Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

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

The 2009 NBA Draft class had a stellar first year. Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, DJ Augustin, Brook Lopez, Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, Marreese SpeightsJaVale McGee, and Ryan Anderson (Who would've thought? Everyone was thinking the Cal standout was going to be DeVon Hardin) all look like names NBA fans need to add to their hoops lexicon if they haven't already.

Two rookie forwards from this class caught my eye in particular, especially their performance over the last 2 months of the season. Both are under 23 years old, so they should have plenty of Ridiculous Upside as we say in this business- but you never know. Simply being young does not mean you are guaranteed to make big leaps in your game. Case in point Warriors center Andris Biedrins who had a breakout season at the age of 20 a years ago despite his obvious limitations. Many excitingly claimed "Just wait until he adds a jump shot and post game!" Two full seasons later he has shown no signs of adding that to his very limited offensive repertoire. It takes hard work, dedication, the right attitude and unworldly talent to improve your game in the NBA. Nothing is a given.

Let's closely examine the numbers these two rooks put up this past March and April (their respective highs over the 2 months bolded).

Rookie Forward A

  • March (15 games @ 22:48 min): 9.2 ppg (51.0% FG, 69.1%FT), 7.2 rpg, 0.9 ast : 1.1 to, 2.0 blk, 0.7 stl, and 2.8 fouls
  • April (8 games @ 31:17 min): 15.1 ppg (47.2% FG, 80.8% FT), 10.6 rpg, 1.6 ast : 1.3 to, 0.9 blk, 1.5 stl, and 3.8 fouls

Rookie Forward B

  • March (12 games @ 31:23 min): 13.1 ppg (52.3% FG, 69.7% FT), 8.3 rpg, 1.3 ast : 2.1 to, 0.9 blk, 0.7 stl, and 4.2 fouls
  • April (9 games at 34:00 min): 14.1 ppg (49.0% FG, 67.5% FT), 10.2 rpg, 1.4 ast : 1.4 to, 1.3 blk, 0.4 stl, and 3.9 fouls
I expect both to blow up the spot next season and I'd be very happy to have either player. After you rock the vote make the jump to see who they are...

Star-divide

Rookie Forward A is none other than the Golden State Warriors up and comer Anthony Randolph [Y! Split Statistics]

Capt

This jam is so sick it makes your face look sick!

 

Rookie Forward B is none other than Sactown's finest Jason Thompson [Y! Split Statistics]

Capt

Monster jam on the monster!

I'm looking forward to seeing both of these young forwards vying for the big man crown in Northern California for years to come.

Both made The Risers list for Adam Madison's breakout candidates for '09-10 on ESPN.com:

Jason Thompson, PF, Kings: Thompson struggled with foul problems all season until the Kings threw caution to the wind and let him play through them. He averaged a whopping 4.1 fouls in 31 minutes per game after the All-Star break, but solid production (12.4 points. 8.6 rebounds and 1.1 blocks) showed he could be a decent starting option, and his foul rate gradually improved. It's not surprising for a rookie to come into the league and struggle to stay on the court, but he should only improve in that aspect from here forward. His ferocious offensive rebounding (2.9 per game) makes him a coach's favorite, and his double-double potential (four in nine April games) and relative youth (he will be 23 next season) make it easy to envision him figuring out more of the finer points of the game and averaging 31-33 minutes next season. The Kings have so much dead salary tied up in the power forward position that it's difficult to see them investing in another one this summer.

 

Anthony Randolph, PF, Warriors: Randolph's explosive finish should go a long way in determing the starting power forward next season; he averaged a double-double in April, with 15.1 points and 10.6 rebounds on 47.2 percent shooting. He still picked up 3.8 fouls in 32 minutes, but as a 19-year-old rookie, he was much more polished than the brass could have reasonably hoped for. As the team's lottery pick in 2008, it goes without saying he's a big part of the team's future, and not even coach Don Nelson's whimsical lineup decisions should prevent a sophomore season breakout.

Who do you think will have a better 2009-2010 season? Who will have a better career when it's all said and done?

Poll
Which rookie forward will have the better sophomore campaign?
Rookie Forward A
649 votes
Rookie Forward B
539 votes

1188 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 191 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I went with A because he seemed the more AR guy (Blocks/Boards)

Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, or John Wall. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.

by ejdacanay on Apr 17, 2009 10:48 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Jason Thompson has been utilized as an option for plays far more.

Randolph has pretty much compiled his stats on pure hustle. Therefore, Randolph has more upside and potential.

by Nuck Chorris on Apr 17, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Thompson looks more polished, and should after playing much more college ball. Imagine Randolph once he understands everything thats going on on-court… BEASTMODE! He made noticeable improvement in moving without the ball to get open dunks down the stretch.

by gobigg415 on Apr 17, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are you a home rec’er?

okay bad joke.

by Fantasy Junkie on Apr 17, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No

But that girl in the red dress is.

Go see “Obsessed!” Now my lord!!! Your home rec’er awaits!

Sorry… I’ll try to stop.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 17, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

haha

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

Kelenna is mine...;>

by girltothemax on Apr 17, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You know you're a big man on GSoM

When you can get recc’ed for a “+1.” XD

This green’s for you, jae. You’ve earned it.

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 17, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd

Yeah, the extended commentary on AB’s limitations is completely unnecessary. Weaksauce.

by fuller over bryant on Apr 17, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

The same could not be said about many effective big men

Ok…. shaq has one of the best low post games I have ever seen. He is so good at using that spin to get around people and finish quickly. Howard has a pretty good low post game too, and since he is so strong, he can just overpower people below the basket and get easy offensive rebounds when he misses. Yes, both of these players don’t have solid jump shots. But both of them definitely bring low post games that aren’t even comprable to Biedrins.

by randolphforpresident on Apr 17, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Seriously tho.............

the season is over. I understand that you season ticket holders feel you got jipped last season with all the injuries, but sh*t happens. Can we just move on?

by nuttinbutnet on Apr 17, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Seriously too...

I’m not a season ticket holder but anyways, it’s difficult to move on when you’re itching for this team to be as great as other teams out there that are in the playoffs. It’s just so very frustrating.

Am I gonna have to wait a lifetime? (Ok, that’s too dramatic..but you know what I mean.)

Kelenna is mine...;>

by girltothemax on Apr 17, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I expect the shots at Biedrins

I mean, consider the source. A shot at AB by AB1 is worth about as much as defense of him by me or OM or Latvian Trash. ;-)

And actually, I have to admit that I am a bit less sanguine on Biedrins than I was at the beginning of this season. His per minute numbers, overall, are about the same, or slightly worse than last season’s: better rebounding and scoring, slightly worse FG% and FT%, worse plus-minus. Overall, he seems to have plateaued out to a good solid Top 10 NBA center. Easily worth his contract, in today’s bigman market, but not quite the consistent 19/13 NBA star I had fantasized after reading his EuroLeague results. The average D and poor FT shooting remain concerns; and there were moments when I liked the defensive energy Turiaf brought in his stead.

What’s new in your last couple of anti-AB screeds, Atma Bro, is the implication that his plateau-ing as a player is attributable to laziness or poor work habits. Anecdotally, I’ve never heard anything but praise for Biedrins’ attitude and work habits. Have you heard otherwise? Couldn’t his plateau-ing just be the due to the fact that he’s, you know, a very-good-but-not-great NBA center? Or should we also attribute Shaq’s and DHo’s limitations as players (in FT shooting, for example) to laziness?

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 17, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What’s new in your last couple of anti-AB screeds, Atma Bro, is the implication that his plateau-ing as a player is attributable to laziness or poor work habits. Anecdotally, I’ve never heard anything but praise for Biedrins’ attitude and work habits. Have you heard otherwise? Couldn’t his plateau-ing just be the due to the fact that he’s, you know, a very-good-but-not-great NBA center? Or should we also attribute Shaq’s and DHo’s limitations as players (in FT shooting, for example) to laziness?

Let me be clear. I don’t think Biedrins is a lazy on the NBA lazy scale- where one end you have guys like KG and the other Jerome James. But he does not have the work ethic I’d like to see from a team’s second highest player and supposed young franchise cornerstone. Nellie even joked he’s NEVER even seen Biedrins even attempt a jump shot in practice- isn’t practice the time when you’re supposed to be trying new things and working on your game?

So let’s take FT’s. Over the years Shaq has switched up his free throw stroke and tried many things. Biedrins comes back every season with that same hideous free throw stroke that’s so blatantly mechanically wrong. No one in their right mind who was dedicated to the game would do that.

I look at a guy like Amare who came into this league without a jumper and now he’s fairly decent from the elbow. Even J-Rich had ZERO mid-range or long distance J when he first came into the league. Last year he led the league in 3-pointers made. Dramatic improvements can be made, but it takes commitment and work ethic.

It’s clear that Biedrins is NOT working on his shot one bit. If he is, he’s got a very funny way of using his practice time. There is absolutely no reason why a big money player such as Biedrins should have worse form on his free throw shot than the average player on a middle school team. Shoot, most 8th graders have more range on their jumpers than him. That’s embarrassing.

