Polling GSoM: Which rookie forward will have the better sophomore campaign?

those two ads are sooo overused, especially the “my lord” one.

biedrins clearly doesn’t have a good shot, and he never will…his size is great but it comes with bad coordination…its like blaming yao ming for being unathletic.

and on top of that athletisism isn’t a requirement for yao ming, just as a jumpshot is not necessary for biedrins…they play within their game…

i’ve never seen monta ellis working on his low post offense, and defense…he must be darn lazy… or he’s just not an idiot…

if andris continues to be one of the top rebounders in the league, while shooting 55% and up and playing decent defense…he is the very least of our worries…in fact, he is one of our most solid contributors…

Anyone dumb enough to even try that little hop/slide that AB does on his release honestly doesn’t watch much basketball or has a lower hoops IQ than a kindergarten hoops team.

Have you ever heard of golf? There are many ways to skin a cat, not everybody does it the same. Go ask Jim Furyk or Kenny Perry. Two fantastically unorthodox swings, two seriously good golfers. Maybe you should talk to some baseball pitchers too…

I thought Biedrins was a bust after his disastrous sophomore campaign. He stepped up BIG time his 3rd year and I gave him a ton of credit (check the report cards), but cautioned that that was about as good as it would get as his upside was minimal. That has yet to be disproven.

Keep up the good work. History typically repeats itself.

Let me apologize for sounding so harsh. That’s no way to greet a new poster.

I’m not familiar with your original post on WW about jackson so I can only really comment on what you shared above. Despite my tone, I stand by my comments.

Regarding him being a “4th option” or a “star”. I’d say he is somewhere in the vast space between the two. He has already shown earlier in his career that he could be a 3rd option on a championship team and I think in the right situation, with the right motivation, and with the right 1st and 2nd option, that could still be the case.

I don’t think you can call him a “star” with a straight face though. If he is really the best guy on your team there is no way that you can have a very good team. He is much better in a supporting role when he has someone to defer to (Baron Davis, Tim Duncan). He can be a sparkplug and emotional leader (especially on the defensive end) but only if there is someone on the roster to keep him in check. You could see that this season there was a clear lack of accountability with regard to him keeping his emotions in check and staying focused on playing defense. Thinking that he has to be our first option on offense clearly hurt his defensive game which is a huge part of what makes him a valuable player.

I honestly don’t know how things will work out with him on this team. I’m not sure if he can go back to being a solid supporting player with the young roster we have right now. I have a hard time imagining him deferring to Monta and Randolph (eventually), but I hope he can (and has good reason to) because we are stuck with him for the long haul.

i would honestly like you to touch on that “3rd option at best” remark. because on a good team, that’s his limitations. if you want to cite the “we believe” team, remember that behind baron, there wasn’t a true second option, there were a lot of guys that could have been considered the second option on that team, and the balance is what made it possible. and on top of that, the “we believe” team wasn’t exactly a title contender.

i guess, if you made jack the second best player on a team that included lebron james, and had some depth to it, stephen jackson could be the second best option on a team that might have a fighting chance at a title, but i wouldn’t put money on that team. i’m still left wondering though, in what reasonable situation could he be a 2nd option on a good team (defining good team as able to make the conference finals)?

give me a list of players who compete with the list above. most people believe that this year’s draft was weaker and lots of compelling evidence is on their (and my) side. it’s silly to say that this year’s class is better considering no rookie screams lebron, or carmelo, or wade and there is simply not the depth to overlook that. if three more guys from this draft make it in the league than made it from that draft, it still would not be better because this year’s draft doesn’t seem to have a top five player in the nba in it. 2003 had 2. that’s ridiculous. good luck to the 2008 class, but it would be amazing for it to even compete.

very nice…

Is that your’e right that some of the statements you said were not correct.

The bad part about Hawes, is you’re still wrong. And unlike Apoet, I’m not a lightweight Jae. But I don’t have time to fight a battle that’s already over.

boom goes the dynamite

You get no special bonus for being a center and shooting the 3. More often what it means is that you’re not there to grab offensive rebounds when 63% of the time the shot misses.

This is what Apoet said:

You wrongly point out his weaknesses and act as if you’re right even though you didn’t backup up your claims with stats.

This is what you, jae, said:

You must be new here. Real new. Either that or you don’t pay the least bit of attention. Actually, it’s possible that you’re new AND you don’t pay attention.

Now even people here who hate me (or did when we unwisely spoke politics but I hope that’s all behind us) recognize that this was not a wise thing for you to say.

While the prospect of talking politics with someone who uses such big words like “stochastic variation” is a daunting task, I don’t tend to give too much of a shit about what kind of bullshit people spout anyway. But, it’s a good thing this argument evolved around Spencer Hawes vs Anthony Randolph. Because, it seems to me the idea whom was more valuable: Jason Thompson or Anthony Randolph. (Thompson every day. I don’t vote for skinny stupid morons unless I’m being stupid myself.)

