Take the 25 game pledge (... or if not, modify it to suit your own convictions... )

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Wretch said:

We are mostly in complete agreement.  I've said, and repeated, many times over that I'm not comparing the two directly:

My opinion of Hunter is less about...  Well actually, it's not at all about his ability to break out as an alpha or anything close to a player that can score and/or carry a team.  Not statistically.  Not from a leadership perspective.

I think he is the wrong fit for this system, and with the players therein, even if we were winning games.  We have two ball-dominant, alpha scorers, ahead of him that excel at getting into the painted area.  He has the physical tools to be much better, but +++IF+++ Hunter was going to live up to that potential this is probably the least ideal situation for him to do so.

Hypothetical: Let's say he somehow "leveled up" what he has in his bag.  What would that look like?  He'd be a 3rd dribble penetration option, but far less adept at passing in a system that doesn't reward passing the ball.  His only real value then would be as a consistent 3pt shooter.

This is where I'm drawing a comparison to JJ's situation, not his game.  Joe Johnson was on a better team, in a better offense, with a different skillset that better complimented the players around him.  However, he still had options ahead of him.  In the same way that we saw a different JJ once he was promoted in the offense, I believe we will see a different version of De'Andre Hunter.  My opinion is that his floor is 1C and he has the tools to be a 1B in the right system.  Ultimately, I believe he's going to find a valuable place on a contender though not necessarily as the centerpiece.  I do not think that place is here due to fit with the players we have and the offense that we're running.

Can you let me know what you mean by 1C, 1B, etc.  Like who are examples that should let me know what that type of player should look like.  I think of the all time alpha as MJ.  He had what in my mind would be a great 1B player in Pippen.  That is because I am thinking of those as meaning #1 player as 1A, #2 player as 1B, etc.

I would compare Hunter to guys like these if I was going to project his upside (noting that when he crosses 2 Win Shares this season will be his first time doing so):

Mikal Bridges 

Otto Porter Jr 

Cedric Ceballos

 

I would compare him to guys like this for his likely career progression:

Chris Mills 

Harrison Barnes

Dillon Brooks

TJ Warren

 

I would not use a 1+any letter to describe any of these players so that is why I am asking.  These guys are #3 to #6 players for me depending on their team.

[sturt]

4 hours ago, AHF said:

As I am interpreting your posts, we are really talking about two different standards. 

Shakes isn't a serious discussant to the conversation. He's just trying to have fun, the mockery kind, where he thinks he's seized on some hypocrisy, and it's especially tasty to him b/c he has, from the outset of this thread, been allergic to the premise... to the basic standard.

That basic standard was inferred from the start, and as you've mentioned, that approach has been my history anyhow... but shakes is in the prosecution business here, so it doesn't serve his purposes to charge hypocrisy if he were to acknowledge that inference. His problem is, later in the thread and ahead of any of this conversation with him, I'd already stated that basic standard outright.

He's further stirred the pot in his own newer thread...

... where I'd responded... again... and again... debunked his line of logic. His total focus on the application of the standard is predictable. Again, he's in the prosecution business here... he's not seeking an actual rational reasonable respectable adult sort of discussion. He's been clear that he despises the whole notion of assessing the rotation only after all members have had actual time to gel, so why of course he's not seeking that.

 

No offense to anyone, but I'm bored with my own topic. Why are we even talking about it, I'm not sure, or that is, at least where it concerns me and my perspective. I've got nothing more to offer. I've said when they get back from this western trip, I'm ready to begin making some conclusions. Perhaps, though, I do still need to emphasize... begin. Performance begins to be indicative of capacity to win from sturt's point of view with the upcoming MIL game.

If shakes wants to continue to take a box cutter to what regard he's owed, it's nothing to me. I'm neither laughing or upset. My point's made and readers to whom substance is appealing? They get that.

 

[Wretch]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Can you let me know what you mean by 1C, 1B, etc.  Like who are examples that should let me know what that type of player should look like.  I think of the all time alpha as MJ.  He had what in my mind would be a great 1B player in Pippen.  That is because I am thinking of those as meaning #1 player as 1A, #2 player as 1B, etc.

I would compare Hunter to guys like these if I was going to project his upside (noting that when he crosses 2 Win Shares this season will be his first time doing so):

Mikal Bridges 

Otto Porter Jr 

Cedric Ceballos

 

I would compare him to guys like this for his likely career progression:

Chris Mills 

Harrison Barnes

Dillon Brooks

TJ Warren

 

I would not use a 1+any letter to describe any of these players so that is why I am asking.  These guys are #3 to #6 players for me depending on their team.

