Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Few questions

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    My time to look at hoops questions lasts another day or so, so I d like to post a few things that I m not going to have time to look at. 1. How is MJ doing
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 26, 2001
      My time to look at hoops questions lasts another day or so, so I'd
      like to post a few things that I'm not going to have time to look at.

      1. How is MJ doing relative to predictions we made here? Is Brendan
      Haywood for real? What's caused the Wizards' improvement? They've
      said D, but it's probably both.

      2. It seems that the rookies having the most impact are the ones who
      stayed in school the longest? Is this true? How are they doing
      relative to other guys who would be in their class but left early?
      This gets at whether the NBA or college is better to train the kids.
      Any early sense for ROY?

      3. Are the Pistons for real? They lost a lot on their west coast
      trip? What happened there?

      4. What happened to Charlotte? It appears that the defense vanished
      and the offense has taken some time to get in gear. Why did the
      defense evaporate?

      5. The most similar players to Dennis Rodman tend to be (if you
      weight rebounds heavily, in approximate order of similarity) Wes
      Unseld, Popeye Jones, Larry Smith, Jayson Williams, Charles Oakley --
      none of whom are great comparisons. There are also a lot of one-
      season similar guys - Jerome Lane '91, Jamie Feick 2000, Cadillac
      Anderson '92, etc. Since it is difficult to evaluate the impact of
      Rodman himself, can we evaluate the value of the other guys? Can we
      look at their team win/loss records overall? Can we look at their
      team offense and defensive ratings?

      6. Early all-star sentiments.

      7. How much did Milwaukee lose by getting rid of Scott Williams?
      Did they get it back with Anthony Mason?



      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • dlirag
      Jordan seems to be doing just as well as the group predicted, if not slightly better. The Wizards improvement seems to involve slowing down the game and/or
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
        Jordan seems to be doing just as well as the group predicted, if not
        slightly better. The Wizards' improvement seems to involve slowing
        down the game and/or better D. Their record (
        http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/was/seasonlog.html ) shows that
        they haven't been allowing their opponent to score as much as they
        did early in the season. I tend to think that Haywood must have had
        some hand in this, though I don't know whether he was a major factor.

        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
        >
        > My time to look at hoops questions lasts another day or so, so I'd
        > like to post a few things that I'm not going to have time to look
        at.
        >
        > 1. How is MJ doing relative to predictions we made here? Is
        Brendan
        > Haywood for real? What's caused the Wizards' improvement? They've
        > said D, but it's probably both.
      • Ed Weiland
        ... Here are some numbers with and without Heywood: without(first 12 games): record: 3-9 point diff: 84.5-89.5 Reb diff: 41.5-42.9 FG Pct. diff:
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
          --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
          >
          > My time to look at hoops questions lasts another day
          > or so, so I'd
          > like to post a few things that I'm not going to have
          > time to look at.
          >
          > 1. How is MJ doing relative to predictions we made
          > here? Is Brendan
          > Haywood for real? What's caused the Wizards'
          > improvement? They've
          > said D, but it's probably both.

          Here are some numbers with and without Heywood:

          without(first 12 games):

          record: 3-9
          point diff: 84.5-89.5
          Reb diff: 41.5-42.9
          FG Pct. diff: .422-.459

          with(last 18 games):

          record: 13-5
          point diff: 91.1-87.3
          Reb diff: 43.5-41.8
          FG Pct. diff: .441-.416

          Probably not all Haywood's doing, but it's pretty
          clear he's had a big impact. I suspect Cleveland and
          Orlando would both take him back. I also suspect that
          some of the turnaround is simply due to new players
          players for a new coach are getting more familiar with
          each other. I don't see why he wouldn't be for real.
          It wouldn't be the first time a guy who was the second
          or third offensive option at NC blossomed in the pros.

          Then there is Doug Collins. Collins has some flaws as
          a coach, but he clearly knows how to improve a team's
          situation in the short run. The Bulls improved by 10
          games in 1986-87, their first year under Collins and
          by ten more the next season. The Pistons of 1995-96
          improved by 18 wins in Collins' first year there. In
          both cases the most dramatic improvement made on the
          defensive side.

