Best off-season improvements...
Ed Ouellette
You might wonder what a team should do in the offseason to improve, and in
my opinion there are as many answers as there are teams; some need to add
a player to reach the upper echelon, some need to get into the playoffs.
With all the movement in the offseason, almost any fan can say, truthfully,
that their team got better. Of course, not everyone can improve...
Why all this crap? 'Cause I didn't want this to come off as a woof for the team
that did the BEST job of improving in the off-season:
[drum roll, please]
The Portland Trailblazers.
This team, despite its great run at the end of the regular season, was knocked
outta the playoffs in the first round again last year. Even if all the pieces
had WANTED to stay in Portland, they were an above-average team with
key players in the late stages of their prime. When arguably the best player
decides he wants out, management is under the gun.
Whitsitt and Co. came through with flying colors...
Need to dump Strickland? BAM! Trade him and Grant for Wallace & salary space.
Need to add some scoring? WHAP! Get Rider for 2 scrubs & a conditional pick.
Need to replace Strickland? BOOM! Sign the best free agent PG available,
Kenny Anderson.
Need more youth? KAPOW! Draft a high schooler and make sure none of the key
acquisitions of the summer are over 25.
Need to straighten out Cliff Robinson? ZAP! Let him rot on the bench [OK it
hasn't happened just yet...].
This team now has Sabonis & Dudley @ center; Wallace & Trent @ the 4;
Robinson & Wingfield @ small forward; Rider & McKie @ 'Shooting' guard; Kenny
Anderson and Childress @ the point; with JO'Neal and [Mitchell ButlerMarcus
Brown/Jason Sasser/Reggie Jordan] rounding out the cast of characters.
In almost entire sincerity, the Blazers are now a young, deep team with size.
They _are_ weak in defense and perimeter shooting, but we can't expect a title
the first year anyways, right?
Ed O.
Tim Lynch
e...@molalla.net (Ed Ouellette) wrote:
>[drum roll, please]
>The Portland Trailblazers.
>Ed O.
They should also lead the league in misdemeanors & felonies.
Tim
Anthony D Gunter
In <edo.109....@molalla.net> e...@molalla.net (Ed Ouellette)
writes:
>The Portland Trailblazers.
Surely the L.A. acquisitions equal the improvement of the
trailblazers. N.Y., Toronto, and Vancouver are fighting for
third. Atlanta is next, followed by Dallas and Sacramento.
Do Toronto and Vancouver count, if they've got nowhere to
go but up?
LMirkovic
Ed Ouellette (e...@molalla.net) writes:
>Need to straighten out Cliff Robinson? ZAP! Let him rot on the bench [OK it
>hasn't happened just yet...].
Have you noticed Carlesimo is still the coach?
>....with JO'Neal and...
This guy could be spectacular. Have you seen his summer league numbers?
But, as I said, Carlesimo rules. From the first day of training camp
he's gonna rant: "Lets gel".
Predrag
Irontail
In <51bic3$m...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter) writes:
>
>In <edo.109....@molalla.net> e...@molalla.net (Ed Ouellette)
>writes:
>
>>The Portland Trailblazers.
>
>Surely the L.A. acquisitions equal the improvement of the
>trailblazers. N.Y., Toronto, and Vancouver are fighting for
>third. Atlanta is next, followed by Dallas and Sacramento.
I'd say NY and Toronto had better offseasons than LA... LA just lost
too much in order to acquire Shaq, IMO, to rank their improvement over
the ones made by NY and Toronto. NY didn't lose any signifigant players
save Mason, who was a major detriment to team chemistry, and added two
explosive players who are both on the verge of being All-Stars (not to
mention Wallace, Jones, McCarty, and the veteran 4 time All NBA 1st
team defense Buck Williams). Toronto? Hell, they didn't lose anyone
signifigant to their success except Tracy "I pad my numbers by being on
an expansion team" Murray. They added loads of young talent- Camby,
Davis, Williams, Popeye Jones, and the enigmatic Eric Gingold.
Well, on second thought, LA's offseason was better than Toronto's...
but I don't know about it being better than NY's.
>Do Toronto and Vancouver count, if they've got nowhere to
>go but up?
Roy Navarre
Irontail <iron...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'd say NY and Toronto had better offseasons than LA... LA just lost
>too much in order to acquire Shaq, IMO, to rank their improvement over
Hmm, the Lakers lose Vlade, Peeler and a role player, and in return
get Shaq and Kobe Bryant. Uh, is my math wrong or something? Too much?
Pinhead
Irontail
In <51d4ov$6...@news.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre)
writes:
I admit, it was stupid to list TO up there. But LA did lose
basically their entire bench (Peeler, Threatt (though not directly tied
into getting Shaq... or did they renounce his rights?) and Lynch). I'll
still rank NY's offseason above LA's, though.
>Pinhead
Larry Coon
Irontail wrote:
> I admit, it was stupid to list TO up there. But LA did lose
> basically their entire bench (Peeler, Threatt (though not directly tied
> into getting Shaq... or did they renounce his rights?) and Lynch). I'll
> still rank NY's offseason above LA's, though.
The Lakers did give up a lot of players (Vlade, Peeler, Threatt, Derek
Strong, Fred Roberts, Lynch, Frankie King, and, technically, Magic
Johnson) but for the most part, they were players they could live without
or replace on the free agent market. Vlade obviously isn't needed any
more. Strong backed up the four spot when Elden Campbell played in the
middle or rested, but with Sean Rooks on the roster, Campbell will play
almost exclusively PF, which means fewer available minutes backing him up.
Plus, the Lakers still have Corrie Blount on the roster, who's numbers
were nearly identical to Strong's last year. Roberts and Lynch simply
weren't an integral part of the team last year. Even though Lynch is one
of the hardest working guys out there, and he's a great guy to have on a
roster, the Lakers simply could afford to be without him. Magic Johnson
has been discussed to death, and you can argue either way about whether
he's better off in uniform or watching the game with Arsenio and Dyan.
Frankie King played in a total of about two games all year.
That leaves Peeler and Threatt. Replacing them this year will be Kobe
Bryant, Rumeal Robinson and Derek Fisher, plus whomever else they can sign
before the season starts (I hear Jerry West wants Kenny Smith pretty
badly, for example. They also signed a couple of extra players this past
week, but these guys are strictly training camp fodder). But assuming
they don't sign anybody else who'll be with them when the season starts,
here's what they gave up: Peeler provided offense off the bench at SG,
and good outside shooting. Threatt provided backup PG play, good defense,
and a decent outside shot (going to his left, at least). With Robinson,
Fisher and Bryant, they have guys to at least PLAY both positions.
Defense at the PG spot will probably be worse, and outside shooting is a
question mark (Robinson actually has a decent outside shot, but it remains
to be seen how well Bryant will do in the NBA). So all in all, the
backcourt is probably the same or a little worse than last year, and if
Bryant lives up to his potential, it'll be better.
So did the Lakers' offseason manuvering improve the team? They went from
having a good center to having one of the most dominant players in the
game, and all it really cost them was depth in the backcourt, which may be
negated if Kobe Bryant turns out to be a good player. I'd say they
improved themselves a lot.
Larry Coon
University of California
la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu
Irontail
In <323B0...@fs2.assist.uci.edu> Larry Coon
<la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu> writes:
<snip>
>So did the Lakers' offseason manuvering improve the team? They went
>from having a good center to having one of the most dominant players
>in the game, and all it really cost them was depth in the backcourt,
>which may be negated if Kobe Bryant turns out to be a good player.
>I'd say they improved themselves a lot.
Oh yeah, certainly. But Derek Fisher? Rummeal Robinson? Kobe Bryant?
I'll believe it when I see it... The Lakers' big weakness now is bench
play. Their frontoucrt bench players never really was their strength...
it was the fact that Peeler and Threatt could both come off the bench
and spell Eddie jones and NVE without a big drop in quality or
production in the lineup. My original point was that LA did lose some
players signifigant to their success over the offseason, while NY only
really lost Mason, whose late night antics, arrests, complaining etc
had to go anyway in order for a "championship" caliber chemistry to be
created, which was one of the goals Grunfield was aiming for. Mini
addition by subrtaction there.
