Rockets acquire Thomas Robinson; Morris traded to Phoenix; Patterson, Douglas, Aldrich to Kings

I believe CP will never let this one go until the Rockets trade TRob away.

Now the trade may help land the 2nd star and that is all find and dandy.

There is no reasoning with CP with the "fact" that TRob is a terrible player, will not get better and all indications are he is the worst #5 lottery pick in the history of basketball.

If TRob ever gets to prove himself, whether as a Rocket or somewhere else. I wonder if CP will admit he was wrong.

I suspect he won't because here's why, the Rockets trades away a better player with 2 years exp in the league for a rookie with "potential". This is just not the way to run a NBA team.

Who's with me in getting Morey fired and getting the owner to hired CP instead?

Are you with me?

 

Question for CP.

Would you have been just as sure of your GM skills if somehow the Rockets got the draft day trade they wanted and actually drafted this ooof of a player, ie TRob?

Just wondering.....

I guess you definitely would be calling for Morey's head for drafting such a lousy player.

Or maybe, just maybe you would have given this poor rookie a chance, much like everyone in this BBS is given the other Rocket Rookies a chance.

Peace.

 

I am not the OP, but it seems that you may be referring to me, so I'll reply:

My opinion on Robinson on draft night is significantly less negative than it is now. So, what happened? Additional data happened that objectively suggests that he has a lower chance of NBA success than one might have believed judging by his college performance.

For example, Chandler Parsons was not so highly valued on draft night 2011. Being a 2nd round pick, one would objectively say that he has maybe a 1 in 4 chance of being a rotation player and a lower chance of being a starter. His solid rookie-season performance obviously changes our perception of him. Fellow 2011 draftee Marcus Morris, on the other hand, was more highly regarded on draft night. But a little more than a year later, he was traded for a 2nd round pick.

Robinson's bad performance as a rookie similarly affect's his probability for future success. Most rookies have some degree of struggles, but Robinson's lack of offensive efficiency was beyond the usual rookie issues. His efficiency was worse than 90% of 21-year-old rookies playing significant minutes-- which is particularly terrible given that he's a high draft pick and supposed to be "NBA ready."

This doesn't mean he won't turn it around-- and he'll certainly get his chances in the NBA, but it does mean that if one has to project his future (as NBA teams do in making roster decisions), one would have to lower his value as compared to draft day projections.

 

This trade was only useful for the acquisition of Garcia who was stellar for the Rockets during the playoffs. T-Rob is just trade bait. T-Jones has a better offensive game, defensive game, rebounding, shotblocking and even looks and plays bigger then T-Rob. So much for the No.5 pick.

 

1. Robinson has shot selection and "rookie mistake" issues like all rookies do. However, his struggles are much worse than that of the average 21-year-old rookie and is caused by more than shot selection. A lot of rookies have low ORtg/TS%, but few have lower ORtg/TS% than Robinson.

His numbers are so far down that even after getting better at shot selection he's still likely going to be a below-average offensive player unless he fixes 2 or 3 other things. Having to get significantly better at 3 or 4 things as opposed to just 1 or 2 lowers one's chance for success.

2. As for Asik: First, even he shot a better % at the rim than Robinson as a rookie. Second, he's a far more impactful defender than Robinson is or has potential to be, being a 7 footer as opposed to 6'8''. There's just a limit as to how much impact a player can make as a 6'8'' forward with bad offensive skills.

 

I don't always agree with your posts, but I appreciate the way you present your case and actually discuss the game.

This board needs more of this.

 

There's no reason to expect Robinson will ever amount to anything. There is only hope that he will become something different than what he is now.

 

Great post. This is really more of a question but has there ever been a player with the kind of start Robinson has had who turned into an all star or near all star? He has not looked good in his time at Sacremento and in his games here. He has a lot of trouble finishing at the rim, both because of his height issues, hesitation after the catch, and seeming lack of skill. He hasn't rebounded or defended in any outstanding way.

