Time Will Tell (and Curry > Jennings)
by ceterisparibus on Nov 20, 2009 6:49 AM PST
Email
PrintHey everyone, love the blog. This is my 1st post.
Let me get this straight. Y'all are Warriors fans, and y'all are impressed that Brandon Jennings dropped 55 points--on the Warriors? Did I miss something? Am I the only one who remembers how people wanted Corey Maggette--because he always put up big numbers against the Warriors???
Let's face it, scoring 55 on these Warriors is like scoring 47 in the summer league. Jennings has a long way to go before he's the next A.I., or even the next Monta Ellis. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the next Jamal Crawford.
I'm too lazy to do the numbers, but I'm guessing that if you take away his game vs. the GSW, Jennings' numbers don't look nearly as good. Lots of points, but lots minutes, lots of shots, lots of TOs.
Naw, I'd rather have Curry. The "safe" bet. Kind of like Mike Dunleavy. Kind of like Chris Mullin (drafted #7 after tearing it up in college).
The thing with Mullin is, his team wasn't really any good until 88 or 89, after 3 years in the league. Look at the Atlanta Hawks-- in 05/06 they went 26-56, with pretty much the same core pieces they have now minus Bibby. Four long years later look where they're at now. Look at the Blazers, 32-50 in 06/07, Roy and Aldridge's rookie year. Good teams don't just happen.
I know what people are saying. That the Warriors always have "young guys with potential." That this is 94/95 all over again. That we should have drafted Brandon Jennings. That Larry Ellison will save the world.
But think about it. This isn't Latrell Sprewell, Todd Fuller and a bunch of old scrubs. This isn't Jason Richardson, Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy. Heck this isn't Jason Richardson, Antawn Jamison, and Gilbert Arenas (though you looking back you would have kept that team together now, wouldn't you).
This is Monta, Curry, AR, Biedrins, Azubuike, Morrow, and Brandan Wright (plus next year's lottery pick!).
This is a team of young exciting players that are learning to play the game and learning to play together. Let's stop talking trash about them and see where they go. What, would you rather have the Milwaukee Bucks than this team??
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
186 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
thanks
what’s yours about? bonds? zito? rick?
by ceterisparibus on Nov 20, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions
Williams.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 20, 2009 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
Bonds, made this when I started reading McCoveyChronicles. Anyways, I work in economics, so that explains why I like your name…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
-1
Thought it was Rick Barry, and it made me like you a lot more. (also cause you generally have well thought out rebuttals to me). Come join atleticnation
One day you’ll wake up and realize how badly the A’s organization hoses their fans. I’m beginning to realize the Giants ownership isn’t as committed to winning as I thought they were, but the A’s take it to a whole different level only a few owners can match…
(Also, if I had seen Rick Barry play I still wouldn’t be missing him all that much, he’s kind of a dick)
:)
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
haha
Giants ownership IMO is more frustrating simply because they HAVE money and proclaim they don’t. They sell out and generate a massive maount of revenue. A’s simply don’t generate the revenue
Not saying Giants should be in yankee’s or red socks league. but for a team dominating 4th largest market with top 10 attendance (and higher in gate revenue), they should be top 10 in payroll .
Teans like houston, atlanta, philadelphia, detroit should not have significantly higher payrolls.
Also Sabean is awful. Billy Bean on the other hand is only thing keeping thE A’s from becoming the Oakland Royal Pirates
Agree with every point you made. I think the A’s have more revenues than they let on, though, too. I also think some of their lack of revenue is from the fact that they aren’t a particularly well run business. While the Giants are frustrating and try to hide their profit margins and need improvement in the baseball side of things, I don’t think we can deny from the business side of things they’re one of the best run companies in baseball. It’s a big reason why the Giants have a stadium, and the A’s do not, and one of the reasons why the Giants bring in so much more money than the A’s…
It seems they have very, very different strategies for not winning a World Series…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Larry Baer – represents everything I hate about sports, annoys me to think about what he does and what his job is….but hell, I can’t deny that he’s very, very good at his job.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
if I had seen Rick Barry play I still wouldn’t be missing him all that much, he’s kind of a dick
but nowhere near BarryBonds level of steroid’d dickness. RickBarry just doesn’t like the way the warriors organization has collapsed since he played.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 20, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
First, I was well aware of the irony of my statement, just so everyone’s clear, I thought it was funny. :)
Eh, a lot of the whole “Bonds is a dick” reputation is media created. Now, I’m not going to deny the guy is definitely a jerk at times, but if you listened to the media you’d think he Donte Stallworth’ed someone or something. There are plenty of stories out there of Bonds being completely the opposite of his reputation. Also, no need to bring false allegations into this. :)
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions
Barry Bonds is a massive tool.
Funny, it seems Barry Bonds thinks the same thing about you…
by Missing Barry on Nov 22, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
Barry is one of the few people in this world would would never disrespect anybody by blowing smoke up their ass – he tells it like is. Rick Barry and Evel Knievel never learned to compromise with the truth. But, honesty doesn’t pay: it just gets you called a “dick”. lol.
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
by cybermaldonado on Nov 20, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree, he says some pretty ridiculous and stupid crap sometimes, that strikes me more as a political pundit getting attention than just speaking honestly…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
Amazing!
I for one would take Barry over any other player we have ever had. If you had witnessed any of the 1975 season you might think differently. But I do understand your point, I can’t really think of anyone else in professional sports who could be considered a “dick”.
as an a's fan
i’m sad to admit you’re probably right. the whole moneyball thing was fun for a while but it seems like they’re never going to get to the next level.
also funny that you mention econ cause i first learned that phrase in H.S. economics
by ceterisparibus on Nov 23, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
If there’s one good thing that can possibly come of this year’s joke of Yankee WS victory (yay, let’s commit over $800,000,000M in long-term contracts to superstars in two consecutive off-seasons and then see how well small-market teams like Minnesota and Oakland can compete with us!!!) it’s making the MLB powers-that-be realize what an absolute mockery of a sham the league’s obscene financial imbalance has wrought upon a sometimes-great sport.
Most of the Moneyball concepts are still totally sound, but they don’t amount to much when you’ve got, in essence, a 100-yard dash in which one team is starting off at the 50 yard line and a few more (Mets, Angels, Red Sox, Dodgers, e.g.) are hanging out around the 25.
“Ceteris paribus non est” … or something…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
I actually think baseball’s end results in terms of parity are pretty decent. Some of that is because the playoffs aren’t about the best team – in any playoff series, the biggest odds a team is going to have to win the series is like 60% (compared to basketball or football where the best team is much more heavily favored), so in terms of WS you tend to get a pretty good rotation of teams represented throughout the league.
