Is Wright Right for Warriors? (NON SJAX POST)

by w00143881 on Aug 31, 2009 6:02 PM PDT Comment 55 comments

For the past couple months, we have discussed countless trade opportunities and possibilities that the Warriors have. With this new revelation about SJAX wanting out, the Fanpost have been swamped with more trade ideas now involving SJAX. In most posts, trades often include some combination of Acie Law, Devean George, Corey Maggette and Brandan Wright. However, the more I think about it, the more I feel Wright should not be included in such trades. Despite Randolph surprising us during the summer league, the truth is, he is still an unproven player. Sure we saw a glimpse of him during the last few weeks of the season, however, we can’t say for sure that he will be the next Chris Bosh. Wright, for the past two seasons, has put up very decent numbers. In fact, before he got injured, I saw amazed how good this kid was. Keeping in mind that he is only 21 and has only played for two seasons, I think he will be a very solid player in this league. Compared to Bosh at the same age, in most categories, Wright is putting up better numbers. While I understand that Hollinger’s PER rating is questioned/ criticized by some, comparing their first two years (BW 17.14, 18.77 vs CB 15.24, 17.54), these numbers show Wright to be on his way to amazing numbers once given adequate playing time. Comparing Wright and Randolph’s rookie year runs, Wright was putting up better numbers as well.

To be fair, the big red flags for Wright have been his size, his defense and his overall awareness on the court. However, I believe within the next few years, all these aspects could be improved. Look at Beans! The first few years, a lot of us questioned how good he would be and if he could really hack it Center (some of us still do). Despite this, it is clear that only after his 3rd of 4th year did we see what he was truly made of. Sure, some love him and some would love to trade him but at least we know where he stands. I doubt any of us truly know how good or how bad Wright could be.

It has always been discussed that since Randolph and Wright are competing for a spot. Although to me on paper Wright seems like a better player, it is clear that the team is pushing for Randolph to be a key player for the team this year. But why can’t we utilize both players?

The Lakers have a similar situation where they have several talented bigs: Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum. While Ariza seems to grab most of the SF minutes, there are stretches where we would see all three bigs on the court at once. Could the Warriors pull this off? Given that all three all long, skinny and relatively mobile, I don’t see why we wouldn’t consider running Randolph (SF), Wright (PF) Beans (C). I figure our rebounding should improve allowing our guards to run the floor better.

With this all said, what do you think of running Randolph at the 3. With SJAX potentially leaving and Nellie’s vision of running both Monta and Curry at the same time, having 3 bigs might be beneficial. What are the pros and cons of having our 3 bigs on the court at the same time?

Poll

3 Bigs at once?

It Could Work

154 votes

Terrible Idea

28 votes

I want more Fanposts about SJAX

18 votes

200 votes | Poll has closed

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 | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You just gave me a silly thought

What if the reason why Jack wants to leave is because he’s sensing that Nellie and the coaching staff are prepping AR to play the 3 spot and Wright at the 4 spot?

by IQofaWarrior on Aug 31, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I Agree!

I have been thinking that the entire time..He scared to get less touches and for his value to go down.

by Dave B. on Aug 31, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jax is a 2 and AR is not a 3

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

by qin on Aug 31, 2009 6:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

opps, reply fail.

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

by qin on Aug 31, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Small FOWARD,Jack is a swingman.

He can play at the 2 or the 3,he plays the 3 under Nellie though.

"IT'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!"

by Curry on Aug 31, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a quick hit to answering the question:

Pros – Lots of length for shot blocking / shot changing.

