NBA not enthralled with Zach Edney | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NBA not enthralled with Zach Edney

I don’t watch much nba, but are there any teams that design there offense/defense around a stationary big? Doubt anyone will do that for Zach.
 
That the NBA doesn’t value Edey is an indictment of the present-day NBA and its decision to roll out a product that long ago decided to sell the “Michael Jordan superstar” marketing image to its audience.

Winning, and competition, are a distant second to packaging when it comes to the NBA product. Edey doesn’t fit the package. The NBA rules as reffed don’t support a player of his talent in the way that college basketball does.

College basketball and the NBA are two different sports. College basketball is all about winning. The NBA is about selling a product first and foremost.

Shaq’s style of play, bullyball, would’ve resulted in him being undervalued in the NBA draft in current times. That is a reflection of the NBA being only a step above professional wrestling. Sad when compared to how the NBA looked and operated before Michael Jordan retired.
 
NJHusky said:
I don’t watch much nba, but are there any teams that design there offense/defense around a stationary big? Doubt anyone will do that for Zach.
Expand ...
I think Edey’s ceiling is as a matchup-dependent bench big. The question is whether a team is going to want to burn a roster spot on him with as little versatility as he’ll have in the NBA. No one is going to be designing an offense or defense around him.
 
Heres a question... how much better is Edey than Thabeet? Offensively he's better. Probably a lot better. Does he get up and down the floor better?... maybe a bit. But Thabeet was a better shot blocker. Maybe a lot better. Which may indicate lesser lateral quickness.
 
Umami Zen said:
Hard for me to imagine Edey chasing Wemby or Chet around for any extended period of time.
Expand ...
If nelson is right, there should be an inefficiency whereby the mismatch of those guys on Edey would actually favor Edey, but nobody expects this to happen.
 
.-.
I think there is a place for Edey in the NBA. In the previous generations of the NBA, each team had to have a couple of big guys to guard players like Kareem, Shaq, David Robinson, Ewing, Moses Malone, Olajuwan,... Right now, most NBA teams would have nobody on their roster to guard a skilled very tall big in the post. Edey has a standing reach of almost 10 feet which would probably be the second highest of all time in the NBA behind Taco Fall.

Think about this, NBA teams shoot a range of 43.6% to 50.7% from 2 and 34.5% to 39% from 3. So, right now it makes sense to shoot more 3s than 2s as you get a higher expected point outcome per shot. But, what if you had a player than can shoot 60%+ from 2 like Edey? The expected point outcome of 60% from 2 equals 40% from 3. That said, you would have to structure your offense to factor in a big and many teams wouldn't want to do it.
 
MexicoHusky said:
Heres a question... how much better is Edey than Thabeet? Offensively he's better. Probably a lot better. Does he get up and down the floor better?... maybe a bit. But Thabeet was a better shot blocker. Maybe a lot better. Which may indicate lesser lateral quickness.
Expand ...
Thabeet was soft with a mediocre work ethic.

I don't think Edey would suffer from those in the same way. But he would be very limited on both ends. Look at how Purdue uses him.
 
ibleedhuskyblue said:
I agree. The current 1 and 2 seeds in both conferences definitely don't play 5's that shoot from the perimeter.
Expand ...

The NBA needs more teams that play 5 generic wings that jack low percentage 3's when they aren't making lower percentage kamikaze drives to the rim, because "analytics".

The Porzingis for Smart trade may go down as the most lopsided trade in NBA history where there was not a rookie or young player involved. Porzingis and Smart both performed as expected last year and this year, yet somehow the Celtics traded Smart for Porzingis. The Celtics traded for one of the three or four best centers in the NBA, in his prime, for an overrated, poor shooting head case that depended on speed and was going to turn 30 soon. The fact that no one offered the Wizards more for Porzingis is something that every NBA GM can contemplate when the Celtics win the NBA Finals in 5 games and are the prohibitive favorite to win another title next year too.
 