Just making the playoffs in general changes that a little bit (when was the last time the Yankees didn’t make it, after all), but it’s still pretty good overall. The only real cases where it’s that bad is the Yankees and then a few teams like the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, that don’t spend enough – but still, for most of them, the biggest problem is they aren’t well run enough. The Marlins and Rays can compete every once in a while despite tiny payrolls because they’re well run. The Red Sox don’t spend nearly as much money as people think, but they’re arguably the best run team in baseball, so that’s why they seem like such a juggernaught….
So anyways, the point is being a well run franchise is more important than money . If you outspend another team by $20M (which is a pretty sizable amount), it’s only really giving you a ~4 game headstart in the W column, which just isn’t that much over 162 games. It’s still something – don’t get me wrong, money matters, but more important that how much you spend is how good your FO is….
Overall, it’s end results have actually been the best of the major sports (though some of that is the nature of the sport – get a superstar in basketball and you’re set for years, same with a QB in football)…
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
when was the last time the Yankees didn’t make it, after all
last year?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
Haha, d’oh! But then, they were 14/14 in the 14 seasons before that, which is pretty ridiculous when you consider that only 8 of 30 MLB teams get in in a given year.
MB: outspending a team by $20M is one thing; outspending by a factor of 5 to 1 (as in the case of Yankees v. Marlins, Padres, or Pirates) is quite another. No amount of intelligence on the part of the front offices of the small-market teams — and no amount of dumbness on the part of the Yankees’ FO — can remotely close that kind of gap. Yes, due to the nature of the game, and the fact that there are 30 teams, “the field” will always have an edge over the Yankees, just as the field in a golf tournament will always have the edge over Tiger Woods. That doesn’t make it remotely right that the MFY should be allowed to pay to become Tiger Woods every season, where once-proud franchises like the Pirates and Royals need miraculous “holes-in-one” (unforeseen simultaneous blossoming by all of their kids, e.g.) to even make the cut.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
it’s making the MLB powers-that-be realize what an absolute mockery of a sham the league’s obscene financial imbalance has wrought upon a sometimes-great sport.
They should be forced to pool all revenues then split them evenly among all the teams, that would create absolute parity salary wise so the small market teams would have a better chance . If they ran it as one big business instead of 26 or whatever small businesses it would be more efficient.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
They should be forced to pool all revenues then split them evenly among all the teams
They do already share a ton of revenue…
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Not nearly enough. A hard NBA-style salary cap (and floor) are needed. It just seems like a no-brainer: reward the teams that manage their finances and cultivate their talent well. What’s the downside?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t see a need for a hard cap. If I was running things, I’d put a floor on at something like 10% above revenue sharing (I mean come on, if you’re going to get subsidized, at least spend that subsidy), and then at something like $120-140M I’d increase the luxury tax to something like a dollar for dollar tax, with all that money being added into revenue sharing…
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions
What’s the downside?
Revenue for the big market teams, salary values for the players… seriously, who cares about Pitsburgh?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 23, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Totally agree.
Though my innate hatred of the Yankees does affect my thoughts on this a bit, I’m not completely biased: as a big-market Red Sox fan, I sometimes find myself fantasizing about how cool it would be if we could leverage our financial clout to land Joe Mauer or Tim Lincecum when the “poor” teams they came up with can’t afford them anymore. But then I realize how gross that is, and what an indictment of the sport it is that fans should ever think that way.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
Quick
Someone make sure that this isn’t a gentleman from the Warriors’ front office.
i doubt
that gentleman from the Warriors’ front office could be familiar with Latin
31 Y 6.5 ft 250 lbs 0 IQ
Fire Nellie! Fire Cohan! Fire Gregory! Fire David Stern! No need for explanations, just fire em all!
by Missing Barry
by Lat We N Trash on Nov 20, 2009 8:20 AM PST up reply actions
+1
Sounds like a Warriors insider to me, Curry is good, but Jennings is sensational. There is no evidence in this post to say otherwise, just a bunch of opinions. You have a right to your own opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l-tIrgGLEw
The Warriors aren't playing like the Raiders.
The Raiders are playing like the Warriors.
- Precise Films Productions
Dude
Is that a common saying? The only other time I’ve heard it is from a professor i have this semester.
by Goldenstarter on Nov 22, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions
what kind of evidence are you looking for?
my opinions—
- we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves thinking bj is better than the players we have now (i know tons of people on here would trade monta for bj in a heartbeat—even after his game against portland)
- good teams take time, e.g., the atlanta hawks
make more sense than yours (“jennings is sensational”). then again that’s just my opinion
by ceterisparibus on Nov 23, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
i know tons of people on here would trade monta for bj in a heartbeat—even after his game against portland)
cause jennings has more star appeal, he’s more interesting to watch and will likely get more press. If he’s for real he’ll fill the Iverson void of a great little guy that everyone identifies with.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
assumptions, assumptions
how do you know i’m a gentleman?
just feel like there’s a lot of impatience and grass-is-always-greener mentality, from the team, the players and the fans. i see more to feel optimistic about now than i have for a long time, at least we’re not thinking bimbo coles or muggsy bogues is gonna save the team any more.
Both are Ballers.
Curry is more silent, Jennings has more swagger then an Old Spice factory. The dude is so confident, I dont think Michael Jordan would intimidate him.
Curry on the other half is just a complete basketball player. He is not getting NEARLY as many minutes are Jennings, nor is his role as involved as Jennings. That will change, but both will be GREAT PGs in the NBA.
Dont forget about Ty Lawson. BALLER.
Oh and something tells me the kid in UTAH Maynor will be getting lots of PT. Man…. that guy can BALL.
Tyeke Evan and Rubio
are bummed you didn’t mention them when talking about pgs from the 2009 draft
A Sonics fan without a team... but after 6 seasons now of GS Warriors season tickets have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.
Yeah! And why didn't we draft Lebron in 2003 and Chris Paul in 2005!
by freerandolph on Nov 20, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
I would have been content with Wade in 2003!
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
how about amare in 02?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 20, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
well, we actually had a pick that was capable of doing that...
So thats just sad to think about…
by freerandolph on Nov 20, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
It was sad for a few years — less so now, given Amare’s rather diminished status as an efficient scorer / mediocre-to-poor rebounder / non-passer / awful defender who doesn’t help out his team very much when he plays. Factor in the bloated contract he’s likely demand starting next season, and I’d take Curry over him straight up.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 20, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
His rebounding is just as bad as last year. What’s wrong with him, get some damn rebounds Amare!
