# Randy Foye Vs. Brandon Roy



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/randy_foye_or_brandon_roy_070730.html

Here is an article by T-Wolves reporter :cough: homer :cough: Mike Trudell that tries to do a statistical analysis on the debate between B-Roy and R-Foye. In his second to last paragraph, he says that Foye is comparable to Roy, and his very last paragraph he implies that Foye may end up being the better player. 

Comments?


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

I guess we'll see this year how he goes with KG gone. There's probably been a lotta people questioning the decision to swap the picks since Roy won ROY - they needed a 'yeah, but Foye aint bad' article and I guess this is it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

A very biased, amateurish, flawed analysis. For instance:



Clueless Homer said:


> WITH 35+ MINUTES
> Foye: 21.2 points, 6.0 rebounds, 4.0 assists and 1.0 steals in five games of 35+ minutes
> Roy: 16.8 points, 4.4 rebounds, 4.0 assists, 1.2 steals
> 
> Perhaps this is the best statistical comparison we have to go on? In the five games during which Foye saw at least 35 minutes of burn, his production was terrific. He averaged 21.2 points, 6.0 rebounds, 4.0 assists and 1.0 steals. Exhibit A: In the season finale against Memphis, Foye played for 35 minutes and 13 seconds (almost exactly equal to Roy's mpg). The former Villanova star scored 26 points on 10-of-15 shooting (67 percent), grabbed eight rebounds, and dished out six assists. In his first start of the season against Phoenix -- with no Kevin Garnett or Ricky Davis -- Foye scored 25 points and grabbed six rebounds in 37 minutes.


He basically compared five of Foye's best games of the entire season to Roy's seasonal averages. Claiming that Foye's production was "terrific" in the five games he played at least 35 minutes is completely backwards. What this really tells us is that in the 82 games he played last season, Randy Foye only played well in enough five times to earn 35+ minutes of playing time. And this on a bad team with extremely poor guard play (not a single guard on the roster with a PER above 14.0). If Foye was really as good and as ready to contribute as Brandon Roy he would have earned starter's minutes all season long, not just in five games where he played exceptionally well.

And while both teams finished the season with identical 32-50 records, it should be pointed out that the Blazer won 40% of the games Brandon Roy started (22-33) while the Timberwolves only won 25% of the 12 games (3-9) that Randy Foye started. So, not only were Brandon Roy's individual stats better, his team had greater success with him as a starter than Minnesota did in games Randy Foye started. Without Brandon Roy starting, the Blazers won 37% of their games. With him starting, the Blazers won 40% a difference in winning percentage of +3%. Without Randy Foye starting, Minnesota won 41.4% of their games. With Foye starting, their winning percentage dropped to 25%, a difference of -16.4%.

And even though he cherry picked five of Foye's best games for the sake of this flawed comparison, he failed to mention that the Timberwolves went 1-4 in those five games, including three blowout losses of 15, 22 and 29 points. So, basically Foye was padding his stats in garbage time in three of those five games. If we're going to play this game, in his best five games, Brandon Roy averaged 26.4 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 5.2 APG and 1.4 SPG. In those five games the Blazers went 5-0. All five games were single digit victories with an average margin of victory of 4.6 points. So, while Foye was padding his stats in garbage time blowouts, Roy played his best when his team needed him the most - by helping them win close games. 

I also find his hypothetical comparisons bogus and his claim that "the fact that production increases at a much higher degree when you actually get big minutes" totally unsubstantiated and unsupported by any actual facts. Hypothetical per minute comparisons are comparing "if" and "is", or hypothetical vs. actual. These comparisons always assume that a player will produce at the same level no matter how many, or how few minutes they play. This ignores a number of important factors - such as fatigue, quality of opposition (are you playing against starters or just padding your stats in meaningless garbage time minutes against the other team's third stringers), opposing teams scouting and game planning specifically for you, etc. The fact is that for some players, production goes up with minutes played, for some players, production goes down with increased PT (especially when your increased minutes are against the other team's starters instead of their second unit and the other team's game plan is focused on stopping you), and for some players in remains fairly consistent. Automatically assuming the latter is a flawed assumption unless supported by actual data. And in the end, even the author's own per 48 minute stats favor Roy. Roy actually outproduced, by greater than 10% (which the author dismisses as insignificant) what Foye MIGHT have produced if he'd been good enough to play comparable minutes on a team with an identical record and inferior guard play.

