Anthony Randolph a future all star?
by Butt Secks on Apr 23, 2009 11:16 AM PDT
317 comments
First off I hate watching the playoffs cause the warriors arent playing and there is no team I want to root for. In an attempt to stave off some of the bordem, i've been watching clips of randolph on youtube and my tivo of the last few games.
As everyone knows this guy has talent. He runs the floor, can hit the mid range jumper, handles, can pass, and even put on some weight compared to the beginning of the season. With time I think he can be an all star, he just needs to develop in 2 areas that I can think off.
1) Post up game
2) Defense
Hes got pretty good foot work as it is and can bang around to make the shot but still needs to be a bigger bully down low. He needs to practice more post moves and get his footwork down completely. I'd like to see him develop into a KG or bosh. When he commands a double team constantly from the defense, we'll know he's come along.
Only reason I say defense is because I've seen him get owned by a couple people at the rim. Yeah, he's mr shotblocker alongside ronny, but again, he gets bullied down low. Still, I would take him over wright at the 4.
Hes young/athletic and has the makings of an all star. If he could brush up in those 2 areas of his game....maybe even develop a 3pt shot!!??? yeah, we'd have a real diamond in the rough. He's still growing too...I wouldnt be suprised if he was 6-11 or somewhere close to 7ft as he gets older.
Sure its probably too early to tell but one can only imagine....Chime in!
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
317 comments
Email
Print
Comments
yeah dude gets dunked on alot, cause he goes for EVERYTHING.
when most people think to just let the dunk happen, he thinks “i got this”
by 123707THIZZ on Apr 23, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Mutumbo.
mutumbo got dunked on alot too.
i tbelieve it’s a good thing, it shows that he is willing to go for it, and do anything for the team.
as he gets more mature and his timing gets better, i think he can turn into the best shotblocker in the league.
The Beginning of the "We Believe" Movement of Melbourne, Australia.
by DoomBizzle on Apr 24, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if
belinelli can improve his defense then so can AR
by saintdee on Apr 23, 2009 11:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His perimeter D will get better without a doubt. The guy has been utilized in the paint his whole B-Ball career.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on Apr 23, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
perimeter defense
the last few games of the year nellie was playing randolph defending guards on the perimeter and he really didnt do bad! He had much better anticipation on steals as well. He also busted a crossover on brevin knight… hes so raw right now and only gonna get better.
by gobigg415 on Apr 23, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he can get a 3 pter
he can be our small forward and smash on everyone but lebron
by bojangles408 on Apr 23, 2009 1:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
IMO, one of Randolph's biggest problems...
is lack of bulk. He just doesn’t have the weight/strength to box out and run the pick when necessary. This can only get better, however. He’s just 19 after all. When this guy develops his skills and body… unstoppable baby!!!
by FishStix on Apr 23, 2009 1:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't seem to be a problem for Garnett...
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 23, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
garnetts about 45-60 pounds more
hes like 7 240 anthonys 6 10 190
by montadaboss on Apr 23, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol garetts 6 11 and randolphs about 200 210 now the announcers said so
by gswfan1 on Apr 23, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard that too in the paper saying he's around 217 now.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Apr 23, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
randolphs gonna be fine
http://www.nba.com/media/timberwolves/garnett_200_960305.jpg
thats KG as a rookie
by gswfan1 on Apr 24, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garnett has admitted that he is 7'1 but didnt want that officially because he didnt want to play center
by montadaboss on Apr 24, 2009 6:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was the joke when he first came into the league
he did not want to be considered a seven footer.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Apr 24, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Walton apparently had the same issues.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn’t the T’Wolves announce him as a 6’12" his first couple years?
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AR isn't done growing though...
Just saying
by 123707THIZZ on Apr 23, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say so
This dude will take the league by storm.
by Golden Boy on Apr 23, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
anthony can do a ton of things on the court already, largely based on natural ability and aggression. his main development will have to be mental before he can be an all-star type. he’s got alot to learn and integrate into his game (not biting on pump fakes, how to stay in the flow of the offense,etc.) but we can all see that if he becomes a smarter player, combined with his talent and drive, he can be very special in this league.
by polishpaul on Apr 23, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that he has a good chance of becoming an all-star from simply his intangible will to want to be the best player on the floor. Of course, he isn’t but he has the drive. He brings great emotion every game and he wears his heart on his sleeve. I like that.
by warriOs on Apr 23, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Either an all-star or an all-scrub
Randolph has the biggest upside but the biggest downside as well.
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Apr 23, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
??
i think hes proven himself that at least hes not a bust.
by saintdee on Apr 23, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol yeah, people are just quoting things they heard during the draft coverage
by 123707THIZZ on Apr 23, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, I was going to say the same thing. Way to base judgement off a year old report.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on Apr 23, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ya
people r dumb….hes def proven hes not a bust….and why the super high expectations from a 14th draft pick?
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 23, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because if Randolph stayed in college for about a year or 2,he would of went top 3 for sure
but damn he is a steal
We Believe
by RunNdGun on Apr 23, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ya, if he were in this draft
def would be top 3….
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 23, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably
he definitly wouldn,t have been as good as he now if he had stayed in school. he really benifited from all the injuries we had to get major playing time against way better competition than in college.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, but he would still be top 3
this draft sucks after top 2….he would own everyone else in camps
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 24, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reggie Miller
was a 14th pick…he turned out alright.
And Lamar Odem say he’s destined for the hall-of-fame. anyone remember that?
by jimmycaps on Apr 28, 2009 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you suggesting that most #14s are like Reggie Miller?
by jae on Apr 28, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ike Diogu = Elton Brand.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Apr 30, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph is a steal for us
he already has put on weight and is still growing and he has that drive and confidence that he is the best and he will only get better. Rember he is only 19, he is sill abot 7 to 8 years from his prime and there is no doubt in my mind that Randolph will become a multiple time all star and maybe HOFamer. The Warriors would be crazy to let him go. I think the question is not will he be a All star it is what position he will be best at the 3 or 4
by GSW9 on Apr 23, 2009 6:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and
this post is a little bit over optimistic.
by saintdee on Apr 23, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it's more realistic than optimistic
Randolph really came a long way from where he was in the beggining of the season, thats due to hard work and the willingness to get better.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crying?
You know how he almost cries when he’s on the court? Well it seems to me he’s still growing because he can hardly keep that in check. Wait till his mental game catches up with the physical tools…it’s a similar make-up to Garnett except with handles rather than a post-up game. He could be an all star and HOF’r IF he matures in the right way. He was 19 all season. Remember all the guys in the HOF entered the league after at least, what, two years in college?
No high schooler, or 1st year college player has entered the hall to my estimation. Who will be the first?
Spree for three!!
by peteb24 on Apr 24, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if u wanna see crying
watch stack jack after every time he drives
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 24, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some guy named Moses Malone
…in -8 years.
by genesic on Apr 25, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
moses malone
my code name is "kelenna bahongpuki"
by VonteegoCummings on Apr 26, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anthony Randolph’s agent is that you?
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 23, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NOPE! lol
Just tired of the playoffs and draft posts…wanted to say something about our team instead.
by Butt Secks on Apr 23, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no not you, your diary is fine, I meant GSW9
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 23, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph is the next KG
WORD
If you want a success story just take a look at mine.
by LighTz707OuT on Apr 23, 2009 6:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Suns fan here
Would you guys trade him, right now, for Amare Stoudemire?
by Funky Flapsack on Apr 23, 2009 8:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
amare would gain us 5-7 more wins max. Congrats we’re now high lottery
by tafkasam on Apr 23, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amare was under-utilized in Phoenix this year.
Shaq took a lot of touches from him. People think his potential on the defensive end is high, but he’s been unmotivated. I think with a healthy Steven Jackson and Monta Ellis, that squad would be pretty sick.
by Funky Flapsack on Apr 23, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
itd be fun
but in reality its not close to nash + marion + suns supporting cast…. so reality is it wouldnt go as far.
but problem is he’s a free agent in 2010. Too big a gamble
by tafkasam on Apr 23, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph plus Jackson/Maggette for Amare? absolutely. Randolph plus Monta/Biedrins? probably not.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 23, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Monta
We’d love him, but I doubt you guys make that deal. More like Amare and our 14 for Randolph/Biedrins and that pick of yours. I’m not sure how much height you guys would have after that.
by Funky Flapsack on Apr 23, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm…..I don’t think many people here would be in favor of that one.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 23, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph + Jackon for amare: absolutely
are you fricken kidding me? that would make no sense at all. amare is on the downside of his career, has had some serious injuries, and the warriors aren’t even close to being a solid playoff team. trade away our best young up and coming big and jackson/maggette for amare? no fricken way. I mean, I understand wanting to dump Jackson’s/Magette’s contract, but giving up Randolph is not worth it. IMO he is our one untouchable at this point
by randolphforpresident on Apr 24, 2009 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stop being such a blatant homer
First of all there is no chance the Suns would accept just Randolph and Jackson/Maggette for Amare. The deal doesn’t really work salary-wise anyway, we’d have to include Crawford (no chance the Suns take back 2 bad contracts with one good prospect) or some combination of Buike/Belinelli/Wright/Turiaf. But for arguments sake, lets say Crawford opts out (leaving us with a bit of cap space to work with….I think) and we’re talking about a Randolph/Maggette/Belinelli/7th pick for Amare/14th pick deal. (this is a trade I’m certain you’ll object to even more than the one you felt obligated to object to initially ……but any right-minded suns fan would still likely scoff at) I love Anthony Randolph, but you’re being ridiculous.
amare is on the downside of his career, has had some serious injuries, and the warriors aren’t even close to being a solid playoff team.
Amare is 26 years old….hardly the “downside of his career.” Yea he had the knee problems but he had microfracture surgery and came back just as strong. Are you concerned that his fluke eye injury is going to be a lingering problem? Or are you concerned that knee injury is gonna become a problem after nearly two full years of it being healthy?
the warriors aren’t even close to being a solid playoff team
perhaps the only true statement you made. But we aren’t close to being a solid playoff team because we don’t have enough (if any) players as good as Amare on the roster. Randolph has shown a lot of promise, but I wouldn’t realistically expect him to ever become any better than Amare is now. We can hope and wait for him to become that good, but I’d rather take the known star. Besides that, dumping a Jackson/Maggette contract is a bonus. Perhaps Amare would leave in 2010, though I can’t really see why he would. Most of the real contenders have their own stars to worry about that offseason and I don’t see why he’d take less to play for a non-contender. Even if he were to leave it essentially gets us out of the Maggette/Jackson contract 2 years early and we have a bunch of cap space to work with. That wouldn’t be worth giving up Randolph for, but I don’t see why we wouldn’t be able to re-sign him.
Amare has excelled at the PF position and in an uptempo system. If we were able to acquire him without giving up Biedrins he’d be able to play PF AND play alongside a C who doesn’t slow the offense down or clog the low post up the way Shaq did. Amare isn’t a great rebounding big man, but Biedrins is. Biedrins isn’t a great offensive threat, but Amare is. Both are capable shot blockers. Both score incredibly efficiently. Amare/Biedrins stacks up pretty damn well against any 4/5 combo in the league. You’d be turning down a lineup of
Ellis/Watson
Jackson/Morrow
Azubuike/14th pick (Terrence Williams?Gerald Henderson?DeMar DeRozan?Wayne Ellington?)