          It should be noted that in both cases Collins' intense
          style drove his players away after a few years and he
          was fired. Still, considering where the Wizards have
          been the last 20 years or so, it's probably a good
          thing for the franchise to get a coach who can get
          them into the playoffs now.

          Ed Weiland

          >
          >

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
          http://greetings.yahoo.com
        • mikel_ind
          Without looking up my own prediction about Jordan, I definitely recall myself saying he might average 17 points, unless he plays excessive minutes (anything
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
            Without looking up my own prediction about Jordan, I definitely
            recall myself saying he might average 17 points, unless he plays
            excessive minutes (anything over 30 being detrimental to the team).

            I even said he would be an adequate replacement for Mitch Richmond
            <gulp>.


            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:
            >
            > --- HoopStudies <deano@r...> wrote:
            > >
            > > 1. How is MJ doing relative to predictions we made
            > > here? Is Brendan
            > > Haywood for real? What's caused the Wizards'
            > > improvement? They've
            > > said D, but it's probably both.

            In the Wizards' first 12 games, Jordan topped 40 minutes 7 times.
            Since then, he has not played as long as 40, even in his 51- and 45-
            point outbursts.

            > Here are some numbers with and without Heywood:
            >
            > without(first 12 games):
            >
            > record: 3-9
            > point diff: 84.5-89.5
            > Reb diff: 41.5-42.9
            > FG Pct. diff: .422-.459
            >
            > with(last 18 games):
            >
            > record: 13-5
            > point diff: 91.1-87.3
            > Reb diff: 43.5-41.8
            > FG Pct. diff: .441-.416
            >
            > Probably not all Haywood's doing, but it's pretty
            > clear he's had a big impact.

            It's unlikely Haywood can make everyone shoot better; perhaps it is
            just Jordan's increasing accuracy that has pulled the whole team up
            statistically.

            "Chemistry" is clearly at work here. Having not seen the Wizards but
            once (early, bad), I can't speculate whether the young center is the
            primary catalyst.

            One thing I haven't heard is whether Haywood is a 'true center', or
            a 'forward playing out of position'. (Camby has great numbers at
            center, but the Knicks still flounder; some intricacies are beyond
            me.) If he is a true C, then the Wizards are one lucky team, at
            least able to fill 5 positions.

            > ....
            > Then there is Doug Collins. Collins has some flaws as
            > a coach, but he clearly knows how to improve a team's
            > situation in the short run. ....

            And I am SO glad he is out of the broadcast booth.


            Mike Goodman


            > >
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
            > http://greetings.yahoo.com
          • HoopStudies
            ... Haywood is a pretty true center, one of the few that approaches Shaq size. He does not have Shaq s touch. And he had a tendency in college to play too
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
              > > Here are some numbers with and without Heywood:
              > >
              > > without(first 12 games):
              > >
              > > record: 3-9
              > > point diff: 84.5-89.5
              > > Reb diff: 41.5-42.9
              > > FG Pct. diff: .422-.459
              > >
              > > with(last 18 games):
              > >
              > > record: 13-5
              > > point diff: 91.1-87.3
              > > Reb diff: 43.5-41.8
              > > FG Pct. diff: .441-.416
              > >
              > > Probably not all Haywood's doing, but it's pretty
              > > clear he's had a big impact.
              >
              > It's unlikely Haywood can make everyone shoot better; perhaps it is
              > just Jordan's increasing accuracy that has pulled the whole team up
              > statistically.
              >

              Haywood is a pretty true center, one of the few that approaches Shaq
              size. He does not have Shaq's touch. And he had a tendency in
              college to play too soft much of the time, playing more powerfully at
              times. I would imagine that Haywood would not improve the team's
              shooting all that much. He should improve the defense, though.

              > "Chemistry" is clearly at work here. Having not seen the Wizards
              but
              > once (early, bad), I can't speculate whether the young center is
              the
              > primary catalyst.
              >

              I think the "chemistry" is defense to a fair amount, which is a
              coach's doing, as Ed pointed out. You had to figure that the
              Washington D would get better with Collins, Jordan, and the addition
              of Haywood.

