Who else thinks Salmons was a fluke?

[2ndcitydiehard]

So far this has been a common theory I've been throwing around on other threads so I figured I might as well dedicate one to it.

Biggest reason for my concern: 3 pt shooting %.

In no previous year of his career had Salmons hit more than 35.7% of his 3's with his career mark being 33.3% before last season. Then suddenly he comes out and hits 42% for the season?

Unless he did something mechanically to alter his shot that kind of jump isn't normal. And based on how low the trajectory of his shot generally is I am willing to guess he didn't change anything and just had a really hot season.

Second biggest reason for concern: AGE.

How many guys does the light suddenly turn on for at age 29? Sure his previous two seasons in SAC weren't too bad: posting 12.9 and 13.7 PER respectively after a career in the 10s. But now he's suddenly posting a 16.0?

Which jump is more likely for real: 1) jumping 2pts from age 26 to 27 and then effectively repeating it the next year or 2) jumping 2.3pts at age 29?

Maybe Salmons bucks the trends but I promise he will be on Hollingers list of top regression candidates next year. And he should be, there is a lot of danger in getting sucked into guys career years.

Final concern: even in the career year he wasn't close to Gordon or Deng.

Both of those guys have multiple seasons which statistically blow Salmons season out of the water. Maybe the fact that he'll come anywhere between $3mil and $7mil cheaper than those guys make it worth it but Salmons is a stop-gap at best.

For all the people crying for Gordon to come of the bench and be your 6th man it makes so much more sense to put Salmons in that role. His versatility means he can come in at 2 positions and his inferior offensive skill (see DT's article on 1-on-1) makes it even more likely that he can feast on second unit guys.

 

[PJ Brown]

I would bicker over the use of the word fluke. His improvement has been clearly observed over the last several seasons. He's emerged as a very solid player once he got the opportunity in Sacto. I think what we've seen of him, both strengths and weaknesses, demonstrate who he is and where he's at.

The age is a factor, which is why the Bulls won't ever extend him past his current player option, but I can't possibly see how holding onto him in the meantime hurts the team.

And stats also demonstrate that Salmons is infitely more effective as a starter than a reserve, despite his positional flexibility--now that's his fault, mind you, but it is also a clearly observable phenomenon.

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

PJ Brown wrote:

I would bicker over the use of the word fluke. His improvement has been clearly observed over the last several seasons. He's emerged as a very solid player once he got the opportunity in Sacto. I think what we've seen of him, both strengths and weaknesses, demonstrate who he is and where he's at.

The age is a factor, which is why the Bulls won't ever extend him past his current player option, but I can't possibly see how holding onto him in the meantime hurts the team.

And stats also demonstrate that Salmons is infitely more effective as a starter than a reserve, despite his positional flexibility--now that's his fault, mind you, but it is also a clearly observable phenomenon.

First the stats show that almost every player plays better as a starter and the more minutes that they get. But that phenomeno alone can not account for Salmons' jump this year. How can you argue that when 40% of his career starts came during a career year? You don't think that skews things a little?

And I am not saying that Salmons hasn't gotten better, 06 and 07 prove that he has, but the real question is: how much better?

As in is he the guy from 06 and 07 which makes him a passable role player OR the guy from 08 who's got the numbers to be a starter?

The reason I used the term fluke is that so much of Salmon's efficency this year came from shooting a lot of 3's and hitting at a % that is well above anything else he's shown for his career.

 

[houheffna]

Salmons proved himself after the trade here in Chicago. In Sacramento he was viewed as a starter and as starter material. He is a late bloomer is all.

 

[clonetrooper264]

While Salmons is definitely not a long term solution for us, you can't say that he has become a better player than before. I don't think his season was a fluke. I think he just worked hard and was given the opportunity to show it later in his career. Really the guy never had a chance to be a main part of a team until a couple seasons ago, and even then he was still behind Artest and Martin in Sacramento. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he crashes and burns.

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

While Salmons is definitely not a long term solution for us, you can't say that he has become a better player than before. I don't think his season was a fluke. I think he just worked hard and was given the opportunity to show it later in his career. Really the guy never had a chance to be a main part of a team until a couple seasons ago, and even then he was still behind Artest and Martin in Sacramento. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he crashes and burns.

