Draft Board #1, 2010
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 5, 2010 5:58 PM CST
Email
Print
Folks, it's that time of year again. Time to start looking at college recruits for this year's draft. As our long time readers know, we here at Hoopus use something called the Hoopus Score to weigh College Player X against College Player Y. The Hoopus Score isn't an attempt at a be-all/end-all one-stop score for judging the NBA prospects of this, that, or the other college prospect. It is simply a starting point for us to talk about which player Wolves fans should keep their eyes on, as well as being an as-close-to-objective-as-we-can-get way of telling you exactly why we prefer Willie Warren to, say, Xavier Henry.
The first year we ran the Hoopus Score it was a single score that took into account various efficiency and per/36 minute statistics. Last year we monkeyed with the formula and split it into 2 separate scores: efficiency and net production. The thought here was that we wanted to give our readers a way to view each college player's overall numbers against how efficiently said player posts said numbers. We also broke up the score into three distinct categories: bigs, guards, and wings. This year we are going to hold off on the net production score until the end of the college season. We are also going to re-scale the score and weigh the efficiency number so as to do away with the three categories. This year, one score rules all.
To give you an idea of what sorts of statistics go into the Hoopus Score, I use KenPom's site for efficiency stats and Yahoo Sports for net numbers. I take into account things like eFG, OR%, FT Rate, and TO Rate. I then weigh some of these scores according to category (big, guard, and wings), and add, subtract, and divide them all together for a single overall efficiency score.
In order for you to have some sort of context about how this score works, here is a short list of players from the 09 and 08 drafts and their new, updated Hoopus Score:
- Blake Griffin: 25.389
- Kevin Love: 22.892
- Evan Turner (09): 22.37
- Stephen Curry (09): 20.628
- Michael Beasley: 20.532
- Tyreke Evans: 19.97
- Derrick Rose: 19.614
- Jonny Flynn (09): 18.371
For those of you who remember our draft boards from seasons past, you can see that I have adjusted the score to address some shortcomings in our score (for instance, I overvalued offensive rebounds for bigs as well as assists for guards) and I now have Blake Griffin as the top prospect of the past 2 years followed by...well, you can read the list for yourself.
To give you an even better idea of how the score can be viewed in context, and to provide you with a sample of an average (i.e. 15-rated) player or two, here are some numbers from everyone's favorite Big 10 squad:
- Blake Hoffarber: 15.45
- Lawrence Westbrook: 15.14
- Davoe Joseph: 14.84
- Damien Johnson: 16.8
Again, the big goal this year was to provide a single weighted score across guards, bigs, and wings with 15 being as close to average as I can get. There are some weaknesses with the score that I still have to take care of in future years; namely, figuring out a way to weigh conference/schedule strength and broad pace, scoring, and defense average differences in the NCAA from year to year. Conference/schedule differences is my first priority and I hope to have that component in place in next year's score.
With no further delay, here are this year's scores:
- Charles Garcia: 24.134
- Jarvis Varnado (UPDATE: added to the list from the comments): 24.04
- Evan Turner: 23.3
- Artsiom Parakhouski (UPDATE:added to the list from the comments): 22.478
- A.F. Aminu (weighted as a wing): 22.3
- DeMarcus Cousins: 22.267
- Ed Davis: 22.2
- A.F. Aminu (weighted as a big): 20.814
- John Wall: 20.6357
- Larry Sanders: 20.2
- Willie Warren: 19.578
- Cole Aldrich: 19.1928
- Jeffrey Taylor (UPDATE: added to the list from the comments): 19.114
- Greg Monroe: 18.585
- Derrick Favors: 18.1607
- Wes Johnson: 17.428
- Xavier Henry (weighted as a wing): 17.271
- Lance Stephenson: 17.04
- Xavier Henry (weighted as a guard): 16.85
- Devin Ebanks: 16.5
A few thingss:
First, this is our first list of the season and I want your input of players I should be adding to the list. This is simply a first shot at the draft board and I took the biggies off of DraftExpress' big board. If you have a player who you want scored, simply leave a name in the comments and I'll add him to the list.
Second, the Charles Garcia number is, to my best guess, a prime example of the score needing a way to adjust to conference strength or, in this case, strength of schedule and pace. Seattle U is unaffiliated and they play at a blistering pace. Garcia has some wonderful numbers but he is doing so with a relatively weak strength of schedule and about 10 possessions more/game than your average Big 10 contest. In other words, there might be some pretty good reasons why he is carrying a FTRate above 80 other than him simply being a stud. Also, it appears that he has some off-the-court issues and that his high usage rate is used for both good and evil.
Third, getting around to the actual players, most of the top end players all have some fairly significant strengths and weaknesses. John Wall's biggest dings are rebounding and turnovers but he combines scoring, shooting, and facilitation better than anyone else in...well, I can't find another guy with his combo of scoring and passing on KenPom's site. If he can address his high turnover rate (essentially 1/4 of his used possessions, and he carries a high usage rate), you can ignore his rebounding because he does so much in terms of steals and blocks relative to his position. In other words, if he improves something we all think he should be able to improve, he'll be absolutely insane. Adding in his height and length and you can begin to see why he's viewed as the top prospect in this draft.
Charles Garcia is a free throw monster. He draws more fouls/40 than anyone else in college ball and this means his FTRate is way, way, way, way up there (80.3 as I write this). Evan Turner has an absurd assist rate for someone his height. He doesn't get to the line as much as he used to but he does draw fouls at a fairly high rate and the FTAs should take care of themselves if he continues to put up a high usage rate when he returns. DeMarcus Cousins is putting up some silly rebounding and scoring numbers in his young career. The caveat here is that he plays in less than 1/2 of his team's minutes, but when he does get in the game, he puts up the 2nd highest usage rate and 3rd highest shot rate in all of college ball. In other words, dude is a black hole...a big one.
The biggest surprise on the list was Xavier Henry. He has a fantastic eFG for a guard/wing but he takes a ding for his rebounding, so-so assist rate, and average ability to get to the line/draw fouls. That being said, he can really stroke it from outside and he has legit size so he may be the type of player where you can overlook the rebounding and foul shooting related activities.
All things taken into consideration (i.e. guestimating conference strength, schedule strength, off the court issues, need), if I were putting together a briefing for the Wolves my draft board would look like this:
- John Wall
- John Wall
- John Wall
- John Wall
- Evan Turner
- A.F. Aminu (if he can play the 3)
- Cole Aldrich
- Larry Sanders
- Xavier Henry
- Wes Johnson
John Wall shoots to the top because I believe the turnovers will eventually go down and his combo of scoring, passing, height, and length is just too impressive to pass up on. Evan Turner is exactly what the Wolves need at the 2/3. Sanders fits the sort of athletic 4/5 backup mold we have been talking about on this site for almost 3 years (he's 6'9" with a 7'6" wingspan). Aldrich is a long-time favorite (with legit hugeness) and Henry and Johnson both can provide legit size and talent on the wing. Lance Stephenson is an interesting name to keep an eye on. He seems to be something of a headcase and he had a hard time finding a college home despite having great size and being the all-time leading scorer in NYC history. That being said, he's a natural scorer and his play has been something of a surprise early on in the college season.
This draft is being pitched as a deeper affair than last year's contest and at this point I have to say that I'm somewhat skeptical. Wall is probably the most talented guard to play college ball in the past 5 years but he isn't without flaws. Turner is a very nice and dedicated jack-of-all-trades who I think will have a long pro career. Beyond that, I don't think this year's class has a whole lot to offer beyond some so-so wing talent and some nice backup bigs. In hindsight, last year's point guard fiesta was probably a bit better than we first thought.
Well, that about does it for the first edition of the 2010 Hoopus Draft Board. What say you?
PS: Here's hoping this is the last year we have to run one of these before the All Star break.
256 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Don't think it matters
In the new look NBA, SG/SF has become one wing position. In addition, in the triangle, the 2/3 either is at the top of the key or on the wing with the PG/PF or C, so I doubt that matters either.
I think Derrick Favors is way more than a good NBA backup
And I think Cole Aldrich isn’t.
Drafting by need, Wall, Turner and Henry top the list, but drafting by best player available, Favors is second only to Wall.
Too bad...
…he’s a 4. We’ll have to see how the season plays out. He definitely has the tools to be good but the bigs in this freshman class make me nervous…especially Favors and Cousins.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm torn on that one
On one hand, we do have two power forwards. On the other, Favors and Ed Davis are everything in a big man our current big men aren’t….long, athletic, good defenders….
Of course, I’m also in favor of blowing up our frontcourt, so…
I just think that, as much as Wolves fans talk about BPA, Favors has to be in the discussion. He’s consensus #2 in every mock out there. Sometimes I think we give Love and Jefferson free passes just because we like them….drafting Favors and dealing with Love and Jefferson isn’t so different from drafting Wall and dealing with Flynn and Rubio. I think we just think it’s different because we like Wall and Love a lot more than Favors and Flynn.