              DeanO
            • Ed Weiland
              ... Right now Tinsley, Gasol, Haywood, Kirilenko and Johnson would seem to be the favorites, but the season has a ways to go and I m sure others will emerge.
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
                >
                > My time to look at hoops questions lasts another day
                > or so, so I'd
                > like to post a few things that I'm not going to have
                > time to look at.
                >
                > >
                > 2. It seems that the rookies having the most impact
                > are the ones who
                > stayed in school the longest? Is this true? How
                > are they doing
                > relative to other guys who would be in their class
                > but left early?
                > This gets at whether the NBA or college is better to
                > train the kids.
                > Any early sense for ROY?

                Right now Tinsley, Gasol, Haywood, Kirilenko and
                Johnson would seem to be the favorites, but the season
                has a ways to go and I'm sure others will emerge.
                There's also Battier, Richardson, Jefferson, Hassell
                and Rebreca playing significant roles. The prepsters
                and guys with only a year in college have barely made
                a ripple. WE should be able to get a better idea on
                them as the season wears on and they start to get it.
                >
                > 3. Are the Pistons for real? They lost a lot on
                > their west coast
                > trip? What happened there?

                Only scanning the numbers here, but my guess is they
                had a few things go their way early. Williamson,
                Wallace and Stackhouse all seem to be playing better
                than they normally do. They also got unexpected
                contributions from Rebreca. I still don't see a team
                that's a threat to the Eastern "elite" however.

                >
                > 4. What happened to Charlotte? It appears that the
                > defense vanished
                > and the offense has taken some time to get in gear.
                > Why did the
                > defense evaporate?

                They miss Eddie Robinson perhaps? PJ and Eldon might
                be getting a little past their primes. Weren't we able
                to pin their defensive problems on Derrick Coleman
                last season? Think he has a carryover effect? : )
                >
                > 5. The most similar players to Dennis Rodman tend
                > to be (if you
                > weight rebounds heavily, in approximate order of
                > similarity) Wes
                > Unseld, Popeye Jones, Larry Smith, Jayson Williams,
                > Charles Oakley --
                > none of whom are great comparisons. There are also
                > a lot of one-
                > season similar guys - Jerome Lane '91, Jamie Feick
                > 2000, Cadillac
                > Anderson '92, etc. Since it is difficult to
                > evaluate the impact of
                > Rodman himself, can we evaluate the value of the
                > other guys? Can we
                > look at their team win/loss records overall? Can we
                > look at their
                > team offense and defensive ratings?
                >
                > 6. Early all-star sentiments.

                East: Andre Miller, Jason Kidd, Tracy McGrady, Ben
                Wallace and if you can find a deserving PF, you're a
                better man than me. Perhaps play Wallace at PF and
                make Mutumbo the center. Or put Vince in at the other
                forward and try to run and gun.

                West: Bryant, Nash, Garnett, Duncan and Shaq. Nash
                might be shaky and could easily be replaced by
                Stockton, Payton, Marbury or Francis. Depending on
                your POV. The other four are givens.
                >
                > 7. How much did Milwaukee lose by getting rid of
                > Scott Williams?
                > Did they get it back with Anthony Mason?

                I thought they lost a lot at the time. From what I
                saw, Williams was Milwaukee's best defender last year
                and the team seemed to play much better when he was on
                the court. I don't think Mason fits in as well. He's
                probably a better all-around player than Williams, but
                I feel Milwaukee needs a banger like Williams more
                than they need a multi-skilled guy like Mason. They're
                short a big guy now and Karl seems to be trying to
                force feed Joel Przybilla into that role with mixed
                results.

                The Bucks might ultimately need to make a blockbuster
                trade involving Big Dog or Ray Allen. The team is
                lopsided with perimeter players and the Mason deal
                tilted them more in that direction. They may have to
                make a Ray Allen for Bonzi Wells and Dale Davis type
                of swap if they hope to compete come playoff time.

                Most of these comments are just observations and not
                stat analysis. I just didn't want to let some of these
                pass without commenting.

                Ed Weiland

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                http://greetings.yahoo.com
              • ga basket
                You re right Pau Gasol is a very good player and he plays as well as his las season in Europe. But, Tony Parker, the young PG of San Antinio also makes a very
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                  You're right Pau Gasol is a very good player and he
                  plays as well as his las season in Europe.