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
Still better then whoever we drafted that year
The only player we’ve drafted in the past few years that one could even argue has been better is Ellis. Everyone else is worse. We not be saying that in 5 years if Curry Randolph or others get a lot better, but for now, Amare is better then anyone (except maybe Ellis) that we’ve drafted in a while.
by freerandolph on Nov 20, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
I'd still rather take Amare injured
than Dunleavy ever or Jackson. Amare’s still one of the better players in the NBA.
He’s not an awful defender (especially compared to most Warrior players) & he’s picked it up some this year.
by homer simpson on Nov 21, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions
amare is terrible on that end. he blocks a couple of shots, but his lack of interest in defense is actually impressive. a player of his caliber should be ashamed of his effort in that regard. he might be the worst defender on the warriors if we traded for him (now that crawford is gone). he really is that bad.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Even we pick all of that star
We gonna ended trading them at some point
Win Or Lose Warriors For Life.........
They will be completely different players
Curry will never be as athletic as Jennings. Then again he’s turning it over nearly 4 times a game. I am curious to see Curry grow. I keep hearing “Steve Nash comparison” and I see it on a very rough level, neither is overly athletic, but they can get everywhere on the court and make the shots. Curry’s passing has REALLY impressed me TBH.
Of course It took nash close to 5+ years to really become a force…
I want to wait and see these two go...
During the Bucks Warriors game when Jennings start scoring on our whole team, you saw curry step up and go shot for shot with him. Maybe that fire Jennings showed got curry going. But that 3rd quarter by Curry was his best shooting performance as a warrior.
It is gonna be interesting to see these two play against each other for years to come. As a Warriors fan it seems like they will be one of those comparisons we are always gonna jaw about.
Oh and before I forget Curry picked Jennings clean on a drive. If he can get some pointers from Bell and can do that consistently you could see curry being a better player. Jennings has the same problem as every young PG…. defense
by shooter1525 on Nov 20, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Jennings > Curry
And unless Curry improves dramatically (which is very possible) he will never be as good as Jennings is Right Now! and unless Jennings is one of those players that never improves after his rookie year (and he probably will improve after his rookie year) it would be hard for Curry to ever be as good. Don’t forget, that although Jennings is injury prone (typical of a rookie, making rookie mistakes) everyone says his defense is great and he has 5 and a half assists per game. The only thing Curry is better in is shooting percentage, but if he took as many shots as Jennings i doubt his shooting percentage would be this high.
wow
Clearly you watched 0 tape of curry in college and his 20+ 40 pt games. Jennings has had 1 55 pt. game against a team who had 0 centers.
So yeah you want to crown him, crown him. People who really know basketball would disagree with you.
Only an undeducated fan would say such an insane thing.
tape of curry in college
college don’t count in the NBA
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 20, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
Where do I start here:
If the most rebounds you have ever gotten in college is 5, how can I draft you as a power rebounder?
Let me give you an example:
Paul Millsap played at Louisiana Tech. He led the NCAA in rebounding for 4 years. He is a bad ass rebounder for Utah. Teams thought like you did, and it was Utah’s gain.
So what I am trying to explain here, is if you dont have any experience doing something on a regular basis, ASSUMING that you will do it at the next level is the part that shouldnt count, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER DONE IT BEFORE.
So with that said, thats why Curry is the complete package. Although his role is different in the NBA, he is VERY capable of scoring lots of points.
How do I know that?
Can he shoot 3s? Yes
Can he shoot mid-range? Yes
Can he do runners? Yes
Can hit the free throws? Yes
Can he pop and shoot off screens? Yes
Can he create his own shot? Yes
That sir is the complete package.
From what I've seen of Curry and Jennings is the NBA
I would rather have Jennings… From what I’ll seen of him in the NBA I would answer Yes to all those questions for him too.
by freerandolph on Nov 20, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
Before the draft, though, we didn’t know a lot of that stuff about Jennings, whereas we did know all that about Curry…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying that I can blame the Dubs for drafting Curry!
BUT, he has not played as well as Jennings! By a lot! Jennings = MVP candidate.
Curry = Having a decent season so far for a rookie. I would rather have the MVP candidate, though on draft night there was no way that the Dubs could have known that that would be Jennings more the Curry. END OF STORY.
by freerandolph on Nov 20, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions
Imagine the problems Jackson, Maggette and Monta would have had if Jennings came in and took that many shots a game? He has impressed as a scorer, the last thing we need for our team. Passing? Hasn’t been nearly as impressive
Yeah his rookie leading assist average isn't very impressive is it.
Or his assist totals that have not been bad for a point guard.
by freerandolph on Nov 21, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
You're missing the point
Place Curry in Jennings’ situation and we would see a similar performance. You are comparing statistics while looking past circumstances:
-With Redd injured, Jennings is the one and only offensive option in Milwaukee. Curry is on a team with a plethora of players capable of putting up big numbers.
-Given Jennings’ situation, he is on a very loose leash, coaching wise. Curry, on the other hand, is subject to Nellie’s discretion (read: confusion).
I could go on but I hope you get the point. Very different situations that cannot be overlooked when comparing the two youngins.
by Goldenstarter on Nov 22, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
True they are in very different situations.
But You don’t know that Curry would do as well as Jennings is doing now, if he were on the Bucks! No one knows if that is true!
All we can go by is what they have done. And hands down, Jennings has out performed every other rookie and most other players who are not rookies in the NBA!
by freerandolph on Nov 22, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that’s true, though because of sample sizes, I think that difference will get smaller in the future.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions
Jennings is an MVP candidate?
Now I know you’re on drugs =p
Give me your definition of a Point Guard
Jennings is not a very good point guard.
Do you know WHY were talking about Jennings? BEcause of his scoring, and not because of his passing. That is not good when you’re supposed to be a POINT GUARD.
Thats why. Nobody wants a midget shoot first PG, why? Because its called Allen Iverson.
Why do you think we brought in Curry for Monta?
You are just confused on what is supposed to make a good point guard.
yeah...
And the fact that Jennings is not just scoring more then Curry but also averaging more assists then Curry, and evidently playing very good defense (is what I have read online) figures into that equation how?
by freerandolph on Nov 29, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
That sir is the complete package.
No Lebron James is the complete package. Curr-bury is a little packet.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 20, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions
Do you just listen to whatever you want?
I said scoring as a point guard. LeBron James plays small forward, or would you like me to compare Andris Biedrins to Wilt Chamberlain as well?
Stay on topic man.
What you fail to understand is there’s a good chance a lot of Jennings performance up to this date is a small sample fluke. In other words, he probably isnt’ as good as he’s played so far. In addition Curry actually racks up more assists than Jennings – if you check out their per 36 minutes numbers you would see this. Curry also averages more steals and less turnovers.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
This is true.