Morey has said multiple times that star players are generally stars from the time they started playing. Granted young players will struggle, but Robinson hasn't shown any skill or attribute that he performs at a high level. Given this fact, is there a parallel in the NBA that indicates he can be a star player? If so, is it the exception that proves the rule?

 

I thought this was about him not being able to finish around the rim due to his lack of height as the major case your making for his lack of future success, but your case now is referring to his shooting percentage? You're drifting off here a bit from your original thesis.

Yes, we all know that his 2pt shooting percentage was lower than most rookies, and we know that he missed more shots around the rim than alot of NBA players did last year. We get that... yes, he was not good... got it.

However, what you not taking into consideration is that the coaching staff wouldn't be pulling him out of the games because of his low shooting percentage around the rim if those were good shots. They were pulling him out of the games because he taking poor shots, and often forcing shots around the rim instead of getting open layups or dunks within the offense.

If he was getting good shots within the flow of the offense, or running the floor enough for easier buckets, I personally have no doubt that he could make easy shots, and increase his percentage(just my opinion). Also, if he was impacting the game in other ways more(which he can in time), he would be able to stay on the court long enough to get more opportunistic shot attempts.

What I saw was a guy who would simply try to overpower a defender at the rim, and force shot attempts. Maybe he could do that in college, but its taken him awhile to figure that out in the pros. Even someone like Scola as an accomplished low post scorer wouldn't shoot a high percentage around the basket if he was forcing shots trying to posterize the opposing teams interior defenders.

The whole finishing at the rim argument is just ridiculous. I was using Asik as an example only because despite the large amount of blown layups, he does enough to more than makeup for his lack of rim finishing abilities.... when he doesn't just dunk the ball that is.

Asik shot a better percentage because he played within his abilities on the offensive end, and didn't force bad shots... which is what Robinson did do this year. Which lead to a poor shooting percentage, and pine in the A#$.

Never did I ever imply that Robinson was half the defender that Asik is, or that he impacts the game in the ways that Asik does away from the offensive end. The only thing I was implying was that Robinson WASN'T doing those type of things despite his poor offensive performance, and thats why he got pulled from the rotation.

Man, sometimes even when we agree you try to find a way to disagree. What we differ on is that I'm just not gonna write the kid off just yet after a few months in the NBA on A. probably the most disfunctional NBA team in the league, and B. on a team with a ton of competition at his position, that benched him in the middle of a playoff run to play veteran players instead.

He has a ton of improvement he needs to work on that everyone can agree on, but Im not going to try and make a case at this point for his future failures just because the team traded away my favorite player to take a shot at him panning out.

 

Has there "ever been" one who was this bad and turned into an Allstar? Yes, but the probability of finding a future Allstar in Robinson's rookie statistical neighborhood is much less than that of finding one among 21-year old rookies with signficantly higher efficiency numbers. We are talking the difference between, say, a 1-in-20 chance vs. a 1-in-4 chance.

This is why a recent draft pick's trade value can change a great deal based on how he plays as a rookie. Remember, Robinson played 1050 minutes so far in his career. Hasheem Thabeet's value dropped from 2nd pick to throw in after 1250 NBA minutes. Marcus Morris went from lotto pick to 2nd rounder in 1280 NBA minutes.

The one future Allstar I found in Robinson's neighborhood in the last 15 years or so, btw, is Chris Kaman-- and he was never efficient on offense (career ORtg of 98) even when he made the Allstar team (mostly because he was plagued by very high turnover numbers).

 

i so hope this kid proves you wrong. your Robinson hate is tired as hell. pronouncing rookies as busts is a dubious enterprise. Larry Sanders says hello.

 

Depends on how you define "busts." I don't know if CH truly believes that Robinson will become busts like Darko or Thabeet. But in the context of the trade, if Robinson never turns into something better than Patterson, then it would be a bad trade.

I am not as negative as CH about Robinson. But I am not very optimistic that Robinson will become better than Patterson. I do think a lot of people on this board underrate Patterson simply because he's not a good rebounder.

All I am hoping is that Morey can flip the kid for something good.

 

TRob was drafted by perhaps the worst developmental organization in the NBA, and then traded midseason to a team with tons of rookies and in the middle of the playoff hunt. That is perhaps the worst set of circumstances to develop under as a rookie.

What we do know is that he has elite length, quickness, and rebounding ability for a power forward. He has the tools to be a very good defender, and to be able to guard both the 3 and 4. He has good shooting form, but the shots weren't falling this year.

I agree that Tristan Thompson is probably the best comparison for him. In their rookie years, Robinson actually outpaced Thompson in rebounds per minute, and trailed only slightly in points per minute (with nearly identical FG and FT %s). Thompson's TS% was 47%, Robinson's was 45%. Thompson's REBR was 15.5, Robinson's was 17.1.

I expect his improvement to be similar. Thompson increased his TS% to 52%, and REBR to 17.5. If Robinson can get to his TS% to 50% and REBR to 18, he will have shown enough improvement to justify continued investment in him.

 

Rondo didn't show star quality for a while, though he did have a better start than TRob.

 

dobro1229:

It's really stretching it to say cite the fact that Thomas Robinson got benched for poor play as evidence supporting his future potential.

If a PF is giving his team a .450 TS% and 20% Turnover Rate, I am pretty sure that a coach would have good reasons to pull him whether this is caused by bad shot selection or the lack of shooting ability. Missed shots and turnovers at such a high rate contribute negatively to a team's chances for winning whether it's caused by bad shot selection or no shooting ability.

The whole "coach don't pull you for missing shots as long as you are taking good shots" is being misapplied here. This works in a situation where a guy misses a few shots in a row, or maybe even where a guy has a bad shooting night when he's taking shots that he made at a decent percentage overall in a season. In these cases, you have evidence suggesting that the guy can make these shots and that the few misses, or a 2 for 11 shooting night is a matter of luck and that chances are he'll make a decent % similar to his season-long numbers on his next shots. In other words, a rational coach would bet on the bigger sample being a more reliable predictor for future performance than the smaller, but more recent, sample.

The "don't pull a guy for missing" thing really doesn't work for a guy with a super low FG% (whether it's overall or from a specific distance) on the season whether it's due to bad shot selection or the lack of shooting ability. In such a scenario, a rational coach would have to project that this player will likely continue shooting a low % on his next shots and you are going to have to account for this prediction in making lineup decisions.

There really is a false dichotomy between "bad shooting ability" and "bad shot selection." A player can suffer from both, just like that a person can both be bad at math and bad at writing, or be both evil and fat. They are not mutually exclusive. In the case of Robinson, he does have both issues. He takes some shots that he has a low probability at making and he has a small universe of shots that he can make at a decent %. Not that many shots typically available to an NBA PF appear to be "good shots" for Robinson.

 

Yes "Robinson being benched for poor play=future potential" is a counter-argument. Got it.

Not sure if you quite understood or dont want to understand the point.

The point I was making was that he WASN'T impacting the game enough in the ways that someone like Asik does in order to-

-win over PT from the coach by doing the "little things"
-get easier shot attempts within the offense with hussle, grind, and smarts

There was too much "swinging for the fences" from Robinson(trying to posterize/take his man 1 on 1, etc.) in too limited of time, and with improvement at the "little things" Robinson could look like a totally different player... or maybe he wouldn't. I dont know.

But your original point when you were stating something along the lines of "he can't be a good player, and is a bust because he isn't tall enough" or "he can't finish around the rim, therefore he's a bust" was something I dont agree with at all. There is MUCH more to the story than just that subjective opinion.

If he is or isn't going to be a true bust(too early to tell) its not going to be because he's too short to finish at the rim. Its going to be because he does not improve enough to earn enough playing time to crawl before he can walk,then walk before he can run, and run before he can sprint.

Im not trying to argue with you that he does or doesn't have talent. I am taking the stance though that he can improve and be an impact player in the future.

Similar Ex: Kenyon Martin was an athletic PF prospect who had a 4 year career in college where he had to improve dramatically at that level as well. He shot around the same percentage as Robinson in his rookie year from the field, and per 36min would be averaging around the same stat line. He also has similar body type/athleticism.

