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

Re: Few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jan 3, 2002
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 13 , Jan 4, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 13 , Jan 5, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 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.