But anyway, yeah, LA's losses weren't as bad as I once thought. But
they'll still hurt for 2 or 3 more years until they get someone who can
produce signifigantly off the bench, or until Bryant develops
satisfactoraly, etc.
BTW, Kenny Smith is leaning towards Detroit because he feels he can
get a starting job and more PT there than in LA. So much for the Shaq
Effect.
>Larry Coon
>University of California
>la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu
Jeffrey Burgoyne
Larry Coon <la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu> wrote in article
<323B0...@fs2.assist.uci.edu>...
> Irontail wrote:
>
A bunch of good points. But really, for the next season or
two its a Divac and Johnson for Shaq improvement. This will
not be enough to get out of the West.
In about 4 years though this will be a tough team. Some good
young players. NVE, Jones, Ceballos and Shaq are enough
to guarentee some success. Probably the biggest question
will be Bryant.
And until Blount can prove he can play, don't bring his name
up.
Jeff
David Crotty
In article <51d4ov$6...@news.orst.edu>,
Roy Navarre <nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu> wrote:
>
>Hmm, the Lakers lose Vlade, Peeler and a role player, and in return
>get Shaq and Kobe Bryant. Uh, is my math wrong or something? Too much?
>
Yes, your math is wrong. LA lost Vlade, Magic, Threatt, Peeler,
Derek Strong, Fred Roberts and Frankie King. They gained Shaq, Kobe,
Kersey, R.Robinson, Rooks, and possibly Byron Scott.
dave
Roy Navarre
David Crotty <dacr...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Yes, your math is wrong. LA lost Vlade, Magic, Threatt, Peeler,
>Derek Strong, Fred Roberts and Frankie King. They gained Shaq, Kobe,
>Kersey, R.Robinson, Rooks, and possibly Byron Scott.
Negative. Rooks and Robinson had nada to do with the Shaq Deal.
They traded Vlade to make room, and picked up Kobe in
the process. They traded Peeler and Lynch (gave em away actually)
to free up more money for Shaq. Magic had already retired
or did you miss that?
The equation remains Vlade, Peeler and Lynch for Kobe and Shaq.
Everything else was normal restructuring.
Pinhead
bpo...@ucla.edu
"Jeffrey Burgoyne" <burg...@superaje.com> wrote:
>
>
>Larry Coon <la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu> wrote in article
><323B0...@fs2.assist.uci.edu>...
>> Irontail wrote:
>>
>
>A bunch of good points. But really, for the next season or
>two its a Divac and Johnson for Shaq improvement. This will
>not be enough to get out of the West.
May not this year but the following year they can go all the way. In all
your predictions you are forgeting one thing. Most legit centers in a
league are already at or past 30 and are not going to be around for long.
At the same time Shaq will be around for at least 6 years. Robinson,
Ewing, Olajuwon are getting older. In couple of year Shaq will be the
best center in a league.
>In about 4 years though this will be a tough team. Some good
>young players. NVE, Jones, Ceballos and Shaq are enough
>to guarentee some success. Probably the biggest question
>will be Bryant.
You forget Campbell.
Anthony D Gunter
In <51d8hu$p...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> iron...@ix.netcom.com(Irontail)
writes:
>In <51d4ov$6...@news.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre)
>writes:
>>
>>Irontail <iron...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> I'd say NY and Toronto had better offseasons than LA... LA just
>>>lost too much in order to acquire Shaq, IMO, to rank their
>improvement over
>>
>>get Shaq and Kobe Bryant. Uh, is my math wrong or something? Too
much?
>
>basically their entire bench (Peeler, Threatt (though not directly
tied
>into getting Shaq... or did they renounce his rights?) and Lynch).
I'll
>still rank NY's offseason above LA's, though.
>
I think it's a matter of opinion. Houston is a top 15 shooting
guard... LJ is a top ten SF... three good rookie picks, for
the poor draft positions they were taken in... one of them
is sure to turn out a phenom...
Shaq, however, is one of the very best centers in the leauge,
and Kobe Bryant dominated in the summer leagues... I guess only
the season will tell. Can't wait!
Philip Kasiecki
In article <51js6o$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Anthony D Gunter (chin...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: PG: Payton/Dumars
Not at all...
: SG: J.Jackson/Stackhouse
Jackson can't seen to stay healthy of late, so it's tough to call it
there; Stackhouse was this season, but perhaps he'll gain some
discipline, and perhaps he won't be given so much freedom, as he was
allowed to fire away his rookie season, with all the freedom in the
world.
: SF: Finley/Robinson/Eliot/Mashburn
Finley is underrated, IMO. I don't know if that's Glenn Robinson or
Clifford Robinson; if it's Clifford, then I'd say he's slightly
overrated; Glenn Robinson isn't. Sean Elliot is a key player on the
Spurs, and is underrated, if anything. Mashburn has a world of
potential, and when he's been healthy, he's played to some of it.
: PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
Both are underrated and underexposed, Vaught more so than Davis.
: C : Ewing/Smits
Tough call on Ewing. Smits is underrated; he's solid, but you don't
hear about him, being overshadowed by stars such as Hakeem, Shaq, David
Robinson, Ewing, and Alonzo.
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki Co-op: pkas...@pictel.com
Electrical and Computer Engineering NU: pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Northeastern University Class of 1999
"Hate soon consumes itself, because hate eats up oxygen
and other life-giving properties. Hate can't yield
anything of worth or value, not for very long anyway."
"The price we've paid (for hate) is measured in big
things--lost joy and unrealized understanding, and in
our stupid refusal to see each other's beauty, or to
detect each other's goodness and potential."
- both by Patricia Raybon, "My First White Friend"
David Crotty
In article <51i9g7$f...@news.orst.edu>,
The question is one of improvement over last year, not what they
gave up for Shaq. My original equation was indeed wrong, as I left
out Lynch and Pig Miller, but other than that, I think it accurately
reflects this year's team vs last year's. Did the Lakers come out
ahead? Yeah, I'd say so, especially if Kobe pans out as well as
Jerry West thinks he will.
My question is what will the Lakers do with 2 all star shooting
guards?
dave
Larry Coon
Roy Navarre wrote:
>
> David Crotty <dacr...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >Yes, your math is wrong. LA lost Vlade, Magic, Threatt, Peeler,
> >Derek Strong, Fred Roberts and Frankie King. They gained Shaq, Kobe,
> >Kersey, R.Robinson, Rooks, and possibly Byron Scott.
>
> Negative. Rooks and Robinson had nada to do with the Shaq Deal.
> They traded Vlade to make room, and picked up Kobe in
> the process. They traded Peeler and Lynch (gave em away actually)
> to free up more money for Shaq. Magic had already retired
> or did you miss that?
> The equation remains Vlade, Peeler and Lynch for Kobe and Shaq.
> Everything else was normal restructuring.
>
Not really. When they signed Shaq they renounced Threatt, Strong, King,
Magic and Sam Bowie (who, although retired, still counted against their
cap). While King, Roberts and Bowie would have been gone anyway, I
think the Lakers would have wanted to keep Threatt and Strong if they
handn't had to renounce them. And who knows if Magic's
on-again-off-again-tune-in-to-my-next-press-conference-to-see retirement
would have been on again had he not been renounced and unable to return
until after the new year? Yes, Magic already retired, but since when
has that stopped him?
So considering the players who would have been with them this season
(but I'll leave Magic out) if not for signing Shaq, the deal really was:
Vlade, Lynch and Peeler (traded to make room), Strong and Threatt
(renounced to make room) for Shaq and Bryant.
Jeffrey Burgoyne
Larry Coon <la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu> wrote in article
<323D75...@fs2.assist.uci.edu>...
> Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
>
> > A bunch of good points. But really, for the next season or
> > two its a Divac and Johnson for Shaq improvement. This will
> > not be enough to get out of the West.
>
> They won what, 53 last year, and the players they lost won't cost the
> Lakers games by their absence this year, IMHO. On the other hand, a
You lose Magic Johnson and Vlade Divac and you don't think it will
cost you any games?
> significant percentage of the Lakers' losses last year came at the hands
> of teams with strong games in the post who got Campbell into early foul
> trouble and overwhelmed Divac. That wes the Lakers' most glaring
> weakness, and they addressed it this year. That alone will be worth a
In case you haven't heard, Shaq isn't exactly a defensive menace
against other top line C's. Check the stats and you'll find that the
team that beat you in the playoffs last year has a C that plays much better
than his average against Shaq.