At the beginning of the season Biedrins showcased some very nice improvement in the low post with a few moves to the left. It was a very encouraging sign. He was putting up about 15.5 ppg. Teams figured him out, but instead of continuing to add to his low post repertoire his growth topped off. In the last 2 months of the season he averaged 6.5 ppg. That’s inexcusable.

The Warriors basically paid him too much too soon and left him very little incentive to work hard on his game. How is this team supposed to improve when they’ve invested so much in this guy?

But again- Biedrins is not worst player or part of this roster. He’s not a terrible player by any stretch. His rebounding in particular over the course of this past season has been stellar. But he is a real problem on this roster- not the biggest problem, but a problem.

Can we get back to the Rookie Forward A vs Rookie Forward B discussion? :)

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i don’t really need him to have a jump shot. if he worked on his ft shooting, it’d be nice, but as far as his jump shot is concerned, i don’t care. he’s an efficient scorer who does what he’s asked to. we aren’t asking him carry the team on the offensive end; we’re asking him to rebound and make more shots than he misses. putting up the points he does, his scoring really doesn’t bother me much. i’d also like to see improvement on the defensive end, but not only is he not “the problem”, he’s not “a problem”.

i’ll take a top ten nba center on my roster without complaints, thank you very much. do you honestly think that if we added another solid piece to the roster that having biedrins be the third or fourth best player on the team (depending on randolph’s development) is a problem?

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 17, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What?
So let’s take FT’s. Over the years Shaq has switched up his free throw stroke and tried many things. Biedrins comes back every season with that same hideous free throw stroke that’s so blatantly mechanically wrong. No one in their right mind who was dedicated to the game would do that.

This is just plain WRONG. The guy is just not a good FT shooter, but to say he hasn’t changed his FT technique makes me question whether or not you actually watch the games anymore. He has changed his form completely at least two or three times. He shot them with one hand for a short time. For a while he would bring his left hand into position and actually palm the ball with his right hand and set it down in his left just before he shot it. He started taking a little hop which then turned into more of a foot slide on his release this year.

It is still ugly. But it’s not the same. He is trying to improve. There have been lots of players that just can’t shoot FTs, and Andris is one of them. So is Shaq. So was Wilt.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 17, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The improvements and adjustments Biedrins has made are minimal. Calling them “complete” changes is an overstatement. It’s not just FT form, we’re talking about a guy who can’t even hit a 4-5 foot hookshot.

Let’s not even begin to compare Biedrins to Shaq and Wilt. They worked hard on their low post skills (although I’ll admit I’m assuming for Wilt since I haven’t seen that much game tape) and overall game. Biedrins has yet to show much there at all- as many GSoMers essentially promised he would in 2007 and 2008— which is the point of the Biedrins reference here in the first place. Youth does not guarantee improvement.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

My problem was this...
Over the years Shaq has switched up his free throw stroke and tried many things.

You said this about Shaq. He did all this but he still sucks at shooting FT’s. You were basically saying that this was okay because he has worked at it. My point is that Andris has done the same thing. Guess what, he still sucks too. You are making it sound like his FT problem is all about a lack of effort when it is not.

The improvements and adjustments Biedrins has made are minimal.

Haha, I’m assuming you actually play basketball every once in a while right? You try doing that little hop/slide that AB does during his FT release and you tell me if that is a minimal adjustment. The guy is clearly trying different things in an attempt to improve. He came up with this new form with his Latvian coach over the summer during international play. He and his coach were trying.

Biedrins has yet to show much there at all- as many GSoMers essentially promised he would in 2007 and 2008— which is the point of the Biedrins reference here in the first place. Youth does not guarantee improvement.

This is a bit of a straw-man anyway. Who exactly was it that guaranteed that he would make these huge strides your referring to? I remember much more discussion about whether or not his promising per-minute numbers would hold up to more playing time. That, and I remember lots of you trying to diminish his rebounding as “inflated”. I’m sure there were some people with unreasonable expectations but considering your early opinions of Andris (bust) you don’t have much room at all to say “I told you so”.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 17, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Yes I play ball and shoot tons of FT’s every week. I will venture to say that most of the folks commenting in this thread have better free throw form and a more consistent jumper than Biedrins. That’s pathetic.

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. Biedrins needs to break his shot down and start from scratch- much like Barnes did pre-2006-2007 when he out of nowhere hit those 3’. Why he has that hop and what not in the first place is beyond me.

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.

And I still do think his rebounding totals are inflated because of the system and his teammates- but that doesn’t mean he isn’t an excellent rebounder.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

people are born with abilities that they're good at or not. there is no need for biedrins to extend his range

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…

"so much losers" - hiero

by montamazing on Apr 17, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 21, 2009 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point...

Until this year his FT percentage was actually making sizable strides every year.

In his first season with significant playing time he shot 30.6%, then 52.1%, then 62%. Then Moncrief left and he started using his new form which clearly isn’t all that great.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 17, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OH MA GOD!

A little arc!

Seriously why didn’t this happen on day 1? How hard is it to add some arc to your jumper? That requires next to no athleticism and doesn’t require a shooting coach.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Damn, maybe you shouold be playing in the NBA.

I mean it’s so easy for you to do everything. Go take Biedrins’ position on the roster and do what he does every night.

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Apr 17, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

To add to your points Sleeps

Isnt it completely possible that AB “plateau-ing” is actually more of a product of the turmoil on the roster this year than anything else? His slightly worse offensive efficiency could easily be contributed to the fact that we did not consistently use the same lineup, and in particular the same distributor, throughout this season. It makes things easier for big men who dont create their own when you have the same point guard playing a whole season, and having no consistent point play could adversely affect stats as well.

So it is completely possible that AB has actually improved from last year, but we couldnt see it in his stats because the people passing him the ball weren’t as effective. He did start out the season as a much more volumn scorer from years past, averaging 15.6 ppg and 12.2 rpg in Nov, and he posted career highs in both catergories for the season on only about 3 minutes more per game. Sounds like a pretty steep plateau to me.

by IceDubs on Apr 17, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

AB is a BEEEEAAAASSSST!

I think I might have mentioned it earlier in the year, but I absolutely love the AB and Turiaf combo.

Having AR, Turiaf, and AB I love even more.

I wouldn’t even want to trade him for Chris Bosh. Chemistry is more important.
Just my opinion.

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Apr 17, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

this didnt go thru...

but I am the 16th wrecker. (rec’r)

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Apr 17, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn’t even want to trade him for Chris Bosh.

Uh…are you sure about that, Romes?

Kelenna is mine...;>

by girltothemax on Apr 17, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hella late.

Yup. I’m sure about it.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Chris Bosh’s game, but as I said above, I am 100% cool with the AB Turiaf combo.

AB is still young and will continue to get better every year. I highly believe that and I believe in him.

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Apr 23, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He’s not the biggest problem on this team by any means, but Biedrins is the easily most overrated player on this roster by fans and management (aside from Nellie probably). The excuses people make for his soft defense and lack of commitment to improving his game are bordering on Mike Dunleavy levels.

Do you honestly think that (early) Shaq and Dwight didn’t have to work hard for that physique? Biedrins has yet to prove that he’s at their level in terms of commitment to putting on muscle. Do you guys honestly think Biedrins works half as hard “patrolling the paint” as Ben Wallace in his prime? Extending him last offseason unnecessarily was silly. If Biedrins is going to be the 2nd highest paid player on this team (and yes he’s partly to blame- he signed the contract and committed to being a franchise cornerstone) I’d like to see better work ethic and substantial improvement.

And yes I’d happily blow up and ship out pretty much everyone on this current entire Warriors roster. It’s pretty clear that they’re not good enough to make the playoffs in the West and they aren’t the classiest group of guys (there are exceptions of course). Just because I’m a Warriors fan doesn’t mean I’m obliged to like the roster.

But the point here is that “Age Ain’t Nothing But a Number” to borrow a line from my favorite girl of yesteryear. Being young and having “potential” guarantees nothing. Flip back to the hundreds of comments on this blog back in 2006, 2007, 2008 from people who were practically guaranteeing that Biedrins (and other young and raw Warrior players) were going to add X, Y, and Z to their games. It never happened.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The real problem…
isn’t AB or his limitations. It’s the way that you are so uneven in your praise and criticism of players. You go out of your way to knock the guys that you don’t like and you are more than happy to ignore the limitations of the guys who you like.

Doesn’t look like you’ve been reading my work that closely. There’s praise and critiques when deserved for every player, coach, GM, etc. How you want to spin it and interpret it is on you my friend.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I've been reading all of your work and I've noticed it too.

You talk shit about Monta because you would’ve rather kept J-Rich, and now you hold a grudge against Biedrins for some reason. What happened to you quitting the site?

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Apr 17, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Do we have any evidence that Andris’s physique is the result of failing to put in the work? Seriously, Shaq was a giant when he was in HS. Howard came into the league with a body ready to pound inside. Andris is thin. Has been. Probably always will be. He hasn’t put on as much muscle. But there’s some realities of biology that you seem to be attributing to ‘commitment to putting on muscle.’

