Kilpatrick and the NBA

[TheLongHaul]

Well, actually, I think the more shots you take usually means you are taking tougher shots. It means you are the focal point on offense, so it also means the defense is focusing on you as well.

I haven't gone back and watched film of SK shots for the last 2 years so don't know if it applies, but I certainly think it could.

It could mean that, but that's completely subjective. I've never seen any sort of data to back up that claim. I just think that's a weak argument to claim that he improved his shooting considering his percentages actually dropped (albeit only slightly).

 

[ervins84]

First, it isn't any more difficult to shoot a higher percentage when you take more shots. That'd be like saying the first shot a player takes is the easiest. Do you have stats to back that up? If anything more shots may mean worse shots, therefore resulting in a lower percentage. Or maybe you are suggesting the SK gets fatigued and therefore misses more late game shots? I doubt there is any evidence pointing to that either.

Saying he took more difficult shots is a bogus argument too. What are you basing this off of, your observations? You remember the difficulty level of his shots last year?

The fact of the matter is his percentages did not improve and he had enough shots during both years for his shooting percentage to be the best measure of how well he shot.

Math obviously isnt your strong point if you dont understand how shooting 37% on 6 3's a game is more impressive and difficult than 37% on 3 3's a game.

Which player is a better shooter from 3? Yancy Gates shot 40% from the 3pt line this year. SK shot 37.6%. Its not a hard question, but by your logic, Gates is a better 3pt shooter, which isnt remotely true.


And yes, its not that difficult to look at his role in the offense to compare the types of shots he took between his soph and freshman years. But if youre not gonna believe anything that doesnt have a detailed statistical breakdown with gamefilm showing shot charts of which were contested and which were not, then no one can ever make any type of argument bc that data is rare and hard to acquire.

 

[UCalum08]

IMO SK would be a great NBA player if he stays in school for his final two years. He def. needs to improve his ball handling I think needs the most work. He needs to become a consistent great player, one who can create his own and be a spot up shooter. It seems like his first year he was a great slasher and this past year he was a great shooter. Now he needs to put those two together and just straight dominate games. But he def has the skills to play in the NBA. I am really looking forward to his game next year.

 

[Eternal E]

It could mean that, but that's completely subjective. I've never seen any sort of data to back up that claim. I just think that's a weak argument to claim that he improved his shooting considering his percentages actually dropped (albeit only slightly).

He made the most three's in the Big East shooting around 37%. Just stop your weak argument. SK is a gym rat, the kid improved his shooting. Did you watch the games this year? How many blocks did he have last year? Was he able to completely shut down a teams best player (Hollis Thompson) for a half last year? The kid is improving his game tremendously. Sometimes I wonder if people actually watch the games. He went from a liability on defense to a solid guard. I trust he will work hard on his ball handing this off season.

 

[TheLongHaul]

Math obviously isnt your strong point if you dont understand how shooting 37% on 6 3's a game is more impressive and difficult than 37% on 3 3's a game.

Which player is a better shooter from 3? Yancy Gates shot 40% from the 3pt line this year. SK shot 37.6%. Its not a hard question, but by your logic, Gates is a better 3pt shooter, which isnt remotely true.


And yes, its not that difficult to look at his role in the offense to compare the types of shots he took between his soph and freshman years. But if youre not gonna believe anything that doesnt have a detailed statistical breakdown with gamefilm showing shot charts of which were contested and which were not, then no one can ever make any type of argument bc that data is rare and hard to acquire.

And you aren't very intelligent I see. Math is using those numbers to make a determination. Math shows one being better than the other. Your argument isn't related to math, but I wouldn't expect you to figure that one out....I never said he wasn't a better player this year, nor did I say that % alone is the only indicator of how good a shooter is. But your only argument for why he shot better this year can't even be argued, because it's completely subjective. I thought SK took a lot of ill advised shots his freshman year. Most freshman do.

He made the most three's in the Big East shooting around 37%. Just stop your weak argument. SK is a gym rat, the kid improved his shooting. Did you watch the games this year? How many blocks did he have last year? Was he able to completely shut down a teams best player (Hollis Thompson) for a half last year? The kid is improving his game tremendously. Sometimes I wonder if people actually watch the games. He went from a liability on defense to a solid guard. I trust he will work hard on his ball handing this off season.

Not sure why I respond to people like you. What the hell is your point? I never said SK didn't improve. He improved greatly. But thanks for arguing with yourself.

 

[ervins84]

And you aren't very intelligent I see. Math is using those numbers to make a determination. Math shows one being better than the other. Your argument isn't related to math, but I wouldn't expect you to figure that one out....I never said he wasn't a better player this year, nor did I say that % alone is the only indicator of how good a shooter is. But your only argument for why he shot better this year can't even be argued, because it's completely subjective. I thought SK took a lot of ill advised shots his freshman year. Most freshman do.




Not sure why I respond to people like you. What the hell is your point? I never said SK didn't improve. He improved greatly. But thanks for arguing with yourself.

