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

Re: Few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.