That sounds more like your boy Christian Wood... Wood is the prototype for the player described above.
But he is, which makes him one of the dozens upon dozens of examples of why defensive stats say very little about players on bad teams. It’s ok to acknowledge why Coach plays him. It doesn’t mean we are also saying don’t develop younger players. Look at it this way. Why can’t I say that he is already having an effect on Cam and Amen, who want his minutes, but know they must get at it on defense (like Tate does) for Coach to give them more of his minutes. That’s what we want—Competition And that’s what Tate provides for development of younger players,
Bullock and Holiday shoot well??? Not from what I’ve seen. Bullock is a one trick pony who is playing near the league minimum and got cut from S.A. and Holiday is at the league minimum and no teams wanted him either. If these are our Steph’s and Klay’s off the bench we ain’t winning 35 games this year.
If Tate can't shoot better he is not in line for many minutes this season. And so far he hasn't shown any signs of being able to improve his jump shot. I would feel more optimistic if he wasn't 28 in five days' time. He's almost as old as FVV and he still shot 28% last season. He'll probably get some run now while Tari is hurt, and if/when there are other injuries at the forward spots. But ultimately he's a third stringer.
If I were to describe “net positive” in words rather than numbers, my description would be something like this: I for one won’t be second-guessing Coach this year. For instance, if I see Tate playing more minutes than I think he should, then I’m going to assume Coach thinks Cam or another guy is getting beat in practice, and he wants to hold true to his “earn it” mantra.
As long as he is making the right reads(he mostly does), he will get more minutes than you think. I think Udoka would rather have a guy who makes the right play but misses the shot over a guy who makes the wrong read but has a better chance of hitting the shot. Ultimately you gotta do both, but making the right reads positionally whether it's on offense(knowing where slide off ball to create lanes for your teammates or get yourself open or knowing when you have an opportunity to cut at the right time) or on defense(knowing the schemes, knowing the opposing team's personnel, knowing when to help or when to put a body on a guy for a boxout, etc) - those are skills everyone on the team needs to get minutes because you are only as strong as your weakest link there and that can hold the whole team back. That's really the beauty of the game because ALL of the players in the NBA are more than capable of advanced skill sets both offensively and defensively - but what makes you better than the rest is how you connect with your 5 teammates in the moment when split decisions make the difference between winning/losing a possession. Interestingly enough - thats how the Nuggets just won a title - by keeping the "team" together long enough that they know each other well enough to be able to operate at that high level to create that competitive advantage...you could say the same about the Spurs and Warriors dynasties too.
The stats say something different - in the first two seasons the numbers with him initiating the offense were pretty mind blowing, with the team scoring on some 72%+ of possessions. As for contested hook shots, I have no argument, statistical or otherwise.
“He’s a glue guy,” Udoka said. “He’s a Swiss army knife and does so many good things for the team. Not only his leadership....(sigh) Okay, you got me. He's smarter than a tree stump, and on this team, that goes a long way."
Tate is a negative when he tries to create something in offense. As long as he knows his role on offense, he'll never be negative despite the poor shooting.
Hmm, in today's NBA being an off-ball player who can't shoot (especially at the 1-4 spots) is kind of automatically a negative on offense because it messes up the spacing teams strive so hard to create. You can get away with non-shooters if they have the ball in their hands a lot and are great playmakers, or if you're going to play them as your one traditional dunker spot big man. Tate is neither of those things.
That's right but he has a lot of hustle both on defense and offense, can play bigger than himself on his drives, and creates some problems for the opposing teams. He is not a starter, not a 6th man. I don't see him ever growing into a bigger role but as part of the second unit, or some defensive, hustle spark to the first unit at times, he is passable. He is who he is, never a big positive but a useful player. Second units are full of bad players, taking bad shots, making stupid things. I think his positives are enough to keep him as a non-negative player as long as he knows his role in offense. I am in no way in love with him as a player, I wouldn't call him a negative player.