Cons – Wright is physically unintimidating at the 4 spot. Who will back up Wright? Oh wait a sec, we just signed Moore!

by IQofaWarrior on Aug 31, 2009 6:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Brandan Wright's Development

I think the thing most interesting thing about it is that only the Warriors realize how good Brandan Wright is since he has been injured alot. If you go to youtube and type in “Brandan Wright Denver” and you can see the potential. If you also look at his stats compared to David West’s you can see he is already ahead of him. Like they said on draft night, he is a project and will take a few years to develop plus he has been in rehabilitation and working out all summer so I know you can expect a different Wright this season. Plus Randolph is a SF to begin with in my opinion.

by Dave B. on Aug 31, 2009 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I heard rumors Randolph is developing an outside shot and even took some 3’s in summer league? 3 bigs doesn’t work unless at least one of them can shoot to help spread the court – we know that won’t be Biedrins, and it doesn’t look like Wright either, so it’s up to whether Randolph can do it. Like IQofaWarrior said, it does leave us thin at the front court. That doesn’t mean we can’t do it for something like 5 minutes a game, though.

by Missing Barry on Aug 31, 2009 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wright has probably been working on his jumper. I wouldn’t rule out seeing it occasionally.

I hate those normal-sized midgets. What are they called again? Oh, yeah. People.

by Naticus on Sep 1, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Wright a lot and I think it would be a terrible waste to trade, Biedrins, him, and Curry for stoudemire

Curry is posibbly a future all star and the same goes for Wright and Biedrins.
I would trade Jackson for cap space and give the youngsters the minutes they need so we can fully evaluate them
I also think that we need to sign wright Kellenna and Wright to at least three year deals when there contracts are up because they are our future
I hope that we could turn this into a blazer team like success.

I'm in eighth grade give me a break

by Mike Fox on Aug 31, 2009 8:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

True, in the immediate future we’re kind of stuck in no mans land, we’re not that good but we’re not that bad and we have guys under contract, but looking at our team long term we have a bunch of young guys with the potential to grow into good players. Of course not all of them will, but if we hit on a couple of them we could be in a good place for the future.

by Missing Barry on Aug 31, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps we’ll peak at a time when some of these teams aren’t so stacked. Cleveland and the Lakers are just stacked.

I hate those normal-sized midgets. What are they called again? Oh, yeah. People.

by Naticus on Sep 3, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

If we are not certain we can make it anywhere in the playoffs whats the point lets just stop acting as if making the eight seed is the best thing to do because we are not gonna go anywhere just accepting being an eight seed. We have to trade jackson for an expiring contract and 2 future picks. I also think that Nelly is gonna have to play the Rooks this year because he doesn’t have excuses if people are healthy. We have the cap space and we need to use it on our promising guys long term and build around them. I hate rebuilding but we gotta get rid of Jackson and rebuild.
Also why don’t we just do very bad and wait for another lottery pick like Devin Ebanks

I'm in eighth grade give me a break

by Mike Fox on Aug 31, 2009 8:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Devin Ebanks?

thats the guy you’re waiting on? Not Ed Davis, John Wall, Derick Favors or even Cole Aldrich? You must be from the same town as Ebanks or something, right?

Thing A

by sam23 on Aug 31, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John Wall! If Ed Davis was lefthanded I’m sure we’d draft him if we had the chance…

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about some Evan Turner love?!?!?!

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

"It takes a special kind of anti-mojo for a team to miss the playoffs 14 out of 15 seasons. Like, say, the Warriors under Chris Cohan."

by kenntoe on Sep 2, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Randolph should NEVER be a 3!!!!!

Yeah Randolph as a SF sounds good at first, but the single worst thing for him to do right now is move to that position. The whole AR as a 3 arguement is so dumb, follow along…

What are Randolph’s strengths… Rebounding and Blocking Shots. If you move him to the perimeter, it takes him out of the areas where he impacts the game the most. Randolph is not going to get 7-10 boards a night and highlight blocks if he is on the perimeter guarding small forwards!

And if he is a 3, the only matchup problems he causes are with his height, but todays good 3’s are athletic enough that it won’t matter. Keep him at power forward where he will be faster than 99% of the guys he guards, and if he wants to shoot jumpers then fine, it will draw the opposing teams’ big men out from the basket.