The sample size is too small to make any really good judgment, and it is just their rookie seasons.
But I don’t know how anyone could say at this point Curry > Jennings. Right now jennings dominates Curry.
With that said, no one saw this coming, so while I wish the Dubs had drafted Jennings, I cannot fault them for drafting Curry. And I still think Curry will be good, although I’m not convinced he will be a perennial allstar or anything like that.
by freerandolph on Nov 20, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
I think that’s a very reasonable take on the situation.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
It was always
a high risk high reward with Jennings while Curry was the safe pick. Nobody really knew, we just all had our assumptions on the two players.
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Nov 20, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
pretty much. even among those of us who thought he’d be good, no one thought he’d shoot 3’s at a 52% clip while hoisting over 5 of them a game and have as good a jumper as he has shown thus far.
i still expect his 3 point % to dip closer to 40%, but if there was a poll before the season, i bet no rational person would have thought he’d even shoot that and most would have put him around a Baron or Jack like 33%.
by homer simpson on Nov 21, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
I always said Jennings was a good shooter when I saw him play! :)
You’re right, though, all the reports on him were he wasn’t a great shooter.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
For our team, going with the >passing and low drama is a big factor. Curry was probably the better player for our team, while Jennings is the better player period.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Maybe you're right.
I might still rather have Jennings, but he wouldn’t really fit with Monta, Magette, Jack (cauase he was on the team at that point).
I think I would rather have Jennings and trade all those guys though, haha. Maybe thats a ridiculous thing to say,but its looking like Jennings is a better player to build a franchise around then anyone in a Dubs uniform
by freerandolph on Nov 21, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
i say at this point curry > jennings
b/c there’s a reason why curry was more highly coveted before the draft (college performance, poise, experience, not being a jackass), and one month of basketball does not erase that. So while it’s possible that a few years down the line Jennings will decisively prove to the better player, I still think that Curry is more likely to be the all-star. We’ll see I guess.
As far as building around Jennings, that’s probably about as bad of an idea as building around Monta (LOL). As much as I’d like to see a little guy lead his team to greatness, AI couldn’t do it and Gilbert probably won’t do it—so I don’t see Jennings doing it. His ceiling is Tony Parker—but without Duncan who cares?
I’m guessing Jennings peaks in a few years, starts losing his speed (which is really the only thing that sets him apart from an average nba player), and spends a few years on and off the injured list
by ceterisparibus on Nov 23, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Your post doesn't make much sense...
You don’t give any reason that Curry is better then Jennings other then he was drafted higher. If thats the case then lets get Adonal Foyle (or whoever we drafted the year Kobe was drafted…) back because he is better then Kobe! I would bet that Jennings will be an allstar before Curry, maybe even this year.
If Jennings is bad to build around cause he is small, then Curry has the same problem! Still don’t see why Curry is better…
Players can keep their speed for a long time. Look at Monta and Barbosa and AI. You can’t just say that he’ll lose his speed, not knowing if he actually will, and why do you think he is going to get injured more then any other player is likely to get injured?
by freerandolph on Nov 23, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
why do you think he is going to get injured more then any other player is likely to get injured?
Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but at least with this point, Jennings 170 or whatever does seem to me like a good reason to think he’s more at risk of injury than most NBA players…
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
Jennings 170 or whatever does seem to me like a good reason to think he’s more at risk of injury than most NBA players…
how much did Iverson weigh at that age?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
What does Iverson have to do with anything?
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
What does Iverson have to do with anything?
cause he was very lightweight and very durable so Jennings might be fine
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 10:49 PM PST up reply actions
One example doesn’t mean anything, though, because Jennings isn’t Allen Iverson. Now, if you showed me that small skinny players as a whole were more durable, on average, then I might take your side….but just pointing at one player doesn’t mean anything. It would be like me pointing to Sam Bowie to tell you that 7 footers always get hurt.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
So then name all the small players that get hurt then!
You made the claim first.
I don’t have any statistics but from what I’ve seen small players do not seem to get hurt more often then anyone else, mopeds aside.
by freerandolph on Nov 24, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
I could be wrong, you’re right, I don’t have the statistics, but it’s a generally repeated train of thought throughout physical sports (like basketball and football) that small players are more injury prone. As I originally said, I think small players are more injury prone, I didn’t state it as a fact or anything, just a theory that they can’t take the beating as well as bigger, stronger players.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions
Missing Unique Opinions
You’re right. Because it is an often repeated sentiment that small players get injured easier, i will restate it as fact and regurgitate whatever i hear on ESPN because it must be true. Then i’ll sound like i know what im talking about!
Here’s a list for you: Brevin Knight, Nate Robinson, Speedy Claxton, Damon Stoudamire, Mike Conley, Aaron Brooks, Mike Wilks, Earl Boykins, Allen Iverson, Chucky Atkins, Larry Hughes, Richard Hamilton, Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Muggsy Bogues
There’s a quick list off the top of my head of players that are either under 200 pounds or under 6 feet tall. Instead of regurgitating common misconceptions, you should do a little research and formulate your own opinions.
Ha….apparently someone is a little argumentative…
It’s not like it makes sense from a theoretical standpoint that small bodies can’t take hits as well as big bodies or anything. :)
(The skinny part is more important than the height part, by the way)
by Missing Barry on Dec 2, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
I don't see what argumentative has to do with it
He just saw that you were making a claim that isn’t true.
by freerandolph on Dec 2, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
First, nobody has established that the claim isn’t true. I’ve presented a theory that seems, intuitively, to support the opinion. Doesn’t mean the opinion is true, doesn’t mean it’s false. Some anecdotal evidence has been presented against it, but I personally dismiss anecdotal evidence because it’s generally not meaningful at all. Everyone can find examples to support their argument, no matter how right or wrong they are.
I was calling him argumentative because he feels the need to make a lot of assumptions about me that are….well, I just am not quite sure how he knows that I’m some ESPN stooge that just repeats what they say as fact. Seems unnecessary and doesn’t really add to the conversation. I could let everyone knows he prefers dressing up in woman’s clothing, but again, that doesn’t add much to the conversation. :)
I stand by my theory that skinner guys bodies are more injury prone than well built guys. I’ve actually thought more about it and decided it may be that being shorter actually helps – “the bigger you are, the harder you fall” – but seriously, the bigger you are the more stress it places on your joints and such (see Yao Ming and his feet, not representative of the whole population, obviously, but the point is his size increases the stress on that part of his body). So short may not be bad (and may even be good), but skinny is. My meaningless anecdotal evidence? Kevin Martin.