Amare/Wright
Biedrins/Turiaf
because Randolph is “untouchable.” (which technically means you wouldn’t trade him for LeBron, Paul, Kobe, or Howard either) Seriously dude, the guy had a very nice rookie year and flashed a whole lot of promise but you can’t tell me that our team wouldn’t be in a better cap situation and be better on the floor if we made that deal. I don’t think you’ll find a single NBA GM who wouldn’t jump at that deal from the Warriors perspective.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 4:30 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The concern with Amare ...
… is that he might not actually be that good.
He was successful on a team that was, basically, the best team imaginable for him, but is he really a half-court player if he doesn’t have Nash to pick and roll with?
The argument would be (and I’m not saying its true, just pointing it out) that he’s a headcase who doesn’t play defense or rebound unless he’s the primary option, who’s statistics were inflated by playing in the seven-seconds-or-less offense on a team build to exploit his skills.
Clearly there are players you trade Randolph for, and it’s not just LeBron. (Although, actually, I wouldn’t trade him for Kobe. Kobe is better, but Kobe’s got to hit the wall soon, and is no longer the dominant player he once was – although it’s hard to see that through the hype. More to the point: Kobe + Bad team = nothing special … and we wouldn’t have the talent to pair around him over the next couple of years, with the exception of Monta, who I think would pair with him exceptionally poorly.)
by Ronaldinho on Apr 24, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but is he really a half-court player
Are we a halfcourt team?
The argument would be (and I’m not saying its true, just pointing it out) that he’s a headcase who doesn’t play defense or rebound unless he’s the primary option, who’s statistics were inflated by playing in the seven-seconds-or-less offense on a team build to exploit his skills.
Would he not be the primary option here? Would Nellie really NOT build an offense to take advantage of his skills?
Look I love Randolph too, but I think our many years of star deprivation is causing us to overreact to his impressive rookie year a little. He showed he WILL be an elite rebounder. He showed he MIGHT be able to score inside, defend and pass well someday. His scouting reports say he MIGHT be able to handle the ball and score from the outside someday. I think his rebounding ability alone will make him a solid player for many years even if his other skills don’t develop, but lets not get carried away. All this “certain all-star,” “dominant big man” and “future HOF’er” talk is very premature. I’m 100% certain that if Amare Stoudemire had been a Warrior for the past 7 years and Randolph were a Suns rookie, 99% of GSoM would be VERY opposed to the kind of deal we’re talking about (randolphforpresident included)
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, I wouldn't trade Amare for Randolph.
Amare is 26 years old….hardly the "downside of his career." Yea he had the knee problems but he had microfracture surgery and came back just as strong.
I agree he is hardly on the downside of his career and actually is probably in the prime of his career. But he can’t provide anything more than Randolph will in another year or 2 just when the rest of the other young Warriors should be entering their primes. I could easily see Randolph being MIP next year averaging 19ppg 10rebs 2blks 1steal per 36 mins a game. Plus even though Amare is only 26 Randolph is only 19! Besides, microfracture knee surgery is tricky, he might be okay now but you never know when that knee will give out. Prime example: C webb. I am not willing to give up a future all star with no injury history for an all star now with knee issues.
you can’t tell me that our team wouldn’t be in a better cap situation and be better on the floor if we made that deal. I don’t think you’ll find a single NBA GM who wouldn’t jump at that deal from the Warriors perspective.
But we would have to give Amare a max contract . How would that help our cap situation? Not to mention it is questionable if he is worthy of a max contract. He is a second tier allstar. He in no Kobe or Lebron or DWade.
by warriOs on Apr 24, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Randolph only averages 10 rebounds in 36 minutes, he’ll have regressed from what he did this year.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually meant on the entire year, not just at the end when he was actually getting playing time.
For the year he was averaging 7.9ppg 5.8reb 1.2blks in 18 mins a game. Actually your right it would be a regression after 36 mins a game…okay 19ppg 15rebs 2blks a game WOO HOO! Next year i’m expecting him to blow up!
by warriOs on Apr 24, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
The reason why I wanted to field opinions on this deal, is because here in Phoenix it’s been introduced on our local sports radio as a valid trade scenario. Right now i think it would make you guys a playoff team. Amare is still dominant in the paint. Great finisher. I think he lead the league in and1’s. I think you guys could use that kind of force to backup your great perimiter scoring.
The Suns on the other hand are on the verge of rebuilding. We are shopping for young talent.
Amare wants to be the man. With so many ‘mouths to feed’ on our team, as Nash put it, Amare wasn’t able to be that.
by Funky Flapsack on Apr 24, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting that thats being discussed in Phoenix. I find it extremely unlikely the Warriors front office would part with two of Monta/Biedrins/Randolph in any deal this offseason even if it did net us a star like Amare. I can’t imagine most of the fans here being happy with any kind of deal like that unless one of the top 5 players in the league miraculously became available. I think a deal involving one of those 3 plus one of our bad contracts (Crawford/Jackson/Maggette) and another young piece (Belinelli/Buike/Morrow/Wright) and maybe a draft pick is about the best offer you’ll get from the Warriors. Despite the feelings expressed by some extreme homers here I think the majority of Warriors fans would support some (not all) combination(s) of those pieces, but I think/hope any thoughts of a Biedrins/Randolph/pick swap for Amare are nothing more than Phoenix talk radio fantasies.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AR Homer checking in
I think it definitely is a possibility. It definitely won’t be for at least 2-3 seasons though. AR hustles like no other, he wants it, and he KNOWS he can do it, and lastly he does not back down. He already has developed an adequate mid range jumper which is effective up to 19-20 feet. He crashes the boards, contests shots, is an excellent weak side defender, can handle the ball, and is apt at finding others. He still needs to get used to the NBA, needs to mature a bit, needs to control his fouling, needs to work on his jumper, and lastly needs to put in about another 10 pounds. He can do it, he knows it, and this is why I’m exited for our future.
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 23, 2009 9:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let’s not get carried away and confuse what ‘experts’ said about him around draft time and what he showed glimpses of from time to time with what Randolph can actually do.
What he can actually do is rebound with the best in the league and block shots at a high rate.
But the rest of his game didn’t look like what you described. His ‘effective’ jumper in the 19-20 range was something he showed glimpses of, but it wasn’t reliable over the course of the season. Could it become reliable? Perhaps, but that’s ahead of where it is. He showed he seems to have a favorite spot right behind the right elbow (not really 19-20’) but everywhere else outside of the paint he misses more than he makes the shot. He was ‘apt’ in the sense of finding teammates to the tune of 1.6 assists per 36, which crept up to about per over the last half of the season. No, assists don’t measure all good passing, but it’s a good start and I can’t think of guys who are really apt at finding others who don’t do better than that. As a front court player, he looked like he could be adequate. Apt is rather premature.
I like his future because he can rebound at a level consistent with being a star. Over the last 25 years, the list of guys who rebounded better as a rookie is short and rather distinguished. For what it’s worth, Rodman didn’t have as good a rebounding rate as a 25y/old rookie as Randolph had this year. (And yes, Rodman was an elite rebounder early in his career, he just became so much better and got more playing time making people forget that it didn’t exactly come out of nowhere.) Rebounding is important and dependable and it alone makes him worthwhile. But let’s not confuse the scouting reports that talked about him as a 3 with what he actually showed on the court.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
correction vis a vis assists: “crept up to about 2 per over the last half of the season”
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apt
Yea, should’ve said something else, but in some of those last games down the stretch I saw him passing up a jumper by giving it to someone open. He took alot of shots a step from the 3-Point line and hit about ~40% of em and was 0 for 4 from downtown, so that’s why I said ‘which is effective up to 19-20 feet’ as that’s the farthest I’ve seen him hit.
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 24, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"19-20 range was something he showed glimpses of, but it wasn’t reliable over the course of the season"
that is true, and Randolph did not play the same the whole season he got better and better each month and by the end of the season is when we got a true glimpse of what he can do. It was at the end of the season when you saw him hit those mid to long range jumpers from anywhere on the floor. and i think thats what most of the fans are baseing their opinions on.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sample of his jumpers taken at the end of the season was small.
The last game of the season seemed to give him a green light and he started missing again. I don’t really think he was getting ‘better and better.’ He was abysmal. He stopped taking the shot thankfully, and then when he rarely took jumpers later on, he made some of them. A real steady upward curve? I don’t think we’ve got anything close to the sort of data to suggest that he was getting ‘better and better each month’. His overall FG% wasn’t getting ‘better and better.’ It started bad, got better, but seemed to stay at the better-not-great if you really look at the data.
We got a glimpse. Let’s not run ahead of ourselves and call it a ‘true glimpse.’ I’ve learned not to take small samples as meaning to much, especially at the end of the season. I remember more than a few seasons where Dunleavy started playing real well at the end of the season, hitting shots, making passes, at times looking like he was ready to break out. “Wow, just imagine what he’ll be like next year!” preceded another season of disappointment. Was it a ‘true glimpse’ as well?
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stats don't lie but somethings just dont show up on the box-score
there might not be the “data” to back up how he was improving steadily(month to month, you know what i meant). but you dont have to be a genius to see how much better he was at the end of the season.
and Dunleavy is doing alright, i know it was only one season, the last one, where he averaged 19 points a game.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was a much better player at the end of the year, but that doesn’t mean he was any better shooting from mid-range or outside. Randolph’s improvement really came from playing to his strengths and not trying to do too much.
I don’t think Mike Dunleavy is any better than he was here. Indiana’s offense is basically built for wing gunners like he and Granger.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whether or not his jumshot improved at the biggining of the season or not(wich i dont see how it didnt when his jumper was basically non-existent at the beggining of the season, or you cringed when he did take one cause it would never go in). we need him taking that jump shot especially because he’s mostly going to be matched up with PF. and he’ll have an open shot all the time.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we need him to learn to make that shot before we need him to take it. he’s got every offseason for the rest of his career to learn to shoot. my guess is he could become an adequate shooter if he really works at it, but i don’t expect to be excited about the prospect of anthony randolph shooting mid-range jumpers any time soon.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he already does know how to take that shot, it’s whether or not he has the confidence to take or make it.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
know how to “make that shot” not take it. even i know how to take that shot, but i wouldn’t want me shooting it in an nba game.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
I already know how to take that shot too….that doesn’t mean the Warriors want me taking it.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
again?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
let’s hope that’s it.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
alright
he already does know how to MAKE that shot is what i meant to say(my fault), and again everybody knows how to make the shot. confidence is what you need to take it.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jamal Crawford and Stephen Jackson have plenty of confidence to take shots they know how to make…..but they don’t make them all that often. I’d much rather he learn to make the shot at a much higher rate first.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i’m really not that interested in the psychology behind jump shooting. i just know that i want guys who make them consistently to shoot them more than guys who don’t. so, not much in game shooting randolph for now and not much for crawford forever.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he already KNOWS how to make the shot everybody can make it, and no we dont want you taking any, no time soon. as he mature he will have the confidence to knock that shot down consistently.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there’s more to shooting than confidence. a lot more. once again, see crawford, jamal.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m not talking about being a high-volume shooter.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
crawford is a very confident, very bad shooter. my point is that just thinking you can make it doesn’t mean you can. randolph has work to do; he’s not going to have a little engine that could moment that makes him a good shooter.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly, i even thought about bolding the “i”, but undid it just before hitting post.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
which is probably the reason why yours got in seconds before mine
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"He showed he seems to have a favorite spot right behind the right elbow (not really 19-20’) but everywhere else outside of the paint he misses more than he makes the shot"
Don’t most players miss more than they make? Unless he shoots over 50% from the field.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
by miggyk2 on Apr 27, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turnovers
I have no doubt in my mind that Anthony Randolph is capable of putting up the kind of numbers that could land him in the All-Star game some day.