Also, a big NO to Lance Stephenson
Which is sad, because he has other worldly talent. A year ago he was considered on par with John Wall, but he has so many behavioral problems none of the top teams even attempted to recruit him.
He’s got Isaiah Rider written all over him, both in talent and in attitude.
I think it needs more weighting by age
Every other predictive analysis I’ve seen for collegiates uses it prominently. For example, while the Hoopus Score puts Willie Warren over Xavier Henry, but Warren is 19 months older than Henry. That makes a huge difference. And if you look at Warren’s numbers last year versus Henry’s this year, Henry is a better player. I wager if you plug Warren’s last season into Hoopus Score, the equation tilts in Henry’s favor.
Maybe not age...
…but “grade”. The difference between Warren and Henry is more that Warren is a sophomore and Henry’s a freshman.
And what is "grade"?
And age is important, because it’s possible to red-shirt players. Take Foye. He was impressive in his last college year, but no one bothered to mention that he was two years older than the other players, which is a huge advantage.
That's something subject to the red-shirting rules & junior colleges, which makes grading more or less useless
If for no other reason than, all else equal, a 21 year old freshman should do relatively better than an 18 year old freshman, simply because he’s more physically mature.
Bodies develop at different rates
If physical maturity is going to play a part, I’d be more accurate to simply factor in height/weight, than age. LeBron James weighed 250 lbs and was completely built as a teenager. KG didn’t totally physically mature until about his tenth year in the NBA.
It’s a more objective system to factor in experience than age/body ratio.
The problem with height/weight
Is that those two numbers tend to pretty skewed. Players undergo weight training, which alters their natural development, and the height numbers tend to be…unreliable.
And since you don’t have reliable data on that end, age is the best indicator you have. While you may not know who is more fully grown between Warren and Henry, common sense says you go with the younger man.
I'm just not seeing how the connection is proportional
I’ve never seen a scale ratio of age to muscle mass or anything like that. Bodies are just way too individual to make an objective grading system like that.
It’s like…Derrick Favors is a year younger than Ed Davis. Same height, same position, yet Favors outweighs Davis by 20 lbs. So how would a system that says older players are more physically developed account for that?
I don't follow your point
Are you saying that age and muscle don’t correlate? That’s true, and doubly so in sports. Athletes physically alter their bodies to improve at their sport, so using muscle mass as a point of comparison in development is worthless.
And an age weighting wouldn’t care at all about weight. It’s age, age, age. Using your comparison, Favors would be thought of more favorably, because he’s younger. In fact, it’s specifically why he’s number two on most draft boards. If you look at the numbers, Davis is slight better. But because Favors is younger, he’s thought of more highly. And 9 times out of 10 that’s the correct position to take on age.
I agree...
….I’m going to figure out a way to give more weight to younger players. I’ll have to figure something out.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
He's the best 13 year old in the world
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
i thought...
…about doing it like euro classes. i.e. class of 86, 87, etc.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Can John Wall be an NBA SG?
I have this perverse Timberwolves fantasy in which John Wall can be a 2 guard and Ricky Rubio is the PG.
Oh, and I think we may need to institute Charlottewatch and Utahwatch after the half-way mark. We may not know whether we have 1 or 3 first round picks until the last week of the season.
"I tell one of my media colleagues to watch Hollins, who regards cutters entering his vicinity with the sort of startled amazement newborn infants have when their own appendages enter their vision for the first times."
-Britt Robson
Not really
Too small, too light. You could probably get away with it some nights, but I don’t think we could make it work all season and certainly not in the playoffs.
Agree
I’d be ecstatic if we get Wall, and even if we pair him with Rubio and play him off the ball. But I think Wall would be best as a point guard. We’d almost have to see if Rubio-Wall works just because the ceiling would be so incredibly high, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it fell apart pretty quick and one gets dealt.
In any case, it’d be a great problem to have.
I'm with you on the Wall/Rubio backcourt...
…and I think he can make it work if he is a legit 6’4" in shoes with a ridiculous wingspan. He doesn’t have the build right now to guard the Kobes of the world but he’s a teenager.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Agreed
Those two should have sufficient enough size to guard almost any backcourt in the league. They’re both tall and lanky enough; Wall with the super-athleticism and Rubio the vision and instincts to make it work. There’s more than enough skill offensively to make up for most deficiencies anyhow. Those two seem like pretty complementary players as far as strengths and weaknesses go. They both are phenomenal passers and penetrators, which is nothing but good. Having two great drive-and-dish guys on the court at once is a tough cover.
I’d also like to point out to people that 6’3" Kirk Hinrich can guard 1-3s quite effectively without being especially tall, lanky, or athletic. I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that one of those two guards will be able to approach Kirk’s ability with the minds and work ethics they have in addition to their plus physical attributes.
If we do go with that...
….I’d agree with McCleak, that Rubio seems more suited to be the “shooting guard”.
I’d be interesting to see his actual measurement, because he sure looked markedly taller than Wade and DWill in the Olympics, at least to my eye.
Yeah, I’m really curious on those as well. Problem is, we’ll probably never hear his true measurements because he wasn’t at the combine, so we’ll be stuck with the NBA’s standard fudged height. Reports I’ve read from RealGM, which IIRC were from a year or two ago, say he’s a legit 6’4 with something like a 6’9 wingspan. That’s certainly big enough to check most SG’s, as long as he gains the strength necessary to not get posted up all game long.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Wasn’t at the combine? Is the combine for this years draft class already done? Isn’t that done after the college season ends?
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Jan 6, 2010 8:19 AM CST up reply actions
Yes it’s done after the season ends, I think in May, but that’s for that year’s draft class. Thus, Ricky would have been measured last year with guys like Flynn and Evans. For some reason, Euros tend not to be there, though, so he went unmeasured.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Aight now I get it, thought you two ment Wall ;)
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Jan 6, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions
Question for Stop-n-Pop
Will you feel any better about Jonny Flynn as our point guard of the future if we were able to pair him with a facilitating shooting guard like Turner? I extend that question to anyone else that is lukewarm on Jonny Flynn as a point guard as well.
For my money, that seems like a great combo.
Great question. I agree with that logic. Only issue would be getting Flynn to produce without the ball in his hands
by SF on Jan 5, 2010 7:20 PM CST up reply actions
Turner...
…is about the only way I feel comfortable with Flynn, long term. I think it’s a good fit if Flynn can develop defensively.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm not too suprised by Henry's rather mediocre score
Having seen several of his games. He shoots. He’s a shooter, and a good one. But he does very little else at this point. It’s not entirely clear to me that he’s much different than Wayne Ellington, though I admit that’s overstating things. He is young. But he isn’t terrifically athletic and that isn’t going to change.
Turner remains my guy, presuming he comes back healthy.
I agree
I feel the same way. He doesn’t show me enough outside of that shooting to prove he’s worth a high pick, though he’s not a bad lottery pick. Even if he is a better version of Ellington I don’t really see how he has enough ability to overcome the redundancy enough to be valuable.
I'm also suspicious of Henry
On one hand, he’s a very good shooter. That much is obvious. And his lack of production in rebounding and assists can partially be put on Kansas’ system and playing between Sharron Collins and Cole Aldrich.
On the other hand, it can’t ALL be put on that, and as good a shooter he is, I’m not seeing “great NBA shooter” in him. For me to be ok with passing on Turner for him, he’s going to have to show me he’s Ray frickin Allen or something, and I’m not at all seeing that right now.
His numbers line up...
….but his play doesn’t. I think this is a definite case where the stats are deceiving, because that’s about the only argument that gets made in his favor, and everyone who’s actually watched him play comes away underwhelmed.
I know the first time I saw him play, I came away with a distinct “hey it’s Wally Szczerbiak” impression. By no means bad, but hardly anything special, either.
He's a far better player than Szczerbiak was at roughly the same age in college
Check it out:
And if you want a prime example why subjective opinion of players doesn’t work (outside of its name) go back and check out what this board was saying about Tyreke Evans leading up to the draft last year. And few of us pointed out that, statistically, he was probably the best non-Blake Griffin player in the draft. We got shouted down by people yelling about the form on his jumper. Now, I don’t think you can find a single person that wouldn’t have him as their ROY right now.
And if half of a season is too short of a window for you, then check out the Love v. Mayo debate from the year before. The long and short of it is that objective, rational systems are a far better way to evaluate talent
Wouldn't that support the argument that subjective opinion DOES work?
Because statistically the best college player last year was Ty Lawson. So it wasn’t statistics that got Evans drafted fourth and Lawson drafted 18th. It was Petrie watching Evans play and saying “hey, this kid’s got it”.
What I’m saying is, in my opinion of having watched Henry play, he doesn’t have it. High end role player with a shooting specialty…just like Szczerbiak.
You mean the Ty Lawson who's the second best rookie in the NBA?
Also, the reason to like Evans more is that he’s two years younger (again, back to age), and taller.
And just because Petrie looked at Evans and said “hey, this kid’s got it” doesn’t mean that stats dislike him. In fact, he was usually in the top three whenever advanced scores crunched last years college numbers.
