WARRIORS: Made the HOT move!
by w00143881 on Nov 30, 2009 12:53 AM PST
Email
PrintPlayer A - MPG 30.5 / FG% .455 / 3P% .417 / FT% .75 / REB 3.1 / STL 1.43 / TO 2.6 / AST 5.2 / PTS 10.2
Player B - MPG 34 / FG% .433 / 3P% .486 / FT% .77 / REB 4.1 / STL 1.2 / TO 3.33 / AST 5.5 / PTS 22.3
Who would you rather have on your team? To be honest, both A and B look like solid pick-ups. Player B is clearly a more central piece to his team as he plays more minutes, nails more 3s and takes more shots, however, with these as an exception, both are very comparable on paper. Does it surprise you that Player A is Stephen Curry and Player B is Brandon Jennings?
Rookie of the Year? Biggest steal in the draft? Sure, Jennings blew up for 55 points. Despite being against our Warrior Defense, I give him props for such a performance; Carmelo Anthony just had his first 50-point game a few days ago. Since then, a lot of people have jumped on this Jennings Bandwagon. But is all this hype over Jennings just a mirage?
I don’t want to take away anything from Jennings and the skill set that he has. However, its hard not to compare him to Chris Douglas-Roberts and the New Jersey Nets; a decent player on a team with no one else. Cmon, Michael Redd is out and Andrew Bogut is out – someone has to score. Why not Jennings?
Yet, I believe I can say that if Monta Ellis and Corey Maggette (likely) were to get injured next week and we somehow managed to fill a roster, Stephen Curry would be taking the shots he needs to shine just as Jennings is doing now. Look what happened with Monta Ellis! Stephen Jackson gets removed and Monta is playing out of his mind because of his sense of ownership over the team. You do the same to Stephen Curry and I can guarantee the same results.
Many have said on this website that we made a huge mistake not picking up Jennings and that "I told you so" would flare up everywhere. I don’t dispute that some of you may have wanted us to draft Jennings but it would be unfair and wrong say we made a mistake drafting Curry. Curry just hasn’t had the opportunity to shine like Jennings has.
Here is my turning point. Here I state why it wasn’t just fine that we drafted Curry, but better we drafted Curry. In fact, I argue Curry is a better player so far. Since Jennings’ infamous 55 point game, he has shot an embarrassing 38% from the field and his team has lost its last four games to San Antonio, a CP3less New Orleans, Oklahoma City and Orlando. He wasn’t a good shooter overseas and he’s not getting any better since coming to the NBA. Finally, because we’ve only played about 15 games so far, I can arguably say that Jennings’ stats are skewed because of his 55-point performance against us. If someone were willing to workout the numbers without that game, Jennings’ stat line would be much similar to Curry’s if not worse than Curry’s.
From ESPN.com: "After his blazing start to the season that had everyone buzzing, Jennings is averaging only 14 points on 29% FG shooting in the last four games. During this shooting slump he has taken 69 shots, but has only scored 56 total points."
I’m glad we drafted Curry. He is smart kid and we’ve seen a glimpse of his potential through some of the plays and passes he makes. Give it time. Embrace the learning curve.
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!
116 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Curry's jumper
is off for some reason. He needs to get it fixed quick.
I pretty much agree with you
but I don’t think that Curry will ever be the scorer that Jennings will
I see Curry as being more of a Nash like pg and Jennings being more like Iverson
I would definitely take Nash over Iverson any day.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Nov 30, 2009 2:08 AM PST up reply actions
So would I. Curry does have the ability to score though. He used to light it up at Davidson. He’ll get into his rhythm soon.
by Throw up the Dub on Nov 30, 2009 8:57 AM PST up reply actions
I'd take Iverson over Nash anyday
Why because you know that Iverson will give his best effort regardless of which end of the court that it is. Nash is the worst defender for the point guard position in NBA history, he’s also one of the most overrated players in NBA history.
Well, overrated is a hard point to argue, because it’s hard to establish exactly how he’s “rated”. Sure, I think his MVP awards downplayed his lack of D, and without taking into account his god awful D, his case is a lot weaker. Offensively, though, he’s as good as advertised (and possibly even better). So….I’m not sure – your point about is D is right on, it really is awful and a lot of people pass it over, but at the same time, I’m not sure even his supporters quite understand how good he is offensively (though they obviously know he’s really good)…
by Missing Barry on Dec 3, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
And yet, despite Nash’s poor defense, which no one really questions, over the course of his career (or at least since his fifth season, when became the Nash we know and love), he has consistently had a much more positive impact on his teams’ wins than Iverson has.
Iverson would have to be one of the best defensive players of all-time to close the gaping chasm between his mediocre performance on offense and Nash’s elite-level performance. The plus-minus numbers suggest that, when you factor in both ends of the court, Nash is the more efficient, more productive, more valuable, more conducive to winning, mo’ better player.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 3, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
curry lacks parker's athletism and quickness (which is BIG for him)
Curry has a better chance at being like a steve nash, not necessarily athletic or super quick but can get anywhere on the floor….
I think I'm hoping for Chauncey. Don't think he'll be Nash.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Certainly, of course.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
CB
Billips is a strong defensive player curry is no where near that nor will he ever be that big..in the NBA right now Nash is the closest comparison to curry and i dont even think they are too much alike
by blacksamurai33 on Nov 30, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
agree
also, a look at the per 36 minute numbers:
Curry
12.1 points 6.3 assists 3.0 turnovers 1.6 steals 3.7 rebounds .529 TS%
Jennings
23.4 points 5.8 assists 3.5 turnovers 1.3 steals 4.4 rebounds .531 TS%
Jennings has probably posted a better stat line thus far, but we’re only about 1/8 of the way through their first season. There is clearly not a big enough difference between the two to call the Curry draft pick a mistake with such a small sample size available for both players.
