↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Will Bynum has a 3-point shot now

I’ve made no secret of my belief that Will Bynum is better suited to the starting point guard job on the Pistons than Rodney Stuckey, so obviously this story from Keith Langlois caught my eye today:

After signing a three-year contract with the Pistons this summer as a restricted free agent, Bynum did what he always does – got back in the gym. A good deal of Bynum’s off-season focus was on improving his perimeter jump shot – out to and beyond the 3-point line – and that’s beginning to reveal itself in the NBA preseason.

Bynum hit three triples in the Pistons’ loss to Dallas last night. Langlois pretty adamantly states in his article that Stuckey is going to be the team’s starting PG, so there seems to be little Bynum can do to win that job.

But Bynum added a three-point shot in one offseason. Hasn’t Stuckey been working on that for like four years now?

22 Comments

  • [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PistonPowered Feed, Patrick Hayes. Patrick Hayes said: Will Bynum has a three-point shot now: I’ve made no secret of my belief that Will Bynum is better suited to the st… http://bit.ly/c75zUM [...]

  • Oct 14, 201012:59 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    no surprise about the starting job. this organization is a joke.

  • Oct 14, 20101:02 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    i’ll elaborate just a bit more: the only GOOD reason to give stuckey the starting job at this point is to increase his value looking ahead at a trade. we can’t rightly afford to keep stuckey or tayshaun at this point with the financial commitments we’ve got on the perimeter, so both of these guys should be traded so we can get something for them rather than let them walk for nothing.
     
    that said, for those very same reasons, i don’t think it’ll happen. god only knows what makes joe dumars tick these days, but his game plan is a disaster. smart money says he trades neither, fails to match rich offer sheets, and lets two valuable players walk for nothing. just because it’s the absolute worst plan possible.

  • Oct 14, 20101:59 pm
    by nuetes

    Reply

    Idk. Put me in the start Stuckey camp, because it’s his contract year. It’s time to figure this thing out once and for all. The season is probably lost regardless of who starts anywhere, so let Stuckey do his thing, whatever that is, and cement his future.
     
    Of course there is always the fear that Stuckey will do nothing special, and still be given a contract extension, in which case I give up. I’m trying hard right now, but that might just do it for me. Preferably like Laser said, we find some takers for these guys and get on with this half-ass rebuild.
     
    Of course you could always give Bynum the job, which would devalue Stuckey to such an extent that a contract extension becomes affordable. There could always be some team out that would view Stuckey as a reclamation project and trade for him (unlikely), but it’s also unlikely Stuckey gains any value by going out and performing like he has so far.

  • Oct 14, 20102:18 pm
    by brgulker

    Reply

    The Pistons don’t appear to be willing to listen to reason when it comes to Stuckey. It doesn’t matter how poorly he plays, he’s assumed the starter by default. I hope it ends soon, though, or we’ll end up giving him way more money than he’s worth next summer.

  • Oct 14, 20102:26 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    @nuetes:
    The one fundamental flaw with that reasoning is that, whether the team is going to be good or bad, starting Stuckey sends the message to the rest of the team that the best players, the hardest working players, don’t necessarily earn the jobs. Stuckey’s actually sent that message the last three years, getting handed big minutes and a starting job each year without doing anything in particular to earn it. At this point, I don’t know what else Bynum can do. He obviously works harder. He’s out-performed Stuckey offensively. The last thing he has to shore up is defense, and I don’t even think he would be a major dropoff defensively from Stuckey, other than the fact that he’s shorter.

  • Oct 14, 20102:29 pm
    by Alan

    Reply

    Nuetes makes good points.  Starting Stuckey increases his value and gives a chance to figure this thing out once and for all.  We already know two things about Bynum, he’s going to give his all and he’s going to be here for three more seasons.  It’s in the organization’s best interest to let Stuckey start.

  • Oct 14, 20102:32 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    @Alan:
    Even if Bynum clearly out-performs him? I just can’t agree with that. To establish a winning, positive culture, the guys who earn the minutes, play the hardest and put the most effort into getting better in the offseason, like Bynum obviously has, deserve to play, deserve big minutes and deserve to start. Stuckey’s had three offseasons to add a reliable jump shot. Every year he talks about doing it. It has yet to materialize.