WhereistheDove? said:
I think Edey’s ceiling is as a matchup-dependent bench big. The question is whether a team is going to want to burn a roster spot on him with as little versatility as he’ll have in the NBA. No one is going to be designing an offense or defense around him.
Expand ...
Oh, he'll definitely be on a roster. Every team has 15, so maybe 4 at the end of the bench for development. Whoever takes him will hope that they can teach him to shoot, and increase his footspeed. Someone was going to occupy those roster spots....why not him ?
He'll have 3-4 years to make himself useful, just like every rookie.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The NBA needs more teams that play 5 generic wings that jack low percentage 3's when they aren't making lower percentage kamikaze drives to the rim, because "analytics".

The Porzingis for Smart trade may go down as the most lopsided trade in NBA history where there was not a rookie or young player involved. Porzingis and Smart both performed as expected last year and this year, yet somehow the Celtics traded Smart for Porzingis. The Celtics traded for one of the three or four best centers in the NBA, in his prime, for an overrated, poor shooting head case that depended on speed and was going to turn 30 soon. The fact that no one offered the Wizards more for Porzingis is something that every NBA GM can contemplate when the Celtics win the NBA Finals in 5 games and are the prohibitive favorite to win another title next year too.
Expand ...
The return for Porzingis was poor because he was constantly injured. The Celtics took a chance because they had a roster that could absorb it. That's no mystery.

You still haven't acknowledged that the top 2 seeds in both conferences have bigs that shoot from the perimeter. I didn't say anything about wings.
 
3rdbass said:
Lol! Go back to the 80's. Enjoy. The game has passed you by. The game is all about running up and down the court and putting up 3's or going to the basket for a dunk/layup. Big guys are normally needed to rebound, defend the paint(though have to be mobile to switch on smaller men and be rim runners(which Edey is just too slow for in the NBA). Can you imagine Edey running back and forth for a whole quarter and trying to block shots? He is too slow to do that. Maybe he can be a bench player when they want to change it up for 5 minutes and throw it inside.
Expand ...

The NBA is about offensive efficiency, not running up and down the court. There is nothing more efficient than a tall player that is one move away from a 60%+ shot, and if he misses it, has about a 45% chance of a rebound which will get him a 70% shot. Sanogo, Edey, and Clingan prove this. Even Samson Johnson is an incredibly efficient offensive weapon, albeit one that does not scale very well. On the other hand, how many "3 and D" guys are there that shoot in the mid-30's, jacking up low percentage shots, when they can get their shot off at all, not spreading the court, and being out of position for a rebound?

A post up is a much higher percentage play than dribble drive penetration because a post up is one move and the player is open at the basket, whereas dribble penetration typically takes multiple moves, and by the time the player gets to the rim, help has arrived.

For people that understand math and spacing, that Center INCREASES the 3 point shooting percentage for a team by pulling defenders to the basket and taking the weakest 3 point shooter out of the offense. Teams shouldn't want more 3 point attempts, they should want more 3 point attempts by their best shooters. So, if you want more and better 3 point shots, play a center. Or keep swinging the ball around the perimeter like Charlotte or Portland and see where that gets you.

Innovation in basketball typically goes up, not down, and there are more college teams playing traditional centers, because they realize it improves their offensive efficiency. The pros will come around.
 
.-.
ibleedhuskyblue said:
The return for Porzingis was poor because he was constantly injured. The Celtics took a chance because they had a roster that could absorb it. That's no mystery.

You still haven't acknowledged that the top 2 seeds in both conferences have bigs that shoot from the perimeter. I didn't say anything about wings.
Expand ...

It wasn't taking a chance. Porzingis is awesome, everyone knew exactly what he was, and 95% of the league passed anyway, because they are morons. If I was an NBA owner, I would have fired my GM the day that trade was announced, because unless there is a major injury, the Celtics will rule the NBA for years as long as Stevens can cobble together even a mediocre supporting cast around Tatum, Brown and Porzingis.

I am not a Celtics fan, which is why the trade pissed me off.
 