I’ve asked this before and it never gets better than joke answers: what player has become significantly more effective by ‘bulking up’? That it’s very difficult to find any suggests something to me, and it suggests more than just that the skinny guys are all lazy.

I’m bothered that he has the same worthless FT stroke too though evidence suggests that sticking with a worthless stroke is about as useful as trying to change it. Shaq never improved, he just failed in different ways. Very few bad FT shooters ever get good and for what it’s worth, Howard had his best season by far as a rookie.

But other than the FT shooting, I really don’t think there’s evidence that any of his limitations are about commitment.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but Biedrins is the easily most overrated player on this roster by fans and management

You misspelled “but Jackson is easily most overrated player on the roster by fans and management”.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

1a- Stephen Jackson

1b- Andris Biedrins

Jack this year just reminded me of Antoine Walker in his “hey-day” with the Celts- a bunch of seemingly nice all around stats, till you realize how inefficient they are. It’s joke how Jack has been billed as a leader of this team and star in this league. He’s a fantastic 4th offensive option and a great role player.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Quick question... name the last time Jack was a "4th option"?

Oh, damn, it’s never happened in the NBA. But you’re allowed to repeatedly spew it…

And I did a quick analysis of Jack’s season for WW.net a couple days back… His season (accounting for PPG, RPG, APG, and SPG) has been surpassed or equaled exactly 22 times in NBA history. Those names? Larry Bird (4x); Clyde Drexler (2x); Grant Hill (2x); LeBron James (4x); Magic Johnson (4x); Michael Jordan (1x); Chris Paul (1x); Gary Payton (1x); Scottie Pippen (1x); Dwyane Wade (2x).

Don’t make me come over here again, LOL.

by ajbry on Apr 18, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

how does does names compare...

when you take into a accound turnovers and fg%???

by lightz0ut on Apr 18, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jack...
(accounting for PPG, RPG, APG, and SPG)

Get back to me when you do a quick analysis that accounts for him being an inefficient scorer and turnover machine…

If all you base your analysis on is per game numbers without taking into account minutes played, shooting percentage, or turnovers you haven’t really done much analysis.

Do you honestly think that Jackson is in the same conversation as any of those other players you listed? Honestly? That simple question should have told you that your criteria was flawed.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 18, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Struck a chord around this place, huh?

I addressed the TOs and FG% in my original post at WW.net… Jack isn’t supposed to be an all-time great but when dudes like Atma claim Jack is a “4th option” and not a star is ridiculously short-sighted… Just check that revisionist TNT playoff video and IIRC Jack is sandwiched between Melo and Dirk in the intro… What a non-star…

Additionally, I took into account that a few players in that group – namely Bird, Magic, and Drexler – played at higher paces than the 08-09 Warriors so the minutes and pace argument is invalid. The inefficiency argument is a common one but you will find Jack’s PPS is relatively solid – this year it was just below Melo and just above Gay and Howard, three small forwards who focus on scoring moreso than Jack.

by ajbry on Apr 18, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jax is not a ‘4th’ option, but he’s also not a star, not inasmuch as a star should noticeably improve his team’s chance of winning.

by jae on Apr 18, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

First of all...

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.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 18, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And on that list, every single one shot 45% from the field or better (ok I’m rounding up Payton’s 44.8%).

Everyone except Jax, that is.

by jae on Apr 18, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

this is hilarious. Looking at those names, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Dwade, SJACK. LOL. what name doesn’t belong with the rest? I mean, you Jackson homers are so blinded by his ppg, rpg, and apg its sad. An espn analyst put it well the other day: looking at ppg, rpg, and apg you would think that sjack had a better year than paul pierce. then you look at Jack’s shot efficiency, his turnovers, his minutes, and how often he has the ball in his hands on offense with this team (all the time) and you realize the truth… he is a 3rd option at best

by randolphforpresident on Apr 18, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Way to twist reality...

It was in fact Kelly Dwyer of Yahoo Sports, a “journalist” who contributes to a glorified blog and repeatedly jabs at Stephen Jackson – usually unprovoked.

“3rd option at best?” Not even touching that one, must be some sort of bait because that’s clearly too easy for me. Right?

by ajbry on Apr 19, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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)?

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 19, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If I think about it more, he’s not a third option at best. He’s a third option at best and at worst.

Now there are other types of players I’d rather have as my 3rd option. I’d rather have a true marksman, but third option (if there really is a need for such a designation) seems about right.

by jae on Apr 19, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

for now, yeah, that’s about right. as he ages, we’ve got another situation entirely. my point was just that if you want a good team, you don’t want stephen jackson as your second option, much less your first option.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 19, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You clearly have no idea how NBA compensation works

Do you know that bigs make more money that comparably talented SGs? For example, Toronto was paying Rasho Nesterovic $8M last year, Brad Miller, Sam Dalambert, and Tyson Chandler are all making $11M this year, and the Clippers (what was their record?) have 3 bigs that all make more than Biedrins right now, and their contracts will continue to escalate. This is not a function of “stupid GMs giving these guys too much money”, this is a function of a competitive market. If you don’t have a half decent big man, you’re screwed. There are not that many half decent big men walking around the world, thus there is a low supply and high demand driving up prices. Simple macroeconomics.

Both Biedrins and Turiaf are under-compensated for what they bring to the team. If the Warriors were built around your player valuations, we’d have a roster replete with SGs and SFs making $5M and nothing else because you wouldn’t be offering anywhere near fair value for anybody else. Oh, and we’d have had one SG making $12,222,222 this year, and probably one old, busted PG making $18M this year and 4 more years of $12-13M while his body continued to deteriorate.

Extending him last offseason unnecessarily was silly.

<sarcasm “You’re right. We could easily pick up some random guy off the waiver wire or in the draft who’d be able to do just as much. Heck, we could even drop him and let Ronny Turiaf do it all day… When he fouls out after 36 minutes every game, we’d just go small the rest of the time, Maggette on Shaq? Sure, that’d work, that way I can bash him for playing terrible defense even more!” /sarcasm>

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 21, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Case in point Warriors center Andris Biedrins who had a breakout season at the age of 20 a years ago despite his obvious limitations. Many excitingly claimed "Just wait until he adds a jump shot and post game!"

 Anyone who watched him shoot shoulda known his limitations and be satisfied with what he is. He’s a hard worker getting a lot out of his skills, can’t ask for any more than that.

Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 18, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i picked rookie a

based on the fact that he improved his ft% by 11% and had less fouls than rookie b

by J2daZ on Apr 17, 2009 11:23 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Throughout all my time following NBA

This has got to be the deepest rookie class I’ve ever seen.

by Golden Boy on Apr 17, 2009 11:26 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

haha

This is Kristin Kreuk, now zip it. - GTTM

by disguy on Apr 17, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I give props to lebron, mello, wade, and bosh all being superstars

But I think collectively, 1st through the end of the 2nd round, I’m more impressed with what this year’s rookie class has, or had, to offer.

by Golden Boy on Apr 17, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Alright. Let's see:

Lebron, Melo, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich, Ford, Pietrus, David West, Barbosa, Perkins, Josh Howard, Kapono, Korver, James Jones, Bonner, Blake, Willie Green, Mo Williams, and Luke Walton. Happy?

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Apr 17, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yup

But I still like this class better. On top of that, Morrow was added to a great rookie class since he wasn’t drafted. Also, Odon could be considered a rookie too. I know, you might consider him a bust, but with all those scorers on Portland, he doesn’t have to be an offensive force. He just has to clog up the middle and get his rebounds and interior defense.

by Golden Boy on Apr 17, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now you're just being stubborn.

Those two guys don’t make up for 2 lines worth of names.

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Apr 17, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stubborn?

Just because I don’t agree with you. Sorry, I have something called an opinion. Not my fault you don’t like it.

by Golden Boy on Apr 17, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 17, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You say a lot of people

Yup. They sure do. A lot of people… who are not me.

by Golden Boy on Apr 18, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

can i have a reason for that?

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 18, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i mean honestly, watch how easy it is to make an argument like the one you gave above:

the 2001 draft was the best draft since i started watching basketball. it was ridiculously deep and gave us guys like pao gasol and tyson chandler. and that was just the first round, gilbert arenas was a second round pick! the guy wasn’t even good enough to go in the first round of such a great draft! 2001, hands down, best draft ever.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Apr 18, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

Dude I’m just saying, to me, it was the deepest ever. I just don’t recall so many players, even in the 2nd round, that when they were selected, i was like “oh crap. He’s still available…?” I’m not on this topic to debate with anyone. I’m just saying to me, it’s the deepest class I’ve ever seen.

by Golden Boy on Apr 18, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

2004 was pretty solid and deep, too:

D. Howard
Okafor
Biedrins
Al Jefferson
Devin Harris
Iguodala
JSmooth
Jameer Nelson
Kevin Martin

‘08 looks pretty good so far, but I’m not sure it will reach ’03 or ’04 levels.

