# Some stats for january (Gordon and TT)



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Ben Gordon's scoring average continues to rise

it's now at 
21.3 ppg for the season

and in 17 games in december he average
23.1 ppg
on .467 fg% .395 3% .924 FT%
with
2.8 rebounds
3.1 assits
in 29.8 minutes


in jan in 13 games he average
23.9 ppg 
on .496 fg	.452 3p .859 ft
with
2.9 rebounds
4.0 assits
in 35.8 minutes

TT's last 10 games his been good for
3.4 points
3.5 rebounds	
0.9 steals
1.9 blocks
in about 12 minutes


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

darlets said:


> TT's last 10 games his been good for
> 3.4 points
> 3.5 rebounds
> 0.9 steals
> ...


I'm thinking Tyrus Thomas is going to be a less talented version of Kenyon Martin, TT when given the minutes will one day average double figure rebounds and will get his blocks also, but will not be as athletic as Martin or as good on offense.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I'm thinking Tyrus Thomas is going to be a less talented version of Kenyon Martin, TT when given the minutes will one day average double figure rebounds and will get his blocks also, but will not be as athletic as Martin or as good on offense.


Tyrus Thomas is about as good an athlete as you'll find for a 6'9 guy, basically right on the same level as a pre-injury Kenyon Martin.

And even Martin in his top form wasn't that great of a rebounder or shotblocker (good, but not great). Tyrus might have a ways to go offensively, but to say he's less talented than Martin is both insulting to his ability and inflating to Martin's ability.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Tyrus Thomas is about as good an athlete as you'll find for a 6'9 guy, basically right on the same level as a pre-injury Kenyon Martin.
> 
> And even Martin in his top form wasn't that great of a rebounder or shotblocker (good, but not great). Tyrus might have a ways to go offensively, but to say he's less talented than Martin is both insulting to his ability and inflating to Martin's ability.



That's not insulting at all. Not only was Martin, in his prime, as athletic as TT but had offensive skills that were light years ahead of TT. More important, Martin had a toughness about him that made him a physical force down low. Martin was feared. More often than not Thomas is either being shoved to the floor or is holding some part of his face after an opponent has whacked him.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Tyrus Thomas is about as good an athlete as you'll find for a 6'9 guy, basically right on the same level as a pre-injury Kenyon Martin.
> 
> And even Martin in his top form wasn't that great of a rebounder or shotblocker (good, but not great). Tyrus might have a ways to go offensively, but to say he's less talented than Martin is both insulting to his ability and inflating to Martin's ability.


Bah. Martin was garbage offensively in college until his last year, when he suddenly blossomed. He basically was a dunk machine for the first 2 years he was in school. 

Tyrus is no different, except he's a better perimeter defender, and may in the end be a better rebounder.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> That's not insulting at all. Not only was Martin, in his prime, as athletic as TT but had offensive skills that were light years ahead of TT. More important, Martin had a toughness about him that made him a physical force down low. Martin was feared. More often than not Thomas is either being shoved to the floor or is holding some part of his face after an opponent has whacked him.


At the same age, Martin was NONE of those things. He was a block machine, and yes, defensively he was a physical force down low. But I remember VIVIDLY those bearcat teams, and up until his final year in college, he was NOT very good offensively and had no post game to speak of (which he still doesn't have). His game consisted of pretty dunks and power moves around the basket, but Amare Stoudamire, he was not.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Unbelievable.

Martin was roughly a 20/10/2.5ast/1.5block kind of guy and was good enough to get 30+ minutes as a rookie.

Cart way before the horse. None of this stuff about Thomas has any bearing to reality. It's a bunch of kool-aid projections at best.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> Martin was roughly a 20/10/2.5ast/1.5block kind of guy and was good enough to get 30+ minutes as a rookie.
> 
> Cart way before the horse. None of this stuff about Thomas has any bearing to reality. It's a bunch of kool-aid projections at best.


Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. But Martin was also 2 years older than Tyrus (at least). I dont project Tyrus to be anything like Kenyon. I think its a bad comparison. But lets not get carried away with Kenyon's offensive abilities back when he was 19-20 years old. He wasn't THAT good. In fact on the first couple of those Cincinatti teams, he was basically the enforcer and highlight film dunker/shot blocker. But again: at 19, Amare Stoudamire, he was not.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Tyrus is no different, except he's a better perimeter defender, and may in the end be a better rebounder.


If by better you mean just slighty above garbage then yeah I think Thomas is a better perimeter defender. But I do agree that Thomas will be a better rebounder or atleast more of a double figure rebounder.

Thomas is not a good defender, hes a solid weakside defender but for some reason this kid cannot guard someone one on one outside of ten feet from the basket. Hes a quick guy going back in fourth in a straight line but if you make him shift side to side you will either get fouled by him or just blow past him.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Thomas is not a good defender


Guess all that praise from Greg Pop, Tim Duncan & Kevin Garnett about his defense and atheletic ability means absolutely NOTHING then

don't know why i ever listened to them


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Great for Gordon. I hope he continues to come into his own. Somehow I just can't get excited about Thomaas though. 3 points and 3 rebounds is blah, I don't care how little minutes he is getting. The fact he isn't getting more than 12 is kind of telling of where he is at.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> Martin was roughly a 20/10/2.5ast/1.5block kind of guy and was good enough to get 30+ minutes as a rookie.
> 
> Cart way before the horse. None of this stuff about Thomas has any bearing to reality. It's a bunch of kool-aid projections at best.


as a rookie in what league? as rookie in college he averaged 2pts, 3rebs & a blk. in the nba, he averaged 12pts, 7rebs, a stl and a blk

he's never averaged close to 20 & 10


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The ROY said:


> as a rookie in what league? as rookie in college he averaged 2pts, 3rebs & a blk. in the nba, he averaged 12pts, 7rebs, a stl and a blk
> 
> he's never averaged close to 20 & 10



...and DB's TT hate campaign continues. Why let the fact that Martin never cracked 17 points, 10 boards, or 2 blocks get in the way of some Tyrus bashing? Tyrus is currently averaging 1 block in 11 minutes while Martin's career high is 1.7 in _33 minutes_. Prorate Tyrus' stats to the 33 MPG Martin played as a rookie and you get around 12, 9, and 3 which compares quite favorably to Martin's rookie line of 12/5.5/1.7. Despite all the whining about Tyrus' shot selection, his FG % of .450 edges Martin's .445. Martin had the edge in Tyrus' two big problem areas - turnovers and fouls - but despite DB's protestations, the fact that Tyrus is two years younger is extremely relevant. Otherwise, the entire NBA would be clamoring for 28 year old "rookies" from Europe who can post 13 and 6 lines since because they are rookies they'll mature into great players with a few more years experience when they're 31.

While the Martin comparison bothers me since I consider him perhaps the most overrated player of the past decade (though Morison is coming on fast), I'll admit it's pretty reasonable. Apparently the hype surrounding Martin's blocking skills vastly exceeded his actual production and I think Tyrus will be a better man defender but otherwise it's had to critisize..


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Guess all that praise from Greg Pop, Tim Duncan & Kevin Garnett about his defense and atheletic ability means absolutely NOTHING then
> 
> don't know why i ever listened to them


Those are the same people who also call Kobe Bryant and Lebron James "Great" defenders, not good but "Great". 

Thomas only played 22 minutes against the Spurs and did good because he played against a post up player, like I said Thomas can defend in the paint but outside of it hes just not good, sorry to say it but its true. And as good as a game Thomas had, Duncan still got his 20 15 on 50% shooting, its not like the man was shut down.

LOL and Thomas only played 6 and 5 minutes in both games against the Wolves, KG giving out praise to a guy hes only seen play for a combined 11 minutes! Wow KG must be the best scout in the world.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The fact he isn't getting more than 12 is kind of telling of where he is at.


I love that quote, people keep using the excuse that Thomas doesnt get minutes and thats why his numbers are so low, but common people there has to be a reason as to why Skiles does not trust Thomas with extended minutes especially on a team that lacks size and athleticism.

I dont think anybody is saying that Thomas is a bust or is a garbage player, but all the negatives about his game have been more present then the good things being said about him comming out of college. 

I just think there are too many people on here who get their panties in a bunch when people have legitimate concerns about Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> LOL and Thomas only played 6 and 5 minutes in both games against the Wolves, KG giving out praise to a guy hes only seen play for a combined 11 minutes! Wow KG must be the best scout in the world.


Why'd he go out of his way to say it? Tyrus flipped him a $100 or something? He thought to himself "I hardly played against the guy but I better compliment him for no reason"?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> Martin was roughly a 20/10/2.5ast/1.5block kind of guy


That is a complete fabrication. He never even approached those numbers.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Guess all that praise from Greg Pop, Tim Duncan & Kevin Garnett about his defense and atheletic ability means absolutely NOTHING then
> 
> don't know why i ever listened to them


I'm sure that Dirk would have a few nice things to say about Tyrus's defense after last night's game as well. He stuffed the hell out of him, AFTER taking a charge that wasn't called. Pretty impressive to be making big plays on Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Shaq etc. (first career block there).


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> Martin was roughly a 20/10/2.5ast/1.5block kind of guy and was good enough to get 30+ minutes as a rookie.
> 
> Cart way before the horse. None of this stuff about Thomas has any bearing to reality. It's a bunch of kool-aid projections at best.


DB, what's unbelievable, as numerous other posters have noted, is the fact that you're just basically making stuff up. Kenyon Martin played 4 years at Cincinnati, and averaged 12 points and 7 boards his rookie season. He's never averaged 20 points a game, and he's never averaged 10 rebounds either.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> I love that quote, people keep using the excuse that Thomas doesnt get minutes and thats why his numbers are so low, but common people there has to be a reason as to why Skiles does not trust Thomas with extended minutes especially on a team that lacks size and athleticism.
> 
> I dont think anybody is saying that Thomas is a bust or is a garbage player, but all the negatives about his game have been more present then the good things being said about him comming out of college.
> 
> I just think there are too many people on here who get their panties in a bunch when people have legitimate concerns about Tyrus Thomas.


legitimate concerns? you've BASHED him since he was at LSU...

that's called hating, not being concerned


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Those are the same people who also call Kobe Bryant and Lebron James "Great" defenders, not good but "Great".
> 
> Thomas only played 22 minutes against the Spurs and did good because he played against a post up player, like I said Thomas can defend in the paint but outside of it hes just not good, sorry to say it but its true. And as good as a game Thomas had, Duncan still got his 20 15 on 50% shooting, its not like the man was shut down.
> 
> LOL and Thomas only played 6 and 5 minutes in both games against the Wolves, KG giving out praise to a guy hes only seen play for a combined 11 minutes! Wow KG must be the best scout in the world.


I'm pretty sure they've seen enough of him to evaluate his game to some degree, and not just the 48 minutes they've seen him while in the stadium.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I love that quote, people keep using the excuse that Thomas doesnt get minutes and thats why his numbers are so low, but common people there has to be a reason as to why Skiles does not trust Thomas with extended minutes especially on a team that lacks size and athleticism.
> 
> I dont think anybody is saying that Thomas is a bust or is a garbage player, but all the negatives about his game have been more present then the good things being said about him comming out of college.
> 
> I just think there are too many people on here who get their panties in a bunch when people have legitimate concerns about Tyrus Thomas.


You realize that the logical extension of that argument is that no player in the NBA receives more or less playing time than he deserives, right?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> Martin was roughly a 20/10/2.5ast/1.5block kind of guy and was good enough to get 30+ minutes as a rookie.
> 
> Cart way before the horse. None of this stuff about Thomas has any bearing to reality. It's a bunch of kool-aid projections at best.


No doubt. 

But sometimes you believe. And I believe in young Thomas. 

I think for me, the reason is that Thomas is one of the handful (maybe ten) players in the league, who refs do not know how to call. It's like trying to figure out what is a foul committed on A.I., or Wade, or whether Shaq committed an offensive. Tyrus is so quick on the blocks -- the refs don't know whether to blow the whistle. 

Bottom line, Thomas does things right now, that no one else in the league can do. I think that bodes well for his future, and if the Bulls trade him to Memphis with anything more than a coditional pick, I'll not be in favor of the move.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> That is a complete fabrication. He never even approached those numbers.


2003-2004 16.7/9.5/2.5/1.3


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 2003-2004 16.7/9.5/2.5/1.3


16.7 is more or less 20?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> 16.7 is more or less 20?


I said ROUGHLY.

I said ROOKIE, too, and not "FRESHMAN"


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I said ROUGHLY.


Under that same logic Martin was "roughly" a 13 point, 9 rebound kind of guy that season.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I said ROUGHLY.


So how much wiggle room does the word "roughly" give you? How much incremental wiggle room does "roughly" have over "more or less?"



> I said ROOKIE, too, and not "FRESHMAN"


I don't think he's disputing that. He's simply pointing out that Martin played four years at UC, whereas TT only played one season; therefore it's not necessarily fair to compare their rookie seasons.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Qwst25 said:


> Under that same logic Martin was "roughly" a 13 point, 9 rebound kind of guy that season.


Actually, you could even say a 13 point 6 rebound guy. If we can take liberties with the points, why not the rebounds as well?