Now, if you have or can link to real research done on the subject, I’m all ears.
by Missing Barry on Dec 3, 2009 8:03 AM PST up reply actions
There is no need for research... And people don't generally research the NBA....
We’ve listed lots of skinny players that haven’t had problems with injuries, and truthfully, when you think of players who have had injury problems (Baron, Brand, Maggette, Wright are the first four that come to my mind) there does not seem to be any sort of theme about size…
yeah i guess there was some inconsistencies
but I did mean that Curry was not only drafted higher, he was pretty much universally more well regarded, due to a number of factors that I listed.
and “build around” is a tricky concept. There’s very few guys in the league that are truly worthy of building an nba team around—as in, having that one truly dominant guy who gives you a winner automatically. I would say right now, that’s Kobe, Lebron, and that might be it. The rest of the players out there can be great players, but as pieces of a team (e.g., the suns really only work when they have stoudemire and nash together on the same team in the right system).
Tell a guy like sjax that you’re “building around” him, and see what happens?
Overall I think Curry looks to me like a better piece and a better team player than Jennings.
As for the injury thing, I guess it just seems to me like little guys who rely on speed and explosiveness often end up hurt or fall out of shape. Though I guess you could say that big guys with a lot of weight on their frame tend to get hurt a lot too. But while someone like Greg Oden can probably make it back from injury without losing too much of his game, if a little guy goes down with a knee or ankle injury, he probably loses his explosiveness and if that’s all there is to his game, he’s done.
There’s been VERY few little guys in this league that have sustained a long and fruitful career on scoring and flash alone (recent years, I can only think of AI. And he never won a championship. Maybe Wade is an exception, but he’s a little bit bigger). That’s why I’m not super impressed by Jennings right now. If he becomes a great passer, or a great defender, or a clutch shooter, maybe he’ll become better than Curry, but I just don’t see it happening.
by ceterisparibus on Nov 23, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
Kobe, Lebron, and that might be it.
I’d argue that Kobe doesn’t even belong on that list. Where was his “automatic” ticket to winning in the interim between Shaq and Gasol? Show me a frontcourt that features Ariza-Gasol-Bynum-Odom, throw in a “replacement level” backcourt (say, Ramon Sessions and Kelenna Azubuike), and I’ll show you a 55-60-win championship contender.
Beyond that quibble, I totally agree with all your points. Ceteris paribus, of course. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
That’s a pretty small list of players to build around. Wade has almost singlehandedly won a championship already, he should be qualified, right? Duncan, Howard, Paul (though he has the knock of being small), possibly Melo, possibly Rose (if you’re building for the future), Durant….there are definitely more than 2 superstars/future superstars out there!
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
...
How players are regarded before the draft does not necessarily have anything to do with how good they are. Anything.
I don’t get what you point was about the “build around” concept. How does that relate to Jennings/Curry? Are you saying Jennings isn’t good enough to build around? I’m not saying he is the next Lebron (taking a team to the Finals without much help at all), but he does seem like he could be as good a player to build around as most teams have. Plus, that still doesn’t have anything to do with why Curry is better then Jennings…
Curry is a little player too. I don’t know why you don’t think a quick player can’t sustain (Wade, AI, Barbosa,) are all examples of players who rely on quickness and have been consistent throughout their careers.
He is a good passer. (rookie leader in assists). People say he is a good defender. I don’t know if he is a clutch shooter.
“maybe he’ll become better than Curry, but I just don’t see it happening.”
I think what you mean is, maybe someday Curry will become better then Jennings, cause right now there is no question.
Jennings: 25.3 points, 4.4 Rebs, 5.5 Assists, 3.4 Turnovers.
Curry: 9.5 points, 2.6 Rebs, 5.2 Assists, 2.3 Turnovers.
Maybe if Curry had complete control over the team, as Jennings does, he would put up the same numbers, but from what anyone can see, from what they’ve done, Jennings has been more impressive.
by freerandolph on Nov 23, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
Oh Yeah, I almost forgot
Jennings in his pro career (8-4)
Curry in his pro career (4-8)
by freerandolph on Nov 23, 2009 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
Jennings has been more “impressive,” but let’s not distort the difference by glossing over the fact that he’s played five minutes a game more. Apples to apples, per 36 minutes:
BJ 25.2 pts (55.5% TS) / 4.5 reb / 5.9 ast / 3.6 to / 1.0 stl
SC 11.5 pts (56.0% TS) / 3.1 reb / 6.2 ast / 2.7 to / 1.6 stl
In a small sample size, Jennings has shot the ball much more frequently and rebounded better, while Curry has passed better, taken better care of the ball, and forced more steals. Efficiency from the floor has been nearly identical.
Including “team record” in your comparison is just silly, especially when one of the teams has played without six of its rotation players. Jeff Teague, at 10-3, is “better” than either of them in this respect.
Still. too. soon. to. say.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 24, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions
It is too soon to say! As far as who will have the better career.
But so far (and that is not very far) Jennings is dominating. I just have a problem when someone says Curry>Jennings, cause its too early to say which will have the better career, and Jennings has been better so far.
by freerandolph on Nov 24, 2009 7:25 AM PST up reply actions
Looking at this from a statistical approach, we can agree on the fact that Jennings has been better, so far. That means it’s more likely than not that Jennings is, right now, better than Curry. It doesn’t mean it’s set in stone, though – there’s some probability that this is just a good stretch for Jennings and/or a bad one from Curry. Before we can start coming to definitive conclusions on who is better, right now, we’re going to need a much bigger sample size.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
there’s some probability that this is just a good stretch for Jennings and/or a bad one from Curry. Before we can start coming to definitive conclusions on who is better, right now, we’re going to need a much bigger sample size.
Haha, “Right now” means deal with the sample size you have. Later means you get more data. There’s some probability that Foyle will get to be better than Lebron but it’s not likely.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 24, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
It’s not about who ends up “getting better”, it’s about our best estimates as to how good they are right now. With Foyle and Lebron we have a substantial sample size, and there’s such a huge difference between them, that we can conclude with something like 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% certain that Lebron > Foyle. Jennings and Curry are much closer together talent-wise, with a very small sample to work with. Now, I haven’t run the numbers, but I suspect the difference between them, based on the information we have available right now, is not significant at any significance level.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
It’s not about who ends up "getting better", it’s about our best estimates as to how good they are right now.
No I’m pretty sure it’s about who ends up better. Your estimates are a lot more important to you than they are to the NBA.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 24, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
No I’m pretty sure it’s about who ends up better. Your estimates are a lot more important to you than they are to the NBA.