  • Oct 14, 20103:01 pm
    by Alan

    Reply

    @Patrick,
    If Bynum clearly outperforms Stuckey then you Will wins the job.  To date, Bynum’s effectiveness on the floor is similar to Stuckey’s.  As I stated yesterday, I think we Detroit fans fall in love with the back up and so we glamorize Bynum’s achievements. 

    Don’t get me wrong, I love Will’s play and I think the best is yet to come.  So far though, I don’t think he’s done enough to take the job from Stuckey on opening night.  Throw in the arguements from Nuetes and its in the best interests of the organization, at least for the 1st part of the season, to keep the starting job with Stuckey.

  • Oct 14, 20103:26 pm
    by nuetes

    Reply

    @Patrick
     
    You make it sound like Bynum is destroying Stuckey, when in reality the difference is negligible. For the preseason Bynum has posted a (win score) WS/48 of 0.107 while Stuckey has posted a WS/48 of 0.108. It’s about equal. Bynum is shooting much better, but Stuckey is getting to the line and getting a lot of steals. Bynum has his downside as well. He’s small and takes too many chances on defense. He also stagnates the offense at times when he decides he wants to dribble the clock down to take a shot or make a last second play. He is more fun to watch, I’ll certainly say that. He makes for more highlight reel plays on offense. Defense matters too. So does getting to the free throw line. So does rebounding. So does creating turnovers, where Stuckey gets 2-3 steals a game. Bynum might be better, but it’s not by such a wide margin that it truly matters.
     
    I’ll just say to close out that I don’t think wins and losses will be affected by who starts between Bynum and Stuckey. I think each will see plenty of minutes this season.

  • Oct 14, 20104:33 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    I don’t think there is a big difference between the two production-wise. Neither guy would be anyone’s first choice as their team’s starting PG. But I think it says something that, in one summer, Bynum worked hard to extend his range. That’s been a glaring weakness in Stuckey’s game since he came into the league. Developing better range is not something that is out of the question. Players do it every year. Grant Hill did it when he was here. Rasheed Wallace did it (albeit a bit to his own detriment). Trevor Ariza had virtually no jumper entering the league and now he’s pretty reliable from three. If the team is not going to be good, I would just prefer to see them reward the guys who work the hardest.

  • Oct 14, 20104:47 pm
    by Alan

    Reply

    I hear ya Patrcik.  The thing is, once you pull Stuckey from the starting spot, there is no turning back.  So, the choice has to be made from more than a working standpoint, the choice has to be clear.  The last thing you want is to pull Stuckey, then watch him eat-up the competition on the 2nd unit or to watch Bynum fail with the 1st unit or get injured.  Musical chairs doesn’t work when you trade Billups and annoint Stuckey.  Once you pull Stuckey, you’re relegated to trading him or making him buy into a lesser role with the team. 

    Bynum is in the process of making a case, he’s not made it yet (IMO).

  • Oct 14, 20106:07 pm
    by gmehl1977

    Reply

    @Alan
    I think you nailed the issue right on the head with comment 12. If they pull the plug on Stuckey starting then 1) his value will drop 2) his confidence goes south 3) it would be Joe admitting that he fcuked up thinking that Stuckey was able to take Billups place. I love Joe and all and i think he is a great GM but i think it might be time to put his hand up and cut his losses with the Stuckey fiasco. I am not saying trade him but put him in the sixth man role where he can be more effective. This would not be easy because as i pointed out in point 2 his confidence and ego will drop dramatically and along with it more than likely his value (however much that is). There has to be a choice made soon with Stuckey looking to get paid and with Hamilton & Gordon tied up. If Hamilton can’t be traded for value then Stuckey might have to pack his bags.

  • Oct 14, 20106:12 pm
    by detroitpcb

    Reply

    I thought both guards played extremely well the other night against Dallas. I think Q has already shown (last season & this preseason) that he is willing to play them together – moving Stuckey to the two were he belongs.

    I think Joe can be criticized for using his cap room on CV & Ben Gorgon but not for deconstructing the old team, nor for giving Stuckey minutes. And his drafting has been excellent: JJ, Daye, Monroe have been a great haul.