In the West, the Nuggets were the worst team to win a title since Olajuwon's first title in Houston, but Denver has a center. The Timberwolves are one of the best teams in the west with basically three guys that can play, an old point guard with a lot of miles on his body, and a couple of OK bench players, plus a bad coach. But they have two centers.

Bigger is better in a lot of things, including basketball.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The NBA is about offensive efficiency, not running up and down the court. There is nothing more efficient than a tall player that is one move away from a 60%+ shot, and if he misses it, has about a 45% chance of a rebound which will get him a 70% shot. Sanogo, Edey, and Clingan prove this. Even Samson Johnson is an incredibly efficient offensive weapon, albeit one that does not scale very well. On the other hand, how many "3 and D" guys are there that shoot in the mid-30's, jacking up low percentage shots, when they can get their shot off at all, not spreading the court, and being out of position for a rebound?

A post up is a much higher percentage play than dribble drive penetration because a post up is one move and the player is open at the basket, whereas dribble penetration typically takes multiple moves, and by the time the player gets to the rim, help has arrived.

For people that understand math and spacing, that Center INCREASES the 3 point shooting percentage for a team by pulling defenders to the basket and taking the weakest 3 point shooter out of the offense. Teams shouldn't want more 3 point attempts, they should want more 3 point attempts by their best shooters. So, if you want more and better 3 point shots, play a center. Or keep swinging the ball around the perimeter like Charlotte or Portland and see where that gets you.

Innovation in basketball typically goes up, not down, and there are more college teams playing traditional centers, because they realize it improves their offensive efficiency. The pros will come around.
Expand ...
I'm guessing you don't watch much of the current NBA? NBA is about moving the ball fast and trying to get baskets before the the other team can play a set defense. That is why transitional 3's are so important in that game now. Even when teams play half-court game it is about going to the basket quickly or have fast ball movement to get an open shot. There isn't much time for slow traditional post game that Edey has. Edey would have to run a lot up and down and move fast and that isn't part of his game. I can see him being a change of pace of guy for a few minutes but he really isn't an ideal fit for how the NBA game is now. Bigs are now have to be able to dribble and hit outside shots like Wemby, Joker and Chet or be moblile rim runners who can block shots. I don't see Edey fitting either of those molds. Like another poster said there is a reason why a 7-4 he is still playing his Senior Year at high school. Great college player whose game doesn't translate well to the NBA game.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
In the West, the Nuggets were the worst team to win a title since Olajuwon's first title in Houston, but Denver has a center. The Timberwolves are one of the best teams in the west with basically three guys that can play, an old point guard with a lot of miles on his body, and a couple of OK bench players, plus a bad coach. But they have two centers.

Bigger is better in a lot of things, including basketball.
Expand ...
You are really comparing Joker with what he can do offensively to Edey? LOL! Joker is a freak of a big man who can shoot from the outside, pass from anywhere on the court and is basically a Point Center. Edey is for different of a big man than Joker that there is no comparison.
 
UConnJim said:
I think there is a place for Edey in the NBA. In the previous generations of the NBA, each team had to have a couple of big guys to guard players like Kareem, Shaq, David Robinson, Ewing, Moses Malone, Olajuwan,... Right now, most NBA teams would have nobody on their roster to guard a skilled very tall big in the post. Edey has a standing reach of almost 10 feet which would probably be the second highest of all time in the NBA behind Taco Fall.

Think about this, NBA teams shoot a range of 43.6% to 50.7% from 2 and 34.5% to 39% from 3. So, right now it makes sense to shoot more 3s than 2s as you get a higher expected point outcome per shot. But, what if you had a player than can shoot 60%+ from 2 like Edey? The expected point outcome of 60% from 2 equals 40% from 3. That said, you would have to structure your offense to factor in a big and many teams wouldn't want to do it.
Expand ...