But none of this is possible he plays small forward!

by dmurphy2 on Sep 1, 2009 1:34 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs

Completely agree with all points. People saying Randolph at 3 are very wrong, at least for now. His game is far better suited being in the thick of things, and his game primarily will cause miss-matches at the 4. +1

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 LostHawkGSW on Sep 1, 2009 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree he’s better suited at the 4 right now, but I disagree with most of dmurphy’s points. While his own rebounds will probably decrease if he moves to 3 some, the entire team as a whole will rebound better with Anthony at the 3. Wright + Anthony + Biedrins makes for a rebounding juggernaught, especially compared to a lineup like Biedrins + Anthony + Morrow/’Buike/Maggette. Also, he can still block shots playing 3. So many people here seem to be so in love with Andrei Kirilenko – he could be a player in a similar mold. Kirilenko did used to routinely average 2.5-3 blocks per 36 minutes.

I’d personally probably leave Randolph at 4, but if his outside shot really develops it wouldn’t be the worst thing if he played some 3.

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if his outside shot really develops it wouldn’t be the worst thing if he played some 3.

I think he’d be effective at the 3 spot. His game is not built on strength or position but on opportunity, indiscretion, and quickness. He’d still get those opportunistic rebounds and quick moves to the rim from the 3 spot, he could still ride bare back from out there.. A real 4 will push rudolf out of the paint all the time anyway so why fight it? Practice the jumpers and passing and see what happens, if it don’t work we can always bench wright and play rudolf at the 4 but we won’t know if we don’t try?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 1, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Missing Barry I agree that if AB, BW and AR are on the floor together then ideally the Warriors are much better rebounders. BUT… One of the main principles of Nellie ball are that only 2 (or sometimes 1) guys go for the rebound while the rest sprint the floor and start the break. Nellie wont put out a lineup where three players crash the glass because it slows down the game.

And look at who he is going to guard in the Western Conference – Carmelo, Richard Jefferson, Josh Howard, Rudy Gay. Yeah he’s quick for 6’11" but I’d much rather see him protecting the rim and getting rebounds rather than out on the perimeter trying to stay in front of those guys I mentioned earlier.

Chris Mullin said when Andris was drafted they projected him eventually sliding to the 3, but now he is a glass-cleaning center routinely in the top 5 in fg%. With AB and AR in the paint I can’t think of a faster frontcourt in the NBA. And they compliment eachother well – both great rebounders, Beans gets the close points and Randolph can stretch the floor.

Obviously the kid is young but in my opninion (which means squat really, everyone is perfectly entitled to their own) his height, speed, agressiveness, and skills present much more mismatches in the paint.

by dmurphy2 on Sep 1, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the main principles of Nellie ball are that only 2 (or sometimes 1) guys go for the rebound while the rest sprint the floor and start the break. Nellie wont put out a lineup where three players crash the glass because it slows down the game.

This was true at one point, but last season, I heard more talk about guards needing to come in and rebound than before. That could be an influence of Keith Smart, since I think he was the one who mentioned “guards need to rebound” on one or more of his summer league interviews. So I can actually see Nellie putting out 3 board crashers on the floor during a game.

by IQofaWarrior on Sep 1, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

all this talk about mismatches is really annoying. AR can be a mismatch at the 4, why even bother moving him to the 3. He’s already quicker and longer than most of the 4s out there. The reason why you move players around to create mismatches is because your line up struggles to match up with other teams straight up.

by ivanchu02 on Sep 1, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you because remember there is somebody in the league that can get 7-8 rebounds a night and a few blocks while playing small forward…LEBRON JAMES!!

by Dave B. on Sep 1, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Randolph is not going to get 7-10 boards a night and highlight blocks if he is on the perimeter guarding small forwards!

I think he can still get 7+ boards a night at S.F. Small forwards don’t block out as well and are less tiring to match up against.

And if he is a 3, the only matchup problems he causes are with his height

When you’re tall, you can shoot over people which forces people shorter than you to have to jump to bother you. That opens things up to put the ball in the floor. Randolph, in times, will own 3’s who guard him, I predict. Not yet, though.

Keep him at power forward where he will be faster than 99% of the guys he guards

But he’ll get tired and beat up more. Furthermore, if we can have Randolph and a good PF in at the same time, we’ll have dominating rebounding, shotblocking and speed at the same time.