Thing A
by sam23 on Nov 30, 2009 2:05 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Wanted Jennings then, still want him now. The two aren’t close, and Jennings is younger. I think this is you trying to make a comparison that simply isn’t there, just because you are a Warriors fan and want to think Curry is just as good. I agree that the sample size isn’t yet large enough, but you’re comparing their starts to the season. Do you realize that when you’re the only offense on your team, that you see MORE defense and not less? Curry has been getting great looks and is still missing them and getting out-shot by Brandon. In the stretch that has made Curry’s scoring numbers respectable, he has played more minutes than Jennings has. Also if you’re saying take out Jennings’ best game, shouldn’t we also take out Curry’s? It was only 18 points on 50% shooting but without it, he isn’t even averaging double figures. Curry has been a very nice guy to have this season, especially when hes looking to pass, not score, but comparing him to what Jennings has done is just out there.
by Brownie13 on Nov 30, 2009 5:58 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
By the way, Jennings still averages just under 20 points per game without the 55 point performance, and has scored 20 or more 7 times. That’s 7 times more than Curry has, in case you didn’t know.
You seem to want to make the comparison favor Jennings by using stats without having a real good grasp of how to use them. Nobody has said that Jennings isn’t the better scorer, but a look at the per minute numbers of each players shows that the two have fairly similar statistics. As I’ve said before (as in before his recent shooting slump) Jennings’ past performance indicates that his current TS% (especially his 3 pt shooting %) is probably not sustainable whereas Curry’s past performance indicates he will likely improve in this area. If/When this happens I think it will be very difficult to say either player is significantly better than the other and nearly impossible to say that Jennings is significantly better than Curry.
Thing A
They will be forever linked in people’s minds and compared to one another because of the draft order, but they are different players. Jennings is a score-first PG, Curry looks to set up his teamates. At this point you would be hard pressed not to say that Jennings is farther along than Curry, but I think the big question is who will continue to develop and who will hit a plateau? Also, who will learn to play defense at an NBA level (neither one can, yet)? Jennings has the better stat line, but Curry showed a lot of maturity in the 4th quarter of the Portland win. They both appear to have the tools to be big-time playmakers and I think it is too early to say one will be better than the other.
Maybe a bettter comparison is Jennings vs Monta, simply because they play more comparable styles. I’m not sure Jennings can become as good as Monta already is, and if that’s true, then Curry was probably the right pick for us.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
It should be noted.... Jennings is alot younger and less refined
while he probably isn’t a fit next to monta, he is something special. That being said i’m not unhappy w/ curry.
Now if i was minnesota or memphis or nyk I might have a different POV (lol)
why is Jennings less refined?
He’s pretty amazing to watch on offense. He’s got a bunch of little tricks to get his shot off (ala Manu). Plus he’s got a pretty effective live dribble. I suck at measuring defense so maybe that’s what you’re referring to.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
I think Jennings is actually more refined b/c of that pro year in Europe. It’s like this is year 1.5 instead of year 1 for him. He reads ball-screen like a vet and looks comfortable running the offensive sets while Curry looks unsure and hesitant of what he is doing.
As rookies, they both need to learn the NBA game and the players as well as where they are supposed to be, defending better, rotations & whatnot.
The problem with Curry has been that he’s so slow.
by homer simpson on Dec 1, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
As discussed at DEEP length in the other thread....
Curry is a complete PG. Jennings is turning heads for his scoring and not his PG skills.
No es bueno in the future for Jennings.
Jennings is turning heads because
he is bringing a revival of basketball to Milwaukee. He is gifted when it comes to scoring, but he has great passing skills as well. If you think Jennings doesn’t have a future than you don’t know basketball my friend. Dude simply can put the ball in the bucket & shows glimpses of being able to pass with the best in the league. Yes, he still adjusting like all rookies, but his scoring is second to none (rookie wise) right now and he is passing with the best of them (rookies as well)
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Nov 30, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
No.
He scored 55pts in 1 game, and he became an over night sensation. Since then his team is losing and he has sucked major donkey you know what, and is taking 22+ shots a game. Once again you cannot be a good PG by taking the most shots on your team.
I did not say he doesnt have a future, I am saying he is a future Allen Iverson, and we know how that song and dance ended. MVPs, Finals, Scoring titles, and NO ONE LIKES YOU. Congrats…
His scoring is second to none, and neither are his minutes and shots.
I am saying he is a future Allen Iverson
That’s just unnecessary. Iverson is a pretty unique player, calling Jennings “the next Iverson” is…pointless. If you think he’s going to shoot too often and not distribute enough, that’s fine, just say that. Kind of hard to judge someone based on a handful of games, though. Just check out guys like Parker, Nash and Billups to see anecdotal evidence of how some guys take a little while to figure things out, especially at PG…
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Clearly I meant the way he is playing and headed
and what he is known for.
Stop reading my posts if you need a 3 – 4 paragraph reponse to just understand an underlying meaning.
Goodness, did you skip english class?
