Jimmer Fredette is the Kings best player

I know most of you probably don't care about the Jimmer, but I was poking around stats around the league and I came accross this...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2013.html

and this...

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus/plusminus_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=22012&split=9&team=Kings

As of today November 16th, Jimmer Fredette was by far the Kings most productive player, and in his limited minutes has put up numbers comparable to what he was doing in college. That's just rediculous.

Now, that very well could be why the Kings are 2-6, and it could also be that Jimmer is the Kings version of Jeremy Evans, but I was still very very surprised to see that.

That's pretty bad that there is only two players on that team that aren't negative in the + - category. I don't really care about Jimmer, but I don't like to see any player with his kind of talent being mismanaged and not getting the opportunity to make a career.

Romoholic wrote:

That's pretty bad that there is only two players on that team that aren't negative in the + - category. I don't really care about Jimmer, but I don't like to see any player with his kind of talent being mismanaged and not getting the opportunity to make a career.

That's the thing though, how do you really manage a player like that. If he can maintain that for 30 minutes a game then he's one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA, but if his shooting percentages drop he's Jamaal Crawford.

That being said, it's not like things can get much worse for the Kings at this point, Thomas is out, Brooks is playing like crap, why not give Jimmer the green light and see what happens?

TheMagnus wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

That's pretty bad that there is only two players on that team that aren't negative in the + - category. I don't really care about Jimmer, but I don't like to see any player with his kind of talent being mismanaged and not getting the opportunity to make a career.

That's the thing though, how do you really manage a player like that. If he can maintain that for 30 minutes a game then he's one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA, but if his shooting percentages drop he's Jamaal Crawford.

That being said, it's not like things can get much worse for the Kings at this point, Thomas is out, Brooks is playing like crap, why not give Jimmer the green light and see what happens?

Yeah his per would drop a lot if he saw a lot of minutes, but he still would give the Kings something.

24 games in and Jimmer is still the Kings best player. He's got the best PER, the best WS/48, and he's the only player on the team with a positive +/-. He's got the same overall WS (.7) as Demarcus Cousins in less than half the minutes.

This is an indictment of the King as much as it is praise for Jimmer. They are an absolute mess.

It got me thinking though, the Jazz have trade pieces that could be very attractive to an owner looking to sell. Expiring contracts, draft picks...if the opportunity was ripe, and the Jazz could pillage the Kings roster, is there anybody there that we would want?

I actually see 4 players that I'd be interested in, Tyreke Evans, Jason Thompson, and Thomas Robinson, and (I know I'm going to get a beating for this) Jimmer Fredette. Evans is going to be a restricted free agent, and odds are pretty good that in their current state the Kings will have little interest in paying him, he's also a very dynamic, young, and talented player. Thompson has a very reasonable 5 year mid level contract, is only 24 years old, and is pretty much the only player pulling his weight on that team. I like Robinsons game, and I think he will be a solid pro with the proper tutelage. And Jimmer...ahhh Jimmer, two things for me with Jimmer #1, is anybody else sick and damn tired of having ESA filled with Jimmer fans cheering for him over cheering for the Jazz? I know I am. #2, I actually think he's perfect as a backup PG. You surround him with high energy guys like Kanter, Carroll, Evans, Millsap, Favors, etc., you put the ball in his hands and let him go to work.

I'd be willing to bet that if the Jazz wanted them they could get Thompson, Fredette, and Evans for almost nothing, especially if they were also willing to take back Salmons or Thornton.

So I'm a firm believer that holding on to everybody is not out of the question, especially if the Jazz are in the playoff hunt, but lets say we get through January and this Jazz team is below .500 then I think everything changes and the Jazz start dealing for the future, and if that happens, the Kings make a lot of sense as a trade partner.

TheMagnus wrote:

24 games in and Jimmer is still the Kings best player. He's got the best PER, the best WS/48, and he's the only player on the team with a positive +/-. He's got the same overall WS (.7) as Demarcus Cousins in less than half the minutes.

This is an indictment of the King as much as it is praise for Jimmer. They are an absolute mess.

It got me thinking though, the Jazz have trade pieces that could be very attractive to an owner looking to sell. Expiring contracts, draft picks...if the opportunity was ripe, and the Jazz could pillage the Kings roster, is there anybody there that we would want?