                  But, Tony Parker, the young PG of San Antinio also
                  makes a very good beginning of season. After few
                  games, he is on the starting five and plays about 30
                  min per game. Two years ago, Tony played only few
                  minutes with Paris Basket and was the back up of
                  Laurent Sciarra (remember Sydney).
                  Tony will be one of best point guard in Europ, and
                  maybe in US.

                  Regards,
                  GA
                  France

                  --- Ed Weiland <weiland1029@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > My time to look at hoops questions lasts another
                  > day
                  > > or so, so I'd
                  > > like to post a few things that I'm not going to
                  > have
                  > > time to look at.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > 2. It seems that the rookies having the most
                  > impact
                  > > are the ones who
                  > > stayed in school the longest? Is this true? How
                  > > are they doing
                  > > relative to other guys who would be in their class
                  > > but left early?
                  > > This gets at whether the NBA or college is better
                  > to
                  > > train the kids.
                  > > Any early sense for ROY?
                  >
                  > Right now Tinsley, Gasol, Haywood, Kirilenko and
                  > Johnson would seem to be the favorites, but the
                  > season
                  > has a ways to go and I'm sure others will emerge.
                  > There's also Battier, Richardson, Jefferson, Hassell
                  > and Rebreca playing significant roles. The prepsters
                  > and guys with only a year in college have barely
                  > made
                  > a ripple. WE should be able to get a better idea on
                  > them as the season wears on and they start to get
                  > it.
                  > >
                  > > 3. Are the Pistons for real? They lost a lot on
                  > > their west coast
                  > > trip? What happened there?
                  >
                  > Only scanning the numbers here, but my guess is they
                  > had a few things go their way early. Williamson,
                  > Wallace and Stackhouse all seem to be playing better
                  > than they normally do. They also got unexpected
                  > contributions from Rebreca. I still don't see a team
                  > that's a threat to the Eastern "elite" however.
                  >
                  > >
                  > > 4. What happened to Charlotte? It appears that
                  > the
                  > > defense vanished
                  > > and the offense has taken some time to get in
                  > gear.
                  > > Why did the
                  > > defense evaporate?
                  >
                  > They miss Eddie Robinson perhaps? PJ and Eldon might
                  > be getting a little past their primes. Weren't we
                  > able
                  > to pin their defensive problems on Derrick Coleman
                  > last season? Think he has a carryover effect? : )
                  > >
                  > > 5. The most similar players to Dennis Rodman tend
                  > > to be (if you
                  > > weight rebounds heavily, in approximate order of
                  > > similarity) Wes
                  > > Unseld, Popeye Jones, Larry Smith, Jayson
                  > Williams,
                  > > Charles Oakley --
                  > > none of whom are great comparisons. There are
                  > also
                  > > a lot of one-
                  > > season similar guys - Jerome Lane '91, Jamie Feick
                  > > 2000, Cadillac
                  > > Anderson '92, etc. Since it is difficult to
                  > > evaluate the impact of
                  > > Rodman himself, can we evaluate the value of the
                  > > other guys? Can we
                  > > look at their team win/loss records overall? Can
                  > we
                  > > look at their
                  > > team offense and defensive ratings?
                  > >
                  > > 6. Early all-star sentiments.
                  >
                  > East: Andre Miller, Jason Kidd, Tracy McGrady, Ben
                  > Wallace and if you can find a deserving PF, you're a
                  > better man than me. Perhaps play Wallace at PF and
                  > make Mutumbo the center. Or put Vince in at the
                  > other
                  > forward and try to run and gun.
                  >
                  > West: Bryant, Nash, Garnett, Duncan and Shaq. Nash
                  > might be shaky and could easily be replaced by
                  > Stockton, Payton, Marbury or Francis. Depending on
                  > your POV. The other four are givens.
                  > >
                  > > 7. How much did Milwaukee lose by getting rid of
                  > > Scott Williams?
                  > > Did they get it back with Anthony Mason?
                  >
                  > I thought they lost a lot at the time. From what I
                  > saw, Williams was Milwaukee's best defender last
                  > year
                  > and the team seemed to play much better when he was
                  > on
                  > the court. I don't think Mason fits in as well. He's
                  > probably a better all-around player than Williams,
                  > but
                  > I feel Milwaukee needs a banger like Williams more
                  > than they need a multi-skilled guy like Mason.
                  > They're
                  > short a big guy now and Karl seems to be trying to
                  > force feed Joel Przybilla into that role with mixed
                  > results.
                  >
                  > The Bucks might ultimately need to make a
                  > blockbuster
                  > trade involving Big Dog or Ray Allen. The team is
                  > lopsided with perimeter players and the Mason deal
                  > tilted them more in that direction. They may have to
                  > make a Ray Allen for Bonzi Wells and Dale Davis type
                  > of swap if they hope to compete come playoff time.
                  >
                  > Most of these comments are just observations and not
                  > stat analysis. I just didn't want to let some of
                  > these
                  > pass without commenting.
                  >
                  > Ed Weiland
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                  > http://greetings.yahoo.com
                  >