    I think the biggest issue on this team is going to be Rip, and the fact that he has to start (see the story the other day were it was related that Q asked him if it was ok that Rip would not start against Atlanta and Rip said “fine.”

    It looks like Daye will get minutes out of position. It looks like McGrady will be babied along until mid-December. That still leaves Ben Gordon, Stuckey & Rip all needing minutes at the two guard.

    That logjam needs to be freed up by a trade. Either Rip or Ben need to go and i wouldn’t mind seeing them move CV, Max, or Wilcox either. With 11 scouts at the game the other night and the new ownership deal almost in place, maybe Joe will make a trade before the season starts. I think we could pry Gorat from Orlando. Might not be a long term answer but would sure help this season.

  • Oct 14, 20107:21 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    his drafting has been average. i try to make statements like this RARELY and DELIBERATELY, bur only an idiot would pat joe on the back for drafting monroe. we were lucky he fell to #7, and he was the easiest choice since lebron went #1 in 2003. it was that or draft ed davis, who fell like 7 more spots and could be the next amir johnson. you’re smarter than that, pcb. use your brain. think critically. monroe was a gift from god to dumars and nothing more. say what you want about the daye pick; he looks good, but i’m not sure who else was available at the time. daye could very well be a crazy good pick at 15, but monroe was giftwrapped with a bow on it.
     
    the only reason to start stuckey is to set up a trade. we can’t afford stuckey or tayshaun, and i’m going to take a sh*t on the palace stairs if we let those guys walk for nothing or hand them absurd extensions. joe didn’t want to hire a legitimate coach and pay him real money because we’re rebuilding; he sure as sh*t can’t afford to add more rich contracts to this perimeter.

  • Oct 15, 20108:28 am
    by detroitpcb

    Reply

    @laser

    Joe could have taken Davis, or Aldrich or Udoh.

    You tryingto tell me Joe hasn’t had two great drafts back to back, Laser? Doesn’t matter if one player was a gift.

    I do not believe Stuckey should be traded, though i may change my opinion by the end of the season. I think he is a legit 2-guard who can play at a very high level and a young player who is about to get his respect from the officials. If Stuckey gets to the line another 2 or 3 times he becomes a seriously valuable scorer.

    i think Rip needs to go and i am sure Joe will not just give him away. Joe has a rep for getting full value for his players – and don’t bring up AI – that was a legit roll of the dice though the scouts should have seen the deterioration in his game from the year before.

    The only problem with this team is that they don’t have the big man in the middle – they have all the complementary pieces to be a challanger in the East. Right now it is hard to tell how things fit together and which pieces you should keep. We all have our opinions. Mine is that Stuckey is a legit starting two guard in this league and we should not give him up just because he is not a true point. 

  • Oct 15, 20109:37 am
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    @laser:
    Chill with the “idiot” stuff. You could’ve made that same point without that sentence. No need for that here. Unless you are replying to commenters like ‘Adam’ or ‘Lee Scruggs’, in which case all insults are welcome and appreciated.

  • Oct 15, 20102:57 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    @hayes: i tried to stress as much as humanly possible that i was making a BOLD statement, but joe gets so much credit in this town it drives me CRAZY. i caught a LOT of sh*t and was called plenty of names (including but not limited to “blind idiot,” and i didn’t see you step in) for my stance that jerebko’s injury is not a big deal to the team’s big picture. and i can’t stress enough how insane and indefensible it is to give the man credit for the biggest no-brainer pick in the history of the league. i promise not to make a habit of personal attacks, but giving him credit for that pick is completely inexcusable and needs correcting.
     