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 17, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To put some more kerosene on the fire (and hopefully keep this entertaining in a long, long, long offseason), Chris Mullin’s best lottery pick Andris Biedrins was simply Mullie getting lucky in a very good draft.

Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Jameer Nelson, Kevin Martin, Pavel Podkolzin (just seing if you’re reading), Anderson Varjao, Chris Duhon, and Trevor Ariza were all drafted after him. These guys all obviously aren’t as good as Biedrins, but after the Mullin draft debacles in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (arguably- I’d give it another year) it makes you wonder if Mullin just benefitted by it being a strong draft.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hopefully keep this entertaining in a long, long, long offseason

Seriously… I don’t know if I can stand another offseason here like the last one. Stupid trade post after stupid trade post.

after the Mullin draft debacles in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (arguably- I’d give it another year) it makes you wonder if Mullin just benefitted by it being a strong draft.

There certainly aren’t enough data points for me to make a judgment one way or the other, but I’d say that getting Biedrins in 2004 is more likely a “even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then” thing than a “strong draft” thing. Kobe went #13, KG went #5, Boozer, Arenas, & Monta went in the second round. Joe Montana went in the 3rd round and Tom Brady went in the 6th. Players drop in the draft for one reason or another, not necessarily because it’s a deep draft. If you pick up enough rocks, you’ll find a diamond eventually.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 21, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Both players show real future. Thompson projects as someone who can play some center as well (and that means center in somethgn other than an injury emergency), but Randolph looks to be the better rebounder.

Randolph’s line would have looked even better if he hadn’t returned to the early season “more shots than points” result from firing up jumpers against the Suns. It also seemed (albeit one game sample is too small) like it hurt his rebounding when he floated away from the basket. He’s not really closer to being a SF now than he was then, but he’s showing a real future as a 4.

I distinctly remember that several draft ‘experts’ were down on Sac’s pick since they already had Hawes (which should have been irrelevant since Hawes sucks) and that 12 was “too high” for JT and this pick was something of a shocker. Too high? Perhaps things will change in a few years, but the only guy taken after who has shown as much is Randolph.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Hawes sucks?

Riiiggghhhhttt….

Someone clearly hasn’t watched much of Hawes.

"It's as Ann as the nose on plain's face."

by Apoet on Apr 17, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Watched enough to realize what he does and doesn’t do.

What he doesn’t do is rebound well enough to be a good center or shoot for a high enough percentage to be a good center. The former was a problem his lone year of college too. The latter he could possibly improve, but centers who can’t rebound aren’t worth a damn. People get excited when they see a center scoring points, but if you had to choose between a center who scores but rebounds poorly (and he’s really just pretty terrible at it) and one who rebounds but doesn’t score much, that the rebounder every time and your team will be better. Since Hawes doesn’t score by being efficient (less than pedestrian shooting, drifts outside, never draws fouls), he’s doubly worthless.

Yeah. Hawes sucks.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Further, on a terrible team, the team was much better when he was on the bench. MUCH better.

Yeah, if he jacks up enough shots, he’ll get paid by some ignorant GM who reacts like the ignorant fans to seeing PPG totals and he’ll play until someone realizes that the more he plays, the more his team seems to lose and that scoring isn’t everything and then he’ll be an albatross in the same way that one-dimensional scoring centers who couldn’t rebound against Jr. High competition like Eddy Curry wind up being.

Actually, I don’t think sucks.

He’ll have to improve significantly to suck.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Uh-oh

This should be good…

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 17, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

... and it was.

And on the 2nd day, Kings fan was pwn3d.

And it was good. ;-)

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 18, 2009 4:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I.don’t.know.where.to.start.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

golf clap

very nice…

There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.

by qin on Apr 18, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

(I don’t think he’s coming back. The crickets are chirping.)

by jae on Apr 18, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why bother clapping when a professional drops a 2 foot putt?

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 21, 2009 7:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

.....9.....10

it’s done! He’s out!

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Apr 18, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ouch...

A picture like that kind of makes me question the sport of boxing. I actually enjoy boxing and MMA but sometimes I wonder why I like to watch one guy injure another physically.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 18, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The sad part

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.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 19, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Some of the statements "you supposedly said"

Is what’s supposed to be there.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 19, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re ‘not a lightweight’ but the extent of your argument is to tell me I’m wrong but you don’t have time?

Pathetic. That excuse sucks worse than Hawes.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 2:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah but

“The bad part about Hawes, is you’re still wrong.” You can’t construct a more iron-clad argument than that.

He may not have had time not to suck, but he did have just enough time to throw his fellow Kings fan under the bus…

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 20, 2009 4:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can do it now that I have time

And I will.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You took the time to tell me that you have the time, that you will do something and then just leave it at that? (Or perhaps that’s it and it’s just sarcasm and that is the entirety of the argument.)

That’s still Spencer Hawes level pathetic.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So is that

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And by that

I mean pathetic.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So do you mean

1. Spencer Hawes is indeed pathetic;
or
2. JAE’s comment is as studly as Spencer Hawes?

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 20, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jae wishes

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t wish Hawes to be pathetic. He is. I have nothing against him, his repubnicant blogging notwithstanding.

He’s just not a very good player by the standards of the NBA.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Hawes is pathetic

So is Anthony Randolph.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s the equivalent, “nyah, nyah! You’re one too.” It appears that your strategy, having nothing to actually counter, is to deflect towards a non-sequitur.

Randolph was a much better rebounder and shot blocker and ridiculously similar in scoring efficiency to Hawes in year two (and much better than Hawes as a rookie). Your if : then doesn’t really seem to follow, unless you consider rebounding not terribly important, which would be stupid.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nyah! Nyah! You're one too!

Wait, you said something?

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quite a bit, dolt. If you’d been paying the least bit of attention rather than going for the knee-jerk reaction to defend St. Hawes, you might have picked some of it up.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nyah! Nyah!

 You’re one too!

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And if he's blogging about Wagain

I want to read that horsepuckey. I need a good laugh these days.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

apoet = posterized

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.

**WE DESERVE**

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."

by GameSix on Apr 20, 2009 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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.
2 things. He is new here. The only 2 comments he’s made on GSOM was regarding your points about Hawes. I don’t spend much time here for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I don’t care about arguing about how pointless the Warriors as a franchise, here on GSoM. I think plenty of people here do that well already. And, it’s pretty rude as well.

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.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

[Hawes is] not a terrible rebounder (although his rebound per minute stats don’t suggest that), but he’s better than average, or he should be.

He is not better than average. What he “should be” isn’t really relevant. What he has been is not better than average for a center/PF. It is difficult to take what you have to say seriously when you say he’s better than average and he is, quite empirically, not and simultaneously discount it that if he isn’t (it doesn’t seem like you know what average is) that he “should be”. “Should be” but isn’t still means isn’t.

What measure of his rebounding do you use other than his ability to get rebounds. You say that his rebounds per minute doesn’t suggest that he’s not terrible. Does he get NBA-Style points that I don’t know about? Is the competition for boards from his teammates so fierce that (despite being among the worst teams in rebounding) his per minute average is suppressed by the system he plays in? How exactly do you conclude that he’s not terrible when his results suggest he is?

If you’re going to simply discount that he wasn’t bad by saying that the results weren’t bad (when they were) or that they “should be” good, what point is there?

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They were bad to you because you don't know any better

That was my point. You’re ignorant of Hawes in large part because you didn’t watch him game in & game out.

I conclude he’s not terrible because nothing really suggests to me he’s not. He grabs 10+ boards in 35+ mins of playing time. Not out of this world perhaps, but okay? He’s not Greg Oden, okay. I don’t know why Greg Oden keeps coming up, or why people INSIST on comparing the two. They have similarities, like, they were drafted in the same draft and are the same age. That’s about it. There aren’t many other similarities.

How exactly do you conclude that he’s not terrible when his results suggest he is? Because I watch him play. I try to use stats where I think they’re applicable (and in many ways they are), but at some point, in this discussion it becomes a semantic debate. You say he sucks. I say he doesn’t. You don’t care what I think (or most likely don’t). I don’t care what you ultimately think.

Wanting your respect is like wanting you to move to Sacramento because it’s a better city than San Francisco. Or something like that. I don’t want your respect. Your views, while ignorant, are your own. Maybe my views on Randolph are ignorant too. We’ll see.

You say 7 rebounds out of a C is terrible. I don’t disagree. What I disagree is that he’ll average that healthy. To me he’s more of a 9.5-10 a night with real playing time (all season from beginning to end), and no Brad Miller around (or Kenny Natt).

I think next year is his make or break year. Either he’s a quality upper echelon talent, or he’s not. But, next year, will be a huge year for both JT and Shawes. I’m excited to see that. But, if you don’t believe, I won’t lose any sleep over it I know this.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He grabs 10+ boards in 35+ mins of playing time.