And if that's the case, we can also say that TT is "roughly" a 7 point 6 rebound kind of guy. So now, considering that TT plays far fewer minutes per game than Martin did during his rookie season, TT's rookie season looks pretty comparable to Martin's.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> So how much wiggle room does the word "roughly" give you? How much incremental wiggle room does "roughly" have over "more or less?"
> 
> I said ROOKIE, too, and not "FRESHMAN"
> I don't think he's disputing that. He's simply pointing out that Martin played four years at UC, whereas TT only played one season; therefore it's not necessarily fair to compare their rookie seasons.


I'm not comparing their rookie campaigns or their college records.

I'm looking at the guys on the floor as they play and see one guy putting up 3.7/2.8 kind of numbers.

It's an inconvenient thing called reality.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'm not comparing their rookie campaigns or their college records.
> 
> I'm looking at the guys on the floor as they play and see one guy putting up 3.7/2.8 kind of numbers.
> 
> It's an inconvenient thing called reality.


How did Martin do in the NBA as a 20 year old?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> How did Martin do in the NBA as a 20 year old?


How did Deng do?

He wasn't a #2 pick, either.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> How did Deng do?
> 
> He wasn't a #2 pick, either.


Why are we talking about Deng? I thought this was about Kenyon Martin vs. Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'm not comparing their rookie campaigns or their college records.
> 
> I'm looking at the guys on the floor as they play and see one guy putting up 3.7/2.8 kind of numbers


Well that's ignoring the "inconvenient reality" of their situations. You see one guy who is 20 years old putting up those numbers on a contending team (where his minutes are limited), and you're comparing him to a player who was 23 at the same point in his career, and who played on a team that was 26-56, and therefore allowed to play through his mistakes.



> It's an inconvenient thing called reality.


Yeah, yeah, I know, the only thing that matters to you are hard stats (though you did take some liberties to the "reality" of statistics earlier in this thread) and wins and losses. The rest of "reality" (things like age, development, and team success) isn't really important, so long as they're contrary to your argument.

Seriously, a little "woops, I was wrong, I thought Martin was a 20 and 10 guy at one point in his career" would have sufficed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Why are we talking about Deng? I thought this was about Kenyon Martin vs. Tyrus Thomas.


Deng showed at 20 he had game. Thomas didn't, Martin wasn't in the league.

Why not talk about something relevent? Like 3.7/2.8


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Well that's ignoring the "inconvenient reality" of their situations. You see one guy who is 20 years old putting up those numbers on a contending team (where his minutes are limited), and you're comparing him to a player who was 23 at the same point in his career, and who played on a team that was 26-56, and therefore allowed to play through his mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I know, the only thing that matters to you are hard stats (though you did take some liberties to the "reality" of statistics earlier in this thread) and wins and losses. The rest of "reality" (things like age, development, and team success) isn't really important, so long as they're contrary to your argument.


I thought we were talking about a guy who plays at a position we need serious help at, but can't get much court time. The guy can't even beat out PJ Brown. Yeesh.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I thought we were talking about a guy who plays at a position we need serious help at, but can't get much court time. The guy can't even beat out PJ Brown. Yeesh.


Okay, you can pick and choose which portions of my messages you want to reply to, rather than admit any error you may have made. 

TT is raw, and we all knew that at draft time. He's going to make a lot of rookie mistakes, something Skiles does not believe we can afford right now. And TT and the Bulls are in a _completely_ different situation than Kenyon and the Nets were during his rookie year.

So are you or are you not comparing TT's rookie season unfavorably to Martin's?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Tyrus could have better stats than he does right now, and his role still wouldnt increase because of the fundamental problems with his game.

Him and Thabo are getting an increased look now, but only Thabo has a chance of playing substantial minutes in the playoffs. Somewhere from substantial to 'some'.



I really think all the current Tyrus minutes will be gone later in the year. Sweetney will get a share of them, and the rest will be going to PJ and Noc.

This is nothing against Tyrus, he's just not ready.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Deng showed at 20 he had game. Thomas didn't, Martin wasn't in the league.
> 
> Why not talk about something relevent? Like 3.7/2.8


OK. I'll let you off the hook for your bungled attempt at overvalueing Martin to degrade Thomas. 

Projected over the number of minutes Martin played as a mostly 23 year old rookie with 4 years of college experience, Thomas' numbers are 11 points 8.4 rebounds and 3 blocks. 

Martin's were 12, 7.4 and 1.7.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Okay, you can pick and choose which portions of my messages you want to reply to, rather than admit any error you may have made.
> 
> TT is raw, and we all knew that at draft time. He's going to make a lot of rookie mistakes, something Skiles does not believe we can afford right now. And TT and the Bulls are in a _completely_ different situation than Kenyon and the Nets were during his rookie year.
> 
> So are you or are you not comparing TT's rookie season unfavorably to Martin's?


I don't see TT's rookie season being favorable to many players. 3.7/2.8. Oops, that reality thing again.

You act like if we drafted a rookie Wade this year, he'd not get playing time.

The thing is if you're good enough, they can't keep you off the court, unless you have some superstar in front of you. Who else was the Nets going to play? Who else are the bulls going to play? (PJ BROWN)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> OK. *Projected *over the number of minutes Martin played as a mostly 23 year old rookie with 4 years of college experience, Thomas numbers are 11 points 8.4 rebounds and 3 blocks.
> 
> Martin's were 12, 7.4 and 1.7.


Key word bolded.

You can drop the 'ed' off the end, too.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Tyrus would be on the court more if he didnt shoot us on the foot fairly routinely. on BOTH sides of the court, by the way.

Bulls teams in recent years have always had that heroic, poised bench squad that comes in and outplays the starters in certain stretches. He cant be a part of such a squad, because he's all over the place on too many posessions. 


I shouldnt write him off for the year and he has been showing improvement. I'd just be surprised if his extended look lasts til playoff time.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't see TT's rookie season being favorable to many players. 3.7/2.8. Oops, that reality thing again.


Please point to me where I've ignored your "reality" in this thread? Thanks.



> You act like if we drafted a rookie Wade this year, he'd not get playing time.


Please point to me where I "acted" like that? Thanks.



> The thing is if you're good enough, they can't keep you off the court, unless you have some superstar in front of you. Who else was the Nets going to play? Who else are the bulls going to play? (PJ BROWN)


I'm not disputing this. I've said all along that TT should get around 12-15 minutes a game. He's averaging 15.9 minutes a game over the last 7 games, after he had 2 DNP's in 3 games (all losses) and when myself and other posters began saying that he should get more (than 0) playing time.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Key word bolded.
> 
> You can drop the 'ed' off the end, too.


Do you doubt that Thomas will wisen up and cut down on mistakes and fouls and be able to play 30 minutes per game?

His production has not generally been in garbage time so those numbers are pretty legit assuming he can stay on the court longer, which is generally a fairly decent assumption if you look at the minutes play ed progression for most players as they get older.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Do you doubt that Thomas will wisen up and cut down on mistakes and foul and be able to play 30 minutes per game?
> 
> His production has not generally been in garbage time so those numbers are pretty legit assuming he can stay on the court longer, which is generally a fairly decent assumption if you look at the minutes play ed progression for most players as they get older.


If he were good, he'd beat out PJ BROWN. We're starved for a big. Pax talks about it in the press regularly. We have a #2 draft pick BIG already. Doesn't that tell you something?

(Deng had to compete with Nocioni for minutes as a rookie, and got 'em. Noc is no PJ Brown)


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If he were good, he'd beat out PJ BROWN. We're starved for a big. Pax talks about it in the press regularly. We have a #2 draft pick BIG already. Doesn't that tell you something?
> 
> (Deng had to compete with Nocioni for minutes as a rookie, and got 'em. Noc is no PJ Brown)


If you read my post you will see that I admit he makes rookie fouls and mistakes which limits his playing time. He won't be a rookie forever.

And I'm not sure I understand why you are comparing Tyrus with Deng.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> If you read my post you will see that I admit he makes rookie fouls and mistakes which limits his playing time. He won't be a rookie forever.
> 
> And I'm not sure I understand why you are comparing Tyrus with Deng.


It's the reality thing. Deng got minutes because he was so good you couldn't keep him off the floor.

The Truth - the obvious question is - if Martin only got playing time because he was on a crappy team, and Thomas can't beat out PJ Brown on a good team, how do you expect him to develop the same way given the lack of PT and the lack of making him a key player on the floor from day 1?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Since when did Kenyone Martin have more athletic ability than Tyrus Thomas. Was it in college, I didn't watch Martin in college, but in the NBA I haven't seen him have any ability athletically that is comparable to Tyrus.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's the reality thing. Deng got minutes because he was so good you couldn't keep him off the floor.


Please stop with the "reality thing." The first time you posted this in the thread was in the same post in which you ignored the hard reality of Kenyon Martin's _actual_ statistics. You also accused me of ignoring "reality" and have yet to provide an example of where it occurred.



> The Truth - the obvious question is - if Martin only got playing time because he was on a crappy team, and Thomas can't beat out PJ Brown on a good team, how do you expect him to develop the same way given the lack of PT and the lack of making him a key player on the floor from day 1?


I think that's a great question, and that's one of the reasons I was arguing for TT to get around 15 minutes a game, so he can at least have some chance to develop. If this were a bad team with no shot to make the playoffs (as the Nets were in Martin's rookie season), the team could live with TT's mistakes (i.e. turnovers, goaltending, etc.) and he would get more playing time. This also raises the question as to whether we should consider including him in a deal to a rebuilding team that _can_ give him minutes (i.e. the Grizzlies) and where he can develop and we can get a "win now" player in return. But this is all completely irrelevant to my argument that it's not reasonable to compare TT's stats this season to Martin's rookie season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Please stop with the "reality thing." The first time you posted this in the thread was in the same post in which you ignored the hard reality of Kenyon Martin's _actual_ statistics. You also accused me of ignoring "reality" and have yet to provide an example of where it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a great question, and that's one of the reasons I was arguing for TT to get around 15 minutes a game, so he can at least have some chance to develop. If this were a bad team with no shot to make the playoffs (as the Nets were in Martin's rookie season), the team could live with TT's mistakes (i.e. turnovers, goaltending, etc.) and he would get more playing time. This also raises the question as to whether we should consider including him in a deal to a rebuilding team that _can_ give him minutes (i.e. the Grizzlies) and where he can develop and we can get a "win now" player in return. But this is all completely irrelevant to my argument that it's not reasonable to compare TT's stats this season to Martin's rookie season.


How does he compare to wilt's rookie season?

I mean, as long as we're living in some fantasy world and projecting a skillset he doesn't have, why not really go for it?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Why are we talking about Deng? I thought this was about Kenyon Martin vs. Tyrus Thomas.


DB's philosophy with this argument is that if he can find any players in the history of the NBA who support his belief that TT is and will continue to be a failure he's right. Therefore since Kobe, Lu, Amare and some other guys succeeded at 20, Tyrus is a failure no matter how many scores of players struggled badly at the same age or with Martin were not even good enough to play in the NBA. Because Tyson Chandler's game is similar in some ways, DB also believes this is conclusive evidence that TT will never amount to anything despite the myriad of players who have seen vast improvements in their game from the age of 20 onwards.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> How does he compare to wilt's rookie season?
> 
> I mean, as long as we're living in some fantasy world and projecting a skillset he doesn't have, why not really go for it?



mmm, well even though i'm kind of on your side of this debate or whatever.... you do have to say that the young K-Mart is a pretty good comparison for Tyrus' future. 

Their types of skills and limitations do match up.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> DB also believes this is conclusive evidence that TT will never amount to anything despite the myriad of players who have seen vast improvements in their game from the age of 20 onwards.


and i'm not on board with this thought process at all.... whether that's what he's saying or not.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> legitimate concerns? you've BASHED him since he was at LSU...
> 
> that's called hating, not being concerned


You call it bashing, but bashing would be calling Tyrus Thomas a bumb, or a derogatory name. I have questioned his game since hes been in LSU, those questions are still un answered. 

What where the biggest question marks about TT since comming out of college.

1. Can he shoot? No, or atleast not yet.
2. Can he defend without fouling? No.
3. Can he defend the quicker 3's and 4's in the NBA? No, or atleast not yet.
4. Can he score consistently? No, and to tell you the truth I think the kid will never develop a good offensive game. 

Like I said Roy its not bashing, these are questions that need to be answered and thats the least that can be expected from the #2 overrall pick in the draft. 

Say all you want about guys like Brandon Roy, Aldrige , Gay and Morrison but they have all had BETTER rookie seasons then Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Say all you want about guys like Brandon Roy, Aldrige , Gay and Morrison but they have all had BETTER rookie seasons then Tyrus Thomas.


however, this being a team game, tyrus is in the best situation to succeed *and* ultimately prove to be BETTER than all of those since he's on the best team of all the abovementioned, and by season's end will log significant enough minutes to have helped his team move *further* than any of the abovementioned. can't say that for all of the above's BETTER rookie seasons, their teams will have anything to play for come march/april. had tyrus been on those teams and not have had to earn his time as he has, who's to say his rookie season wouldn't have been comparable at least.

further, the great thing about these forums is that once a player, team, GM or whatever reaches his potential (or not) deals come to fruition, the only thing a fan's going to say is "wow was i wrong" or "i told you so".....BFD...

is there really any point in attempting to project/predict what's going to happen in the future? history clearly shows evidence of both sides having enough to go on to make the debate as endless as it is pointless.

tyrus, imo will be a fine player given time and opportunity. what else is there left to debate? he's on the team now; it's not like he could be un-drafted. you guys are hilarious.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Say all you want about guys like Brandon Roy, Aldrige , Gay and Morrison but they have all had BETTER rookie seasons then Tyrus Thomas.