    @pcb: do some research, expert. udoh was off the board. i nearly had a heart attack when stern called his name for the sixth pick. and it wasn’t because i was excited about all the “options” joe was left with. it was because there was a universal 100% certainty that we’d lucked into monroe. nobody on the planet thought joe would, should or could take aldrich (pick 14 i think, something like that), davis (pick 11 i think) or aminu. everybody who had the faintest grasp of the NBA knew who joe was picking. easiest pick since lebron. hands down. ZERO percent chance we picked anyone but monroe. absolute zero. have i been clear enough? we live in a world of gray, and there’s room for debate almost everywhere, but not here. not even close. it was monroe by a country mile. davis was a project who smells too much like amir for anyone’s tastes, and aldrich’s ceiling was widely considered joel pryzbilla. monroe was absolutely everything we could have dreamed of that far down the board. give me this one or you’re going to look silly.
     
    as for the drafts, i don’t kill joe for darko, and i won’t lick his feet for monroe. daye, i’ll admit, is an intriguing guy. i thought it was crazy to draft a project SF, but i see what the kid is capable of, and i like it. but i also thought it was crazy to draft three small forwards in perhaps the richest point guard draft in NBA history when this team was, and is, in DESPERATE need of a point guard. time will tell how it pans out. right now, i don’t want to kill him for the daye pick, but i’m still in wait-and-see mode. collison and lawson could make daye look like a bad pick, or maybe not. jj was obviously a great find. stuckey was so-so; i’d like him a lot more if he didn’t spark the downfall of the team. max was a good pick. amir could have been a “great” pick if joe had traded him soon enough to get some value. i loved afflalo, but he was dumped for nothing. so it’s a mixed bag. i’m not going to give him credit for being a great drafter. he’s an average drafter. that’s all.
     
    if you think stuckey is a legit 2 guard, how can you justify holding onto him in a backcourt that has long-term, unmovable commitments to TWO shooting guards already? and to the tune of almost $25 million a year?? unheard of! so we can somehow afford to have THREE shooting guards on the roster eating up something like $30 million bucks a year??? that’s more than half the salary cap! for one position where we’re better off with ONE of these guys than all three. insanity. think about what you’re saying.
     
    if you don’t want me to bring up AI when you say joe gets full value for his players, please bring up some other examples to distract me. for two examples, he gave away amir and afflalo for cap space that allowed us to sign wilcox. he got ben wallace for grant hill, but i’ll chalk that one up to luck since hill was a goner anyways. he let sheed walk, so he got ZERO value there. who, exactly, has he gotten full value for? or any value for?
     
    this is the kind of bullsh*t that boils my blood. go ahead and give joe unlimited credit for the easiest decisions of all time and give him a free pass for all of his many, many blunders. i guess you can’t shake a reputation, can you? it’s ridiculous, and it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously. i get it. joe is the best. he can do no wrong. there are no limits to the numbers of shooting guards he can overpay. bla bla bla.
     
    and the “only” problem with this team is the sorry makeup of the roster and the long-term commitments to players who cannot succeed together. how is anyone expected to take you seriously?

  • Oct 15, 20103:02 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    to get a little more specific about the rotten roster: we have NO point play, too many shooting guards and not enough minutes or shots for them, no quality big men, an uncreative and inexperienced coach. all of the guys we’d like to move have been handed unmovable contracts. plus there’s a staunch refusal to maximize our talent, like pairing bynum and rip, stuckey and gordon. and how much you wanna bet t-mac is the first SF off the bench come the regular season?

  • Oct 15, 20103:34 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    @laser:
    If I didn’t step in, that’s my bad. I’m trying to stay on top of that sort of thing better now though. And the Jerebko thread had a huge number of comments, so I may not have paid as much attention as I should.
    “give the man credit for the biggest no-brainer pick in the history of the league.”
    Hyperbole much? Really good players fall every year in the draft. Brandon Jennings getting to No. 10 in 2009 is a good example. Lawson/Collison in that same draft as well. There are plenty of guys who were bigger “no brainers” than Monroe. Jordan at No. 3 by the Bulls? Durant at No. 2? I’d say it’s pretty common for GMs to luck into picks.

  • Oct 15, 20103:38 pm
    by Dan Feldman

    Reply

    Laser, you still have to give Dumars some credit for drafting Monroe. If it was so obvious, why didn’t Minnesota or Golden State pick him? Dumars deserves credit for not overthinking, like those other two teams.