And if you want to say to give Petrie credit for that pick (instead of chalking it up to luck, or simply following most draft boards) then you have to debit him for Hawes, Douby, Garcia, Williams, Abdul-Wahad, Williamson, and Gant.
Also, Petrie thinks that Evans can play point, which is just ignorant.
I'd dispute that Lawson is the second best rookie
Statistically maybe, but there’s a lot of context that you have to consider there.
What I’m saying is I never saw star potential in Lawson, but I did in Evans, and apparently everyone agreed with that. Likewise, I don’t see star potential in Henry. I do in Turner, and that’s why I’d draft Turner over Henry.
Here's my thing with Turner
He would have been my #2 pick if he hadn’t gotten hurt. He’ll be my #2 again if he can come back and show he’s not too badly hurt. But until then, it’s a very, very risky pick. Hell, even if he came into tryouts and was impressive, I’d take that.
And it isn’t a question of whether Turner will be better than Henry, but whether Henry will be good. And he will be.
And the Lawson thing is nonsense. What’s the context? He’s on a good team? If context mattered, Shannon Brown would be putting up big numbers, instead of being an also-ran on a the defending champs. Lawson was a very good player in college, and he’s a very good player in the pros. Just because he ended up on one of the tops teams doesn’t change that.
But it does improve his chances of success
There’s also the fact that Lawson is just a better player than Brown. It’s not like being on a good team automatically makes you a good player. Or vice versa. Assists are easier to pile up with Melo and JR Smith as teammates versus, say, Brewer and Wilkins. Cutting lanes are easier to find. Open shots are easier to get. Etc etc etc.
And by all reports, Turner’s injury isn’t chronic. There was no nerve or muscle damage, so ultimately it’s just a fractured bone, like a fractured arm or something. It just happens to be in a place that needs more protection as it heals.
That's good news on Turner
I just feel like the Wolves need to make damn sure that get this pick right.
As for Lawson, you got me thinking on the subject. And it turns out, if you control for the teams FG%, Lawson drops down from being 36th in AST/40 all the way down to…42nd. Clearly, he’s being helped monstrously by his teammates. Oh, wait, he’s still a very, very good rookie PG. And that’s not even counting his shooting percentages, which are ridiculous.
Okay, that's a little confusing
My point (lost is sarcasm) is that the context of Lawson’s teammates isn’t nearly as helpful as people are pretending.
One last time
Because I look at and start to wonder if I’m aphasic:
Lawson’s teammates aren’t responsible for his high assist totals. Lawson’s good play is.
Indeed
And he’s getting it done for Denver with Graham and Afflalo as his wingmen, so the “look who he’s surrounded by” argument continues to lose credibility with ‘Mello and Billups out. He had another outstanding game tonight. Lawson had a historic year last season and should have been in play starting with the 6th pick and for God’s sake Philly MUST be kicking themselves by taking Holiday when Lawson was on the board. No GM wanted to put their faith in the advanced stats and instead clung to the combine/individual workout dogma of making draft decisions, including David Kahn. So what if Flynn interviews well!? Argh……Just venting here.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 5, 2010 10:52 PM CST up reply actions
Age shouldn't matter
If you put together one of the best seasons ever for a PG. I think what age does is raise the bar in what type of performance you expect at the college level, since presumably there is less upside. Ty Lawson led his team to a national title, had a ridiculous Asst/TO rate, TS%, and did about everything you could ever want from a PG. It’s just part of the NBA draft dogma that doesn’t hold water a lot of the time.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 5, 2010 11:04 PM CST up reply actions
You could also make that argument...
….in favor of Tyler Hansbrough.
Not that I disagree, but it’s just the traditional line of NBA thinking.
Could you?
Hansbrough had nice looking traditional stats, but I don’t remember his advanced stats being anything mindblowing.
Hmm, I never saw his advanced stats
Although I don’t put much weight on advanced college stats since the situations are so different.
In Hansbrough’s case though, it was very much his physical measurements that kept his stock low. His stats, in any form, were secondary.
Well neither of us remembers for sure
But if I had to guess, I’d say the difference might have been:
Hansbrough: bad measurements, good stats, average advanced stats
Lawson: bad measurements, good stats, great advanced stats.
The only advanced stats I remember...
…of any of this draft’s big men are Blake Griffin’s godly stats on offense, and Hansbrough’s ridiculous ability to draw free throws.
My guess is Psycho T probably ranked pretty high in terms or that, rebounding, and keeping his turnovers down (at least compared to other bigs) Probably not so good with TS% or anything affiliated shooting efficiency, which would be more or less linked to his below-average physical “specs”.
I do like him on the Pacers though. He gives them a lot of what they need and seems like he’ll develop into a good compliment to Hibbert.
Out of curiosity...
….anyone know what the advanced stats were for Darren Collison and Steph Curry last year?
Collison in particular seems just as good as Lawson this season…he just gets far less burn.
Will put this here
Turner’s injury won’t be a problem at all for his career. He fractured one of the little spurs on the side of one of his vertebra. It’s painful while it heals, but in terms of long term career impact it’s on par with fracturing a rib.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
DX has a nice stats page...
http://www.draftexpress.com/stats.php
If you logon, you can have your own stats page. Mine are mostly TS%, FTA/FGA, PPR and every stat pace adjusted per 40 minutes..
Lawson shot 47% from three and was the best distributor in the country by PPR (pure point rating). Curry was an average distributor with potential who was also one of the best shooters and scorers in the country. Collision looked similar to Lawson, just a little bit worse in about every category.
Thabeet and Griffin had more FTA/FGA than Hansbrough.
Agree with Oceanary on Collison
I don’t hate Flynn, but my biggest problem with him has always been questioning his value over Lawson and especially Collison. You’re comparing a guy who jumped into the top 6 with two guys who slid to the back of the first round. Both had better shooting numbers (fantastic 3 pt skills) and better skills running the offfense. Flynn’s only real advantage was youth, as all were questioned due to size. Collison showed when given starts that he could be doing as good a job or better than Flynn, and Lawson has proven his worth. I just don’t see where Flynn has some upside that catapults him above two guys who have shown better actual performance, especially in college pre-draft.
Collison had a fantastic run...
….early in the season filling in for Chris Paul. Averaged 11 points and 5 assists in November (although his FG% left a lot to be desired…)
Kahn is very lucky
that none of the non-PGs taken after immediately after Flynn are doing much of anything. It’s slightly maddening that Lawson has been just as good from the 18th slot, but there’s no one we can point to to say “Oh we could have taken Lawson at 18 and then had our 6th pick free to take (Jordan Hill???).”
Would've loved to get
Omri Casspi. I know it’d be way too soon at 6 at the time, but that guy just keeps showing up.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
33rd best
And 27th with the Nets shooting. Really, the team you play with doesn’t make that much of a difference.
So the offense you play in..
….the coach you have, the GM that manages you, the conference you play in, the division you play in, and the teammates you have….none of that matters?
In terms of assists?
The conference doesn’t matter too much. GM matters indirectly at best. Division matters almost squat, as you play 4 different teams than some in a different division in the same conference. The coach matters in terms of putting you on the court (and not putting together horrific offense sets, see Wittman, Randy). Your teammates matter (since you need them to get assists, obviously), but not nearly as much as you think (or as I think you think, if that makes sense). But let me use a concrete example of how little it matters.
Currently, Deron Williams is putting up 10.3 assists per 40 minutes he plays. His team, the Jazz, are shooting 48.0%, good for 4th in the league. If you adjust the Jazz’s FG% to league average (45.8%) than Williams is putting up 9.8 assists per 40 minutes. Essentially the difference the Jazz make in Williams’ assist total is about 0.5/40 minutes, or about 1 every two games (Williams plays 38+ minutes a game). Now let’s put Williams on the Nets (by the by, I chose Williams because the Nets and Jazz play at the same pace. So it’s not a situation like moving one guy from Golden State to San Antonio).
The Nets are currently shooting 42.0% from the field. Put Williams on the Nets, he’d be putting up 9.0 assists/40 minutes. So, in other words, the difference from being on a top 5 shooting team to the worst shooting team in the league is about 1 assist per 40 minutes. 1 assist is not all that much (it’s the difference between Rajon Rondo and Jason Kidd, as an example). I think it’s safe to say that Lawson’s teammates have a negligible impact on his assist total.
Meaning if we were to put Lawson out there with...
….Brewer, Pavlovic, Cardinal and Hollins, he’d still average 7-8 assists?
Extreme scenario, but you get the picture.
More like 8 to 9 per 40
That 4 man unit is actually better at shooting than the Nets, amazingly.
I just don't at all buy that it's purely about the guy passing the ball
The guy you’re passing to has to make the shot for it to be an assist. Who your teammates are matter in every way.