Maybe I have a different interpretation than you, but to me this conversation has been focused on who the better player is right now? At least that was the conversation I was having. I don’t care to try to project the future because….well….projecting the future is hard. :)
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
Haha, shut up Poindexter and deal with the sample size you have. Later means you get more data. And by the way you’re totally forbidden to expand your sample size by including college numbers, ’cause college aint the pros, dint you know?
Did I mention that Curr-burry is a scrawny lil pipsqueak and nowhere near as good as LeBron or Shaq Daddy in his prime? Or that BrokenWing is much skinnier than Boomdizzle? Or that breaking up the “We Believe” team right when they were about to win a championship was stupid? Or that Captain Jack is a good role model cause he looks out for his friends?
Just makin’ sure you’re payin’ attention… ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 24, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
shut up Poindexter and deal with the sample size you have. Later means you get more data.
Just trying to keep them honest :>)
Why does this photo remind me of the warriors team?
http://www.clbcstudents.com/Redneck%20airconditioned%20car.jpg
Something about the D league perhaps or maybe roster construction??
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 24, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
He's just repeating...
all of skeptic’s standard lines.
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
by olympicmike on Nov 25, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
Sleepy.
Sleepy was just taking a little shot at Skeptic by throwing out some of his standard lines.
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
I don’t know why you don’t think a quick player can’t sustain (Wade, AI, Barbosa,) are all examples of players who rely on quickness and have been consistent throughout their careers.
“One of these things is not like the other”….
Wade is a legitimately sized SG. He is not in the same category as any of these other players (Curry, Jennings, AI, Barbosa). He might be a little short, but he’s long, and more importantly, he’s big and strong.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions
"How players are regarded before the draft does not necessarily have anything to do with how good they are. Anything."
I disagree with that. I think how a player is regarded before the draft has just as valid, if not more so, than how many points they put up and how cool they looked in their first 10 games.
Allow me to provide an example: in 2005, Deron Williams was drafted 3rd and Channing Frye was drafted 8th. That year Williams finished with 10.8 ppg, 4.5 apg and Frye finished with 12.3 ppg and Frye finished with 5.8 rpg (playing for the knicks, of course). For the first month of the season Frye looked even better, I can’t find the stats, but he was named rookie of the month nov. 2005. Now I know we’re not talking “Brandon Jennings-type numbers” here, but I’m sure after one month, the knicks felt like they got a steal at #8 and there were people in in Utah saying “why didn’t we draft Frye”—or chris paul, but that’s not the point. I know this is not the best example and I’m sure there’s dozens that work the other way around, but in this case, the pre-draft analysis ended up being more accurate than the first month analysis.
Curry comes in with an incredible college record while Brandon Jennings comes in with high school and some flashy moves. Yes I realize this is the logic that was used to draft Todd Fuller and Adonal Foyle, but 10 games doesn’t change the fact that Curry has been a much better player, at a much higher level, for much longer, than Brandon Jennings. And just because Jennings has a good game against the GSW doesn’t mean that a team like the spurs won’t figure out eventually how to stop him.
by ceterisparibus on Nov 24, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
but 10 games doesn’t change the fact that Curry has been a much better player, at a much higher level, for much longer, than Brandon Jennings.
10 games at the highest level and Curr-B trailing Jennings in performance means exactly what it means. Jennings SO FAR is definitely better at the highest level, Curr-B was great at college but Jennings didn’t go so we can’t compare that ? How was their high school comparison if anyone cares?
Take their team affiliation and your emotional attachment to them out of the equation and see how it looks.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 24, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Ceterisparibus has a valid point, which gets back to what I was talking about, and directly contradicts this:
Jennings SO FAR is definitely better at the highest level
All I really have to say about it is….take a stat class skep.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
I don't need a stat class to see that he's better. I've seen them both play
but I’m pretty sure the stats would agree with me even though I don’t care. :>)
Ok , I looked them up. So far Curr-B has 9.5Ppg, 2.6Rpg,5.2 Apg, .473%Fg . Jennings has 24.2Ppg, 4.3Rpg, 5.7Apg, .462%Fg. So it looks like Jennings has contributed significantly more so far other than his slightly lower shooting percentage. Of course that’s only as of right now( or whenever the website updated the info), subject to change as the season progress for all the dreamers out there.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 24, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, the concept is basically something along these lines: Let’s say you have two coins, and you flip them each 5 times. One coin comes up heads 4 times tails 1 time. The other comes up heads twice and tails 3 times. Is the first coin better at flipping heads than the second? Of course not, they’re the exact same. That’s the general point – I don’t think we’ve seen a large enough sample (which would be the number of flips in my example), to confidently say Jennings is better than Curry right now.
As I said earlier, Jennings stats so far are better than Curry’s, I’m not disputing that. What that means is the chance that Jennings is better than Curry is higher than the chance that Curry is better than Jennings, but it doesn’t necessarily mean Jennings is actually better than Curry. It may just be sample error.
by Missing Barry on Nov 24, 2009 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
Wow
First of all that Frye example does make a point, but it is definately not the same thing. Jennings has been dominant. Straight up dominant. He was ranked as the 10th player on the last NBA.com MVP ranking. Not Rookie of the year ranking, MVP ranking. I’ve never heard Frye’s name and MVP in the same sentence (until right now lol).
“Curry has been a much better player, at a much higher level, for much longer, than Brandon Jennings. And just because Jennings has a good game against the GSW doesn’t mean that a team like the spurs won’t figure out eventually how to stop him.”
Curry did do well in college, but Jennings never played in college so we can’t compare… Their highschool stats and their NBA stats are the only things we can compare (because those are the only two leagues both have played in, in the past 6 years or so), and I don’t think anyone wants to put any value on their high school stats.
And, just the fact that you’re talking about a good defensive team having to try to figure out how to stop Jennings, shows how dominate he has been. Thats how people talk about star players! Thats not how people talk about Curry.
Players get drafted higher because people think that they will be better, but that often turns out to be wrong. Monta can’t possibly be good, he was drafted in the second round! There are tons of example’s that show players drafted higher are not always better then players drafted lower.
Once again, just to be clear, I am not saying that I am sure Jennings will have a better career then Curry. I am just saying that Jennings has been extremely impressive so far. Curry has been impressive so far too, just not on the same level as Jennings.
by freerandolph on Nov 24, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
Jennings has been dominant. Straight up dominant.
This is stretching the meaning of the word “dominant” beyond recognition. A .555 TS% is not “dominant.” Fewer than 2 assists to 1 turnover, for a PG, is not “dominant.” 4.5 rebounds per 36 is not “dominant.” 1 steal per 36 minutes is not “dominant.”
He was ranked as the 10th player on the last NBA.com MVP ranking.
Which means precisely … diddlysquat.