Yeah so maybe we're having an apples/oranges conversation.  Subbing "role" vs talent might help clarify...and there's some inexact science for sure.  Take the 2010 Heat for example.  LeBron and Wade are 1A and 1B, where Wade is fully capable, from a talent perspective, of being 1A.  There's teams where 1A is a generational talent like LeBron or MJ or the 1A is just very good talent like Jason Tatum or Ja Morant.  I'm talking less about how talented the player is and more about the role they fill on a winner/contender.

In terms of role, I think optimally Hunter can handle B in the right system and with the right players around him.  Suppose Trae didn't get hurt and we had a fully matured/optimal De'Andre Hunter on that team in 2021.  He would be filling the role of 1B on a team that could have beaten Milwaukee...maybe even Phoenix.  That's a contender and he's easily filling that 1B role with more heart/determination and a bump in his 3pt% from last season.  On the other end of the spectrum, basically what I think he is right now, is the role of a 1C.  This does not mean that I believe he has the talent/ceiling/productivity of say Chris Bosh.

In terms of talent...I would put him higher than your baseline expectations.  My rationale is that I believe our offense and players therein are blockers.  Specifically, having DJM does to Hunter what having Cap does to JC.  The best and most consistent version of JC is where he is the primary roll man.  As it were, Cap has taken a bite out of those touches and JC's hanging out on the perimeter as a stretch 4.  The best and most consistent version of Hunter would be where he is the 2nd option on dribble penetration touches.  Otherwise, all he's brining to the table is a 3rd hero-ball option and optimally, 3&D.  Having him slotted alongside Murray is redundant talent-wise and blocks his growth *IF* he is to grow.  It's debatable, but I believe he's more talented than we're seeing.

[Spud2nique]

3 hours ago, Wretch said:

Justin is situationally solid and not nearly as consistent as his brother.
Jalen Johnson - I'm still very high on him, but I wouldn't be mad if we packed him to level up in the post. 

Justin and Jalen for Crowder. 
 

[Spud2nique]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

If shakes wants to continue to take a box cutter to what regard he's owed, it's nothing to me. I'm neither laughing or upset.

I laughed  then got upset  then straight cut his a$$ out! I walked out on that weak act. Luckily you’re wordy but I haven’t cut you out…yet… I wonder why that is? 
 

 

[Wretch]

18 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Justin and Jalen for Crowder. 
 

[JayBirdHawk]

22 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Justin and Jalen for Crowder. 
 

[sturt]

51 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

I haven’t cut you out…yet… I wonder why that is? 
 

 

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

KYA Spud 

[Spud2nique]

15 minutes ago, sturt said:

Like I said, we at the Spudery may think you are too wordy, but that’s not a cause for ignoring. 
 

You are a Hawks fan, that’s enough for me!

[AHF]

3 hours ago, Wretch said:

Yeah so maybe we're having an apples/oranges conversation.  Subbing "role" vs talent might help clarify...and there's some inexact science for sure.  Take the 2010 Heat for example.  LeBron and Wade are 1A and 1B, where Wade is fully capable, from a talent perspective, of being 1A.  There's teams where 1A is a generational talent like LeBron or MJ or the 1A is just very good talent like Jason Tatum or Ja Morant.  I'm talking less about how talented the player is and more about the role they fill on a winner/contender.

In terms of role, I think optimally Hunter can handle B in the right system and with the right players around him.  Suppose Trae didn't get hurt and we had a fully matured/optimal De'Andre Hunter on that team in 2021.  He would be filling the role of 1B on a team that could have beaten Milwaukee...maybe even Phoenix.  That's a contender and he's easily filling that 1B role with more heart/determination and a bump in his 3pt% from last season.  On the other end of the spectrum, basically what I think he is right now, is the role of a 1C.  This does not mean that I believe he has the talent/ceiling/productivity of say Chris Bosh.