However, the only difference was he was on a bad team that desperately needed minutes from him at the PF position, and they had no choice but to play him heavy minutes instead of a veteran that might have offered more stability. The result was the 2000/01 New Jersey Nets winning something like 25 or 26 games if I can remember correctly.

Had the Sacramento Kings not had Jason Thompson, Chuck Hayes, etc. Thomas Robinson would probably still be a King to this day. Also despite the depth, they STILL would have kept Robinson if the team wasn't in the middle of being sold off. Dont try and act like that wasn't the #1 reason why he was traded.

-Also, I hate this Thabeet comparison. Thabeet was scheduled to make something like 8 freaking million dollars a year the following season to back up Gasol, and Darell Arthur. The Thabeet trade was more about finances than anything once again. Memphis got a player in Battier that could help them in the short term for a playoff run, and shed major salary from their roster the following season.

-Secondly, Marcus Morris is not a bust. I hate this as well. Some of Houston's best lineups this season had him as a STARTER in only his second season. Morris might not be Melo 2.0, but he's a legit starter in the right offensive system. It just took a year for the Rockets to figure out that he is a system player. However, at the 14th pick Marcus Morris is far from a bust, and will have a long career as a niche player.

The fact is, at the end of the day, the Robinson trade had nothing to do with the Kings not wanting Robinson or him being a bust. It was all about them saving money. I apologize for ranting. Just some things that irk me here.

 

we all know he did bad. But the real question is: How much can he actually improve? he has a lot of weaknesses to overcome to even be considered a trade piece.

But man that athleticism

 

Maybe I am being snarky (and if so, I apologize), but I don't get why people don't seem to understand the concept of probabilities.

Just because we don't know the future with 100% certainty, it doesn't mean that we don't know anything about the range of probable outcomes or that it is too early to say anything about the future. Just because a piece of information doesn't tell us about the future with 100% certainty, it doesn't mean that this piece of information is not helpful toward projecting the odds.

Nobody is saying that any specific statistical measurement (be it overall rookie year TS%, FG% at rim, height, weight, standing reach, review of tape, motion camera data or Synergy numbers) guarantees that a player will or will not be a bust with 100% certainty. What we do know is that when you compare rookies with poor TS%, at rim FG%, TO% and other performance attributes that Robinson demonstrated with that of NBA players, particularly high draft picks, who performed substantially better as rookies, these guys have a much lower probability for achieving success (be it Allstar level success or just being a starter/30 mpg guy on a winning team).

Think about the stock market, a company earning report or a monthly unemployment report doesn't let an investor know with 100% certainty whether a company will be great or broke during the next 5 years. These pieces of information, however, do tell us something about the future and tend to affect the price of the company's stock.

Think about Robinson himself: How did he become the 5th overall pick in the first place? He largely got to the 5th spot by putting out very good #s compared to other potential draftees on a top college team in his junior season. He played 1242 minutes that year.

So, if 1242 NCAA minutes justifiably altered projections of his future and elevated him into a top 5 pick, why shouldn't 1056 NBA minutes, in which aspects of his performance were poorer than that of the vast majority of players at the same age, also justifiable alter one's projection of his range and distribution of probably future outcomes?

Yes, there are way for a guy who can't finish around the basket, even one with a severe disability in this respect like Reggie Evans, to have a productive career to some degree. Yes, Robinson might become really so great defensively or in some other respect that he'll get minutes despite his limitations. Yes, there are also guys who improve significantly upon terrible rookie-season numbers. However, all these don't mean that what we have learned about Robinson's performance after he was drafted 5th overall doesn't alter our objective projection of the range and distribution of his probable career outcome. In other words, it is justifiable that his trade value would have dropped over the past year in an objective market.

 

Or maybe they saw whatever he was doing wrong and thought they could correct it and given his raw physical tools he would be a worthwhile investment?

You are seriously putting way too much time and thought into a very minor player.

 

We want 2pat back!