There is something
to be said about the hands rating of your teammates. I can’t tell you how many passes Hollins loses under the basket when they should be catch and slams (with an assist going to someone). Stuff like that adds up.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 7:54 AM CST up reply actions
Agreed
The calculation is interesting, but by no means definitive. A team’s shooting percentage can be dragged up or down by one player (Dwight Howard, for example, could drag a team up dramatically, or Corey Brewer could drag a team down). But more to the point is the ability of teammates to either catch and score on a pass or find the open spot and knock down the shot. Simplifying it to FG% is a start but by no means complete. I know I’m probably nitpicking, but it strikes me as a similar debate about high scorers and efficiency versus volume and the impact on a team.
Here’s a different take of what something more specific might look like. Using the data over at 82games, I compared the “Hands” rating of the players that Flynn and Deron Williams have spent the most time on the court with (the vast majority of the time, around 60-75% of their total minutes). The average hands rating for Flynn’s players was 10.13, whereas Deron Williams’ teammates’ average hands rating was 12.02. For reference, KLove has a rating of 15.2, Big Al a rating of 11.3, Corey Brewer has a rating of 8, and Ryan Hollins a rating of 4.5. So the difference in hands rating suggests that Williams should have a slight edge over Flynn, which simply means that he has slightly more favorable circumstances for getting an assist.
So then I looked at the number of turnovers each player had because of passes they couldn’t handle or get to (I’m assuming this is what ‘bad passes’ means in the Hands section on 82games. If not, then disregard the following interpretation). I totaled the number of TOs from bad passes (passes these players couldn’t collect) and divided them by their minutes to get a per minute rating (I multiplied the end result by 100 to move the decimal point too, so a .0127 result became a 1.27 result). Williams’ guys turned over the ball on bad passes at a clip of 2.16, while Flynn’s guys are actually slightly better at 2.01. So what can we make of this? I’ll get to it in a second.
First, what’s lacking in this kind of analysis? I have no way of knowing who’s making these passes, at what point in the shot clock the passes are being made, how many are into double teams, etc. etc. What I will say is that data of this detail matters in the argument I think McCleak is trying to make. The most telling data I can offer to illustrate this point is this. Out of all the players I looked at (6 for each team), only one player had a worse TO rate on handling passes than Corey Brewer, and that was Carlos Boozer (3.17 to 3.5). That seems really weird to me, especially given Boozer’s superior hands rating (13.7 for Boozer to Corey’s 8). I think the answer lies in Boozer being a paint player who commands double teams and Brewer being a slasher who doesn’t. That is why, in my opinion, we need much more detailed data than simply FG% if we are to try to determine (and project or compare) expected assist rates dependent on teammates.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
Plus
we need to consider than each team has a couple of players that after they receive the pass, they don’t go straight into a move. For instance, Al will receive a pass and then dribble once or twice and then shoot. I believe by him dribbling or taking a step that it doesn’t count as an assist.
I could be wrong, but don’t think I am. I would extend this to a basic relationship. Any player that uses post moves versus athleticism in the paint to score will decrease his teams chance of getting an assist.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
These days in the NBA you can catch it, pumpfake, dribble twice and dunk it and it’s an assist half the time. It’s kind or ridiculous, actually.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
yes, but only
if your name is Chris Paul, etc. Rookies have never and will never get that kind of leeway with stats.
I can’t tell you how much I miss the replacement refs. At least they were consistent.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions
If the wolves got half
of the calls that they did in the preseason (that every team got in the preseason) they would have quite a few more wins.
I know of at least one against BOS.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 3:55 PM CST up reply actions
You should probably demonstrate that these stats are linear...
i.e. that the a team shooting a certain % less means that they assist that exact same percentage less. That’s not necessarily true.
It just doesn't make sense to me that...
….anyone’s assist numbers are going to be the same if you put him on a team that’s significantly worse at scoring.
Just comparing a player’s assist numbers before and after going to a new team would seem to prove that teammates, coaches, and system matter.
What McCleak is attempting to disprove
is the nonstatistical notion that our vastly inferior jumpshooters are the reason Flynn isn’t averaging far more assists per game. In reality, the difference between the worst NBA shooting team and the best is not all that sizeable, as evidenced by the largely unchanged assist numbers he gave above.
If you wanted to make the argument that system makes a difference, you’d have a lot more ground to stand on. However, Denver is only 13th in terms of total assists this season as a team, so it’s not like they’re playing in some vaunted offense that is inflating Lawson’s numbers.
I suppose it does make sense...
…considering the difference between the best and worst teams FG% is less than 10%. I wasn’t really thinking about Flynn though….I’d say that’s a definite system difference there.
I won’t deny Lawson has been very good this year…that’s obvious. I just don’t think he should be considered the second best rookie when both Evans and Jennings are carrying their teams with a lot less help.
Although Lawson has been impressive with Billups and Melo out. I guess if we extend that small sample size out to a third or half a season…
Well let's compare systems then
Denver has three players that average more assists than our 2nd best player. As a team Denver averages 2.6 more assists than us. Their top three assist guys average 3.1 more than our top three, and their top five assist guys average 4.3 more than our top five.
Furthermore, Denver’s top three assist guys account for 51% of their total assists, while our top three account for just over 43% (a 7.83% difference). Denver gets nearly 3/4 of their total assists from 5 guys, whereas we need to go 7 deep to achieve the same total.
So my point is that, from this perspective, something matters. Either our guys just aren’t as good at passing (or finishing) for assists, or we play in a system that spreads assists around more and Denver’s system consolidates assists to certain players/roles more, or it’s some combination of the two. My guess is that it’s some combination, but again, if you watch the teams play, our system de-emphasizes pretty clearly a ball dominant distributor, so we have 8 guys averaging between .6-1.9 assists per game, whereas Denver has two.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
It's linear
I’m not sure of the exact coefficient in play (eyeballing a graph, it look like it’s almost a coefficient of 1).
If I'm the coach playing the Nets with Deron
I double him every second of the game.
Those other guys can’t shoot.
by WinTheLottery on Jan 6, 2010 8:26 AM CST up reply actions
You don't think teammates matter?
Let me bring up an example I’ve used before….if you had a team
Inverson, Wade, Lebron, McHale, chamberlain who all play best with the ball in their hands, all playing on one team, do you think they all would have done as well as they did playing for more “balanced” teams?
Another example is the classic Vince Carter, Cousin McGrady on Toronto. Before McGrady was hurt he was probably better than his cousin Vince, but he never got to show it before his cousin was hurt.
Another example might be Memphis this season.
Both Randoph and Gasol have stepped up their performance this season from last season… see.. http://www.wagesofwins.com/Memphis320910.html
I think its partially because they are playing together, along with some good shooters so they can’t be doubled as easily.
Axactly the same situation, you’d see if Jefferson and Love were surrounded by shooters
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 11:34 PM CST up reply actions
Except
that Henry is athletic, strong, plays defense, and does have a decent driving game. Wally World not really a great comparison.
Actually
Henry’s defensive numbers are pretty weak, and his driving numbers are pedestrian. Wally World isn’t so much the right comparison: He’s a rich man’s Ray Allen when shooting, and a poor man’s Ray Allen the rest of the time.
Way premature to be calling him a rich man's Ray Allen
I mean c’mon. Allen is one of the best shooters in NBA history, and you’re talking like a guy who’s never played a single minute of NBA ball is already guaranteed to be better than him.
We're talking about projection, obviously
That’s his ceiling.
Statistically
His ceiling when you actually watch him and realize he’s average at everything except shooting is much lower.
"Average" and yet extremely effective at age 18.
Shrug. I just put his ceiling higher than you. I take Turner over him, but I like Henry a lot as a prospect.
I like him too
I’m just saying let’s not get carried away thinking his projected stats will make him comparable to guys like Ray Allen or Reggie Miller or Glen Rice. There’s a lot of non-stat stuff that goes on between now and the time where Henry has played enough NBA games to make those comparisons.
Did you read my entire post?
“He’s a rich man’s Ray Allen when shooting, and a poor man’s Ray Allen the rest of the time.”
Even shooting...
…shouldn’t be compared.
When Henry is second all time in NBA 3 pointers made and holds the records for most threes made in a season, is 33rd all time in NBA scoring and is a career 45% shooter after 13 seasons in the NBA….THEN you can call him a rich man’s Ray Allen.
Calling him that right now is like calling John Wall a rich man’s Dwyane Wade.
Well, that's impossible without a time machine
I just hoped in mine, and it turns out Henry had a better career than Jordan!
Again, though, we’re talking about projection. We’re not comparing Henry to Allen of 2009-2010. We’re comparing him to Allen of college. He’s shooting better than Allen did than. They score in similar ways, and play the same position. It’s not unreasonable to say that, if all goes well, his careers has a similar arc to Allen’s. And if that’s the case, then (and again, remember, this is the ceiling projection) I can absolutely see him best Allen’s numbers 12 or 13 years from now.
You're talking about 1/2 of a freshman's season...
…compared to arguably the best shooter in NBA history.
The issue I have is you’re framing it like the stats guarantee Henry will be Ray Allen. Saying he’s a “rich man’s Ray Allen” is way overstepping things because Henry hasn’t done anything to show he’s better than Allen in any significant way except in theoretical computer land.