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                  http://greetings.yahoo.com
                • mikel_ind
                  ... I have the following ratings for rookies: 29.9 Pau Gasol, Mem 28.7 Andrei Kirelenko, Uta 27.6 Jamaal Tinsley, Ind 27.1 Zeljco Rebraca, Det 24.6 Shane
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Ed Weiland <weiland1029@y...> wrote:

                    > Right now Tinsley, Gasol, Haywood, Kirilenko and
                    > Johnson would seem to be the favorites, but the season
                    > has a ways to go and I'm sure others will emerge.
                    > There's also Battier, Richardson, Jefferson, Hassell
                    > and Rebreca playing significant roles. The prepsters
                    > and guys with only a year in college have barely made
                    > a ripple. WE should be able to get a better idea on
                    > them as the season wears on and they start to get it.


                    I have the following ratings for rookies:

                    29.9 Pau Gasol, Mem
                    28.7 Andrei Kirelenko, Uta
                    27.6 Jamaal Tinsley, Ind
                    27.1 Zeljco Rebraca, Det
                    24.6 Shane Battier, Mem
                    24.3 Brendan Haywood, Was
                    24.2 Charles Smith, SA
                    22.5 Jason Richardson, GS
                    22.5 Tony Parker, SA
                    21.1 Eddie Griffin, Hou
                    21.1 Joe Johnson, Bos
                    19.7 Troy Murphy, GS
                    19.6 Vladimir Radmanovic, Sea
                    19.6 Richard Jefferson, NJ

                    Apologies, if I included non-rookies; these are just guys I never
                    heard of before this year.
                  • Michael K. Tamada
                    On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, mikel_ind wrote: [...] ... Where do you have Earl Watson rated? He s scored fewer points per game than Radmanovic (both are rookies for
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                      On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

                      [...]

                      > I have the following ratings for rookies:
                      >
                      > 29.9 Pau Gasol, Mem
                      > 28.7 Andrei Kirelenko, Uta
                      > 27.6 Jamaal Tinsley, Ind
                      > 27.1 Zeljco Rebraca, Det
                      > 24.6 Shane Battier, Mem
                      > 24.3 Brendan Haywood, Was
                      > 24.2 Charles Smith, SA
                      > 22.5 Jason Richardson, GS
                      > 22.5 Tony Parker, SA
                      > 21.1 Eddie Griffin, Hou
                      > 21.1 Joe Johnson, Bos
                      > 19.7 Troy Murphy, GS
                      > 19.6 Vladimir Radmanovic, Sea
                      > 19.6 Richard Jefferson, NJ
                      >
                      > Apologies, if I included non-rookies; these are just guys I never
                      > heard of before this year.