I absolutely think there is great potential for Randolph to destroy at SF. Have you seen SF’s trying to deal with Nowitzki? He just shoots over them. But he’s not even as fast as Randolph, so Randolph could both shoot over opponents and take it to the hole. He’ll be super Dirk Nowitzki, but he’s quick enough to guard 3’s (well, he’ll probably never be able to shoot outside like Dirk but ya’ never know). Versatility can create all sorts of problems. If he can play the 3 sometimes, it can create all kinds of potential problems for opponents.

I hate those normal-sized midgets. What are they called again? Oh, yeah. People.

by Naticus on Sep 1, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nelson

will never start whit only one 3pt shooter (if Curry starts) in their team

by Spaniard on Sep 1, 2009 3:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

? Is this implying ‘Buike/Morrow aren’t 3 point shooters?

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buike/Morrow aren’t starters.

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 LostHawkGSW on Sep 1, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still don’t get it. What starting lineup has only Curry that can shoot 3’s?

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The one you are suggesting.

Ellis
any of our SG’s (curry/morrow/buki)
Randolph
Wright
Andris

That lineup only has one 3 pnt shooter.

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 LostHawkGSW on Sep 1, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure where I suggested that as a starting lineup…I think there’s a lot of confusion because Spaniard just threw his comment out there not in reply to anyone specifically and it’s very unclear what point he’s getting at.

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weren’t you suggesting AR play the 3? Which implies that Wright at the 4 and Andris at the 5? No?

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 LostHawkGSW on Sep 1, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, at one point I said it’d leave us thin in the front court, so maybe it’d be alright for like 5 minutes a game or so (with the assumption Randolph can shoot the 3). At another point I said I’d personally leave Randolph at the 4, though I think the idea of him moving to 3 isn’t as horrible as some making it out to be. I could see a future situation where he was capable of playing some time at both positions.

So….yeah, I definitely wasn’t suggesting that as a starting lineup. Hope that clears things up.

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How Does Hainvg Only 1 3PT Shooter

In the lineup discredit it? Not in comparison but let’s look at the Championship Bulls clubs

The most 3 pointers Jordan attempted per game in a season was 3.6 in 96-97
The most 3 pointers Pippen attempted per game in a season was 5.1 in 96-97
The most 3 pointers Harper attempted per game in a season was 2.9 in 92-93
The most 3 pointers Kerry attempted per game in a season was 2.9 in 96-97

Just in case you forgot the top two players of the bench would be KA and AM!!

by nocal81 on Sep 1, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just in case YOU forgot....

….we don’t have the greatest player of all time on our team.

Thing A

by sam23 on Sep 1, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hence

The fact that i said i wasn’t comparing the teams. I stated as much. It’s an example that teams can win without an abundance of 3pt shooters in the lineup.

by nocal81 on Sep 2, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sooooooo

you’re not “comparing” the teams but you’re using that team to show that this team doesn’t necessarily need more than one outside shooting threat on the floor most of the time? Thats sounds suspiciously like you’re trying to compare the two teams without having to “compare” the two teams. The fact is that if you have the single greatest basketball player to ever play playing for your team then it can make up for some deficiencies in other areas (like the lack of multiple outside threats in the starting lineup, or the the lack of anything resembling a good center on the entire roster) Its should be pretty obvious tht just because the Bulls could get away with not using the threat of the 3 very much it certainly doesn’t mean these Warriors can get away with the same thing. Using Jordan’s Bulls to prove that any point about the current warriors ability to do anything will is an incredibly flawed argument despite whether or not you preface it by saying its “not a comparison.” If you weren’t trying to use them as an example to show that Warriors might be able to win without a couple outside threats then what was your point?

Thing A

by sam23 on Sep 2, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Morrow isn’t a starter, he can start some games but he wont do the whole season; and I think Buike is not a lights out shooter, he got great percentags last season he cant be our 3pt reference

The problem is Monta-Randolph-Wright-Biedrins cant shoot, A Nelson team wich 4 non 3pt shooters is not posible IMO

by Spaniard on Sep 3, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am still an avid fan of the front court with...

Anthony Randolph at the 3
Turiaf at the 4
AB at the 5

and I will continue to be an avid fan of that front court.