But if he wants to be that franchise big man we all want him to be, he still needs to minimize the parts of his game which hurt our team.
For power forwards, he was 4th in the league in turnovers (per minute) behind Amare, Brand, and Craig Smith. His true shooting percentage was only 50.6% (guys like KG, Bosh, Odom are 54%+ for their careers).
He needs to control himself sometimes, be smarter with his handles, and learn better shot selection. Fortunately, these are all typical tendencies of a 19 year old and can be fixed. The key thing here is that Anthony Randolph MUST continue to let himself be coached. If he doesn’t, his ceiling is Stromile Swift.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Apr 23, 2009 9:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
well if u watched all the games
his numbers changed rapidly month by month…and his turnovers went down by a large margin….his shooting went up by a lot….his points…etc etc./…everything points up for this NINETEEN year old
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 23, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea when you call a rookie who wasn’t even in the hunt for ROY a future HOF’er it gives the impression of some pretty serious bias. Oh and try using the “reply” function.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 1:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He needs to control himself sometimes,
actually all times. He needs to learn that you can’t play if you keep hurting yourself with out of control moves, that’s why the other players don’t do it. If he can learn body control and how to play at the correct pace to stay healthy he’ll be a valuable part of the team.
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 23, 2009 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i agree
but its good to see he is very passionate….he just needs to learn to harness and focus that passion into specific areas/times of the game
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 23, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't why you guys think he is going to be good!
No way he can not be a All Star the kid sucks and can not shoot the 3 and not good for SF maybe pf in a few years. I spoke to nelson at a bar and he wants to make big changes this summer he is not happy with the team. Jackson is save but everyone else is not.
by Warriorsfan23 on Apr 24, 2009 2:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
At a bar? How drunk was Nellie? How drunk were you? We need these parameters to gauge the reliability of the statements.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was so high and drunk that he imagined he was talking to nellie
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did the "nellie" have an ugly little dog with him?
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 24, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if Jackson is somehow safe and
Randolph
Buike
Biedrins
arent…. then that explains enough
by montadaboss on Apr 24, 2009 6:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Read this article awhile back.
Good read.
Everyone keeps wanting to compare Warriors rookie forward Anthony Randolph to Lamar Odom or Josh Smith or some other current NBA player.
For a true statistical comparison to Randolph’s rookie season, however, you have to delve farther back into the NBA’s history books.
Since the league started tracking blocked shots as a stat in 1973, there have been only a handful of rookies who have played at least 890 minutes (the same amount Randolph clocked heading into Friday’s game with the New Orleans Hornets) and put up per-minute averages as high or better than Randolph’s in terms of scoring (21.3 points per 48 minutes), rebounding (15.5) and blocks (3.6).
And let’s just say the list puts Randolph in pretty good company.
In chronological order:
** Hakeem Olajuwon (HOU, 1984-85, 27.9 points, 16.0 rebounds, 3.6 blocks per 48 minutes)
** David Robinson (SAS, 1989-90, 31.9, 15.7, 5.1)
** Shaquille O’Neal (ORL, 1992-93, 29.6, 17.5, 4.5)
That’s it.
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 24, 2009 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Inaccurate read:
That list missed Ralph Sampson and Robert Parrish if I read it correctly, who also bested Randolph’s numbers in all three categories as rookies. But more importantly, it’s more than a bit contrived. All of those guys scored more than Randolph -significantly so- and more importantly, shot the ball over 50% from the floor and were more efficient scorers in addition to being more prodigious scorers. What’s also interesting is that all but Olajuwon had better assist numbers. Sort of strange that he got touted as having “wing skills” but a collection of centers seemed to be as adept at finding guys for assists.
This isn’t to knock Randolph: he showed some stuff when he started playing as a 4/5, but let’s keep the comparisons realistic. Searching for additional filter categories top put him in ‘elite company’ doesn’t by itself make his play elite.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I still think Randolph will end up more like Marcus Camby than any of those guys.
- tenacity and nose for rebounding and shot-blocking
- lack of polished offensive post game
- 20-foot jumper
- considered undersized, yet wirey strong
It’s not far-fetched that Randolph could grow an inch taller and put on 30 or so pounds and reach the same build as Camby too.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Apr 24, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where is this ‘still growing’ thing coming from?
(I also remember draft time some speculating that Dunleavy might grow to be a 7 footer, FWIW.)
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure it's coming from him
being 19!?
by 123707THIZZ on Apr 24, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At 19, most people have reached their full height.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no....you keep growing till 21ish
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 24, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no….you keep growing till 21ish
Well, you can keep growing until around age 25, but like Jae said, most people have reached their full height (or very close to it) by age 19. He may have another quarter of an inch or so to grow but despite how much this is thrown around very few guys actually continue to grow significantly once they are in the NBA.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 24, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
from Wikipedia
Maximal adult height is achieved at an average age of 15 years for an average girl and 18 years for an average boy.
by Warrior fan since 1985 on Apr 24, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it does tend to be rather reliable, surprisingly so if you track down references to confirm it.
by jae on Apr 26, 2009 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The “snarkily insult wikipedia’s reliability” trend should have died around 2003. On this internet full of opinion but short on knowledge, Wikipedia is a breath of fresh air. I’d bet on Beans missing an open dunk before Wikipedia whiffing on a fact about when people reach their max height.
by antihero on Apr 26, 2009 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can keep growing until around age 25
that’s why i started to smoke @ 13 -to not became a 7 footer
30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ
by Lat We N Trash on Apr 26, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might have but that’s not a rule. I certainly wasn’t getting any taller at age 19 (or really at age 17). Some people grow into their mid 20s, some are done in their mid teens. The only certain way to tell is to continue to measure him, but if Randolph hasn’t been getting noticeably taller over the last year, it’s unlikely that he will get noticeably taller.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Closer to 5-10, but I rebound like I’m at least 5-11.
I’ve got more than a tiny bit of training in biology. Randolph being 19 isn’t a guarantee that he’s still growing, nor does it rule it out, though if he hasn’t shown signs of growing over the last year or so, I’d rule out any significant change.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
O.M.!
I’ve got more than a tiny bit of training in biology
another clue! any new guesses?
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
This is all going in my spy notebook.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was 5’9" when i was a senior in high school. i’m 6’0" now and am 21 years old.
by vinchenzy on Apr 24, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some keep growing until 25
You lose all cred, if you use wikipedia as a source.
by 123707THIZZ on Apr 24, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have cred if you have a doctorate in human biology?
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is this the start of another game of “what’s jae’s profession?” or did we figure it out last time and i just missed it?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have cred if you have a doctorate in human biology?
If you can stop the mexican swine flu, yeah ?
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 24, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PWNED?
OMG Epic Fail dude, what a noob huh? R-tard
by 123707THIZZ on Apr 26, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
isn’t Lebron like 6’9" 260 pounds now? I’m pretty sure he wasn’t that size when he came into the league..
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Apr 24, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LeBron has added a lot of BULK since he entered the league, but I think he was 6’8" when he entered the league and he’s 6’8" now. Nobody is saying Randolph won’t add bulk.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
randolph added 10-15 lbs
during season according to GSW. Size wise he could follow garnett… anyway he is stronger than his frame suggests and he is aggressive. Not really worried about his size
by tafkasam on Apr 24, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
randolph added 10-15 lbs
Haha, I thought he was up to 220 but then I noticed everything on my new set looked wider .
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 24, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
If LeBron is “only” 260 then I’m about 180. I was lucky enough to get score some front row tix to the Cavs/Wizards game a few weeks back when I was in DC and the dude is absolutely massive. I mean obviously he’s big, but TV doesn’t even come close to doing him justice. (also I guess those type of jokes don’t translate well, I’m about 220)
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
i was at the dubs-cavs game were he showed oracle why he’s the chosen one. He is bigger than vernon davis and patrick willis in bulk
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
260 honestly seems ‘light’. I cant get over how athletic and mobile he is for his size. Freak. Sort of the anti-lincecum.
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I honestly can’t think of a PF he isnt bigger than. I never got a close up look at Malone, but I suspect even he wasn’t the physically imposing beast LeBron is. I’m determined to figure out how to score some front row tix to a Magic game soon, but I suspect even Dwight can’t compare to LeBron’s freakishness.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 27, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m determined to figure out how to score some front row tix to a Magic game soon, but I suspect even Dwight can’t compare to LeBron’s freakishness.
I’ll buy the beer.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 27, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
19 year olds sometimes get taller; sometimes they don’t. assuming “still growing” is probably not a good call, but it could happen. just like how randolph “could” develop into a small forward.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok jae... there is theme to your posts
every post I’ve read of yours on this topic attempts to focus on what Randolph doesn’t do well, or who he will never be as good as. Maybe you are so jaded by some of the past players we’ve had on this team (Dunleavy) that you can’t see the glass half-full anymore, but when every point you are making is an attempt to counter the positives someone listed about Randolph, its pretty hard to read your comments without reminding myself how generally negative you are concerning Randolph. I’m sure you will say that you are just being a realist, and all us Randolph homers want to believe he is something more than he is. Anyway, I’m just saying that there is a negative theme to all of your posts on this topic, which I don’t think is warranted.
by randolphforpresident on Apr 24, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
yea, you have jae read pretty well! sounds about right
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 24, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A cold dose of reality...
Hey, someone needs to try to keep us grounded in reality around here. Fans have a tendency (myself included) to get excited about new players and create unrealistic expectations for them. It can’t hurt to have someone around here who tends to be on the realistic/negative side to counterbalance the incredible amount of undeniable homers and fanboys spouting things like “Randolph is a future Hall-of-famer” after one season which started out horrible and ended up promising.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 24, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Cool
Randoplph is a future HOFr
That’s neat. Let me know when you open this HOF so I can visit. Is he the only guy you plan on inducting or will there be others? Also, will there be a fee to get in (that may effect my plans)?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 24, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
haha
I’ve heard rumors that J-Rich, 2006 Ike Diogu, 2000 Marc Jackson and 1998 Larry Hughes will all be entering this Warriors All-Potential HOF.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
this Warriors All-Potential HOF
That kind of HOF could get real big real fast.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're forgetting "the next...."
a favorite of warriors… This player is the next….."
the next scottie pippen/grant hill- mike dunleavey.
the next dikemebe- adonal foyle
the next/french michael jordan- michael peitrus (just as althetic, just lazier, lol)
and todd fuller… the next greg ostertag?
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
House Of Fuzzy Rhinoceros?
Home of Friendly Reindeer?
Heapin’ order of Fries?
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was trying to think of one, but i think you nailed it.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
jae seems to be aware of the fact that the vast improvements people are expecting from randolph are not particularly realistic. this is not pessimism; it’s just not being a homer.
randolph will probably not be a lights out shooter ever. he probably won’t be a point forward; hell, he probably won’t even develop enough of a perimeter game to be a small forward, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who agree with those points (and i’m not going to make any statements of opinion on jae’s behalf; he’s more than capable) don’t think randolph has an excellent future ahead of him. he’s a fantastic rebounder, and has shown that he can score reasonably well. as he continues to understand how the game is played, he’ll probably make more strides defensively too.
once again, assuming that he won’t be rashard lewis+kevin garnett isn’t being a pessimist; it’s making a reasonable assumption.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m not sure what value radical unrestrained homerism gets you, but I tend to like to be realistic.