In terms of talent...I would put him higher than your baseline expectations.  My rationale is that I believe our offense and players therein are blockers.  Specifically, having DJM does to Hunter what having Cap does to JC.  The best and most consistent version of JC is where he is the primary roll man.  As it were, Cap has taken a bite out of those touches and JC's hanging out on the perimeter as a stretch 4.  The best and most consistent version of Hunter would be where he is the 2nd option on dribble penetration touches.  Otherwise, all he's brining to the table is a 3rd hero-ball option and optimally, 3&D.  Having him slotted alongside Murray is redundant talent-wise and blocks his growth *IF* he is to grow.  It's debatable, but I believe he's more talented than we're seeing.

Thanks.  That is helpful even if I'm not there with you.  (I can't imagine him as a B on any team that has real aspirations.)  Can you site some players that you see as his baseline and upside comps?  True comparators not the Joe Johnson types who are obviously way better but who have some similarity in their role limiting their production.  (I.e., guys who you see as comparable value to his current level of play and his realistic upside scenario.)  I'm curious who you would see him equaling if he was playing for the Pacers or Mavs or Warriors or some other team that wasn't holding back his production.

[Wretch]

32 minutes ago, AHF said:

Thanks.  That is helpful even if I'm not there with you.  (I can't imagine him as a B on any team that has real aspirations.)  Can you site some players that you see as his baseline and upside comps?  True comparators not the Joe Johnson types who are obviously way better but who have some similarity in their role limiting their production.  (I.e., guys who you see as comparable value to his current level of play and his realistic upside scenario.)  I'm curious who you would see him equaling if he was playing for the Pacers or Mavs or Warriors or some other team that wasn't holding back his production.

Given the example of our faded hopes and dreams, lol...maybe a poor man's Kawhi coming into his own (circa 2015).  With Hunter getting more touches, being more aggressive, with the right compliments, in a better system, with good coaching...all very reasonable changes, I think his ceiling is around there somewhere.

A better Julius Randle perhaps if the Kawhi name drop makes everybody gasp and clutch their pearls...lol  Not necessarily the raw offensive output of Randle as a primary option (which neither should be), but a consistent 20/7...with better 3pt% and defensive impact.

Certainly a better Jerami Grant in the right system is not a bad ceiling.

The latter two, I fully believe are well within his reach and could be (optimally) a viable 2nd option given the right circumstances and would be (future floor) a legit 1C/cornerstone of a contender.

 

 

[AHF]

17 hours ago, Wretch said:

Given the example of our faded hopes and dreams, lol...maybe a poor man's Kawhi coming into his own (circa 2015).  With Hunter getting more touches, being more aggressive, with the right compliments, in a better system, with good coaching...all very reasonable changes, I think his ceiling is around there somewhere.

A better Julius Randle perhaps if the Kawhi name drop makes everybody gasp and clutch their pearls...lol  Not necessarily the raw offensive output of Randle as a primary option (which neither should be), but a consistent 20/7...with better 3pt% and defensive impact.

Certainly a better Jerami Grant in the right system is not a bad ceiling.

The latter two, I fully believe are well within his reach and could be (optimally) a viable 2nd option given the right circumstances and would be (future floor) a legit 1C/cornerstone of a contender.

 

I'm not going to entertain a "poor man's" version of someone who was an MVP-level talent since you have to degrade him so much that it becomes irrelevant.  Randle is a tough comparison for me just because Randle is so inefficient as a scorer and such a mediocre defender and gets his value by being a plus passer at the forward spot and a prolific scorer and I just don't see Hunter cut from the same cloth (he should be a more efficient scorer, a much better defender, a much worse passer, and less of a volume scorer).  But Grant is a good comparison point for me.

I'd be thrilled if he started producing like Jerami Grant.

Age 23 Hunter 1.7 Win shares >>> Grant 5.4 Win Shares

Age 24 Hunter 1.1 WS >>>>>> Grant 7.3 WS

Age 25 Hunter 2.4 WS (full year pro-rated) >> Grant 4.4 WS

I'd be really thrilled if he started producing like a better Jerami Grant.

[Wretch]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

I'm not going to entertain a "poor man's" version of someone who was an MVP-level talent since you have to degrade him so much that it becomes irrelevant.  Randle is a tough comparison for me just because Randle is so inefficient as a scorer and such a mediocre defender and gets his value by being a plus passer at the forward spot and a prolific scorer and I just don't see Hunter cut from the same cloth (he should be a more efficient scorer, a much better defender, a much worse passer, and less of a volume scorer).  But Grant is a good comparison point for me.

I'd be thrilled if he started producing like Jerami Grant.