Or maybe you skipped the part in english class that taught you the point of writing is to be as clear and concise as possible. Saying Jennings = Iverson isn’t an argument first of all, nor is it clear what aspects you’re talking about. Is he the kind of tough player that will get knocked down 1000 times and keep getting up and coming at you like Iverson’s reputation? Is he the type of person that will blow up at a press conference about practice? Is he just a guy that shoots more than he should? Iverson is known for a lot of things. Surely you don’t think every single aspect of Jennings is just like Iverson….that would just be a dumb thing to say. So why not try having a big boy conversation where you say what you mean in a clear manner, and after giving your opinion, try to back it up with some sort of examples/evidence/theories….
I can just as easily point to someone like Kobe Bryant who used to shoot too much but has since figured out he’s more effective when he gets everyone involved. Or Tony Parker. There are a lot of different ways a player can go, do you have any reason in particular you think Jennings will be “just like Iverson”? Jennings is what, 13 games or so into the league? He has a lot of development left, both in his skills and his decisionmaking….
by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
He almost had a triple double in his first game
scored 50 points in his sixth game and before their 4-game skid, led the Bucks to an 8-3 start so no, he is not an overnight sensation. Buke or Morrow are closer to being overnight sensations than Jennings because he has always been a highly touted prospect and warranted the claim as the #1 PG in his class before going to Europe and become a much more mature person then anybody thought.
No es bueno in the future for Jennings.
That does transfer to say Not good in the future for Jennings if my Spanish is correct.
Jennings is argueably already more mature than AI and if he ends up with a career like AI he’ll end up in the Hall of Fame so what’s your point? As Barry said, it’s kind of hard to judge someone based off a handful of games so chill out and enjoy the rest of the party like everybody else.
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Nov 30, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
More mature then AI?
Please elaborate on that…. the youtube incident? Skipping College because he couldnt pass his SATs? (Iverson atleast made it into Georgetown) Saying that he is so much better then every PG in the draft in an interview… sure he may prove to be, but that is far from mature.
AI in the Hall of Fame? Not first ballot. And he will always be remembered as a ball hog, and no one wanted him late in his career. My point is he is ending his career in the WORST possible way. Thats my point. No one wants that.
I wasn’t judging, it was a long strand conversation on his progress.
I dont even know what you’re argueing. Its my opinion, and by definition you cannot prove it wrong, because it may be all right, only time will tell.
So yeah, become a Bucks fan then.
Since Draft Night
what has he said? He’s been level headed and has proved he’s much more mature than what anyone else thought he could ever be.
AI WILL be in the Hall of Fame. He’s ranked 17th on the scoring list. Every person ahead of him is or will be in the HOF when they become eligible and the ones behind AI are in the HOF as well. Even his ego is out of this world as he refuses to take a lesser role, you’ll be hard pressed to find a person who will not vote him in. He is considered one of the best players in his era and his career is quite impressive.
Technically speaking, I never saidsaid your opinion is wrong, but I will say you’ve got to come harder than your weak opinions with no information to back them up. Step your game up because you’ve been losing on GSOM for quite some time. Having reasoning with information to back it up makes it just a tad bit easier.
O yeah, I’m a fan of Basketball in General, maybe you should too….
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Dec 1, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
It is draft night 2009 and YOU are Warrior’s front office. Who do you draft knowing what you know now?
I voted for Jennings, and it seems strange to me that Curry has such a high amount of the votes (homer, anyone?). Here’s the deal with Jennings – before the draft, everyone knew he had some special qualities that most players just can’t match. His athleticism was off the charts. His ball handling was excellent, he could get where he wanted on the court at any time he wanted. He had superstar potential, and everyone knew it. The thing was, teams questioned his maturity. There were some negative feelings about his work ethic, about a possible “me first” mentality (if you meet him and think this, his whole going to Europe move just reinforces that notion), being a prima donna in general. There were questions about his Europe production. People didn’t think he could shoot. In other words, there was a big chance he’d never amount to much in the NBA. A big roll of the dice, and most teams, upon meeting him, didn’t feel confident rolling the dice on him, so they didn’t, which is very reasonable.
We were asked what we’d do knowing what we know now, though. Jennings has answered a lot of those questions. He seems to be much more mature than many thought – it seems he’s confirmed what a few people who knew him better in Europe knew – that his work ethic was there, the physical gifts were there, and his experience in Europe really helped him grow as a person. His lack of production over there wasn’t a red flag – nobody knew what to expect ouf of a kid in his position at the time, but now we know it didn’t matter for him. He has shown some flashes of immaturity, sure, but he’s 19, it happens. He’s also shown all the talent that had him rated as the #1 PG prospect in his class and that made him a lottery pick despite the concerns. He’s also shown he can shoot it a little bit, which is certainly more than what people said before the draft. Another indicator that he’s willing to work hard on his game.
So overall, this is a long winded way of saying I don’t see any way Jennings is not the answer to the poll question. Knowing what we know now, all that superstar potential now looks like it’s very likely to be realized (or close to realized), while the chance of him being a bust looks pretty minimal. Jennings is the easy pick with hindsight, and anyone voting Curry is doing so because they’re a Warriors fan, plain and simple. It’s simple homerism.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 9:45 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
There are 2 schools of thought
1) which is always draft most valuable asset (aka player w/ most upside/value long term). Thats why minnesota took rubio, fully well knowing he wouldn’t come. They are banking on him to continue growing and be able to get a lot for him in a trade (long term. I don’t doubt him + flynn will play together at some point). I believe this is the philosophy Mullin tried to use. Which explains picks like Randolph, Wright, PoB (the potential was there).
2) Safe/pick for fit. And I believe Riley thinks like this, which scares me. His drafting record generally shows this too, rarely gambling on a jennings type. Instead choosing shareef abdur rahim over kobe bryant or ray allen. Mike Bibby over dirk, vince carter.