Realistically, I think he has a good future because he does something really well. Not well for a rookie, but well in general. He was among the best rebounders in the league last year and that’s something that is very, very very unlikely to change. That alone gives him a strong future. He was a better rebounder as a rookie than Rodman was as a rookie when Rodman was 25. The number of elite big men who didn’t rebound as well as Randolph when they were young but still rebounded well is long. He’s shown he can do that and I would bank on him doing it more in the future. And if you know my take on basketball, I think that being able to rebound the ball well indicates he’s likely to be more valuable to the team than if he kept shooting and managed to score a ton of points just because he kept shooting EVEN THOUGH most fans (and most GMs) are awed by points and that’s what will get him All Star votes. I like his game. I didn’t like the pick at the time but I’m happy to admit that he’s exceeded what I’d expect from a #14 pick by quite a bit and in a draft over, I’d take him much higher than #14.
But I don’t pretend that he does things that he doesn’t do and I won’t pretend that he’s shown he’s got a good jumper, that he’s demonstrated that he’s anything more than an acceptable passer for a big man when he hasn’t done this. I don’t know how the “he’s really a 3” got started, but nothing I’ve see suggests that it’s really true or that he’s closer to being able to be a legit 3 now than he was at the beginning of the year. He’s shown he could be a versatile big man who at times makes people look silly by putting it on the floor or taking a jumper, but there’s nothing to show that he can butter his bread with that regularly. Pretended that he had a reliable jumper when he didn’t is the same sort of pretending that gives guys big contracts that they don’t live up to when you pay on ‘potential’.
Sorry if reality rains on your parade.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
true
So much is really going to be determined by how hard he works. What if in 2 seasons he averages 20 points, 10 rebounds and hits mainstream. Does he still have that killer instinct like lebron or kobe who keep evolving and growing even after they hit superstar status. Thats just not so easy to read.
Maybe he coud be next kevin garnett or maybe he is the next (insert bust name) or maybe hes somewhere inbetween… the next rashard lewis. I man the truth is that jump from a quality nba player who is exciting to a superstar is a HUGE one.
by tafkasam on Apr 24, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he averages 20 and 10, unless the team absolutely stinks, he’ll wind up in an allstar game. If it takes him 40 minutes of playing time and 17 shots to get those 20 and 10 as a PF, his “all-star” status will not help us win much of the time and people will wonder how we can lose with a ‘great player’ on our team. If he puts up those numbers in 34 or 35 minutes on 15 shots, we’re going to start winning far more often. If he scores 14 on 10 shots and gets those rebounds, we’re also going to win, and he’ll be a hell of a player (better than the high vol. shooting “20-10”) but won’t get the recognition as an “all-star” even though that’s much more valuable than getting 20 points just by shooting more.
Randolph will surpass Rashard Lewis, a guy who plays much shorter than his listed 6-10. Lewis is a reasonable 3, but he does not rebound well enough, especially considering his size.
by jae on Apr 25, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The worst part about 'Shard...
09/10 (age 30): $18.9M
10/11 (age 31): $20.5M
11/12 (age 32): $22.2M
12/13 (age 33): $23,8M
Freaking ridiculous. Really, the only people in the NBA who should be sniffing that kind of money are LeBron, Howard, and CP3. The Magic may have flushed 2 or 3 potential championships down the toilet with that contract.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 25, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
how? why? dear lord…
i knew it was bad, but… wow…
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 25, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh wow
I didn’t realize his salary increased like that. I take back what I said about Maggette being a worse contract. Luckily that contract expires the same year as Howard so the Magic will be able to use that monster expiring to put another star next to Dwight and convince him to stay.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
The Magic may have flushed 2 or 3 potential championships down the toilet with that contract.
If only all of the teams with true championship quality franchise players would be so kind and tie one hand behind their back like that. It would do wonders for parity in the league.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but
looking at it from another angle: would you pay Rashard Lewis and Dwight Howard a combined average of about 37 mil per to play for your team for the next 5 years? Sure it would be great to have that 20 mil per to spend on someone else in addition to Howard, but Lewis is a pretty good fit and I don’t think many teams would say no.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To me...
that just underscores how much of a value Dwight is. If they can’t manage to put a title contending team around him in the next few seasons I think it would be fair to point to ’Shard’s contract as the biggest reason why. Not that Lewis is a bad player, but he’s probably going to be making almost double what he’s worth. That means you could theoretically have another guy on the team almost as good as he is if he wasn’t overpaid.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, when he gets up over 20 he’s very close to making double about what he’s worth. I agree its terrible, but at least he’s a guy who fits well and they have a superstar locked up long term at slightly less than market value. Would you trade Jack and Maggette for ‘Shard? I’m not entirely sure I wouldn’t.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would you trade Jack and Maggette for ‘Shard? I’m not entirely sure I wouldn’t.
In our situation, with no Howard to pair him with, I’d just as soon stick with the two anchors we have. Knowing that our ownership won’t pay luxury tax, and that Lewis isn’t good enough to lead a team to contention I’d probably stick with Jack/Maggs.
If we were better I might go for it, seeing as Lewis is the best player in the deal. If we were a playoff team him making us a bit better would matter more, but with this team what is the point of paying a guy 20mil a year to lead you to the lottery. It just seems a little extreme to me.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea I don’t know its a tough one, I’d consider it at least, he could be a nice forward to pair with Randolph
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i thought baout that
i’d rather have hedo…. maggette 4 hedo in a sign and trade. Both teams win. They get a player who goes to the hole and doesnt shoot 3s. We get a passing/handling 3 who compliments monta/jack and isnt concerned about his 20 shots a game.
orlando would be most concerned w/ losing his playmaking abiity but next year theyll have 2 quality pgs…more so they have enough guys who shoot 3s… they need a guy like maggette to do midrange and go to hole. Dunk, free throw, or dwight howard put back dunk.
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They get a player who goes to the hole and doesnt shoot 3s.
Fail. The Magic absolutely need Turkoglu with his 3pt shooting, passing, and ability to get to the rim. They don’t need somebody like Maggette.
They will, however, have trouble keeping Turkoglu next off season. I’m totally on board for a Turkoglu signing in ‘10. He would be the perfect fit here. But thinking that we could remotely acquire Turkoglu with Maggette is ludicrous. We could swing it with Maggette and a pick swap, but would that be worth it? I don’t think so.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 27, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in 2010 Hedo will be 30. If the team is not winning, no 30 year old player is a perfect fit.
by jae on Apr 27, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thought he was free agent this summer
Or does he just have an opt out clause which i doubt anyone not named kobe will exercise this summer.
Hedo has been playing poorly in playoffs again, they could lose patience. They wont give him a big contract. Next season they’ll have jameer and rafar alston. Thats 2 very good passers + 3 pt shooters galore. We might needa sweeten the deal, but if orlando bounce out in first round or badly in second i wouldnt be surprised if they try and make a deal. Rashard is untradeable. They wont trade dwight howard, so where does that put them? Shopping hedo
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer is still saying he’ll opt out.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 27, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
think he’ll accept our MLE?!
if we didnt sign mags and kept harrington, we could be sitting w/ a top 3 pick and a real shot at boozer in free agency lol. 1 year tank job coulda done us wonders instead of trying so hard to be a 40 win team
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the problem with lewis is....
he’s another volume shooter. Yeah hes better than jack, but we dont need that. We need EFFICIENT PLAYERS. Watching playoffs highlights this for me, seeing guys who dont turn it over. Iguodala…. aaah. Even in a bad shooting game he has 11 assists, only 3 turn overs and 7 rebounds
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rashard Lewis
I wouldn’t exactly call Rashard Lewis an inefficient player. He does shoot alot of 3’s, but he makes alot of 3’s also. His 56.7% career true shooting percentage is nothing to scoff at. Maggette is widely renowned as the epitome of “efficient scoring”, and his career TS% is only percentage points higher at 57.6%. They just get their points in completely different ways
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Apr 27, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think most would, but obviously the Magic aren’t gonna go for any of these deals. Rashard Lewis is way overpriced but he fits their scheme well. I was just trying to compare the relative “badness” of the Maggette/Jackson contracts, it wasn’t meant to be a real trade idea.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As they’re over the cap and wouldn’t realistically be under the cap, I don’t think Lewis’s excessive contract really blocks them from winning if they don’t start cost cutting for tax reasons. That is rather different from his contract preventing them from acquiring talent because of his contract.
Right now, they have the MLE to work with. Cut Lewis’s salary in half and they’re still over the cap and have exactly the same tool to get new players, though any such attempt means going into lux tax territory. They wouldn’t be able to buy for more than that and subtracting Lewis’s salary in total really doesnt’ get them too much below the MLE level either.
The window for spending the money they spent on Lewis was short. They were briefly ‘under’ the cap in the sense that the cap holds for Nelson and Howard didn’t put them over, though the actual dollars both received would have closed up most of that room. They had a chance to shop, but not a long chance. Had they spent less on Lewis (or some Lewis-substitute willing to take less then they could have used the difference another player then and had two players combined making what Lewis make, but only if they spent then. It was a ‘use it or lose it’ scenario and they blew the whole pile on one guy. That’s not always bad in basketball if that guy is worth it or close to it since you can only play 5 guys at a time. Top talent is more important than depth in terms of winning it all.
The real crippling part comes if they cut costs and don’t keep people because of the tax (goodbye Gortat?) and if they decide Rashard isn’t a good fit, he’s not going to bring back equal value in trade. The two guys, even if neither were quite as good as Lewis individually, would mean more trade options to refine the team. And they could get an MLE player without going into the tax, something they can’t presently. If they’ve got an owner willing to spend though, that MLE option would be the same with Lewis as paid presently or at half his price.
by jae on Apr 25, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All true...
You are absolutely right that their avenues of improving the team don’t really change because of the size of Shard’s contract but assuming they aren’t interested in paying luxury tax (I think that’s pretty safe to say without being too familiar with the situation) it does limit the amount of times they can go to the well with the MLE, and their ability to retain promising young players. It doesn’t drastically change the situation but I’m guessing that it may become a concern over the next couple years.
I’m not really familiar with the overall salary situation of the team but I’m guessing that they will be butting up against the tax at some point. I could totally be wrong.
The other issue is, that while they have a chance to build a contender around Dwight/Shard, if it doesn’t work out his contract will likely be a problem. If they find that this core won’t put them in title contention they will be in a sticky situation. Lewis will probably be close to immovable on the trade market and their options might be limited until his deal expires (or comes close). They may be able to shuffle around some other pieces and make it work, but I think it’s safe to say that having that much cap tied up in one guy (who’s not a top tier player) will complicate things in general.
Having said all that, I actually hope they do well. I like the magic (as much as I can like a non-Warrior team) and I’d like to see them contend. I guess it comes down to whether or not they are willing to pay the tax if it’s necessary to put them over the top.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's really easy to fool yourself if you look at someone's best plays and squint ...
I think Dunleavy was the perfect example of that. Every so often, he would come through with an AMAZING play: he’s go end-to-end juking people. He’d make a pass that most player’s wouldn’t see, much less attempt, much less make. He’d get a spectacular block. He’d out-tall a little guy or out-quick a big-guy.
And he made those plays just often enough to have us all thinking, hoping … “Damn, he might be a great player if he puts it all together.”
Well, we all know how that story ends, right?
It’s exciting that Randolph finished the season strong. It’s exciting that a lot of skills appear to be trending in the right direction, that he appears to be getting it. He’s young enough that you don’t have to squint very hard to imagine him as an all-star.
But you’re still squinting a little.
And what looking at the hard stats does is tell remind you of that fact.
by Ronaldinho on Apr 24, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyway, I’m just saying that there is a negative theme to all of your posts on this topic, which I don’t think is warranted.