His argument that Foye would have improved faster if he'd have gotten more minutes is also unsupported by verifiable facts. It's an wishful assumption, nothing more. Some players improve faster, other lose confidence and falter when thrust into a high pressure situation. Bottom line, Roy played 2015 minutes for the season and Foye played 1879 - a difference of only 136 minutes - and while Brandon Roy was sitting out most of November and over half of December with his heel injury, Foye was the one getting those valuable minutes (204 minutes for Foye vs. 136 minutes for Roy in November and 274 vs. 193 in December). So, by January 1, Foye had played 478 minutes to Roy's 329 minutes. If his bogus, unsupported theory was true, Foye should have developed much faster than Roy and had a significant, almost insurmountable lead in the ROY race by January 1. The facts show otherwise.

He also selectively chose stats that make Foye look better (BLKS - like that's an important stat for a guard) and ignored others that favored Roy (STLs and TOs - much more important stats for a guard). Ultimately, as far as stats are concerned, Roy's PER (which takes into account both minutes played and pace) was nearly 30% higher than Foye's (18.0 vs. 13.9). Using the PER stat, Brandon Roy was closer to Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Tracy McGrady, Tony Parker and Chauncey Billups than Randy Foye was to Brandon Roy. In other words, Brandon Roy in his rookie year, was much closer to an all-star than Randy Foye was to seriously challenging Brandon Roy for the Rookie of the Year award.

In short, the guy pulled a Swirsky.

BNM


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> A very biased, amateurish, flawed analysis. For instance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice post. You put a lot more work and thought into it than he did...

I don't blame the guy for trying to write a positive article for the T'Wolves fans but I agree that the logic was terrible.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Good post, BNM.

But to put it simply. If you have to torture the stats to get them to confess that Foye may be as good as Roy, your case is not very strong.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

Foye was overhyped! and it looks like he stll is.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Darkwebs said:


> Here is an article by T-Wolves reporter :cough: homer :cough: Mike Trudell that tries to do a statistical analysis on the debate between B-Roy and R-Foye. In his second to last paragraph, he says that Foye is comparable to Roy, and his very last paragraph he implies that Foye may end up being the better player.
> 
> Comments?


I don't think there is anything wrong with comparing them or suggesting withholding final judgements/guesses on who's career will turn out better. The 2nd year is often a pretty good indication of how good a guy can be. At that point they've settled in with their teammates and had a year to focus their whole life on pro hoops. Guys often earn a much bigger role their 2nd year and take giant steps forward statistically. If the KG trade goes through it looks like RF will have the opportunity to do just that.

Of course I'm still feeling OK with how Portland made out in that swap 

STOMP


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Great post, BNM!

iWatas


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Nice post. You put a lot more work and thought into it than he did...


That's part of the problem I have with this particular article. The guy is a paid "professional", but me, a little old fan, spent less than an hour doing research, writing and editing my post. Given the constant barrage of poorly researched, factually incorrect articles in our local sports section, I suppose I should be used to this by now. After all, after several years writing about the team and the NBA, neither Canzano nor Quick seem to have even an elementary grasp of the CBA and how the salary cap works. This article reminded me of one of Canzano's "I have a deadline and need to write SOMETHING fast" columns. 



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I don't blame the guy for trying to write a positive article for the T'Wolves fans but I agree that the logic was terrible.


Yeah, it's his job to appease the Minnesota fans, but a better researched article would have been nice. Anytime you write something for publication you should do your best. To do otherwise is insulting to your audience and reflects poorly on you as a professional writer.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with comparing them or suggesting withholding final judgements/guesses on who's career will turn out better.


This is one of the few things in the article with which I agree. However, after stating it's too early to make a meaningful comparison, he attempts to do just that. The result is a poorly researched, heavily biased article full of faulty assumptions and flawed logic that leads to invalid conclusions.



