Nate likes Lawson?

[Crimson the Cat]

I am starting to really, really like the idea of us drafting Ty Lawson.

Not because of Nate McMillan, but because of the absurdly good numbers he put up in an excellent conference. (and the fact the Big Suck on 1080 the fan hates him. That dude is a straight up moron who admits to hating college basketball and then spouts his opinions as if he knows what he's talking about.)

Check out these numbers:

1.7 points per shot
8.5 assists per 40
3.5 assists per turnover
20.4 points per 40 minutes

All of those numbers are better than Chris Paul as a sophomore. (yeah, Ty Lawson's numbers as a sophomore were better than Chris Paul's numbers as well.)

People seem to dislike him for 3 reasons that I've heard.

Size - Well...I mentioned Chris Paul, who is a pretty successful NBA point guard and he's a half an inch taller than Lawson. (Lawson has a standing reach 1.5 inches higher than Chris Paul.) He's an inch taller than all-star Jameer Nelson. Size doesn't really matter if you're good enough.

Shooting - for some reason, people think he can't shoot. 53% from the floor last season would indicate that he can shoot and shoot very well.

Defense - he steals the ball at an outstanding rate and he's quick enough to keep up with most guys. There are a few that will shred him...but that's true of every PG in the league. A quick PG will give anyone troubles. He's got the tools to be at the very least, an average defender.

People need to get with the program here. Ty Lawson is not Damon Stoudamire. This kid is good and he will make a couple all star teams in his career.

Great post Cake! When you put it that way, wow, I would be stoked to roll into next season with Hinrich/Lawson as our PGs.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

If a team is top 5 in efficiency without running...why run? I mean, isn't efficiency more important than running?

I get the idea that it's better to run a little bit to get some easy hoops...but evidently we are getting a lot of easy hoops, or else we wouldn't be so efficient.

Efficiency is helped by offense rebounding. We have amazing offensive rebounders that help mask our issues on offense.

 

[Haakzilla]

-screen

 

[andalusian]

Efficiency is helped by offense rebounding. We have amazing offensive rebounders that help mask our issues on offense.

True. But the same can not always be said about Nate's teams. His Seattle teams never had great rebounders.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

True. But the same can not always be said about Nate's teams. His Seattle teams never had great rebounders.

This is true outside of the 2004-2005 year where he had a couple rebounders comparable to Joel (in particular Reggie Evans). They had no standout rebounders in the rest of the years but just about five to six guys each averaging around 5-6 rebounds.

It is painful to see some of those offensive ratings next to porous defensive ratings though. For efficiency that is.

 

[Ed O]

The question is not just whether the team SHOULD run, but whether Nate WANTS to.

I don't care if we run, as long as we win... although I think that certain rosters are definitely built to run, I'm not sure this one is.

Nate, though, DOES have a long and storied history of taking the air out of the ball, in spite of talking every year about "loosening the reins". I'm pretty convinced that he's just hot air on that front, and pointing the finger at Roy or other players after his teams consistently being slow seems disingenuous.

Ed O.