As for Campbell getting a break, that same team will now have a HOF PF
who is very good at drawing fouls in the post.
I stil believe LA is three years away. MO of course. I think NVE needs
a lot of work mentally to become a real PG mostly.
> number of wins. So for playoff seedings, I think it'll be between
> Seattle & LA for #1 (Houston treats the regular season as more of a
> formality), with the other team getting #3. As for getting out of the
> West, I think their chances are as good as anybody's.
Its hard to say. Houston now has a lineup that could easily win
60 games treating the season as a formality. How they will gell
is the second most important question this year (behind how
will LA gell).
>
> > In about 4 years though this will be a tough team. Some good
> > young players. NVE, Jones, Ceballos and Shaq are enough
> > to guarentee some success. Probably the biggest question
> > will be Bryant.
>
> Bryant -is- the biggest question, but I kinda look at it this way -- if
> he ends up just as good as Peeler, then the Lakers haven't lost anything
> talent-wise. But this guy's upside is supposedly (according to Jerry
> West) a lot higher, and anything he delivers above and beyond will be a
> bonus. In other words, the Lakers don't -NEED- Bryant to develop into a
> great player in order to succeed, but it'll sure be nice if he does.
Agreed, but he needs a lot of time. Certainly his age, physical maturity
and injury will almost ensure he is a non factor this year.
>
> And of course, the other problem is that Bryant (and Shaq, for that
> matter) may not be with the team in four years. I'm not so sure I like
> this cap on contract lengths for rookies.
I personally hate it to some extent. I like it in the fact it keeps
outrageous rookie salaries under control. The player leaving sucks.
If they were a "restricted FA", it might work out better.
>
> > And until Blount can prove he can play, don't bring his name
> > up.
>
> You got me there. Even though Blount's numbers were statistically the
> same as Strong's last season, Blount was benched in favor of Strong for
> most of the second half. He can put in a few quality minutes, but I
> have no pretentions of his greatness.
My measuring stick is if you couldn't get any minutes in Chicago (before
Rodman arrived), then you probably won't amount to much.
Jeff
SKUG
Anthony D Gunter
PG: Payton/Dumars
SG: J.Jackson/Stackhouse
SF: Finley/Robinson/Eliot/Mashburn
PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
C : Ewing/Smits
Larry Coon
Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
> A bunch of good points. But really, for the next season or
> two its a Divac and Johnson for Shaq improvement. This will
> not be enough to get out of the West.
They won what, 53 last year, and the players they lost won't cost the
Lakers games by their absence this year, IMHO. On the other hand, a
significant percentage of the Lakers' losses last year came at the hands
of teams with strong games in the post who got Campbell into early foul
trouble and overwhelmed Divac. That wes the Lakers' most glaring
weakness, and they addressed it this year. That alone will be worth a
number of wins. So for playoff seedings, I think it'll be between
Seattle & LA for #1 (Houston treats the regular season as more of a
formality), with the other team getting #3. As for getting out of the
West, I think their chances are as good as anybody's.
> In about 4 years though this will be a tough team. Some good
> young players. NVE, Jones, Ceballos and Shaq are enough
> to guarentee some success. Probably the biggest question
> will be Bryant.
Bryant -is- the biggest question, but I kinda look at it this way -- if
he ends up just as good as Peeler, then the Lakers haven't lost anything
talent-wise. But this guy's upside is supposedly (according to Jerry
West) a lot higher, and anything he delivers above and beyond will be a
bonus. In other words, the Lakers don't -NEED- Bryant to develop into a
great player in order to succeed, but it'll sure be nice if he does.
And of course, the other problem is that Bryant (and Shaq, for that
matter) may not be with the team in four years. I'm not so sure I like
this cap on contract lengths for rookies.
> And until Blount can prove he can play, don't bring his name
> up.
You got me there. Even though Blount's numbers were statistically the
same as Strong's last season, Blount was benched in favor of Strong for
most of the second half. He can put in a few quality minutes, but I
have no pretentions of his greatness.
Larry Coon
University of California
la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu
Patricia Bender
la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu writes:
>
>And of course, the other problem is that Bryant (and Shaq, for that
>matter) may not be with the team in four years. I'm not so sure I like
>this cap on contract lengths for rookies.
>
That's 'cause you've never been stuck with a Randy White for 5 years.
You've got to admit that it is _really_ nice having all but 2 first round
draft picks signed 3 _weeks_ _before_ training camp even starts (and those
2 are looking like they will remain in Europe) where as before you were
lucky if you had your draft pick signed 2 weeks into training camp. Even
a player like Doug Smith (#6 draft pick) wasn't signed until 5 days before
the regular season started.
patricia
--
Patricia Bender patr...@netcom.com
For NBA and Mavericks stuff: http://www.dfw.net/~patricia/index.html
or ftp ftp.netcom.com and cd pub/pa/patricia
Ed Ouellette
In article <patriciaD...@netcom.com> patr...@netcom.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>From: patr...@netcom.com (Patricia Bender)
>Subject: Re: Best off-season improvements...
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 03:07:26 GMT
>la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu writes:
>>
>>And of course, the other problem is that Bryant (and Shaq, for that
>>matter) may not be with the team in four years. I'm not so sure I like
>>this cap on contract lengths for rookies.
>>
>That's 'cause you've never been stuck with a Randy White for 5 years.
>You've got to admit that it is _really_ nice having all but 2 first round
>draft picks signed 3 _weeks_ _before_ training camp even starts (and those
>2 are looking like they will remain in Europe) where as before you were
>lucky if you had your draft pick signed 2 weeks into training camp. Even
>a player like Doug Smith (#6 draft pick) wasn't signed until 5 days before
>the regular season started.
Good point, Patricia. It IS nice to worry about HOW the rookies will play,
rather than if/when they will.
It is difficult to say how much the three-year free agency bit is gonna work.
I guess we'll get a glimpse after next year. Hopefully the teams will pay the
good players and the good players will stay with the teams, rather than all
jumping to the Lakers. j/k
Ed O.
Anthony D Gunter
In <01bba4de$17af9ae0$70df...@burgoyne.superaje.com> "Jeffrey
Burgoyne" <burg...@superaje.com> writes:
>You lose Magic Johnson and Vlade Divac and you don't think it will
>cost you any games?
Magic "Gimme the ball, I'm the point guard dammit" Johnson?
Magic "maybe i'll just retire, or not" Johnson?
Magic "I'll push the ref if i want to, I'm the greatest" Johnson?
The worst thing for team chemistry since the invention of cocaine?
Shaq could dunk with Divac hanging on to the ball. Magic never
could figure out if he was a center, small forward, power forward,
point guard, or even if he really wanted to play.
>
>As for Campbell getting a break, that same team will now have a HOF
>PF who is very good at drawing fouls in the post.
With Shaq AND Campbell in the post, you now have a frontline that
averages 6 blocks per game. On good nights, I have a feeling that
L.A. will beat any team short of Houston, Washington, Seattle, NY,
Chicago, Sacramento, and Portland by 20 points.
>Its hard to say. Houston now has a lineup that could easily win
>60 games treating the season as a formality. How they will gell
>is the second most important question this year (behind how
>will LA gell).
Houston: three unselfish superstars who respect each other...
what is the question again??
L.A.: Shaq showing up should instantly gell the team. Ceballos,
NVE, EJ all become available for tons of wide-open kick-out
shots. Campbell, never much of a light-em-up scorer, becomes
free to defensively dominate the opposing PF, block the lane,
and rebound.
David Crotty
In article <51js6o$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>PG: Payton/Dumars
>
Hey, lay off Joe Dumars. Can the guy help it that he got old? In
his prime, he was a superb player.
>PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
>
How can Loy Vaught be over-rated if no one knows he exists? He's been
remarkably consistent for many years on an ever-changing miserable
Clips squad. We'll see how over-rated he is after this year when,
as a FA, he gets a chance to play for a real team.
>C : Ewing/Smits
Oh lord, I sense another 500 posts about Ewing "camping out at
the 3 point line". Face it, Ewing has carried the Knicks for a decade.