STOMP said:


> The 2nd year is often a pretty good indication of how good a guy can be. At that point they've settled in with their teammates and had a year to focus their whole life on pro hoops. Guys often earn a much bigger role their 2nd year and take giant steps forward statistically. If the KG trade goes through it looks like RF will have the opportunity to do just that.


Perhaps the author will write a better comparison article after the two players have completed their second season - although I'm not holding my breath. Most writers improve with practice, but bad habits like poor research and making false assumptions don't always improve over time (see Canzano, John).

BNM


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

When your job is to come up with silver linings to put around the cloud you come up with stuff like this. No wonder Quick and Canzano stuck with writing negative articles when we sucked.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with comparing them or suggesting withholding final judgements/guesses on who's career will turn out better. The 2nd year is often a pretty good indication of how good a guy can be. At that point they've settled in with their teammates and had a year to focus their whole life on pro hoops. Guys often earn a much bigger role their 2nd year and take giant steps forward statistically. If the KG trade goes through it looks like RF will have the opportunity to do just that.
> 
> Of course I'm still feeling OK with how Portland made out in that swap
> 
> STOMP


I posted this link in another thread, but it fits in here as well.

You can actually tell a lot by what a player does in their first season...

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/can-adam-morrison-be-saved/

There's a 0.69 correlation between rookie season performance and career performance. (Berri notes that that .69 correlation is higher than OPS scores for baseball players year to year...which is at .60 and for quarterbacks from year to year, which is at .40) In the NBA, if you start off good, you'll more than likely stay good. If you're average, you'll stay average. If you suck, you'll continue to suck.

Roy was WELL above average as a rookie, with a .159 WP48 score. (An average WP48 score is .10 for reference) Foye was below average at .053 WP48. (WP48 is an efficiency score similar to PER) 

Berri's numbers, based on rookie performance over the last 15 years, say that Foye has a 38% chance of becoming an above average player in the NBA. Roy has a 75% chance of being an above average player.

Sure, Foye may improve some in his 2nd year, but the odds are that Roy is the better player for his career.

(For reference - Adam Morrison, Rudy Gay and Andrea Bargnani have an 11% chance of becoming above average players)


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

BNM, please tell me that you e-mailed that to the author of the article.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Randy Foye hit how many game winners last year? How many clutch shots? Randy who?:biggrin:


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

If you gave Foye the minutes and scoring that Roy got he wouldve produced just as well guys.

Statistically they wont ever be that far apart. I think Roy will have a much more succesful career because of his calm cool & collected game. And well he has Oden. Foye is a decent leader now, and is still becoming a great scorer. Foye will probably drop 20/5/5 while Roy does something like 20/4/7.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Fork said:


> Roy was WELL above average as a rookie, with a .159 WP48 score. (An average WP48 score is .10 for reference) Foye was below average at .053 WP48. (WP48 is an efficiency score similar to PER)


Unfortunately, LaMarcus was only marginally better than Foye using the same data - but he did have an excuse of missing training camp with shoulder injury that can explain some of it.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

XMATTHEWX said:


> If you gave Foye the minutes and scoring that Roy got he wouldve produced just as well guys.
> 
> Statistically they wont ever be that far apart. I think Roy will have a much more succesful career because of his calm cool & collected game. And well he has Oden. Foye is a decent leader now, and is still becoming a great scorer. Foye will probably drop 20/5/5 while Roy does something like 20/4/7.


Foye isn't as good, simply put. He couldn't earn the minutes on an equally bad team. You don't give a player minutes, they earn them.

So, I'll restate wahat you said.

If Foye had played better/more consistently and received more minutes, he would've produced just as well as Roy.

Now THAT is probably true.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Yes there is a correlation between rookie performance, and career performance - but it is not an exact science. Consider these 2 rookies from the 99-00 season:

Player A: 18.6 MPG, 5.7 PPG, 3.8 APG

Player B: 25.5 MPG, 11.1 PPG, 5.8 APG

Who is the better player? 










