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

Re: Few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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 8 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 13 , Jan 5, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.