Age 23 Hunter 1.7 Win shares >>> Grant 5.4 Win Shares

Age 24 Hunter 1.1 WS >>>>>> Grant 7.3 WS

Age 25 Hunter 2.4 WS (full year pro-rated) >> Grant 4.4 WS

I'd be really thrilled if he started producing like a better Jerami Grant.

Let me preface this by saying something that I've repeated consistently over the years: I don't like direct player comparisons and I try to avoid them.  By direct comparison, I mean debating which player is better and why.  There are just too many factors, both tangible and intangible, that make the whole thing an exercise in futility.  Not the least of which are the qualifiers each of us puts more weight into.  That being said, I'm doing this less for any sort of direct comparison of Hunter to these players and more to clarify my opinion as to what I think he *could be.

Which is equally important to preface this with and to maintain perspective.  My point isn't about who Hunter has been or even who he is.  It's about who he could be given difference circumstances.

"Poor Man's" Kawhi
I understand the negative connotation circus that comes with a Kawhi/Hunter comparison (why I have avoided it these years).  I also understand your reluctance to make a comparison to an MVP candidate.  However, I don't agree with the assertion that we have to downgrade a comparative talent to near irrelevancy in order to do. 

First, what are we saying is an irrelevant comparison to an MVP?  All-NBA?  All-Star starter?  All-Star reserve?  Quality starter?  Sixth man?  I would say something between a bench warmer and quality reserve qualifies as not worth considering.  But Hunter is already better than that.  He is a quality starter and I don't consider it a stretch to say a token appearance as an AS reserve is reasonable ceiling for him.

Julius Randle
A better Randle is a more efficient shooter, a better 3pt shooter, and with comparable rebounding - less so on the latter considering we're viewing this from the perspective of a SF vs PF.  If Hunter could get his rebounding numbers up, this is a valid comparison as he's already 2 out of 3 of those things.  More importantly, he's a better defender.

Jerami Grant
I don't like advanced stats and win share is probably my least favorite.  Though, I am especially hesitant to compare the impact of an injured, 2nd year Hunter at 23 to a guy with 3 full seasons under his belt playing ~80% of games per season before he turned 23.  Comparing their career years vs age doesn't suggest such a disparity.

I'm looking at one of Grant's seasons as Detroit's alpha (and tried to pick ideal years for Randle/Klaw) and how well he shot the ball vs where Hunter is now in a system that doesn't naturally favor his game.  More importantly, I'm only looking at simple stuff...classic stats (and PER, though again...admittedly not my thing).  I don't think it's a stretch that we could see a better version of Hunter in a better system.

[AHF]

16 hours ago, Wretch said:

Let me preface this by saying something that I've repeated consistently over the years: I don't like direct player comparisons and I try to avoid them.  By direct comparison, I mean debating which player is better and why.  There are just too many factors, both tangible and intangible, that make the whole thing an exercise in futility.  Not the least of which are the qualifiers each of us puts more weight into.  That being said, I'm doing this less for any sort of direct comparison of Hunter to these players and more to clarify my opinion as to what I think he *could be.

Which is equally important to preface this with and to maintain perspective.  My point isn't about who Hunter has been or even who he is.  It's about who he could be given difference circumstances.

"Poor Man's" Kawhi
I understand the negative connotation circus that comes with a Kawhi/Hunter comparison (why I have avoided it these years).  I also understand your reluctance to make a comparison to an MVP candidate.  However, I don't agree with the assertion that we have to downgrade a comparative talent to near irrelevancy in order to do. 

First, what are we saying is an irrelevant comparison to an MVP?  All-NBA?  All-Star starter?  All-Star reserve?  Quality starter?  Sixth man?  I would say something between a bench warmer and quality reserve qualifies as not worth considering.  But Hunter is already better than that.  He is a quality starter and I don't consider it a stretch to say a token appearance as an AS reserve is reasonable ceiling for him.

Julius Randle
A better Randle is a more efficient shooter, a better 3pt shooter, and with comparable rebounding - less so on the latter considering we're viewing this from the perspective of a SF vs PF.  If Hunter could get his rebounding numbers up, this is a valid comparison as he's already 2 out of 3 of those things.  More importantly, he's a better defender.

Jerami Grant
I don't like advanced stats and win share is probably my least favorite.  Though, I am especially hesitant to compare the impact of an injured, 2nd year Hunter at 23 to a guy with 3 full seasons under his belt playing ~80% of games per season before he turned 23.  Comparing their career years vs age doesn't suggest such a disparity.