Player "A" is Baron Davis. Player "B" is Andre Miller.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Portland didn't have Garnett, Ricky, and Mike James to take it off Roy's shoulders. Roy was your second option behind Randolph. Now it's almost impossible to say Foye played as well as Roy did, but when people say he will be that much better I have trouble understanding how.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

Foye's overrated.

If your being compared to Dwyane Wade and a more athletic Chancey Billups. Then you better produce more than he has so far.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

XMATTHEWX said:


> If you gave Foye the minutes and scoring that Roy got he wouldve produced just as well guys.


You say that like it's a proven fact. It's not. Until Foye becomes a regular starter and averages 35 MPG on a nightly basis, you have no idea if his production per minute will stay the same, increase or decrease. 

Last season, Roy played almost all his minutes against the opposing team's starters. He certainly didn't play any garbage time minutes in blowouts (either wins or losses). When the game wasn't close, McMillan sat Roy to rest him and avoid risk of injury - which is exactly what most coaches do with their starters.

By contrast, Foye played the bulk of his minutes against the opponents second units and padded his stats (see my original post) by playing more minutes and putting up his best numbers in blowout losses.

As a starter from day 1, a team leader, one of the best players on his team and the player handling the ball and running the offense late in close games other teams developed their game plans against the Blazers with the specific goal of stopping Brandon Roy and forcing the ball out of his hands late in the game. And he still produced at a higher per minute rate than Randy Foye. How many Minnesota opponents developed their game plans specifically to stop Randy Foye - a player who only started 12 of 82 games? 

Assuming he's a starter this coming season, other teams will devote more scouting time, game planning and defensive attention to to stopping Randy Foye. It is yet to be seen how he will respond and how this will affect his production. He may very well continue to produce at a similar rate, but until he actually does so, there is no way of knowing for sure. 

BNM


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

XMATTHEWX said:


> If you gave Foye the minutes and scoring that Roy got he wouldve produced just as well guys.



If Sergio Rodriguez played forty minutes a game, he'd be second in the league in assists. Foye didn't play those minutes because he couldn't beat out James or Davis. If he was better or more effective than them, he would've undoubtedly played.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

yuyuza1 said:


> If Sergio Rodriguez played forty minutes a game, he'd be second in the league in assists.



No.

thanks, for giving me another sig!


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> No.
> 
> thanks, for giving me another sig!


He was making fun of the comparison.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> No.
> 
> thanks, for giving me another sig!



Honestly, do you read posts before responding?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

XMATTHEWX said:


> Portland didn't have Garnett, Ricky, and Mike James to take it off Roy's shoulders. Roy was your second option behind Randolph.


You're not helping Foye's case here. You're basically saying Foye was the 4th best player on a 32-50 team and Roy was the 2nd best player on a team in the same division with the exact same record. And, you are correct. As a starter and the 2nd best player on the team (some would say THE best player on the team, especially by March), Roy faced greater defensive scrutiny, had much more responsibility than Foye and was often called on to produce in pressure situations with the game on the line (which he did beautifully time after time). And yet Roy's production, both actual production and production per minute, were still measurably better than Foye's



XMATTHEWX said:


> Now it's almost impossible to say Foye played as well as Roy did, but when people say he will be that much better I have trouble understanding how.


Roy was better statistically across the board in both absolute and per 48 minute numbers. And, he did it against the other teams starters and with the game on the line - often hitting the game winning or game tying shot at the end of regulation. Stats tell you that Roy is better over all and on a per minute basis. What they don't tell you is he's at his best when it counts the most.

I do agree with the write of the article, that it's too early to evaluate who will have the better career, but based on what they've accomplished to date, the edge clearly goes to Brandon Roy.

BNM


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

yuyuza1 said:


> Honestly, do you read posts before responding?


oh my bad.

<object width="400" height="325"><param name="movie" value="http://media.imeem.com/v/92zX_vuwvq/aus=false/pv=2"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://media.imeem.com/v/92zX_vuwvq/aus=false/pv=2" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="325" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> No.
> 
> thanks, for giving me another sig!


