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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Few questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.