I could easily see just about any top draftee best any top NBA player. I could see Wall be better than Wade. I could see Favors be better than Dwight Howard. I could see Turner be better than Scottie Pippen. That doesn’t mean I’m going to declare it like I’m a prophet.
Again, there’s 14 years between now and when Henry can be considered for comparison to Allen, and the odds that he’ll come out on top of that comparison are seriously against him.
As I've said multiple times, we're talking purely about projection
I’m not going to say “projection, projection, projection” over and over again, simply because it’s a waste of my time to repeat something that’s understood in the discussion.
And are the odds against Henry having a better career than Allen? Of course. Allen is a player that absolutely utilized his opportunities and abilities. I’d say that Henry has maybe a 2% chance of being better than Allen for his career. But, again, we’re talking about his potential ceiling.
"Rich man's Ray Allen while shooting"
Is hyperbole at best. Ray Allen is in the conversation for greatest jump-shooter ever, and to even put Xavier within sniffing distance of Ray’s ability is a compliment to the guy. He’ll be a good shooter and probably a good player. But he’s got a looooong way to go to be in the same conversation with Ray as a shooter.
Some of us are still more impressed with Mayo...
and the way he’s got Memphis playing .500 ball after only one season.
Wow..
…talk about bomb throwing ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
It's a classic case of need versus ability for us
I do think that, had we kept Mayo, he’d be a near 20-5-5 player for us right now and we wouldn’t think of Love at all except for those 4 games a year we played Memphis.
Yup, Mayo is the reason they're at .500
Grizzlies top win shares:
Gasol – 4.4 in 33 games, accounting for 25.9% of total wins
Randolph – 4.3 in 33 games, accounting for 25.3% of total wins
Gay – 2.9 in 31 games, accounting for 17% of total wins
Mayo – 2.5 in 33 games, accounting for 14.71% of total wins
Wolves top win shares:
Big Al – 2.2 in 33 games, accounting for 31.4% of total wins
Love – 2.1 in 17 games, accounting for 30% of total wins
Mayo is so much more valuable in producing wins to Memphis than Love is to us. If Love had played in 33 games this season, his extrapolated win score would be nearly 4.1.
Hmmmm……
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
With all due respect, I don’t think everybody puts stock into stats like win shares. To a lot of fans, players, and coaches, the raw win-loss total is by far and away the most important factor — to some, the only factor — worth much basketball discussion. It’s way too simple to make for good blogging arguments, but it’s also crazy to ignore when you’re comparing a lottery pick whose team has rapidly become a playoff contender to another whose team is slightly worse than they were at the time of his arrival. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons for that disparity in the teams’ respective paths — but it does not change the fact that the disparity exists and it is huge. You can argue like Wiston recently did (I think?) that Luol Deng is better than Kobe Bryant, this year. But you’d have to know nothing about basketball, and a whole lot about math, to come up with something like that. Kobe will be a key part of a championship contender, and right now, Luol Deng’s team is fighting to make the playoffs in the East.
The point is, every major contributor on Memphis gets a significant nod over every major contributor on Minnesota, since they are playing very good ball and we’re the 2nd worst team in the league. That nod, for the sake of argument, can be overcome with things like stats and obviously poor circumstances, such as with Love and Jefferson. But to laugh off the idea that Mayo is as good as Love, when he’s doing things that are consistently producing wins (producing them in the actual sense, not the algebraic or calculus sense) seems far-fetched and the talk of a homer. When comparing the two rookies whose careers started on comparable teams and at the same time, it must begin with Mayo at a significant advantage because he is a part of a team that’s winning and it’s a team sport. Love would need a lot of stats to overcome that disparity. He may have them, but it’s not convincing to everybody.
Wasn't there just
Some huge debate about this on a different post – on the advanced stats thing? I must confess that I was trying to have a little fun with that fire with this win share comparison thing.
In reality, I agree completely with what you said.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
I actually like Love a lot...
way, way more than I did when we made the trade. And he and Mayo are almost impossible to compare. But, it’s hard to deny that Mayo is playing very solid ball on a good team, and I take issue with anyone who dismisses him in a comparison against Love, when I think many neutral fans would prefer Mayo if starting a team from scratch.
Gasol, Gay, and Randolph...
…are your three main reasons for .500 ball. I’m going to propose the Mayo Rule: In every draft there will be a 6’4"-6’5" guard as good as if not better than Mayo. Last year it was Evans, this year is Willie Warren.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Think about those three names..
and what people thought of them, before they started winning this year. One was complete garbage who was worth nothing (or whatever is less than nothing) in the trade for his brother. The other was a “volume scorer” with a questionable attitude and terrible defense. And the last was on the short list for biggest cancer in the NBA.
Mayo was runner up for rookie of the year, and hasn’t really (outside of the Canis Hoopus community) developed a bad reputation for anything as a pro basketball player. All he does is score consistently, play good defense, and stay within the team concept. I’m not saying he’s a superstar, but he’s the closest that team has to a true, all-around player. Let us not forget that almost every insult or backhanded compliment sent toward our starting center includes a “Z-Bo” in it.
I think you're talking to the wrong guy..
…about Gasol and Gay. ;) I’ve been on the bandwagon for a while with those two and have been running a non-stop Get Rudy campaign on this site for about a year now.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Must be mixing you up with Britt Robson...
I think I remember him calling Marc Gasol a water buffalo, and me laughing pretty hard when I read it.
Yep..
…that’s Britt. I was hoping for a Big Al for Gasol/Gay deal before Z-Bo showed up.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Re: water buffalo
I remember that line, too. It was a particularly apt comparison at the time, but he really has lost a lot of weight. I daresay that offseason work deserves more credit for his uptick in production than playing with OJ Mayo does.
Projected Wins Produced for Memphis - Randolph and Gasol, not Gay and Mayo...
first think what’s changed from last year?
wins produced (projected for year)
Randolph – 15.7
Gasol – 13.7
Gay 5.4
Mayo 4.5
Thabeet 2.4
Conley 1.1
Then drop to 0,3 and below
The Randolph pick up was huge. Thats the big turn around from last season.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 10:34 PM CST up reply actions
Neutral fans would probably prefer Shaquille O'Neal to Dwight Howard
that doesn’t make it relevant.
Here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=xJUWL
I’m hard pressed to find an area that Love is not better than or, at worst, equal to Mayo. That’s he’s doing it at a younger age, and with less touches, says that he’s simply the better player.
I know they were traded for each other
but do we really have to keep comparing Love to Mayo? They are completely different players.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:27 PM CST up reply actions
If you're just looking at stats...
and view rebounds for a power forward as a good comparison versus a shooting guard who doesn’t rebound much, then Love looks quite a bit better than Mayo. But Mayo plays shooting guard and has big teammates that do the rebounding for him. His role is to dribble, pass, score and defend. Regardless of what the stats show, he does all of those things well, and it’s leading his team to wins — sometimes against the best teams in the league, as it did when he dropped 25 in a blowout win over Phoenix the other night.
I won’t argue that Mayo is clearly better or way better than Love — I think that’s a hard argument to make with a straight face. But so is the opposite, which is what it looked like you were doing when you made the “check out the Love v. Mayo debate” comment. Anyone who just flatly dismisses Mayo in that argument is either biased, obsessed with rebounding stats (even for perimeter players) or I don’t know what. Mayo finished way ahead of Love in ROY voting and is now playing on a way better team. Their main additions were a rookie who gets spot minutes and the biggest cancer in the league, who has all of a sudden found a winning environment in Memphis. Who knew? In any case, I respectfully disagree.
Okay, let's ignore rebounds
Love is slightly better in blocks, which is the front court’s province. But in turnovers, assists, and steals (all areas that wing players traditionally perform the best), Love is, again, slightly better than Mayo. He’s also better on FG% and 3P%. Mayo’s better at the line, but Love get’s there far, far more often.
Actually, the more I look at it, the more I realize that FT% is the ONLY area where Mayo’s beating Love. You can bang on about assassinness, Memphis’ Gasol/Gay/Randolph driven record, and other things, but it doesn’t change that Love is the better player.
How about we throw in some common sense?
1) Winning games is the most important stat. It’s a team game, and OJ plays his role on his team (a team filled with players that have NEVER been winners) in such a way that they are winning 50 percent of their games. Take out the horrible Iverson experience and it’s higher than that. Love is 5-12 for the Wolves. Even if it’s an upgrade over the Wolves without him, it’s still terrible and nowhere near playoff-bound.
2) Mayo shoots 4.1 treys per game compared to Love’s 1.6. Do you think if Mayo were as selective as Love, his percentage might increase? I think so. Do you think the Wolves would prefer that Love shoot more treys if he could do that and maintain a high percentage? I think so. Ray Allen is shooting 34.6% on treys, this year. Love is way better than him!
Anyway, I think the two players are of roughly equal value, but I’d still slightly prefer Mayo. I’m just trying to point out some relatively important factors that your calculations don’t take into account. The easiest way to judge players is to watch them play. Watch Mayo sometime and see what you think. I’ll take it a lot more seriously than the stuff you just posted.