Your not the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Yes there is a correlation between rookie performance, and career performance - but it is not an exact science. Consider these 2 rookies from the 99-00 season:
> 
> Player A: 18.6 MPG, 5.7 PPG, 3.8 APG
> 
> ...


Notice the web site said Foye (and other noted rookies) have a chance of becoming a good player in their career - just not a better than 50-50 chance.

What I would like to mention is that the majority of above average players that had poor rookie per minute stats I have noted were point guards and paint players.

There must be something about playing the point and playing in the paint in the NBA that is often a huge adjustment for players that explains this.

These kinds of players are still relatively rare. The Nash's and Billups examples are trotted out often. Yet, as rare as these are, the 2s, and 3s that have a bad rookie year (on a per minute basis) and end up an above average player are even more rare. Joe Johnson was one.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

<----- Wolves fan

Roy's a lot better and probably always will be. I'd be surprised if Foye were ever above average. I wish we had kept Roy.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

WoW boob should get arrested because he just KILLED that other journalist! Nice post boob!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Keep in mind that players don't always control their own destinies.

People keep refering to Foye not earning minutes. The reality, is that not all coaches are equally willing to put their own fates in the hands of a rookie. I suspect that this ties in to Masbee's point about PGs being common exceptions to the rule of bad rookie=bad career. When a rookie PG messes up, he can derail the entire offense. It takes a coach who is either very secure or very desperate to take that risk!


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Yes there is a correlation between rookie performance, and career performance - but it is not an exact science. Consider these 2 rookies from the 99-00 season:
> 
> Player A: 18.6 MPG, 5.7 PPG, 3.8 APG
> 
> ...


How come Davis hardly played that season? Was his knee still bothering him?

Randy Foye is no Baron Davis, and he never will be.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Randy Foye isn't even as good as Craig Smith yet.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

papag said:


> How come Davis hardly played that season? Was his knee still bothering him?
> 
> Randy Foye is no Baron Davis, and he never will be.



I'm not sure how much of it was health, and how much was having a coach who didn't trust a rookie PG. He did play in all 82 games, so he couldn't have been seriously hurt.

Some coaches just take longer to warm up to rookies. I have no idea how much of a factor that was in Foye's case, but it is something to consider.
:whoknows:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I'm not sure how much of it was health, and how much was having a coach who didn't trust a rookie PG. He did play in all 82 games, so he couldn't have been seriously hurt.
> 
> *Some coaches just take longer to warm up to rookies.* I have no idea how much of a factor that was in Foye's case, but it is something to consider.
> :whoknows:


It's a valid point. I just don't see Foye surpassing Roy as a player. Maybe I'm wrong, but Roy already was a team leader as a rookie and hit some big shots late in games.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

papag said:


> It's a valid point. I just don't see Foye surpassing Roy as a player. Maybe I'm wrong, but Roy already was a team leader as a rookie and hit some big shots late in games.


I doubt Foye will be better than Roy, but I do think he is better than his rookie performance indicates.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I doubt Foye will be better than Roy, but I do think he is better than his rookie performance indicates.


He could almost be in Roy's position from last year. Forced into the second option on offense for a bad team depending on what happens with Ricky Davis. I assume Jefferson will get more touches on the offensive end than he did with Boston.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Fork said:


> (For reference - Adam Morrison, Rudy Gay and Andrea Bargnani have an 11% chance of becoming above average players)


Ummm, OK... right Bargnani will not be above average.

You like stats.

How about this one

a) You guys almost all say Bargnani is a horrid defensive rebounder.
b) They have about same rebound rate, and Bargnani has more defensive rebounds per minute then Aldridge last year.

So why are you not all saying c) That Lamarcus Aldridge is a horrid defensive rebounder... hmmm. hmmm?????


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Ummm, OK... right Bargnani will not be above average.
> 
> You like stats.
> 
> ...


First, I've never said Bargnani is a horrid defensive rebounder. I've said he's a horrid rebounder period.

Second, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but their rebound rates aren't even close to the same. Aldridge's RbR was over 50% better than Bargnani's - 13.9 vs. 9.2.