He took an awful team, put them on his back, and got them one shot
away from a title. If that's over-rated, then so be it.
dave
Larry Coon
Patricia Bender wrote:
> That's 'cause you've never been stuck with a Randy White for 5 years.
> You've got to admit that it is _really_ nice having all but 2 first round
> draft picks signed 3 _weeks_ _before_ training camp even starts (and those
> 2 are looking like they will remain in Europe) where as before you were
> lucky if you had your draft pick signed 2 weeks into training camp. Even
> a player like Doug Smith (#6 draft pick) wasn't signed until 5 days before
> the regular season started.
Absolutely. But how many of the holdouts were due to the money, and how
many were due to the contract length? Most, if not all that I can
remember were due to the salary per year (although I may be putting my
foot in my mouth by saying that). I think the rookie cap is great -- I
just think the three year limit stinks. As for Randy White, I don't
think the smart teams should be penalized because the league feels it
needs to protect the not-so-smart ones from their own mistakes.
An alternative that was just mentioned, and which I like a lot, is to
institute restricted free agency at the end of the three year rookie
deals.
Richard Goldman
Philip Kasiecki wrote:
> In article <51js6o$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Anthony D Gunter (chin...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
>
> Both are underrated and underexposed, Vaught more so than Davis.
>
> : C : Ewing/Smits
>
> Tough call on Ewing. Smits is underrated; he's solid, but you don't
> hear about him, being overshadowed by stars such as Hakeem, Shaq, David
> Robinson, Ewing, and Alonzo.
In my opinion, being "overrated" and being "underrated" are
surprisingly close to being the same thing - it means that there's a
group of people who likes you, and a group that hates you.
Irontail
In <51js6o$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
How, praytell, is Ewing overrated? Payton?
Loy Vaught? If anything, he's underrated. Dumars...? He doesn't get
any hype at all nowadays. Davis is a very solid defensive/rebounding
PF. Finley was well deserving of all the praise he received with his
excellent D and versatile O.
Larry Coon
Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
> You lose Magic Johnson and Vlade Divac and you don't think it will
> cost you any games?
If they started four guys and didn't use a center, then yes, the loss of
Vlade would cost them games. Since they found a reasonably capable
replacement, no, I don't think Vlade's loss will cost them games.
As for Magic, before he came back I was all in favor of his return. And
there's no question he played at a high level even after being out over
four years. But the distractions made up for his contributions -- the
Lakers' record was about the same after his return as before. So no, I
don't think his loss (even though there's no direct replacement as there
is with Vlade) will cost them games.
> In case you haven't heard, Shaq isn't exactly a defensive menace
> against other top line C's. Check the stats and you'll find that the
> team that beat you in the playoffs last year has a C that plays much better
> than his average against Shaq.
Yeah, I think I might have heard that somewhere. But the Lakers'
problem was that they had two guys who were easily pushed around in the
paint. Vlade more so than Campbell, which forced Campbell to guard the
opponent's center most of the time. While no Bill Russell, Shaq will at
least have a big body and muscle to apply in the low post, and free
Campbell to take a defensive assignment to which he's more suited.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at -- are you arguing that the
Lakers were better off defensively with Vlade & Campbell than with Shaq
and Campbell?
> As for Campbell getting a break, that same team will now have a HOF PF
> who is very good at drawing fouls in the post.
...who can't match up defensively with Campbell.
> I stil believe LA is three years away. MO of course. I think NVE needs
> a lot of work mentally to become a real PG mostly.
I agree with you about NVE, and I think they'll get better over time,
but I think they're close enough to the other teams in the west -right
now- that they have as good a shot as anybody has of making the Finals.
> Its hard to say. Houston now has a lineup that could easily win
> 60 games treating the season as a formality. How they will gell
> is the second most important question this year (behind how
> will LA gell).
With Houston, you have to consider the possibility that injuries have a
significant chance of affecting the outcome. Moreso with Houston than
with the other teams, given the nucleus' age, projected minutes played,
and injury history. But they certainly have the -potential- to win a
lot of games.
> Agreed, but he needs a lot of time. Certainly his age, physical maturity
> and injury will almost ensure he is a non factor this year.
The injury to Bryant is fairly short term, and won't significantly
affect the season. It'll just force them to give up any idea they might
have entertained of rushing him. They say he'll still run drills with
the team in training camp. Plus, luckily for him, the injury is to his
non-shooting arm.
> I personally hate it to some extent. I like it in the fact it keeps
> outrageous rookie salaries under control. The player leaving sucks.
> If they were a "restricted FA", it might work out better.
The rookie cap keeps rookie salaries under control. The UFA just gives
them a payday. Not that they don't deserve it -- if they've been in the
league for three years and excelled, then they should be entitled to the
bucks. I just hate the idea of a team investing a draft pick and
investing in developing a player, only to lose that player just when he
starts making big contributions. Your RFA idea for rookies is a good
one.
> My measuring stick is if you couldn't get any minutes in Chicago (before
> Rodman arrived), then you probably won't amount to much.
That's a little unfair -- he wasn't well suited to the offense in
Chicago. It's the same reason I still like Charles Smith, despite what
happened in New York. If you're not in a system that plays to your
strengths, you're not going to play to your potential.
Larry Coon
Patricia Bender wrote:
> Actually, Jim Jackson's _long_ holdout was largely due to length.
> After getting stuck with busts White and Doug Smith, Donald Carter only
> wanted to give Jackson a 4 year contract while Jackson wanted a 6 year
> contract. Eventually Jackson signed a 6 year contract in March.
See, I knew I'd have to eat my words. I still stand by my more relaxed
stance that -most- rookie holdouts were due to money rather than length,
however. Still, if you're going to implement a system to fix the
problem, you want to fix -all- of the problem, not just -most- of it.
I thought the way the Jackson holdout turned out was interesting. I'm
sure you remember better than I do, but from what I remember, Jerry West
wanted Jackson badly, so right at the trading deadline he set up a three
way deal where he would send Vlade to the Bucks, the Bucks would send
Dallas (somebody), and Dallas would send JJ to the Lakers. From what I
heard, JJ himself nixed the deal (by saying he wouldn't sign with the
Lakers, either), so Dallas had no choice other than to give in and sign
him. At least that's the way I remember it.
> Hide sight is 20-20. The next Karl Malone turned out not to be. All
> teams have/had draft picks that didn't meet expectations.
But nobody holds a gun to their heads and makes them sign the
contracts. They have nobody to blame for themselves, and I'm against
legislation to protect people from themselves.
> Ah, but the CBA is an agreement between two sides that have completely
> different agendas. The owners wanted a limit on the skyrocketing
> rookie salaries. That was a major concession for the player's
> association. I highly doubt that they would have agreed to the rookie cap
> if the three year contracts ended with restricted free agency.
Probably not, but it still seems like a better solution to me. The only
concern is that RFA holds salaries down as compared to UFA, since nobody
wants to offer a player a big contract when it's just going to be
matched anyway. Oh well....
Patricia Bender
la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu writes:
>Patricia Bender wrote:
>
>> That's 'cause you've never been stuck with a Randy White for 5 years.
>> You've got to admit that it is _really_ nice having all but 2 first round
>> draft picks signed 3 _weeks_ _before_ training camp even starts (and those
>> 2 are looking like they will remain in Europe) where as before you were
>> lucky if you had your draft pick signed 2 weeks into training camp. Even
>> a player like Doug Smith (#6 draft pick) wasn't signed until 5 days before
>> the regular season started.
>
>Absolutely. But how many of the holdouts were due to the money, and how
>many were due to the contract length? Most, if not all that I can
>remember were due to the salary per year (although I may be putting my
>foot in my mouth by saying that).
Actually, Jim Jackson's _long_ holdout was largely due to length.
After getting stuck with busts White and Doug Smith, Donald Carter only
wanted to give Jackson a 4 year contract while Jackson wanted a 6 year
contract. Eventually Jackson signed a 6 year contract in March.
>I think the rookie cap is great -- I
>just think the three year limit stinks. As for Randy White, I don't
>think the smart teams should be penalized because the league feels it
>needs to protect the not-so-smart ones from their own mistakes.