1) Memphis won exactly as much as the Wolves last year. Saying that because they’re .500, and that means Mayo is playing well is pure confirmation bias.
2) You’re right, Mayo is a shameless gunner. That’s not a good thing. Efficiency is far more important that volume.
3) Every time I’ve watched Mayo, he seems unremarkable to me. He doesn’t know how to switch on defense, he never passes up deep shot, even though it hurts the team, and he can’t draw a foul to save his life. In other words, everything I’ve seen demonstrates that he’s the complete opposite of what you claim he is. Care to disprove that, without using stats? Also, you claim to have seen him only in Memphis’ games against the Wolves. That’s only 4% of his NBA games! It’s the equivalent of watching 2 minutes of a NBA game and saying you know how the rest of it went. How am I supposed to take that claim seriously.
Just for the sake of accuracy...
I should update my earlier remarks about Memphis being 16-16.
They are now 17-16, after winning at Portland.
Yeah...
Gasol has been a beast (really improved from last year) and I’m surprised Randolph didn’t blow up on them immediately. Doing pretty good with three scorers and an average distributor to feed them the ball. The Conley/Mayo backcourt isn’t helping out at the defensive end, so that’ll probably end up hurting them in the long run (thank god for Thabeet/Gasol). Of course, we’re barely a better defensive team, thanks basically to Love and the rest of the team not being horrific. Even if Mayo is basically an average player at this point, he’d still be the second best player on the Wolves by such a gigantic margin that it’s almost stunning. Nobody on the Wolves can play offense besides Love.
Edit...
I mean’t best wing player, not second best player. I’d take Jefferson over him. When you have two players who are above average in offensive efficiency, you can’t win games. At all. Memphis is a top six offense, bottom four defense. We’re a bottom three offense, bottom seven defense. They have a top two, and then a few solid players. We have a top one, one solid player and then the floor drops out.
Rambis has said he DOESN'T want Love shooting more 3's.
He thinks its too easy for Big’s to sit out on the 3 point line and toss shots toward the basket.
He wants Love close to the basket, using interior passing with guys like jefferson and also rebounding
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 11:50 PM CST up reply actions
Especially rebounding...
…because let’s be honest; we generally suck on offense when he’s not getting to the offensive glass
I do think Rambis has a point about the mindset too….Rasheed Wallace is a poster boy for ultra-talented bigs who waste their abilities jacking up threes all the time.
'Berri's view on why Memphis is winning
according to berr
wins produced – projected for season
Randolph – 15.7
Gasol – 13.7
Gay – 5.4
mayo – 4.5
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 11:53 PM CST up reply actions
I don't normally like the Wins Produced stat
but here’s it’s quite useful.
Why is Memphis winning more? Marc Gasol is way better than he was a year ago, Zach Randolph is way better than he was a year ago (and more importantly, way way better than Memphis’s terrible PF rotation last year), and OJ Mayo is roughly the same.
I wouldn’t say Mayo was bad last year or great this year, but rather that he was good both years, and that team success should be considered largely irrelevant to evaluating individual players’ value.
I agree
Lots of cases of good players on bad teams looking good and vice versa.
Again, not saying I think Mayo is better than Love. I do think he’s a better fit than Love, but mostly I’m saying that if we hadn’t traded them for each other, Mayo would probably be doing better here than he is in Memphis and we probably wouldn’t be sitting around thinking “sure wish we had traded for Kevin Love”. We’d probably be talking about all the good things Mayo can do and what we need to compliment him in this draft.
You really thinking Mayo would be putting up better numbers here?
Really? On an offense geared around Jefferson, instead of himself, as Memphis was at the start of the season? That’s unlikely at best.
He wouldn't be splitting shots with Rudy Gay
So that’s an extra what? 16 or 17 shots to go around just from one player? And all he’d need to do is hit one of them to be a 20ppg scorer.
So….yes, I think his numbers would be better here. Randolph and Jefferson have the same FGA totals this year (actually Randolph has slightly more), and Mayo would just be called on to score a lot more since we don’t have Gay or Gasol.
Fair enough
Taking more shots would bump his averages a bit. It doesn’t make him a better player, though.
True, but it also doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good player for us to have
I do agree with Andy G that Wolves fans go overboard bashing Mayo. He’s a good player, potentially a great player, but fans here talk about him like he’s a complete detriment to his team.
Mayo'd be better than Brewer and Wilkins
But that doesn’t mean him at SG is better than having at Love at PF. Even accounting for the Wolves needs.
I disagree with that
With Jefferson already in the post, this team needs a wing scorer way more than a second rebounder. Even McHale said that.
Have to balance the roster to win. Pairing up Love and Jefferson is like pairing up Love and Zach Randolph.
Yes, it's all Mayo
Who’s basically doing the exact same thing he did last year, except with more turnovers. It’s got nothing to with huge leap in play provided by Gasol, Gay, and (unbelievably) Randolph.
And...
..he’ll be good next year and the year after that. He’s a good average-to-slightly-above-average player….a sure thing for many years at that level. I think of him somewhere in between Mo Cheeks and Dennis Johnson.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
No way is Mayo on Cheeks or DJ's level.
Offensively maybe but defensively those are two of the best defensive point guards of all time. Mayo’s not in there league.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:16 PM CST up reply actions
Yet at least
He was and still is highly touted as a great potential defender, so it’s on him to see if he can reach that level
Not right now...
….but I think that’s what he ends up as: a 6’2-6’4" guard who can hit open shots, handle the ball, and play good defense on the ball.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I don't see it at all.
Mayo may be a good defender but Cheeks and DJ were great defenders, some of the all time great defenders at the point. Also both Cheeks and DJ were true point guards, Mayo is an undersized 2.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
They also played in a league..
…where stocky guards could mug opposing players and get away with it. Being a good perimeter defender in the modern league is a different bag than it used to be and I think Mayo will eventually get it to a point where he can be as good as an on ball defender can be with the current rules in place.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Kobe and LeBron...
…both think the world of his defensive potential. Granted that is subjective, but still a pretty convincing argument that he can be that kind of player.
I just don't see it.
And that’s how basketball should be played, the game is to superstar orientated today and so many more touch fouls are given thanks to MJ.
I would put Cheeks and DJ as top 10 defensive point guards of all-time. Mayo isn’t even close in my mind.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:31 PM CST up reply actions
But move DK or Mo to today's game...
..and I think they’re fish out of water. DJ and McHale were my favorite players growing up and I think the world of Johnson but…well, this would make for an interesting thread: how should the game be played?
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I agree
A classic example is Joe Dumars, who played such strong defense he made Michael Jordan literally cry. But if you think about the kind of defense he played and the Bad Boy Pistons played that series….Dumar would have probably been ejected 10 minutes into every one of those games for flagrant 2s under today’s rules.
Yeah well that's what's wrong with the game
I don't want to say the NBA is soft because it isn't but compared to the 80's when basketball was at it's peek in my mind it is rather soft.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:41 PM CST up reply actions
That's what we're saying...
A guy like Dennis Johnson would have had to adapt to softer rules and that would have made him a less effective defender. Not a bad one, but probably not a top 10 one in comparison to top defensive point guards of the modern era.
I think he'd still be top ten or at least close
Mayo’s not close in my mind. Like I said Bowen is the same type of defender and he was very successful in today’s game.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:47 PM CST up reply actions
I view it...
…as being a game that was meant to be played as fast as possible from rim to rim. James Naismith wanted it to be up tempo and with as much ball movement as possible.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Agree
Things didn’t really start getting dirty and physical until the late 80s with the Bad Boy Pistons and guys starting to really hit the weights. Going back to the early/mid-80s, there was some pretty fast-paced, team-oriented basketball going on. Doug Moe’s motion offense, the Showtime Lakers, and the ball-movement oriented Celtics (except when the ball went into McHale!).
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 5, 2010 10:58 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed
If I want to see physical play/violence, I can watch the NFL, NHL, or boxing/mma. I watch basket to see talented individuals make great plays.
Offense sells, it’s something the NFL figured out two decades ago and has profited from ever since.
I disagree.
They might not have been as great but Bowen played the game like it was supposed to be played and was widely recognized as one of if not the top defender in the NBA.
You take great defenders like DJ, Mo or Walt Frazier and they would be great in any era.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:40 PM CST up reply actions
yeah, but Bowen played for San Antonio
So, if DJ played for San Antonio in the modern era, we wouldn’t see a drop off in his defensive ability.
by oblivionspocket on Jan 5, 2010 9:47 PM CST up reply actions
What does playing for San Antonio have to do with anything?
Yes you have a great help defender in Duncan down low but Bowen would have been great on any team.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:50 PM CST up reply actions
Not necessarily
He wasn’t touted as a great defender when he was with the Heat.
A great defensive team certainly bolsters your individual defensive “reputation”. Think of the defensive rep Battier gained joining the Rockets, or that Posey lost leaving the Celtics.
That's true.
What I should have said was that Bowen would have had the same effect on any good defensive team.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 9:56 PM CST up reply actions
He was a good defender on the Heat, but no one noticed because they were a bad defensive team.