Ultimately I think he was scared of another project. Which is understandable, we have enough of them. However that being said, i’m hard pressed to every justify passing on TALENT. Straight up, if you don’t think you can develop it, you need a new coach. Nelson said he didn’t want more projects… which is fine if you are coaching a team challenging for an nba title, but GSW is not
+1
homerism def was involved with those votes. The clear cut answer should be Jennings no doubt
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Nov 30, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
Eh I don’t know you can say that about Riley. It’s easy to talk about who was the better talent after you find out who the better talent really is, but it’s really hard to blame someone for not imagining Dirk becoming the player he did, or choosing Shareef (who had plenty of “upside” himself, so I wouldn’t call him the safe pick, especially since he only played 1 year of college ball back when kids usually stayed in college longer, if anything I think he was the bigger risk than Ray Allen)….
In this case, I think most people did agree that Curry was the safer pick and Jennings the bigger boom/bust pick, at the time of the draft. I think there was a good argument that Curry was the correct pick, given what they knew. Now, though, I just don’t see a reasonable argument that Curry is still the correct pick, when Jennings looks like he has all that talent without the risk…
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
true
I think its also all his quotes repeatedly saying ‘we need exerience, beef etc’. He seems very uninterested in project players…which is not to say we should be out looking for the rawest players imagineable, but i’d hate to pass on a real talent cause of fear of developement
I think he understands the concept of expected value – that is, weighting a players production if he booms and their lack of production if they bust to figure out their end value. Now, I don’t know that he’s a good judge of talent, of figuring out the probability of boom and bust, or figuring out how much production they’ll give us if they do boom…but I would doubt he doesn’t at least understand the basic concept there. So basically if we miss out on a talent, I don’t think it will be because he’s scared of risk as much as he just didn’t properly evaluate each players risk and rewad potential.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions
possibly scared...
or conservative is the better word. Sees some talent but is critical and hesitant cause of there downside.
Eitherway it’s not as easy as just drafting a young raw talent. When it works, you look like a genius. When it doesn’t you get fired. Hence the conservatism
Good point – his own utility curve when drafting players may not be in line with the best interest of the team. It just may be that what makes the team best off isn’t what gives him the most job security, which is the same situation that causes NFL coaches not to go for it as often as they should on 4th down. Even if the odds of winning are better, they get much more blame when it goes wrong than credit when it works out….
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
Ultimately drafting is only 1/3rd the battle these days
its really development. So few players come in ‘ready’. Sure if u luck into first pick a year Duncan is available (really unfair) then life’s a cakewalk as a gm ….
But there are so many talented players, who with right or wrong developement can go either direction (to an extent)
This is all
Flavor of the month.
Jennings gets on a lot of highlights, scored 55 once, and his team won some games (LOL EAST COAST WINS)
So of course fans are all over his jock, like they are on LeBron’s #s (even though he alienates his teammates and NO Matter who Danny Ferry brings in, its never enough).
So yeah enjoy it while it lasts, his shooting is already pissing off the coach, and Michael Redd is back.
Good night!
Yeah, people might be all over Lebron because he’s the best player in the NBA?
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
and carries a mediocre supporting cast on his back while making everyone better. and is the only player who i’ve ever thought could be better than jordan. and is absolutely incredible to watch (seriously, i’ve never been so in awe of a human being’s feats of athleticism. he’s beautiful to watch and i rarely throw that word around for athletes). there’s lots of reasons to be all over lebron.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Carries his team?
Or maybe he never passes the ball and makes it look like he does it all,……because he wont let anyone else.
Remember Iverson in 2000-2001….. Oh its all about Iverson. The answer! Come to find out 4 – 5 years later…. it wasnt that Iverson was carrying his sorry teammates… it was that he wont let anyone else play lol
But yeah, I am sure you guys took that into consideration.
Iverson did everything LeBron has done in his career so far, with the exception of actually winning a game, on the road in the finals. LeBron got owned 4 games in the row.
the funny thing is, lebron james is an amazing passer. he averages more assists and fewer turnovers per game and per 36 for his career than iverson over the course of his (i know, you hate those numbers so they somehow don’t count) and absolutely trounces most superstars in that regard. who qualifies as an unselfish superstar if lebron doesn’t? he’s on the same level as wade in that regard, demolishes kobe, melo and howard as a passer. the only truly elite NBA player who outpasses lebron james is chris paul.
but once again, since you prefer to ignore facts and now seem to be watching an entirely different set of lebron’s games than the rest of the world, i’m sure none of this matters to you.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Omg, you are so on my jock
You are like Mr. 1 liner on all my posts.
Yay I have a fan
Frankly, I don’t think something as dumb as your…dislike, let’s call it, for Lebron warrants more than one line.
by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
homerism and rushing to judgement are not the same thing. I thought Curry was the better pick at the time and he certainly hasn’t played bad enough (nor has Jennings played well enough) to convince me otherwise after such a tiny sample size. If the poll was “who has performed better thus far?” or “who would be the ROY if the season ended today?” I think you would see very different results. The question that was actually posed was quite different.