Most of the time he does not. His average (and averages are important as they’re a better measure of what normally happens than cherry picking the top games and saying that because he grabbed more than ten once, he should do it every time) was NOT 10+ in 35+ minutes, unless by 35+ you mean he’d average that many if he played 56 minutes a night, which based on what he’s done for the last two years is how many minutes he’d take to average 10 a night.

Now if you’re going to say things that are simply not true, there’s really not much I can do for you, but what you said wasn’t true. It’s not of the opinion type of not true where you say he’s good, I say he’s not, but it’s an empirical fact. HAWES DOES NOT GRAB 10+ BOARDS IN 35+ MINUTES by any reasonable definition of those terms. Please, if you’re trying to look like something other than a moron (that may not be your aim) don’t simply say things that are verifiable, easily so, and are just plain wrong. So now why should I take what you have to say seriously when you say something that?

What I disagree is that he’ll average that [the pathetic 7 per 36] healthy.

This is naive. I do not come by my opinions without study, and one of the most consistent things for players is their rebound rates. Guys who do not rebound well almost never improve this. Not merely my opinion, but based on years upon years of actual observation, tested. I know that fan comes from ‘fanatic’ and it makes people hope against logic, but it is hope against logic.

Now if this is something you’d like to ignore because you see something that makes you believe he will be the exception to the general pattern, you may, but because you were not aware of this general pattern (and I suspect you were not — most fans don’t pay attention to trends in an actual scientific manner) doesn’t make it less true. He was terrible. That’s not really something that what you think he’ll do in the future changes.

I don’t care what you think about what someone will do, but what he’s done wasn’t good. You’ve got your opinion of why he’ll buck a pattern that seems to hold for most players. I’ve got real data. There is a difference.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hmmmm
Most of the time he does not. His average (and averages are important as they’re a better measure of what normally happens than cherry picking the top games and saying that because he grabbed more than ten once, he should do it every time) was NOT 10+ in 35+ minutes, unless by 35+ you mean he’d average that many if he played 56 minutes a night, which based on what he’s done for the last two years is how many minutes he’d take to average 10 a night.

You’re right he didn’t average 10+ in 35 mins a night. He also didn’t get 35 mins a night for the season either. He didn’t even come close to 35 mins a night for that matter. Unless, somehow 29 is close to 35 in your world.

So, I’m going to go through game by game, and see how many games in 30+ mins he grabbed 8+ boards. Then I will tally them as I know you won’t pay attention to it, but I always like anecdotal evidence to make my hairy nutsacks tingle.

There were 20 games where he played 30+ mins or more before February. After February, he played in 15 games with 30+ mins.
There were 12 games where he played 25-30 mins. None after February.
There were 12 games where he played 20-25 mins. 2 After February.

There were 33 games in February, March and April he participated in. (He missed the last game—and most of the Nuggets game that Kenyon Martin gave him the cheap shot in.)

1-7 boards in the February to April timeframe: 17 times (including the Nuggets game). Of those 17, he grabbed 7 3 times, and 6 4 times. That means 10 times, he grabbed 5 boards or less. He grabbed 5 twice in that same span.

That means, there was 16 games where he grabbed more than 7 boards, and 3 times where he grabbed 7 boards. That suggest he’s an average board man. (Unless you note the game he didn’t grab a board in 25 mins. Worst game ever by far by him though. I can live with it.) To me, that’s an improvement. Is it ideal? Hell no it’s not. I never said it was. Nor did I say that if he doesn’t improve this number I won’t be extremely disappointed. I will be.

So, if you’re point was that he didn’t average 10 boards in 35+ mins, then yes, you’re right. Per 36, he averaged 8.7 boards this season. Okay, not that impressive, no. Didn’t say it was. I said I was encouraged by the season as he slightly out-performed my pre-season expectation of him.


It’s not of the opinion type of not true where you say he’s good, I say he’s not, but it’s an empirical fact. HAWES DOES NOT GRAB 10+ BOARDS IN 35+ MINUTES by any reasonable definition of those terms.
In 33 mins against Minnesota, he grabbed 11 boards. You just said he does not grab 10+ boards in 35+ mins on your terms. Since when do your terms count? Who asked you? Not I. (So why I’m arguing this still I have no idea. Kicking myself in the nuts seems like a greater goal in life. Sigh.) I noted the first game he played all season long. He did it 17 times all season. Impressive to me? No, not really. But you just said he can’t, and he did it at least within the context of his playing time. Sure, it isn’t 18 boards or anything, but I try to be realistic. He brings other things, and being a good boardman is a longs way to go for him. But, he can get there. Great? Shit. I ain’t that stupid.

Empirical evidence that he can’t do something based on arbitrary terms that you deem totally necessary in his case. I love how that works. You create the rules of the way you want to define a player to argue the point the way you want it. There isn’t any middle ground, unless you like being a snob, and there isn’t any way to argue that either. Of course, unless you look at him game by game. Then, you could argue it that way. Of course, you already mentioned that. I mean I could do the same thing by chasing a rabbit around a circle and shooting at his ass 100 times. I don’t know if that means anything, but it sounds cute.

This is naive. I do not come by my opinions without study, and one of the most consistent things for players is their rebound rates. Guys who do not rebound well almost never improve this. Not merely my opinion, but based on years upon years of actual observation, tested. I know that fan comes from ‘fanatic’ and it makes people hope against logic, but it is hope against logic.

How nice for you that you base your thoughts off study. Perhaps you should get hired by Daryl Morey (if you aren’t already), and then I might care. Like .00000001% of my caring capacity. (Or 1 millionth of 1 percent since you like math so much jae.)

Now if this is something you’d like to ignore because you see something that makes you believe he will be the exception to the general pattern, you may, but because you were not aware of this general pattern (and I suspect you were not — most fans don’t pay attention to trends in an actual scientific manner) doesn’t make it less true. He was terrible. That’s not really something that what you think he’ll do in the future changes.

I don’t care if you’re Albert Einstein splitting atoms while juggling dumb clown shit on a train car moving at the speed of light through the universe being ripped through Toto’s asshole. Without the aid of scientfic thought, it sounds like a desperate attempt to make a player on a team I root for sound less appealing than one on a team you root for. (Which confuses the hell outta me I must admit.)

But, why anybody should be desperate to say that Hawes still isn’t all potential is beyond me. I’m still on the potential point with him (along with his health). I was pleased with the results given the circumstances, and the difficulty that both Spence and JT had to fight all season long. A bad (maybe mediocre) team with a few key injuries at the wrong times, and a few veterans who tanked, and then playing the young players set in. Some games, Spencer was damn impressive. Others, he wasn’t at all. And there was this matter of the Charlotte game. (I still can’t figure that out.)
I don’t care to argue that I wouldn’t want Anthony Randolph despite his higher rebound rates, higher shot blocking rates, and nearly similar scoring efficiency. You keep Randolph. I’ll keep Hawes. (And this says nothing about Randolph vs Thompson. That’s doubly so. Perhaps you didn’t get the memo jae, but this argument isn’t really about Hawes vs Thompson. It’s more about Thompson vs Randolph, or the fact that it’s an argument is more of a discussion point.)

Bottom line: You want me to admit Randolph is more valuable than Hawes or Thompson? Good luck. It hasn’t happened yet. It probably won’t happen. It’s sort of like the argument of Monta Ellis vs Kevin Martin, only, it hasn’t happened. (And Monta didn’t deserve the 2007 MIP award. He deserved the 2008 award. But awards are stupid. As evidence by Corliss Williamson winning the 6th man award in 2002, when Bobby Jackson should have won, and when Bobby Jackson won the award in 2003, yet Corliss should have won it. Awards are at best a semantic debate. At worst there a pointless exercise to keep national talking heads, talking.)

I like the idea that you’re so willing to spread the Anthony Randolph love out. It’s just not one I’m willing to share. I probably would have considered castrating Petrie had he selected Randolph. (That’s even noting I nearly felt that way when he drafted Hawes.) Randolph, whether he admits it, ended up playing for a coach who can embrace his actual playing style. I don’t really see how that would have worked for Randolph in Sac. Still don’t. Sometimes player fit is more important than talent. Not in Randolph’s case completely, but that is partially true. The Kings needed what JT brought more to the table than what Randolph did. Period. No argument there. They couldn’t see AR & Shawes as a tandem. And neither can I.

Now, if you want to convince me of something, convince me Robert Rovell is dumber than Andy Roeser. Then, I MIGHT agree.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Game by game...

Why not just trust the per 36 stats as a measure of what he would do if he were playing that much. When it comes to rebounding they are very reliable. Lots of poor rebounders have grabbed 11 boards in 35mintues on any given night. That doesn’t mean that they could average 11 rebounds in 35min.

Hawes clearly has some skills, but so far he hasn’t been able to turn those skills into production. He seems pretty smooth offensively but he isn’t an efficient scorer. I don’t know if he will eventually turn things around offensively, but if he doesn’t make a drastic improvement in that area he will have a hard time helping a team.