                      Where do you have Earl Watson rated? He's scored fewer points per game
                      than Radmanovic (both are rookies for Seattle) and, not surprisingly
                      (given that Watson's a 6' PG and Radmanovic a 6'10" forward), gets
                      fewer rebounds and blocked shots. But in all other respects Watson's
                      looked better and I think accomplished more than Radmanovic:

                      Watson's played 509 minutes in 31 games, compared to 436 mins in 25 games
                      for Radmanovic. His 151 points matches pretty well with Radmanovic's 146.
                      More importantly, Watson's shooting 47% (37% on 3-pointers) while
                      Radmanovic is
                      shooting 41% (albeit 46% on 3-pters). Watson's produced 58 assists
                      compared to 28 turnovers while Radmanovic has produced 23 assists and 28
                      turnovers. Those 35 extra assists might or might not compensate for the
                      32 extra rebounds that Radmanovic has grabbed, but Watson's also got 14
                      more steals than Radmanovic (who has a more than respectable 21 but
                      Watson's got an Iversonish 35).

                      On a per-48 minute statistical basis I suspect they'd come out pretty
                      similar, but
                      the extra minutes given to Watson are no accident; he's already the team's
                      backup point guard and became it's third guard when Desmond Mason got
                      injured. Even with Mason back, the Sonics often use a three-guard lineup
                      (with Mason or Barry playing a small forwardish position) and have been
                      giving Watson more minutes than ever, sometimes even using him
                      simultaneously with Payton.


                      On the non-statistical side, Watson's become an important part of the
                      Sonics' rotation whereas Radmanovic like most rookies gets playing time
                      inconsistently, as befits his inconsistent play. Watson's managed to hold
                      his own as a rookie point guard (usually point guards take years to
                      develop -- Gary Payton didn't become an all-star until his fourth season).
                      Radmanovic can only be used in certain matchups -- his defense is still
                      very very weak. Against the Clippers I saw him get posterized not once
                      but twice, one by Brand and once by Darius Miles. Actually, I would call
                      it not "posterizing" but "videoizing", because you'd need to see a 1-2
                      second video clip to appreciate the play. To me, "posterizing" means a
                      guy getting crazily dunked on. But Radmanovic would not have even been in
                      the picture if someone took a photo of Brand's or Miles' dunks -- because
                      Radmanovic had been left 12-15 feet behind, still rooted to the spot while
                      the Clippers blitzed around him for the dunk.


                      I didn't expect to be a Watson booster. Living in LA, I've followed his
                      career at UCLA a little (I don't watch much college basketball, especially
                      mens). To me he seemed to have no NBA future; he played second fiddle to
                      Baron Davis his first two years, then had to be the man at the point the
                      last two. Which was initially very difficult for him (I think he'd been a
                      shooter, not a point guard, in high school). A typical UCLA game for him
                      was 3 assists and 6 turnovers. But to his credit he didn't complain and
                      by his senior year he had become a respectable college point guard. The
                      Sonics drafted him in the second round, which seemed about right -- most
                      second rounders wash out and never amount to anything in the NBA.

                      But by golly, after a slow month or so he's stepped right in, in the most
                      difficult position for rookies to excel at. He's no Jamaal Tinsley or
                      Tony Parker, but he might be one of the steals of the draft. Actually, if
                      given more minutes, his stats might be pretty close to Parker's.



                      --MKT
                    • HoopStudies
                      ... per game ... Watson s ... Having seen the Sonics and being pretty close to their operations, I know a bit about what they re thinking. They like
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                        > > Where do you have Earl Watson rated? He's scored fewer points
                        per game
                        > than Radmanovic (both are rookies for Seattle) and, not surprisingly
                        > (given that Watson's a 6' PG and Radmanovic a 6'10" forward), gets
                        > fewer rebounds and blocked shots. But in all other respects
                        Watson's
                        > looked better and I think accomplished more than Radmanovic:

                        Having seen the Sonics and being pretty close to their operations, I
                        know a bit about what they're thinking. They like Radmanovic,
                        actually. They think he plays a lot better in practice than in
                        games, annoyingly. Coach McMillan was giving him kudos for his
                        defense because he is very active.

                        Here's what Sporting News recently said:

                        Small forward: Radmanovic came close to seriously injuring himself
                        last week after falling on his neck following a dunk. Radmanovic was
                        forced to miss a game. But before the injury, Radmanovic had been
                        forcing McMillan to find the rookie playing time. Radmanovic is back
                        now and with his surprising play, don't expect the Yugoslavian to
                        languish on the bench. Grade: B

                        A previous edition said that he is playing better D. I thought he
                        looked very hyper, full of potential. But he has some skills.
                        We'll see if he develops them.