I actually see 4 players that I'd be interested in, Tyreke Evans, Jason Thompson, and Thomas Robinson, and (I know I'm going to get a beating for this) Jimmer Fredette. Evans is going to be a restricted free agent, and odds are pretty good that in their current state the Kings will have little interest in paying him, he's also a very dynamic, young, and talented player. Thompson has a very reasonable 5 year mid level contract, is only 24 years old, and is pretty much the only player pulling his weight on that team. I like Robinsons game, and I think he will be a solid pro with the proper tutelage. And Jimmer...ahhh Jimmer, two things for me with Jimmer #1, is anybody else sick and damn tired of having ESA filled with Jimmer fans cheering for him over cheering for the Jazz? I know I am. #2, I actually think he's perfect as a backup PG. You surround him with high energy guys like Kanter, Carroll, Evans, Millsap, Favors, etc., you put the ball in his hands and let him go to work.

I'd be willing to bet that if the Jazz wanted them they could get Thompson, Fredette, and Evans for almost nothing, especially if they were also willing to take back Salmons or Thornton.

So I'm a firm believer that holding on to everybody is not out of the question, especially if the Jazz are in the playoff hunt, but lets say we get through January and this Jazz team is below .500 then I think everything changes and the Jazz start dealing for the future, and if that happens, the Kings make a lot of sense as a trade partner.

That's great and all, but as a staunch Utes fan, I don't think I could stomach seeing Jimmer in a Jazz uni. I had constant vomiting and diarrhea his final season at BYU.

Romoholic wrote:

That's great and all, but as a staunch Utes fan, I don't think I could stomach seeing Jimmer in a Jazz uni. I had constant vomiting and diarrhea his final season at BYU.

You sure that wasn't caused by the Utes play?

TheMagnus wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

That's great and all, but as a staunch Utes fan, I don't think I could stomach seeing Jimmer in a Jazz uni. I had constant vomiting and diarrhea his final season at BYU.

You sure that wasn't caused by the Utes play?

Probably a combination of both

I'd noticed that too...


it's no quite the same, but close: Koufos starting for Nugget. Results are not great, but serviceble staring center hi is... and he had which was place just on the edge of bench for Jazz year after year... Surely other Jazzmen were so great there and then, so they (secretely) dominated the league, didn't they.

OK, lets wait and see baout future of Burks. May be current Jazz superdominates (secretely) the NBA just now and it will be in 5-10 year when he will be traded to Spurs or Chicago.

vryadli wrote:

I'd noticed that too...


it's no quite the same, but close: Koufos starting for Nugget. Results are not great, but serviceble staring center hi is... and he had which was place just on the edge of bench for Jazz year after year... Surely other Jazzmen were so great there and then, so they (secretely) dominated the league, didn't they.

OK, lets wait and see baout future of Burks. May be current Jazz superdominates (secretely) the NBA just now and it will be in 5-10 year when he will be traded to Spurs or Chicago.

I always new Koufos would be a serviceable NBA player once he got a chance, but when you get a chance to trade him and a protected first round pick (Terrence Jones) for Al Jefferson you have to take that deal don't you?

Burks has been a bit discouraging this season, but I still like most of what I have seen from him in his limited time. The thing about him now though is that if he can't play the point then I'm not sure the Jazz need what he does anymore. Instead of developing into a 5 tool, do everything, AK type Hayward seems to be morphing to more of a Rip Hamilton type volume scorer this year, meaning that he and Burks are kind of occupying the same space, and Hayward's game is much more rounded than Burks at this point.

TheMagnus wrote:

vryadli wrote:

I'd noticed that too...


it's no quite the same, but close: Koufos starting for Nugget. Results are not great, but serviceble staring center hi is... and he had which was place just on the edge of bench for Jazz year after year... Surely other Jazzmen were so great there and then, so they (secretely) dominated the league, didn't they.

OK, lets wait and see baout future of Burks. May be current Jazz superdominates (secretely) the NBA just now and it will be in 5-10 year when he will be traded to Spurs or Chicago.

I always new Koufos would be a serviceable NBA player once he got a chance, but when you get a chance to trade him and a protected first round pick (Terrence Jones) for Al Jefferson you have to take that deal don't you?

Burks has been a bit discouraging this season, but I still like most of what I have seen from him in his limited time. The thing about him now though is that if he can't play the point then I'm not sure the Jazz need what he does anymore. Instead of developing into a 5 tool, do everything, AK type Hayward seems to be morphing to more of a Rip Hamilton type volume scorer this year, meaning that he and Burks are kind of occupying the same space, and Hayward's game is much more rounded than Burks at this point.

Burks is better at getting to the foul line, but Hayward is a better defender, passer and rebounder. Not much room for Burkes at this point.

TheMagnus wrote:

I always new Koufos would be a serviceable NBA player once he got a chance, but when you get a chance to trade him and a protected first round pick (Terrence Jones) for Al Jefferson you have to take that deal don't you?

