First, you're making stuff up. Luke never said he wanted Ball to play the 2 nor has Luke ever described his version of the 2 exclusively in that manner.
He doesn't have to describe it. If you actually understand the offense Luke is running, what Ball does is precisely what he would envision as perfect for the 2 in his offense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
So again, you're basing your argument on your made up criteria and attributing it to Luke.
It's actually called "understanding the offense Luke is running." not hard to do.
Second, it doesn't make sense. Russell is OBVIOUSLY more aggressive scoring, slower, less athletic and appears to have a quicker release on his shot. Not saying Ball CAN'T score...just that it's Russell's strength.
Russell's strength is both scoring and making things happen out of the pick and roll as well as being able to run the offense. Unless you seriously think Clarkson was the "point guard" at the end of the season. Russell was still playing the point, he played the 'role' equivilent to a shooting guard in one game vs Cleveland, but you watch every other game and he was the one bringing the ball up the court primarily, he was the one initiating the offense out of the pick and roll, and he was the one running the team.
Want some stats to back it up too?
After being moved to "point guard" Clarkson's stats were
After being moved to "shooting guard" Russell's stats were
And BEFORE being moved to "shooting guard" Russell's numbers post ASB before being benched at "point guard" were
GEE.... HOW SIMILAR... almost as if.. he was given the EXACT SAME ROLE he had before But of course you noticed that right?
Russell was still running the team primarily even after the move to "shooting guard" and if you think otherwise you both weren't watching and aren't paying attention to the stats.
So let's move on.
And Ball is the better defender...meaning you'd probably want the faster, taller, more athletic player on the 1...that's not Russell...not long-term. I concede that there are times when Russell may guard the opposing PG at the start of Ball's career...but there is no way we would stick with that once Ball has his "NBA Legs".
Alright time to tear about your argument. First, Ball has never defended at the NBA level, Secondly Russell is fine as a defender. Let's look at the good ole percentiles.
"For all of the pearl-clutching about him getting "blown by", he's defended all of 37 possessions in Isolation this year, surrendering 0.98 PPP...exactly at the 50th percentile.
He's been a good pick & roll defender (68th percentile), & about as equally efficient at going over (65th), under (61st), or into (60th) screens. He's in the 73rd percentile when guards reject pick & rolls & he has to stay in front. He's been below average on his closeouts (35th percentile) & contesting around the basket (11th). Far too often, he'll give up on a switch vs. a big. He definitely needs to improve there. But overall, Russell ranked in the 57th percentile in all defensive situations."
In english for you GCMD, that means he's an above average defender. So there goes your theory there. Let's take apart the rest.
GCMD: Third, the P&R thing is getting beaten to DEATH. You claim ball can't run P&R solely because he hasn't run a lot of it. I say that he has all of the tools to be a great P&R player, just like Kidd was.
HE HAS THE TOOLS, doesn't mean he's going to be experienced at it, RIGHT NOW it's a weakness and he has inexperience in that area, he didn't run much pick and roll in high school OR college and at the NBA it's a focal point of the NBA offense and at NBA speed it's gonna take a learning curve. Russell already knows how to execute plays out of the pick and roll. Why do you think Ball's usage rate was so low at UCLA? His usage rate was low because he DIDN'T hammer the ball throughout a possession, it stuck in his hands for a few moments before he passed it off to make the right play for a teammate for a three or a layup. Russell did that at Ohio State AND also made things happen out of the pick and roll. So yeah, Ball is a great passer, but he lacks experience in the pick and roll game and is gonna be having to learn it at the highest level.
THIS is why it's very obvious that Luke wouldn't put Ball at the 1 and have him running a bunch of pick and roll from the get go, that would be stupid, that's not MADE UP. You just need to use common sense and actual analytical powers beyond "he can do no wrong" to see that.
It's fine to say we don't know exactly what Ball will be like in the NBA...
That's the kind of advice you should take yourself.
but once you start comparing him and Russell, you must extrapolate and equate KNOWN QUANTIFIABLE tools to make up for the lack of film on any aspect that you want to compare to Russell..
I have, Russell has a better mid range game, a better pick and roll game and passing game OUT of the pick and roll, as well as scoring and he has a better shot off the pick and roll going right than Ball does who has to regather his feet when he drives right to get off his shot from mid, while he can get it off faster going left while going right he has to readjust himself. Something Russell doesn't have any issues with both passing out of the situation and scoring out of it. It's his playmaking out of it that makes him the better choice at the 1 than Ball because Ball running pick and rolls out the gate is not a smart decision. Like I said, everything Ball did at UCLA fits into the ideal that fits the 2 in Luke's offense. Doesn't hold the ball too long, can either rise up and score, or make the proper pass quickly, is a good cutter and driver to the basket, has an off ball IQ which lead to him getting a lot of alley oops at UCLA and why over half of his shots at the rim were assisted and being a good finisher at the rim when given the opportunity. No GCMD these aren't MADE UP qualities for Ball, they are aspects of his actual game.
.it's not like I'm saying Ball will DEVELOP tools he didn't have in college. I'm saying based on the physical and mental tools he currently has, you and I could make a logical argument for Ball becoming a very good PG...MUCH BETTER than Russell given that Ball has the same skills as far as passing and court vision (possibly better) AND he's a better athlete.
All that is based upon assumption. Clarkson's a better athlete than Russell, why can't he outperform him? That shows how much that kind of stuff matters.
Ball has skills like passing and court vision like Russell has, here's the difference, Russell can actually get off those passes in the pick and roll and HAS experience in doing so at the NBA level, but Ball hasn't, Ball didn't even run much pick and roll in high school. Russell is better out of the pick and roll, Ball is better in the open court. Those are the truth's about both players right now and that is why they benefit each other and fit into each other's games. Both their games compliment each other. Entering the NBA, IN LUKE'S OFFENSE, Ball is best suited at the 2. It takes advantage of all of his off ball skills he showcased at UCLA, from his shooting, to his quick passing without the pick and roll to find a teammate through movement, as well as his off ball IQ and movement and cuts and knowledge of what to do off the ball. D'Angelo can handle making offense happen out of the pick and roll, and getting shots off from mid and three out of them, as well as the drive and kicking. Ball benefits from that, because when the defense rotates to Russell because of the pick and roll, guess whose wide open off-ball?
Of course GCMD in your mind you can go "yeah BUT WHEN BALL GETS PICK AND ROLL DOWN AND GETS HIS MID RANGE DOWN AND GETS PASSING OUT OF PICK AND ROLL AT THE NBA LEVEL THEN-" but I cut you off there because you don't know that, have no evidence on it, and haven't even seen any progress in that happening NOR do you know WHEN all that would happen IF ever. So why don't we stick to what's real and what's actually relevant and can be proven. He has his flaws, yes they can be improved upon, but we haven't even seen him do such yet at ANY level, so till he does all you've got is assumptions.
Why can't you see that?
Because I have the stats to back up what I'm saying. You don't.
Probably best to move on at this point and agree to disagree. I lack the patience for the shtick right now.
Edited by Majesty, May 27, 2017 - 03:48 PM.