You still don't get it. Here's a simple math question. How many attempts did he take this year? How many attempts did he take his fresh year?

If you can't deduce that someone taking 2x the # of attempts while maintaining the ~same 3pt % is a better and improved shooter...

 

[ervins84]

First, it isn't any more difficult to shoot a higher percentage when you take more shots.

And this is completely wrong. Have you ever wondered why there is a minimum #Plate Appearances to qualify for a batting title in baseball?, Why when showing FG% leaders in basketball no one says the bench guy who is 1/1 on the year and shooting 100% for the year is leading the NBA in FG%? They have to have the minimum # of attempts to qualify bc its harder to do it over a larger sample size. Math is hard mmmmkkkkayyyyyyy

 

[Eternal E]

Not sure why I respond to people like you. What the hell is your point? I never said SK didn't improve. He improved greatly. But thanks for arguing with yourself.

As for SK's improvement in his shot from year 1 to year 2, he shot 37.7% from three his first year compared to 37.6% in year 2. His FG% was 43.7% in year one and 42.8% in year 2. What is this improvement you are speaking about?

What a ridiculously post/poster.

 

[TheLongHaul]

And this is completely wrong. Have you ever wondered why there is a minimum AB's to qualify for a batting title in baseball?, Why when showing FG% leaders in basketball no one says the bench guy who is 1/1 on the year and shooting 100% for the year is leading the NBA in FG%? They have to have the minimum # of attempts to qualify bc its harder to do it over a larger sample size. Math is hard mmmmkkkkayyyyyyy

You took my statement out of context. I've stated that SK took enough shots last year that the % is a reliable number. Obviously there needs to be sufficient sample size.

What a ridiculously post/poster.

You do realize in one post you quoted I was talking about his shooting and the other was talking about his overall game don't you? Wait, why I am I asking you this, nothing gets by you.

 

[DontMissHim]

Logan was a 5'10" player without the athleticism or quickness to play at the NBA. He was great in college.

Did Logan ever play a game in the NBA? I thought he held out or something on his contract and never signed/never set foot on the court? I'm just not sure why his name was brought up.

 

[JasonS]

Did Logan ever play a game in the NBA? I thought he held out or something on his contract and never signed/never set foot on the court? I'm just not sure why his name was brought up.

I don't remember what happened with Logan and the NBA. The reason he was brought up was someone was using him as an example as why Kilpatrick would never be able to play in the NBA. Stupid but whatever, I'm not surprised.

 

[Thegreatone]

Come on now guys. SK is not close to Steve Logan. That is not a bash on SK but a sign of respect for Logan.

Logan was a POY canidate on every list around. He could create his own shots.

I do not see SK ever getting into the frist round. 6'5 would be a small SG in the NBA and he is so poor with ball handling at this point. He needs to improve his handles severely.

 

[Thegreatone]

Logan held out for a contract. In his holdout he blew out his knee and played overseas. He was the first or second pick of the second round and just missed a gaurenteed contract.

 

[dp3113]

Come on now guys. SK is not close to Steve Logan. That is not a bash on SK but a sign of respect for Logan.

Logan was a POY canidate on every list around. He could create his own shots.

I do not see SK ever getting into the frist round. 6'5 would be a small SG in the NBA and he is so poor with ball handling at this point. He needs to improve his handles severely.

and won several low level national POY awards- specifically from fox sports.

 

[User Name:]

If you could combine Kilpatricks body with Logans game, he'd be a great NBA player.

 

[mdchick]

could you imagine how good lance stephenson would be if he stayed with us, now he is on the bench for the pacers and averaging 2.1 ppg for them, sk is a better offensive player than stephenson, but lance could flat out out muscle his defenders, and get rebounds and really do all the little things, I think SK needs to work on those little things before he becomes an NBA player.

PS If we still had lance it would be his senior year...... could have been awsome

 

[BearcatMick]

Lance wa a cancer to the team. I am one in the camp to believe that uc became a much better team the instant he left. His talent is incredible but he destroyed team chemistry, undermined mick and I highly doubt he would have kept his head on straight for for 4 staight years

 

[DontMissHim]

Lance wa a cancer to the team. I am one in the camp to believe that uc became a much better team the instant he left. His talent is incredible but he destroyed team chemistry, undermined mick and I highly doubt he would have kept his head on straight for for 4 staight years

Cancer to the team, destroying team chemistry and undermining the coach. Thats all on Mick, isn't it? Not having control of the team?

 

[TheLongHaul]

Lance wa a cancer to the team. I am one in the camp to believe that uc became a much better team the instant he left. His talent is incredible but he destroyed team chemistry, undermined mick and I highly doubt he would have kept his head on straight for for 4 staight years

Yea, and you aren't Ralph.

 

[dp3113]

Lance wa a cancer to the team. I am one in the camp to believe that uc became a much better team the instant he left. His talent is incredible but he destroyed team chemistry, undermined mick and I highly doubt he would have kept his head on straight for for 4 staight years

we were better off without him.