>
Hide sight is 20-20. The next Karl Malone turned out not to be. All
teams have/had draft picks that didn't meet expectations.
>An alternative that was just mentioned, and which I like a lot, is to
>institute restricted free agency at the end of the three year rookie
>deals.
>
Ah, but the CBA is an agreement between two sides that have completely
different agendas. The owners wanted a limit on the skyrocketing
rookie salaries. That was a major concession for the player's
association. I highly doubt that they would have agreed to the rookie cap
if the three year contracts ended with restricted free agency.
Jeffrey Burgoyne
Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<51js6o$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
> PG: Payton/Dumars
> SG: J.Jackson/Stackhouse
> SF: Finley/Robinson/Eliot/Mashburn
> PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> C : Ewing/Smits
>
Overrated? One of the better PF's in the league and gets less
all star votes than most retired players.
Jeff
Rich McLean
Ed Ouellette wrote:
>
> You might wonder what a team should do in the offseason to improve, and in
> my opinion there are as many answers as there are teams; some need to add
> a player to reach the upper echelon, some need to get into the playoffs.
>
> With all the movement in the offseason, almost any fan can say, truthfully,
> that their team got better. Of course, not everyone can improve...
>
> Why all this crap? 'Cause I didn't want this to come off as a woof for the team
> that did the BEST job of improving in the off-season:
>
> [drum roll, please]
>
> The Portland Trailblazers.
>
> This team, despite its great run at the end of the regular season, was knocked
> outta the playoffs in the first round again last year. Even if all the pieces
> had WANTED to stay in Portland, they were an above-average team with
> key players in the late stages of their prime. When arguably the best player
> decides he wants out, management is under the gun.
>
> Whitsitt and Co. came through with flying colors...
> Need to dump Strickland? BAM! Trade him and Grant for Wallace & salary space.
> Need to add some scoring? WHAP! Get Rider for 2 scrubs & a conditional pick.
> Need to replace Strickland? BOOM! Sign the best free agent PG available,
> Kenny Anderson.
> Need more youth? KAPOW! Draft a high schooler and make sure none of the key
> acquisitions of the summer are over 25.
> Need to straighten out Cliff Robinson? ZAP! Let him rot on the bench [OK it
> hasn't happened just yet...].
>
> This team now has Sabonis & Dudley @ center; Wallace & Trent @ the 4;
> Robinson & Wingfield @ small forward; Rider & McKie @ 'Shooting' guard; Kenny
> Anderson and Childress @ the point; with JO'Neal and [Mitchell ButlerMarcus
> Brown/Jason Sasser/Reggie Jordan] rounding out the cast of characters.
>
> In almost entire sincerity, the Blazers are now a young, deep team with size.
> They _are_ weak in defense and perimeter shooting, but we can't expect a title
> the first year anyways, right?
>
> Ed O.
Without considering the new players, Washington may just have made the
biggest leap in talent in the offseason due to:
1. Re-signing Juwann Howard after almost letting him slip through their
fingers.
2. Getting Chris Webber back after missing basically the past two
seasons with a separated shoulder.
3. Getting Gheorge Muresan back after his season-ending knee injury.
When you factor in the new players ...
4. Rod Strickland, in the top handful of PGs in the NBA.
5. Tracey Murray, who averaged about 17 ppg last year.
6. Tyrone Outlaw, a defensive and rebounding presence.
7. Rookie Ronnie Henderson from LSU, who if healthy can challenge
Cheaney for major minutes.
8. Harvey Grant, a gunner who got about 10 last year.
If you look at who we lost ...
1. Waaaaasheed Wallace, whose diaper-soaked attitude won't be missed
with Webber, Howard, and Outlaw getting the minutes at the 4.
2. Jim McIlvane, a shot blocker who has less total game than Outlaw.
3. Brent Price, who Strickland replaces to upgrade the PG tremendously.
4. Mitchell Butler, who didn't ever play
When Tim Legler, the NBA 3-point champ returns in January from knee
rehab, this team will be unrecognizable from the one that finished the
season barely missing the playoffs.
--
Rich McLean
Redskins, Blue Devils, Yankees, Bullets, Capitals
Patricia Bender
la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu writes:
>Patricia Bender wrote:
>
>> Actually, Jim Jackson's _long_ holdout was largely due to length.
>> After getting stuck with busts White and Doug Smith, Donald Carter only
>> wanted to give Jackson a 4 year contract while Jackson wanted a 6 year
>> contract. Eventually Jackson signed a 6 year contract in March.
>
>stance that -most- rookie holdouts were due to money rather than length,
>however. Still, if you're going to implement a system to fix the
>problem, you want to fix -all- of the problem, not just -most- of it.
>
Yah, JJ was the exception. But his successful hold-out proved to the
agents that they could get whatever they demanded if they stuck to their
guns. No team wanted to lose a first round draft pick and get nothing in
return.
>> Hide sight is 20-20. The next Karl Malone turned out not to be. All
>> teams have/had draft picks that didn't meet expectations.
>
>But nobody holds a gun to their heads and makes them sign the
>contracts. They have nobody to blame for themselves, and I'm against
>legislation to protect people from themselves.
>
But the agents do hold a gun to their heads. Let's take a look at the
1994 draft signings, the last non-cap draft. (Unfortunately my data is a
little limited since that was before my wandering onto the web and the
explosion sports sites, so my sources then were limited to ESPN
SportCenter, a little of the crappy Austin paper, and occassionally the
Dallas Morning News.)
At least 15 first round draft picks were signed to 5 year or longer
contracts - and some of those contained opt-out clauses for the players.
The draft is a gamble. Of those 15, some team is still paying the
contracts of Donyell Marshell (#4, 9 years), Carlos Rogers (#11, 9 years),
Khalid Reeves (#12, 5 years), Yinka Dare (#14, 5 years), and Bill Curley
(#22, 5 years). [Interesting that of those busts, only Dare is still
with the team that draft him.]
[Dates, length, and amount are from my nba-dailys at the time and may not
be completely accurate. So amounts include non-guaranteed clauses and
incentive clauses. But it gives you a good idea of how things went.
# means player signed after training camp started
!# means players signed after October 25 (season started November 4)]
Pick Team Player Date signed Length Contract Amount
1. !#Mil Glenn Robinson 11/3 10 years $68.15 mill
2. Dal Jason Kidd 9/3 9 years ~$56 mill
3. Det Grant Hill 9/29 8 years $45 mill
4. Min Donyell Marshall 9/26 9 years $42 mill
5. !#Was Juwan Howard 11/17 6 years $24 mill
6. Phi Sharone Wright 10/4 6 years $18 mill
7. #LAC Lamond Murray 10/21 13 years $13.5 mill
8. !#Sac Brian Grant 10/30 13 years $29.33 mill
9. Bos Eric Montross 8/26 11 years $17-20 mill
10. LAL Eddie Jones 7/28 ??? ???
11.!#Sea Carlos Rogers 11/8 9 years ???
12. #Mia Khalid Reeves 10/10 5 years $8.5 mill
13. Den Jalen Rose 9/29 6 years $10.2 mill
14. NJ Yinka Dare 8/18 5 years $9 mill
15. #Ind Eric Piatkowski 10/14 ??? ???
16.!#GS Clifford Rozier 10/29 4 years ???
17. Por Aaron McKie 10/5 6 years $7 mill
18. #Mil Eric Mobley 10/10 ??? ???
19. Dal Tony Dumas 9/16 4 years ???
20. Phi B.J. Tyler 10/5 ??? ???
21. #Chi Dicky Simpkins 10/12 ??? ???
22. SA Bill Curley 9/21 5 years $5.5 mill
23. Pho Wesley Person 7/26 ??? ???
24. NY Monty Williams 10/5 ??? ???
25. Ind Greg Minor - Ind lost the rights to Minor
26. NY Charlie Ward ??? ??? ???
27. Orl Brooks Thompson 10/6 ??? ???
Food for though,
Ed Ouellette
In article <323ED4...@herndon.grumman.com> Rich McLean <mcl...@herndon.grumman.com> writes:
[my drivel deleted]
>Without considering the new players, Washington may just have made the
>biggest leap in talent in the offseason due to:
>1. Re-signing Juwann Howard after almost letting him slip through their
>fingers.