He’s been better than Stephen Curry, a fellow skinny rookie, through 12 games. He ain’t all that, yet. He may get there, but he’s got a l-o-n-g way to go before he can be mentioned alongside the word “dominant,” or in the same breath as the Top 10 players in the league.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 24, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions
You forget
“24/6/4, and a ROOKIE!!! And he scored 55 in a game!” is all laymen will hear before they start drooling off to never-never land. He’ll be labeled top 10, he’ll be an MVP candidate, but his empty numbers will ring true in his teams’ win totals… unless he improves.
As a side note, his distance #s have already dipped (4/16 over the last 3 games). We’ll see. He’s definitely a player, but we’ll have to see how he progresses. Curry’s got ice water running through his veins and lets the game come to him in a good way. I’m very happy with him around. I’m not sure I’d be as happy with Jennings in a Dubs uni. I’m not sure I wouldn’t, just not sure I would either.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 24, 2009 9:27 PM PST up reply actions
Well...
I agree to some extent about the Blazers comparison. I live in Portland – and when they started rebuilding they forced out all of the veterans and made the commitment to go young – knowing they would lose a lot of games. There was a local campaign here to draft Adam Morrison (since he played at Gonzaga in Washington) – and the Blazers ignored the popular pick and ended up getting two future all-stars. Bottom line is that the Warrior’s need direction – choose one and stick with it. Getting rid of Jackson makes it seem like we are beginning to realize that – hopefully we (fans included) stick it out.
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
Time has already told...
Brandon Jennings is killing it against a lot of teams, not just the warriors. He almost had a triple double in his debut. Curry has the possibility of being a very good player but that battle is already over
that battle is already over
If I had a nickel for every time someone made the wrong call on who would have a better career based on a limited sample of games in the players’ rookie year, I’d have a lot of nickels. Jennings may well wind up being the better player, but to call it over is premature.
Blake Griffin’s a bust!
not a bust just busted for now.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 20, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
Jennings has had the 2nd best scoring of any rookie ever over the last 10 games. I can’t say it’s over, but I have to say Jennings looks like a soon-to-be all-star, while Curry looks like a stabilizing influence, a leader and a solid player with a long career. Barring injury, Jennings will be a perennial all-star, I predict.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The point is a lot of players can look like All-stars over a 10 game sample. He has to continue to produce at a high level (even if that level isn’t as high) to really show he’s for real.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
Not as rookies for their very first games. I promise, he’s very, very good.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Give me a large enough number of players, and that 10 game hot streak will come to start a rookie season off. That’s just how things work. If you try hard enough you can always find a theory why something might be the exception, yet when you look at the whole population, you still end up with the same distribution. Ultimately, you’re just trying to come up with a “why” for sample error, though.
by Missing Barry on Nov 23, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
Small sample coupled with injuries to the stars ahead of him
On a team that has shipped out everybody in an effort to drop cap… this sounds like:
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 23, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Jennings has had the 2nd best scoring of any rookie ever
Who was first?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 21, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
Figures it was a warrior we let get away
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 22, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
Nope.
Wilt put up a mind boggling 37.6 PPG in his rookie season. And BTW
Jennings has had the 2nd best scoring of any rookie ever over the last 10 games.
I’m not sure what his avg was when you posted this, but at this point he’s putting up 25.3 PPG. Even if you assume that he can keep that up for an entire season (pretty big assumption), I’m not even sure if that puts him in the top ten. I can’t find a definitive list but here are the top three:
37.6 – Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia, 1959-60****
31.6 – Walt Bellamy, Chicago, 1961-62
30.5 – Oscar Robertson, Cincinnati, 1960-61
Also, a couple other guys that jump to mind:
Kareem – 28.8
Elvin Hayes – 28.4 (won the MVP as a rookie)
Jordan – 28.2
Rick Barry – 25.7
I’m not saying the guy isn’t a special talent, but I think it’s folly to credit him with a rookie scoring average of 25+ ppg after only ten games played. Then to compound that with calling it the second best scoring performance of all time by a rookie… well I think there is plenty of hyperbole surounding Jennings at this point, let’s at least try to keep some historical perspective.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Nov 22, 2009 11:53 PM PST up reply actions
Why cant people have logic like you?
Chris Paul is also leading the league in 3PT% at 62%
Think he will shoot 62% for a season? lol
Missed the boat on Jennings
We really blew it not taking Jennings-and to think that we NEEDED a point guard! Just think of he and Monta together,yeh… they’re small,but who would have a quicker backcourt ?!
Dr. Jeff
With Monta?
I bet Ellis will always take that shot and Jennings gonna be like Curry bringing the ball down.
Win Or Lose Warriors For Life.........
Jennings’ has oddly been more of a scoring guard while Curry’s turned out to be more of a PG statistically in the NBA. Jenning’s assist ratio is 18.9% while Curry’s is at 32.5%. (Monta, for instance, is at 18.3%). Jennings’ is taking 20 shots a game in the Buck’s slower-paced offense.
in actual play, Jennings’ is far superior in PG things like ball-screen (which he reads like a veteran) and keeping his dribble alive.
by homer simpson on Nov 21, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Jennings looks a lot like the next Tony Parker in the way he plays the pick and roll and can get where he wants at will. Something that makes Parker so good, though, is his ability to finish inside. We’ll see if Jennings develops that.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
I completely disagree with your analysis of Jennings.
The kid’s got it. He’s got that something special.
by HOLDEMUPGoldenStateOfOppression on Nov 20, 2009 12:17 PM PST reply actions
I’m glad you know that from 9 games. Everyone has good stretches of 9 games. Just relax on the definitive statements already.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
He’s already had the best first ten games of any rookie EVER… well, minus Kareem and a couple others. It’s definitive, in my book. It’s not definitive that he belongs in a discussion with Kareem or any of the other all-time greats. He’s too short for that. I fully expect him to be like AI… except a better passer.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Again, small sample size. It really is that simple why you can’t make a definitive statement on this.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 9:16 AM PST up reply actions
Stephen Curry and Anthony Morrow
needs more shots. I’m tired of seeing Monta take 20 shots a game (some of them bad) while Stephen and Morrow take around 9 shots.
Part of me wants to see Monta get injured or miss a couple of games so we can see what Curry is really capable of.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 20, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Curry already tends to have better +/- than Ellis. He’s just getting started.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Your 401 K ?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
Monta does need to get his efficiency up if he’s going to keep shooting at the volume he is…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
You make a good point:
Let me get this straight. Y’all are Warriors fans, and y’all are impressed that Brandon Jennings dropped 55 points—on the Warriors?
These are mostly the same people who, when you say Messiah and the initials J.C. together instantly think you’re talking about Jamal Crawford.