  • Oct 15, 20107:44 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    @hayes: dude, no sweat. i appreciate it, but it’s not a big deal. some jokers calling me an idiot over the internet is meaningless to me. and i think i explained my stance adequately. the only SCARY thing about jonas going down is that it creates an excuse the pistons are surely going to use to try to bring this sorry roster back for a THIRD go-round. “but we didn’t have our energy guy!” ugh. watch for it. it’s going to happen.
     
    @feldman: believe it or not, i really hate to argue something that’s this obvious. i love arguing, but not about things that i feel ridiculous having to spell out. but as much as i hate that, i hate when people say “it’s so obvious it’s not even up for discussion” so i’ll discuss…
     
    first off, you’re not arguing fair, or arguing smart. i never said monroe was the best pick in the draft, just the best available at #7. and beyond being the best available, it just so happened he was also the best for this team that needed size and defense (which he’s got the size and strength to develop) and scoring up front, with an emphasis on someone who could contribute immediately. we got a multitalented big man with serious offensive skills and defensive potential. the other “options” (i put that in quotes because they were “options” in the same way that terrico white was an “option” at #7, in that they were available but NEVER EVER would have crossed ANYONE’S mind EVER who was drafting for the pistons) up front were (1) a big body who could contribute but had a very, very low ceiling, and (2) a major project with potential. neither of these guys would cross anyone’s mind with this particular roster and that draft position.
     
    i could care less that minny or GSW did. they picked, what, 4 and 6?? i don’t know for certain what their specific needs were, and the guys they took were very obviously UNAVAILABLE to us at #7, so we didn’t have the opportunity to “overthink” them. from what i heard around draft night, minny wanted to get more athletic on the perimeter, and they happened to pick a guy who gave them just that and was rated higher than monroe overall. don’t forget, they still had love and jefferson crowding their front line at the time. and GSW, god knows why they do any stupid thing they do, but i know for sure that a guy like monroe would not have been a very good fit in their system. they have a peculiar system where they like their big men to defend (uh, as it were) and rebound, and they like their guards to jack up threes or slash or whatever. monroe is the kind of guy who would need to be incorporated into the offense to make good use of his skills, both scoring and passing. if you’re going to spend a choice pick on him, you better be able to MINIMALLY incorporate him into the offense, or IDEALLY build your offense at least partially around him. that’s just not GSW’s style. they went with the guy who was more athletic, more mature, and a better defender. frankly, i think his personality may have even played a significant role. he was considered a jovial, nice guy with a big personality, and i have a hunch that’s the kind of guy they wanted to soften the thuggish reputation and demeanor of the team. so there are your reasons why monroe wasn’t ideal for them. nothing i typed just now matters to what i said, but you asked for it.
     
    monroe was an ideal fit. dumars had said that his top big men were favors and cousins (same as just about everyone) and that monroe was slightly behind them in that tier. the next tier had udoh, aldrich and davis. joe got a call on draft night eve that monroe would probably be available, and his mind was made up.
     
    i may be prone to hyperbole, but this was absolutely the only player on the board who was an option. nobody else was getting drafted #7 with the options available. nobody. ever. no matter who was drafting. ed davis’s father would have taken monroe at 7 with this team. cole aldrich, sitting in a GM seat, would have picked monroe. i can not imagine why anyone with knowledge of the game thinks this is an arguable issue. this is a fact. it’s not hyperbole. there was a 100% chance monroe was going to get picked there with the guys left on the board. he gets no credit. i’ll “soften” my stance to say that monroe at #7 was ABSOLUTELY EVERY BIT AS EASY AS THE EASIEST PICKS OF ALL TIME. jordan, lebron, john wall. name a player who was drafted and it will be NO EASIER a pick than monroe was for dumars at 7. there is no such thing as an easier decision, because there was no real “decision” to make. when you only have one option, it’s not even a decision. it was written in stone the moment GSW took udoh.
     
    anyone who was waiting anxiously after the 6th pick, wondering who joe would draft that night, or even thinking it was up for debate/discussion/what-have-you did not have the FOGGIEST idea about the realities of the league. i can’t stress enough, i literally JUMPED off the couch and screamed when GSW took udoh, because the surest thing in the universe was that monroe was going to be a piston. death, taxes and monroe getting drafted #7. the only three certainties in the world.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here