Don’t get me wrong, i love AR at the 4, but I don’t mind him at the 3 either.

I don’t care if that Front 3 isn’t part of a starting 5, just give me a good 25 minutes of play a game with this trio.

It just has a lot of promise in my opinion and with enough playing time together, a good chemistry could start to develop.

Many people think Turiaf is a weak Arse rebounder, but that is not true. He can be a good rebounder if he wanted to (possibly a very consistent one if he was forced to concentrate on being one) and if AR concentrated on weakside help or a switch with AB on weakside help, I think this front trio could be a serious threat.

This should force the guards to anticipate missed shots and where they will land for the board. This should also force Turiaf to position himself and box out in the inside paint for the rebound.

Let’s take a look at Turiaf’s 2006-07 stats when he was with the Lakers (sorry i had to mention this bunk arse team name on this site) [ just kidding. Its not that serious to me] receiving minimal to inconsistent minutes:

13 points,11 rebounds in 25 minutes vs. the Pistons on Feb 8, 2007.

9 points, 10 rebounds in 25:37minutes (did that just say 37 seconds?) vs. Boston on Jan 31, 2007.

19 points, 15 rebounds in 25 minutes vs. Phoenix on April 8, 2007.

Formulate your negative opinion all you want. Sure these were only 3 games, but this WASN’T Summer league either and they were actual regular season games, and these Double Doubles were in 25 minutes of play.

Sure I love reading stats but I don’t live by them and I don’t think they prove absolutely everything.

I do love seeing these type of stats that show some sort of promise in a player and seeing that Turiaf once had 15 rebounds with 19 points in 25 minutes of play, simply impresssed me.

And Yes. If I were the Warriors owner, I woulda stole Adonal Foyle back and forced the coaches to utilize his strengths as a backup PF-C. I dont care if it were 10-9 minutes a game.

Nellie thinks he is garbage, so I dont even know why i mentioned that.

[ X ] Nellie.

We got Mikki Moore so I’m gonna live with that. (I woulda supported Jemario Davidson if he didn’t get cut).

Stephen Jackson? [ * Presses the ignore button * ]

[ * trips and falls asleep * ]

ZZZZZzzzzZZZzzzz

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Sep 1, 2009 1:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem with your whole argument is it’s based on Turiaf being a much better rebounder than he currently is. Based on what I’ve been learning the last couple months, the evidence is very strongly against players improving their per minute rebound rates – it is, in fact, one of the most consistent stats in a players career, and almost never changes much. Expecting Turiaf to suddenly drastically improve his rebounded is simply not a good bet to make. I like Turiaf, I think he’s a good backup, but he’s not starter material. As for the case you made, I could go and find 3 games in Michael Jordan’s career where he scored 15 points on poor shooting in his prime to make the case he isn’t the greatest player of all time. Statistically speaking, an argument like that is completely meaningless.

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good counterattack with the Michael Jordan analogy.

My counterattack on that is, Turiaf hasn’t shown he is a good rebounder because he hasn’t provided consistent statistical rebounding proof.

Your point in finding 3 games of poor shooting with 15 points scoring only shows that Air Jordan can actually be human, but MJ proved his greatness in stats along with the numerous highlight games, championship rings, olympic medals, individual player accomplishments, etc., and that he IS or is ONE OF THE greatest players of all time.

I just wanted to bring out the rebounds per minute topic with Turiaf because some think he isn’t a good rebounder and complain that we need a banger in the paint. We need a rebounder.

That is absolutely correct. We do need a banger inside with low post play. We do need another great rebounder…

But having that trio I mentioned above I can be satisfied with.

All three can shot block, all three can Run n Gun, all three can rebound (imo). Beans is the only one that has proven he can board on a consistent basis. We all see AR’s high potential to be next as a consistent double double guy. Maybe even more.

If Turiaf accomplished those stats in those three particular games in 25 minutes of play, my point is:

"Why can’t he do it again and consistently?"

Like a lot of players in the NBA with that type of potential, they just need to put an emphasis in rebounding, add it to their game, and they CAN do it. Turiaf just chose to concentrate on shot blocking last season with the dubs. I love how he is a beast on the block. I have no issues on it, but I know he can be a beast on the boards as well.