Being realistic isn’t negative it’s just being realistic. Rudolf’s got positives too which I see mentioned all the time. We are not gonna make or break him no matter what we think., he is what he is and you as a fan are not connected to him in any meaningful way so don’t take it so seriously. Enjoy the show.
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 24, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude he is my brother, ok?
by randolphforpresident on Apr 25, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m referring more to the great games Dunleavy had at the end of seasons 2, 3, 4 and 5 of his GSW career. He always finished stronger than he started and never carried what he did at the end of the season into the next one. I hope it’s different for Randolph, but I’m not going to anoint him savior and HOF on the basis of 2 dozen jump shots attempts over a couple of months.
by jae on Apr 24, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
randolph will be able to do a few more things than camby ever could...
randolph has better lateral quickness, he’s much more athletic, he can guard 2’s on the perimeter…
as far as blocks and rebounds they’re similar, but there are a lot of differences besides that
"so much losers" - hiero
by montamazing on Apr 26, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha well to be fair, Randolph has a long way to go before he does a lot of things as well as Camby too.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 26, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell that to whoever made the article
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 24, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'll be a future all star
if and only if the Warriors have a good record in the future. I forgot if Al Jefferson was injured before they decided the all star rosters, but he got robbed this year. Just like Baron did last year.
by Captain Jack on Apr 24, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
jefferson was injured after they made the all-star decisions, so no need to excuse that snub. he deserved it this year.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and who were you gonna take out of the all star game.
Duncan?…or maybe Pau Gasol?
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'll give you that
he should have been in over David West
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what are you talking about?!
David West plays with Chris Paul AND the All-Star game was in New Orleans the previous year. Clearly he deserved it.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 24, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the all star game was in Arizona this year
is Nash and Shaq gonna automatically be all-stars next year because the all-star game was in arizona?
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s sometimes tough to tell over the internet, but it looks like you missed some sarcasm on sam’s part.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea missed a lot of it. And I meant the previous year, as in the main reason why he was an all-star the year before this past one.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
west or shaq should have sat for jefferson this year, but i guess if shaq weren’t there we could have never had the greatest moment in all-star dancin’ history.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
shaq was classic
the only reason you cant put Al over West is because of the Hornets record.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 24, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they certainly could have put him in and as far as i’m concerned, team records shouldn’t matter that much. i’d rather see the best players play than a bunch of supporting guys from great teams dominate the rosters.
i think there’s a compelling argument to be made against jefferson going to an all-star game, but it isn’t the wolves’ crappy record; it’s al’s crappy defense.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 24, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that through
the legs of dwight howard was classic.
by saintdee on Apr 25, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, shaq should be an auto-invite just for being super fun.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 25, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jump shots are something you can greatly improve on
Shooting is the one skill that most NBA players can and do develop over their career. It’s not unrealistic to think AR can get a jump shot in his arsenal. (J Rich and Sprewell comes to mind.)
What he has, athleticism, heght, tenacity, and some handles, are much harder to develop.
I don’t think the fans in general were as enthusiastic seeing Dunleavy’s late season surges. I never thought to myself watching Dunleavy that he’ could be an elite player in this league. With Dunleavy, the W’s had to hype his potential to the fans. With AR, it’s just the opposite.
There are some things beyond just the small sample size of good shooting in the late season that is getting us excited about AR.
by JSML on Apr 24, 2009 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ellis comes to mind....
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 25, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jump shots are something you can greatly improve on
Shooting is the one skill that most NBA players can and do develop over their career. It’s not unrealistic to think AR can get a jump shot in his arsenal.
This is something I can agree with you on. I think he has shown enough to think that it is reasonable that is shooting would improve. The thing is that there is no guarantee that his FG% will improve. He could get much better at the midrange shot and take enough of them to make him fairly ineffective offensively. I’m not saying that he will do that, I’m just saying that there are still a lot of question marks with regard to his offensive efficiency.
His shot selection was very poor early in the year, and it improved towards the end. I’d be happy if his midrange shot got better but I’d be even happier if he managed around 50% shooting and got to the line at a respectable rate. If he can do that I won’t care where the shots are coming from. Can he do that? I don’t know, but we’ll find out eventually.
There is definitely reason to be excited about the guy.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AR can't defend the 3?
What makes people say he’s not going to be able to play the 3 because he can’t defend the 3?
Tayshaun Prince is 6’9" 215. AR is 6’10" 210. AR’s strenghts are very similar to Tayshaun’s.
Is AR slower? Or less coordinated?
by JSML on Apr 25, 2009 2:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ah
same size/weight so he MUST be able to play the position. Great argument. For 2 seconds pretend like you’ve never read a pre-draft scouting report about Randolph, pretend like you aren’t allowed to make comparisons based solely on body type and think only about what you’ve seen from Randolph on the court……now what position(s) would you say he’d be most effective at? The answer is obviously the 4. If there is a second answer its probably the 5 not the 3.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 25, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This on the other hand...
What makes people say he’s not going to be able to play the 3 because he can’t defend the 3?
So far he is not a good perimeter defender. He has shown flashes of being adequate, but he has shown more than flashes of being flat out bad. He may improve, but we can only go on what we’ve seen.
Tayshaun Prince is 6’9" 215. AR is 6’10" 210. AR’s strenghts are very similar to Tayshaun’s.
Tayshaun Prince is a good perimeter defender. AR is not. Some guys are just good defenders and other guys just aren’t. Size is only one small part of the equation.
As for their strengths, I’m not really sure what you are talking about. Outside of the listed height/weights that you posted their isn’t really much that they have in common.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is not good or he can't be good?
Most posts on his perimeter defense says guys will blow by him. In this something he can improve on? Or he can’t?
I bring up T Prince because to me AR’s physical size should not be a deterrent from being a good defender. Most of the arguments I am reading goes something like this: if AR plays SF, then all the smaller guys will blow by him. Why is that?
by JSML on Apr 25, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it seams to me
that the last 1/2 dozen or so games he really stepped up his perimeter D. Anyone can improve there D, it’s just a matter of footwork and wanting to be at the right place at the right time. Lateral movement is important of course, if your a Chris Mullin type that has no real foot speed you have to rely on other ways you can play D (quick hands and position on the floor). But it looks like AR has the quickness to be a good perimeter on the ball defender.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Apr 25, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most posts on his perimeter defense says guys will blow by him. In this something he can improve on? Or he can’t?
Well, he could. I don’t know how likely it is. At the moment he is a better inside defender than he is perimeter defender. It is more likely that he will stay that way. Chances are that as he matures he will get better at defense, but there is no reason to think that his perimeter D will improve more than his interior D.
I bring up T Prince because to me AR’s physical size should not be a deterrent from being a good defender. Most of the arguments I am reading goes something like this: if AR plays SF, then all the smaller guys will blow by him. Why is that?
His size isn’t the issue, it’s his ability. If AR plays SF at this point a lot of SF’s will blow by him as they have for much of the time he’s spent trying to guard smaller guys on the perimeter. He could improve. He would have to improve a lot to be good enough to play that position full time without giving the other team an advantage though.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I am going by what I’ve observed by watching him play and what his stats tell me when I make judgments about him. I’m not saying that his size is the reason he is a limited perimeter defender. I don’t know what the reason is. I don’t know why Bruce Bowen is better than Corey Maggette either, he just is. AR could improve, but until he gives me reason to count on it, I won’t.
I’ve seen him look okay playing perimeter D, but he hasn’t been consistently adequate yet. I’m not ruling it out, I’m just not making the assumption that he will improve considerably.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 25, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Needs to stop jumping at pump fakes on the outside.
Barnett says it best. He needs to play his man to change the shot rather than always be thinking to block it.
Shooters anticipate his block attempts and that leads to fouls and getting blown by on pump fakes. If he just works on changing the shot then that will improve his perimeter defense significantly.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on Apr 25, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expectations on defense are a funny thing. I think that the lack of reliable statistical measures that people really believe indicate defense leads us to many ‘conclusions’ that may not be true.
One is that defense is a reasonably pliable trade that most players can learn. I don’t know if it’s true or not. Whether it’s like rebounding (a defensive skill for the most part) where a player is unlikely to really improve) or shooting (where work does seem to improve a player’s ability) isn’t something I know, but I suspect that in some cases, all the work and effort in the world won’t make a guy who cannot stay with someone on D into a stopper. Tayshaun Prince “has it” and is a top notch defender. Crawford doesn’t. In watching Crawford (or Monta or Maggette) there’s also a lack of effort among the worst defenders, but for some guys, it’s just that they don’t ever seem to have the instincts, even if they try real hard (ala Jamison and Foyle, who just looked lost).
Another is that guys who aren’t ‘good defenders’ somehow get grouped together as if ‘poor defense’ is a monolith and there’s no real difference between a Richardson ‘poor defense’ and a Crawford ‘poor defense’. No one pretends that a 20 ppg on 47% shooting guard (which is good) is as good as a 29ppg on 50% shooting guard. One is better and we have a way of measuring it. But without as clear a means to measure defense, we lump the poor defenders in some general category. I suspect that there’s as much difference on the defensive end in individual competence.
I suspect Randolph will get better because players, in general do get better at defense. It does appear that most players get better at defending from when they come into the game. [Aside from really big guys who can dominate by being huge, I can only think of two players who looked like they made a clear positive difference from day one in the league. Those two were Stacey Augmon, who was a lockdown immediately after 4 years of college where he was considered the best defender in the college game in a system that used tough man to man D almost all the time. The other was Grant Hill, who was also considered the best defender in college his senior year. They both had been well coached and prepped for defense and had signficant natural skills.] But I suspect that there’s some inherent skill that’s either there or it isn’t so how far Anthony will climb isn’t something I’ve got any feel for.
(This is of course independent of the strange expectations of fans of what “good defense” actually is since it seems like 80% of all players are considered ‘below average defenders’ on fan boards around the league. That sort of error puts your run of the mill average defender who is misclassified as ‘below average’ in with the truly terrible guys like Crawford, even though employing one will bring back much, much better results than the other.)
by jae on Apr 25, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name me 10 players defensively that are more similar to AR
“As for their strengths, I’m not really sure what you are talking about. Outside of the listed height/weights that you posted their isn’t really much that they have in common.”
Their ability to block shots, their lengths to disrupt passes on the wing and their quickness to name 3 things.
There are 360 players in the NBA, name me 10 that you would say is a better comparison defensively than my comparison of AR to T. Prince.
by JSML on Apr 26, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, but just because I can't sleep...
Their ability to block shots,
They are both long but they don’t have a similar ability to block shots. Randolph blocks shots at a rate of 2.4 per 36 minutes, and despite the image of Prince catching up to Reggie Miller from behind, Prince only blocks them at a rate of 0.6 per 36 minutes. Don’t take that as a knock on Prince though, they are just different. AR jumps at everything and tries to block any shot in his general area (lots of weakside blocks in the paint), but Tay on the other hand is generally playing solid positional defense on the perimeter staying down on fakes and using his length to change shots. They play defense differently and the numbers (not to mention just watching them play) show that.
their lengths to disrupt passes on the wing
AR does seem to get in the passing lanes a bit. He’s also got a fair amount of steals by stripping guys in the post. He actually averages more steals per minute than Prince, but yet again I think it would be faulty logic to assume that his steals mean he is the same quality defender as Prince. Randolph is a very active player. Too active when it comes to D, if that makes sense. He is a bit out of control, biting on most fakes and taking lots of chances.