The two most important things a big man can do is rebound and score efficiently. Right now he is not doing either. There is some hope on offense, but not much with respect to rebounding.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 20, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here's why mike

Because his per 36 stat at the rate over where he boarded over the whole season, and he boarded at different rates at different times. That’s why. I’m not convinced he can ever get more than 8.5 boards, but, that’s not a completely awful total. It isn’t wonderful, but I am convinced he could be at 9.5-10 a night with consistent minutes, a better rotation, a coach with a clear idea of what he wants Spencer to do on that end (Natt and Theus probably didn’t have as clear an idea that was needed for Spencer to be that effective there), and the most important factor here, is how well he gains strength (and it’s not just weight lifting—it’s doing it without putting stress on his knees), and how well he uses it to get boards in the future.

I do believe that JT& Shawes could pull down 21.5 and 23 boards a night at one point in their careers. Optimistic? Yeah, I’m a homer fanboy. And I got the Kevin Martin jerzey to prove it.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And another reason for per 36 that is difficult to tell

Is the fluctuation. The good part is that the per 36 was designed to curb some of that, but, at the same time, I don’t always agree with that. It’s a good point that Spencer has his ups & downs (which I mention alot in all my ramblings here today), but at the same time, I expect that when he’s 20. He is 20. Sure rebounding rates are good things. His rebound rate has actually improved by a half board over the 2 seasons in Sacramento from his college days. (I do know how to calculate per 36 stats. Very easy to calculate, thankfully.)

Randolph’s rate was about 9.3 in college, and that could improve by a board a game too. (Randolph had more minutes though at LSU than Hawes did at UW.)

Either way, I’m convinced that Spencer has worked at it, even though it seems like he didn’t do as well this year, he didn’t get many minutes his rookie season due to a slow start and an injury in training camp.

Anthony Randolph, Spencer Hawes and Jason Thompson are interesting players to track for the future (obviously). Beyond that, I’m not willing to say anything definitive about them, other than I’m glad the Kings have Hawes & Thompson.

 

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And while I know Randolph has an 11.6 rate this season

I doubt he’ll rebound at that high a rate ever again unless the Warriors go through another season where they don’t have a front line and have to play him those minutes. Nor, would I argue that his rebounding doesn’t provide value.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Couple things...

I think I get what you are trying to say here. You think that because Hawes is an inconsistent rebounder (some good stretches, some poor stretches) makes him more likely than usual to improve his rebounding? I certainly don’t have any research to back me up, but I doubt that.

Nobody is completely consistent. I don’t know if Hawes’ rebounding has any more variability than the average player, but even if it does I’m not sure that really helps a team that will depend on him night in and night out.

Secondly, I noticed you were comparing rebounding rates from college verses the pros. I don’t have a ton of experience with college stats but from what I’ve seen college rebounding has far less predictive value as to NBA production than actual NBA rebounding. For what it’s worth NBA rebounding rates tend to be pretty consistent.

As for Randolph’s rebounding rate, I don’t know if he can sustain the truly elite level rebounding that he did this year, but I seriously doubt that it completely falls off a cliff.

I doubt he’ll rebound at that high a rate ever again unless the Warriors go through another season where they don’t have a front line and have to play him those minutes.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. For your information, his first two months when he was playing SF/PF his rebound rate was actually better than his season avg. He seems to have a knack for rebounding and I don’t see any reason to think that he won’t duplicate his performance or come close to it.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 20, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough

Our positions are clear.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And I leave with this

Its all right if you love me
Its al l right if you dont
Im not afraid of you runnin away
Honey, I get the feelin you wont

There is no sense in pretendin
Your eyes give you give away
Something inside you is feelin like I do
Weve said all there is to say

Baby, breakdown, go ahead give it to me
Breakdown, honey take me through the night
Breakdown, Im standing here, can you see?
Breakdown, its all right
Its all right
Its all right

Breakdown, go ahead give it to me
Breakdown, honey take me through the night
Breakdown, Im standing here, can you see?
Breakdown, its all right
Its all right
Its all right

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The verdict...

Lightweight.

Lightweight with traces of fanboyism, Tourette’s, poor elementary English skills, and anger management issues — but lightweight nonetheless. The actual content in that lengthy post could have been distilled to a cogent sentence, though I’m not too confident in the author’s ability to have done so himself. How about this:

You make some good points, jae, but as a Kings fan who watches them regularly, I think you’re underestimating his improvement in some key areas over the course of the season.

Think of all the time saved and hard feelings spared!

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 20, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And then I would cut my head off and stick it to next to Lucy Liu's in Kill Bill 1

In otherwords, it’s how I don’t roll. And if I lost style points on GSoM, oh well.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s not the style points, it’s the content that was poor.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right

I didn’t come to GSoM to post 10 comments (or however many they are now) to convince GSoM’ers that Hawes will be an elite board man, or even has a chance at it. I don’t see it myself, but good to potentially very good board man is where I hope he can get to. I think it’s attainable myself, but it’s all hope at this point.

As far as my content, I’m not worried how many Gold Star’s I create here. If I was I would try a little harder.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but good to potentially very good board man is where I hope he can get to.

Operative word there is “hope” as there’s very, very little reason to believe that what you hope for is likely to come true.

If you had some evidence that he was somehow more inconsistent than other players, that more playing time evened this out, you might have something. But you’re speculating that he’s different from other players in his pattern and he’s different from the other very good board men, almost all of whom started out better than Hawes.

Look, I know that fans like to hope, but you really are being ignorant of some evidence. I suspect that no one over there in King country ever looked into rebound rates, the consistency and that this is all new. No shame in that, but the ostrich act to avoid it doesn’t help things.

Here is the simple story: Guys who do not start out as good rebounders almost NEVER become good rebounders. This is not my opinion. This empirical reality and you were likely not aware of it before, but ignorance doesn’t make it less true. Look for the exceptions if you want and try to figure out why Hawes fits into the class of exceptions, but your fighting a fight against evidence and you’re fighting it with your opinion of why Hawes is unique.

History doesn’t favor him becoming even average.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I suspect that no one over there in King country ever looked into rebound rates, the consistency and that this is all new.

Oh yes, my naivete has failed me once again on GSoM. However shall i cope.

Here is the simple story: Guys who do not start out as good rebounders almost NEVER become good rebounders. This is not my opinion. This empirical reality and you were likely not aware of it before, but ignorance doesn’t make it less true.

You’ve convinced me. Hawes will be a terrible rebounder at the NBA level until the end of days. I don’t think I can keep from weeping now. Excuse me.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 2:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but it’s all hope at this point.

Finally you admit it.

Your hope if founded on hope though. It is very rare that someone rebounds like Hawes did his first two years regardless of playing time and somehow turns into an average or better rebounder. It just very, very rarely happens.

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Admit it?

I didn’t say anything different. Had you not called me stupid (which I am not), I wouldn’t have bothered with anything else. I don’t “really hope” that Spencer Hawes can become a good board man, I believe he can. Do I have anecdotal evidence? No, the evidence says he will be average at it. But, okay?

Okay, it so rarely happens. I’m done arguing the Hawes possibility. It’s pointless for me to argue. Why I wasted my time with this (and I can’t even blame it on being drunk) is beyond me.

Good luck with the skinny frown kid.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And

Tourette’s refers to someone who can’t control themselves in their choice of language. I can; I just don’t care enough to bother.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

My bad, then. How bout “Potty-mouth?”

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 20, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perfect

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 20, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You should probably go back and look at Hawes numbers this season, especially the second half after his minutes went up. Or better yet that watch some games and see how skilled the guy actually is. not that I think he’s a tremendous rebounder, but between Hawes and Thompson you have a frontcourt duo that are a perfect compliment to one another, given they both have a healthy season next year, both will average double digit rebounds, and both will average between 15-20 points, I’d say thats pretty good for your front-court.

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on Apr 17, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

both will average double digit rebounds

Hope against hope for Spencer there.

Just for fun, I checked how many players averaged 10 or more rebounds per 36 minutes played this season (min 35 games). 32 players acheived that feat. Of those, 6 were either rookies or 2nd year players.

Of the 26 other players who hit that mark, 3 of them failed to grab 9 rebounds per 36 (I’ll round up what Hawes did) in their first two years (with two more only doing it once in their first 2 campaigns).

It’s possible that Hawes will be in that limited group who didn’t rebound that well in his first couple of seasons, but it’s unlikely. It’s about a 1 in 9 shot that he’ll become a regular ‘double digit rebounder’ given what he’s done in his first 2 seasons. Fans are entitled to hope, but he does not have history in his favor. But given that his rebound rate was remarkably similar in year 1 and 2 (actually slipped a bit from his first year, but hey, who’s counting — certainly not hopeful Kings fans) what exactly suggests that he’ll be in this minority group?

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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 had to do a pretty good amount of research myself (though nowhere near as much as you) before I could let go of my preconceptions and trust a guys per minute rebounding stats as a pretty good tool for projecting future production. You’re right though. I haven’t seen many cases at all of guys turning their rebounding around. Most of those are because of coming into the league very young or changing positions after a year or two (KG for example, started out thin and playing a lot of SF).