Burks has been a bit discouraging this season, but I still like most of what I have seen from him in his limited time. The thing about him now though is that if he can't play the point then I'm not sure the Jazz need what he does anymore. Instead of developing into a 5 tool, do everything, AK type Hayward seems to be morphing to more of a Rip Hamilton type volume scorer this year, meaning that he and Burks are kind of occupying the same space, and Hayward's game is much more rounded than Burks at this point.

Sure, I have no problem with the deal, but I was hating how his PT was manged - he was terribly "at frirst" streadyly improving with each stretch of continous games palyed - and than just when looked relly good yank! 2-3-5 game on the bench and cycle repeat again. I counted about 7 such cycles, very clear very repetitive during his times with Jazz.

With Burk the pattern is not so clear, but the whole thing smells very much the same. Andother similarity: in Koufos time Jazz had no jam on "big defensive" role, just as now we don't havecrowded with dribblers-penetrators.

vryadli wrote:

Sure, I have no problem with the deal, but I was hating how his PT was manged - he was terribly "at frirst" streadyly improving with each stretch of continous games palyed - and than just when looked relly good yank! 2-3-5 game on the bench and cycle repeat again. I counted about 7 such cycles, very clear very repetitive during his times with Jazz.

With Burk the pattern is not so clear, but the whole thing smells very much the same. Andother similarity: in Koufos time Jazz had no jam on "big defensive" role, just as now we don't havecrowded with dribblers-penetrators.

You are right about the roles, and it is interesting that while the role isn't/wasn't overcrowded, the position is. That's an important distinction that gets to the heart of modern basketball theory.

It was always a source of frustration with those Koufos/Fesenko era Jazz teams that the Jazz had a partial answer to thier biggest weakness, interior D, was sitting on the bench game after game. Same situation now with Burks, the Jazz really only have one guy that can attack the rim from the perimeter with any efficiency (Hayward) and he has struggled with consistency. But if you look at both of those situations you have good players that play the same position but with different roles getting the minutes. In Koufos time it was Memo, AK, Millsap, and Boozer getting all of those minutes, and at the time it would have been very hard to argue that giving any one of those guys minutes to Koufos would be a good thing for the Jazz overall, defensively it may have been good, but offensively it's a huge step back. Now we've got Marvin, Foye, Hayward, Tinsley, and Carroll, who are all playing pretty well, especially relative to Burks, so who do you sit in order to get him more minutes?

Another thing I would say is that some roles are what I would call complimentary, and some roles are what I would call fundamental in terms of building championship calliber teams. To me a big paint defender is fundamental. You simply have to have guys that can and will protect the paint, this was a, no THE, major flaw of D-Will era Jazz teams. A high efficiency dribble penetrating specialist is a complimentary role, and that's really all Burks is right now. He has the ability and the skills to be a Kevin Martin like scorer, but without a consistent jump shot or suffocating defense he's more like Corey Maggette, and players like that are nice to have but not necessary.

The last thing I would say, this time in defense of Burks, is that I think the situations he has been put in this season have not been good ones for him. He's not a good fit in the second unit along side Hayward and Tinsley and Kanter, they don't spread the floor well and he has a hard time getting comfortable, he's much better playing with the with the vets in the first unit where the spacing is better and he knows his role.

TheMagnus wrote:

You are right about the roles, and it is interesting that while the role isn't/wasn't overcrowded, the position is. That's an important distinction that gets to the heart of modern basketball theory.

It was always a source of frustration with those Koufos/Fesenko era Jazz teams that the Jazz had a partial answer to thier biggest weakness, interior D, was sitting on the bench game after game. Same situation now with Burks, the Jazz really only have one guy that can attack the rim from the perimeter with any efficiency (Hayward) and he has struggled with consistency. But if you look at both of those situations you have good players that play the same position but with different roles getting the minutes.

Thank you for expnading the topic about role vs position. That exactly what I mean, both generally and specifally for Jazz. In "old" times we had all "big" position completely occupied with finesse men... even if they were touch better at the time "overalll" players... I just can't believe that in certain circumstances and for certain goals you can't use young bodies.


It's deffernt with scoreress... but... do you really think that Hayawrd is as much of penetrator like Burk? I like him way more than Burk OVERALL that is my favorite type of gamer (and shoot-first are less favorite), but in this department... come on, he is not lightnig fast or supercoordinated.

Yes, other guys are NOW more consistent than Burk, but don't you think that dribling inside and shooting from melee is a)necessary skill for a tem b) most streky by nature c)so it needs the biggest margin for errors. Looking to immediate past - he has one really good game, next rather bad (but not worse than some of Gordon or Marwin) - and yank!

What do you expect after that - flow, rythm and confidence of penetrator? One have to be superhuman and/or dzen-master to keep them. If AFTER at least one good game he will have three bad games in a row with reasonable continous stretches of PT - then yes, I wiil be all for benching him for good.