Ah yes, short term anecdotal evidence.

And the month before that he averaged a shade over 7 in 36 minutes a night. That’s not bad, it’s terrible. For the season he averaged under 9 rebounds per 36, below-average for a center. If you want to believe that in the last month he suddenly turned his game around and that the last month is indicative of his overall abilities than was the previous two years (his second year more or less being equal to his first in rebounding abilities), you are entitled to do so, but it’s a naive cherry picking of a small sample and shows no appreciation at all for normal stochastic variation. If you do not know what stochastic means, you should look it up. (If doing this doesn’t help you, you’re SOL.) I’d define it or not use it in favor of a more colloquial word, but since you started out saying that I didn’t offer stats, I won’t do the easy work for you.

Please note that the number of minutes played is important when you compare rate stats to determine players’ relative skills. Elsewhere in the post you seem to be ignorant of this, like right here:

Oh yes, this is true. Short term anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much in young Spence’s case. True, his FG% is lacking, as is his FT%, and his drawing @ FT’s. He’s not a terrible rebounder (although his rebound per minute stats don’t suggest that), but he’s better than average, or he should be.

The important point is that Spencer got better. Not better in ways that show up in the stats or anything like that. Better in the sense that you could see him posting up people quicker, and in angles that G’s could get him the ball (Not that any of the Sac Guard’s could get him the ball for some reason—but that’s another issue). Beyond any of that, at 20 years old he showed real promise on 2 ends of the court in a variety of area’s playing heavy minutes for most of the season.

I hope to see Spencer get stronger, get better position to rebound more often, and block some more shots defensively. I’m also hoping his post defense improves from where he is at now. This will all be easier once he gets stronger, and if his knees hold up (which is the major concern I have).

And, I was content to leave it at that until your stupid cheap shot at me earlier this morning. (And a few mins ago, again.) First, I have to work at midnight. So that is why I didn’t post until now. I probably shouldn’t have said anything, but I figured I was beating a dead horse. (Boy was I wrong on that one.) This is why I said what I did about you being wrong. I know you’re wrong because you look at his stats (or it seems very much that way), and his (to you) medicore rebounding stats, and his less than stellar FG% (which nobody should argue), and you say, hey he’s terrible. Yeah, he really sucks. Which is why he’s in the NBA right? (Especially cuz there is a shortage of white C’s in the NBA.) But, it’s hard to get a feel for a guy if you don’t watch him consistently, and did you watch Spencer Hawes play all season long? Please, answer yes. Because you will make yourself look even MORE stupid from here on out. Yes, stupid, and I’ll even spell it for you: S-T-U-P-I-D.

I’m no expert on Anthony Randoph, and I know that. While I wouldn’t want a skinny asshole kid on my team (1 is enough), Randolph isn’t exactly a finished product. I seem to remember a time where he was pouting about time on the court, and until a heavy portion of the Warriors team that would play under normal circumstances no longer did, Randolph rarely got minutes of any substance. Once he was one of 7 healthy bodies left, wah lah, he suddenly grabbed 18 boards. It was magical how that worked. You claim that for Spencer, but conveniently seem to ignore it for Randolph.

Here are some splits for young Spence.

I’m going to ignore up until January. (Which he shot 33% that month. I still can’t figure that out truthfully. But, oh well.) In February, he shot nearly 48%. That isn’t wonderful perse, but that isn’t completely terrible either. (And I could point out how low Webber’s FG%’s were throughout his career. One might even point out that even in his “MVP” years that Webber was never a high FG% shooter. The only year he shot a high Fg% was in GS, and even then, that was with Tim Hardaway running the show.)

Does Webber have anything to do with this? Of course not. Webber played in a version of Carril’s offense, and did not have a great shot selection. You probably criticized him, as did I, but still, did Webber not have a very good career because his career FG% is below 50? I don’t think so.

Now whether he’s had a better season than Oden, that just’s hogwash, and not really here or there. Oden is the more talented player, and SHOULD have had a better season. But 3 years down the road when we have an idea of what both players will end up being, I think this conversation would be more interesting. Or has the potential of anyway.

Greg Oden plays on one of the best offensive teams, and has more strength for advanced post moves. For every point you make, Oden has progressed, but not at the rate sometimes a #1 pick should. But, even then, Oden plays on a better team with more talent who makes him look better. That’s not saying that Hawes is better than Oden; that’s an explanation for ONE reason why Hawes doesn’t have the per minute performance. Other than Kevin Martin (who had a pretty subpar season in many ways due to his ankle problems), very few Kings had outstanding seasons. But, Jason Thompson and Spencer Hawes are two. I stand by that. I’m not a Kings homer. I don’t kiss anybody’s ass. I’m not writing this on a Dubs blog because I think a point needs to be made, or somebody’s pride is hurt here. I don’t really give a fuck to that extend what people here, or anywhere for that matter, really think of my opinions. Which is why I end up giving them so often anyway: I just don’t give a rat’s ass.