I'm looking at one of Grant's seasons as Detroit's alpha (and tried to pick ideal years for Randle/Klaw) and how well he shot the ball vs where Hunter is now in a system that doesn't naturally favor his game.  More importantly, I'm only looking at simple stuff...classic stats (and PER, though again...admittedly not my thing).  I don't think it's a stretch that we could see a better version of Hunter in a better system.

I think it is irrelevant to compare an MVP level player with anyone but an All-NBA player or near All-NBA player.  To me, basketball is a game where the cream of the crop has disproportionate value (particularly relative to other sports).  Guys who can be the alpha on a championship team are truly rare and are not replaceable by volumes of significantly worse players even if those players are useful starters.  Like you would never trade Hakeem for Antonio Davis, Dale Davis and Charles Oakley.  He is worth more than all of them and then some so comparing someone at their level to him is just not useful, imo.  For that reason, I don't view Hunter's ceiling in the same conversation as Kahwi and don't find the comparison useful unless you are projecting HUGE growth for him.  He isn't nearly as impactful as a scorer, a defender, a rebounder or playmaker so being a poor man's version in basically every area of the game doesn't tell me anything about Hunter by making the comparison.  I think you can compare specific aspects of a superstar's game to more mundane players like if you were to compare Capela's rebounding against Jokic's but at that point you are specifically disregarding everything else about their games.  I'd say a poor man's version needs to be close enough to replicate the better player on a consistent basis even if it is in a minority of games like Kobe Bryant who is a poor man's MJ and I just don't see that for Hunter with prime Leonard.

As far as advanced statistics go, I find Win Shares to be way more useful than PER with the obvious caveat that WS/48 and WS can tell you different things about a player depending on the minutes they play.  That being said, Hunter's PER stinks compared to all these players as well.  Hunter's career 10.7 PER and 11.5 PER this season aren't close to the 16.2 PER that Grant was putting up as a 23 year old player (or his age 24 or age 25 seasons).  (Randle's PER numbers are roughly double Hunter's, fwiw, and I don't think it is worth a lot because they are too dissimilar to me to feel like that is a comparison that should be made without talking about their different roles).  I do think older players are expected to be more ready to produce and should have better numbers than younger players with comparable NBA experience which is why I veer towards age comparisons rather than looking at seniority.  I would generically project more growth and development for a 23 year old player than a 25 year old one, for example, even if both are in their 4th season.

As far as whether Hunter would do better as a featured scorer, I think Grant is probably a good example.  Grant saw a huge increase in his PPG when he became an alpha because his FGA/GM and FGA/M shot through the roof.  But his efficiency went to ****.  Hunter would likely see a similar result with his efficiency taking a hit because he would be the primary focus of the defense and could no longer pass on shooting when faced with lower % options when he is expected to be the primary scorer on the floor (the increased volume would result in increased per game scoring numbers).  Grant's fg% dropped from near 50% before becoming alpha to two seasons of sub-43% shooting.  (This year he is enjoying a better shooting season back up at 49.1% FG% because he is no longer the #1 option on the floor and gets to take easier shots as the #3 option for Portland.)  I suppose I would hope for Hunter that he wouldn't drop off as far as Grant if he became some team's #1 given that he shoots closer to 45% than 50% and a 6% drop into the high 30% range would be really brutal.  

[Wretch]

9 hours ago, AHF said:

I think it is irrelevant to compare an MVP level player with anyone but an All-NBA player or near All-NBA player.  To me, basketball is a game where the cream of the crop has disproportionate value (particularly relative to other sports).  Guys who can be the alpha on a championship team are truly rare and are not replaceable by volumes of significantly worse players even if those players are useful starters.  Like you would never trade Hakeem for Antonio Davis, Dale Davis and Charles Oakley.  He is worth more than all of them and then some so comparing someone at their level to him is just not useful, imo.  For that reason, I don't view Hunter's ceiling in the same conversation as Kahwi and don't find the comparison useful unless you are projecting HUGE growth for him.  He isn't nearly as impactful as a scorer, a defender, a rebounder or playmaker so being a poor man's version in basically every area of the game doesn't tell me anything about Hunter by making the comparison.  I think you can compare specific aspects of a superstar's game to more mundane players like if you were to compare Capela's rebounding against Jokic's but at that point you are specifically disregarding everything else about their games.  I'd say a poor man's version needs to be close enough to replicate the better player on a consistent basis even if it is in a minority of games like Kobe Bryant who is a poor man's MJ and I just don't see that for Hunter with prime Leonard.

As far as advanced statistics go, I find Win Shares to be way more useful than PER with the obvious caveat that WS/48 and WS can tell you different things about a player depending on the minutes they play.  That being said, Hunter's PER stinks compared to all these players as well.  Hunter's career 10.7 PER and 11.5 PER this season aren't close to the 16.2 PER that Grant was putting up as a 23 year old player (or his age 24 or age 25 seasons).  (Randle's PER numbers are roughly double Hunter's, fwiw, and I don't think it is worth a lot because they are too dissimilar to me to feel like that is a comparison that should be made without talking about their different roles).  I do think older players are expected to be more ready to produce and should have better numbers than younger players with comparable NBA experience which is why I veer towards age comparisons rather than looking at seniority.  I would generically project more growth and development for a 23 year old player than a 25 year old one, for example, even if both are in their 4th season.

As far as whether Hunter would do better as a featured scorer, I think Grant is probably a good example.  Grant saw a huge increase in his PPG when he became an alpha because his FGA/GM and FGA/M shot through the roof.  But his efficiency went to ****.  Hunter would likely see a similar result with his efficiency taking a hit because he would be the primary focus of the defense and could no longer pass on shooting when faced with lower % options when he is expected to be the primary scorer on the floor (the increased volume would result in increased per game scoring numbers).  Grant's fg% dropped from near 50% before becoming alpha to two seasons of sub-43% shooting.  (This year he is enjoying a better shooting season back up at 49.1% FG% because he is no longer the #1 option on the floor and gets to take easier shots as the #3 option for Portland.)  I suppose I would hope for Hunter that he wouldn't drop off as far as Grant if he became some team's #1 given that he shoots closer to 45% than 50% and a 6% drop into the high 30% range would be really brutal.  

When I was 14 years old, I got my first job and started buying things for myself that my parents couldn't afford to.  By the time I was 16, I was working nearly full time and I bought the necessities that alleviated my parents' burden.  At 17, I had my own car and was paying for my own insurance, gas, and parts for repairs - which I did myself.  Later that year, I met my future (and still) wife.  I went into the military at age 19, got married, and was living on my own.  At age 20, I travelled out of the country for the first time (Germany, UK, Egypt).

At 20 years old, one of our sons has been offered his first job and has his first real girlfriend. 

Yes, there are other factors (different eras, different parenting, etc.) and this is not an exact parallel to guys literally playing the same sport.  Yes, a strong comparison argument can be made on progression and indicators to be taken from it.  At a high level though, this example highlights the fault of using age vs. career years.  Outside of the rare prodigies, an age/production evaluation is going to naturally slant heavily towards those who get started earlier in a given discipline.  This is particularly true for professional sports.

A better (more fair) comparison is based on pro career stage, conceding progression speed and all related facets therein before that point.  Gauge my son's life starting at 20 where I started at 16 and then compare his progression up to age 30 where I was at 26.  In 10 years, he may track similarly, though it is more likely that he will actually eclipse my salary, my relationship stability, and my career progression.

It's a different story comparing the career years of these guys - and in the same way, equally slanted I supposed.  Which is why I don't like these sort of comparisons.  As previously stated, we all have our preferred qualifying criteria.  I'm not so much suggesting that Hunter is better (or even worse) statistically than either of those guys.  Only that his current numbers, and the physical assets he has, compare favorably to a future version of him being at the aforementioned ceiling descriptors.

That said...

The italicized portion of what you've said is where we are finding common ground, particularly the first sentence in bold.  This is my entire contention.  Considering the very valid points you've made there, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible to properly feature (and consequently grow) Hunter's game on this team considering these sorts of things.  When I talk about players getting "touches," what you've pointed out encompasses exactly where I'm going with my opinion of Hunter:  

Quantifiable differences involved in being featured:

• The obvious: more attempts, more repetition, more opportunities to grow
• Getting teammates involved vs. BEING the recipient of that
• Taking a higher volume of higher degree of difficulty shots
• Taking a significantly higher volume of clutch shots
• Running set plays for you more often

Intangibles that affect player growth in this role: 

• Being the focus of the defense and having to take those shots
• The coach bending your ear more often and vice-versa
• Having the team constantly focused on you on and off the court
• Having the press dissect your game all over the news and in your face after every game
• Heightened expectations and subsequently additional pressure to perform

If they aren't a natural wizard, these are the things (not an all inclusive list) that will build an alpha (1A/1B) accelerated exponentially by the quality of the franchise/coach/team/etc.  I would imagine that being in San Antonio for example, playing for Pop and with a legendary trio of veteran champions, would have been an ideal incubator for Hunter...and I think the antithesis of that is very close to the system he finds himself in now.

