Lin: More than just Hype-PAWS40

You are streching this out. Do you think John Wall is the fastest player on the court…in Kentucky? Watch the games. Wall was a 19 year old, and performed pretty well for a 19 year old.

Well, compared to all 19-year-old college point guards, yes, he performed “pretty well.” Better than “pretty well,” I’d say.

But compared to 19-year-old players who went on to become significantly above average NBA players, it’s a lot more ambiguous.

Maybe it shows that scouts and the NBA don’t care about advanced stats if the guys that supposedly suck get picked high (Wall, Udoh) and guys get big contract (Ellis and Gay).

Like MB says above, the “proper” use of advanced metrics hasn’t been defined yet, hence all the questions/concerns.

I think it just needs to be appreciated for the fact that draft order, how much a player gets paid, how cool they look when they score are all broken/subjective indicators of true value.

guys get big contract (Ellis and Gay).

Gay got his contract because he scores a lot of points and looks like he could become really good. Ellis got his big contract because he played very well the year before he got it. He only started to be terrible recently

Are you serious? Have you ever watched him play or looked at his box scores? If you really want to just look at numbers and not with yourself maybe look at the combine?

I guess a freshman PG who put near 17 and 7 a game doesn’t qualify as dominant

Not if he shoots a low percentage and turns the ball over a ton.

“17 and 7” sounds great, but it’s a very misleading statistical picture of John Wall.

I will say, this is a great example of how the anti-stats crowd use a very selective use of stats to make their argument. If your primary argument for John Wall is “17 and 7” then you have no standing to discount any sort of statistical analysis of a player: you’re relying on stats just as much, and you’re doing it badly.

As a 19-year-old, Curry, playing primarily shooting guard, and not having the benefit of a teammate anywhere near as good as Demarcus Cousins, put up at “26 a 3.” And yet, he was never considered as someone who should have been taken with the first pick. Wall was practically locked in as the first pick before he even played a game for the wildcats.

Stop talking like Wall’s ‘extreme talent’ should be maxed out for no reason other than what sounds

No one is saying this. They’re simply saying that Wall’s college production isn’t terrible impressive. Most of us acknowledge that he will be a good pro, but he hasn’t done much yet. It can be both ways- I kinda feel the same way about Derrick Rose. Well, he had a really good last half of the season, but we’ll see going forward. I mean, players get better. That’s the point. He can have been okay in college and still be a really good pro one day.

Stop talking like Wall’s ‘extreme talent’ should be maxed out for no reason other than what sounds like you believe you yourself have your physical talents maxed out and are just complaining about someone better than you in a field outside of your expertise. Just stop.

Huh?

Let me repeat … huh?

Let’s take this one step at a time, and not make it personal.

You wrote:

“John Wall being the fastest player on the court does not show up.”

I wrote:

“Being fast isn’t useful in and of itself. It’s only useful if it translates into production.”

So get off your high horse, buddy – because you were specifically talking about qualities which didn’t show up on the stat sheet. So now “you know” that, but then why’d you bring it up?

Basketball isn’t just about speed, or even speed with the ball.

But then you bizzarely go off on a tangent about my athletic abilities, which I never brought up in any way shape or form and you don’t know a g-d thing about. Nor have I ever suggested that Wall’s physical abilities should be “maxxed out.” You are literally responding to things that have NOTHING to do with what i said here.

Marvin Williams is still a phenomenal player.

Depends how you define “phenomenal.” In the universe of people who have ever played basketball? Sure. In the universe of guys who were taken top 3 in the NBA draft? Not so much.

Marvin was hyped as being the next great basketball player to a tremendous extent. He was a “can’t miss” star. Heck, I think there was MORE hypoerbole about him than there was about Wall, with everyone seeming to overlook that he didn’t even start (or dominate when he played) on his college team.

Almost every up-and-coming team has a good point guard and Wall has a chance to be one of them.

Again, this is sort of a bizarre statement, as if I’m suggesting that Wall sucks, or that I think he’ll fail in the NBA. Quite the contrary, I have written explicitly in this thread that I do not believe any such thing.

What I do think is that, with less hype, Wall would not have be a shoe-in #1 pick, and might even have fallen out of the top ten. Certainly his production in college does not justify his going #1. It was, in some ways, disappointing.

Can he get better? Sure. I expect he will. But that’s irrelevant because the people he’s playing against will ALSO get better.

. I want to say Rose when I see him, but he’s just not Derrick Rose. Though, he does remind me of Rose.

That might be a very good comparison. Rose is a very good player, certainly someone who looks like he could be the #2 or #3 guy on a championship team.

But Rose – who incidentally was better statistically in college than Wall – hasn’t turned into a superstar. In fact Rose, who’s draft position was also a little high compared to his college production, has underperformed his draft position, being, so far, just about an average NBA pg. He’s still young but at this point his ceiling seems far more likely to be Raymond Felton or Andre Miller than Derron Williams or Rajon Rondo.

Wouldn’t surprise me if the same ends up being true of Wall.

Scottie Pippen didn’t exist? I’m not disagreeing in general – that’s the way the funnel is supposed to work. it’s just not anywhere near a perfect funnel, and there’s at least one guy on the HoF list who couldn’t make his college team as an underclassman.

Yeah, I’d rather read scouting reports and watch tape of them and use my best judgement to evaluate players. When do I look at stats? When I have no idea about a player and want to get a feel for him. Other than that, I have no reason to look at anything but per-game stats. And even per-game stats give a very narrow perception into the game anyway in my opinion.

As a fan that’s totally fine but I can guarantee you all the GM’s in the league use every resource to make personnel decisions, including advanced metrics.

Really? So you think Lin is a can be on the rookie team and maybe get ROY? That statement is implying that

Thank you, hadn’t thought about it that way at all. Very few people can compete at a high level in a time-intensive sport like basketball while performing well in freshman classes at an Ivy.

Thinking about it adds to his upside. We can deduce excellent skills at time management, focus, reading speed, comprehension, and personal nutrition. :)

Wall may well not have attended any classes after December. (He wouldn’t have had to in order to maintain his eligibility, since he knew he was going pro).

Ivy League schools give athletes a certain amount of deference, but nowhere near the same amount that sports-factory schools do.

 Training only makes one proficient, not good.

 However it sounds like you just told me why it’s not appealing?

comes into play much earlier than we’re assuming. Does anyone know if Lin played AAU ball, and if so for how long? As you said in another thread, the buzz around Wall started in middle school. Traveling teams start recruiting competitively no later than 10, I know, but I don’t know how young they start. In club soccer, serious skill-level tracking starts in second grade.

If Lin didn’t play high-level AAU ball, he’d be missing a typical evaluation step in college recruiting.

minutes, walking on at Harvard is the better choice. If you believe you can play at the next level, then it’s a substantially better choice. Even though far more players are picked up from the majors, if you’re very good at a minor you get noticed more than if you’re average at a major. If you really can play at the next level, it’s a good career move.

Lawson has pretty much done nothing but kick ass at every level: in the toughest conference in college, in limited minutes his rookie year, in this year’s LV Summer League. On a per minute basis, he’s probably been the best player in his draft class; and based on his performance in the LVSL, he seems miles ahead of anyone in this year’s draft class as well. It’s weird how little respect he gets.

And it all depends on how the fan looks at the game, some watch for enjoyment, some watch really close and must analyze everything and some just watch casually. It all depends on the person