Thing A
Your sample size point is definitely right on. My thought process is basically this: I’m looking at them as prospects, like we would for the draft. Curry seems to have answered the athleticism questions reasonably well – he’s not a special athlete but he’s good enough to be effective. Jennings, though, was the better talent of the two before the draft, there were just so many questions around him that I won’t argue with anyone who thinks Curry was the better pick. It’s a fair point. Was Jennings mature enough for the NBA? What about his European stats? Can he shoot? Will he be a prima donna? I see those questions as being mostly answered, leaving us with an unquestionably more talented prospect in Jennings than Curry. Don’t get me wrong, I like Curry, and I do think he’s improved his “prospect status” since the draft in this context, but Jennings has special talent, and a lot less uncertainty now. With his ability to read the pick and roll like a vet, his elite athleticism…I just don’t see an argument for Curry. I think Jennings is pretty hands down a Top 3 prospect of the last draft within this framework.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Yea as I continued down the page I realized that you were a previous supporter of Jennings. Switching your support FROM Jennings TO Curry might be even more silly at this point than the other way around. Your point about Jennings’ maturity being one of his biggest question marks is also a good one, I hadn’t really considered that aspect of it.
Thing A
Previous supporter of Jennings, but I definitely didn’t complain about the Curry pick. I understood the line of reasoning behind it and could get on board with it. I guess my whole argument is more dependent on the mental/attitude issues than the actual stats. As you’ve made the point, we don’t really have much of a sample size to say anything meaningful based solely on the stats at this point.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yea I apologize for mistaking yours for another argument centered around the basic premise of “Screw Curry, Jennings scorz moar points per game!!!!” I shouldn’t have underestimated you like that. The attitude argument does make sense as that was the biggest problem I had with him before the draft. Normally I would be all for a team in the Warriors’ situation taking the bigger gamble on a higher ceiling guy like Jennings, but his attitude issues scared me into being a big Curry supporter. I guess its fair to say there is less to worry about now, but I’m not ready to completely dismiss those concerns yet. I’d still take Curry because on a team with Monta I’m fine with the other guard just being a guy who can stretch the defense a little bit, turn the ball over a little bit less, and not throw a “trade me” fit if he’s asked to ride a little pine his first year or two.
Thing A
ya i like curry
but any time we could add that 2nd option to monta we are looking for that is only 20, i think you have to do it.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Nov 30, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
Uhhhh, I draft Jennings...
Duh? This is really a debate?
by HOLDEMUPGoldenStateOfOppression on Nov 30, 2009 10:07 AM PST reply actions
On another note, I said it at time...
going to roma was a far better move than college for him. Helping him mature and grow as a person and in basketball. Despite all the struggles, the experience makes him far more NBA ready than a year of being Big man on campus at Arizona….
It’s a reason I was big on him, it showed me ALOT about his personality.
Agree, I think it was a big positive step for him. Also, the whole basketball system in this country screws players until they make it in the NBA, from a broad perspective I didn’t mind seeing him give the NCAA and their BS the finger at all…
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
Jennnings of course!!!
he’s a much better player than Curry. Plus he would fit better alongside Ellis
=Gaucho=
If we're looking at what we have now
Jennings and its no contest. Potentially, both can and will be great in the future. However, as of right now Jennings has by far outshone Curry. I love Curry and all, but so far Jennings has been the better player.
One of the few to have appreciated Cap'n Jax. Do well in NC, get that 8th seed!
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
I'd also like to say
That this is their best team probably since they had the Big O and Jabba. And their best home grown player since the Squid and Ray Ray. It’s pretty cool to see the Bucks go from nothing to something this first quarter of the season.
One of the few to have appreciated Cap'n Jax. Do well in NC, get that 8th seed!
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
The 2000-2001 Bucks
Team with the “Big Three” of Ray Allen, Sam Cassell & Glenn Robinson would like to differ since they lost in 7 in the Eastern Conference Finals.
GSOM- Where Education From Debate Happens
by The Dedication on Nov 30, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Funny thing is, looking at those statlines, I wanted player A.
But most fans – and most GSOMers, I guess – get blinded by PPG.
The notion that Jenning’s is getting special treatment from opposing teams on defense to make his life more difficult is just silly. Nobody’s game-planning specificallyf or him yet.
get blinded by PPG
Ah yes, because that’s clearly the only thing Jennings has going for him…
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
His 3-pt shooting is nice, too ...
But yes, the biggest advantage Jennings has over Curry is his PPG.
Yeah, that is his biggest advantage. He’s also a better rebounder, and strictly from the statlines we’re working with a better 3point shooter, as you noted (though I do believe in reality Curry is hands down the better shooter, but I’m treating that as not relevant). On the other hand, Curry isn’t doing anything much better than Jennings at all other than not turning it over. I honestly think if you didn’t know who the players were you’d be less in favor of Player A relative to Player B than the case you’re making.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
I usually like at FG% first, when not given per/36 stats.
So I gravitated towards “player A” in this example the moment I read the statlines.
Fair enough, it is missing efficiency stats that would be nice. It’s unclear from what he gives us which is more efficient with their shooting, and that’s obviously going to be huge in determining how important the ppg is.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
(though I do believe in reality Curry is hands down the better shooter, but I’m treating that as not relevant)
’
But if youre really asking yourself who you would draft now then you shouldn’t be treating that as not relevant. Shouldn’t one of the major factors in the decision be whose start is more sustainable? Based on past performances I think its pretty clear that Jennings isnt going to continue to shoot so well from 3 point range and Curry is likely to get better. This would mean Jennings’ points per game, points per 36 mins, TS% and offensive efficiency would all decrease. That eliminates much of the advantage he currently holds over Curry. I also think Jennings’ turnover rate is probably the most sustainable part of his hot start while Curry’s is also likely to go down. I don’t see how you could argue that the clear choice is Jennings unless youre basing your analysis only on a 15 game sample size……and thats fairly silly.
Thing A
Not disagreeing with your points. I was just trying to look at those specific statlines the way we would if we didn’t know who the players were. So yeah, I guess the point of this conversation is to look at the two statlines we were presented, so yeah, it is a silly small sample size.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
(Because ronaldhino opened the conversation saying looking at those statlines he preferred Player A, so that’s why I was trying to keep it strictly to “just looking at those stats”)
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions
Jennings
He’s playing with Carlos Delfino, Dan Gadzuric, Charlie Bell and Ersan Ilyasova in the starting lineup and you claim we’re blinded by points per game?
Nobody’s game-planning specificallyf or him yet.
Nobody is specifically gearing towards stopping Jennings? Who else are they going to “gear” to stop? Charlie Bell? Dan Gadzuric? Are you serious?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Nov 30, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
NBA teams don't heavily game-plan to stop one player ...
… unless that guy is one of a handful of top players in the league, which Jennings isn’t.
This isn’t the NFL where teams have a day each week built into the schedule for the coaches to figure out the game-plan for the opposing team, and then spend a couple of days to implement that plan in practices.
In the NBA, teams don’t re-scheme every game during the regular season. Teams usually focus their practices on THEIR basic system. There will sometimes be a point of emphasis, or, occasionally, you’ll have a set double-team plan against Kobe or LeBron.
You give up too much in sloppy execution if you change your scheme without practicing it. Most NBA players are not really good at rapidly assimilating a new game plan.
In the postseason, this changes. Teams do implement schemes designed to frustrate their opponents best players.
So when you ask who are their opponents game-planning for, the answer is “nobody.” Teams don’t do that in the NBA, for the most part, there’s no time.
Well...
So when you ask who are their opponents game-planning for, the answer is "nobody." Teams don’t do that in the NBA, for the most part, there’s no time.
While I understand your point, I think your definition of “game planning” is too extreme. Do teams come up with entirely new defensive schemes to frustrate a specific player during the regular season? Actually yes, but your right it’s very rare. If you need examples think back to the defenses that Nelson designed to frustrate Yao, Carmelo and Dirk. But that’s beside the point.
I think the point is that what most people mean by “game planning” in the NBA during the regular season is much more simple. It’s putting your best wing or inside defender on him. It’s going over when, where and how to give help. It’s simply focusing on that players tendencies that day at shoot-around and the pregame meeting to make sure that anybody who may be guarding him knows what to expect. I think that most people would consider that game planning, and I think that is exactly what teams are doing to deal with Jennings right now.
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
Think about it
I agree that, when possible, you put your best defensive player on their best scorer.
But most teams really don’t have the flexibility to do that. I mean, sure, if you’ve got somebody like Scottie Pippen, who could defend three or (sometimes) four positions, great. But most players can’t do that. Most teams don’t have players who can do that.
Most of the time, you have – at most – maybe two people on the floor who could (because of size/quickness issues) defend any given player without giving up too much. So, yes, if one is clearly a better defender, you’ll put him on the target. But if your best defender is a PG, you can’t put him on a forward or a center, and vice-versa. And even when you’re talking about which guy guards the two and which the three, often you’re creating a mismatch for the other team because you have a player who isn’t guarding his natural position.
And even when you do have a defender you can switch onto him, and you’re not giving up a mismatch by doing it, you’re talking about a situation that only occurs for part of the game, anyway – when the relevant defenders are on the court.
So in practical terms, the difference is very small. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen ever, but rather that the effect isn’t that big.
Ha
Yeah, you’re right. They don’t put any extra time into focusing on one of the top 10 scorers in the league.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Nov 30, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
Sometimes a snide remark makes you sound stupid ...
… if you don’t know what you’re talking about. :)
Just a word to the wise, er, um, well, to you.
Cool
What’s your point? The Spurs play good defense? Oh, we didn’t know that. They’ve won the NBA title a few times recently.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Nov 30, 2009 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
HMMM...
Asking that poll question is in hindsight. Man, if I knew then what I know now probably be rich! If it was draft night, you WOULDN’T know that Jennings would be the “better” player so far. Had Curry been drafted before Jennings, I would have wanted the Warriors to draft Jennings for his potential. We all need to keep in mind that Jennings plays in the East, so the competition isn’t as good as the West.
We should all be lucky that we got Curry! Would Jennings even fit w/ Monta more so than Curry? That might even be a better question. If some people think that Jennings is like an Iverson, wasn’t Monta compared to him too?
Geeez Louf*ckingweeez!!!
by scottiepimppen on Nov 30, 2009 11:25 AM PST reply actions
If some people think that Jennings is like an Iverson, wasn’t Monta compared to him too?
How about we just drop these stupid comparisons altogether. Monta is Monta. Jennings is Jennings. They’re not like other players. Especially since Iverson is such a unique player, what’s the point in comparing people to him? There may be a little to be gained from comparing styles, but not a whole lot, so let’s try to keep the conversation to a higher level…
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Jennings has been playing well so far, there is no denying that. But I’m irked at how once again the PPG number automatically makes one player “better” than another. Of course that goes without saying, considering the NBA in general glorifies scorers. Here’s to seeing Blake Griffin averaging a 15-10 stat line after returning and still get out-voted for Rookie of the Year because Jennings pulls a couple of 50+ point games against the Warriors.
If the Warriors are worth a damn
They’d make sure Jennings doesn’t hit 50 next time.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
So you’re saying he hits 50. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 30, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
THAT'S FINE BY ME...
but isn’t that what the whole conversation was about…comparing Player A (Curry) w/ Player B (Jennings) in determining who should have been drafted?
You’re right though that Monta is Monta, and Jennings is Jennings, but people will make comparisons through similarities. I wasn’t agreeing/disagreeing w/ it, just saying how both Jennings and Monta would fit/play together in the same backcourt given that they’re both more scoring than ball handling/passing.
Geeez Louf*ckingweeez!!!
by scottiepimppen on Nov 30, 2009 12:25 PM PST reply actions
Use the reply button. But anyways, saying it this way:
just saying how both Jennings and Monta would fit/play together in the same backcourt given that they’re both more scoring than ball handling/passing.
gets the point across fine, so I don’t see the need for a comparison. Just discussing the issues themselves is enough, and it’s very clear what you mean when you say it. When you start saying they’re like Iverson, it just becomes less clear what specific aspect of their game you’re referring to and the reasons why you think it may/may not be a good idea. Iverson did actually start out as a decent distributor (just in terms of assists per 36 minutes) – similar to how Jennings has been so far, and over time got worse and turned more Monta like. Either way, the issue we’re trying to bring up is their ability to play together given our need for one of them to distribute…talking about Iverson might lead someone to start looking at scoring efficiency, or defense, or rebounding, or whatever else…and that just distracts us from the issue we’re trying to discuss….
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
NOTED...
and actually I thought I did hit reply, but it posted as another comment. My bad.
Someone else in the first few comments actually made the comparison of Jennings and Iverson. In fact, others made comparisons of Cury and Jennings to Nash, Parker, etc. Honestly, the point of my comment was to mirror what you had said that Jennings would be the easy pick in hindsight, and that Jennings and Monta may not fit in the same backcourt since they are more like score first guards. My bad if I wasn’t being clear!
Geeez Louf*ckingweeez!!!
by scottiepimppen on Nov 30, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
Ha, fair enough, I guess I just didn’t worry about the earlier comparisons and decided to finally comment on it when you made it.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
Again?
I can understand why this is an interesting topic, but can’t we at least wait until the allstar break before jumping to conclusions about these two rookies?
I’ll say this, so far Jennings looks very good. He was a gamble on draft day and it looks like he’s wiped away the doubt about whether he deserved the hype he got coming out of high school. He’s leading an NBA team on the court as a rookie, which in itself is pretty special.
Curry looks good too. He is in a very different situation, but he is producing nicely when he’s out there. He is playing within his ability and he’s certainly not forcing it. The guy seems to possess both considerable talent and a pretty deep understanding of the game (especially for a rookie). When you combine that with his upbringing (got to see and understand the NBA life from very early on) and his solid attitude I think he remains a very safe bet to have a career that will fall somewhere between “solid pro” and “spectacular player”.
It was, and remains, a good decision to draft Curry, especially considering the question marks that surrounded Jennings on draft night. Jennings looks to be the better player at the moment, but considering the information available at the time I think the Warriors made the right choice. Let’s not forget that it’s still very early on and there are still a lot of unanswered questions about these guys. We don’t know how they will respond to adversity, how they will take care of their bodies over the course of an entire NBA season (much less ten of them), how hard they will work in the offseason to improve their game from year to year etc. There is no guarantee that because Jennings outperformed Curry for a month that he will in fact have the better career.
I’m happy with Curry. Would I be even happier with Jennings? Maybe. It’s hard to say that he wouldn’t be producing at a rate similar to Curry if he were playing next to Monta. But with the way he’s playing for the Bucks right now he looks like he could be a very special player.
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
by olympicmike on Nov 30, 2009 1:55 PM PST reply actions 7 recs
Having fun banging your face against the wall?
It’s been 15 games people. 4 games ago, Jennings was shooting 55% from 3. 4 games ago, Monta was on the next ship outta the bay. It was over reaction when people proclaimed Jennings the second coming of Iverson, but better, and it’s now overreaction to say Jennings is playing worse than Curry. I’m happier with Curry on this team. I don’t think the early season turmoil and backseat would have been for Jennings. I do know that Curry handled it all quite well. How do you think Jennings would have reacted to Monta’s comments at media day? How do you think Jennings would have reacted to watching all the BS that happened in the early part of our season? I doubt he’d have handled it as well as Curry. I’m happy with Curry, I’d probably be happy with Jennings. They both look like very good players… so far. Another 15 games and we may see two 35% shooters.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 30, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I’m tired of the whole comparisons of their stats, too small a sample obviously. I was trying to look at it from a different point of view – as draft prospects, I liked Jennings a little better but thought they were pretty close (Jennings more upside, more risk). Jennings had the talent and athleticism to be drafted #2, but had so much uncertainty, it caused him to drop. I think a lot of that uncertainty has been answered (in my opinion), and without that uncertainty, I’m looking at the talented kid I thought should go in the top 3 picks (based on talent, ignoring the uncertainty). So on that basis, knowing what I know now, I might just put Jennings as the #2 overall prospect in this past draft.
by Missing Barry on Nov 30, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Meh...
Curry’s also supposed to be one of the purest shooters to come out in a long time, coupled with a single season at PG where he played extremely well with an NBA pedigree… neither was a bad choice. Given that, Curry’s probably a better complement to Monta and the downside was lower.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Dec 1, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I truly believe
that down the line curry will be the better player. i think towards the end of their careers jennings will be considered a streak shooter and curry will be the consistent one. just a prediction though.
basically
if you held a strong opinion about one of these guys over the other before the draft and your opinion has changed at all since then you’re are just being silly and are ridiculously overreacting to a tiny sample size.
Thing A
Jennings is hitting his cold streak
or that teams finally have a scouting report on him. One or the other. Curry and Jennings look equally bad.