Forgive me the whole stats thing. I know some people look at them more seriously than others, but how does being a "main part of a team" affect 3pt shooting?

More importantly the two previous seasons he played 27 and 31 minutes a game... that's some pretty decent burn and he shot 34% from behind the arc those two years combined.

We can't wait to give him the benifit of the doubt if you are sliding him in as a starter. That's just asking for disaster. Now if Ben re-signs and Salmons comes off the bench wih Hinrich (in the dream world where we bite the bullet and pay the tax for a year) that's fine. Or even if we let BG go and bring in someone like Anothy Parker.... but you can't play wait 'n see on a guy who you plan on playing 35+min a night.

 

[Woodz]

Does it really matter? He will most likely opt out after next year anyway and unless we move deng there is virtually no chance we make an effort to re-sign him.

 

[clonetrooper264]

2ndcitydiehard wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

While Salmons is definitely not a long term solution for us, you can't say that he has become a better player than before. I don't think his season was a fluke. I think he just worked hard and was given the opportunity to show it later in his career. Really the guy never had a chance to be a main part of a team until a couple seasons ago, and even then he was still behind Artest and Martin in Sacramento. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he crashes and burns.

Forgive me the whole stats thing. I know some people look at them more seriously than others, but how does being a "main part of a team" affect 3pt shooting?

More importantly the two previous seasons he played 27 and 31 minutes a game... that's some pretty decent burn and he shot 34% from behind the arc those two years combined.

We can't wait to give him the benifit of the doubt if you are sliding him in as a starter. That's just asking for disaster. Now if Ben re-signs and Salmons comes off the bench wih Hinrich (in the dream world where we bite the bullet and pay the tax for a year) that's fine. Or even if we let BG go and bring in someone like Anothy Parker.... but you can't play wait 'n see on a guy who you plan on playing 35+min a night.

Well I may be completely off here (and please forgive me if I am) but last time I checked being a main part of your teams offense can affect your 3pt shooting. If you look at Salmons's 3pt attempts throughout his career you will see that it spikes once he gets to Sacramento. I believe that this is due to him being more involved in the offense. Then you come to this past season, when he is no longer playing behind Artest and Kevin Martin is injured half the time, Salmons becomes the main scoring option. You see even more 3pt attempts and more makes thus improving 3pt percentage. Now I will agree that 34% to 42% is quite the jump and it is probably unlikely that he repeats that consistently. But you can't deny that the man can shoot the 3 pretty well. 34% isn't a horrible percentage from 3, it's not that great, but it's not bad either. It's about average and I'm fine with him taking some 3's.

But it's not just that. He also shoots a pretty good percentage from the floor. About 45% career and above that each of his last 3 seasons. That in itself should be worth something. Let's not forget his ability to finish at the basket after drawing contact. Now not to knock Luol or anything because I still think he's a good player, but Salmons just flat out outperformed him during the season. Even when the two were playing at the same time. Salmons can create his own shot, something Luol can't even dream of doing at this point, and Salmons can take and make a decent percent of shots from 3. Luol can't do that either. Say what you want about his 3pt shot, Salmons can still create for himself and get to the line. That has been consistent throughout his career.

 

[Ralphb07]

Salmons was a 23 year old rookie and he's only been in the league 7 seasons which 7 seasons isn't a lot. Not every player will progress or enter the NBA the same. His 1st 3 season he got 7, 20 and 17 minutes in each of those seasons so that's not enough minutes to evaluate a player....

His 4th year he finally got the playing time and every year since his 4th his game has gotten better so that's not a fluke.

I know you say when you play more the stats look better which is true but that's why you look at his TS% which is very very good and has also improved every year.

If he wasn't good his TS% wouldn't go up with getting more minutes. He's just a late bloomer just like Raja Bell..... Was Bell a fluke?

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

Bell has pretty much the same per 36min stats from his 4th season (27yrs old) on and never had a significant jump in any of his shooting percentages... except his 1st year in Phx where he shot 44% instead of about 40%... a career year he never repeated.