Being ranked as a top 10 anything is as much about reputation and exposure as it is actual play.
I don’t think Mayo is at the same level defensively as Bowen or DJ would have been. But I definitely think he can get there if he works at it.
Maybe i'm missing something
but i’ve never been blown away by Mayo’s defense. It isn’t bad but I wouldn’t call it great either. above average.
by Bad News Wolves on Jan 5, 2010 10:01 PM CST up reply actions
You've gotta add one more...
“hit unbelievably-well contested shots.”
That’s something Mayo showed he could do when he entered the league. He hits jumpers with a hand in his grill as well as any player in the league. It’s his “elite skill” if you will. It doesn’t make him Wade or Bryant, since they can get themselves easy shots with consistency, but it’s more than, say, a young Derek Fisher, who would probably meet your description pretty well.
I view that..
…less of a positive in the case of guys like Mayo. To me, taking well contested shots from mid range and beyond is a sign that a player is unwilling to go out for three or in for a FTA try….or that he is not creative enough with the ball to make space on a consistent basis. I think this is another reason why he mellows out into a defensive guard who can shoot mold…unless he can get to the line on a much greater clip or get his 2FG% back up to what it was at the beginning of last year (i.e. Nash range).
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I always say this...
but I’ll say it again: I think Mayo is a bigger Sam Cassell — at least as a scorer. And I think that’s a borderline great player who probably makes a few All-Star teams and plays on almost all winning teams. He’s a strong dribbler who can be relied upon for open shots as well as contested ones with the shot-clock winding down.
I never watch entire Grizzlies games, unless they’re playing the Wolves. But I try to bounce around League Pass and when I watch the late part of Memphis games, OJ looks like a crunchtime assassin. He doesn’t force contested shots, but with 24 seconds to shoot, somebody has to take them. Corey Brewer has shown all Wolves fans what it’s like when you don’t have that player. Not pretty.
OJ Mayo in crunchtime
http://www.82games.com/0910/09MEM5.HTM
I’m not a big fan of crunchtime stats (too little information to be truly accurate) but all I’ll say is…damn, that guy really shouldn’t be on the court at the end of games.
http://www.wagesofwins.com/Memphis320910.html
berri says, memphis turnaround due to Randolph and Gasol.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 10:45 PM CST up reply actions
More Randolph than Gasol
A lot more. But at the same time, the Grizz aren’t a .500 club without Mayo, so let’s not talk about him as if he makes no impact on the team.
according to berr
wins produced – projected for season
Randolph – 15.7
Gasol – 13.7
Gay – 5.4
mayo – 4.5
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 11:04 PM CST up reply actions
I dunno about that formula...
….for example, I’m looking at the Wolves, and it’s saying that Mike Miller won us the most games last year and that Pavlovic will win us more games than Gomes this year.
No question Randolph has had a huge impact, but if you think about it logically…if you take Mayo out of that teams you:
a) have a team with literally no shooting guard
b) lose 18ppg
c) lose basically all your deep shooting ability (similar to how the Bulls are crashing without Ben Gordon)
Again, a set of factors that don’t get weighed in statistically
PER says Mayo is average
He’s been around 14-15 the past two seasons. Love’s been 18+.
Other top Grizz this season?
Randolph: 22.3
Gasol: 20.9
Gay: 18.3
Even if you don’t value PER, it still captures production pretty well. And the other guys I mentioned are well above average this year in comparison. Mayo’s good, but these guys are playing noticeably better statistically and subjectively.
Why in the world...
…would he be shooting mold?
Artsiom Parakhouski?
He scored 23 points and 14 rebounds; 3 blocks against DUKE, 21 points, 13 rebounds, 2 blocks against KANSAS; and played very well almost every game.
Maybe his best game (against Lynchburg, maybe that’s why): 31 points, 17 rebounds, 4 blocks.
He's..
….22.478. He’s gone up against some good defenses and they have a decent pace. I’ll add him to the list.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Actually better than I thought....
Might be worth a look with one of the later first rounders. He does a lot of stuff on the court.
I agree
that John Wall is unequivocally the top choice, and I don’t believe that will change. I also agree that Evan Turner should be second on the draft board, but I think I’m higher on him than everybody else. I think he has as much superstar potential as Wall, with less pizazz.
I like that. He’s far more reserved and not nearly the showboat. Meat and potatoes, if you will, albeit filet mignon and gourmet spuds. I watched the kid play a few times and he literally took my breath away. He was everywhere, doing everything, and it came so naturally and easy to him. His game was, quite frankly, flawless.
What in the bloody hell does "thowed" mean?
Turner is one of the smartest players I've ever seen in college basketball...
….ever. His combination of skill, anticipation, and basketball IQ rivals Larry Bird’s IMO.
Although he obviously lacks Bird’s shooting touch, which is why he and Ohio State aren’t anywhere near the level of Indiana State.
We will draft Wall and Turner...
make it happen Kahn.
Greg Monroe
I’ll keep harping on this as long as he’s #15 on Chad Ford’s Top 100 Big Board, but Greg Monroe is being underrated, maybe even severely underrated. He’s 6’11" 250 lbs with smooth scoring and passing skills. DX accurately tags Pau Gasol as his “best case.” How the hell can anyone with all of that fall outside the lottery?
If the Wolves take a perimeter player first, and just sit tight at 15 (or wherever Charlotte is) and land Monroe, I’d happily take that. He’s going to be a good pro, and potentially could be a great one.
i've seen him twice now..
….and I like him a lot. I agree with him being underrated.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Just saw...
that he’s 23rd on DX’s mock. Unreal. I must be missing something, because I’ve seen he and Ed Davis about the same amount of times, maybe 3 or 4x each, and I’d hesitate to take Davis in the Top 10 and I don’t think I’d let Monroe slip past 7 or 8.
Supposedly...
He has bad “Body Language” when on the court. To me that’s the perfect example of scouts over-thinking themselves.
I'm intrigued by him as well
I’m always intrigued by versatile and skilled big men though. Guys who also fit the bill like Garcia and Motiejaunas are more of the “prospect” variety, but I’d have no problem using one of our middle 1st rounders on a high-upside big man like any of those 3 guys. I’d gamble one of our picks out of 3. Might as well take one HR swing.
Georgetown produces some of the most well-rounded big men
Roy Hibbert is a great example of that. Can score, rebound, defend, is highly skilled and has a fantastic passing game.
Monroe lacks Hibbert’s sheer size, but he’s by no means small, and has a ridiculous skill level for his size.
Since late last year he's been misperceived
Somehow Georgetown’s late-season slide last year resulted in a sort of doghouse for Monroe in particular.
If someone drafts him after the lottery, they’re getting good value on that pick. Smart player, and he’s got all those skills in a “big” package.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Oh, and great post btw...
I love reading this kind of stuff. Gives an interesting perspective on the upcoming draft.
What about Jarvis Varnado?
Might be a stretch in the first round, and he’s played some pretty weak-sauce competition, but it’s hard to deny 5 blocks per game. Seems he’d be a nice backup behind Love and Jeff. This, of course, if we miss out on Aldrich, Favors, or Sanders…
Good call...
..I have him on my dark horse list.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
24.03
…he’s another free throw monster.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Assuming the Wolves keep tradition and don't get the 1st pick
It looks like Turner is the guy to pick. Seems to be safest pick after Wall and conveniently fills a major need for the Wolves.
Won’t be surprised if the Wolves take Turner and then Kahn trades the Utah pick and some other assets to get Aldrich.
DX's Mock
Has Aldrich 5th; what are you thinking in the way of “other assets” to get another top 10 pick?
I don't think Aldrich is going to stay at #5
His production has steadily declined all year and his faults are going to come more and more to the front as teams begin conference play and NBA GMs start nitpicking.
I know
That’s why I put top 10; I think the only legitimate C gets snapped up in the lottery. We get the Bobcats pick if it’s not top 12, so that could be in play as well.
Well, there's other legit centers...
….they’re just way down the pipeline. Solomon Alibi and Jerome Jordan.
I’m not at all sold on Aldrich in any form, but if we want a real center, he’s the best we can get in the draft.
I think we're totally on agreement on everything
And should probably get ice cream sometime.
I was just wondering what the OP was willing to give up as “other assets” to get Aldrich, because he’s not falling to the Utah pick.
Dexter Pittman
Is another big man to keep an eye on later in the draft.
by Rascal Flatts on Jan 6, 2010 12:21 PM CST up reply actions
The was an article in the local press
a couple weeks ago that Aldrich is having some health issues and will not take the time off he needs to get better. Also has a family issue apparently bothering him. Let’s see how he is playing in March before dropping him too far in the draft.
I'm just going by what I see....
…and what’s being said by GMs and scouts.
Aldrich has declined in every area except blocks this year compared to last and is getting worse as the season goes on. Scoring down, rebounding down, FG%, FT%…he’s not getting better, and he’s been bothered several times by players much smaller and lighter than him. What he is right now doesn’t justify, in my mind, him being a better pick than Wes Johnson, Aminu, Henry, or Patrick Patterson.
