Pistons Off season grade

[michiganalex]

You said the panel doesnt think highly of either, when clearly a lot of them do.

Again, he is speaking as the majority when clearly he is then minority

 

[tomdalton22]

Again, he is speaking as the majority when clearly he is then minority

actually, more of them think they were bad moves since Smith was #4 and Jennings was #8 on the best pick up and #2 and #5 on worst pick up. So...the majority do think they were bad pick ups.

 

[michiganalex]

actually, more of them think they were bad moves since Smith was #4 and Jennings was #8 on the best pick up and #2 and #5 on worst pick up. So...the majority do think they were bad pick ups.

I repeat. And lying doesn't become you

 

[michiganalex]

He believes everything espn says like its a religion. Probably believed then ten years ago when espn said that pudge was going to sign with seattle

 

[jrange378]

actually, more of them think they were bad moves since Smith was #4 and Jennings was #8 on the best pick up and #2 and #5 on worst pick up. So...the majority do think they were bad pick ups.

The majority of people didn't vote for either one as best or worst, actually. Its a majority of indifference with a mixed bag of positive and negative.

 

[tomdalton22]

The majority of people didn't vote for either one as best or worst, actually. Its a majority of indifference with a mixed bag of positive and negative.

right...more negative than positive.

 

[michiganalex]

right...more negative than positive.

Proof

 

[tomdalton22]

Proof

votes

Best Newcomers
J Smith (41)
Jennings (12)

Worst Newcomers
J Smith (78)
Jennings (52)

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I think the ESPN panel just reflects what we already know. Joe Dumars has assembled a team of talented individuals that do not, on paper, fit together all that well. No one can argue that our talent level has increased significantly, just as no one can argue that offensively a team filled with non-shooters will be easier to defend.

The split in ESPN's predictions reflects that same uncertainty on overall impact. A team with a quality coach and defined direction from the GM and owner probably succeeds as long it has adequate talent (think last year's Rockets). An ill-fitting team with a bad coach and no team direction probably fails no matter how talented it is (like last year's Lakers). Both teams finished with identical records despite LA being vastly more talented, and Houston was ultimately the better team overall.

The Pistons don't have LA talent, but don't have to win in the West. Failure would be anything short of the playoffs, and this team could very easily fail if the pieces don't come together. Considering the team just decided to spend 20 million dollars per year on this experiment (Smith and Jennings), I'm a little upset that failure is still such a viable option.

 

[michiganalex]

votes

Best Newcomers
J Smith (41)
Jennings (12)

Worst Newcomers
J Smith (78)
Jennings (52)

How does that anything

 

[tomdalton22]

How does that anything

are you serious? You don't understand how voting works?

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

are you serious? You don't understand how voting works?

Just to play devil's advocate, there IS a possibility whereby the weighted voting system skews results. That is, obviously ESPN is using a weighted system whereby voters are probably selecting a top 2-5 best/worst with the placement of players adding points to a total (how else could Dwight get 350 "votes" for best newcomer in a 210 person panel). Depending on the points given for each place, it's possible that fewer voters voting more aggressively negative would create more points than a larger number of voters voting very conservatively positive.

Note that a number of players appears on both lists. Dwight was actually 8th on worst newcomer. Garnett was the only player in the top 8 of best newcomer that did not also receive votes for worst newcomer.

 

[tomdalton22]

Just to play devil's advocate, there IS a possibility whereby the weighted voting system skews results. That is, obviously ESPN is using a weighted system whereby voters are probably selecting a top 2-5 best/worst with the placement of players adding points to a total (how else could Dwight get 350 "votes" for best newcomer in a 210 person panel). Depending on the points given for each place, it's possible that it could take fewer voters voting more aggressively negative would create more points than a larger number of voters voting very conservatively positive.

Note that a number of players appears on both lists. Dwight was actually 8th on worst newcomer. Garnett was the only player in the top 8 of best newcomer that did not also receive votes for worst newcomer.