Prince is more solid and reliable. He doesn’t give up good defensive position to gamble for steals or blocks unless he knows he has a good shot at them. Notice the foul rates: AR 4.5 per 36, Prince 1.2 per 36. That should tell you a lot about their styles right there.
and their quickness to name 3 things.
Yeah they are both pretty quick. Unfortunately that doesn’t really speak to the quality of their defense.
There is nothing that is physically limiting AR from being the same kind of defender that Prince is. That doesn’t change the fact that they are very different. Defense is a funny thing (read Jae’s post for an interesting take on this) and it can be hard to measure. I’ve watched a lot of Prince over the years and I watched pretty much all of AR’s play this year and I don’t think they are similar defenders.
Which brings us to…
There are 360 players in the NBA, name me 10 that you would say is a better comparison defensively than my comparison of AR to T. Prince.
This is easy in a sense. Since I don’t think he is all that similar to Prince I could name some guys that would make you scratch your head that I think are a better comparison to AR. I’d rather try to find the best comparison I can though.
The best comparison I can come up with is Chris Andersen. Yep, the Birdman. They are both a little out of control on defense. They like to take risks. They block a lot of shots. They rebound well. They foul a lot. They are very active and scrappy. They are both better interior defenders than they are perimeter defenders. They both get pushed around inside but find ways to be effective anyway. It’s not a perfect comparison but I think you’d have a hard time coming up with a better one.
If you really want a list though:
Chris Andersen
Sean Williams
Stromile Swift
Andre Blatche
JaVale McGee
Dominic McGuire
Marcus Camby
Robin Lopez
Louis Amundson
Hakim Warrick
Chris Bosh
Dan Gadzuric
Jermaine O’Neal
Channing Frye
That’s more than ten guys. Some of them are much better comparisons than others but I think that you shouldn’t have any problem picking out ten of those guys that are a better comparison than Prince. Some of those guys are quite a bit better than Randolph, and some of them are a bit worse. Style wise they are all closer than Prince in my opinion.
I could do a more expansive list with breakdowns and analysis, but I’m hoping that this is enough to make my point.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 26, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
and...
Tyrus Thomas. How did I miss that one?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 26, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea I mean he’s totally tall, black and skinny. How DID you miss that one?
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 26, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tashaun
also had 4 years of college and was 22/23 when he came pro so its hard to really compare an early prince to AR. i’m certain if AR stayed 1 more year he’d be a top 5 pick… prolly top 3 behind rubio and griffin, who knows maybe 1?
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are again only seeing AR as he's played this year
Where as I am asking what his limitations are and who does he resemble at different positions.
Being gifted, he will learn he does not need to play out control. He’s shown better control later in the season.
Also comparing just “styles” means you are not taking other very important factors into consideration. AR played the 4 this year. Ofcourse based on “style”, he is going to be like other PF’s and some centers. But potential, ability and skills are more telling. (It’s not much use saying someone’s style is similar to Shag if the player is 6’5" and 240.)
My question and assertion is more in the lines of : If Monta never played the point in the pros and doesn’t look like a point, can he play the point?
Not that I am saying scouts can’t be wrong. But the T Prince to AR comparison came up before his draft and I’ve heard it a few times this year too. I’ve heard Bosh too, but the others on your list I haven’t.
by JSML on Apr 26, 2009 8:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you wanted to reply to OM in the thread. It sounds like you asked a question (name 10 more similar) and when he did that, you’re changing the bar and redefining similar to mean “name 10 players who share more of the qualities that Prince and Randolph share exclusive of the qualities that they don’t”. Add to that a redefintion to look only at the qualities that you perceive in the future will be ‘Prince-like’ rather than what he’s actually done, which is not.
The Prince/Randolph comparison was common. So was the Randolph/Bosh comparison. The comparisons came up, but they weren’t good comparison. Here’s what those comparisons actually summed up to:
“Peter, when we see Randolph, what sort of player are we looking at?”
“Well, Kenny, He’s really reminds me of Tayshaun Prince. They’re remarkably similarly players. You see, they both play basketball and are both skinny tall guys with melanin in their skin. He’s also like Bosh, who is also a tall, skinny black man.”
And really, I think that 99% of the people putting up web pages or sitting behind the desk on TNT didn’t think a whole lot more about it. I saw those Prince comparisons and, having watched Randolph play and seen the results, I don’t think that having an ability to put up a ‘projection’ or ‘NBA comparison’ on a web page indicates that the person making the page looked far beyond “tall, skinny, African American.” (And let’s separate out what gets put up on NBADraft.net and what the guys filling air time on TNT say from ‘the scouts’. The comparisons were generated by entertainers who may know a bunch about basketball, but are primarily putting together content for entertainment. I have no idea what real scouts, what those guys hired by teams to make projections said.) My guess is that most hadn’t really seen much more than a few YouTube plays and the results of the predraft combine weight and measurement.
by jae on Apr 26, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enough of twisting all the words
My point is AR can defend the perimeter much like T Prince is doing. Note the word “can”.
JAE,
Did I redefine my question or was my original question interpreted differently by different people?
Thank you for your post. I always enjoy reading your comments. You strike me as one of the most clear thinking bloggers around, and I do not put myself close to your category.
You are somewhat biased against GMs and scouts…
OM,
You, sir, are incredibly thorough. One thing I am never good at.
I think we actually do agree on several observations despite how this tread has come down. Your list has opened my eyes on how you see things. I am not sure I did as good a job of showing you how I see things.
Is AR better at 4 than 3? Only time will tell. I have no vested interest. I want him to make the biggest impact possible for the W’s.
Until Nellie backs off on AR being a 3 in the future, be prepared to see some playing time at the 3. Nellie talked about playing Monta at point for 3 years before doing it.
Sam,
Not projecting is exactly my point. I don’t see how AR projects to be Chris Andersen in the future. But I thank you for responding.
by JSML on Apr 26, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you took that criticism well, sorry to be kind of harsh
I think there’s a group of us who gets a little exasperated with commonly repeated assumption that Randolph will make a seamless transition to the 3 based mostly on his appearance or scouting reports. Unfortunately you became the voice of that line of thinking and we kinda ganged up on you. I think we just don’t understand what you’ve SEEN from Randolph this year that makes you think his play is at all similar to Prince’s. Could he become a great perimeter defender? Yea, but he’s actually a pretty bad one right now. Everything we’ve seen of Randolph indicates he’ll be much more successful playing around the rim. Because he’s incredibly athletic and only 19 years old it certainly possible he adds enough of the many skills he needs to develop to become a good 3 like Prince, but right now he’s much, much closer to being an effective 4 like the guys O.M. mentioned. His current skill set ( as in the skills he has shown he currently possesses, not the ones we project him to acquire based on brief flashes or what other players have done) is strikingly similar to Birdman’s and really not all that similar Prince’s. I don’t think O.M. is saying Randolph is destined to be exactly like Chris Andersen, I think he’s just saying they have similar skill sets right now. Obviously the much younger and probably even more athletic Randolph has far more upside (and is already a better rebounder). But comparing him to Andersen right now makes a whole lot more sense than comparing him to Prince because those two don’t currently have much more than their similar body types in common.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 26, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
You pretty much nailed it here Sam. There is definitely a feeling of exasperation that shouldn’t be aimed at JSML. Add to that the fact that this is one of the few discussions I find interesting at this point in the offseason and you get a couple of essays from me. ; )
JSML:
I just want to reiterate the fact that those were defensive comparisons. That’s what I was asked to come up with and so that’s what I was aiming at. I’m not trying to project AR’s future I’m just pointing to guys that have some defensive similarities to AR.
AR should end up being a much better overall player than Andersen (probably already is). I’m just saying that right now if you dressed them both in those full body motion capture suits with a hood over their face and watched them play defense for a game you’d have a hard time telling them apart.
AR is his own man and any comparison will fall short in some way. The main point here is still that thus far he has been a better interior defender than he has been a perimeter defender.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 27, 2009 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
everyone would be a bad defender with a hood over their face! ; )
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 27, 2009 1:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be fun to watch...
Could you imagine those guys flying around the court with no idea where they are. They’d just be chasing the sound of the bouncing ball.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 27, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is AR can defend the perimeter much like T Prince is doing. Note the word "can".
Noting the word ‘can’, I do not think it’s the word you want to use. Saying he can do something indicates that the ability is present. I do not believe that he has shown that he has the ability. He might in the future, but if you want to say that he cannot do something now but could possibly in the future, your statement doesn’t make that distinction clear at all.
by jae on Apr 27, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in all fairness look at lebrons d now compared to when he was 18 or 22. Kobe as well. Defense takes maturity and commitment, VERY few players randolphs age have it. He has all the tools to a lockdown defender, but hey so does monta on a pg. Its putting the work in and desire that make the difference.
The sad part is, i dont think itll happen under nellie. He just doesnt care that much. Unless the warriors had artest, garnett and jason kidd self patrolling young guys D, it wont change until a new coach comes in….
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ar could learn to defend the 3, but he’d better do it soon. his defensive instincts seem to be more like that of a pf and once you get set in your ways on defense, you are unlikely to change. if he played more in control, he’d still be defending like a power forward; he’d just be doing a better job of it. my guess is that he’ll still be very active on the defensive end and try to be a shot blocker as he continues to mature. that’s not a bad thing; he’s really good at that. he might have the quickness to defend the perimeter, but defense seems to be the area of the game that is least affected by size and other physical abilities (not unaffected, but less affected). it’s a mental thing and you don’t often see guys radically change defensive styles. he could, but it’s more likely he’ll be a more controlled version of the defender he is now.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 26, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are again only seeing AR as he’s played this year
Basing analysis and projection on real results?! Madness!
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 26, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are again only seeing AR as he’s played this year
Well, what I’m doing is seeing AR as he’s played this year and telling you who he resembles at this point. That is what you asked me to do. I’ve said that he could improve his perimeter D but that it is less likely that he transforms himself to the point that he will be better off playing the SF position defensively. He looks to be a pretty promising interior defender (still has some learning to do there too) so I really think that the burden of proof is on you to convince me why exactly you expect him to overcome his current limitations as a perimeter defender and exceed the reasonable projection of his interior defense to the point where he would be better off playing SF.
Also comparing just "styles" means you are not taking other very important factors into consideration. AR played the 4 this year. Ofcourse based on "style", he is going to be like other PF’s and some centers. But potential, ability and skills are more telling. (It’s not much use saying someone’s style is similar to Shag if the player is 6’5" and 240.)
I have talked a lot about his abilities and skills. You haven’t. It is a skill to stay in front of your man on the perimeter, or stay down on head fakes, or not bite on the first half of a crossover. Those are skills that Prince has and Randolph doesn’t. A defensive “style” is really nothing more than a collection of the players skills and abilities.
Not that I am saying scouts can’t be wrong. But the T Prince to AR comparison came up before his draft and I’ve heard it a few times this year too. I’ve heard Bosh too, but the others on your list I haven’t.