He’ll still go pretty high because of his sheer size alone, but that’s all that’s keeping him in the top 10 right now.
It might be worth it for you to Google his name and look for the article
I think it was in the Star Tribune or Pioneer Press. He needs to rest a couple weeks but doesn’t want to leave the team and is playing at far less than 100%. If you find the article you might understand why he isn’t as dominant as he has been.
I’d say what it wrong with him, but am not sure he actually confirmed the report (although a teammate did). It’s nothing earth shattering, but does affect his play and is going to be difficult to overcome if he doesn’t shut down for a week or two.
Couldn't find the article...no, wait, I did
First I found this:
The Owls’ inability to throw the ball inside was not necessarily a bad coaching decision or poor execution. Temple’s veteran coach, Fran Dunphy, clearly knows a bit more about basketball than the proprietor of this blog. Instead, I thought it a testament to just how crucial Kansas’ junior center Cole Aldrich is to the Jayhawks’ success. With Aldrich blanketing Allen, Temple didn’t just fail to score in the post: The Owls didn’t even think to try
And here’s the other article from the PiPress:
“He just can’t get over it,” Reed said. “He’s had a lot of coughing, a lot of stuff in his chest. It’s taking his wind away. I know he wants to go out there and fight. I just don’t think he’s got his body and his mind to connect together quite yet.”
Fellow preseason first-team All-American Sherron Collins is waiting for his dance partner to return.
“It’s crazy,” Collins said. “I’m just trying to stay away from him so I won’t get the bug. I think it’s affected him a lot. I can see him gasping for air more than he usually does.”
Sounds like he has bronchitis and that his grandma is near passing. I feel bad for anyone about to lose a loved one. Don’t know what it means for his production, but they also say that he’s putting up 11 points, almost 10 boards, and over 3.5 blocks a game. Looks like the interior defender we need, not sure about the athleticism, and he’s just not good enough to be a top five pick. But he would look good on the Wolves.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
The Utah pick as I mentioned
Then if the Wolves were taking Aldrich, Pekovic becomes expendable. Those two might get a top 10, but not certain. I think the Wolves also have about five extra 2nd rounders the next couple years, so might include some of them. Kind of depends on how Aldrich plays the rest of season.
Could you add Jeff Taylor as someone to watch - calibrate on your list, pls?
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 11:17 PM CST reply actions
Draft express on Jeff Taylor - ranked #13 among top 100 [so maybe the Charlotte or Utah picks] - #6 for D.A 2011
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 6, 2010 4:21 PM CST up reply actions
19.114
before conference play.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Could you also add SCOTTY HOPSON - as someone to keep an eye one...
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 5, 2010 11:21 PM CST reply actions
Another wing prospect who might be interesting later in the 1st round - or possibly 2nd round.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Jan 6, 2010 4:25 PM CST up reply actions
He didn't fare well:
14.185
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
By the way . . .
. . . I am TOTALLY changing the name of every single team/group/squad/company I’m a part of in ANY endeavor, be it sports, social, or otherwise, to WORD OF GOD.
I thought about naming this post...
…Word to God….as in word to ya’ mother a’la Vanilla Ice. If the Wolves somehow get Wall, I plan on putting that phrase to good use.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Knew that would be on your list.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Hey Stop-n-Pop, question:
In the portion of the above story, you said in your “Timberwolves draft board briefing” you listed Wes Johnson below Xavier Henry and Larry Sanders, when Wes Johnson rates higher than Henry and meets our team needs more than Larry Sanders, because Wes Johnson is listed as a wing. Is this because of his age? Or because he is more of a combo forward than a wing? His shooting, rebounding and defense appear to be fantastic from a stats perspective.
I’ve yet to see him play (though I’ll see him tonight against G’town), but do you think he could he play the two guard spot in the NBA? If so, then why wouldn’t he be third on our draft board behind Wall and Turner?
Age...
…and NBA position (I think he ends up in the tweener forward mode), but mostly age. He’ll be 23 when he starts his NBA career. I do think that if he can show he can play the 3 and if he keeps up his gaudy stats in conference play, he’ll be worth more consideration.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Tweener forward
If the wolves keep Jefferson and Love, a long lengthy help defending tweener forward would seem to be a fantastic rotational piece for a system coach like Rambis. I’m not sure if Johnson has the length needed, but I don’t think the tweener tag should be a draft downer.
Kirilenko lite.
by WinTheLottery on Jan 6, 2010 11:05 AM CST up reply actions
You see PF there?
That surprises me. Johnson seems like a prototypical SF.
6'7" 195? Shooting 50% from 3p?
The same Wesley Johnson I’m thinking of?
Wes will be a 3
His basic game is more of a forward because he likes to be all over the floor.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
I have a feeling that
not to hijack this thread, hopefully this will add to it.
I have a feeling that we’ll be sorry if we don’t draft Willie Warren. He is built like a pit bull. Can get where ever he wants, great scorer, shooter. He has Eric Gordon written all over him and he can probably be had with our 2nd pick. I do think he could start for us at the 2. Match him up with Wes Johnson who would provide length, athleticism, and shooting on the other wing, and you’ve got 3 guys on the floor (Flynn, Warren, Johnson) who can be dynamic scorers.
He is also in his coaches dog house
for his inconsistent play and poor attitude. Nor poor as in I think I’m hot $hit, but just being very moody and unprofessional when his shot isn’t falling. Something to think about.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions
He's not perfect....
Nobody is totally clean of flaws. I just think he’ll be one of those guys who gets drafted in the 10-15 range and will end up causing people to go, d@mn. We missed again.
This from Draft Express
Best Case: Ben Gordon
Worst Case: Rashad Mccants
I would rather have Turner and maybe a big like Monroe with the 15thish pick than Wes and Warren.
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 3:54 PM CST up reply actions
And more
WEAKNESSES:
- Shot-selection
- Defensive fundamentals
- Off-ball defense
- Versatility to defend multiple positions
- Consistency
- Experience
- Size for position
- Poor rebounder
- Shooting mechanics
Notice how many of his weaknesses are defensive and will either cause you to give up more points or get fewer posessions? I just don’t think he is a fit for the triangle which requires good shot selection and off ball movement, which would negate alot of his hesitation separation skills. Just sayin
by TheEvilProfessor on Jan 6, 2010 4:00 PM CST up reply actions
Warren seems like a classic tweener
He doesn’t strike me as particularly athletic or possessing a great wingspan, so he’s going to be undersized and probably a little overwhelmed most nights in the NBA.
That’s why I compare him most closely with Randy Foye. Although he does shoot better than Foye did, he seems like he’s going to have the same physical and positional problems.
His scouting reports and physical stats are exactly Randy Foye 2.0. I believe his measurements are almost identical, like 6’3.5 in shoes with a mediocre wingspan. I say no thanks unless he’s available at a spot where he’s a great value. I’ve had enough undersized tweeners for a while, thankyouverymuch.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I hope Turner gets back soon enough
to really answer any questions people have about him. He sure seems to be the exact player the Wolves need, assuming he’s as good as projected and healthy.
I'm a little late to the party
but hopefully there are still a couple people checking in. First, a couple names I hope to get some numbers on. I don’t expect either of them to come out above 15, but I think they would both be tremendous pickups. Malcolm Lee of UCLA, high potential guy with not much burn so far. Apparently he is a tremendous defender already and plays SG. Second, David Lighty of Ohio State, I feel as if we could get him with our lowest second round pick or even pick him up right after the draft. In SI’s college preview magazine, they showed some stats from Ohio last year with and without Lighty and the difference was astounding. Just a guess, but I think they were 7-0 with him and like 60% without him. Also a pretty good team defender and man defender. Not a high upside, but seems to be a good role player and locker room/practice presence. Could get him for very cheap. Any numbers on these two SnP? Much appreciated!
On a sidenote, I’d like to throw my bid in for Willie Warren being Ben Gordon v.0.8
How about
Evan Turner, Dexter Pittman and Rubio next year. Would that look a little different? There is some value in keeping guys together for a few years, we can’t keep trading half the squad every year. LOVE and AL and these three guys with corey, and flynn and maybe wilkins off the bench and you might have something.
Also . . .
I’m confused. This used to be a game with 5 positions, how many now? 3? 4?
With Pittman-Love-Al you have two power bigs and one finesse big when you need that, and any combo of two of them when you need more Guard/wing play. I think you still need a point guard, what I would call a quarterback. So the trade off is between 3 bigs or two wings on the floor as needed, and they have to play defense too. You keep your Center and your QB on the floor, and mix the rest as needed. Seems like Rubio is a QB, Turner a possible all star wing, and Pittman a center. Add that to our sorry mix and you might have a few options . . .
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Boston works in a half-court football snap after winning the tip
- Judging the choices for the Eastern Conference All-Star team reserves
- Judging the choices for the Western Conference All-Star team reserves
- Jeremy Lin draws inspiration from Tim Tebow
- Stephen Jackson is already tired of Milwaukee
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