Bad analysis. A lot of those twos are shot clock bailouts or kamikaze drives to the hoop. I will be the first to agree that a full speed dribble drive from 30 feet out is a low percentage play which will result in a turnover or a low percentage shot. It is hard for the driver to maintain control, and the defense is going to be waiting at the hoop when the driver gets there. A post up is one move and an open shot from 5-10 feet with the shooter under control, going straight up and down. A much higher percentage play, and if the post up misses his shot, he has a good chance to get the ball back because it will be a short rebound. A short putback is the highest points per shot attempt that a player can try.

Also, it is easier to kick out for a 3 if the passer has his feet set and is under control. That is hard to do for a penetrator. So if you want more and better 3's, you should want someone down low. If you want lower percentage 3's, keep playing jack (3's) and crash (drives) basketball with tweeners.
 
.-.
3rdbass said:
I'm guessing you don't watch much of the current NBA? NBA is about moving the ball fast and trying to get baskets before the the other team can play a set defense. That is why transitional 3's are so important in that game now. Even when teams play half-court game it is about going to the basket quickly or have fast ball movement to get an open shot. There isn't much time for slow traditional post game that Edey has. Edey would have to run a lot up and down and move fast and that isn't part of his game. I can see him being a change of pace of guy for a few minutes but he really isn't an ideal fit for how the NBA game is now. Bigs are now have to be able to dribble and hit outside shots like Wemby, Joker and Chet or be moblile rim runners who can block shots. I don't see Edey fitting either of those molds. Like another poster said there is a reason why a 7-4 he is still playing his Senior Year at high school. Great college player whose game doesn't translate well to the NBA game.
Expand ...

It should translate. Edey is effective at both ends. If a team wants to run, it wants a tall rim protector that can get the rebound and fire an outlet down court. On the other end, it should want an offensive force down low that can pass and shoot at a high percentage and can challenge the other team's outlet if they get the rebound.

You also don't need 5 guys on the court trying to do exactly the same thing. Typically the 4th or 5th identical wing isn't really that good. The comparison you should be making is would you rather have Tim Hardaway, Jr. or Zach Edey as the 5th guy on the court? Positionless basketball is stupid unless that is all you have to work with, so I can see a college team doing it, but why would a pro team do it willingly? Someone needs to get rebounds. Someone needs to protect the rim. Someone needs to get putbacks. It doesn't matter if that player is 6'8 or 7'2, but someone needs to do those things, and bigger is usually better. Can Tim Hardaway, Jr. do that stuff, or is he just another mediocre, high volume, shooter with a lot of weaknesses in his game? There are a lot of Tim Hardaway Jr.'s in the NBA.
 
3rdbass said:
You are really comparing Joker with what he can do offensively to Edey? LOL! Joker is a freak of a big man who can shoot from the outside, pass from anywhere on the court and is basically a Point Center. Edey is for different of a big man than Joker that there is no comparison.
Expand ...

Good players are good players, and everyone doesn't need to be the Joker. We are talking about making Edey part of an 8 man rotation when the alternatives are generally some version of a 6'6, mediocre shooting, mediocre defense wing.
 
Huskybass said:
When was the last time someone put up a stat line like 14 points, 14 rebounds and 8 (9?) blocks in an NCAA Tournament game?
Expand ...
Shortly before Clingan's 10th block of the game?

Side note: another uncommon triple double I'd like to see would be Tristen Newton, with 10 fouls drawn in a single game to complement points and either assists or rebounds. Actually, a quadruple double would be even better.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
In the West, the Nuggets were the worst team to win a title since Olajuwon's first title in Houston, but Denver has a center. The Timberwolves are one of the best teams in the west with basically three guys that can play, an old point guard with a lot of miles on his body, and a couple of OK bench players, plus a bad coach. But they have two centers.

Bigger is better in a lot of things, including basketball.
Expand ...
Every team has Centers. Denver doesn't have a Center, they have the best player in the world who happens to be their Center. He plays from anywhere on the floor, and often times that's the perimeter. He has to be guarded out to 27 feet, which makes his passing vision that much more deadly. If he wasn't a threat from deep, he couldn't make the passes he does. Simple math, more open space, more places to cut to.