But that is not even close to that. I'm sure that virtually no one of similar specs/role (small fast SG or PT with semiacrobatic moves in the paint)will be able to prove yourself in his place. Nor Rondo, nor Ellis, nor Jennings, nor Rose. Nop sir, they all would be failures and disappointments.






And noe for all

vryadli wrote:

Thank you for expnading the topic about role vs position. That exactly what I mean, both generally and specifally for Jazz. In "old" times we had all "big" position completely occupied with finesse men... even if they were touch better at the time "overalll" players... I just can't believe that in certain circumstances and for certain goals you can't use young bodies.


It's deffernt with scoreress... but... do you really think that Hayawrd is as much of penetrator like Burk? I like him way more than Burk OVERALL that is my favorite type of gamer (and shoot-first are less favorite), but in this department... come on, he is not lightnig fast or supercoordinated.

Yes, other guys are NOW more consistent than Burk, but don't you think that dribling inside and shooting from melee is a)necessary skill for a tem b) most streky by nature c)so it needs the biggest margin for errors. Looking to immediate past - he has one really good game, next rather bad (but not worse than some of Gordon or Marwin) - and yank!

What do you expect after that - flow, rythm and confidence of penetrator? One have to be superhuman and/or dzen-master to keep them. If AFTER at least one good game he will have three bad games in a row with reasonable continous stretches of PT - then yes, I wiil be all for benching him for good.

But that is not even close to that. I'm sure that virtually no one of similar specs/role (small fast SG or PT with semiacrobatic moves in the paint)will be able to prove yourself in his place. Nor Rondo, nor Ellis, nor Jennings, nor Rose. Nop sir, they all would be failures and disappointments.

And noe for all

C'mon, you know as well as I do that that isn't true. Ellis is about the only guy that I'll give you on that list, everybody else has a multidimentional game that puts them in a completely different category from guys like Burks and Kanter. Rondo even? He's like the prototypical Utah PG, perfect for Jerry Sloans system. If he was drafted by the Jazz instead of D-Will it wouldn't have taken him 5 years to start puting up Stockton type numbers, and he'd be averaging 14 assists a game right now.

Agree on your point about rythm and flow, I was just pointing out that even when he was getting the time on the court he was being put in situations that don't really help him succeed.

I don't think Hayward is quite the level of penetrator that Burks is, he's not as good a finisher at the rim, but he is very good off the dribble and draws fouls at a very high rate making him effective in that role, in addition to the other things he brings to the game. As I said before, the fact that he has developed into that comes as a bit of a surprise to me, I thought he would become a bit more of a facillitator type than a scorer, but this season he has been much more agressive looking for his own shot and has been fairly efficient converting it.

TheMagnus wrote:

C'mon, you know as well as I do that that isn't true. Ellis is about the only guy that I'll give you on that list, everybody else has a multidimentional game that puts them in a completely different category from guys like Burks and Kanter. Rondo even? He's like the prototypical Utah PG, perfect for Jerry Sloans system. If he was drafted by the Jazz instead of D-Will it wouldn't have taken him 5 years to start puting up Stockton type numbers, and he'd be averaging 14 assists a game right now.

Agree on your point about rythm and flow, I was just pointing out that even when he was getting the time on the court he was being put in situations that don't really help him succeed.

I don't think Hayward is quite the level of penetrator that Burks is, he's not as good a finisher at the rim, but he is very good off the dribble and draws fouls at a very high rate making him effective in that role, in addition to the other things he brings to the game. As I said before, the fact that he has developed into that comes as a bit of a surprise to me, I thought he would become a bit more of a facillitator type than a scorer, but this season he has been much more agressive looking for his own shot and has been fairly efficient converting it.

I do not tlaking about strongmen or even sharpshooters (like Allen). Sure, elite PG have to be multidimensional, but I'm thinking that such has to have enough crazy dribbling in repertoir to be serios threat of penetration. And if small-size dribbler is not given som slack for some craziness - he is a toast.

Rondo is good example.

Now Rondo is proven boy, but he was pretty prone to varios degrees of stupidity in the begining. He still not so rational like Stockton or Kidd ot Nash

And he couldn't be drafted instead of D-Will, absolutely not... first he is to small for KOC taste (isn't the size the reason to take Deron over Paul?), second he was 21-st, not 3rd (number of digit is the same though...). So you see? Drafted not instead DW, but like insignificant but hot-headed RR, he pretty well could meet AB-fate. Koufos was beter posioned to survive because nobody can make big boy half a foot smaller, but it is reasonably easy to affect moving/shooting coordination.

OK, we will nevr know ceiling of Burk or robustness of Rondo, so all that just a opnion... or more exactly - a theory.