Honestly, in my opinion those player comparisons are the most useless parts of the pre-draft scouting that you can find on the internet. It’s inherently bad logic to come up with a best/worse case NBA player for every player in the draft because, outside of the lottery, very few guys live up to the worse case player projection. A lot of them don’t even stick in the league. More than that though, they are incredibly superficial. They are almost almost based on looks, ethnicity and body type first, and actual skills and ability second. Go to NBAdraft.net and go through some of the previous years comparisons and you’ll have a good laugh. (Funny enough, I just did a quick search and I couldn’t find previous player profiles. They even went so far as blocking them on archive.org. I guess they aren’t too proud of their track record)
It’s always much harder to project what a guy will be like before he comes into the league. Now that we’ve gotten to watch him play for a whole year it should be pretty clear that, outside of his frame, he doesn’t really resemble Prince that much. If you don’t agree, please feel free to tell me why.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 26, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
why cant we all just relax a bit ....
before we anoint this guy as the second coming of Jollibee Spaghetti. Lets see how Randolph does against the other team’s best defender, what he would do against double teams and such……Yes i have seen glimpses of greatness yet I’ve also seen head scratchers.
except for my friend thizz of course, everyone else just chill.
my code name is "kelenna bahongpuki"
by VonteegoCummings on Apr 26, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
he will
break through the double team and dunk the ball…. duh
by saintdee on Apr 26, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for an and one
then miss the free throw, get the rebound dribble to the 3 point line and swish a three pointer for the win for a 5 point play to win the game?
my code name is "kelenna bahongpuki"
by VonteegoCummings on Apr 27, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the Record Anthony Randolph a future All star?
He’s not even a legit player yet a better question would be Anthony Randolph a starter next year?
by Warriorfan on Apr 26, 2009 5:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what
is your definition of legit player?
one could argue he is more legit then a lot of players playing for many years on nba team. Look at Marco Jaric. Is he a legit nba player?
if I asked you right now to take AR stuck in his current form forever or Jaric who would you take?
by saintdee on Apr 27, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at Marco Jaric. Is he a legit nba player?
He may not be a legit NBA player, but he is a legit player. My evidence? See below:
PS. Yes, I did just use your reference to Jaric as an excuse to scour google for every single Adriana Lima photo I could find.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 27, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
forget garnett. Jaric gives me hope…. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
player, player.
and they say NASCAR drivers have hot chicks
by gametime_gsw on Apr 27, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
How did jaric get a girl like this? He is definetly a player. And wooo she is fine
If you want a success story just take a look at mine.
by LighTz707OuT on Apr 29, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AR is the warriors hope
Not yet proven WE KNOW. But, taken into account his ability at his age. He has more potential than any rookie I can remember the warriors acquiring since Chris Webber(and he was a number one pick).
From what I remember the NBA said you had to be one year out of HS. What did AR do? Graduate early. 3 years of HS, one year at LSU. So for all intents and purpose he is a player straight out of HS. If history is any indication very few players straight out of HS were ever able to make an immediate impact right away. The ones who did, for the most part, became some of the best players in this league. I.e. KG, Lebron, Kobe, etc. then their is another group we call tier two. Who took a few years to develop, but ended up being great. I.e. Howard, Bynum, etc. (I think Telfair will come to shortly, but that is not for this discussion). Randolph seems to me to be projected to between the First and Second tier. What he was able to do toward the end of this year proves that he is something to be excited about as he is in rare company, (again…age*performance).
It is too early to call him an all star and HOFer but, it’s also too early to say he’s not. And definitely too early to trade away. If he’s not most improved next year, or in contention I’ll be greatly disappointed.
by Balance on Apr 27, 2009 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
So for all intents and purpose he is a player straight out of HS.
He may be the same age as many guys straight out of HS, but that’s not the same thing as saying he’s straight out of HS ‘for all intents and purpose.’ That year of college really happened (I’ve seen clips of it on YouTube!)
by jae on Apr 27, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That year of college really happened (I’ve seen clips of it on YouTube!)
myth
by tafkasam on Apr 27, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I'm curious about this l'il tidbit
I think Telfair will come to shortly, but that is not for this discussion
By “come to,” you mean come to the point where everyone realizes that Bassy sucked as a rookie, sucked in his second year, sucked in his third year, sucked in his 4th year, and sucked this year … and has shown zero signs of improvement in any meaningful area?
CJ Watson >>>>>>>> Sebastian Telfair. And it’s not close. Subject for another discussion?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 27, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
telfair makes fewer stupid mistakes now and has come into his own as a respectable backup point guard for one of the league’s worst teams. he’s coming to, no doubt about it.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 27, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
telfair makes fewer stupid mistakes now
How so, cap’n? This season he turned the ball over at a higher rate, shot worse, rebounded worse, and distributed worse than he had the previous season. And all those rates were subpar in the first place.
I’d call him more a “respectable terrible backup point guard for one of the league’s worst teams.” Or maybe “a semi-respectable starting PG in the D-League…”?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 27, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is why i should look at the stats before posting based on the games i’ve watched. from what i’ve seen he’s looked better this year than last and i see a fair amount of his games here in ‘sota, but has even less to work with since jefferson’s been out and miller suddenly decided to be useless this year (i really thought he’d be a good addition to that team). if his numbers are down across the board though (and i’m willing to take your word for it, you rarely steer me wrong), i guess i must have checked in to the few wolves games where he’s played fairly well.
worst part is, with foye moving to the off guard spot, where he is a much better player, telfair is an atrocious starting point guard a fair amount of the time.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 28, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watched a handful of T-Wolves games and I without looking at the stats I woulda said the he was showing some signs of small improvement too. We must have seen the same group of T’Wolves games.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 28, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
side note
i want to congratulate the wolves on assembling more useless players on a single roster than i can ever remember seeing before. mark madsen, brian cardinal, kevin ollie, sebastian telfair, one of those collins twins, and corey brewer would have been under consideration for this list too if he hadn’t become a respectable defender before destroying his knee. it’s amazing. not to mention being half of the most useless trade in recent memory: rashad mccants for shelden williams and bobby brown. kevin mchale should really take a bow. bravo, sir. bravo.
thankfully, mchale is no longer the gm there (and in fairness, didn’t pull the trigger on the useless trade listed above, that was after he was pushed into coaching). that man should not be allowed to run an nba franchise.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 28, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Shelden was playing well over the last few weeks when he got some time due to injuries. Any truth to that?
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 28, 2009 3:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, yeah. we wasn’t spectacular, but he certainly didn’t blow it either. he didn’t get an quicker in that last month (obviously), but on the glass he totally proved he has a right to exist on an nba roster. doesn’t bring much else to the table, but like half the wolves roster, he showed that he could be a perfectly fine 10th-12th man somewhere. clearly, the gem of the mccants trade.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 28, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the gem of the mccants trade.
haha
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 28, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just searched youtube for “Randolph + college + magical physical advancement”……
JAE came up. Wierd.
Funny nothing like that happened to me.
by Balance on Apr 27, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
did you look up “randolph+college+not at all magical, but rather practical game experience from playing basketball at a university”? that one seems like the logical next search.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 27, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s nothing magical about it. He got a year playing against guys who weren’t HS competition. Your statement that ‘for all intents and purposes he is a player straight out of HS" seemed to ignore that for a year, he played in a D-I program where he practiced against guys considerably better than he’d see in practice for his (losing) high school team and played against guys bigger and better than he regularly saw in high school competition. He got a year in a major athletic department with top notch facilities, strength and conditioning coaches and trainers dedicated to the team, far, far more practice time than most high school teams put in.
You think that the year was totally meaningless? Because if it wasn’t totally meaningless, then for all intents and purposes he was NOT a player straight out of HS. If you wanted to say “for all intents and purposes, he’s the age (or physical maturity) of a guy straight out of high school”, say that. But that’s not what you said and trying to pretend that I suggested something silly like a magical transformation doesn’t change that. Don’t blame me for your inability to clearly communicate your ideas.
by jae on Apr 27, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all intent and purpose
Wow, we got a lot of up tight people on this board.
For those that don’t clearly pick things up, thank you to JAE for clearifing. I was referring to his age. If a 16 year old came into the NBA even after 4 years of college and was able to contribute, he would be a special talent.
For those of you that did pick that up and like to spit hairs. Get the stick out of your ASSS. Seriously!
by Balance on Apr 28, 2009 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dude, on a board like this, all you have is your words. None of us read minds. The difference between what you think you wrote and what you wrote exists only to you. It’s not “being uptight” for calling you on either sloppy thinking and/or sloppy writing. How exactly where we to know that you really meant that the intents and purposes referred only to his age and you’re just sloppy with your writing and command of the language. There was no way of knowing that vs. the possibility that you’re just an idiot who really doesn’t think that a year of college (for whatever intents and purposes) matters at all.
Being clear about what you actually mean isn’t uptight. Accusing others of having the problem when what you post wasn’t at all clear is.
by jae on Apr 28, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Balance:
The question of calendar age v. “developmental age” is actually a pretty interesting one. I had always sort of assumed that when evaluating or comparing players, the former was a much better gauge; jae has persuaded me that it’s a lot more complex than that — that when trying to project development, comparing players’ Xth NBA seasons (rookie, sophomore, etc.) has at least as much predictive value as comparing their “age X” seasons. (Correct me if I’m wrong on this, jae).
Either way, it’s an interesting topic, assuming the parties discussing it are interested in learning stuff, rather than in stridently expressing an “opinion” and getting all huffy and bent out of shape when it comes in contact with reality. I think it’s pretty clear who’s being “uptight” here.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 28, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sounds like the start of a good offseason thread. get on that sleepy/jae.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 28, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That question, the standard curve for age vs. experience is something I’ve been pondering and think I have nearly enough data to tackle. It’s on my ‘to do list’, up there with ‘get a job so I won’t have time to finish the rest of my to-do-list’.
by jae on Apr 28, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JAE,
Had you originally asked “You think that the year was totally meaningless?” you would not have appear as an arrogant prick who’s life’s value is derived from correcting others details. Instead you choose the sarcastic path, so here we are. Me and the arrogant know it all. Up tight for calling you out?
Sleepy,
It’s not an interesting conversation. Its a boring and pointless conversation. Does it hold much relevance? Very little. Do most people discredit Rubio’s progression/potential because he’s on an unequal scale. No. He’s able to do things a younger age than most. Simple non-nerd math says that is promising. Make the tie with Randolph.
It’s 5:35 PST and your both pathetic. Find meaning in your life outside the stats and YouTube.
by Balance on Apr 28, 2009 5:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome
good to see you are willing to engage in real conversations instead of just being insulting. we’ll all make sure to not disagree with you in the future as to not be mocked by someone who comes on a blog to spout baseless opinion as fact and then gets pissy when someone calls you out.
and i actually see zero points where either jae or sleepy were being “sarcastic” with you. they pointed out the obvious and you took it personally. jae said that the year randolph spent at a division one school certainly impacted his development. a good counter-point could be made to that, but here’s a hint: it isn’t a useless remark about college being magical and then calling someone who reiterates and clarifies the point “an arrogant know it all”. get some thicker skin, chief.
also, before calling someone “pathetic” make sure you use the proper “you’re”. in the case above, you are looking for you’re the contraction of you and are.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 28, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s not an interesting conversation. Its a boring and pointless conversation. Does it hold much relevance? Very little. Do most people discredit Rubio’s progression/potential because he’s on an unequal scale. No. He’s able to do things a younger age than most. Simple non-nerd math says that is promising.
Huh. So inquiring about how players develop (as Sleepy did) isn’t interesting?!
Oh, You should try some of the nerd math. It has the advantage of having some thought and analysis and accuracy behind it. Non-nerd math is that variety employed by the vast uneducated masses that really doesn’t differ from saying “’cause I said so” in its power to explain. Non-nerd math must go hand in hand with not being inquisitive or careful enough to learn the difference between contractions and possessives or being able to figure out the ‘reply’ in thread feature rather than dumping thing at the bottom of the page.
by jae on Apr 28, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not an interesting conversation. Its a boring and pointless conversation. Does it hold much relevance? Very little.