And which one of those guys is playing for a team trying to win now and therefore not giving its rookies entitlement minutes?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Here's the thing DB, you can't argue that Tyrus is bad because of his stats and then argue that his stats are bad because he (in your opinion) he isn't good enough to stay on the floor. Either the stats are important evidence in which case there's no reason to avoid evaluting them in context - the number of minutes played - or the only number that's really indicative of his ability is the number of minutes that Skiles has played him. If the latter is the argument the points and rebounds are irrelevant because no one, yourself included, expects Tyrus to average 7 and 6 in 10 minutes per game (that would make him a 21 and 18 player in 30 MPG).

Honestly I think there might be some reasonable arguments to be made if you agreed that Skiles could play Tyrus more minutes without the team falling to pieces but his production would be as good as people including myself are arguing. Skiles has pointed out problems with Tyrus' conditioning so maybe he'd get tired and his production would drop off if he played 30 MPG. Also Tyrus is averaging 2 fouls in his 10 MPG so he would struggle to stay on the floor for more than 30 MPG. Maybe if the fatigue got to him he would foul even more and would foul out in 25 minutes. You're not making any of these arguments though so I guess we have to deal with the playing time issue which is absurd, at least to the extent you're taking it.

Here are some questions I have about your theory: Do you agree that coaches never play certain players more or fewer minutes than they should? Don't players sometimes see a jump or decrease in minutes after being traded and playing for a different coach? If you think Skiles is a poor coach and should be fired why do you have so much faith in his judgment about Tyrus' minutes? How many minutes per game would Tyrus be playing right now if the Hawks had drafted him instead of Sheldon Williams? Would KMart have played fewer minutes as a rookie if he was on the 47-35 Raptors instead of the 26-56 Nets?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> What where the biggest question marks about TT since comming out of college.
> 
> 1. Can he shoot? No, or atleast not yet.
> 2. Can he defend without fouling? No.
> ...


I never heard the second question prior to the season. A lot of young players - especially defensively minded ones - struggle with foul trouble early in their careers. 

Who's a "quicker 4" that Tyrus can't guard? Is there someone on the Bulls that can guard quicker 4s? I'm not convinced Brown can and I don't feel that we're getting completely bludgeoned against those type of players.

Define "a good offensive game"? I wouldn't be on Tyrus ever scoring 20 PPG but I think he can score 15 some day. There are plenty of players who aren't 20 PPG pure scorers who are still considered great players for other reasons.

So now not only is a lack of minutes per game equivalent to failure but also playing a large number minutes regardless of the circumstances or your production is equivalent to success? How about we look at those rookies using a per minute state, PER:

Roy - 17.43
Aldridge - 14.46
Foye - 13.09
Thomas 12.63
Gay - 11.86
Morrison - 8.45

Even using a statistic which ignores defense, Tyrus' strongsuit, he's close to Foye, better than Gay, and head and shoulders above Morrison who is argubly the worst player receiving significant minutes in the entire league. Go ahead and make DB's argument that better players receive more playing time if you like but Morrison's minutes are hard to explain using that logic and as I've said at that point you might as well just rank the rookie class by MPG to find your ROY.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> And which one of those guys is playing for a team trying to win now and therefore not giving its rookies entitlement minutes?


So having a player on your team that doesnt really contribute that much is better then having one that does?

The excuse that Tyrus Thomas is not getting minutes because hes playing on a playoff calibre team is lame, Andrea Bargnani is playing for a team thats winning now and currently in first place in their division, Randy Foye is getting minutes for a playoff spot T-Wolves team. Tyrus is not getting the minutes because hes not that good right now. All those other rookies would be getting more minutes with the Bulls then Thomas. Aldrige IMO would be starting for the Bulls, Brandon Roy would be the first off the bench or even starting, Gay and Morrison would be the first players of the bench for Deng or Nocioni.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> So having a player on your team that doesnt really contribute that much is better then having one that does?
> 
> The excuse that Tyrus Thomas is not getting minutes because hes playing on a playoff calibre team is lame, Andrea Bargnani is playing for a team thats winning now and currently in first place in their division, Randy Foye is getting minutes for a playoff spot T-Wolves team. Tyrus is not getting the minutes because hes not that good right now. All those other rookies would be getting more minutes with the Bulls then Thomas. Aldrige IMO would be starting for the Bulls, Brandon Roy would be the first off the bench or even starting, Gay and Morrison would be the first players of the bench for Deng or Nocioni.


First, you really have no grounds to claim that Gay, Morrison and Aldridge would be getting big minutes on the Bulls. 

Second, compare Thomas with other players with his experience level. Roy was a senior, Morrison a junior, Bargnani had all kinds of international experience, Foye played several seasons in college and even Gay and Aldridge played one more season than Thomas.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I never heard the second question prior to the season. A lot of young players - especially defensively minded ones - struggle with foul trouble early in their careers.


Rudy Gay and Brandon Roy have done a fine job of defending well and not fouling out even with more minutes then Thomas.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Who's a "quicker 4" that Tyrus can't guard? Is there someone on the Bulls that can guard quicker 4s? I'm not convinced Brown can and I don't feel that we're getting completely bludgeoned against those type of players.


Luol Deng is long and quick enough to defend the quicker 4's. i should not have said just quicker 4's but Thomas cannot guard anyone 1v1 from 10 feet away from the basket without either being beat to the basket or fouling him.



JeremyB0001 said:


> Define "a good offensive game"? I wouldn't be on Tyrus ever scoring 20 PPG but I think he can score 15 some day. There are plenty of players who aren't 20 PPG pure scorers who are still considered great players for other reasons.


A good offensive game, for one you need to be able to have some sort of a jump shot, I dont think you need to average 20 ppg to be a good offensive player, you just need to be a threat and be able TO SCORE WHEN NEEDED TO. Thomas cannot score when needed, hes a good put back guy and a guy who can get to the line but thats about it.



JeremyB0001 said:


> So now not only is a lack of minutes per game equivalent to failure but also playing a large number minutes regardless of the circumstances or your production is equivalent to success? How about we look at those rookies using a per minute state, PER:
> 
> Roy - 17.43
> Aldridge - 14.46
> ...


Tyrus Thomas is averaging 8 Personal Fouls Per 48 minutes! Not the worst among rookies but THE WORST among the top 10 picks, this is not what you expect out of a supposed great defender out of college.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> First, you really have no grounds to claim that Gay, Morrison and Aldridge would be getting big minutes on the Bulls.


I dint say they would be getting "BIG" minutes, I just said they would be averaging MORE minutes then Thomas.




TripleDouble said:


> Second, compare Thomas with other players with his experience level. Roy was a senior, Morrison a junior, Bargnani had all kinds of international experience, Foye played several seasons in college and even Gay and Aldridge played one more season than Thomas.


ok let me see, Eddy Curry's rookie season was better then Thomas so far.
Tyson Chandlers rookie season was better then Thomas so far.
Dwight Howard's rookie season was better then Thomas so far.
JR Smith, Josh Smith, etc. Oh wait damn I messed up they all had *1 year LESS experience then Thomas. *
My Bad.

I dont know how much better Thomas stats would be given atleast 10 more MPG. but hes not going to get those minutes unless he stops fouling people and play basketball at a consistent enough level. Skiles will play anybody, this isnt about earning your minutes its about being the best player out there gets the minutes. I find it hard to believe that Thomas right now is not better then PJ Brown, Adrian Griffin and Malik Allen who are GARBAGE!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Rudy Gay and Brandon Roy have done a fine job of defending well and not fouling out even with more minutes then Thomas.


I said a lot of young players not every young player. I haven't really heard anyone raving about those players' defense either and post players and shot blockers in particular tend to foul more often since they are supposed to stop players attacking the basket.



thebizkit69u said:


> Luol Deng is long and quick enough to defend the quicker 4's. i should not have said just quicker 4's but Thomas cannot guard anyone 1v1 from 10 feet away from the basket without either being beat to the basket or fouling him.


If Lu is guarding the quick 4s then who is guarding the other teams three when the starting lineup is in? I disagree with your assessment of Thomas' defense.



thebizkit69u said:


> A good offensive game, for one you need to be able to have some sort of a jump shot, I dont think you need to average 20 ppg to be a good offensive player, you just need to be a threat and be able TO SCORE WHEN NEEDED TO. Thomas cannot score when needed, hes a good put back guy and a guy who can get to the line but thats about it.


"Score when needed" strikes me as really ambiguous. Want to elaborate? I'll stick with my future forecast of 15 PPG eventually and I don't think most people would consider that poor offense. Obviously he's not a 15 PPG player now so I foresee some improvement with his jumper and his post game. It may not be pretty but his post game is better than people give him credit for. Chandler only scores on putbacks and he scores 8.4 per 40 minutes, Wallace mostly scores on put backs and he's at 7.8 while Tyrus is at 13.7. If nothing else he's much better at getting put backs and dunks. Honestly I don't care how he scores if he provides some offense and is not a major liability. I don't think anyone has ever claimed scoring will be his strongsuit.



thebizkit69u said:


> Tyrus Thomas is averaging 8 Personal Fouls Per 48 minutes! Not the worst among rookies but THE WORST among the top 10 picks, this is not what you expect out of a supposed great defender out of college.


I don't really understand how that's a response to my argument. I guess you're conceding you vastly overstated where Tyrus ranks in this rookie class in terms of production? No one is denying that his fouls are a problem. I simply think it will improve. If you foul a lot that takes away from how strong you are defensively but it doesn't really say anything about the rest of your game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Here's the thing DB, you can't argue that Tyrus is bad because of his stats and then argue that his stats are bad because he (in your opinion) he isn't good enough to stay on the floor. Either the stats are important evidence in which case there's no reason to avoid evaluting them in context - the number of minutes played - or the only number that's really indicative of his ability is the number of minutes that Skiles has played him. If the latter is the argument the points and rebounds are irrelevant because no one, yourself included, expects Tyrus to average 7 and 6 in 10 minutes per game (that would make him a 21 and 18 player in 30 MPG).
> 
> Honestly I think there might be some reasonable arguments to be made if you agreed that Skiles could play Tyrus more minutes without the team falling to pieces but his production would be as good as people including myself are arguing. Skiles has pointed out problems with Tyrus' conditioning so maybe he'd get tired and his production would drop off if he played 30 MPG. Also Tyrus is averaging 2 fouls in his 10 MPG so he would struggle to stay on the floor for more than 30 MPG. Maybe if the fatigue got to him he would foul even more and would foul out in 25 minutes. You're not making any of these arguments though so I guess we have to deal with the playing time issue which is absurd, at least to the extent you're taking it.
> 
> Here are some questions I have about your theory: Do you agree that coaches never play certain players more or fewer minutes than they should? Don't players sometimes see a jump or decrease in minutes after being traded and playing for a different coach? If you think Skiles is a poor coach and should be fired why do you have so much faith in his judgment about Tyrus' minutes? How many minutes per game would Tyrus be playing right now if the Hawks had drafted him instead of Sheldon Williams? Would KMart have played fewer minutes as a rookie if he was on the 47-35 Raptors instead of the 26-56 Nets?


WHERE ARE THE 21/18?

If he was so good, you couldn't keep him off the court. And Paxson wouldn't be talking about needing a big man.

You can take all kinds of limited minute players and project their per minute stats to however many you like, but they don't play those minutes do they? Heck, if you want to play that game, how do Sweetney's stats project and why isn't he starting? (Clue: he's got more points/minute and rebounds/minute than Thomas and a PER of 25).

And I heard the same crap about Tyson Chandler - how he was going to develop into a KG type of offensive player. 

I'm not saying he won't, I am saying he ISN'T. Get it?

I don't hate the guy, I just see a project in the ilk of Chandler, not the second coming of Wilt or any other player who has an offensive game besides putbacks and FTs.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I dont know how much better Thomas stats would be given atleast 10 more MPG. but hes not going to get those minutes unless he stops fouling people and play basketball at a consistent enough level. Skiles will play anybody, this isnt about earning your minutes its about being the best player out there gets the minutes. I find it hard to believe that Thomas right now is not better then PJ Brown, Adrian Griffin and Malik Allen who are GARBAGE!


Suddenly Skiles' substution patterns are perfect? That's laughable. Half the Skiles threads on this board consist of moaning about his rotations. If you haven't noticed Skiles is giving Tyrus more minutes, he's played 14+ minutes in five of the last eight games. Tyrus is ahead of Allen and Griffin in the rotation right now. Skiles only played eight guys the other night and one of them was Tyrus. I think asking him to bench his veteran players completely just to maximize Tyrus' minutes is ridiculous.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I dont know how much better Thomas stats would be given atleast 10 more MPG. but hes not going to get those minutes unless he stops fouling people and play basketball at a consistent enough level. Skiles will play anybody, this isnt about earning your minutes its about being the best player out there gets the minutes. I find it hard to believe that Thomas right now is not better then PJ Brown, Adrian Griffin and Malik Allen who are GARBAGE!


Are you claiming that players don't usually learn how to avoid stupid fouls and mistakes as they gain experience? If not, then I don't see how Tyrus' inability to play big minutes is relevant at this point.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Are you claiming that players don't usually learn how to avoid stupid fouls and mistakes as they gain experience? If not, then I don't see how Tyrus inability to play big minutes is relevant at this point.


Geez. He threw up 3 bricks, and got lucky that Mourning caught his hook shot (which would have been 1 foot short of the rim) on the way down.

But he did score 4 points in 3 minutes. Play him 48 and he would have scored 64 points. Right?

LOL


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Geez. He threw up 3 bricks, and got lucky that Mourning caught his hook shot (which would have been 1 foot short of the rim) on the way down.
> 
> But he did score 4 points in 3 minutes. Play him 48 and he would have scored 64 points. Right?
> 
> LOL


Do you read the posts before responding? That last post had nothing to do with projecting stats.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Do you read the posts before responding? That last post had nothing to do with projecting stats.


My last post wasn't for your benefit.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> My last post wasn't for your benefit.


That much was clear.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> WHERE ARE THE 21/18?


No offense but do you just read every third word of my posts or something? The sentence you're referring to is "If the latter is the argument the points and rebounds are irrelevant because no one, yourself included, expects Tyrus to average 7 and 6 in 10 minutes per game (that would make him a 21 and 18 player in 30 MPG)." I found the sentence pretty clear. In case it wasn't, I was trying to clarify that your problem with Tyrus is that he can't stay on the court longer, not his averages in points and rebounds, correct? Because you can only expect his numbers to be so good in 10 MPG. You're not saying that he should average 7 and 6 in 10 MPG, right? (since _if he were scoring 7 and 6 in ten minutes_ that would average out to an almost unheard of 21 and 18 over 30 MPG). Maybe you don't realize it but I think that your main criticism of Tyrus is his playing time which means


DaBullz said:


> you should stop talking about 4 and 3 and start talking about 10 MPG.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Geez. He threw up 3 bricks, and got lucky that Mourning caught his hook shot (which would have been 1 foot short of the rim) on the way down.
> 
> But he did score 4 points in 3 minutes. Play him 48 and he would have scored 64 points. Right?
> 
> LOL


I've never seen anyone try harder to put a spin on a basketball player. Never.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I've never seen anyone try harder to put a spin on a basketball player. Never.


You just spent a bunch of paragraphs spinning, sheesh


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You just spent a bunch of paragraphs spinning, sheesh


Hey. I think I'm pretty willing to conceed Tyrus' faults. I don't think any of my projections for his development are outlandish. You on the other hand have never said one remotely positive thing about his game. I point out that, amazingly, he's one of the better shotblockers in the game as a 20 year old rookie and your response is to compare him to Shawn Bradley. He scores 4 points on three shots and apparently he's had one of the worst offensive performances in the history of the game. He's a somewhat raw player who has some very good moments and some ugly moments, but your bias prevents you from ever acknowledging the former.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz, what is your ultimate position on TT? Is he a bust already? Destined to never make the all-star game?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Hey. I think I'm pretty willing to conceed Tyrus' faults. I don't think any of my projections for his development are outlandish. You on the other hand have never said one remotely positive thing about his game. I point out that, amazingly, he's one of the better shotblockers in the game as a 20 year old rookie and your response is to compare him to Shawn Bradley. He scores 4 points on three shots and apparently he's had one of the worst offensive performances in the history of the game. He's a somewhat raw player who has some very good moments and some ugly moments, but your bias prevents you from ever acknowledging the former.


All the positive things about Tyrus's game are the same things people said about Chandler all along. But you want to spin it that Chandler's somehow off limits when talking about Thomas.

Look, he's a freakish athlete (so is Chandler, so was ERob).

I accurately described his 3 FGA tonight. No spin on it, period. Half his points came on FTs (again, a lot like Chandler).

Here's what I wrote in the game thread (as the events occured, live):



DaBullz said:


> Thomas took a hook shot that looked like it was going to be a foot short and Mourning caught it and they called goal tending.
> <!-- / message --> <!-- sig -->
> Thomas got the ball in the corner and drove in the lane and took a bank shot that was way long.
> 
> ...


Thomas didn't get back in the game.

Look at Bradley's stats and get back to me. He had some pretty good seasons.

EDIT: I wanted to point out that Sweetney's PER at PF is 25 and Thomas' at PF is 12. Looking at 82games.com, Thomas' PER at all positions is certainly above 12. But if you're going to use the PF numbers, then so am I.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> DaBullz, what is your ultimate position on TT? Is he a bust already? Destined to never make the all-star game?


No. He's not a bust. Yet. He's a bigtime project player. With raw athletic ability and few basketball skills.

Maybe a summer of 1,000/day jump shots or hook shots or something and he may be actually good.

I don't understand the clammoring for getting him playing time, or why Pax would even think of trading for a Gasol type of player who'd be in Thomas' path to PT if he is the answer in the next few years.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> or why Pax would even think of trading for a Gasol type of player who'd be in Thomas' path to PT if he is the answer in the next few years.


win now! :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> win now! :Stupid:


It'd make sense if it were KG, who's 31.

Gasol's 26, though.

:biggrin:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It'd make sense if it were KG, who's 31.
> 
> Gasol's 26, though.
> 
> :biggrin:


Kobe had rings by that age! HAHA I WIN! :yay:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> No. He's not a bust. Yet. He's a bigtime project player. With raw athletic ability and few basketball skills.
> 
> Maybe a summer of 1,000/day jump shots or hook shots or something and he may be actually good.
> 
> I don't understand the clamoring for getting him playing time, or why Pax would even think of trading for a Gasol type of player who'd be in Thomas' path to PT if he is the answer in the next few years.


I had to retype this. 

Okay, that's a reasonable assessment. I agree and think Tyrus currently sucks. He's not physically or mentally ready. He's had a huge negative effect the past 2 games. But he did have a positive effect on other games, like at Milwaukee. Other posters want him to get playing time so he can learn from any mistakes he makes and gain experience. Hopefully by the end of the year he will be able to contribute. I don't believe he's physically able to contribute this year, but I can see the logic. 

I think it's unfair to compare Tyrus to Kenyon Martin or Amare Stoudemire. Those guys were either older and more polished or physical beasts when they came into the league. Tyrus is still skinny, and gets pushed around too easily to play PF right away, like those two players. 

How's this for a relevant comparison: Shawn Kemp. When Kemp came into the league, he was 20 years old, just like Tyrus (3 months younger than Tyrus). He only had 1 year of college experience. Kemp is slightly taller and has a larger frame than Tyrus, but they both have incredible athleticism. In his first year, Kemp averaged 6.5 points, 4.3 rebounds, 2.5 fouls, and 1.32 turnovers in 13.8 minutes. Those numbers are not as bad as Tyrus', but they are similar. They both fouled and turned the ball over at a very similar rate. Tyrus blocks more shots, but that rate should fall when he stops jumping at every pump fake. 

Yet Kemp turned out to be an incredible PF. 

I think if Tyrus gained 20-25 pounds he could be a very good PF. Unlike Chandler, he has the metabolism and frame to add weight. Unlike Chandler again, Tyrus obviously has decent hands. There's just the small matter of convincing Tyrus that perhaps SF is not the best position for him in the short-term. 

Maybe there's hope for him yet.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> I agree and think Tyrus currently sucks. He's not physically or mentally ready. He's had a huge negative effect the past 2 games. But he did have a positive effect on other games, like at Milwaukee.


What do you mean by sucks? That's a pretty strong word. He's not a 35 MPG starter on a winning team but I don't really see why he can't play 15-20 minutes off the bench. I guess he sucks if you're using the standard of a top draft pick (discounting the fact that he's far from the only top pick to struggle early on) but I don't think he sucks as a rotation player. What do Brown, Allen, Sweetney or Khryapa do that is light years better?

How did Tyrus have a huge negative effect tonight? It's extremely hard to have a huge negative effect if you play just four minutes. He had no fouls, no turnovers, a rebound and four points. I saw him fail to guard Posey on a wide open three because he got caught in a see of players under the basket and he took a couple of ugly shots but how is that a huge detriment to the team?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I had to retype this.
> 
> Okay, that's a reasonable assessment. I agree and think Tyrus currently sucks. He's not physically or mentally ready. He's had a huge negative effect the past 2 games. But he did have a positive effect on other games, like at Milwaukee. Other posters want him to get playing time so he can learn from any mistakes he makes and gain experience. Hopefully by the end of the year he will be able to contribute. I don't believe he's physically able to contribute this year, but I can see the logic.
> 
> ...


In Seattle, Kemp was stuck behind two quality players: Michael Cage and Xavier McDaniel (X Man). Kemp so impressed the Sonics that they traded McDainel after 15 games (Kemp's 2nd season) to make room for Kemp to play.

The difference here is that the Bulls aren't in that situation. If Thomas is a C, then the Bulls could easily (and rightly should) move Wallace to PF to make room for him. If he's a PF, all he has to do is beat out PJ Brown.

If Thomas puts up 15/8.4 in 30 minutes kind of numbers next season (as Kemp did year #2), I'll eat my words about him being a project player.

Fair enough?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> What do you mean by sucks? That's a pretty strong word. He's not a 35 MPG starter on a winning team but I don't really see why he can't play 15-20 minutes off the bench. I guess he sucks if you're using the standard of a top draft pick (discounting the fact that he's far from the only top pick to struggle early on) but I don't think he sucks as a rotation player. What do Brown, Allen, Sweetney or Khryapa do that is light years better?
> 
> How did Tyrus have a huge negative effect tonight? It's extremely hard to have a huge negative effect if you play just four minutes. He had no fouls, no turnovers, a rebound and four points. I saw him fail to guard Posey on a wide open three because he got caught in a see of players under the basket and he took a couple of ugly shots but how is that a huge detriment to the team?


His +/- in about 3 minutes was -3.

Spin that to be somehow not a detriment.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> What do you mean by sucks? That's a pretty strong word. He's not a 35 MPG starter on a winning team but I don't really see why he can't play 15-20 minutes off the bench. I guess he sucks if you're using the standard of a top draft pick (discounting the fact that he's far from the only top pick to struggle early on) but I don't think he sucks as a rotation player. *What do Brown, Allen, Sweetney or Khryapa do that is light years better?*


Allen, Brown, and Khryapa play better, and more consistent, team and man defense. They can hit jump shots. They are effective passers. They know their roles. Tyrus can make spectacular plays at times, but he is also prone to stupid mistakes that lead to points or turnovers, which are very harmful. Expectations have little to do with it. 

I did note that he's had strong games this season. It can happen and will happen again. But I think his body and skillset is too much of a limiting factor for him to become a consistent performer by the playoffs. I could be wrong. 



> How did Tyrus have a huge negative effect tonight? It's extremely hard to have a huge negative effect if you play just four minutes. He had no fouls, no turnovers, a rebound and four points. I saw him fail to guard Posey on a wide open three because he got caught in a see of players under the basket and he took a couple of ugly shots but how is that a huge detriment to the team?


When he came in, he tried to do too much. He tried touch shots off the glass when they are clearly not in his arsenal (not yet, hopefully). He put up 3 shots in 4 minutes. He missed a defensive rotation. He did have a nice offensive rebound. During his time on the court, the team scored few points, and I think it's important to put pressure on the opposing team at all times. If you don't score they can gain confidence and may be able to get back into the game. 

He was -3 points tonight. http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20070127&game=MIACHI&rl=16

He was -12 against Dallas. http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20070125&game=DALCHI&rl=12

Like my post above indicates, I'm very high on him as a prospect. But I don't see it coming together right now.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> In Seattle, Kemp was stuck behind two quality players: Michael Cage and Xavier McDaniel (X Man). Kemp so impressed the Sonics that they traded McDainel after 15 games (Kemp's 2nd season) to make room for Kemp to play.
> 
> The difference here is that the Bulls aren't in that situation. If Thomas is a C, then the Bulls could easily (and rightly should) move Wallace to PF to make room for him. If he's a PF, all he has to do is beat out PJ Brown.
> 
> ...


And my point has always been that Thomas hasn't grown into his body yet. He grew taller, but not wider. There's no strong evidence that indicates he can't or can gain weight. I think it leans toward "can" though. 

Do you remember what Kemp's build was like when he came into the league? It he had a solid build and he still struggled, then that's reason for hope. 

Expect a bump.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> He was -3 points tonight. http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20070127&game=MIACHI&rl=16
> 
> He was -12 against Dallas. http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20070125&game=DALCHI&rl=12


Nice.

Thabo's +/- are ridiculous, too.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> All the positive things about Tyrus's game are the same things people said about Chandler all along. But you want to spin it that Chandler's somehow off limits when talking about Thomas.
> 
> Look, he's a freakish athlete (so is Chandler, so was ERob).


So now you're just going to use the word "spin" to try to equate my analysis to yours? It's very frustrating when I calmly and cleary explain a reasoned argument and instead of addressing my points you revert back to similar phrases and arguments you've already invoked which I've already responded to. 

I'll do this one more time and from now on, unless you address these actual points I'm making, I will just disregard any part of your posts comparing Tyrus to Tyson: Yes, I agree that Tyson and Tyrus are somewhat similar players with a few notable differences (Tyrus appears to be an elite shot blocker where Tyson is merely an above average one, Tyson is taller, Tyrus is a hair more athletic, Tyrus appears more comfortable with the ball and seems to have better offensive instincts). 

The problem is drawing conclusions based on the fact that the two players share similarities. This is because unpredictable things happen constantly in sports. It is wrong to say that Tyrus will never improve offensively because Tyson's game never developed offensively the same way that it is wrong to say that Gordon will be as good as Arenas because they've had similar careers or that a player similar to Jay Williams will be injured in a motorcycle accident or that some 6'6 athletic guard from UNC will be as good as Jordan. 

That one player who shares similarities to Tyrus failed to develop offensively is completely irrelevant; you need to argue that _most players_ similar to Tyrus fail to develop and you've never even attempted to do this.



DaBullz said:


> I accurately described his 3 FGA tonight. No spin on it, period. Half his points came on FTs (again, a lot like Chandler).
> 
> Here's what I wrote in the game thread (as the events occured, live):


Uh...getting fouled driving to the basket and hitting a pair of free throws is good. Getting to the line is one of the best skills an NBA player can have and you were just attacking Tyrus a week or two ago for his poor free throw shooting so connecting on a pair is encouraging. Somehow turning that into a negative is the epitome of spin. Personally, I have no idea how you could tell how the hook shot was going to be a foot short when it never got anywhere near the basket. Apparently Mourning thought it had a chance. Also, I'm sure I just missed it but I didn't hear that quote from Kerr. Regardless, my main point is that most of the time you're not mischaracterizing Tyrus' shortcomings, the bias comes through in the fact that you emphasize them so greatly and never ever acknowledge the positives.



DaBullz said:


> Thomas didn't get back in the game.


Sounds like another playing time argument. You never responded to the paragraph of questions I wrote probing the problems with the underlying assumptions of that argument so I'll refer you back to post #57. 



DaBullz said:


> Look at Bradley's stats and get back to me. He had some pretty good seasons.


You're right. Better than I thought. His best season was 13 and 8.5 though and I think Tyrus can do more like 15 and 11. 



DaBullz said:


> EDIT: I wanted to point out that Sweetney's PER at PF is 25 and Thomas' at PF is 12. Looking at 82games.com, Thomas' PER at all positions is certainly above 12. But if you're going to use the PF numbers, then so am I.


I'm getting the PER numbers from ESPN.com. They're the aggregate, not divided by position (I don't buy into that methodology). It's premium content on ESPN and I don't know where to find that figure on 82games but you can get it at http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Bulls.htm. As I said, Sweetney is at 15.9 and Tyrus is 12.7 (it may be updated from last time if it's different). That 26 figure for Sweetney is garbage because it seems to consist of only 70 minutes.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> Allen, Brown, and Khryapa play better, and more consistent, team and man defense. They can hit jump shots. They are effective passers. They know their roles. Tyrus can make spectacular plays at times, but he is also prone to stupid mistakes that lead to points or turnovers, which are very harmful. Expectations have little to do with it.
> 
> I did note that he's had strong games this season. It can happen and will happen again. But I think his body and skillset is too much of a limiting factor for him to become a consistent performer by the playoffs. I could be wrong.


Hmm. I suppose I agree with you about the team and man defense but Brown and Allen are somewhat limited by their lack of athleticism. Maybe he was out at the time but Skiles had Tyrus and not Malik on Duncan. Allen can hit a jumper. Brown is supposed to be able to hit a jumper but he doesn't (39% eFG% at 82 games). Tyrus actually scores more points per 40 than Brown with a high FG%. Allen is a pretty poor rebounder. I don't think Tyrus' "spectacular plays" should be dismissed. A blocked shot often prevents a basket and can make players think twice about taking it to the basket. Those are plays that Brown and Allen simply aren't capable of making.




rwj333 said:


> When he came in, he tried to do too much. He tried touch shots off the glass when they are clearly not in his arsenal (not yet, hopefully). He put up 3 shots in 4 minutes. He missed a defensive rotation. He did have a nice offensive rebound. During his time on the court, the team scored few points, and I think it's important to put pressure on the opposing team at all times. If you don't score they can gain confidence and may be able to get back into the game.
> 
> He was -3 points tonight. http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20070127&game=MIACHI&rl=16
> 
> ...


The problem with +/- is that it is difficult to get a large enough sample size for the numbers to mean anything over the course of an entire season. No offense but using it to evaluate four minutes of play strikes me as complete insanity. I don't think you can really pin a lack of scoring on one person, especially over a four minute span. We agree he missed a rotation and took a couple bad shots, I just don't think that's remotely close to seriously hurting the team. Again, it was only four minutes. He didn't play great but he did a few good things.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So now you're just going to use the word "spin" to try to equate my analysis to yours? It's very frustrating when I calmly and cleary explain a reasoned argument and instead of addressing my points you revert back to similar phrases and arguments you've already invoked which I've already responded to.


blah blah

That kind of stuff isn't worth reading.



> I'll do this one more time and from now on, unless you address these actual points I'm making, I will just disregard any part of your posts comparing Tyrus to Tyson: Yes, I agree that Tyson and Tyrus are somewhat similar players with a few notable differences (Tyrus appears to be an elite shot blocker where Tyson is merely an above average one, Tyson is taller, Tyrus is a hair more athletic, Tyrus appears more comfortable with the ball and seems to have better offensive instincts).


Both were #2 picks. Both have unusual hype about what kind of offensive player they're to become. Both benefited from being more athletic against weak competition (LSU's schedule is a bunch of patsy teams, mostly). Both were absolute project players from day 1. The best hope for both is as something of a defensive standout. Both are good weakside help defenders (blocking shots from there), but not particularly good man defenders. Both need to put on pounds and work out with weights. Their offensive games consist almost exclusively of putbacks, dunks, and getting fouled near the hoop. They're both foul prone (though Chandler this season seems to be able to stay on the court).

And as with your case, the fans wanted both players to get PT even though they weren't very good on the court.

(And the bulls foolishly traded away guys like Brad Miller to make room for Chandler to get his PT).

The real relevence is I'm hearing the same hype about Thomas that I heard about Chandler, and I'm seeing the same basic player, just shorter, on the court.



> The problem is drawing conclusions based on the fact that the two players share similarities. This is because unpredictable things happen constantly in sports. It is wrong to say that Tyrus will never improve offensively because Tyson's game never developed offensively the same way that it is wrong to say that Gordon will be as good as Arenas because they've had similar careers or that a player similar to Jay Williams will be injured in a motorcycle accident or that some 6'6 athletic guard from UNC will be as good as Jordan.


The problem is drawing conclusions that he's somehow a player that he isn't. He hasn't worked out with weights or put on the pounds or developed anything resmbling an offensie game, can't stay on the court, doesn't make me wish he was out there instead of any of: Brown, Nocioni, Sweetney, Allen, or three guards.



> That one player who shares similarities to Tyrus failed to develop offensively is completely irrelevant; you need to argue that _most players_ similar to Tyrus fail to develop and you've never even attempted to do this.


I don't need to argue that any players similar to Tyrus developed. I can see his game with my own two eyes, and I can see what the stat sheets say about him. I can see how his coach gives him shot after shot (not FGAs) to prove himself and nada.

Maybe what you need to prove is that there's something in the stats or what he does on the court that makes him different than a chandler.




> Uh...getting fouled driving to the basket and hitting a pair of free throws is good. Getting to the line is one of the best skills an NBA player can have and you were just attacking Tyrus a week or two ago for his poor free throw shooting so connecting on a pair is encouraging. Somehow turning that into a negative is the epitome of spin. Personally, I have no idea how you could tell how the hook shot was going to be a foot short when it never got anywhere near the basket. Apparently Mourning thought it had a chance. Also, I'm sure I just missed it but I didn't hear that quote from Kerr. Regardless, my main point is that most of the time you're not mischaracterizing Tyrus' shortcomings, the bias comes through in the fact that you emphasize them so greatly and never ever acknowledge the positives.


It's absolutely no spin. If you put Wallace and Thomas out there on the floor and opponents choose to foul, they're #1 and #2 first choice, just about, in the whole NBA. There's other bad FT shooters, too, like Shaq. But whoopee. A pair of made FTs. Shaq makes a pair sometimes, so does Wallace.



> Sounds like another playing time argument. You never responded to the paragraph of questions I wrote probing the problems with the underlying assumptions of that argument so I'll refer you back to post #57.


I guess you want me to keep repeating myself. The guy only has to beat out PJ Brown and he could get 30+ minutes of PT. He can't because he's not very good.



> You're right. Better than I thought. His best season was 13 and 8.5 though and I think Tyrus can do more like 15 and 11.


It took him a while to be a useful player tho.



> I'm getting the PER numbers from ESPN.com. They're the aggregate, not divided by position (I don't buy into that methodology). It's premium content on ESPN and I don't know where to find that figure on 82games but you can get it at http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Bulls.htm. As I said, Sweetney is at 15.9 and Tyrus is 12.7 (it may be updated from last time if it's different). That 26 figure for Sweetney is garbage because it seems to consist of only 70 minutes.


I'm getting the PER numbers from 82games.com. Seems they don't calculate it the same way. A real useful statistic, eh?

Funny thing is I had to go check to see if Thomas even has 70 minutes. He has 370.

EDIT: Knickerblogger's PER is per 40 minutes, 82games.com is per 48 minutes, and I dunno about ESPN's.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Both were #2 picks. Both have unusual hype about what kind of offensive player they're to become. Both benefited from being more athletic against weak competition (LSU's schedule is a bunch of patsy teams, mostly). Both were absolute project players from day 1. The best hope for both is as something of a defensive standout. Both are good weakside help defenders (blocking shots from there), but not particularly good man defenders. Both need to put on pounds and work out with weights. Their offensive games consist almost exclusively of putbacks, dunks, and getting fouled near the hoop. They're both foul prone (though Chandler this season seems to be able to stay on the court).
> 
> And as with your case, the fans wanted both players to get PT even though they weren't very good on the court.
> 
> ...


Honestly, I think Chandler probably had more offensive potential than Tyrus does (the clips of him hitting pull up threes in high school and what not) he just somehow completely failed to do anything with it. I've said this before but I absolutely disagree with you about LSU's level of competition. They're in a top conference and had a deep tournament run. Are there other team's that played a tougher schedule? Sure, but the NCAA is still the third most difficult league in the world. It's all over this thread and a dozen others but I disagree that the fans want Tyrus to get undeserved PT. I believe he's currently as good or better than Brown and Allen which entitles him to 15 or 20 minutes a night off the bench. I think that's reasonably conservative and not some outlandish statement by a fan obsessed with upside and potential.



DaBullz said:


> The problem is drawing conclusions that he's somehow a player that he isn't. He hasn't worked out with weights or put on the pounds or developed anything resmbling an offensie game, can't stay on the court, doesn't make me wish he was out there instead of any of: Brown, Nocioni, Sweetney, Allen, or three guards.


I feel like this is sidestepping the issue of projecting Tyrus' development by heavily relying on a comparision to Tyson and no one else. I've never seen anyone claim he deserves any of Noc's minutes and I don't really see how the guards are relevant.



DaBullz said:


> I don't need to argue that any players similar to Tyrus developed. I can see his game with my own two eyes, and I can see what the stat sheets say about him. I can see how his coach gives him shot after shot (not FGAs) to prove himself and nada.


We've definitely been through this before. You're more than allowed to form your own scouting opinion. I just think you need to realize that others will likely rely on pro scouts, analysts, and their own impressions to a much larger degree. If you have enough faith on your own observations to primarily rely on them to form conclusions that's understandable but if you're trying to compel the conclusions of others based on your personal scouting impressions that's probably an uphill battle.



DaBullz said:


> Maybe what you need to prove is that there's something in the stats or what he does on the court that makes him different than a chandler.


Nah. Even if Chandler is the most similar player to him in the history of the NBA, the point would still be the same: you can't draw conclusions from a sample size of one. There is such a thing as an anomolous result and if you only have one example you have no clue what you're dealing with. It's like saying that you got a good combo guard from Arizona in the second round of the draft so he'll be just as good as Arenas because they're really similar players. The problem is that Arenas is arguably the best secound rounder ever so it's ludicrous to say that just because another player is similarly situated he'll also defy the odds. It's unfair to say that Tyrus will defy the odds of never improving at all on offense just because there are so/qme similarities between his game and Tyson's. 



DaBullz said:


> It's absolutely no spin. If you put Wallace and Thomas out there on the floor and opponents choose to foul, they're #1 and #2 first choice, just about, in the whole NBA. There's other bad FT shooters, too, like Shaq. But whoopee. A pair of made FTs. Shaq makes a pair sometimes, so does Wallace.


It was a good play even if it wasn't a rare or exceedingly difficult one. If you can't admit he had a single good play it's more clear than ever that you're emphasizing his faults and refusing to mention his strengths.



DaBullz said:


> I guess you want me to keep repeating myself. The guy only has to beat out PJ Brown and he could get 30+ minutes of PT. He can't because he's not very good.


No that's actually the exact opposite of what I want you to do. I want you to respond to the issues I raised in post #57 just like I said.



DaBullz said:


> It took him a while to be a useful player tho.


Sure. I don't think it'll take Tyrus 3 or 4 years to become a good player the way some people talk but I don't think it's going to happen overnight either. Improvement tends to be gradual.



DaBullz said:


> I'm getting the PER numbers from 82games.com. Seems they don't calculate it the same way. A real useful statistic, eh?
> 
> Funny thing is I had to go check to see if Thomas even has 70 minutes. He has 370.
> 
> EDIT: Knickerblogger's PER is per 40 minutes, 82games.com is per 48 minutes, and I dunno about ESPN's.


Hmm. Well 82 games shouldn't be taking liberties with someone else's statistic. I kinda doubt that they are though. What I saw was that they had production divided up "by position" which instead of giving you a single PER for all the minutes someone has played splits up the production. That's problematic because it destroys the sample size. PER is supposed to be calculated per minute so there shouldn't be any 40 v. 48 minute discrepency.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What's .1 * 40
What's .1 * 48
Different numbers.

Look at the history of #2 draft picks in the NBA in the last 25 years. Tell me which ones have been this kind of project and a non-impact or non-contributing kind of player. Chandler. Darko. If you need a sample size of bigger than one, you have all those #2 picks.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> What's .1 * 40
> What's .1 * 48
> Different numbers.
> 
> Look at the history of #2 draft picks in the NBA in the last 25 years. Tell me which ones have been this kind of project and a non-impact or non-contributing kind of player. Chandler. Darko. If you need a sample size of bigger than one, you have all those #2 picks.


Tyrus was the forth pick.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What's .1 * 40
> What's .1 * 48
> Different numbers.


No. Per minute as in player X scores .4 points and grabs .3 rebounds for each minute that he's on the floor. Here's the formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating#Calculation. There's not a 40 or a 48 anywhere in there.



DaBullz said:


> Look at the history of #2 draft picks in the NBA in the last 25 years. Tell me which ones have been this kind of project and a non-impact or non-contributing kind of player. Chandler. Darko. If you need a sample size of bigger than one, you have all those #2 picks.


Raw, very young players have only started being drafted near the top of the draft in the NBA in the last 7 or 10 years so it is difficult to find enough comparable players if you limit yourself to #2 picks. As I've said before though, I don't see why draft pick is a defining aspect of a player's makeup. There is plenty of flucutation there because 1) the scouts could be wrong and the player should've been drafted higher or lower 2) there is substantial disagreement among teams about where a player should have been drafted so someone could've just as easily been drafted 8th as 4th 3) the quality and depth of drafts vary from year to year so a player who would've been drafted #1 one year might go #5 the next year (see Noah, Joakim). Last year also happened to be one of the weakest drafts in recent memory. Unless he had a phenomenal season at LSU, Tyrus probably would've been drafted between 6 and 10 in this year's stellar draft. 

I'm sure there have been countless athletic, defensive players taken in the top half of the first round who entered the league without much offense over the years. Of course that is only useful for projecting Tyrus' development which is what most everyone but you seems interested in doing. You instead seem to be intent on convincing everyone that as a rookie Tyrus is not contributing as much as your average secound round draft pick. The problem with that is that no one disagrees with you. No one. In most people's opinions that just has very little to do with whether he can contribute off the bench right now and whether or not that makes him a good draft pick since no one ever uses the second draft pick to choose the most polished player in the draft.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> His +/- in about 3 minutes was -3.
> 
> Spin that to be somehow not a detriment.


You're not really going to make me rant and rave about the absurdity of using +/- to evaluate three minutes of play are you? That statistic often doesn't pass one's B.S. detector when evaluating 1,000 minutes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Congratulations.

I'm a convert. Tyrus Thomas just magically became a good player. Shame on Skiles for not playing him.

You "win" whatever there is to win.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Congratulations.
> 
> I'm a convert. Tyrus Thomas just magically became a good player. Shame on Skiles for not playing him.
> 
> You "win" whatever there is to win.


Haha. The tile of most stubborn poster maybe.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. The tile of most stubborn poster maybe.


I can't beat the "he's going to be the next wilt no matter what you say" argument.

No point.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I can't beat the "he's going to be the next wilt no matter what you say" argument.
> 
> No point.


Haha. Maybe you haven't bowed out afterall. I would say referring to my argument that Tyrus has the ability to eventually average 15/11/4 blocks as "he's going to be the next wilt no matter what you say" is a pretty blatant mischaracterization. Also, why write long posts if all of may arguments consist of "no matter what you say"? If that's the case I really need to work on my economy of words. Haha.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. Maybe you haven't bowed out afterall. I would say referring to my argument that Tyrus has the ability to eventually average 15/11/4 blocks as "he's going to be the next wilt no matter what you say" is a pretty blatant mischaracterization. Also, why write long posts if all of may arguments consist of "no matter what you say"? If that's the case I really need to work on my economy of words. Haha.


I see it as arguing science to a religious zealot. No amount of scientific evidence is going to shake your absolute blind faith that the guy is something he doesn't appear to be.

Nor do I care to change your faith in him. Though I look at claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, I wish he kicked *** right now and made us not think about going for, say, a Gasol to fill a blatant need.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't really understand how that's a response to my argument. I guess you're conceding you vastly overstated where Tyrus ranks in this rookie class in terms of production? No one is denying that his fouls are a problem. I simply think it will improve. If you foul a lot that takes away from how strong you are defensively but it doesn't really say anything about the rest of your game.


For one I really dint understand what point you where trying to make, where you bringing in per 48 minute stats? Cause ive looked thru most of the per 48 minute stats of all the rookies and Tyrus 90% of the time isnt even in the top 10 rankings.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Are you claiming that players don't usually learn how to avoid stupid fouls and mistakes as they gain experience? If not, then I don't see how Tyrus' inability to play big minutes is relevant at this point.


I would have atleast expected Tyrus to limit his fouls as he got more experience in the league, hes still fouling as if he's still playing in his first game. I dont want to hear the stupid "oh well hes still a rookie and oh he only has 1 year of college soo.." there have been players comming out of freaking HS who dont make as many stupid defensive mistakes as Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Nuff already people. He has a world of athletic ability and a seemingly positive hardworking attitude. He also has to learn a lot and get some poise.

So much remains to be seen, and it's called 90% of his career - which hasnt happened yet. We could be at this all day, and obviously have. But paragraph 1 wont change.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> And my point has always been that Thomas hasn't grown into his body yet. He grew taller, but not wider. There's no strong evidence that indicates he can't or can gain weight. I think it leans toward "can" though.
> 
> Do you remember what Kemp's build was like when he came into the league? It he had a solid build and he still struggled, then that's reason for hope.
> 
> Expect a bump.


This has hit the nail on the head. Will he fill out more only time will tell. Some of these guys (i.e really tall humans) don't finish growning until they're 22 and then they take a year to fill out naturally (without weights). Both Deng and TT might both continuing growing, they might both work their butt's off in the weight room this summer, we're just going to have to wait and see.

More often that not projects don't work out, but most teams think they're worth the gamble. 

Paxson said himself TT "doesn't have a position". He might not for another couple of years.


In other news, Gordon is now up to
21.6 ppg


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I see it as arguing science to a religious zealot. No amount of scientific evidence is going to shake your absolute blind faith that the guy is something he doesn't appear to be. Nor do I care to change your faith in him. Though I look at claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, I wish he kicked *** right now and made us not think about going for, say, a Gasol to fill a blatant need.


Is or will be? I guess we disagree as to whether or not he's a solid 15-20 MPG rotation player right now but most of the arguments at least on my end seem to center around what he has the ability to be in the future. Furthermore, I think this argument could be made even more efficiently if the roles were reversed. I've said it numerous times and I'll say it one more time: Tyrus has a lot of work to do with fouling, turnovers, and offense. Yet you never seem capable of saying anything good about his game.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> For one I really dint understand what point you where trying to make, where you bringing in per 48 minute stats? Cause ive looked thru most of the per 48 minute stats of all the rookies and Tyrus 90% of the time isnt even in the top 10 rankings.


More specifically what are you looking at and where are you looking? I just took those players (Gay, Morrison, Aldridge, Roy, and Foye) and ranked them using Hollinger's Player Efficiency Rating (PER) which is created using a formula measuring per minute production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PER.htm


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Holy ****. I don't think anyone is arguing that Tyrus is awesome or even very good right now; people are just arguing that he has some real ability and that it is far too soon to write him off as a bust. When he was drafted we all knew that he was a raw prospect who would likely need some time to be develop. Why then, after half a season, are people now down on him because he's a raw prospect who might need some time to be develop?


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Holy ****. I don't think anyone is arguing that Tyrus is awesome or even very good right now; people are just arguing that he has some real ability and that it is far too soon to write him off as a bust. When he was drafted we all knew that he was a raw prospect who would likely need some time to be develop. Why then, after half a season, are people now down on him because he's a raw prospect who might need some time to be develop?


Didn't you know all humans are exactly the same and develop physically, mentally and emotionally at the same rate. The learning curve for grasping basket skills is precisely the same over 6 billion people. That's how it works isn't it. 

So if play A has a certain skill at age Y and player B at the same age hasn't, then player B is a write off.

But back on planet reality, like you pointed out 
"he's a raw prospect who might need some time to develop" :clap: 

I, like you, are quite prepared to give players a chance to develop.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Holy ****. I don't think anyone is arguing that Tyrus is awesome or even very good right now; people are just arguing that he has some real ability and that it is far too soon to write him off as a bust. When he was drafted we all knew that he was a raw prospect who would likely need some time to be develop. Why then, after half a season, are people now down on him because he's a raw prospect who might need some time to be develop?



From my perspective I have been really stunned at Thomas's lack of basketball skills up to now. I was prepared for "raw" but not this. I understand that Pax wanted to give the team more athleticism, but didn't he put this guy through some ball skills prior to the draft?

I suppose you are right that it is too early to call Thomas a bust but he has shown that he belongs in the D league right now. Yes, he has made a few nice blocks that we can attribute to his athleticism. But we could have brought back Manute Bol if that is all we needed. I am worried about this guy---very worried!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> From my perspective I have been really stunned at Thomas's lack of basketball skills up to now. I was prepared for "raw" but not this. I understand that Pax wanted to give the team more athleticism, but didn't he put this guy through some ball skills prior to the draft?
> 
> I suppose you are right that it is too early to call Thomas a bust but he has shown that he belongs in the D league right now. Yes, he has made a few nice blocks that we can attribute to his athleticism. But we could have brought back Manute Bol if that is all we needed. I am worried about this guy---very worried!


100% agree with you here, Iam also stunned with Tyrus game I would think that someone with atleast 1 year of college basketball under his belt would atleast show even the simplest of basketball skills. 

I have wondered all season long if Pax even put Thomas thru any kind of basketball drills or even looked at him during workouts. Honestly Pax could have goten Tyrus Thomas later in the draft, i just dont know what the hell Pax was thinking.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> More specifically what are you looking at and where are you looking? I just took those players (Gay, Morrison, Aldridge, Roy, and Foye) and ranked them using Hollinger's Player Efficiency Rating (PER) which is created using a formula measuring per minute production.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating
> 
> http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PER.htm


I only follow what I see with my eyes and not some goofy formula that "Predicts" talent. 

You either got it or you dont, and right now I dont know if Tyrus has what it takes to become an NBA star. While some of you people on here are fine with getting a kid who will block the occasional shot and throw down the occasional dunk, I expect alot more out of the Bulls #2 overall pick.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> 100% agree with you here, Iam also stunned with Tyrus game I would think that someone with atleast 1 year of college basketball under his belt would atleast show even the simplest of basketball skills.
> 
> I have wondered all season long if Pax even put Thomas thru any kind of basketball drills or even looked at him during workouts. Honestly Pax could have goten Tyrus Thomas later in the draft, i just dont know what the hell Pax was thinking.


Can you be more specific about what skills you believe Thomas lacks?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Can you be more specific about what skills you believe Thomas lacks?


1. A jump shot.
2. The ability to guard without fouling 99% of the time,
3. The ability to play a specific possition.
4. The ability to improve at least a little bit (hes the same player since day one.)
5. Most importantly *BASKETBALL IQ!*


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> 1. A jump shot.
> 2. The ability to guard without fouling 99% of the time,
> 3. The ability to play a specific possition.
> 4. The ability to improve at least a little bit (hes the same player since day one.)
> 5. Most importantly *BASKETBALL IQ!*


1. I can't really argue with that though I will say that his jump shot looked a lot better during summer league play and also at LSU.
2. That's something that is learned with experience. 
3. I'm not sure what this means. He clearly has the ability to play PF. 
4. The last few weeks he's been playing a lot and playing well at times. He would not play if he had not improved from when he wasn't playing.
5. I don't see mental errors that can't be attributed to a lack of experience.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I only follow what I see with my eyes and not some goofy formula that "Predicts" talent.


Don't forget you also like to use the Nba.com rookie rankings. :lol: 

FYI, the PER wasn't developed to "Predicts" talent, but to gauge how effective a player is per minute.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> 4. The ability to improve at least a little bit (hes the same player since day one.)[/B]


That is demonstrably false. His FG % has improved from 28% in November to 59% in December and 42% in January.

His FT % has improved from 44% in November to 59% in December before dipping to 55% in January.

He blocked .6 shots per game in November and December and then improved to 1.6 in January.

His steals have improved month to month from .3 to .5 to .7.

His assists have improved from just .1 in November to to .6 in December and then .5 in January. 

His rebounds have risen month to month from 2 to 2.9 to 3.0 (though admittedly some of that is a result of an uptick in playing time). 

Still want to argue he's the exact same player he was at the beginning of the season?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I only follow what I see with my eyes and not some goofy formula that "Predicts" talent.
> 
> You either got it or you dont, and right now I dont know if Tyrus has what it takes to become an NBA star. While some of you people on here are fine with getting a kid who will block the occasional shot and throw down the occasional dunk, I expect alot more out of the Bulls #2 overall pick.


As Johnston pointed out, PER is not a predictive tool, it measures productivity per minute. I used the stat to demonstrate that Tyrus was not having a worse season than players like Morrison, Gay, and Bargnani as suggested. If you want to suggest a different method go ahead but I'm not going to accept "because I say so" as a reason.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> As Johnston pointed out, PER is not a predictive tool, it measures productivity per minute. I used the stat to demonstrate that Tyrus was not having a worse season than players like Morrison, Gay, and Bargnani as suggested. If you want to suggest a different method go ahead but *I'm not going to accept "because I say so" as a reason.*


Because YOU say so, right?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Don't forget you also like to use the Nba.com rookie rankings. :lol:


Do you disagree with their rankings? I think they do a pretty good job of ranking these rookies by their actuall production.



JeremyB0001 said:


> That is demonstrably false. His FG % has improved from 28% in November to 59% in December and 42% in January.


A big reason for that is that he shot the ball less times, he went from averaging 4shots per game in october while shooting 25% to 3 attempts per game raising his fg% to 28% in November. In December he attempted 2.8 shots at 59% FG, In January hes shooting the ball a bit more now attempting 3 shots per game and his FG% has been 41% in Jan. 

I dont really see the improvement.



> His FT % has improved from 44% in November to 59% in December before dipping to 55% in January.


If a stat is rising then dipping how is that progress?



> He blocked .6 shots per game in November and December and then improved to 1.6 in January.


Ill give you this, he is a good shot blocker and rebounder but Isnt that what hes allways been? I thought from day one he was a good shot blocker so technacilly hes not the same exact player. So I take it back hes not the exact same player, but hes still not improving at noticeable pace.



> His steals have improved month to month from .3 to .5 to .7.
> 
> His assists have improved from just .1 in November to to .6 in December and then .5 in January.


So hes improved from 0 to 0 ?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Because YOU say so, right?


I need an explanation for why I think people should support their arguments?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> A big reason for that is that he shot the ball less times, he went from averaging 4shots per game in october while shooting 25% to 3 attempts per game raising his fg% to 28% in November. In December he attempted 2.8 shots at 59% FG, In January hes shooting the ball a bit more now attempting 3 shots per game and his FG% has been 41% in Jan.


I think improving one's shot selection by taking fewer bad shots is certainly valuable improvement. A player who shoots few shots at a good percentage is more valuable than a player who takes many shots at an awful percentage (like Adam Morrison).



thebizkit69u said:


> If a stat is rising then dipping how is that progress?


It's not the cumulative total, it's the per month splits. If he shot 55% in January that's an improvement on the 44% he shot in October.



thebizkit69u said:


> Ill give you this, he is a good shot blocker and rebounder but Isnt that what hes allways been? I thought from day one he was a good shot blocker so technacilly hes not the same exact player. So I take it back hes not the exact same player, but hes still not improving at noticeable pace.


Ok. Are you talking about his blocked shots or his overall game? Because I'd say doubling his number of blocks is noticable.



thebizkit69u said:


> So hes improved from 0 to 0 ?


He's more than doubled his steals and assists. That's improvement regardless of whether or not you deem the numbers satisfactory. I don't really know what sort of mathmatical principle suggests you should round 0.7 down to 0.0. By that logic he had 0 steals in January instead of the 9 he was credited with. That would also mean that the league leading shot blocker (JO at 2.97 BPG) is no better than the guy who ranks 11th (AK47 at 2.08).


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> I think improving one's shot selection by taking fewer bad shots is certainly valuable improvement.


He dint take "fewer bad shots" he abandoned his jump shot all together, thats not good no matter how you spin it.



> Ok. Are you talking about his blocked shots or his overall game? Because I'd say doubling his number of blocks is noticable.


Blocked shots is the only noticeable stat that I see when looking at Tyrus Thomas. Hes a good shotblocker I give him that.



> He's more than doubled his steals and assists. That's improvement regardless of whether or not you deem the numbers satisfactory. I don't really know what sort of mathmatical principle suggests you should round 0.7 down to 0.0.


Well all I know is that his assist and stl averages arent impressive. But what does stick out like a sore thumb is that he has more Turnovers then he does assists and stls combined!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> He dint take "fewer bad shots" he abandoned his jump shot all together, thats not good no matter how you spin it.


So it's better for him to chuck up awful jumpers that have a small chance of going in than to let someone else shoot? I don't get it. Skiles apparently disagrees with you because he started playing Tyrus more minutes after he calmed down and stopped forcing shots on offense. Going 3 for 5 helps the team win more than going 4 for 10. Aren't wins what we're shooting for here? Furthermore, his shot attempts may have gone down but his points went up so abandoning the jumper doesn't seem to have put any kind of hurt on his offense.



thebizkit69u said:


> Blocked shots is the only noticeable stat that I see when looking at Tyrus Thomas. Hes a good shotblocker I give him that.
> 
> Well all I know is that his assist and stl averages arent impressive. But what does stick out like a sore thumb is that he has more Turnovers then he does assists and stls combined!


I'm confused. I thought we were discussing his improvement and not his skill set or overall game.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I just dont see how going from averaging half an ast and stl to averaging almost a 
full ast and stl a game is an improvement. 

But to each his own right, I still dont think hes a bust but I still dont think that hes improved much at all.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I just dont see how going from averaging half an ast and stl to averaging almost a
> full ast and stl a game is an improvement.
> 
> But to each his own right, I still dont think hes a bust but I still dont think that hes improved much at all.


Hmm. If I say he had 1 assist in 9 November games (69 minutes) and 9 assists in 16 December games (186 minutes) does that seem more substantial?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I need an explanation for why I think people should support their arguments?


LOL



JeremyB0001 said:


> The problem with +/- is that it is difficult to get a large enough sample size for the numbers to mean anything over the course of an entire season. No offense but using it to evaluate four minutes of play strikes me as complete insanity. I don't think you can really pin a lack of scoring on one person, especially over a four minute span. We agree he missed a rotation and took a couple bad shots, I just don't think that's remotely close to seriously hurting the team. Again, it was only four minutes. He didn't play great but he did a few good things.


Cherry picking the stats. Or is it that only you can decide the rules of evidence?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I need an explanation for why I think people should support their arguments?





DaBullz said:


> LOL


Why am I not surprised?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> I just dont see how going from averaging half an ast and stl to averaging almost a
> full ast and stl a game is an improvement.
> 
> But to each his own right, I still dont think hes a bust but I still dont think that hes improved much at all.


For any OTHER player in the NBA, going from averaging half a stat to averaging a full stat is an improvement. Why is the same not said for TT? by the season's end, he'll average atleast 1 steal and block per game. That's good anyway you spin it for a 'raw', non-skilled, no-b-ball-iq-having-sf-pf-tweener.

Should u expect more from a #2 pick? Sure, but according to Paxson, we were in the position to take a risk with our current position in the league, a-la Detriot/Milcic.

TT could average 10/8 and a block per game and you'd still find a reason to discredit the kid. Doesn't surprise me the least.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Cherry picking the stats. Or is it that only you can decide the rules of evidence?


Anyone can argue for any type of evidence if there are sound arguments supporting the methodology. I suggested in this thread that bizkit suggest different measurements if he disagreed with PER. Accusing me of cherry picking the stats. I've long been critical of +/- statistics and would never accept 4 minutes as an acceptable sample size for any statistic. I'm pretty sure I can find posts where I've made these arguments dating back to before Tyrus Thomas was ever a Bull. If you want to have a serious discussion about the pitfulls of +/-, I'll do it. I just feel like it's probably been discussed a lot in the past and we'd be ignoring the larger point that 4 minutes is a ridiculous sample size.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

The ROY said:


> For any OTHER player in the NBA, going from averaging half a stat to averaging a full stat is an improvement. Why is the same not said for TT? by the season's end, he'll average atleast 1 steal and block per game. That's good anyway you spin it for a 'raw', non-skilled, no-b-ball-iq-having-sf-pf-tweener.
> 
> Should u expect more from a #2 pick? Sure, but according to Paxson, we were in the position to take a risk with our current position in the league, a-la Detriot/Milcic.
> 
> TT could average 10/8 and a block per game and you'd still find a reason to discredit the kid. Doesn't surprise me the least.


Let's not forget that the draft's more "polished, NBA ready" big man, LaMarcus Aldrdige, isn't exactly lighting the world on fire either. Thomas is obviously very raw, but he blocks a shot or creates a turnover every 6 minutes he's on the floor. He's already a plus on the defensive end, when he learns to play under control I think he's going to be a game-changing, dominant defensive player. With the possible exception of Andrea Bargnani, there's still no big I'd rather have out of the 2006 draft.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Let's not forget that the draft's more "polished, NBA ready" big man, LaMarcus Aldrdige, isn't exactly lighting the world on fire either. Thomas is obviously very raw, but he blocks a shot or creates a turnover every 6 minutes he's on the floor. He's already a plus on the defense end, when he learns to play under control I think he's going to be a game-changing, dominant defensive player. With the possible exception of Andrea Bargnani, there's still no big I'd rather have out of the 2006 draft.


Agreed. The only two players I would have picked ahead of Thomas were Andrea Bargnani and Brandon Roy. Bargnani went #1 so not much we could have done about that. I still say we should've taken Roy, but at least we didn't take Aldridge, Morrison, or Gay. 

ESPN Insider had an article evaluating the rookies and Adam Morrison was the worst rebounder 6'7" or above in the entire league! He has only 3 offensive rebounds... for the season! That's incredibly bad. It said Charlotte is lucky they're never on TV because the entire nation would get to see how bad Morrison truly is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Anyone can argue for any type of evidence if there are sound arguments supporting the methodology. I suggested in this thread that bizkit suggest different measurements if he disagreed with PER. Accusing me of cherry picking the stats. I've long been critical of +/- statistics and would never accept 4 minutes as an acceptable sample size for any statistic. I'm pretty sure I can find posts where I've made these arguments dating back to before Tyrus Thomas was ever a Bull. If you want to have a serious discussion about the pitfulls of +/-, I'll do it. I just feel like it's probably been discussed a lot in the past and we'd be ignoring the larger point that 4 minutes is a ridiculous sample size.


The sample size for +/- may not be as small as you think.

The way it was used wasn't for the season, for which Thomas has about 25% as many minutes as Gordon, but rather it was used for individual games that Thomas played.

I agree with you, to some degree, that raw +/- over a season doesn't tell the whole story.

But when you put Thomas in the game and it's -3, put him in another game and it's -12, and so on, it is a revealing data point. Further, when you look at knickerblogger's charts and see WHEN he was put in the game and how the team's lead diminished rapidly, it says even more.

You raised the issue of how people make their arguments. I think it's fair to point out that you deny real data points that don't fit your position. I think it's also fair to point out that you deny anyone else's subjective arguments - like how people see him playing in games - "zero basketball IQ" and the like. If you want to play that game, I agree with the "zero IQ" assessment, and I win (whatever it is to win).

EDIT: the 4 minutes argument doesn't have merit. In fact, a -3 in 4 minutes is hugely alarming.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

SALO said:


> but at least we didn't take Aldridge, Morrison, or Gay.


Yeah good thing we dint draft 3 guys who are clearly having better rookie seasons then Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah good thing we dint draft 3 guys who are clearly having better rookie seasons then Tyrus Thomas.


How many minutes a game do you think Rudy Gay or Morrison would be getting on this team?

Gay got less then 10 minutes on two of the last three games for THE WORSE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> How many minutes a game do you think Rudy Gay or Morrison would be getting on this team?
> 
> Gay got less then 10 minutes on two of the last three games for THE WORSE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.


True but Rudy Gay is still averaging more minutes then he did in November.

Rudy Gay would get slighty more minutes with the Bulls, he would get not only minutes at SF but also at SG. Adam Morrison same story, offcourse non of these guys would get the same amount of minutes as their getting with their teams now but I still think it would be more then 11 mpg. As for why Memphis doesnt play Rudy Gay more, I have no idea, this is a horrible team that needs to go young and needs to play guys like Warrick and Gay over 30 mpg, but they are still playing behind Miller, Jones and Swift who might be on their way out. 

Either way I see Rudy getting alot more minutes in the second half of the season.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The sample size for +/- may not be as small as you think.
> 
> The way it was used wasn't for the season, for which Thomas has about 25% as many minutes as Gordon, but rather it was used for individual games that Thomas played.
> 
> ...


The problem is that you're ascribing a motive to my rejection of +/- without any reason for doing so. You're implying that I reject +/- _because_ it portrays TT poorly when in fact I have long critisized +/- and apparently it just so happens to portray Tyrus in a negative light (I had no idea how Tyrus was regarding using +/-, I never look at it because I think it's pretty worthless). You're also taking liberties by saying I disagree with "data points" (plural) that do not support my position since this is the first time I can recall arguing statistical methodology in this context. I think anyone should use any methodology or data the person believes to be sound and defensible. I use PER often because I believe it is a useful statistic and am more than willing to defend it or explore other data if someone takes issue with it. As long as I'm willing to make reasonable arguments and don't turn around and contradict them on a different subject next week, I think it's wrong to attack me for disagreeing with +/- just because it does not support my argument. I've been hesitant to delve into the issues I have with +/- because frankly I find it exhausting but I always indicated that I was willing to do so if you forced the issue (and by taking borderline shots at my integrity you're certainly doing so).

Furthermore, I really do not believe I fall back on "because I say so" arguments. Even if it is just a personal observation, I pretty much always offer support for my arguments. You gave the example of Tyrus' basketball IQ. Here are some of the arguments I've offered in support for my claim that his offensive IQ is greater than that of someone like Chandler 1) my personal observation that Tyrus seems to position himself for an above average number of dunks and alley oops 2) the statistical evidence that Tyrus scores more points on a per minute basis than other put back/dunk players like Chandler and Wallace 3) my personal observation that despite his high turnover rate, Tyrus seems more confident and at ease with the basketball than someone like Chandler (maybe that one is tangential to IQ). Now you're absolutely free to disagree with those arguments. It would be particularly easy for you to disagree with my own personal observations if yours differ because there is no data to back up that type of opinion. But how on earth can you characterize my stance there as "Tyrus doesn't have a terrible basketball IQ because I say so"?!

So I have two major problems with +/- which overlap quite a bit. The first one, which you hinted at, is that fragmenting a player's minutes into different five man lineups destroys any valid sample sizes that are availble. Y'know how after the first week of the season some shocking player is in the top ten in the league in scoring and a month later he's terrible again and everyone has forgotten him? The reason that happens is because 5 games or 150 minutes is a very tiny sample size. +/- does this in some applications by examining numerous different different lineups (this is why whenever you see +/- used to suggest a team's best lineup, it is five players who have played 29 minutes together all season). In this particular application we're dealing with only 48 minutes total which is a dreadfully small sample size and even worse we're comparing the 4 minutes Tyrus was in the game to the 44 minutes he was not (less than 10%). Let's just say that if scientists or doctors relied on sample sizes so insignificant we might all be dead right now.

The second related problem is that +/- does not control for the other four players on the court (or in the case when the player in question is off the court, the five players who are on the court). Maybe player A is a good rotation player but he always subs for player B who is an All-Star, +/- will make player A look awful when he's actually solid. Let's say the coach likes to play player A at the end of the first quarter but this is also the time he likes to bench his superstar, player C, to get him an exteneded break between quarters. The team will struggle to score without their star player and player A's +/- will be horrific. 

This problem is exacerbated when you shrink the sample size to almost nothing. Let's say that during the four minutes Tyrus is in the game, the Bulls have 8 offensive possessions and during this time Kirk shoots 0 for 4, Gordon shoots 1 for 3, and Noc shoots 0 for 1. Well the team is almost certainly going to be outscored, meaning that Tyrus will post a bad +/-. You can argue it was because Tyrus was couldn't take on any of the offensive load, or that he set bad screens, or hindered ball movement but we have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not that's true (unless you rely on your own observations but if that's the case, why not just do that in the first place?). Now if we're talking about over the course of a full season maybe these problems even out to some extent. Perhaps if over hundreds of minutes we see that Kirk always shoots poorly with Tyrus in the game there's something there. But in this case we're talking about a total of 4 minutes!!

Even over a course of an entire season the sample sizes never seem to be large enough for randomness and luck to even out. If you have a player who plays 40 minutes per game you're left with few minutes when he's off the court. If you have a player who only average 8 minutes per game you're left with very few minutes when he's on the court. The problem is to account for the variations in lineups you have to split up those minutes even further. If a player only plays 820 minutes in a season (10 MPG) and half of them is when the superstar is off the court, then you're down to 410. Maybe for half of those your second best player is off the court, suddenly you're down to 205. Sure you can compare the minutes where the player in question is on the court without the superstar to the minutes where neither is on the court but that latter number also figures to be very small and the point is that there are so many variables in play when you're evaluating one player by evaluating the success of 4 or 5 players as a whole that you need very, very many minutes for everything to even out. 

The best way to evaluate any statistic is whether it passes your B.S. detector. Let's look at some of the leaders for +/- in '04-05:

Brendan Haywood
Jason Collins
Jon Barry
Greg Foster
Brian Cook

According to +/- those five players were all better than Shaq that season and we're not talking old, banged up Shaq, we're talking about the guy who averaged 23 and 10.5. The worst part is that those players all played a minimum of 1,000 minutes and we're talking about four minutes. I don't disagree that Tyrus had a brutal game against Dallas but you don't need +/- to figure that out, a box score will do just fine.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> The best way to evaluate any statistic is whether it passes your B.S. detector. Let's look at some of the leaders for +/- in '04-05:
> 
> Brendan Haywood
> Jason Collins
> ...


Where are you getting your figures????d

http://www.82games.com/teams04.htm

Duncan, Kidd, Ginobili, Nowitzki, Nash, Brand, Marion, Prince, Marbury, & Hamilton 

were the leaders in 04-05 in net +/-.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Where are you getting your figures????d
> 
> http://www.82games.com/teams04.htm
> 
> ...


Sorry. I meant to post a link. Looks like it's just an expanded version of what's on the link you posted.

http://www.82games.com/teams04.htm

None of the guys I listed are in the top 10 but they're all higher than Shaq (36th).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wow.

I talk about +/- in a very different context. You ignored what I wrote and gave me a thoughtful, but not very relevent post in reply.

Want to try again?

The +/- over 4 minutes of -3 IS relevent. *You put him on the court, and your lead starts disappearing. *The +/- of -12 over a handful of minutes is scary.

+/- in this context is huge and meaningful, no matter how you view the statistic as a sum of all minutes played in the season.

I took the liberty of boldfacing the key point, and that the statistic highlights this FACT.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Where are you getting your figures????d
> 
> http://www.82games.com/teams04.htm
> 
> ...


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Wow.
> 
> I talk about +/- in a very different context. You ignored what I wrote and gave me a thoughtful, but not very relevent post in reply.
> 
> ...


I apolgize. It was a long post so I can understand why you only read about three sentences. Most every single point I made was applicable to the four minutes Tyrus was on the court last night because that figure 1) doesn't take into account which other 4 players were in the game during that period 2) in no way disginguishes to what extent Tyrus was responsible for the defecit and to what extent the other floor players on the court were responsible 3(I'd forgotten this one) doesn't account for the performance of the opposing team. As far as the -12 game maybe if you'd actually read the post you would've caught this nugget: "I don't disagree that Tyrus had a brutal game against Dallas but you don't need +/- to figure that out, a box score will do just fine." Out of curiosity why would arguments in opposition to using +/- with thousands of minutes to go by fail to apply to four minutes?

Also, I suddenly had an epiphany and asked myself "Wait, has anyone even looked up Tyrus' overall +/-?" Well I did and apparently he is at +.5, the best of any post player on the team and way better than that hack Ben Wallace (-2.0). It's a shame that I still believe it's a horrid statistic. You on the other hand apparently have a good reason to be persauded that Tyrus is an effective player right now.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


>


Uhh...you misread my original post stating "Let's look at _some _of the leaders for +/- in '04-05:" and then posted that before reading my clarification with the link, right?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I apolgize. It was a long post so I can understand why you only read about three sentences. Most every single point I made was applicable to the four minutes Tyrus was on the court last night because that figure 1) doesn't take into account which other 4 players were in the game during that period 2) in no way disginguishes to what extent Tyrus was responsible for the defecit and to what extent the other floor players on the court were responsible 3(I'd forgotten this one) doesn't account for the performance of the opposing team. As far as the -12 game maybe if you'd actually read the post you would've caught this nugget: "I don't disagree that Tyrus had a brutal game against Dallas but you don't need +/- to figure that out, a box score will do just fine." Out of curiosity why would arguments in opposition to using +/- with thousands of minutes to go by fail to apply to four minutes?
> 
> Also, I suddenly had an epiphany and asked myself "Wait, has anyone even looked up Tyrus' overall +/-?" Well I did and apparently he is at +.5, the best of any post player on the team and way better than that hack Ben Wallace (-2.0). It's a shame that I still believe it's a horrid statistic. You on the other hand apparently have a good reason to be persauded that Tyrus is an effective player right now.


Wow, the +/- of -12 agrees with how your sphincter twitched watching the game. Neat.

Sweetney's +/- is 6x or 7x Thomas'. Wallace's +/- is positive, not negative.

I suggest you look at the number of games he's + vs. the number of games he's -. Another epiphony!

You can look at Knickerblogger and see that the +/- for the team with only one sub for Thomas changed for the better. As good an objective indication of his contribution.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Uhh...you misread my original post stating "Let's look at _some _of the leaders for +/- in '04-05:" and then posted that before reading my clarification with the link, right?


I think you listed an entirely different set of players and were completely wrong. Then tried to spin it as if the best players having the best +/- isn't meaningful.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TT is around where many thought he would be at this point.

Anything more would have been a surprise to me.

He makes plays (rebounds, blocks, putbacks) that few other players in the NBA can make.

He's also ultra raw and lacks the all-around game to play heavy, consistent minutes on a good team.

If this guy was on the Blazers or Grizzlies, he'd be getting more minutes. Those teams are playing for nothing and are doling out development minutes by the bushel basket.

Once he gets more comfortable out there the turnovers will go down and he'll develop more of a game.

I'm not worried about Tyrus Thomas.

If people were demanding a complete NBA game from this guy this season, they were setting themselves up for disappointment.

The reason he’s not getting heavy minutes right now is because he turns the ball over too much and Skiles can’t gameplan around his production since he’s so inconsistent. He’s getting the proper amount of minutes right now, IMO. The Bulls are a winning team, not a cellar dweller that can just give players minutes for the hell of it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Wow, the +/- of -12 agrees with how your sphincter twitched watching the game. Neat.
> 
> Sweetney's +/- is 6x or 7x Thomas'. Wallace's +/- is positive, not negative.
> 
> ...


http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI.HTM 

That's what I'm looking at and it lists Wallace at -2.0. I can't find +/- on Knickerblogger. I don't see - and you haven't explained why - looking at whether a number is positive or negative would avoid any of the pitfalls I noted or be more accurate. If anything it would be less accurate since a player who had games of -12.0, -8.0, 1.0, 1.0 would be equal to a player who had games of -1.0, -1.0, 8.0, 12.0.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think you listed an entirely different set of players and were completely wrong. Then tried to spin it as if the best players having the best +/- isn't meaningful.



That's a pretty hefty charge. Is what he said (that these players are all above 36, and above Shaq) true or untrue? If it is true, is this not a significant statistical anomaly?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think you listed an entirely different set of players and were completely wrong. Then tried to spin it as if the best players having the best +/- isn't meaningful.


I'm suddenly realizing that I posted the wrong link last time.

http://www.82games.com/rolandratings0405.htm

I said I was listing _some_ of the leaders which is true since they're all in the top 36 and I clarified that they all ranked ahead of Shaq. I vehemently disagree that the best players have the top +/- in that list. Tayshaun Prince is one of the best players but Amare, Shaq, and Ray Allen are not. The fact that the statistic indicates that Fred Hoiberg is better than Shaq in one of his vintage seasons is meaningless because it gets some players right? C'mon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI.HTM
> 
> That's what I'm looking at and it lists Wallace at -2.0. I can't find +/- on Knickerblogger. I don't see - and you haven't explained why - looking at whether a number is positive or negative would avoid any of the pitfalls I noted or be more accurate. If anything it would be less accurate since a player who had games of -12.0, -8.0, 1.0, 1.0 would be equal to a player who had games of -1.0, -1.0, 8.0, 12.0.


You're looking at roland ratings, which is not +/-


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's a pretty hefty charge. Is what he said (that these players are all above 36, and above Shaq) true or untrue? If it is true, is this not a significant statistical anomaly?


Maybe an aging Shaq isn't rated that high by this statistic.

I note that Shaq was on the list in previous seasons.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You're looking at roland ratings, which is not +/-


Based upon +/- per 48 on 82games.com, Shaq was 9th, not 36th.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You're looking at roland ratings, which is not +/-


Touche. My mistake. Though Wallace is worse (-11.7) using the actual +/-.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Based upon +/- per 48 on 82games.com, Shaq was 9th, not 36th.


My mistake again. Though I think the point more or less remains the same. If you look at this season you still get results such as Krstic 12th (ahead of Nash, Garnett, Iverson), Frye ahead of Duncan, Ginobili, Yao, and Arenas, Jason Collins ahead of Deng, Gasol, and Baron Davis, JO behind Nesterovich and LaFrentz, and so on. 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/plusminus?positions=10


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> TT is around where many thought he would be at this point.
> 
> If this guy was on the Blazers or Grizzlies, he'd be getting more minutes. Those teams are playing for nothing and are doling out development minutes by the bushel basket.


Tell that to LaMarcus Aldridge & Rudy Gay. Roy is the exception in Portland because he's already a stud.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

SALO said:


> Tell that to LaMarcus Aldridge & Rudy Gay. Roy is the exception in Portland because he's already a stud.


Well, Aldridge and Gay are both averaging around 20 minutes a night for their teams. Not big minutes, but twice the amount Tyrus is logging here. I wouldn't deal Thomas straight up for either player.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> TT is around where many thought he would be at this point.
> 
> Anything more would have been a surprise to me.
> 
> ...


:clap: 

Agree 100%


----------

