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

Re: Few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.