A good example of a players with a reputation of being a poor rebounder is Al Harrington. People complained about him not being a good rebounder. He’s had inconsistent stats of 23 and 14, 25 and 13, 7 and 18 in the 2006-07 season. The next season with the Dubs he had three great games vs. the Rockets and Lakers with consecutive double doubles in March of 2008.

If they accomplished that in actual NBA games, I don’t see why they can’t do it consistently.

JRich was told at one point in his Warrior Career that he didn’t rebound enough and should be capable of grabbing more boards with his hops. When the coaches told him that, he decided to make the extra efforts in rebounding more.

All they have to do is set their mind to it and it can be accomplished.

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Sep 1, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they accomplished that in actual NBA games, I don’t see why they can’t do it consistently.

That may be interesting as a philosophical question, but the fact is that NBA players, especially well-established 26 year-olds like Turiaf, very rarely improve their rebounding rates significantly, and that it’s foolish to expect otherwise.

All they have to do is set their mind to it and it can be accomplished.

Haha. ROMES, man: I would love to have my own stash of what you seem to be blissing out on whenever you post on this board. LGW! Who cares!

"I’M TAKING YOU TO THE HOLE, WONDERLIC!" [turns ball over] -- markdash

Get off my lawn, hipsters! -- Missing Barry

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 1, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol.

Waddup Sleep!

Sleepy Floyd is Superman!

( – Greg Pappa )

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Sep 1, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My friend, I would like to introduce you to standard deviation.

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wish i was intelligent as you and the rest of the folks to truly understand....

Standard Deviation.

If so I would be making billions. Have the Warren Buffet mentality to spend my cash flow wisely, buy the Warriors, be fake with ownership while rockin a fake smile to shake their hands and then fire the arses within the same 3.7 moment, hire Rick Barry & Clifford Ray to be involved in our coaching staff somehow, have a poll from the GSOM fanbase before making any transactions and final decisions within the organization, and then hire Chris Mullin back as our GM.

" i would say a standard deviation is what Stephen Jackson is doing to the GSWs"

Romes Mac Mojous

by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Sep 1, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wish i was ~~intelligent~~ educated as you and the rest of the folks to truly understand….

I’m sure you’re quite capable of learning about it, you just need to take a statistics class. The concept is pretty basic – to make it relevant to this conversation, basically it’s saying some games a guy like Turiaf will rebound better than his average ability and some games he’ll rebound worse. You can’t just look at the better games and determine that should be where he’s consistently at. Those good games, by the concept of standard deviation, are bound to happen, they’re just not the norm, and there will also be very poor games to counter them out.

by Missing Barry on Sep 2, 2009 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure you’re quite capable of learning about it

or he’s already moved beyond it and is punking you?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 2, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I considered that, but decided to post my thoughts anyways because I know someone out there doesn’t know what standard deviation is.

by Missing Barry on Sep 2, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Have Always Said

That AR is more of a 3 then a 4. He would cause crazy matchup problems with other teams Small Forwards. His athleticism and size would make it difficult if not impossible for 20-25 of the other NBA teams to matchup against the Warriors therefor making it much like the Mavericks playoff series in which they would have to change the philosophy in order to do so. That said i am not sure if the Warriors are sold on Wright as anything more then a backup at this point, but i really do believe he does have a high ceiling if he commits himself to improving as a player.

A better and more realistic scenario would be that the Warriors packaged Wright with Jackson in a deal to acquire a more proven 4 like Boozer. Or one that supposedly has more “upside” like Beasley. I can say one thing for sure. If the Warriors decide to go with a large frontcourt of Randolph,(insert a 4) and AB as well as a small front court of Ellis and Currry then that team will be dynamic and tough to match up against. I could see the following lineup work out really nice for the Warriors for years to come

Curry
Ellis
Beans
Beasley or Wright or (insert another 4)
Randolph

with KA and AM as the top two off the bench.

by nocal81 on Sep 1, 2009 2:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs