# rlucas final rookie rankings



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Hello all. Last year I wrote alot about the draft. And while the season isnt over yet, i think its appropriate to look at this years past rookies. Sure, a Tayshaun Prince might emerge during the playoffs, but lets take a look at some who made an impact, some who didnt and others whose futures might be bright

First Team
Carmello Anthony- This guy is the rookie of the year. I prefer Lebron the player and think James is the best player out of this crop. But Anthony had the biggest impact on this team. 
Lebron James- Lived up to the hype. Which was hard to do
Dwayne Wade- I liked him last year but was skeptical. Found a spot as a simple guard in Miami and any other year, would walk away with the ROY award
Kirk Hinrich- Probably the least impact of the 5 major rookies on the W/Ls, but not his fault. Gritty tough kid. Will be a perennial among leader in assists. Exceeded expectations
Chris Bosh-Everyone thought he was years away. but one smart poster didnt. Coldchi from realgm called this one. Siad this kid was ready and ready now

Second team
TJ Ford- Had a bigger impact then Kirk on his teams performance but didnt have the stats and probably not as high a ceiling
Marquis Daniels- An undrafted FA. Just goes to show us scouts screw up. If this kid started playing a month earlier, might be pushing Wade for 3rd place
Mickael Pietrus-Sure Ill take some flak for this but anyone who has seen him play over the last 6 weeks would agree he is a top 5 rookie over that stretch. Good offensively (better then thought), a little crazy (called out his teammates apparently and got the response he wanted) and is there a better perimeter defensive player in the NBA not named Ron Artest?
Udonis Haslem- Another undrafted FA who makes the scouts look bad
Josh Howard- Exceeded expectations in the ACC, exceeded them in the NBA. A very nice role player

Honorable mentions
Jarvis Hayes- Pax liked this kid and with his start, you could see why. He slowed off a bit. and the question has to be is he a 2 or 3? Still a bright future ahead
Leandro Barbosa- This kid was almost on my second team. I would bet money in 3 years that he is the best PG out of this draft. Plays at a tempo not seen in a long time in the NBA. Very bright future
Darko Millicic- easily the bust of the class. But something tells me the only thing bust about him will be number of busted chops he leaves in his wake in 2 or 3 years. Going to be darn good
Aleksander Pavlovic- Times this year made me wish we had traded down to grab him. Active player with a great J. Going to be a good Jirilike player
Boris Diaw-arguably the wierdest stat line in the NBA. plenty of nights he gets 6 assts, 6 bds, a couple of steals and no points. Nice player. Will fill a role
Macej Lampe- Alot was expected and the kid had to survive a trade. A project that is still good. Huge kid. had a couple of nice games late. Took a punch from Amare during practice.
Chris Kaman- Exceeded everyones expectations. Nothing special, but solid
Luke Ridnour- when he got a chance, was pretty good
Darius Songailia- Again, same thing. When this kid got PT for Sacramento, they did very well. Does alot of things that dont show up in the box sheet
Francisco Elson- Id be remissed if I didnt mention this fellow Dutch man. was among the top rebounders in the NBA per 428. Was very solid in limited minutes for Denver
Zarko Cabarkapa- Another Phoenix rookie who was impressive early on but didnt recover from injury

Now the busts
Reece Gaines. Had every opportunity to play and was basically written off early. Orlando botched this one
Marcus Banks- Boston needed a 1, and this kid really looked lost

The all wait til next year teams, bright futures but jury still out
Ndubi Ebi- Minnesota is bringing him along slowly. but when he got a chance, and it was rare, you could see a multiposition player with star potential
Travis Outlaw- Who knows. Portland is bringing him along slowly
Nick Collison- if reports out of Seattle are correct, sounds like they arent too high on him since they are actively looking for a 4. Dont underestimate this Jayhawk yet
Kendrick Perkins- I still think this kid will make Danny Ainge look smart one day
Carlos Delfino- great pick by detroit. unfortunately for him, where does he play. Might stay in Italy for another year
Sofokles Shortsiades- he is way overweight. But still a load. Shows me enough in Europe to think he might be a force in the NBA one day. The Clips will bide their time

All in all, a great rookie class. I said it would be the best since the Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley class and it looks like it. Great rookies across the board.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Now the busts
> Reece Gaines. Had every opportunity to play and was basically written off early. Orlando botched this one
> Marcus Banks- Boston needed a 1, and this kid really looked lost


How exactly has Marcus Banks been a bust? He hasn't gotten regular playing time all year because the coaches in Boston have been idiots. He goes out and has his best game of the year, and then plays four minutes the next game. That's not his fault. Additionally, he routinely blows by people as if they weren't their in the first place. Once he calms down, with his driving ability, passing ability, speed, and incredible defense, he'll be an all-star for years.

Also, you put Francisco Elson in honorable mention for his per 48 rebounding stats. Where are West, Sweetney, Hunter, Pachulia, and Linton Johnson who all ranked better than him in that category?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

excellent analysis as always, rlucas. 

i posted this yesterday, i think, in a thread that quickly became diverted into, what else? why isn't eddie robinson/marcus fizer playing etc...

it is an article from USA today about *rookie production*. all in all, a pretty amazing class.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2004-04-13-rookie-class_x.htm


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Elson is a center who played for a winner. I have serious doubts that Lint will even be in the NBA next year. Hunter, Pachulia didnt have the impact on their teams that Elson did. And Sweetney was a DNP-CD for a good portion of the season. and only recently has he found any PT


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Don't agree on Marcus Banks. That guy is going to be really really good.

I do agree with you on Pietrus. In fact I would trade Jason Richardson for a Point Guard and start Pietrus at the 2. He is an excellent defender and doesn't need a lot of plays run for him to get points. 

As long as the Warriors keep the Murphy-Dunleavy-Pietrus trio together, I could see them becoming a very good team in the future. I think Jameer Nelson or Brent Barry would look good running with the Warriors.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> First Team
> Carmello Anthony- This guy is the rookie of the year. I prefer Lebron the player and think James is the best player out of this crop. But Anthony had the biggest impact on this team.
> Lebron James- Lived up to the hype. Which was hard to do
> ...


By major I assume you mean the top 5?

If TJ had a bigger impact with less talent and less ceiling, shouldn't he be in the top 5 instead of Kirk?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> By major I assume you mean the top 5?
> ...


It was close. I really juggled Hinrich/Bosh and TJ. At the end, I figured that potential had to be the determining factor. and clearly Kirk and Bosh have had more. But I can argue, and would argue, that Ford actually impacted his teams W/L record more positively then either Hinrich or Bosh. But I try to look out a year ahead when making my lists. And I do think Hinrich and Bosh will eventually be the better player.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
> 
> 
> How exactly has Marcus Banks been a bust? He hasn't gotten regular playing time all year because the coaches in Boston have been idiots. He goes out and has his best game of the year, and then plays four minutes the next game. That's not his fault.


.

It's scary how badly Boston fans overrate the young players on their team (Banks, Hunter, Mihm, Perkins) and disrespect their team's veterans (Atkins, McCarty, Blount). A lot of fans think like this, actually, they overrate their team's young players and underrate their team's veterans. This year's Celtics fans do it worse than any other fans I've ever seen.

Marcus Banks can't shoot at all, and he has no court vision. The only strength to his game is speed, but you can't make a living as an NBA point guard if all you can do is drive to the basket. He is the next Keyon Dooling, in my opinion. I'll be shocked if he's ever as good as Chucky Atkins is now.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Fine post rlucas. Daniels and Howard really came out of nowhere and there was a late surge from Pietrus. What a class of swing men.... Bron, Melo, Daniels, Howard, Pietrus with Hayes and Diaw not too far behind. Motherload.

Isn't it refreshing to see a draft class that contributes right away?


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

Not to take anything away from TJ but has he really had much more of an impact on the W/L record than Hinrich. The Bucks have still been winning without him. I guess the question would be how much of an impact would Hinrich have on the Bucks W/L record if he was on their team?


Other than that minor question I have to say I agree with your overall assesments of everyone. I think Perkins will end up being one of the steals in that draft. This has to be one of the better draft classes of all time. Even undrafted guys are turning out to be good players.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Robert23</b>!
> Not to take anything away from TJ but has he really had much more of an impact on the W/L record than Hinrich. The Bucks have still been winning without him. I guess the question would be how much of an impact would Hinrich have on the Bucks W/L record if he was on their team?
> 
> 
> Other than that minor question I have to say I agree with your overall assesments of everyone. I think Perkins will end up being one of the steals in that draft. This has to be one of the better draft classes of all time. Even undrafted guys are turning out to be good players.


I took that into account. And it was one reason i rated Hinrich higher. I dont have the exact stats in front of me, and stats arent the end all, but someone had a wonderful statline on Fords impact on the Bucks. And it was significant if I remember correctly


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ford did only play in 55 games. whatever his impact was, he only projected it on the court for those 55 games. That's another minor point in Kirk's favor.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> It was close. I really juggled Hinrich/Bosh and TJ. At the end, I figured that potential had to be the determining factor.


Oh...if I had any vote in it, potential would play into it only so much as I'd seen it in the players "Brilliant" moments on court.

That said, I really think that KH's ability as someone who can score the ball are really under-estimated too.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

OT a bit. There has been alot of trashing this upcoming draft by alot of people and experts. I have to say that from player 3 on down, id rather be picking in 04 then 03. And 03 was a great draft. I mean that is how deep the talent is this year. Its not refined developed and ready to contribute players like Hinrich and Ford, but if you can get a poor mans Dwayne Wade like Rashad McCants late in round 1, or a kid like Johan Petro (who most think would be a top 3 pick next year with PT) at 20ish, then that shows the depth. Something tells me this HS class is going to be beyond special


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh...if I had any vote in it, potential would play into it only so much as I'd seen it in the players "Brilliant" moments on court.
> ...


Again, Kirk was first team, so I dont know why there is much of an argument about it? He was very good. But of the 5 top rookies, all of the teams got significantly better (well Boshs team got a little better). That was what made me think of a kid like Ford might be a better player then Kirk. But I picked Hinrich cause his stats were better, and all else being equal, higher potential. But Ford might just be more of a winner. We wont know. But I do know that the Bucks have torrential talent on that team and somehow are a top rated team in the east. Ford is atleast partially responsible for taking that team in the right direction. and his impact shouldnt be questioned


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> OT a bit. There has been alot of trashing this upcoming draft by alot of people and experts. I have to say that from player 3 on down, id rather be picking in 04 then 03. And 03 was a great draft. I mean that is how deep the talent is this year. Its not refined developed and ready to contribute players like Hinrich and Ford, but if you can get a poor mans Dwayne Wade like Rashad McCants late in round 1, or a kid like Johan Petro (who most think would be a top 3 pick next year with PT) at 20ish, then that shows the depth. Something tells me this HS class is going to be beyond special


Agreed rlucas. This has been called the best HS senior draft class (from top to bottom) in 20 years. I hope to God Paxson doesn't just pass on a high school kid just because he doesn't want to take one. We need a serious influx of talent and star power, high schooler, collegian or from wherever. We need to be open to all avenues.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> It's scary how badly Boston fans overrate the young players on their team (Banks, Hunter, Mihm, Perkins) and disrespect their team's veterans (Atkins, McCarty, Blount). A lot of fans think like this, actually, they overrate their team's young players and underrate their team's veterans. This year's Celtics fans do it worse than any other fans I've ever seen.
> 
> Marcus Banks can't shoot at all, and he has no court vision. The only strength to his game is speed, but you can't make a living as an NBA point guard if all you can do is drive to the basket. He is the next Keyon Dooling, in my opinion. I'll be shocked if he's ever as good as Chucky Atkins is now.


Actually, Marcus Banks has shot 48% since March 1st, and 46% since the all-star break. His assists aren't that high, but his TOs are getting better as he's starting to calm down more. And his defense is astounding.

Also, where did you get this stuff about us overrating Banks, Hunter, Mihm and Perkins while underrating Atkins, McCarty, and Blount? There's been nothing but praise for Blount all season. We were hesitant about Atkins when he arrived because we all thought he was a Mike James with a higher salary, but there's been nothing but praise since he's started playing. And we're just being honest about McCarty. He's worthless as a powerforward. As for the young guys, I'm not the only one in this thread praising Banks, and I never mentioned Perkins, other people are the ones calling him a steal. I agree with them. Hunter can be a Boozer type of guy, perhaps with less explosiveness on offense, if he gets regular minutes. As for Mihm, he's tenth in boards per 48. Once he manages to stay out of foul trouble and get 30 mpg, you'll see regular double-doubles from him.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> OT a bit. There has been alot of trashing this upcoming draft by alot of people and experts. I have to say that from player 3 on down, id rather be picking in 04 then 03. And 03 was a great draft. I mean that is how deep the talent is this year. Its not refined developed and ready to contribute players like Hinrich and Ford, but if you can get a poor mans Dwayne Wade like Rashad McCants late in round 1, or a kid like Johan Petro (who most think would be a top 3 pick next year with PT) at 20ish, then that shows the depth. Something tells me this HS class is going to be beyond special


Boston's beloved Danny Ainge has said several times that this years draft class has better depth than last years. What it lacks is the sure fire Hall-of-Famer guys at the top like 03 had in LeBron and Melo.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
> 
> Hunter can be a Boozer type of guy, perhaps with less explosiveness on offense, if he gets regular minutes. As for Mihm, he's tenth in boards per 48. Once he manages to stay out of foul trouble and get 30 mpg, you'll see regular double-doubles from him.


:laugh:

I rest my case.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
> 
> 
> Boston's beloved Danny Ainge has said several times that this years draft class has better depth than last years. What it lacks is the sure fire Hall-of-Famer guys at the top like 03 had in LeBron and Melo.


exactly. There will be hall of famers in this crop, but we just dont know who yet. But there is a ton of really untapped potential. Lets take Kosta Perovic for example. Here is a kid, 7-1, fluid, smart, done well against good competition, plays like a younger Vlade and is expected to go 12? That shows depth. Ainge went for the picks (15, 24 and 25) cause he believes the way I do. But I wonder if local legend, Emeka Okafor, would be enough to get him to part with his draft and a guy like Jiri.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

There is no way that Marcus Banks is a bust. At first, he did look lost running the offense, but he has matured...if this was at the all-star break, i would agree whole-heartedly that Banks is a bust so far. But he has really turned it up a notch in the 2nd half of the season. He's maturing as a floor leader, with his quickness, he can develop his shooting, court vision, passing (esp with 2 oldies in Barros and Atkins)...he's already a very good defender.

Past that, very good post rlucas, although I would put Barbosa on the 2nd team instead of Howard.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> ...


Good argument. Any reason why you think what I said was so foolish?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

There is no question in my mind that this HS class of 2004 is the best since the 1995 class of KG, Vince, Marbury, Abdur-Rahim, Pierce and Mercer.

There are going to be a lot of NBA players out of this class (I mean good ones). 

I'm not going to say in the order I think such and such will be good, but I will just list all the guys I could see one day making an All-Star game.

Dwight Howard (NBA)
Josh Smith (Indiana or NBA)
Randolph Morris (Georgia Tech or Kentucky)
Robert Swift (USC or NBA)
Marvin Williams (UNC or NBA)
JR Smith (UNC or NBA)
Shaun Livingston (Duke or NBA)
Dorrell Wright (DePaul or NBA)
Al Jefferson (Arkansas or NBA)
DJ White (Indiana)
Jordan Farmer (UCLA)
Sebastian Telfair (Louisville or NBA)
DeMarcus Nelson (Duke)
Rudy Gay (UConn)
Shawne Williams (Memphis)
Corey Brewer (Florida)
Jawan McClellan (Arizona)
LaMarcus Aldridge (Texas)
Jeremis Smith (Georgia Tech)


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I'd rank the main rookies like this:
1. Melo
2. Lebron
3. Hinrich
4. Wade
5. Bosh


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

John, 

Hinrich was not better than Wade. C'mon. Hinrich is 4th.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> TJ Ford- Had a bigger impact then Kirk on his teams performance but didnt have the stats and probably not as high a ceiling.


Milwaukee has a better winning percentage with TJ Ford in street clothes than they do with him in the lineup.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Chris Kaman- Exceeded everyones expectations. Nothing special, but solid


How exactly did Chris Kaman exceed expectations again? An athletic center that was picked 6th for the center-depleted Clippers...and he averages 6 and 5 a game. That's not too great. That guy is soft, soft, soft, and I've watched him maybe 30 times this year. Don't people expect more from a 6th pick?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> 
> 
> How exactly did Chris Kaman exceed expectations again? An athletic center that was picked 6th for the center-depleted Clippers...and he averages 6 and 5 a game. That's not too great. That guy is soft, soft, soft, and I've watched him maybe 30 times this year. Don't people expect more from a 6th pick?


well, he exceeded my expectations. I thought we were looking at 60+ DNP- CD games. I wouldnt call him athletic. But he hustled and contributed when given a chance. But he didnt make my top 10 list. and the other list was in no particular order. Cabarkapa, for instance, wasnt dead last


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But Ford might just be more of a winner. We wont know. But I do know that the Bucks have torrential talent on that team and somehow are a top rated team in the east. Ford is atleast partially responsible for taking that team in the right direction. and his impact shouldnt be questioned


I think Ford's impact should be questioned when his backup Damon Jones, a career journeyman and former CBA player, can come in and have by far his best season ever, snagging nearly 20 double-doubles and maintaining a 4:1 A/TO ratio in the process.

I like TJ Ford and feel that he's a valuable contributor to the Bucks. I just don't buy this "look what he did for the Bucks" argument. Not at all. I just think that, generally speaking, the Bucks are a LOT better this year than they've been in recent years, regardless of TJ Ford.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Ford's impact should be questioned when his backup Damon Jones, a career journeyman and former CBA player, can come in and have by far his best season ever, snagging nearly 20 double-doubles and maintaining a 4:1 A/TO ratio in the process.
> ...


VV to say Ford had no impact on what they did this season is a bit of a reach mate


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
> 
> 
> Good argument. Any reason why you think what I said was so foolish?


Well, I think the reason is pretty obvious, but here it is, anyway: If Marcus Banks were an All-Star caliber player and Chris Mihm and Brandon Hunter were double-double players, they would be starting. The guys they back up (Atkins, McCarty, Blount) are nothing special, so if a guy can't start over Atkins, McCarty or Blount, he's not very good. Look at Dallas, Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels have both started a bunch of games for them this year, despite playing for a stacked team with a bunch of All-Stars at the wing positions. These guys were so good that they FORCED Don Nelson to give them major minutes. That's what talented players do, they force their way into the starting lineup. Yet the guys that you're raving about can't even start for the terrible Boston Celtics.

These excuses you're making, about how Boston has a mean coach who just isn't giving these guys a chance, are the same excuses we always hear from fans who are upset that their draft picks aren't working out as well as they'd hoped. I've been listening for years to Pacers fans make these excuses for Jonathan Bender. But Boston fans are taking it to unheard of levels this year.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> VV to say Ford had no impact on what they did this season is a bit of a reach mate


I never said he had no impact on the Bucks this year. I said that his impact should be questioned, as I believe it's actually not as high as many people think it is. All I have to do is look at the Bucks' W/L without TJ in the lineup as well as Jones' production with TJ on the bench (which was as good or better than Ford's).

I just don't get why some people think he's the catalyst for the Bucks' success this year when there were other factors (All-Star Redd, Van Horn, Mason, Joe Smith, the aforementioned Jones) that were in my opinion more integral to the Bucks' success.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Milwaukee has a better winning percentage with TJ Ford in street clothes than they do with him in the lineup.


The Bulls had a better win % with Hinrich in street clothes.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls had a better win % with Hinrich in street clothes.


hmmmmm, now the counter punch from VV to come

I love a good debate, especially between 2 of the best there is on this forum. And I feel one coming


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

There's a nice sample of games that Ford didn't play in...27 I believe. How many games did Kirk miss? 4 or 5?

edit: he missed 6 games


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls had a better win % with Hinrich in street clothes.


The Bulls were 2-3 with Hinrich in street clothes. At this time, *Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall* and Corie Blount were on the team, and Tyson Chandler played in four of the five games, averaging *15.5 points and 15.5 rebounds* per contest. That said, all of this is fairly meaningless in regards to the context of your statement, as five games (6% of total) is an incredibly small sample size.

Edit: I forgot the last Orlando game in which we won with Kirk sitting out. However, an important fact to remember is that Orlando is even worse than us. 

In contrast, the Bucks were 12-15 with Ford in street clothes. 27 games (33%) is a sufficient sample size from which to make an analytical conclusion.

Biostats did indeed turn out to be useful.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls were 2-3 with Hinrich in street clothes. At this time, Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall and Corie Blount were on the team. Tyson Chandler played in 4 of the 5 games, averaging 15.5 rebounds per contest. All of this is fairly meaningless in regards to the context of your statement, however, as 5 games (6% of total) is an incredibly small sample size.
> ...


Just so I get this right. The Bucks were 12-15 with Ford out but finished the year 41-41. How were they a better team without him in the lineup?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Just so I get this right. The Bucks were 12-15 with Ford out but finished the year 41-41. How were they a better team without him in the lineup?


Major freaking touche, and point taken.

I, dumbass.

Edit: The Bucks were 29-27 after Ford went down with the neck injury, so the difference is two games.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Major freaking touche, and point taken.
> ...


It wasnt meant to be mate. I just thought I was missing something.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I'd rank the main rookies like this:
> 1. Melo
> 2. Lebron
> ...


1. Lebron
2. Melo
.
.
.
3. Wade
4. Hinrich
.
5. Bosh

Stats- Wade
*16.2 Points*
*4 Rebounds*
4.5 assists
*+15.26 efficiency*
*1.42 Steals*
*.56 Blocks*
3.21 TO's
*46.5 fg%*

Hinrich
12 ppg
3.4 rebounds
*6.8 assists*
+14.09 efficiency
1.33 steals
.28 blocks
*2.68 turnovers*
38.6 fg%

am i missin something. How someone looking at these stats as well as team record can honestly put hinrich ahead of wade amazes and confuses me. Especially from a great poster.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> am i missin something.


Yeah, a couple things (one pretty important, the other a little less so).

3PT %
Hinrich -- 39.0%
Wade -- 30.2%

FT%
Hinrich -- 80.4%
Wade -- 74.7%


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, a couple things (one pretty important, the other a little less so).
> ...


As a Bulls fan, the only arguement that I could figure of Hinrich over Wade is if you are penalizing Wade for missing games this year.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, a couple things (one pretty important, the other a little less so).
> ...


fg% is more important....having your fg percentage lower than ur 3 point one isnt that great if u ask me. It means Hinrich rarely finishes near the hoop.....I know ur a fan of efficiency ratings. How can u ignore that, the better rebounding, scoring, impact defensive numbers(blocks and steals), as well as fg% which i already mentioned


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> As a Bulls fan, the only arguement that I could figure of Hinrich over Wade is if you are penalizing Wade for missing games this year.


I agree. I think Hinrich's a stud and is a potential All-Star in this league. However, I think Wade is a slightly better overall player and a sure-fire star in the making.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> 
> 
> fg% is more important....having your fg percentage lower than ur 3 point one isnt that great if u ask me. It means Hinrich rarely finishes near the hoop.....I know ur a fan of efficiency ratings. How can u ignore that, the better rebounding, scoring, impact defensive numbers(blocks and steals), as well as fg% which i already mentioned


Hey man, I'm not arguin'.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Hinrich is a better shooter, passer, defender than Wade. Wade is a better scorer, and a slightly better rebounder. 

I'm not implying Hinrich is on some superhuman level, I'm just not part of this machine that has propelled Wade up to a level he shouldnt be at.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> Hinrich
> 12 ppg
> 3.4 rebounds
> ...


Make that 6.8 assists, not 6.2


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Hinrich is a better shooter, passer, defender than Wade. Wade is a better scorer, and a slightly better rebounder.


shooter....look at fg% again. I dont consider a 38.6% shooter better than a 46.5 % shooter. 

passer- Yes, Hinrich is better. Hinrich is a true point, and Wade is not

Defender- Hinrich may be better man to man, but Wade has better impact defenseive numbers with the lead in blocks and steals. 



> I'm not implying Hinrich is on some superhuman level, I'm just not part of this machine that has propelled Wade up to a level he shouldnt be at.


since when wade is above the level he should be at. Hes at the level below Lebron and Carmelo, but ahead of Hinrich, exactly where he should be in this rookie class. 

how can u ignore those statistics???? U didnt even respond to them.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Maybe Wade has had a better all around year, mainly due to Hinrichs first two months. 

If you compare their two best months of the year, I'd be willing to bet Hinrichs numbers are about even or better, and his defense puts him over the edge since that doesnt show up in the statistics.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Make that 6.8 assists, not 6.2


yes..i will edit it. I looked at nba.com and typed them pretty quickly. My bad.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I agree. I think Hinrich's a stud and is a potential All-Star in this league. However, I think Wade is a slightly better overall player and a sure-fire star in the making.


'
Wade's more of a star, difference maker, and closer to being an all-star than Hinrich is at this point.

If anything I would say..

1. Lebron/Melo


2. Wade




3 and on. Everyone else.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> shooter....look at fg% again. I dont consider a 38.6% shooter better than a 46.5 % shooter.


Then Shaq is the best "shooter" in the league? (or close to it)

FG% is a poor indication of shooting. I said Wade is a better scorer, because he is. He scores more points, more efficiently. Thats what FG% measures, how efficiently you score points. Not how well you shoot. 



> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> Defender- Hinrich may be better man to man, but Wade has better impact defenseive numbers with the lead in blocks and steals.


Bruce Bowen isnt even top anything in steals or blocks. Yet, hes considered the best perimeter defender in the league by a lot of people. 

Defense isnt about steals and blocks, its about STOPS. Hinrich is a better defender than Wade, point blank.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I think the reason is pretty obvious, but here it is, anyway: If Marcus Banks were an All-Star caliber player and Chris Mihm and Brandon Hunter were double-double players, they would be starting. The guys they back up (Atkins, McCarty, Blount) are nothing special, so if a guy can't start over Atkins, McCarty or Blount, he's not very good. Look at Dallas, Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels have both started a bunch of games for them this year, despite playing for a stacked team with a bunch of All-Stars at the wing positions. These guys were so good that they FORCED Don Nelson to give them major minutes. That's what talented players do, they force their way into the starting lineup. Yet the guys that you're raving about can't even start for the terrible Boston Celtics.
> ...


First off, any coach who puts McCarty in at PF for 30-40 minutes a game is a damned fool and you'd have a tough time finding anyone to disagree with me on that one.

I never said Banks is an all-star calliber player. I said he can be, and baring injury, will be. He's not there yet. Mihm has problems with fouls. Once he stops trying to block every single shot and can stay on the court for 25-30 minutes a game, you'll see what I'm talking about. Hunter is by far the best rebounder on the Celtics. The issue is that John Carroll is foolish and would rather throw McCarty in there, no matter how badly we're getting whipped on the boards. In our February-March six game winning streak (and the game before it where the Bucks beat us by two at the buzzer), Hunter started all seven games and averaged 8 and 8 in 25 minutes. In the next game, he played 6 minutes, and then only got over 20 minutes twice for the rest of the season.

Like I said, Carroll is foolish, Banks will be an all-star, Mihm will be a double double threat every night if he could stay out of foul trouble, and Hunter could be a Boozer type.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

John your argument still doesn't make sense. Hinrich is making 38% of his shots (which he will obviously improve on) but that doesn't make him a shooter this year. More like a bricker. 

Comparing Wade to Shaq is dumb. Shaq is shooting in the paint exclusively. Wade has to drive to finish at the hoop, plus he is 8-9 inches shorter than Shaq. 

Wade was better. I don't know how you could argue to the contrary.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Then Shaq is the best "shooter" in the league? (or close to it)


2 PGs are being compared, not one and Shaq, so this argument doesn't work.






> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Bruce Bowen isnt even top anything in steals or blocks. Yet, hes considered the best perimeter defender in the league by a lot of people.
> 
> *Defense isnt about steals and blocks, its about STOPS. Hinrich is a better defender than Wade, point blank.*


I knew it would end it up here...

Some of you guys severly overrate Kirk's defense. Technically he does everything right, but he's not giving impersonations of Pietrus or Bowen.

They stop people.

There have been more occassions when Kirk has been lit up more than he's shut someone down.

After the last Heat game in Miami, I heard some Heat fans say his defense was the best they'd seen on Wade all year. Might have been, yet Wade still had 21 pts and 7 assists and was going by Kirk late in the game for short runners and creating open J's for Caron and Rafer to basically win the game for them.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> John your argument still doesn't make sense. Hinrich is making 38% of his shots (which he will obviously improve on) but that doesn't make him a shooter this year. More like a bricker.
> 
> Comparing Wade to Shaq is dumb. Shaq is shooting in the paint exclusively. Wade has to drive to finish in the hoop 8-9 inches shorter than Shaq.
> ...


Hinrich is shooting 39% from 3 point land, and 80% from the free throw line. Wade isnt close to those percentages. Hinrich is a better SHOOTER. 

Comparing Wade to Shaq isnt dumb because it proves that just because you have a high FG% doesnt mean you're range is great. Wade is great at getting in the lane and finishing, which says a lot about his ability to score. Hes a better SCORER than Hinrich, not a better SHOOTER. There is a difference.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I knew it would end it up here...
> 
> Some of you guys severly overrate Kirk's defense. Technically he does everything right, but he's not giving impersonations of Pietrus or Bowen.
> ...


Then thats where our opinions differ. Just understand that its not out of line to say Hinrich is a much better defender since its not just me, its coaches around the league who see him first hand against their own players, saying Hinrich has what it takes to be a 1st or 2nd team defender.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Say whatever you want.

Wade was the better player this year between he and Hinrich.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Say whatever you want.
> 
> Wade was the better player this year between he and Hinrich.


Cool, thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. I'm not that one calling people out because of their opinion, that was you and others.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

This is why I love you guys. Our season is over and you can still feel the passion.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> This is why I love you guys. Our season is over and you can still feel the passion.


See, rlucas agrees with me.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Then Shaq is the best "shooter" in the league? (or close to it)
> ...


ok. Well Hinrich's 3 pt% and fg% proves Hinrich does not finish well near the hoop. I would take 46.5% with less 3's over 38.6 with a couple more 3's everytime. 



> Bruce Bowen isnt even top anything in steals or blocks. Yet, hes considered the best perimeter defender in the league by a lot of people.
> 
> Defense isnt about steals and blocks, its about STOPS. Hinrich is a better defender than Wade, point blank.


OK. Thats why i said impact defensive numbers. And Wade has them. I also said Hinrich is better than Wade man to man, but not by as much of a margin as some of u say. Wade is no slouch on defense. He was even defensive player of his confefence, just like Hinrich was last year. They are both well above average defensive players, and i will and already admitted Hinrich is a little better in that repect. 

I like Hinrich. Hes the best true point guard in the draft, and an easy choice for nba rookie first team. I just dont consider him a better all around and difference making player than Wade. People will come to the stadium and pay money to see Wade play. He could be a franchise player in that marketing respect. I dont ever consider Hinrich being the face of a team, and i may be wrong with that, but i just dont see it. Wade attracts attention for this team, and that has to count for something. Thats what all stars do. 

I see Hinrich being a Chauncy Billups type player. Chauncy is probably a better scorer, with Hinrich being the better distributor later on. I just notice similairity in their games. Hes going to be a very good player, no doubt. I could see him averaging 16, 7.5 assists, and 4 rebounds in a couple years. 

I see Wade as a Steve Francis type player, averaging about 23, 6 and 5, with higer efficeincy than Francis but not as high of numbers as him. These 2 play a lot alike, and i think Wade will be close to his level.

Both will be really good players, no doubt. I just see Wade bein better, and their rookie seasons support that opinion


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

can i make an argument here. as good as people want to say Wade and Hinrich are on D, neither could hold Pietrus's jock at the end of the floor. and it isnt even close. if Pietrus can become consistent in his midrange game, my guess is that he might pass both up. And there is some signs that his O is coming around. Now let the rip rlucas session begin


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> ok. Well Hinrich's 3 pt% and fg% proves Hinrich does not finish well near the hoop. I would take 46.5% with less 3's over 38.6 with a couple more 3's everytime.


I would too. Thats why Wade is the better scorer. However, Hinrich has potential to close the gap since he has a better touch. I think Wade will always be the better scorer, but Hinrichs shooting ability will allow him to improve on his overall scoring ability in the future. Hinrich can get into the lane, but like a lot of rookies, hes still learning how to finish around the hoop. Wade is already great at that, but still needs to work on his shooting stroke. Unfortunetly, shooting is not something that is easy to learn. 



> Originally posted by <b>wadecaroneddie</b>!
> Both will be really good players, no doubt. I just see Wade bein better, and their rookie seasons support that opinion


Yea, I like Wades game a lot. I just think hes been vastly overrated by some fans, and I dont know why. Like I said, I dont hold Hinrich to this superstar standard, I just dont think Wade will be a superstar. Him and Hinrich will both be stars, Wade will most likely be a 2nd option type player and Hinrich will be a 3rd option type player but dishing 8-9 assists per game on top of that and excellent defense. I see them both as being on the same level as far as impact, I'd probably take Hinrich over Wade but its preference. I have my reasons, if you'd like to know them, I'll share, if not then I'll leave it at this.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> can i make an argument here. as good as people want to say Wade and Hinrich are on D, neither could hold Pietrus's jock at the end of the floor. and it isnt even close. if Pietrus can become consistent in his midrange game, my guess is that he might pass both up. And there is some signs that his O is coming around. Now let the rip rlucas session begin


I disagree. I think Pietrus could become better than both, but if he does itll be because he develops an offensive game far superior to Hinrichs. I think Pietrus advantage on defense is very slight on Kirk, if at all.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Pietrus could become better than both, but if he does itll be because he develops an offensive game far superior to Hinrichs. I think Pietrus advantage on defense is very slight on Kirk, if at all.


Hmmm, I think they are in two different universes in terms of D. I mean, the kid put the clamps on basically everyone he has played against over the last 6 weeks. And he is guarding PGs now. Earlier in the year, when he got a chance, he was shutting down 4s. Thats the difference. This kid can guard, and absolutely shut down multiple spots on the floor. Wade and Hinrich pretty much can only guard 1s, maybe 2s. This kid has that Pippen like defensive game. He might not have steals or blocks to his credit, but the fg% of the guy he guards is always awful. And at the end of the day, he doesnt get lit up. And i have seen Kirk, and Wade, take it where the sun dont shine by non allstars this year


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Pietrus, Richardson and Dunleavy all got lit up by Kobe on Tuesday night for 45 points.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Pietrus could become better than both, but if he does itll be because he develops an offensive game far superior to Hinrichs. I think Pietrus advantage on defense is very slight on Kirk, if at all.


Then Kirk should be 2nd team defense. That's how highly I think of Pietrus on the defensive end. He's going to be on all-defensive teams the rest of his career. He's so tenacious and is on par if not better than Bowen. He really clamps down hard. He's a ferocious perimeter defender. He'll never be the ball-handler like Kirk is though. I think Pietrus matches Wade's athleticism with the edge to Wade so far. 

I'm still happy with Kirk though as each of these three bring something different to their team.



> A lot can change in a week. Just a week ago, all the experts thought Dwyane Wade was headed to Chicago via NBA Draft 2003 (Thursday, 6 p.m. CT | ESPN), but now the majority opinion seems to be that Bulls GM John Paxson will take Mickael Pietrus with the seventh overall pick. Why the shake up? A “big” reason is thanks to 7-4 Pavel Podkolzine, thought to be a lock for the lottery, unexpectedly pulling his name from the draft. A trip to France by the Bulls’ B.J. Armstrong and Pete Myers to scout Pietrus may also be influencing thoughts. The injury to Jay Williams, according to Paxson, also “puts some guys on our board that probably weren’t there a week ago.”


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Pietrus, Richardson and Dunleavy all got lit up by Kobe on Tuesday night for 45 points.


So did Ruben Patterson. but Ruben couldn't have played better D on Kobe.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Hmmm, I think they are in two different universes in terms of D. I mean, the kid put the clamps on basically everyone he has played against over the last 6 weeks. And he is guarding PGs now. Earlier in the year, when he got a chance, he was shutting down 4s. Thats the difference. This kid can guard, and absolutely shut down multiple spots on the floor. Wade and Hinrich pretty much can only guard 1s, maybe 2s. This kid has that Pippen like defensive game. He might not have steals or blocks to his credit, but the fg% of the guy he guards is always awful. And at the end of the day, he doesnt get lit up. And i have seen Kirk, and Wade, take it where the sun dont shine by non allstars this year


Kobe just scored 45 points on the Warriors a couple days ago in a game where Pietrus played 40 minutes. I'm sure he guarded him his fair share, and if he didnt, then the Warriors coaches obviously dont think hes _that_ good of a defender.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Pietrus, Richardson and Dunleavy all got lit up by Kobe on Tuesday night for 45 points.


hmmm, i watched that game very closely, and not once did I see Pietrus guarding Kobe. Pietrus was guarding Payton. I was actually screaming at Muss to put Pietrus on Kobe, but Muss wouldnt. Thats why he is probably out of a job in a week


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> So did Ruben Patterson. but Ruben couldn't have played better D on Kobe.


I was just playing devils' advocate. Petrius is an outstanding defensive player, but no matter what Musselman tried Kobe kept killing the Warriors.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> I was just playing devils' advocate. Petrius is an outstanding defensive player, but no matter what Musselman tried Kobe kept killing the Warriors.


I was so aggravated watching that game. Jrich and Cheaney couldnt do anything with Bryant. But Musselman wouldnt switch over. Sure, they dont have a PG on their roster and someone had to guard Payton, but Jeez


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, based on my rating system and adjusting for minutes played, here's how the rookies shook out. I use my system to assign a quality category. Roughly speaking, a "Star" is one of the top 29 players in the league, and a "starter" is one of the top 5x29=145 players in the league... on average a guy who would start. A "role player" counts as about a 7th or 8th man on a hypothetical team. Note that this says nothing about the P word or anything like that, just what the guy did this year.

The Best:
1. Lebron James (Star)
2. Carmelo Anthony (Starter)
3. Kirk Hinrich (Starter)
4. TJ Ford (Starter)
5. Dwyane Wade (Starter)
6. Marquis Daniels (Starter)
7. Chris Bosh (Starter)
8. Josh Howard (6th Man)
===========
The Second Tier:
9. Raul Lopez (Role)
10. Leandrino Barbosa (Role)
11. Udonis Haslem (Role)

Everyone else was pretty well bunched together. Not a lot of men in that list. Kamen, Sweetney, and David West rated out at the bottom end of the role player/upper end of the bench quality player level and I think they'll probably continue to develop.

Jarvis Hayes was probably the most overrated. If you look at him compared to say, Howard, Jarvis produced about the same stats but it took him quite a bit more minutes. I'm not too sure what's gonna happen with him. Of the rest of the guys, there was some good and some bad, and just because they didn't but out this year I wouldn't necessarily give up on them. However, I do think the guys above look like the cream of the cop at this point.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Interesting. What's you're rating system, MikeDC? Is there a formula?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
> 
> Like I said, Carroll is foolish, Banks will be an all-star, Mihm will be a double double threat every night if he could stay out of foul trouble, and Hunter could be a Boozer type.


Truly amaing. I also remember you saying that Kedrick Brown is the same player as Richard Jefferson. It seems that for you to predict future stardom from a guy, all he has to do is be under 25 years old and play for the Celtics.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Interesting. What's you're rating system, MikeDC? Is there a formula?


Yep...

Multiply all a player's stats by these factors:

FGM	2
FGA	-0.5
3M	1.25
FTM	1
FTA	-0.25
OR	0.5
AS	1.25
TO	-1.5
DR	1
ST	1.25
BK	0.75
PF	-0.5

Take this total production factor and divide it by something like games or minutes to get a metric.

Do this for every player season you can get your hands on. For example, I've got a database going back to the 88-89 season, and I calculated average Total production per game (TPG) for each player.

Then I sort the player seasons (e.g. Michael Jordan's production in 88-89) by TPG, and assign them to quality categories. The quality categories are based on a hypothetical average NBA team. I assume that a team is made up of a best player, a "Star", a second best player, a "Marginal Star", and three other "starters". There is also a "6th Man" and two "role players" on the hypothetical team. The 9th through 12th guys are "bench" players and everyone below that is a "Fringe/IL" players. Since the NBA is a star driven league, I actually divide up the star category even further... the top 5 rated players fall in the "legend" category and the remainder of the upper half of the stars are labeled "superstar" quality players.

Now, the key to this is that we're looking at production across a lot of seasons. There are 5 legends available for every season (I've got 16 in the database), so there are 5x16=80 legend labels available. These don't go to the top 5 players every year, but to the top 80 player-seasons across all 16 seasons. For example, this year only Kevin Garnett reached that level.

Finally, I make one more adjustment. I look at the average minutes per game for each quality category. For example, across all 80 legend player-seasons, the average minutes per game is about 38.5. In reality, Garnett played 39.4 minutes per game this season, so that constitutes a -.9 deviation from the average. To adjust for this, I recalculate his TPG based on his per minute production to find out what he would have produced if he played only 38.5 mpg. In this way, we mark down guys who "overproduce" simply because they playe a lot of minutes and reward guys whose produce a lot in less than the average number of minutes.

I think I'll post another thread on the Bulls results.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Interesting discussion, and I'll offer my own opinion on the topic. 