If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.
LOL
that’s stupid, but true. Then again I’m not Christian.
quick unimportant thing about jennings: that guy is always bouncing around when he plays. it’s absolutely crazy to watch. i’ve never seen someone so quick move around so much. he’s hopping around even when he’s not going anywhere. amazing.
also, he’s making all the doubters, myself included, look really silly. i knew he had potential, but that unimpressive trip to europe made me think he might not put it together. early returns say otherwise.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I tried to tell people Europe wasn’t a good indicator of whether he was good or not…. :)
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
It’s a completely different game than the NBA, first off. Second off, it’s a pretty high level of competition for a kid right out of high school – especially the league Jennings was in, they’d eat a top NCAA program for lunch. Third, Jennings was on a good team with solid guards already, it was unlikely he would play a big role or even get much PT. Plus, their coaches obviously knew he was gone in a year, they didn’t have any incentive to help his development. Finally, just the whole culture shock/language barrier stuff is probably a pretty tough situation for an 18/19 year old kid to deal with, living away from home and such.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, one other thing – statistics over there are different. They’re much stingier on assists, and the general pace of the game isn’t as fast, so guys don’t put up as big of per game numbers…
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
but even when you factor all that in, the question remains: how was he such a terrible shooter in europe and so good here? that’s what’s so amazing to me. there’s no way his jumper improved that much since last year. how does the ability to shoot from outside translate that poorly?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Well, there are two possibilities here. First, let’s note that reports form his workouts also indicated Jennings shooting needed improvement, so that seems to be a pretty solid report on his pre-draft. So the two possibilities are: he’s had a very good small sample of games and isn’t nearly that good, or he’s substantially improved since the draft (or some combination of the two).
I will say, his shot was money when I saw him play in HS. His fundamentals were weak then, in Italy, before the draft, and still are, though – he doesn’t set himself well before the shot.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
He's not going to be shooting like that for the rest of the year
Look at Cp3..He shot what? 35% last year from beyond the arc? This year he shot 67% over the first 9 games. Is that gonna continue? Hell no.
i definitely expect it to drop, but i don’t expect him to be around the abysmal 20.7% he shot from deep in italy. he looks like he’s going to be much better than a lot of us expected. i’m comfortable eating crow over my doubt of jennings at draft time. even when his numbers drop from the incredible showing he’s had to this point, he’ll still be a legit NBA starter and as a rookie, that’s nothing to sneeze at.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Oh, thought of more things! The basketball over in Europe is a different size, and the 3 point line is a different length. You’d think it’d be easier since it’s shorter, but it just takes time to adjust to the new line. I would think a full season would allow him to make that adjustment, but who knows…?
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
Dont get me wrong,
i like curry, but brandon jennings is the better player now, and will probably continue to be.
This is basically Jennings’ sophmore year because he already played on the professional level for a year. Therefore, Jennings has played a season and about 10 games while curry has only played about 10 games.
Once the number of pro games played is closer, then we can make an accurate comparison.
Just Curious
What do the Warriors’ fans think of the Vince Carter-Antawn Jamison swap in 1998? Carter is known for his flashy dunks and a perennial all star in his prime while Jamison was more of the consistent but seldom noticed star for the awful Warriors during his time in Oakland.
I ask this because this Curry and Jennings comparison might very much end up like that of Carter and Jamison. Jennings is off to a great start, putting up crazy numbers and of course that epic game against the Warriors. Curry is putting in solid minutes and has nice numbers overall for a rookie PG. It’s not ridiculous to say Jennings has the ability to become a high scoring guard like A.I. with multiple all star appearances while Curry settles into a 15 PPG/ 7-8 APG guard a la Nash when he’s with the Mavericks.
11 years later, Carter has lingering knee injuries and is no longer the high flying player he was before while Jamison is still consistently scoring his 20 points and grabbing around 9 boards per game. As of right now, I have to say Jamison is the better player of the two.
Win the inning.
Hmm
Curry : Jennings :: Jamison : Carter
Sounds about right. Nice analogy.
I’d also add that Nash at his peak > Iverson at his peak. Though I think Jennings has the potential to be a much better and more willing passer than Iverson ever was. Maybe Isiah is a better comp for him than AI?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 23, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm
What we should do is trade Curr-bury for ROY now that Montay’s exposed how bad ROY is, we could sacrifice Curr-bury significantly better talent for ROY’s skil-less size?.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions
To answer this question
Allen Iverson in his peak why because he actually had the heart, the determination, and the defensive presence to help the 76ers get to the NBA finals.
Nash in his peak was never able to do that with the Suns, in fact it’s hard to argue if Nash even has anywhere near the heart that Iverson had when he was in his prime.
As for the Carter and Jamison trade. I’d say Jamison because let’s face it Jason Richardson was a better dunker than Carter!
it’s hard to argue if Nash even has anywhere near the heart that Iverson had when he was in his prime.
Sure it’s hard to argue, because “heart” is a very ephemeral and subjective thing. That Iverson had any more “heart” than Nash is just, like, your opinion, man. Many noted cardiologists would probably disagree with you.
On the other hand, it’s not that hard to argue that Nash at his peak helped to produce more wins for his team (on a per minute basis) than Iverson did for his team. It’s borne out by almost any metric you want to pick. Iverson was a more active defensive player, but Nash was/is a vastly better offensive player.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 24, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
Nash was one Robert Horry cheapshot away from making the Finals (potentially), which I think is a lot more impressive than making the Finals out of the East back when Iverson did (the East was awful awful awful)…
by Missing Barry on Dec 2, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions
Totally disagree
It was Nash’s fault that he let Phoenix down by being a terrible actor, secondly the Suns were never going to get to the Finals, they were not better than the Spurs.
11 years later
it don’t matter
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 23, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
At the end of the day...
Jennings is giving his team wins. I have no doubt Curry would be thriving right now if he was put in a position where he would be the number 1 option on the team(like Jennings). I dont think he would be as good as jennings though. That guy is lightning quick. Iverson quick. i mean come on, he single handedly took out denver. I still think Curry will be great. His stats after all star break towards the end of the year will be nice.
Can't Argue with what Curry did tonight
Scoring 11 of the last 13 points for the Warriors and making a clutch three, but besides the three making clutch free throws as well! I think the only other two points in that time frame was a Anthony Randolph dunk on a great pass from Curry as well.
Jennings
has not played enough games to warrant being better than Curry and being a superstar. It will take the whole year and then maybe some to see how good Jennings is if you base it on pure stats alone. That 55 point performance was great, but it is currently an outlier in the season so far.
You're right
Jennings is also turnover proned and defensively I think that Curry is much better than Jennings.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