>2. Getting Chris Webber back after missing basically the past two
>seasons with a separated shoulder.
>3. Getting Gheorge Muresan back after his season-ending knee injury.
Webber and Howard are good, and Muresan is above average, but
keeping the same players you had is not an improvement, in my book.
(Although... Howard WAS _kinda_ off the team for a while, so they improved
since that time.)
>When you factor in the new players ...
>4. Rod Strickland, in the top handful of PGs in the NBA.
He _is_ good. When he decides he likes the coach. And his contract. And the
moons are aligned just so. I mean the guy wouldn't even take a doggone
physical. And he has shown he is not afraid to sit out when the season gets
rolling... Even when he DOES play, he is a sub-par FT shooter. [Only some of
these criticisms are sour grapes; some are legit.]
>5. Tracey Murray, who averaged about 17 ppg last year.
For a team that needed scoring. He is not gonna get that many shots, I'd
imagine, with Strickland, Webber, Howard and Cheaney (in that order?)
getting THEIR shots. He certainly has had trouble creating his own shots,
and his defense (unless it has improved a lot since his days in Portland (hard
to check defensive abilities from box scores and highlights...)) sucks.
>6. Tyrone Outlaw, a defensive and rebounding presence.
Hehe.
>7. Rookie Ronnie Henderson from LSU, who if healthy can challenge
>Cheaney for major minutes.
Umm... I don't know TOO much about him, but I think you might be overrating
him a bit.
>8. Harvey Grant, a gunner who got about 10 last year.
A gunner? You remember the OLD Harvey. The one who the Knicks signed
to a big offer sheet. The one that got traded to Portland. He is different
now. I bet Washington HAD to take him, so Portland could clear up more
room.
>If you look at who we lost ...
>1. Waaaaasheed Wallace, whose diaper-soaked attitude won't be missed
>with Webber, Howard, and Outlaw getting the minutes at the 4.
A couple words, my friend: maturity; potential; lottery pick; rookie. I
mean, this guy is so young. He obviously needs to work on his game, but
I expect his maturity level to rise in what would be his senior year at UNC.
With Webber & Howard around, though, he was a decent person to trade.
If only Portland & Washington had traded the year BEFORE so Whitsitt
coulda drafted Garnett. Oh, well.
>2. Jim McIlvane, a shot blocker who has less total game than Outlaw.
I think most people have a higher estimation of McIlvane than you do,
myself included. We'll see.
>3. Brent Price, who Strickland replaces to upgrade the PG tremendously.
Strickland IS an upgrade, but losing Price hurts depth in the backcourt.
>4. Mitchell Butler, who didn't ever play
True. I am not even sure he is gonna stick with the Blazers, so maybe y'all
can get him back.
You also forgot Robert Pack, off the top of my head. He has been hurt, but
he could have provided some depth.
>When Tim Legler, the NBA 3-point champ returns in January from knee
>rehab, this team will be unrecognizable from the one that finished the
>season barely missing the playoffs.
Does Legler play some PG? If not, who is the backup there? Just curious...
Ed O.
Roy Navarre
Rich McLean <mcl...@herndon.grumman.com> wrote:
>Without considering the new players, Washington may just have made the
>biggest leap in talent in the offseason due to:
Oh? This will be interesting.
>1. Re-signing Juwann Howard after almost letting him slip through their
>fingers.
No improvement here. They had him last season.
>2. Getting Chris Webber back after missing basically the past two
>seasons with a separated shoulder.
So? He's been a big bust so far in the NBA-for a first pick anyway.
>3. Getting Gheorge Muresan back after his season-ending knee injury.
Big stiff. I hope his knee is 100% nevertheless. He's a likeable
big stiff.
>When you factor in the new players ...
>4. Rod Strickland, in the top handful of PGs in the NBA.
One of the worst attitudes in the NBA. Good riddance to him.
>5. Tracey Murray, who averaged about 17 ppg last year.
Couldnt even make the Portland roster. Not a hard worker. The
Utah debacle. I'm amazed he is still in the NBA.
>6. Tyrone Outlaw, a defensive and rebounding presence.
CBA material.
>7. Rookie Ronnie Henderson from LSU, who if healthy can challenge
>Cheaney for major minutes.
Whoa. Thats right. Now that you mention it, Washington should
kick ass next year.
Pinhead
Anthony D Gunter
In <edo.129....@molalla.net> e...@molalla.net (Ed Ouellette)
writes:
>>Cheaney for major minutes.
>be overrating him a bit.
Actually, he was the SEC's leading scorer for two straight
years. He dropped out of first round contention after poor
workouts, but the guy has definite potential...
Anthony D Gunter
In <51mqtp$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David
Crotty) writes:
>
>In article <51js6o$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>PG: Payton/Dumars
>>
>
>Hey, lay off Joe Dumars. Can the guy help it that he got old?
>In his prime, he was a superb player.
Yeah... I know. I just couldn't think of anyone else...
I felt damned guilty putting him on there and regretted
it them moment I touched send.
Loved watching Laimbeer and Rodman on the same team.
>
>>PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
>>
>
>How can Loy Vaught be over-rated if no one knows he exists? He's been
>remarkably consistent for many years on an ever-changing miserable
>Clips squad. We'll see how over-rated he is after this year when,
>as a FA, he gets a chance to play for a real team.
Loy Vaught is over-rated because everyone claims he's so damned
under-rated. I believe I've seen posts on RSBP putting him in
the top 10... Is he better than any of the following players?
Kemp Malone Campbell Barkley Webber Radja McDyess JSmith VBaker
Googs HoG Brian Grant Spoon Laettner D.Davis Rodman.... no.
>
>>C : Ewing/Smits
>
>Oh lord, I sense another 500 posts about Ewing "camping
>out at the 3 point line".
Well, you know... I think we'll get a chance to watch our
theories in action this year... N.Y. and Atlanta have similar
teams in all but the rookie talent department. Let's see
which ends up with the better record. Hell... I'm spotting
you three potential rookie stars...
LMirkovic
Rich McLean (mcl...@herndon.grumman.com) writes (about the Bullets):
>6. Tyrone Outlaw, a defensive and rebounding presence...Jim McIlvane,
>a shot blocker who has less total game than Outlaw.
Is this guy a shotblocking cross-breed between Tyrone Bogues and Charles Outlaw
that occasionally goes by the name of Lorenzo Williams.
Predrag
LMirkovic
Patricia Bender (patr...@netcom.com) writes:
>Actually, Jim Jackson's _long_ holdout was largely due to length.
>After getting stuck with busts White and Doug Smith, Donald Carter only
>wanted to give Jackson a 4 year contract while Jackson wanted a 6 year
>contract. Eventually Jackson signed a 6 year contract in March.
Length of the deal most of the time then depended on opening salary
slot. If slot was small then contract got extended to cover more
years translating to more guaranteed money. Look at Montross in
1994. Eleven years was a result of tiny starting slot ($800G), much
like other cases in 1994 (Grant, McKie). The question of money/length
debate all depended, again, on available slots under old agreement.
Dalas did have a fairly huge slot at disposal when Jackson got drafted.
Carter initially offered 4-year, $10.5M deal. That offer
came after Leatnner signed with Minnesota for 6 years ($21.6M)
(Leatnner was 3rd pick, Jackson 4th, L. Ellis 5th), and after Ellis signed
5-year deal worth $13.3M. Just look at the list from 1994 to see that
Marshall's contract was just behind Hill's. So Jackson's agent had
every right to prolong the negotiations. First, he didn't answer
Carter's offer for ten weeks (or close to it), then he decided to
get serious by sending Carter a cover of pre-season magazine
featuring the pictorial of first four picks. The message was strong: we better
get close to Leatnner's deal or Jackson will sit out the whole year.
It's hard to tell what was more important to Termini, length or dollar amount,
these two are tightly related anyway. Carter meanwhile, offered a sweetener
by sticking to pretty much the same deal, now including a payment
of $7M in first 2 months (not related to actual salaries).
Jackson eventually signed 6-year, $19M contract, but before he joined
the team Dallas was seriously out of playoff picture with 4-50 record.
Thankfully, impact of Jackson was felt from day one, and Dallas
finished the season with 7-21 run.
>Unfortunately my data is a little limited since that was before...