As for the Wolves/Goebert, every season, the team that is opposing Goebert plays a quick, skilled 5 (who is often more of a 4 than a 5). They lure Goebert out to the perimeter, and he is blown by constantly until he is relegated to the bench for the rest of the series. It's not a mistake that his teams have had little playoff success despite multiple all stars/all NBA players. Towns, you can classify as a "center" if you want, but all he does is shoot 3's and play poor defense.

Small is a misnomer here. The idea is to have 5 skilled (shoot/pass/dribble) players on the floor at a time. It used to be that you could only have a max of 4 because no centers could dribble or shoot, but that has changed.
Wemby, Chet, Porzingis, Jokic, etc... all play this way. Perimeter bigs open up the floor for other players to get shots closer to the basket that would have been much more difficult if there was a Center standing in the restricted area all the time.

Our very own University of Connecticut Huskies played "small" this season, and every coach lamented how impossible it was to defend 5 skilled players on the floor at the same time. If you'd like, i can present you with the video evidence.

But you know all this. We've all had this conversation before. Last time, i asked you to find a single reputable person who says its better to be smaller in the NBA. You are welcomed to use the entire internet....i'll wait. Last time, you abandoned the thread because asking you to show your work dismantles your strawman.
 
Inyatkin said:
If only an NBA team had access to your unique wisdom.
Expand ...
We're lucky to have him here. When he exhausts his eligibility, we'll be split between missing him and saying, "I was there when he was doing it at UConn." Savor these moments in time.
 
MexicoHusky said:
Heres a question... how much better is Edey than Thabeet? Offensively he's better. Probably a lot better. Does he get up and down the floor better?... maybe a bit. But Thabeet was a better shot blocker. Maybe a lot better. Which may indicate lesser lateral quickness.
Expand ...
Edey's work ethic is so much better than Thabeet's and his offensive game is considerably better. Thabeet was one of the worst uses of a draft pick in NBA history. I doubt there has ever been a less impactful 2nd overall pick in NBA history, outside of Len Bias who never played an NBA game. Even guys labeled as a "bust" had much better NBA careers than Thabeet. Comparing Edey to Thabeet is just silly, even though Edey isn't projected as a lottery pick he will almost certainly have a much better NBA career than Thabeet.
 
Last edited:
.-.
ibleedhuskyblue said:
Oh, he'll definitely be on a roster. Every team has 15, so maybe 4 at the end of the bench for development. Whoever takes him will hope that they can teach him to shoot, and increase his footspeed. Someone was going to occupy those roster spots....why not him ?
He'll have 3-4 years to make himself useful, just like every rookie.
Expand ...
Should have clarified, my point on whether someone would burn a roster spot is long-term focused. Totally agree he’ll get a spot for at least a few years.
 
ibleedhuskyblue said:
Every team has Centers. Denver doesn't have a Center, they have the best player in the world who happens to be their Center. He plays from anywhere on the floor, and often times that's the perimeter. He has to be guarded out to 27 feet, which makes his passing vision that much more deadly. If he wasn't a threat from deep, he couldn't make the passes he does. Simple math, more open space, more places to cut to.

As for the Wolves/Goebert, every season, the team that is opposing Goebert plays a quick, skilled 5 (who is often more of a 4 than a 5). They lure Goebert out to the perimeter, and he is blown by constantly until he is relegated to the bench for the rest of the series. It's not a mistake that his teams have had little playoff success despite multiple all stars/all NBA players. Towns, you can classify as a "center" if you want, but all he does is shoot 3's and play poor defense.

Small is a misnomer here. The idea is to have 5 skilled (shoot/pass/dribble) players on the floor at a time. It used to be that you could only have a max of 4 because no centers could dribble or shoot, but that has changed.
Wemby, Chet, Porzingis, Jokic, etc... all play this way. Perimeter bigs open up the floor for other players to get shots closer to the basket that would have been much more difficult if there was a Center standing in the restricted area all the time.