What am I missing?
Jennings scores twice as many points and is on par in virtually every other category. Thus, it’s no contest. Jennings wins.
It’s early yet and I’m not counting Curry out, but the stat line comparison is puzzling.
Thus far, saintdee, yes
Otherwise why compare stat lines?
I’m not saying Jennings will have the better career, only that he’s been better, which is borne in the stat comparison.
by Jeremy Belvins on Dec 1, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
I think the point of the post is basically “Yes, Jennings has had a nice start, but it hasn’t been so amazing and Curry hasn’t been nearly bad enough for us to be regretting the pick.” I don’t think you disagree with that.
Thing A
"Yes, Jennings has had a nice start, but it hasn’t been so amazing and Curry hasn’t been nearly bad enough for us to be regretting the pick." I don’t think you disagree with that.
I think most of us can agree with that. MB and OM really summed up the argument quite well standing just barely on the opposite ends of the fence. BJ probably has more potential and so far looks like he will reach it, while Curry looks like he will be a solid player for many years too come. Curry, with his basketball pedigree and willingness to take a spot in the background, is a much better fit for us at the moment. We don’t really know how Jennings would have dealt with the circus surronding the Warriors in the beginning of the year.
That said, I like Curry, always have liked Curry, and think he will be a very good player with Monta Ellis or without him. I wish we had Jennings in the summer and I still wish we had him now, but I dont think he would of meshed well with Ellis and there was no way to know if he would of became a superstar or bombed out of the league on draft day.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 1, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
he would of
My new pet peeve…
Sorry about the grammar policing.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Dec 1, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Its almost finals week,
I come here with my brain running at 50% at best : )
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 1, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions
Statistics 101. Is there a significant difference in the stat lines? Even though Jennings appears better, because we’re looking at a small sample, we may be looking at simple random variation accounting entirely for the difference between the two, when the reality is they come from the same population (ie they’re both equally good right now)…
by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
He averages twice as man points
I understand the problem with small sample sizes, I just thought it was peculiar to post disparate stat lines as side by side in a player A, player B comparison, followed by this:
Does it surprise you that Player A is Stephen Curry and Player B is Brandon Jennings?
Usually when people post stat line comparisons without naming the repsective layers it’s to demonstrate how close their numbers are in actuality compared with the popular perception. So, if the point of the post was to demonstrate the fallacy of placing to much stock in small sample sizes, the introduction is misleading. At least imo.
Thanks for the stats refresher. I’m not numbers guy, but I’m not retarded either.
Well, I’m a little retarded.
by Jeremy Belvins on Dec 1, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
BTW
they’re not “they’re both equally good right now”
by Jeremy Belvins on Dec 2, 2009 9:23 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I don’t have the statistical tests in front of me to say that there isn’t a difference, there very well could be statistically significant difference between them. I guess my main point is in a sample size this small it’s likely that even if there is a difference it’s much smaller than it appears.
As I’ve said earlier, though, I’m strongly in the “Jennings is the correct pick now that we know what we know” group. It’s not based on statistics, I’m assuming that their play so far has been roughly equal…but rather it’s based on Jennings answering some of the character/production questions he had before the draft. To me, without those questions, there’s not even a need to talk about what Curry has or hasn’t done, because Jennings is simply an elite prospect. He has that superstar potential someone like Curry can’t match, whether Curry is better or worse than we initially expected.
by Missing Barry on Dec 3, 2009 7:55 AM PST up reply actions
well Jennings turns the ball over substantially more, gets fewer per minute assists, fewer per minute steals, takes a lot more shots, and doesn’t score that much more efficiently despite a ridiculously hot stretch from long range that few predicted. That and the question wasn’t “who has had the better start to the season?” it was “who would you draft if you had it to do over again?”
Thing A
doesn’t score that much more efficiently
Actually, after last night’s games, he’s now scoring less efficiently: Curry .532 TS%, Jennings .528.
Neither of those marks is anything special. When you’re scoring at that mediocre a rate, you’re probably better off deferring more and shooting less. (By way of comparison, Morrow’s TS% is .665). In this light, Jennings’ scoring “advantage” over Curry can actually be seen as a negative.
That said, I picked Jennings in the poll. But I’m still totally happy with Curry, and wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him have the better career.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 1, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, after last night’s games, he’s now scoring less efficiently: Curry .532 TS%, Jennings .528.
Wow, even more evidence for the argument O.M. made above.
(By way of comparison, Morrow’s TS% is .665)
Thats a pretty amazing stat and despite all my talk about the insignificance of small sample sizes I can’t help but be really excited about that.
Thing A
He's still like 9th in the league
Meanwhile, Biedrins is 1st! Mike Miller and CP3 are 2nd & 3rd. Yay for small sample sizes!!!
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Dec 1, 2009 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
i still think that Curry is by far the better choice for this team. yes jennings has a “special” talent. but his rep going in (which watching him a few games doesnt have appeared to really alter) that he is primarily a scorer, and thats what he’s being asked to do more or less. Curry can be a scorer, (being a Kansas fan, i had to watch him almost single-handedly knock KU out of the tourney the year they won it all) but thats not what we have been asking him to primarily do.
also a factor to consider is that Jennings didnt have to start his season with a black hole, cancer situation like Stephen Jackson. A Toxic work enviornment is going to weight a toll on output for anyone.
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)
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- 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
- The Facebook campaign to hire Will Ferrell for All-Star Game player intros is underway
- Video: Meet the infamous bearded guy that goes nuts by the 76ers’ bench
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.