That is how it works....wieghted like when people vote for top 25 in college football. If you read the article it isn't talking about the talent of the players...it is how they will fit and how the additions will impact the team.

 

[michiganalex]

I think the ESPN panel just reflects what we already know. Joe Dumars has assembled a team of talented individuals that do not, on paper, fit together all that well. No one can argue that our talent level has increased significantly, just as no one can argue that offensively a team filled with non-shooters will be easier to defend.

The split in ESPN's predictions reflects that same uncertainty on overall impact. A team with a quality coach and defined direction from the GM and owner probably succeeds as long it has adequate talent (think last year's Rockets). An ill-fitting team with a bad coach and no team direction probably fails no matter how talented it is (like last year's Lakers). Both teams finished with identical records despite LA being vastly more talented, and Houston was ultimately the better team overall.

The Pistons don't have LA talent, but don't have to win in the West. Failure would be anything short of the playoffs, and this team could very easily fail if the pieces don't come together. Considering the team just decided to spend 20 million dollars per year on this experiment (Smith and Jennings), I'm a little upset that failure is still such a viable option.

All tom, does is listen to the gospel of espn. Believing everything they say

 

[tomdalton22]

All tom, does is listen to the gospel of espn. Believing everything they say

I'm not a blind homer like many on these boards. I never said I agree or disagree with what the panel had to say about the players. It is just a list of UNBIASED people who's job is involved with the NBA.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Just for argument's sake, I agree with the panel. I think we've definitely improved our talent and that the Pistons will be a better team. I also think our talent is a poor fit together and that the team will end up being less than the sum of its parts. This is partially due to the presence of a known below average coach and years of directionless "leadership" from Dumars.

I hope I am wrong, but I think our team will go as Drummond goes. As great as he is, that is probably to much responsibility for a raw sophomore.

 

[tomdalton22]

Just for argument's sake, I agree with the panel. I think we've definitely improved our talent and that the Pistons will be a better team. I also think our talent is a poor fit together and that the team will end up being less than the sum of its parts. This is partially due to the presence of a known below average coach and years of directionless "leadership" from Dumars.

I hope I am wrong, but I think our team will go as Drummond goes. As great as he is, that is probably to much responsibility for a raw sophomore.

I think I agree with this. I don't know if Cheeks is a bad coach but I would be willing to bet that he is better that what they had over the past 5 years. I think the biggest weakness they have is at SG and SF. I understand that Smith is a SF but he plays more like a PF. The rotations are going to be interesting.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I think I agree with this. I don't know if Cheeks is a bad coach but I would be willing to bet that he is better that what they had over the past 5 years. I think the biggest weakness they have is at SG and SF. I understand that Smith is a SF but he plays more like a PF. The rotations are going to be interesting.

I really want to give Cheeks the benefit of the doubt, but I just have no real evidence for it. None of his teams have been elite at anything, he hasn't shown particular aptitude for either side of the ball, and none of his teams tended to perform better with him than before him. Now, basketball is very nuanced and a coach alone can't win you games, but his whole career seems very blah. He doesn't make teams better, but doesn't make them worse. For a good veteran team, that would be no problem. For a young team with expectations of significant improvement, that feels like a hard sell.

I slightly disagree with your positions of weakness, but have similar reasoning. I think both back-court positions will be our worst. SG simply because we're starting either an inefficient non-shooter (Stuckey) or a rookie. PG I am more worried about than SF simply because Smith is a vastly superior player to Jennings. Smith is a legitimately elite defender at least. Jennings has been a pretty bad defender in his career, and he's equally inefficient offensively. Jennings ability to limit turnovers is a useful skill, but I have a feeling many of his shots are going to feel like turnovers with how often he misses.

 

[tomdalton22]

I really want to give Cheeks the benefit of the doubt, but I just have no real evidence for it. None of his teams have been elite at anything, he hasn't shown particular aptitude for either side of the ball, and none of his teams tended to perform better with him than before him. Now, basketball is very nuanced and a coach alone can't win you games, but his whole career seems very blah. He doesn't make teams better, but doesn't make them worse. For a good veteran team, that would be no problem. For a young team with expectations of significant improvement, that feels like a hard sell.