A previously mentioned argument centered around the shooting merits of Hinrich and Wade. Hinrich's FG% is misleading, as FG% in general doesn't tend to favor perimeter players. Using eFG%, which is a better barometer and correctly adjusts for the added value of 3 PT'ers, Wade's eFG is .479 while Hinrich's eFG is .475. So in essence, they have both been almost equally as efficient in shooting. But how and where they shoot is where they differ most, and I think both wadecaroneddie and John caught onto that fact, though without hard facts to support their hypothesis. Wade operates far more inside (in fact, 50% of his FGA have been of the close range variety), and shoots a higher percentage in those type of shots than Hinrich, who doesn't take as many of those type of shots. You can infer from the data that Wade is obviously more capable and willing to drive and attack the rim, at this point in their careers. Perimeter wise, Hinrich is the superior. A much larger percentage of his shots are jumpshots compared to Wade, and he also shoots a much better percentage (.578 eFG to .371). Obviously, both players have different strengths in their offensive game as this current stage, and they are for the most part focusing and attacking with the stronger parts of their game. 

That's all fine, you may say, but that doesn't tell me who was the better player this year. Well, I'll tell you right now. It was pretty much a wash, though Wade's better offensive production just nudges him ahead. They shoot essentially identical eFG%, but Wade still outscored Hinrich by 4.2 PPG. Part of this was due to more FGA, but also a large part was Wade's ability to draw fouls. He simply got to the line more than Hinrich, resulting in 98 more FTM over the course of the season for Wade. Regarding the other stats, Wade was the slightly better rebounder, while Hinrich had a more significant margin in assists, while also turning the ball over less than Wade. Steals is pretty much a wash. So it pretty much comes down to, does Hinrich's advantage in TO's and assists outweight Wade's lead in PPG? No. Considering that assists and TO are both pretty much equal value with points, Wade still holds the advantage. However, using defensive metrics, which are admittedly not entirely accurate, but provide a "general" barometer of a player's defensive ability, Hinrich rates just a bit better, both on the plus/minus scale as well as the opposing PER rating.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep...
> ...


First, can you tell me how to reached the -0.5 weight for FGA. I just curious how you reached that figure. Next, mathematically, some of your linear weights don't seem to make sense. Why would a FGM be worth 2, yet, a 3PT be worth 1.25? A three pointer adds one point onto a FGM, so shouldn't the weight be 1.0 instead? Also, you have DR being twice as valuable as OR. That is very drastic view, as most studies have shown that all rebounds are of equal value, offensive or defensive. Also, any reasoning for your assist linear weights? I'm merely curious, as various linear weights systems have had different weights for assists, and I'm just wondering what your basis was for reaching that weight.

EDIT: Oh, and as a recommendation, may I consider you adjust your total points for team pace as well (such as per 100 possessions). Teams such as Dallas would produce inflated numbers in comparison with a team such as Detroit using your system.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep...
> ...


Extremely interesting. Great work. I eagerly await your results for the Bulls.

P.S. Neat to see Hinrich ranked over Wade in your system.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Lampe took a punch from Amare?

Even if the NY POST story is right it was merely a slap in the face during practive.

Amare and Lampe are 2 guys who are getting along pretty well and Amare is watching over Lampe quite a bit, padding his shoulder and some kind words when he is struggling.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Hinrich's FG% is misleading, as FG% in general doesn't tend to favor perimeter players. Using eFG%, which is a better barometer and correctly adjusts for the added value of 3 PT'ers, Wade's eFG is .479 while Hinrich's eFG is .475. So in essence, they have both been almost equally as efficient in shooting.


Great point. I was just about to bring up eFG.



> Perimeter wise, Hinrich is the superior. A much larger percentage of his shots are jumpshots compared to Wade, and he also shoots a much better percentage (.578 eFG to .371).


Proof in the pudding. Hinrich is the better shooter, just like John said.



> Obviously, both players have different strengths in their offensive game as this current stage, and they are for the most part focusing and attacking with the stronger parts of their game.


Agreed. And I fully expect both to expand and overlap their respective games in the future to the point where there will be more similarities in their games than differences.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas final rookie rankings*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Truly amaing. I also remember you saying that Kedrick Brown is the same player as Richard Jefferson. It seems that for you to predict future stardom from a guy, all he has to do is be under 25 years old and play for the Celtics.


Are you going to try to argue against what I have said, or are you just going to question the intelligence of the other Celtic posters and myself?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Extremely interesting. Great work. I eagerly await your results for the Bulls.
> ...


Thanks!

I think a couple of things are working for Kirk here. 1st, I think Wade is a lot less of a natural PG than Kirk. This worked to Kirk's advantage because they were both stuck playing PG. If Wade had been at SG the whole year, he might have put up somewhat better numbers.

If you look at the stats, this is kind of born out. Wade's stats are dragged down by the fact that he averaged 3.2 TOs and only 4.5 assists. Kirk dropped 6.8 assists to only 2.7 TOs. If he had been playing SG, he probably wouldn't have been in a position to commit so many TOs.

On the other hand, a concern with Wade is that he suffered quite a few injuries, and this probably meant he was sometimes playing at less than full strength. No matter how good a player is, he can't help if he's too hurt (please take note Tyson Chandler).

Take all that into consideration and it's not surprising that Kirk rated out higher for this season. He was a good PG playing PG. It's actually a testament to Wade that he did so well, I think. 

For the future, I think I'd still take Wade. If he gets on top of the learning curve, or better, gets to play with a true PG, I'd expect him to post significantly better numbers. But I expect some improvement from Kirk too, and it's a close comparison. It really gets to whether we'd feel better with a PG or an SG.


----------



## alex (Jan 7, 2003)

I only read the first page, but here is something that I just can't understand. 

Maybe I'm being a slight homer, but Rlucas, do you really think that Kirk Hinrich has a higher ceiling then TJ Ford? Sure, I admit that KH is a little better now, but he also is two years older. Most people in the league say that TJ has the higher ceiling, despite being shorter.

And for those who say that TJ has not had an impact on the Bucks, then you should look at the Buck's record before and after TJ's injury. They where between four and six games above .500 at the time of his injury, and between four-six games below five hundred after it. I think the Bucks where around 30-25 in TJ's 55 games this year, but only won 41 total. _The Bucks where about 11-17 after the TJ Ford injury_ , So you tell me if he didn't have an impact.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

id be remissed if i didnt give props to a couple of people I missed in my entire thread

Keith Bogans- steady swingman
Steve Blake- Really exceeded expectations. can be a solid backup
Willie Green-Monumental sleeper, played great
David West- Steady for NO


----------