Hawes averaged those 7.1 rebounds in just over 29 minutes a game. Randolph’s rebound average was achieved in slightly under 18 minutes a game. Per game averages do not indicate who was the more competent rebounder. You could do the math and divide to see who had the better rate. Do you know how to do math?

What majority of American’s do math anymore? Don’t you know we’re all stupid, ignorant, and irreverent?

Let me think here. You don’t like Spencer Hawes. And, so what? This means what? Is this supposed to be some law of definition that if jae doesn’t like something, or think it’s not very worthwhile, that it somehow isn’t? Are you God of the universe? No, didn’t think so. So, while your opinions are cute & all, I think I will chalk this up to you and Apoet having a mis-understanding that shouldn’t have been had. And, I would prefer to leave it at that. But, if you want to have a real pissing contest, jae, I’m game.

Surprisingly…very few NBA fans understand what you understand about rebounding statistically. I was honestly skeptical the first time I read you saying that a guys per minute rebound rate stayed very consistent despite changes in playing time, teammates, teams etc.

I knew that cuz TZ had pointed it out last year in regards to Jason Thompson. The whole point that got lost in the Hawes vs Randolph debate, is that they shouldn’t be debated. It really should be JT vs Randolph, and in that debate, statistically, or anecdotally, or by observation, I think JT fits much better in with Randolph in term of the grand scheme of Kings.

What I HAVEN’T said, but will say now, and leave it at that I suppose, is that Randolph is the type of player who could fit in perfectly with GS over time. He can play 2 positions, handle the ball, rebound at a high rate (how high is a matter of opinion I suppose), and play along side Maggette, Jackson, or whomever else is at the 2, 3 or 4. He gives Nellie another option in how he wants to use his frontcourt. Whether he fully matures or not, I don’t know, but that was the biggest problem with Stephen Jackson when he was picked in 97, and yet, has he exactly matured? (Does it matter in his case? I’m not Bethleham Shoals. I don’t really care one way or the other.)

Either way, Randolph’s success in the later part of the season adds to the argument of how good the 08 draft class was from top to bottom, and given Randolph’s potential pitfalls, there’s something to be said for that. If Nellie, and the rest of the Dubs management can get together (and I agree with an earlier Mike post—maybe it was on StR—that whoever brings in talent and needs to work with this roster moving forward—continuity in management goes a long way—just ask Geoff Petrie). Either way, the debate has brought about some interesting points. Thanks.

I don’t really know why, but I don’t see ANY Kings fans complaining that the Kings didn’t take Randolph. Most, if not all, showed relief in such a fact.

nowhere was “ability to get to the line” mentioned in my comment

Indeed, and that’s a pretty big problem, assuming you you actually care about a serious comparison between Dirk’s and Hawes’ offensive abilities — in terms of how much they contributed to their teams’ winning, or losing — rather than simply cherrypicking stuff to make your guy like good. Dirk got himself to the line at roughly three times the rate Hawes did last year (6.4 to 2.2). Even accounting a bit “preferential veteran treatment,” that’s an obscene gap (and it should be noted that by his third season Dirk was getting himself to the line six time a game). Hawes’ rate of 2.2 FTA (1.4 FTM) per 36 is so far below acceptable that you can pretty much ignore all his other stats and know that he sucks on offense. Seem extreme? Here’s a fun game, then: find one good player, on a good team, that ever got himself to the line so seldom.

If you’re looking for a more expressive, wholistic number to support your arguments, you should try true shooting percentage, which factors in FTAs and 3PT% to give a much fuller picture of how efficient a player is on a offense (and how much he helps or hurts his team’s efforts to win). Dirk’s TS% was .564 — by far his lowest in the past five years, but still miles better than Hawes’ .508 clip.

I think it may be overstating things to say Hawes “sucks” — he is a much better rebounder and more efficient shooter than, for example, his fellow overrated “skilled” big man Andrea BargNANI (some time you should ask JAE’s opinion on that dude). But here’s a serious question for you KIngs fanboys: why do you think your team is the single worst team in the NBA? Has there ever been a team with a really good big man that also happened to be the single worst team in the NBA? And what do you think would happen if you flipped a loser like Hawes for a pair of actual, real-life NBA big men like Oden and Przybilla? I think JAE may be the only person here who could put a realistic number of wins on it, by my gut is that the Kings would be at least 4-5 games better and the Blazers would be at least 4-5 games worse.

(JAE, if you’re going to chime in with an answer, I’d really love to you put a wins/losses gained number on a a more extreme case like, for example, the Raps trading “skilled” big man Andrea Bargnani for the Magic’s traditional, unskilled big man Dwight Howard…)