>10. LAL Eddie Jones 7/28 ??? ???
Eddie signed 6-year deal worth $11.4M ($1.3M, $1.6M, $1.8M...).
Which leads me to...
.....er, nothing actually.
Predrag
LMirkovic
Roy Navarre (nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu) recalls:
>>Tracey Murray, who averaged about 17 ppg last year.
>Couldnt even make the Portland roster. Not a hard worker. The
>Utah debacle. I'm amazed he is still in the NBA.
Can we not remember all 4 participants of Utah debacle. Dave
Johnson and Tracy Murray were the leaders. Jerome Kersey
and Reggie Smith also took part, but were only fined by the
Blazers. Initially Clyde Drexler and Cliff Robinson were
rumored to be part of the crew as well.
One name conspiciously missing from the list...never mind.
Predrag
William Keleher
I know that NY and LA are the popular choices here.
But it may depend on how you measure improvement.
If you measure improvement by the playoffs, LA is probably your best bet.
But if you use W-L records, take a good look at the Hawks. By picking up
Dikembe, they really add two players because L8 is back at PF where he can
be quite effective. If L8 can provide Atlanta with the kind of credible
4-10' scoring threat they have been missing, Smith will become very very
dangerous.
NY is a total X factor. Looks great on paper but who knows?
Houston & Childs: the real deal or the dread good player / bad team effect?
LJ & Ewing: who is gonna be happy as the #2 option?
Rookies: Nick Van Exel X 3 or Ed O'Bannon X 3?
-Wm.
Jeffrey Burgoyne
Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<51opcr$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
> >>
> >
> >How can Loy Vaught be over-rated if no one knows he exists? He's been
> >remarkably consistent for many years on an ever-changing miserable
> >Clips squad. We'll see how over-rated he is after this year when,
> >as a FA, he gets a chance to play for a real team.
>
> Loy Vaught is over-rated because everyone claims he's so damned
> under-rated. I believe I've seen posts on RSBP putting him in
> the top 10... Is he better than any of the following players?
> Kemp Malone Campbell Barkley Webber Radja McDyess JSmith VBaker
> Googs HoG Brian Grant Spoon Laettner D.Davis Rodman.... no.
>
Name all of the PF listed above who shot > 50% from the field, scored at
least 15 ppg and grabbed minimum 10 rebounds per game.
Try Kemp, Barkley, and Vaught.
Vaught is better than (IMO) Cambell (better ppg, rpg, fg%), Radja (fg%,
rpg),
McDyess (although maybe not for long), JSmith (again, not for long),
Googs (ppg, rpg, fg%),, Brian Grant, Laettner. Better in fg%, ppg and rpg
than
HoGrant (although not nearly as good defensively).
He also puts in around 75% from the line and plays steady D.
Here is a good measure for under rated. Have you got the all star voting
totals
for last year? Lets see where he sits, and you'll find a lot of players
that
cannot touch him far above him.
Jeff
Rob Carpenter
In article <51o5b2$4...@news.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>From: nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre)
>Subject: Re: Best off-season improvements...
>Rich McLean <mcl...@herndon.grumman.com> wrote:
>>Without considering the new players, Washington may just have made the
>>biggest leap in talent in the offseason due to:
>Oh? This will be interesting.
>>1. Re-signing Juwann Howard after almost letting him slip through their
>>fingers.
>No improvement here. They had him last season.
Juwan will improve. Improvement.
>>2. Getting Chris Webber back after missing basically the past two
>>seasons with a separated shoulder.
>So? He's been a big bust so far in the NBA-for a first pick anyway.
A big bust that won ROY.
>>3. Getting Gheorge Muresan back after his season-ending knee injury.
>Big stiff. I hope his knee is 100% nevertheless. He's a likeable
>big stiff.
And a talented big stiff. Just ask that big brick layer in LA.
>>When you factor in the new players ...
>>4. Rod Strickland, in the top handful of PGs in the NBA.
>One of the worst attitudes in the NBA. Good riddance to him.
So he'll fit right in.
>>5. Tracey Murray, who averaged about 17 ppg last year.
>Couldnt even make the Portland roster. Not a hard worker. The
>Utah debacle. I'm amazed he is still in the NBA.
New city, New lease.
>>6. Tyrone Outlaw, a defensive and rebounding presence.
>CBA material.
>>7. Rookie Ronnie Henderson from LSU, who if healthy can challenge
>>Cheaney for major minutes.
>Whoa. Thats right. Now that you mention it, Washington should
>kick ass next year.
I was waiting for this. I for one am hoping he stays healthy because
he will kick Cheaney's no-talent ass.
Rob Carpenter
>Pinhead
Kevin W. Dolorico
LMirkovic (pred...@sprynet.com) wrote:
: Rich McLean (mcl...@herndon.grumman.com) writes (about the Bullets):
:
: >6. Tyrone Outlaw, a defensive and rebounding presence...Jim McIlvane,
: >a shot blocker who has less total game than Outlaw.
:
: Is this guy a shotblocking cross-breed between Tyrone Bogues and Charles Outlaw
: that occasionally goes by the name of Lorenzo Williams.
(Hahahahah!)
--
\\___// Kevin W. Dolorico: kwd...@is4.nyu.edu
<o o> http://pages.nyu.edu/~kwd9152/ Two From The Heart
\_/ [Schmeep@NYU] [Technomaster]
"Someone just got a job..."
Douglas Hayden
Roy Navarre posted this stuff on 18 Sep 1996 06:37:22 GMT:
: >2. Getting Chris Webber back after missing basically the past two
: >seasons with a separated shoulder.
: So? He's been a big bust so far in the NBA-for a first pick anyway.
Well, he hasn't been a bust when he's actually played. It's just
keeping him on the court that's the problem...
: >3. Getting Gheorge Muresan back after his season-ending knee injury.
: Big stiff. I hope his knee is 100% nevertheless. He's a likeable
: big stiff.
Big stiff with good stats and a cult following. Then again, he isn't
Saint Shaquille the Infalliable, therefore he sucks in Roy's book.
: >5. Tracey Murray, who averaged about 17 ppg last year.
: Couldnt even make the Portland roster. Not a hard worker. The
: Utah debacle. I'm amazed he is still in the NBA.
Well, he did make Toronto's roster and did quite well there. Granted,
this is Toronto we're talking about, but it has to amount to something
(even if it is just a bench role in Whizzardville).
More to come on Saint Shaquille...
----------
Doug Hayden hay...@opus.oca.udayton.edu
---------- hayd...@flyernet.udayton.edu
"Give me a young man with brains enough dha...@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu
to make a fool of himself!" hayd...@saber.udayton.edu
Michael K. Tamada
In article <51opcr$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <51mqtp$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David
>Crotty) writes:
[...]
>>>PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
>>>
>>How can Loy Vaught be over-rated if no one knows he exists? He's been
[...]
>Loy Vaught is over-rated because everyone claims he's so damned
>under-rated.
Fair enough.
>I believe I've seen posts on RSBP putting him in
>the top 10...
I don't remember seeing any (yes, I am aware that they could be out
there and I simply haven't read them, or don't remember them).
>Is he better than any of the following players?
>Kemp Malone Campbell Barkley Webber Radja McDyess JSmith VBaker
>Googs HoG Brian Grant Spoon Laettner D.Davis Rodman.... no.
He's certainly less talented than Webber, but in terms of what
he's accomplished on the court, as opposed to potential, he's way ahead of
Webber. Even more so with McDyess. If one is building a team for the
future, McDyess is attractive. If one is looking at what the player
accomplished last season (or is likely to accomplish this season),
Vaught is ahead of McDyess.
My informal, off-the-cuff ranking:
Vaught is clearly behind Kemp Malone Barkley HoGrant and Rodman.
He's probably behind Campbell VBaker Brian Grant Dale Davis and Rodman,
though with Brian Grant and DDavis it's close. (Notice that that's 10
players that I'm putting aheead of Vaught, bumping him to #11 at best).
Vaught vs Radja JSmith Googs Spoon and Laettner is too close to call.
Vaught beats Webber and McDyess based on what they've actually
accomplished in the NBA.
