I had posted an extensive response to your previous assertions about Jamison that you have yet to respond to, but I will try again.
frankrj wrote:36 is is the new 31 or 32 due to advanced fitness practice. But when u say 17 / 6 that was for 33 min a game in Cleveland as a PF, 6 reb and his lower FG % vs. a more athletic and better defender in Matt Barnes.
Yes, 17/6 was in Cleveland with more minutes per game, but we're not expecting him to play 33 minutes a game. We rational Laker fans are expecting him to give us a boost off the bench, not carry us. If he plays 23 minutes a night for our team, it'll be more than anything we were able to have during the entirety of last season from a backup big man. The lowest amount of minutes he's ever spent on the floor was 22 minutes in his rookie season where he struggled the most (understandably) and his 6th man of the year season which he spent with (wait for it) Steve Nash at the helm.
During that season he averaged his best FG% ever by far (53%) and his best 3PT% every by far (40%). The overwhelming evidence provided by our resident player analyst rydjorker121 points to him being effective as a catch and shoot player.
Another reason he might fit in with the Lakers is that all of his jumpers are virtually off the catch--almost all his threes are assisted (of note is that he had three straight seasons where all his threes were assisted) as well as all his mid-range J's. Among big men, even though it's rare to see him do so (see below), he's among the better ones in cutting off the ball to finish around the basket. Nash will be able to find him in his spots quite easily, because he's one of the best at getting to them.
Read more here: lakers-discussion/laker-scouting-reports-t115206-100.html
He is not being brought here to average 17/6 but more likely to average something like 12/4/1.5 on 48% shooting and 38% from deep which is absolutely within reason. Now is that 17/6? No, but it's the scoring punch that our bench didn't have last season behind McRoberts' lack of playing time and lack of production.
Again, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the Matt Barnes comparison since Barnes is a SF and Jamison is a PF, but you're hung up on the athleticism and the defense. If that's what your'e worried about from the SF position, Ebanks ranks very near to Matt in terms of athletic ability jumping and sprinting. He's not as good of a finisher and lacks Barnes' strength and lateral speed, but is much younger and able to develop those traits. Barnes' athleticism is extremely overrated as he's just an average athlete in the NBA. Jamison is not the greatest athlete, but certainly the better basketball player and scorer.
frankrj wrote:You says Barnes was garbage in the playoffs.
Yes I do.
frankrj wrote:I think you forgot the 1 for 20-something streak Jamison had w' the King a a couple yrs back.
I think you're overrating a streak. Kobe Bryant goes through shooting streaks every season, should you hold him to the same standard? Kobe can go for 40 points a night 4 games in a row and then shoot 30 something percent from the field the next 2 games. Kobe went 9/31 against Washington and then two games later went 3/20 against Utah. Streaks are unimportant because they tend to balance out.
In Jamison's stint with "the King" he averaged 15.3/7.4/1.3 in 34 minutes of play.
frankrj wrote:He was also heralded as more scoring for LeBron
frankrj wrote:Nash is a good addition and so is resigning Hill.
Yes they are. Although if you stick by your rationale for disliking Jamison so much, then I am unsure why you're excited about Nash; he's neither athletic or particularly known for his defense.
frankrj wrote: Hill showed can play in the playoffs and reg season.
Hill has a sample size of 7 games with the Lakers in the regular season and 12 games in the post season with a total of 299 minutes played with the Lakers. That's not even close to enough to show he can do anything consistently with any team. Jamison has built a career.
frankrj wrote: I prefer him over Jamison.
We have both, so I'm not sure what the point is of preferring one over the other. I prefer Ebanks over Eyenga, but it doesn't matter because last season we had both. Hooray!
frankrj wrote:$4 mil/yr vs $1Mil
Jordan is the one getting paid 4 million a year and Jamison is getting paid closer to 1.5-2 so I'm not sure what this post means. In the production that Jamison will give you he is worth FAR more than the production Hill will give you for 4 million.
frankrj wrote:Neither are a 3 pt shooter which raises questions.
Jordan Hill isn't a 3 point shooter, Jamison is. He's averaged 35% over his career and 34% in the playoffs so I'm not sure how you can say he's not a 3 point shooter.