There isn’t really much reason to believe that Hawes will improve his rebounding significantly. And if he doesn’t, despite any low-post polish, he won’t be a very valuable player.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 20, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting that you mention Garnett, as one of the other cases is Camby, who was similarly thin and took a few years to start rebounding at a high level and I thought about the ‘too skinny to play inside’ possibility. It’s not exactly that either became hulking giants, but they got stronger and learned how to play despite giving up pounds to many guys.

I’m curious if there’s a ‘pecota’ type way of looking at it that takes a player’s build and/or ‘style’ into account. On this year’s data: the guys averaging better than 10/36 who didn’t average at least 9/36 for their first two seasons: Camby, Kwame Brown (who cracked 10/36 for the first time this year with his normal limited PT), and Drew Gooden had two straight sub 9/36. McDyess averaged 9 and 7.5 in his first two seasons and Troy Murphy improved significantly from year one (8/36 up to 11.6/36 in his second season). Anyone else see something that jumps out in that bunch?

by jae on Apr 20, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting that you mention Garnett, as one of the other cases is Camby, who was similarly thin and took a few years to start rebounding at a high level and I thought about the ‘too skinny to play inside’ possibility. It’s not exactly that either became hulking giants, but they got stronger and learned how to play despite giving up pounds to many guys.

I’m not sure whether or not he was actually too thin to play inside or if because he seemed too skinny his coach and himself thought it more appropriate that he play on the perimeter more. KG is a pretty extreme case because he was very young, very thin and skilled enough to play a lot of SF. There may have been more of a learning curve for him, or it may have just been a shift in his mentality. I can’t really say.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 20, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mike
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.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 4:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t want to argue that Hawes is a “solid” PF/C, or will be once he is established and reaches his ceiling in this league, it’s not worth anyones time and it seems like a silly thing to have to defend with flaming fire as you would like people to. I can understand your need to be King of the ring, but I don’t share that need. The one question I have then, based on your collective wealth of statistical knowledge, If Hawes was to have a healthy season next year, and further taking into account the areas in which you feel comfortable predicting improvement for a player (if there are any) 21 years young, entering his 3rd NBA season, the first in which he will receive starters minutes the whole season (34-38 MPG or so), what would you predict his stat-line to look like? Is it bullish or unrealistic to predict something like 18ppg on 50% shooting, 9 rpg, 1.5 bpg, 3 apg? and if he put up those numbers as a 21 year old in the NBA, would you say he sucks?

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on Apr 21, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This whole argument had the aura of "we got Randolph" and you don't

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.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're way off base...

Here is Jae’s original post that started all of this.

Both players show real future. Thompson projects as someone who can play some center as well (and that means center in somethgn other than an injury emergency), but Randolph looks to be the better rebounder.

Randolph’s line would have looked even better if he hadn’t returned to the early season "more shots than points" result from firing up jumpers against the Suns. It also seemed (albeit one game sample is too small) like it hurt his rebounding when he floated away from the basket. He’s not really closer to being a SF now than he was then, but he’s showing a real future as a 4.

I distinctly remember that several draft ‘experts’ were down on Sac’s pick since they already had Hawes (which should have been irrelevant since Hawes sucks) and that 12 was "too high" for JT and this pick was something of a shocker. Too high? Perhaps things will change in a few years, but the only guy taken after who has shown as much is Randolph.

Seems to me like he is praising Sac for selecting JT despite what the so called draft experts were saying at the time. That doesn’t sound like “we got Randolph and you don’t” at all.

What happened was that in the process of praising JT and the Kings for selecting JT he took a shot at Hawes which then caused a bunch of you guys to take offense and tell him that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about (turns out that he does). Nobody here is knocking JT or saying that you guys were stupid for taking him instead of Randolph.

This whole argument has had very little to do with JT and Randolph and a lot more to do with Hawes and whether or not he is a good player.

Jae’s point from the first post is that the Kings were smart for ignoring the people who were saying not to pick JT because they already had Hawes. I don’t think that anyone was saying that you should have reason to be disappointed in JT. He looks to be a very promising player that can do a lot of things to help your team.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Apr 21, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps

The way this thread went about developing, it had 3 distinct parts, and almost none in sequential order.

And, your point about Jae and his statement about JT was of course correct. I had forgotten that part. Thanks for that.

The most interesting part of this whole debate with Randolph is how he is a much better fit with GSW than he would have been in Sac. And Jae’s point about Hawes & JT being a fit together was a strong point made by Scott Howard Cooper of the Bee last summer. I doubt other fanbases (or media) ever caught on to that fact.

This whole argument never did brew about JT I know that. The problem was the assertion that Hawes sucks, which he does not. There are a few people who believe Hawes upside is greater than JT’s as a matter of fact. (Not using this to defend Hawes.) Either way as a tandem, I look forward to seeing each grow and become the players they both should be.

I’m done now. Good luck with the draft and the future and all that.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem was the assertion that Hawes sucks, which he does not.

You misspelled: “The problem was the assertion that Hawes sucks, which he does.”

by jae on Apr 21, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No the problem is I don't care about your opinion on Hawes

But, I know how to spell. But thanks for the tip spelling bee champion.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OM, how dare you actually look at what I said. Don’t you know that you’re supposed to respond to what you think someone wrote instead of their actual words?

by jae on Apr 21, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I do

The only part (and mistake) I made was overlooking your first point. After that, it’s a matter of semantic debate.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 21, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It depends on how many shots it takes to get those 18 points. If it’s 15 or 16 shots? It’s terrible. If it’s 12 or 13, he’s an asset. 9 rebounds per 36 (midpoint of the numbers you presented) is below average for centers by about a board as well. So is 1.5 block and 50% shooting, although fg% is far less important than scoring efficiency which takes into consideration how often a player gets fouled and goes to the line. Hawes was terrible at the latter and not very good at the former. Neither are things that players tend to improve but both are things that factor heavily into winning. I think they’re closer to drawing walks in baseball. Guys who can’t rarely pick up the skill and the improvement is very, very marginal.

Hawes looks like he likes the outside shot. This puts him at a disadvantage in drawing fouls (which means the other center isn’t in foul trouble) and rebounding. There are far more championship contenders who have had centers who rebound well than there are top teams who have a center who is known more for his range and ability to hit the three but doesn’t rebound at least as well as average per minute.

by jae on Apr 21, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

where’s your prediction for his numbers? crunch your numbers and post please

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on Apr 21, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sorry, can't agree with you

Let’s not forget an important point here. Hawes is 2 years younger than Thompson and only 1 older than Randolph, so let’s make a not so bold prediction that he might improve his rebounding. That magic word “Upside” could possibly apply to this 20 year old.

Do you think Brook Lopez will be a good center?? Well he averaged 1 more rebound a game than Hawes and was ranked quite highly in Rookie of the Year considerations….and he is older than Hawes!!

You have discussed his average shooting. Well comparing his season’s shooting to Nowitzki’s, there ain’t much difference. Sure, but Dirk’s not really a center….well there’s no law that say Hawes has to be e center either. Especially seeing as he’s probably the 3rd best 3 point shooting 7-footer in the league (Bargnani is probably the 2nd best).

And what about his passing? Do you realise he he holds 5 of the top 10 single game assist records for any center under 21 in the last 20 years?? I’d say he can pass a little bit also.

That’s enough for me. Spencer, consider me as “having your back”.

by thisismellow on Apr 17, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well comparing his season’s shooting to Nowitzki’s, there ain’t much difference.

This is false. (It is not much less accurate than the rest of your post, but it is still false.)

Nowitzki was the better shooter, the more efficient shooter, and got to the line much more often. Nowitzki’s rate of return on his shot was far, far superior, even in an off year.

The difference was between good and not good. Aside from that, you made a perfectly valid, false statement. Nowitzki was much more.

That’s enough for me. Spencer, consider me as "having your back".

Poor Spencer. All alone.

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

nowhere was "ability to get to the line" mentioned in my comment

Nowitzki FG% .479, 3P% .359
Hawes FG % .466, 3P% .348.

Far, far superior eh? I’ll give you the free throw %, but as for the others, I don’t see a great difference.

by thisismellow on Apr 18, 2009 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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…)

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 18, 2009 3:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bargnani magically becomes Howard and no other changes? Raptors win 50+ games, even accounting for a depreciation in Howard’s production that can come right after changing teams (a “chemistry” effect if you will, though the effect is small). That puts it in the ball-park of the Spurs improvement when Robinson arrived. You give me a betting line that says they don’t improve to 50 wins and I’ll jump all over it and stop worrying about looking for a job.

Howard is that good. Bargnani is that bad.

by jae on Apr 18, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Q “here’s a serious question for you Kings fanboys: why do you think your team is the single worst team in the NBA?”