                        DeanO
                      • mikel_ind
                        Earl Watson rates 17.9, Radmanovich 19.6. Neither is worthy, at this time of starting anywhere, or even getting much time for a strong team. ... game ...
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                          Earl Watson rates 17.9, Radmanovich 19.6. Neither is worthy, at this
                          time of starting anywhere, or even getting much time for a strong
                          team.

                          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                          > Where do you have Earl Watson rated? He's scored fewer points per
                          game
                          > than Radmanovic (both are rookies for Seattle) and, not surprisingly
                          > (given that Watson's a 6' PG and Radmanovic a 6'10" forward), gets
                          > fewer rebounds and blocked shots. But in all other respects
                          Watson's
                          > looked better and I think accomplished more than Radmanovic:
                          >
                          > Watson's played 509 minutes in 31 games, compared to 436 mins in 25
                          games
                          > for Radmanovic. His 151 points matches pretty well with
                          Radmanovic's 146.
                          > More importantly, Watson's shooting 47% (37% on 3-pointers) while
                          > Radmanovic is
                          > shooting 41% (albeit 46% on 3-pters).

                          Watson shooting .515 overall, Radmanovic .529.

                          Watson's produced 58 assists
                          > compared to 28 turnovers while Radmanovic has produced 23 assists
                          and 28
                          > turnovers. Those 35 extra assists might or might not compensate
                          for the
                          > 32 extra rebounds that Radmanovic has grabbed, but Watson's also
                          got 14
                          > more steals than Radmanovic (who has a more than respectable 21 but
                          > Watson's got an Iversonish 35).
                          >
                          > On a per-48 minute statistical basis I suspect they'd come out
                          pretty
                          > similar, but
                          > the extra minutes given to Watson are no accident; he's already the
                          team's
                          > backup point guard and became it's third guard when Desmond Mason
                          got
                          > injured. Even with Mason back, the Sonics often use a three-guard
                          lineup
                          > (with Mason or Barry playing a small forwardish position) and have
                          been
                          > giving Watson more minutes than ever, sometimes even using him
                          > simultaneously with Payton.

                          They average about the same minutes per game, but Watson has played
                          in 6 more games.


                          > On the non-statistical side, Watson's become an important part of
                          the
                          > Sonics' rotation whereas Radmanovic like most rookies gets playing
                          time
                          > inconsistently, as befits his inconsistent play. Watson's managed
                          to hold
                          > his own as a rookie point guard (usually point guards take years to
                          > develop -- Gary Payton didn't become an all-star until his fourth
                          season).
                          > Radmanovic can only be used in certain matchups -- his defense is
                          still
                          > very very weak. ....

                          The Euros' lack of defensive skill is legendary; and without doing
                          any research, I guess the 'ovich guy is a Euro.

                          > I didn't expect to be a Watson booster. .....He's no Jamaal Tinsley
                          or
                          > Tony Parker, but he might be one of the steals of the draft.
                          Actually, if
                          > given more minutes, his stats might be pretty close to Parker's.
                          >
                          > --MKT

                          I actually don't see Parker as being particularly productive.
                          Apparently he does something right, or he has some perceived
                          potential, to warrant his getting more minutes than running-mates
                          Daniels, Porter, Smith, and Smith.

                          A player of Earl Watson's productive stature can be an impact player
                          if he plays relentless D, can hit the 3, keeps his TOs down, is
                          willing to come off the bench, etc. Great skills are not evident
                          (though his steals rate is noteworthy).
                        • harlanzo
                          I think the Charles Smith of SA is not rookie but a guy who was drafted by the Miami Heat back in 97 ouf of New Mexico and then went to the Clippers for Brent
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                            I think the Charles Smith of SA is not rookie but a guy who was
                            drafted by the Miami Heat back in 97 ouf of New Mexico and then went
                            to the Clippers for Brent Barry during his rookie year. he was out of
                            the NBA last year.

