and a bunch of solid role players (SA style minus the other 2 HOFers) could beat Lebron with a bunch of scrubs.

Plus I think it does impact young guys. Like maybe Beasley, Mayo, etc., become really good players on San Antonio. Maybe Kawhi Leonard is just another scrub if he wasn't mentored by Pop, Duncan and Ginobili.

I agree with that, because the team with a bunch of scrubs has less overall talent than the more well-rounded team. And LBJ probably still goes nuts and gives his team a chance to win, because he really is that talented (read: productive).

And your maybe's are just that: maybe's. Maybe you're right, maybe not. Beasley got drafted by Pat Riley and played with Dwyane Wade - top winners in coaching, GMing and playing. Hardly a bottom feeding team that would ruin a player.

[sleepz]

Phil Jackson's leadership?

No disrespect to the Zen Master but leadership without the 2 HOF'ers, and I don't think it matters.

Look at the years the Lakers were bounced in the 1st round under his 'leadership'. When you take a look at the rosters of the '05 and '06 teams you notice that the players were not as good, hence the team wasn't as good.

[sleepz]

Fair enough, I guess, with the off court stuff. But on court, typically, what you see is that talent shines through. The best players are going to be the best. And part of what makes them the best is their mental make-up, and no, I don't think that can be achieved through mentorship on a good team. Mentorship on a good team can probably help a player with less mental fortitude avoid big problems, but no way does it elevate your average player to the level of the greats.

And ultimately, without that high level talent, you can have all the leadership in the world on your team, and you still aren't going to win much.

Amen.

[mcHAPPY]

ahh yes, or when he turns into a superstar...

Sh!t.... reading these forums I thought he already was one!


Superstardom doesn't guarantee a lack of criticism. There are lots of examples but the one that is most obvious today is Russell Westbrook.

[mcHAPPY]

You can perpetually operate under what-if / grass-is-greener scenarios, in basketball and in life. I personally value the bird-in-hand in this case rather than gamble on a 19 year old who we hope gets to where Demar is now, and projects to where Demar is going. I wouldn't trade Demar for anything less than the #1/#2 pick or in a package that includes Durrant/Lebron/ or George (and I'm not really sold on the over-hyped George anyway).

I strive for greatness.

I'm not seeing greatness with this core.

I'm willing to accept a step back to take numerous forward.

If that means trading player X (DD or whoever) so be it.

[S.R.]

I like DD more all the time. His ability to get to the FT line so much while shooting long two's all the time is actually incredible. His defense is gradually improving, as is every other aspect of his game. His contract is good, his history with the team and locker room presence are very good. He's going to get even better in the next couple of seasons.

Basically, I think DD is worth more to the Raptors than he is to any other team at this point. I don't think you're going to have a straight up trade for him that's worth it for Toronto. He could be part of a package.

[golden]

Ultimately, the only value talent has lies in the performance it produces. So in the context of talent versus production - the answer to the question "What is talent?" is "Who cares?"

Production is how talent is measured, because outcomes are what matter in sports. And if you look at all the best players, yes, they are in fact productive, even if on bad teams. And maybe they become MORE productive with better teams, but they sure show signs of that productivity well before then.

I think the issue here is not simply a generic discourse on talent or performance, but, actual performance vs. expected performance. In the case of Marc Gasol, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, it is unequivocally accepted that they have far exceeded their expected or projected performance in the NBA at the time they were drafted. The more important question is: why is that? What stooley and myself are saying is that we believe some credit has to go to the culture of the team they were drafted into.

The second issue here is your definition of successful outcome: is it individual performance or team performance? The NBA is littered with players who have put up big numbers on losing teams. It's also had it's fair share of super-teams that also failed. IMO, the true metric for performance should be team success, which is more complicated than just slapping a bunch of all-stars together.

[golden]

Beasley got drafted by Pat Riley and played with Dwyane Wade - top winners in coaching, GMing and playing. Hardly a bottom feeding team that would ruin a player.

Other than Wade who, in fact, was developed under Stan Van Gundy, the Heat really don't have a great track record of drafting and developing young players. Beasley was drafted while they in the midst of rebuilding and tear-down mode and was 'developed' under a young coach, who was still learning his way. The previous championship team feature Wade and Shaq (who was traded for). Riley has obviously been successful, but his team's have been built through free agency and trades, not necessarily young players exceeding their potential.

Oh, and Beasley's a massive head-case who the Spurs wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.