Yes, Bargnani's DRB/40 was as high as Aldridge's (actually slightly higher), but his total REB/40 was substantially lower (6.3 vs. 9.0). AND, here's the biggie, Toronto played at a much higher pace than the Blazers - so more rebound opportunities per 40 minutes for Bargnani. The Blazers pace factor was 88.3 - 29th out of 30. Toronto's pace factor was 92.6 - 9th out of 30. That explains why Bragnani's DRB/40 were on par with Aldridge's, but his RbR was so much lower. And, even with the much higher pace factor, his total REB/40 of 6.3 was still pathetic for a 7-footer.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Keep in mind that players don't always control their own destinies.
> 
> People keep refering to Foye not earning minutes. The reality, is that not all coaches are equally willing to put their own fates in the hands of a rookie. I suspect that this ties in to Masbee's point about PGs being common exceptions to the rule of bad rookie=bad career. When a rookie PG messes up, he can derail the entire offense. It takes a coach who is either very secure or very desperate to take that risk!


I don't think Nate has much of a reputation in general for starting rookies. Aldridge only started 22 games--all toward the end of the year. that's pretty surprising for a #2 draft pick big man with college experience. Rodriguez started one game all year. 

that Nate decided Roy was our starting SG before summer league was even over is less about Nate being a risk-taker and far more about Roy being competent.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

mook said:


> and far more about Roy being competent.


Not to mention down right phenomenal much of the time. The bottom line is I would never even consider trading them straight up right now. If you asked Blazer fans I bet 98%-100% wouldn't want to trade. Pose the same question to Minnesota fans. Who knows, but it would at _least_ be close. Does that mean they won't some day be comparable? No. But Roy has shown that he can lead a team, hit big shots, and I feel has shown that he is downright a better player.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mook said:


> I don't think Nate has much of a reputation in general for starting rookies. Aldridge only started 22 games--all toward the end of the year. that's pretty surprising for a #2 draft pick big man with college experience. Rodriguez started one game all year.
> 
> that Nate decided Roy was our starting SG before summer league was even over is less about Nate being a risk-taker and far more about Roy being competent.



And LaMarcus' lack of playing time early was at least partially a result of getting hurt and missing training camp. As I said, players don't always control their own destiny. The injury was not LaMarcus' "fault", but it still took him time to get back in Nate's good graces - longer than most of us would have liked.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Boob killed another poster. Someone call in this double homicide! Pick up the bodies in miles car lol


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> And LaMarcus' lack of playing time early was at least partially a result of getting hurt and missing training camp. As I said, players don't always control their own destiny. The injury was not LaMarcus' "fault", but it still took him time to get back in Nate's good graces - longer than most of us would have liked.


True, and LaMarcus was following the star of the team, Zack. This made it even harder.

gatorpops


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Back to the OP. Roy will likely have a much better second year than Foye, as he will have some better targets for asists and the lane will be easier to score form as we have more commanding attention in there. Foye may get more minuets and oppertunities this year to score however.

gatorpops


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> Back to the OP. Roy will likely have a much better second year than Foye, as he will have some better targets for asists and the lane will be easier to score form as we have more commanding attention in there. Foye may get more minuets and oppertunities this year to score however.
> 
> gatorpops


I think it's possible Foye could average more PPG than Roy, the Wolves will have a horrid offense and may let Foye jack up all the shots he wants. But at the same time the Blazers look to have a sub-par offense as well, and we know Roy will be a featured piece where Foye is more of a question mark. I would be shocked if Foye shot as good of percentages as Roy though, if Foye outscorers him, I think it will only be because he is given the green light to throw anything at the rim. 

Both teams have a young big man who looks to be a big time scorer (LMA vs Al Jef), and both teams have some other young talent that may be able to score but are unproven (Green, Gomes, Brewer vs Outlaw, Oden, Frye).

I'm really starting to like the direction the wolves are going, they will suck for the next 3 years, but if they draft well they could end up being one of the talented young teams down the road, sort of like the postion we were in not too long ago.


----------