Our very own University of Connecticut Huskies played "small" this season, and every coach lamented how impossible it was to defend 5 skilled players on the floor at the same time. If you'd like, i can present you with the video evidence.

But you know all this. We've all had this conversation before. Last time, i asked you to find a single reputable person who says its better to be smaller in the NBA. You are welcomed to use the entire internet....i'll wait. Last time, you abandoned the thread because asking you to show your work dismantles your strawman.
Expand ...

Obviously more skilled players are better than less skilled players, but thank you for that insight. When the two options are an imperfect center or a mediocre wing for the 4th or 5th player on the court, why would anyone want more wing?

You don't need 5 players doing exactly the same thing in basketball. The 5th best 3 point shooter on the court should be taking fewer 3's. Also, crowding the 3 point line makes it easier to defend a team, because the defenders can always rotate with the ball. On the other hand, there is no way to rotate to a player in the post. By the time he gets the ball, it is too late to rotate, so the defender has to stay right on him. This creates all kinds of options for the other 4 players, and will result in better 3 attempts for the better shooters.
 
Another consideration is that Don's wing span looks much longer than Zach - they're just different athletes. Height doesn't tell the entire tale. Take for instance, Houston. They are one of the smallest teams in American, yet get their hands on more balls than anyone. A lot of that has to do with their wingspan, not their height. I honestly don't see a lot of comparisons between Edey & Clingan. Totally different players, different body types, different athletes.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Obviously more skilled players are better than less skilled players, but thank you for that insight. When the two options are an imperfect center or a mediocre wing for the 4th or 5th player on the court, why would anyone want more wing?

You don't need 5 players doing exactly the same thing in basketball. The 5th best 3 point shooter on the court should be taking fewer 3's. Also, crowding the 3 point line makes it easier to defend a team, because the defenders can always rotate with the ball. On the other hand, there is no way to rotate to a player in the post. By the time he gets the ball, it is too late to rotate, so the defender has to stay right on him. This creates all kinds of options for the other 4 players, and will result in better 3 attempts for the better shooters.
Expand ...
You need a podcast. We could start a campaign to get Luke Murray on as a guest to discuss offensive theory.
 
MuchoDogYears said:
That the NBA doesn’t value Edey is an indictment of the present-day NBA and its decision to roll out a product that long ago decided to sell the “Michael Jordan superstar” marketing image to its audience.

Winning, and competition, are a distant second to packaging when it comes to the NBA product. Edey doesn’t fit the package. The NBA rules as reffed don’t support a player of his talent in the way that college basketball does.

College basketball and the NBA are two different sports. College basketball is all about winning. The NBA is about selling a product first and foremost.

Shaq’s style of play, bullyball, would’ve resulted in him being undervalued in the NBA draft in current times. That is a reflection of the NBA being only a step above professional wrestling. Sad when compared to how the NBA looked and operated before Michael Jordan retired.
Expand ...
This is hilariously stupid.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Also, crowding the 3 point line makes it easier to defend a team, because the defenders can always rotate with the ball. On the other hand, there is no way to rotate to a player in the post. By the time he gets the ball, it is too late to rotate, so the defender has to stay right on him. This creates all kinds of options for the other 4 players, and will result in better 3 attempts for the better shooters.
Expand ...
This is the entire point. If everyone can play on the perimeter, then the post is more open. You don't need a 7 footer in that scenario because a wing/guard can beat his man and have an open shot at the basket. It's why a WR always has a bit of an advantage over a DB, because 1 of them knows where he's going, and the other one has to react. A 5-out offense makes it so that ANYONE can score in the post, not just the Center....although on the occasion that they want to, the C certainly can as well.

At issue is whether or not teams use it that way. The good teams do lot's of cutting to the basket. (our very own UConn Huskies for example) They use the 3 to open up the floor. That is a product of good scheming. The lousy teams take 3's because they can't figure out anything better to do because they aren't well coached. That's an entirely different conversation.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,270
Messages
4,560,864
Members
10,451
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom