"Getting Through"
A reference in a recent post to coaches trying to ensure Wes Johnson concentrates on the - ahem - non-shooting aspects of his game and an ensuing string of comments made me think about the rebounding and dirty work-oriented Michael Beasley mini trend we saw before his injury. Will it continue? Did the coaches finally "get through" to him? Then I realized we've got a very skilled seven-footer who nonetheless seemingly needs to be taught how to dunk, a very skilled six-eleven-er who needs to be taught to pass, and, well, the list goes on.
The Wolves have more than their share of reclamation projects, each one of them tantalizing us with the contributions he will make if the coaches can...."just get through" to them. So, I gotta put this out there for the more advanced stats-minded among our number, is there any evidence that players can emerge from consistently negative contributions to become consistently positive contributors, especially given the right system, usage, and tutelage? As we are saying time and again, we're not asking for above-average, even. We just want simply average production to not derail the consistently superb contributions we're getting from our top two. Thoughts?
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
to be honest
Mike has played pretty good defense this year or at least given pretty good effort
He is having one of the worst shooting season I have seen from a guy who plays 36 mpg. It’s hitting open shots and trusting his teammates.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
Kind of my take so far, too
We see some anecdotal evidence that he seems to be trying to embrace what RA is selling. #1, can it stick and #2, can he be a positive contributor in that role or is there something fundamental about a player of his type where he can only make a true positive impact for a team if he happens to go off for 30+ points on a >50% shooting pct night?
As an aside on Beasley: almost every time a discussion about him occurs, there’s a reference to his amazing amount of talent. I do end up wanting to ask: Where is the evidence for this. He doesn’t have an amazing shot. He’s not amazing at beating guys off the dribble. Beyond his year at KSU, where is there evidence of this sky-high ceiling of his? What if it’s not about focus & bball IQ but that he’s simply a guy who caught lightning in a bottle one year in college and is pretty much maxing out what he’s capable of, regardless of whatever approach he takes to the game?
I’d love for this to not be the case, by the way. I’d love for him to end up being a better Joe Smith.
by dontbesomean youngfella on Jan 19, 2012 10:49 AM CST reply actions
Many causes for bad advanced stats
You only have to watch Beasley and what he can do to understand that it is his decision-making that is patently the primary problem. Now his secondary problem might be that he doesn’t see the floor/teammates well or understand the offense or have the hand/eye coordination to make good passes…those would be “talent” issues. But it LOOKS like he can do absolutely amazing things against most competition, and it LOOKS like he just doesn’t do the “team” things that appear to help teams win.
And yes, what he did at K-State, in a great conference against great competition, dwarfed Derrick Williams. He was a “can’t miss” except for the real possibility his head wasn’t right.
You can't...dust...for vomit.
I believe I saw Michael Beasley
get 43 points and 17 rebounds against then ranked top 10 Kansas team on the road
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 19, 2012 10:52 PM CST up reply actions
Unbelievable college player
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 19, 2012 10:53 PM CST up reply actions
It might be possible...
The one example I can think of is a guy like Donyell Marshall. His numbers and efficiency improved when he got to Utah and he had a nice little run from 2000-2004.
I'm no rocket surgeon!
It might be possible #2
Last year we doubted if the team could play defense. This year they are giving up 14 points less per game. Most of these young players will get better under Adelman some will need time. In a 14 game span some players will be in slumps and some in hot streaks. I suspect both Beasley and Wes are in slumps and Rubio was (for him) in a hot streak while Ellington just came out of a cold streak. The positive is the team defense. 82 games has updated to the 13th game and the positive for me is some guys like Love and Ellington appear to be playing some solid D.
by mr.sorbet on Jan 19, 2012 5:23 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
His game doesn't translate...
to success. I think his stats will always be better in an offense like Rambis than a real offense like we run this season. He can score on a team that doesn’t have many alternatives, and he is a decent rebounder. If he gets numerous iso’s, he will score points inefficiently, but he’ll score points. I just don’t see how his game really fits into an offense. I think this is the reason why people would like to see him come off the bench. He can essentially be that black hole for a unit that needs more scoring. I just don’t think his game translates, he might be able to find it elsewhere, or here eventually, but i’d be pretty shocked.
by Cris Carter is a Muppet on Jan 19, 2012 9:59 PM CST reply actions

by 


