On a final note, it is important to note that I put less importance on stats overall, even basic, vs. personal observations of how a player plays under given circumstance.  I also erred in saying PER - because my fingers get ahead of me and move independently of my thoughts.  I was referring to per 36 mins and per 100 possessions, not PER/player efficiency rating (one of the reasons I don't do this often lol).  I understand that all three metrics normalize their indicators.  However, I am not interested enough in PER to make sense of the formula nor do I trust in some of the inherent weighting problems that it has.  I also have reservations over how much merit we should give the formula based upon the sole author of it.  I'm not one to disregard any and all statistics, advanced or otherwise and I do understand that people find value in them.  I simply do not think there is a golden measuring stick.

If there is disagreement in here, then we'll agree to it from here AHF.  I'll just put it out there that Hunter is going to look considerably better if the right situation and support system is around him.

[AHF]

Thanks for the discussion, @Wretch.  I'll leave the discussion around metrics and Hunter for now.  The only comment I will make on age is that there are very meaningful correlations between future growth and age when you look at large data sets.  Those normalize for varied circumstances so that is the only thing I would view as meaningful.  

Conversely, not every individual follows the larger trends for development so you have to recognize some guys top out earlier, some grow more later, etc.  The difficulty is in predicting which players will fall into which bucket.  I'm not aware of anything that I would use to identify those outliers so I tend to stick with the larger data set and compare the players at the same age. 

To use your example with you and your son, if I had a 16 year old basketball player who could compete against NBA competition in the same way as a 20 year old, I would invest in the 16 year every time and twice on Sundays.  The big difference for me with that example, though, is that a 20 year old is still in the formative stage of his career so there can be more transformative growth at that age than I would expect with a 25 year old even if their experience is similar.

In any event, thanks for giving some more detail around this and we can pick back up down the line.  In the meantime, I'm going back to root for Hunter to experience some of that transformative growth and see him putting up 5 WS this season with a strong second half.

[Wretch]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

Thanks for the discussion, @Wretch.  I'll leave the discussion around metrics and Hunter for now.  The only comment I will make on age is that there are very meaningful correlations between future growth and age when you look at large data sets.  Those normalize for varied circumstances so that is the only thing I would view as meaningful.  

Conversely, not every individual follows the larger trends for development so you have to recognize some guys top out earlier, some grow more later, etc.  The difficulty is in predicting which players will fall into which bucket.  I'm not aware of anything that I would use to identify those outliers so I tend to stick with the larger data set and compare the players at the same age. 

To use your example with you and your son, if I had a 16 year old basketball player who could compete against NBA competition in the same way as a 20 year old, I would invest in the 16 year every time and twice on Sundays.  The big difference for me with that example, though, is that a 20 year old is still in the formative stage of his career so there can be more transformative growth at that age than I would expect with a 25 year old even if their experience is similar.

In any event, thanks for giving some more detail around this and we can pick back up down the line.  In the meantime, I'm going back to root for Hunter to experience some of that transformative growth and see him putting up 5 WS this season with a strong second half.

And to you good sir!  You're fun and challenging to engage with.  I do shudder when I see that I've been quoted by you though LOL!!!  I know instantly that I'll soon have to reread whatever I said and then double check my typos, logical fallacies, and contradictions before responding!

[JayBirdHawk]

5 minutes ago, Wretch said:

And to you good sir!  You're fun and challenging to engage with.  I do shudder when I see that I've been quoted by you though LOL!!!  I know instantly that I'll soon have to reread whatever I said and then double check my typos, logical fallacies, and contradictions before responding!

Sooooo......What are you trying to say about the rest of us oh wretched one? 

Pray tell. 

[Wretch]

26 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Sooooo......What are you trying to say about the rest of us oh wretched one? 

Pray tell. 

Most of us checking people:

Spoiler

@AHF checking people:

Spoiler

@NBASupes getting ready to check somebody:

Spoiler