                            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                            > Earl Watson rates 17.9, Radmanovich 19.6. Neither is worthy, at
                            this
                            > time of starting anywhere, or even getting much time for a strong
                            > team.
                            >
                            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                            > > Where do you have Earl Watson rated? He's scored fewer points
                            per
                            > game
                            > > than Radmanovic (both are rookies for Seattle) and, not
                            surprisingly
                            > > (given that Watson's a 6' PG and Radmanovic a 6'10" forward), gets
                            > > fewer rebounds and blocked shots. But in all other respects
                            > Watson's
                            > > looked better and I think accomplished more than Radmanovic:
                            > >
                            > > Watson's played 509 minutes in 31 games, compared to 436 mins in
                            25
                            > games
                            > > for Radmanovic. His 151 points matches pretty well with
                            > Radmanovic's 146.
                            > > More importantly, Watson's shooting 47% (37% on 3-pointers) while
                            > > Radmanovic is
                            > > shooting 41% (albeit 46% on 3-pters).
                            >
                            > Watson shooting .515 overall, Radmanovic .529.
                            >
                            > Watson's produced 58 assists
                            > > compared to 28 turnovers while Radmanovic has produced 23 assists
                            > and 28
                            > > turnovers. Those 35 extra assists might or might not compensate
                            > for the
                            > > 32 extra rebounds that Radmanovic has grabbed, but Watson's also
                            > got 14
                            > > more steals than Radmanovic (who has a more than respectable 21
                            but
                            > > Watson's got an Iversonish 35).
                            > >
                            > > On a per-48 minute statistical basis I suspect they'd come out
                            > pretty
                            > > similar, but
                            > > the extra minutes given to Watson are no accident; he's already
                            the
                            > team's
                            > > backup point guard and became it's third guard when Desmond Mason
                            > got
                            > > injured. Even with Mason back, the Sonics often use a three-
                            guard
                            > lineup
                            > > (with Mason or Barry playing a small forwardish position) and
                            have
                            > been
                            > > giving Watson more minutes than ever, sometimes even using him
                            > > simultaneously with Payton.
                            >
                            > They average about the same minutes per game, but Watson has played
                            > in 6 more games.
                            >
                            >
                            > > On the non-statistical side, Watson's become an important part of
                            > the
                            > > Sonics' rotation whereas Radmanovic like most rookies gets
                            playing
                            > time
                            > > inconsistently, as befits his inconsistent play. Watson's
                            managed
                            > to hold
                            > > his own as a rookie point guard (usually point guards take years
                            to
                            > > develop -- Gary Payton didn't become an all-star until his fourth
                            > season).
                            > > Radmanovic can only be used in certain matchups -- his defense is
                            > still
                            > > very very weak. ....
                            >
                            > The Euros' lack of defensive skill is legendary; and without doing
                            > any research, I guess the 'ovich guy is a Euro.
                            >
                            > > I didn't expect to be a Watson booster. .....He's no Jamaal
                            Tinsley
                            > or
                            > > Tony Parker, but he might be one of the steals of the draft.
                            > Actually, if
                            > > given more minutes, his stats might be pretty close to Parker's.
                            > >
                            > > --MKT
                            >
                            > I actually don't see Parker as being particularly productive.
                            > Apparently he does something right, or he has some perceived
                            > potential, to warrant his getting more minutes than running-mates
                            > Daniels, Porter, Smith, and Smith.
                            >
                            > A player of Earl Watson's productive stature can be an impact
                            player
                            > if he plays relentless D, can hit the 3, keeps his TOs down, is
                            > willing to come off the bench, etc. Great skills are not evident
                            > (though his steals rate is noteworthy).
                          • mikel_ind
                            Right you are, harlanzo; and this is good news, as far as keeping track of guys named Charles Smith. After 2 seasons playing less than 300 minutes, and no
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 5, 2002
                              Right you are, harlanzo; and this is good news, as far as keeping
                              track of guys named Charles Smith.

                              After 2 seasons playing less than 300 minutes, and no distinction,
                              Mr. Smith was actually out of the league for 2 full seasons.

                              His improvement this year made his stats unrecognizable to me.

                              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                              > I think the Charles Smith of SA is not rookie but a guy who was
                              > drafted by the Miami Heat back in 97 ouf of New Mexico and then
                              went
                              > to the Clippers for Brent Barry during his rookie year. he was out
                              of
                              > the NBA last year.
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.