Haha. This might well be true; but then the same would go for 99.9999% of the crap that we boys (grown, partially grown, and stunted) talk about, no?
Wait a sec … are you sure you’re not my wife, Balance? ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 28, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3* yrs HS + (1** year college – the assumed development he would have received in HS for that year) / his production toward the end of his rookie year in the NBA*** = a very talented 19 yr old that shows a ton of potential and promise****
or you could just say
for all intents and purposes he can be evalutated as a rookie straight out of HS and when you factor that in to what he was able to show toward the end of his rookie season it would be safe to assume he show as much promise and any rookie we have ever had in GS, and possibly comparable to other rookie that were able to make an immediate impact in the NBA in their rookie season and of that group a large majority went on to have special NBA carrers.
consecutive
*the next consecutive year
*When given the chance to log consitant minutes
**as compared to other rookies who where able to make an immediate impact straight from HS
is that the clarity you wanted?
Anyone who would marginalize Randolphs potential as compared to potential show by others at his same age because he attended one year of HS is anal retentive/ offense/ and ridiculous.
Disclaimer: there may be spelling errors in this message and there may be a idealistic way to post by clicking reply (even though it is the following post) and i just don’t give a frogs tight squirt hole. The fact that you pointed that out regarding the reply button proves my comment that you find self identity and fullfillment in correcting others. Must make you feel real important loser.
by Balance on Apr 28, 2009 9:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
randolph is a very promising young player (something that no one disputed); a promising young player who had the benefits of a year at LSU instead of another year at whatever high school he went to. he is certainly very young with lots of room to grow. but for all intents and purposes, young guys who play a year of college ball come into the league slightly more prepared for the nba than guys who come in straight from high school, even if they are young for their class.
i’d assume that players who are a year older for their class come into the nba slightly more prepared than the younger guys due to physical growth and experience gained from an extra year of life and playing basketball, but spending a year in college instead of a 4th year in high school seems like it would help that player out a fair amount.
feel free to disagree; that’s what happens on forums and i’m more than open to the possibility that there is an alternative take on the matter. of course, if this discussion is super boring, then feel free to ignore it.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 28, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In Randolph’s senior year of HS, his team had a losing record. I’d expect a guy with NBA height and skill could win many games singlehandedly in HS, suggesting that the rest of the team was a total mess and they were getting nothing in the way of coaching.
In his lone year at LSU, there was a mid season coaching change. The team was a mess and there was likely some issues with coaching. However, he still had access to the training facilities and was scrimmaging and playing against college players.
As to his ‘3 years’ in HS, I’d never heard that before (ref?), but he wasn’t at all unusually young for a HS graduate. He turned 18 the summer after his last year in HS, which is in the normal range, not a year off by any stretch. Randolph graduated right around the same age most HS students graduate at. Had he stayed another year, he’d have been older than most HS students, few of whom enter their senior years already 18. (Many basketball players are taking extra years to get their eligibility together — I’m ignoring the 13th year seniors.)
(Either that or the year at LSU and HS didn’t count and what we’ve got is a 6-10 straight out of Jr. High kid on the team!)
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i had also never heard the 3 years in HS thing before balance brought it up. for the sake of this discussion i was willing to just grant him that and point out that if that was the case, randolph playing a year of college ball instead of a 4th year of high school was still relevant.
and yeah, how does his high school coach blow it that badly and put up a losing record? i’m willing to cut that guy some slack because, as a high school coach, it is certainly possible that he spent his “coaching time” acting more as a mentor to the kids and helping them out in other ways. high school coaches have a lot more ways to demonstrate that they are good at their jobs than nba coaches, and if he was a good mentor and helped those kids with non-basketball issues, he might have been an absolutely great guy for the job.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 29, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah he was older than me when i graduated
"so much losers" - hiero
by montamazing on Apr 29, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to propose a ban on the use of “for all intents and purposes.” Reading that phrase (usually used so unnecessarily and semi-incorrectly) over and over is driving me crazy.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 29, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing is
For all your bellyaching in this thread, Balance, I’m not even sure what your central point is. Do you even have a central point? Maybe it would help if for every word you spent trying to articulate your point, you didn’t spend another 20 b*tching and crying to your mommy that someone disagreed with you? That seems like a much bigger problem than your inability to construct a basic English sentence, though both really impede your ability to express yourself clearly.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 29, 2009 4:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
p.s.
IT’S THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. BRING FRIENDS!!!!
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 29, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like it if he could figure out the “reply” box too, but repeated simple suggestions to that effect were either missed, not understood, or he’s willful in sacrificing clarity in defiance of admitting his flaws.
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Balance”, it will be the following post only until someone who, unlike you, is not a moron actually replies and pushes your message down. It serves a purpose. The reply and threads serve to keep discussions on track and to make it easier to follow the progress of a developing discussion. Occasionally, it’s easy to accidentally miss the box when a message is at the end of the thread. It happens, but now it appears that you’re doing it on purpose. That you’re not purposely avoiding this suggests that you are not only an idiot, but you’re trying to be a jerk as well. Congratulations! You’ve hit the double, a moron who’s also a jerk.
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how are guys able to post alll day?
dont you guys work?
I'm gametime_gsw, and i aprove this message.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 29, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
When you work on a computer with internet access, the tempting specter of GSoM is always lurking behind your “work”…
p.s. I approve of capitalizing the word “I” and spelling “approve” correctly, especially in a sig line… ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 29, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
capital letters are overrated.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 29, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
I mean, haha.
Generally agreed, but somehow a lower case “i” for the first person always looks silly. Beyond its grammatical correctness, capital “I” seems so much manlier and less weasly.
(FWIW, cap’n, I don’t think your sig line needs any CAPS, though it’s a bit inconsistent to end with a period and not start with caps, no?)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 29, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
somehow a lower case "i" for the first person always looks silly.
i like to interpret it as a sign of humility. : )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 29, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...
I just noticed that without my glasses on I can’t even tell the difference.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Apr 29, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably true, i just have a two fold reasoning for not using caps on here unless i’m actually writing a fanpost (which carries with it an air of "i’m not just commenting; i’m writing):
a) commenting on a sports blog is a pretty inconsequential use of the english language, and despite my pretty regular posting, no caps helps me remember that what i’m writing isn’t that important. we’re just chatting about sports, not actually writing. when i write fiction or philosophy, that requires real use of caps.
b) it’s easier and when i’m just chatting, i don’t worry about capitalization. spelling is different, because poor spelling and punctuation can make you radically more difficult to understand. for caps, it’s just an easier way to type, even it isn’t much easier. lazy is as lazy does.
still, consistency is nice and random decisions about capitalization are just confusing.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 29, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I find it almost impossible to avoid typing with capitals at the beginning of a sentence. It’s entirely reflexive.
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m the same way once i open a word document. or if it isn’t reflexive it would be so aesthetically displeasing that i would go through and correct it all afterward. there’s just something different about the internet.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Apr 29, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't hate on the sig line
I'm gametime_gsw, and I approve this message.
by gametime_gsw on Apr 29, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Work? No, not presently. I’m part a casualty of the economic downturn and record unemployment rate since the company I worked for went belly up.
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A quick thought on Randolph
People on this board are (generally justifiably) quick to quote stats per 36 or 48 minutes, to show that Randolph’s production is high despite his limited playing time (and as a way to normalize across all players).
I was wondering if, for certain players, this is a flawed method of comparison? For example, a player who plays all-out might have awesome per-48 stats, but his reckless style of play leads to a large number of fouls, which keep him off the floor in the first place.
It turns out that Randolph averaged 6 fouls per 48, which would put him at about 25th of all NBA players. Perhaps enough to impact his playing time some, but not nearly as bad as Oden, Greg. The big question is, do his fouls make using per-36 or per-48 stats questionable?
Definitely some food for thought.
by markdash on Apr 29, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rate stats seem to be pretty good. They tend to accurately predict how well a player will rebound when given more minutes. Other things, perhaps not as much, but in general, they’re useful indicators. There’s very little evidence that playing “all out” changes things enough to invalidate rate stats and some evidence that a player who gets limited time will actually perform better if given longer consistent minutes. (No, this is not circular reasoning where guys who play better get more minutes but it appears true when a player gets minutes because a better player was injured and the team is forced to play a backup for more time). Whatever advantage you get from playing “all out” seems to be less beneficial than the advantage of getting into the regular rhythm of the game and figuring out your opponents and teammates. At some point, fatigue does set in and there’s some diminished results, but for most players, this isn’t an issue in the 30 to 36mpg range.
Randolph fouled a bunch, but not enough to keep him off the court for 36 minutes. Per 48 is somewhat meaningless as a result, but per 36 is a pretty meaningful cross comparison. Iif you cannot play 36 minutes because you’d foul out, that’s a different story, but that’s rarely the case, even for the most foul prone guys and wasn’t the case with Randolph.
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the other half of my post
which I conveniently forgot, was to question whether such players as Randolph have such good rate stats BECAUSE they foul so much—that is, they play with reckless abandon and generate a lot of stats, but because of their play style they inevitably get into foul trouble. Were Randolph able to cut his fouls, would he also lose a lot from his reb/blk numbers?
It’s a question for the ages. Or for jae. Whatever.
by markdash on Apr 29, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The blocks I’m not so sure about. I wouldn’t rule out a relationship between blocks and fouls as it appears that shot blockers tend to pick up fouls. (Incidentally, this was one reason to have hope based on Wright’s college numbers. He blocked shots without fouling much.) Randolph might see a decline in blocked shots were he to cut down on his fouls. If it’s a 1 for 1 tradeoff, they have about the same effect on games, a foul being a net negative in terms of win probability, a block a net positive.
Rebounds though don’t appear to be all that closely linked with anything other than the ability to rebound. Players tend to be remarkably consistent in their rebounding, showing not much improvement or regression over their careers but fouls are things that players seem to be able to control. There’s not any reason to believe that Randolph’s rebounding would diminishing significantly were he to cut down on his fouls. My guess is that very few players pick up a substantial number of their fouls during rebound opportunities. Many more come before a shot is fired or during an opponent’s act of shooting.
by jae on Apr 29, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m actually kinda surprised he’s only around 6 fouls per 48. I see that as kind of encouraging.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 29, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So does that mean he'll foul out as the buzzer sounds at the end of the 4th quarter?
I can live with that, so long as the fouls aren’t stupid (ala Mickael Pietrus).
OT – Talk about a bad call against Wade last night. His “flagrant” foul shouldn’t have been a flagrant at all. He made a play for the ball, while Evans crashed because he held onto the rim. Although he was pushed from behind, the contact wasn’t excessive in any way. Blown call imo. Rondo should’ve been assesed a flagrant 1 at the end of the Bulls-Celtics game. That was a bad call on the refs part, but i agree that it didn’t deserve a suspension.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Apr 30, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but isn’t any foul from behind to stop a breakaway dunk a flagrant now? if so, that was a pretty clear flagrant.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 30, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It shouldn't be.
Not if there is a clear play on the ball. I’m not sure, but i doubt that it says that in the rule book. It clearly wasn’t excessive. Although in context, things were already heated and maybe the refs felt that Wade retaliated for the rough play earlier in the quarter.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Apr 30, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh you’re referring to the clear path foul huh?
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Apr 30, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea thats what I was talking about.
Thing A
by sam23 on Apr 30, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
most 19 yr olds.......
think that they are the center of the universe even when they nothing to show……now imagine the brain mush going on in our boys head after reading thru this blog lol !
by Only In Fairfax on May 1, 2009 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