A. Because the “team” is bad, except for maybe 4 guys, not because Hawes “sucks”, as your resident NBA E-guru here suggests.

and I don’t think you were necessarily referring to my Kings fandom there, I didn’t blindly claim Hawes as the 2nd coming or anything, and I would never throw him into a Dirk comparison, but he’s a solid front-line starter in this league that can do a lot of things for you offensively and defensively.

The arm chair GM Hyperbole is strong here! I would dare say it rivals our kings blog here on SB nation, which is hard to do sadly

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on Apr 18, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The arm chair GM Hyperbole is strong here

I’m not even sure what this means, and I’m not sure you’re sure either, though I appreciate the creativity in the gratuitous space in “armchair” and random capital H in “hyperbole.” Naturally, we’re all amateur GMs here, you included — that’s a big part of what sports blogging is about, no?

As far as hyperbole, isn’t this

he’s a solid front-line starter in this league that can do a lot of things for you offensively and defensively.

overstating Hawes’ abilities just a tad? I already acknowledged that, in my opinion, saying Hawes “sucks” is overstating things. Our “resident e-guru” may have a slightly broader definition of sucking, one that includes players who make their horrible teams significantly more horrible when they’re on the floor (plusminus -6.3, Roland rating -6.0).

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 18, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that’s pretty cool that you can point out unnecessarily capitalized letters and spaces, I’m glad you’re on duty here officer. I’ll try and slow down next time I promise.

that statement should have read “solid front-court starter”, and in that case, no, I don’t think that is overstating the case at all.

and really, should anyone be surprised that a player on the worst team in the league this year has a negative +/-? The Kings were getting outscored when he was on the floor and off.

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on Apr 18, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

Always remember: taking shots at GSoM posters and poor spelling don’t mix. Generally I try to stay away from grammar policing (for one thing, it would take more than 24 hours a day…)

“Solid front-court starter” is a bit closer to reality than what you wrote, though I’d still amend it say “not-really-that-solid front-court player.” If a positive plus/minus is that hard for a good player on a bad team to manage, how did Jason Thompson (+ 6.2) and KMart (+ 2.4) do it?

The Kings got outscored when Hawes was on the floor and off. They also got outscored much worse when he was on the floor than when he was off.

Thing 1

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 18, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Yeah, the grammar policing was my job.

I haven’t been doing it for a while though.

by ZaMzAm FiRe on Apr 18, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 21, 2009 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

but he’s a solid front-line starter in this league

No, he isn’t. He might become one and he might have superficial skills that make people believe he is one, but a center who is not an ‘all defense-never-shoots-and-cleans-glass-like-a-windex-salesman’ and shoots 46% from the floor is not solid. He’s a liability. His rebounding was a liability. His shooting was a liability. If the two most important factors in terms of winning (FG% and rebounding) show him to be below the average at the position, in this case far below average, he is not a solid-front-line starter.

Saying he sucks was not hyperbole. It may not be the case forever, but right now, playing him helps a team lose more often than not.

He may be able to do a lot of things at both ends, but he does them infrequently and interspersed with bad things too often for the good to outweigh the bad.

by jae on Apr 18, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph is my pick

I like Thompson and have even followed him quite a bit, but I think Randolph has the upside. He’s just raw talent and energy right now. With maturity (yes he is a bit immature) he’ll be a beast like KG in a couple years. I have no doubts. But he’s going to need somebody who has faith in him. (i.e. somebody not nicknamed Nellie)

Read me: http://www.addisports.com
Follow me: http://twitter.com/addisports

by addisports on Apr 17, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I failed and I voted for Thompson.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Apr 17, 2009 12:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I failed too

I wanted to vote for Thompson and voted for Randolph. I should shoot myself for eternity for this.

Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Apr 17, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

GTFO

haha
jk

LeBron James? I'm the only Ty Crane.

by misterjennings on Apr 17, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We’re terrible.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Apr 17, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Went with A

AR was blocking everything in March.

This is Kristin Kreuk, now zip it. - GTTM

by disguy on Apr 17, 2009 12:41 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

:PPPPPPPP

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Apr 17, 2009 1:08 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I picked rookie A mainly because

of his 80% FT shooting in April. You can always use better FT shooting, so that if the opponent plays the no-easy-layups defense, that won’t hurt you at the FT line.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 17, 2009 1:17 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Right now it’s a 50-50 split.

Knowing who they are and their numbers, for those who picked B (I picked A for the better rebounding and blocks), would you still pick B? If not, why?

by Fantasy Junkie on Apr 17, 2009 1:37 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

any real W's fan knew who is A

especially considering this is GSoM and this is AB#1

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Apr 17, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just looking at the numbers and “A” and “B” I would say it’s a tossup for me personally, it’s hard to project from such close numbers which will be better in their sophomore campaigns.

That being said, from watching them both play, I see it like this: Jason Thompson is going to be the more consistent player, tho much less spectacular, he’ll put out double doubles on a nightly basis, but he won’t “go off” for 30-40 pts very often in his career, but he’s a guy most teams would like to have in their front-court at the 4 or the 5 on occasion.

Randolph on the other hand is younger, explosive, has some of the biggest upside in the league, but he appears to be one of those tantalizing players that will forever tease you. He’s likely to explode one night for 30-40 pts and 15 rebounds, and become invisible the next night. He’ll frustrate you when he squeezes the trigger 20+ times a night consistently, forgets how to pass, and forces the issue. AR is a matchup nightmare at the 4, but wont be able to defend the 5 on most teams. He has all the talent in the world, but he will likely be his own worst enemy throughout his career.

My crystal ball is usually off-base, so take that for what it’s worth, but I really like both players

I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken

by joeytothelimit on Apr 17, 2009 1:47 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

just for sh*ts and grins

someone throw up Troy Murphy’s rook numbers if they have them for the same time perod. Something about player “B” reminds me of Troy.

There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.

by qin on Apr 17, 2009 2:18 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

HERE

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Apr 17, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks, and um...

Nevermind.

There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.

by qin on Apr 17, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

it should be pretty obvious

based on min. played….player A is better in this small sample size

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on Apr 17, 2009 2:36 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Randolph Nuthugger here...

Thompson performed quite well for a rookie, but I have a feeling he’s hit his ceiling and won’t be better than what he is now. Maybe he’ll score a little more but I don’t see him as a nightly 20/10 guy.

Randolph, on the other hand, still has the potential to get way better than he is now. He’s also 3 years younger than JT and both will have equal NBA experience going into the next year and on. He can handle the ball, shoot the mid-range, crash boards after every shot, decent FT % for a big guy, block shots and not bad with the assists as well. Hopefully, he can cut back on unnecessary fouls and use his wide wingspan to his advantage on defense.

Mo'ped Money, Mo'ped Problems

by Scooter Ellis on Apr 17, 2009 3:07 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Wow. A player who hit his ceiling as a rookie? How often does that happen?

by jae on Apr 17, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I thought I had a post in here earlier.. but

I picked Player A because when they both got 30 minutes a game their stats were fairly similar. Except for 1 statistic…

Free Throw Shooting.

When you get a PF that can strip it for 80% that means he will be a bigger crunch time threat than the guy shooting 67%. You won’t be afraid to put the ball in his hands or you won’t take him out in a a game when your team is up by 1 or 2 points b/c you know he can make his FTs. No hack a shaq with Player A.

As for the Randolph vs Thompson.

Randolph has a potential to be one of the best players in this league.
Thompson has the potential to be a very good starter.

I’ll take the 19 year old youngster everyday.

Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...

http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220

by FLAxwless on Apr 17, 2009 3:09 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Ryan Anderson and JaVale McGee had stellar rookie seasons?

If you think their numbers are good where is the love for Rudy Fernandez and Greg Oden?

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 17, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Rudy Fernandez and Greg Oden

Very true and good catch. They should go on the list as well. They weren’t drafted in 2008 NBA Draft, but rather 2007 (Rudy by the Suns!) so I mistakenly omitted them.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 17, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

More thoughts from Sactown Royalty

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2009/4/17/842530/polling-gsom-which-rookie-forward

Props to OlympicMike for representing the GSoM community with class. You know how we do it ’round these parts.

by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 20, 2009 9:49 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


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)

Start posting about the Warriors »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Matt Steinmetz reports Warriors sign Chris Hunter from D-League
Small
The Thing About Randolph...
76968623_small
Very realistic Monta Ellis trade
484214594_82b6b3554a_small
Stack Jax for Radman: The Numbers
Small
Thank You, Jack

Recent FanPosts

Small
I'm in a Guessing State of Mind
Act_marco_belinelli_small
Was Jackson holding Monta back from his full potential?
Follett_small
Monta Ellis and the Warriors Frustrated Brandon Roy and the Trail Blazers
Small
Time Will Tell (and Curry > Jennings)
Dscn0324_small
The TK Challenge
Follett_small
Further Cap Relief for the Warriors, But the Bottom Line is Who Cares?
Small
The Inevitable Trade of Ellis... Proposal

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Ads

SPONSORS

2009-2010 Around the Association

2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Preview

Golden State Warriors 2k9-2k10 Super Preview Blowout Special!


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Chef_randolph_gs_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Small jae