I slightly disagree with your positions of weakness, but have similar reasoning. I think both back-court positions will be our worst. SG simply because we're starting either an inefficient non-shooter (Stuckey) or a rookie. PG I am more worried about than SF simply because Smith is a vastly superior player to Jennings. Smith is a legitimately elite defender at least. Jennings has been a pretty bad defender in his career, and he's equally inefficient offensively. Jennings ability to limit turnovers is a useful skill, but I have a feeling many of his shots are going to feel like turnovers with how often he misses.

Hopefully he does what he says (From ESPN article 2 weeks ago)

AUBURN HILLS, Mich. -- Brandon Jennings can hardly wait to take the court alongside Detroit's athletic big men.

"I guess you can say we can bring the 'Lob City' to Detroit this year," Jennings said.

That's quite a boast, considering the Pistons have missed the playoffs for four straight seasons, but if there was one thing Jennings tried to make clear Tuesday, it was that he will absolutely look to pass the ball a bit more than he did in Milwaukee. Detroit acquired Jennings from the Bucks last week, hoping the new point guard can be an important part of an extensive offseason overhaul.

The Pistons also signed forward Josh Smith and guard Chauncey Billups. They traded guard Brandon Knight in the deal for Jennings.

It was a flurry of moves that, at the very least, has people around Detroit talking about the Pistons again. How it will look on the court is anyone's guess -- and Jennings' job will be to help this group become a cohesive unit.

"This year I think you're going to see a whole different player, just with all the talent that I have around me, the veterans that are in the locker room," Jennings said. "Now I can just actually be myself and be who I was five years ago, when I was in high school, playing AAU basketball."

The 23-year-old Jennings seems well aware of some of the knocks against him. He shot 40 percent from the field last season, easily the worst mark in the NBA for any player who took over 1,200 shots. Of course, he also averaged a career-high 6.5 assists per game.

"I definitely have to change my game for this team, for my teammates, everybody to be successful," Jennings said. "The things that I was doing in Milwaukee, I won't have to do here -- take all those bad shots."

The Bucks made the playoffs last season with a 38-44 record. Detroit was nine games worse, and the Pistons made a coaching change this offseason, bringing in Maurice Cheeks to replace Lawrence Frank.

Talented big man Greg Monroe is still only 23, and 6-foot-11 Andre Drummond turns 20 on Saturday. That's what Jennings is talking about when he says the Pistons have a bright future and teammates he'll enjoy playing with.

Detroit added Smith, a 6-foot-9 forward who averaged 17.5 points for Atlanta last season. The question now is how well he'll mesh with the other frontcourt players -- and what Jennings and Billups can add to the backcourt. Drummond was at Tuesday's news conference, when Jennings was introduced.

"It's like I got drafted all over again," Drummond said. "I'm walking into a new situation, a new coaching staff, a new bunch of players."

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

While I don't doubt that Jennings wants to succeed, I always wonder, did he somehow not care about being better in Milwaukee? There's a difference between following a bad coaching plan and flat out overestimating your abilities. He's a poor shooter off the dribble who sucks at finishing in the paint. And yet, he loves taking shots off the dribble and forcing incredibly difficult shots in the paint. Even if Milwaukee's offensive system is bad (which it is), a lot of his struggles are on him. He is very quick to say he won't have to take bad shots here, but that's neither true nor pertinent. He didn't have to take most of the bad shots he took in Milwaukee, and it's not like the Pistons are going to create any better spacing.

Jennings strikes me as a very Stuckey-esque player. He is skilled and talented, but has such huge glaring holes in his game that his ceiling is limited. He's better the less he's asked to carry, but his need to force himself into the action hurts the whole team. It's one thing for a rookie to carry himself like a superstar and find out that isn't the case. It's another for a 5th year guy to suddenly decide he's going to stop being the person he's been his whole career.