Does that make Vaught overrated? Well if you could clearly point out
the times where Vaught is being called a top 10 power forward (or for
that matter, times where anyone is calling him the best power forward
in the NBA), then I'd agree that he's overrated. But I don't
remember seeing anyone say those things. And even if one or two fanatic
Clippers fans are saying it (and "fanatic Clipper fan" is a double
oxymoron), the true question is: are there a *large* number of fans or
sportswriters or coaches calling him a top 10 power forward? If so,
then yes he is overrated. But I don't see fans, sportswriters, or
coaches calling him that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|__ o
| W Mike Tamada
|\ Institutional Research Office
\O Occidental College
| tam...@oxy.edu
/|
| |
Tim T Ketchum
In article <960919.12...@cheshire.cc.oxy.edu>, tam...@oxy.edu
(Michael K. Tamada) wrote:
> In article <51opcr$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
> Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <51mqtp$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David
> >Crotty) writes:
>
> [...]
[..]
>
> >>>PF: Loy Vaught/D. Davis
> >>>
> >>How can Loy Vaught be over-rated if no one knows he exists? He's been
>
> My informal, off-the-cuff ranking:
> Vaught is clearly behind Kemp Malone Barkley HoGrant and Rodman.
> He's probably behind Campbell VBaker Brian Grant Dale Davis and Rodman,
Campbell goes from an inconsistent underachiever to top 10 PF -> JUST BY
HAVING SHAQ ADDED TO HIS TEAM!!!!!
:)
-tim
David Crotty
In article <960919.12...@cheshire.cc.oxy.edu>,
Michael K. Tamada <tam...@oxy.edu> wrote:
>
> My informal, off-the-cuff ranking:
> Vaught is clearly behind Kemp Malone Barkley HoGrant and Rodman.
>He's probably behind Campbell VBaker Brian Grant Dale Davis and Rodman,
>players that I'm putting aheead of Vaught, bumping him to #11 at best).
>Vaught vs Radja JSmith Googs Spoon and Laettner is too close to call.
>Vaught beats Webber and McDyess based on what they've actually
>accomplished in the NBA.
>
Vaught is a much better offensive player than Campbell, Grant, Davis,
Rodman, HoGrant and McDyess. These guys all have D and rebounding on Vaught
however.
One other point he has going for him is his consistency. Can someone post
His numbers over the last 5 years?
dave
Anthony D Gunter
In <960919.12...@cheshire.cc.oxy.edu> tam...@oxy.edu (Michael K.
Tamada) writes:
>
>In article <51opcr$r...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <51mqtp$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David
>>Crotty) writes:
>>>How can Loy Vaught be over-rated if no one knows he exists?
>>Loy Vaught is over-rated because everyone claims he's so damned
>>under-rated.
>
> Fair enough.
> [...]
>Even more so with McDyess. If one is building a team for the
>future, McDyess is attractive. If one is looking at what the player
>accomplished last season (or is likely to accomplish this season),
>Vaught is ahead of McDyess.
>
> My informal, off-the-cuff ranking:
> Vaught is clearly behind Kemp Malone Barkley HoGrant and Rodman.
>Vaught vs Radja JSmith Googs Spoon and Laettner is too close to call.
Spoon has simply been holding back until he gets some real team-
mates with high lottery picks. After they get Duncan next year,
expect Spoon to showcase his real talent for the first time.
>Vaught beats Webber and McDyess based on what they've actually
>accomplished in the NBA.
>
> Does that make Vaught overrated?
Well, yes it does. Can you imagine if McDyess was on the Clippers?
He would be scoring 20ppg. Vaught manages a weak 16... and still
leads the team in scoring... McDyess was the fourth option on the
Nuggets, and still managed 13ppg even though he played 700 minutes
less than Vaught. The simple fact that you, or anyone, would
compare Vaught favorably with Joe Smith, McDyess, RADJA(!!), and
Webber makes Vaught HIGHLY overrated.
Anthony D Gunter
In <51se4m$b...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David
Crotty) writes:
>Vaught is a much better offensive player than Campbell, Grant,
>rebounding on Vaught however.
Come on... the guy scores 16 ppg with heavy PT and is the first
scoring option on his team. Campbell, HoGrant, and McDyess all
score nearly that much and are all the fourth scoring options
on their respective teams, and with less PT!
>
>One other point he has going for him is his consistency.
>Can someone post his numbers over the last 5 years?
It will not change my mind if I find out he's performed in the
same mediocre fashion year after year. I still say he sucks,
unless he's got some moves I just don't know about.
Anthony D Gunter
>Campbell goes from an inconsistent underachiever to top 10 PF ->
>JUST BY HAVING SHAQ ADDED TO HIS TEAM!!!!!
In my mind, Campbell went last year from being an underachiever to
the best defensive power forward, and arguably a top FIVE all around
power forward. C'mon... we've been over this. The guy gets nearly
twice as many blocks per minute as the next best blocking power
forward(McDyess), and was thirteenth in scoring per minute among the
power forwards. He was third in lowest number of turn-overs. Tied
for seventh in number of steals. Tied for eighth in number of
assists. All this despite being played out of position against
the larger centers for much of the season, which resulted in
early foul trouble some games.
Just think, with Campbell and Shaq BOTH in the lane... we're
talking a combined five blocks per game.
Bryan Thomas Nelson
Per minute stats have their place in a sports argument or debate but, really,
let's think logically. How often has a top five(at his position) player had
to rely on per minute statistics to show how good he was? If he is top five
he is getting the minutes to prove it, a la Malone, Kemp, Baker, Howard,
Radja, Rodman, or whoever else you want to put in there. Campbell is not
comprable. Blocked shots does not make one an excellent defender. How many
times does a player let his opponent score trying to get a piece of the ball?
Jim McIlvane is the TOP defensive center in this league! He average blah
blah blah blocks per minute!
BIG FUCKING DEAL.
When Campbell shows me the mental toughness that I have never seen in him I
will be impressed, until then, being the 13th best scorer(per minute, no
less) is not very impressive at all. Sure, I like him on my tema, but top
five? Maybe(MAYBE) top ten.
Ricky Pierce scores more points than Jordan on a per minute basis some
years, does that mean he was a better offensive player than Jordan?
Um, no.
Bryan
From article <51u1rj$c...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, by chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter):
Anthony D Gunter
In <51ui2s$5...@uwm.edu> shy...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Bryan Thomas
Nelson) writes:
>Per minute stats have their place in a sports argument or
>debate but, really, let's think logically.
Or, in your case, let's not.
>How often has a top five(at his position) player had
>to rely on per minute statistics to show how good he was?
O.k. if you want to play like that, Campbell is THE best shot
blocking PF in the league. He has TWICE the number of blocks
as the next best blocking PF in the league. TWICE!!! Without
even going to per-minute stats. Your argument is tanking.
>If he is top five he is getting the minutes to prove it,
O.K.... here your argument tanks again. Campbell had 2699 minutes
in a crowded rotation.
>Blocked shots does not make one an excellent defender.
O.K... how's this: he was in the top ten in steals for PF's.
Tanked.
>Jim McIlvane is the TOP defensive center in this league!
>He average blah blah blah blocks per minute!
>
>BIG FUCKING DEAL.
Your "logic" is really shining through here!
>Ricky Pierce scores more points than Jordan on a per minute basis some
>years, does that mean he was a better offensive player than Jordan?
Well, of course you must factor the team, the situation, and
serious bricklaying (shooting solely to improve stats) into
any equation. Here your argument TANKS TANKS TANKS, and TANKS
again. Campbell was called in often to handle the larger centers
or to play general back-up center. This led to early foul
trouble often, and limited his rebounding due to size mismatches.
He also shot .503, and played very unselfish team ball. Look next
year for Campbell to continue his annual improvement on the stats
list.
And in the mean time, quit filling up the newsgroup with your
angry drivel.
David Crotty
>theories in action this year... N.Y. and Atlanta have similar
>teams in all but the rookie talent department. Let's see
>which ends up with the better record. Hell... I'm spotting
>you three potential rookie stars...
Well, NY has the better center. LJ is better than whatever stiff Atlanta
is throwing out at SF. Laettner is better all around than Oakley.
Houston/Smith is a wash at off guard, and I'll give Atlanta a slight
edge at PG, though Mookie takes way too many 3 point shots (more than
half his shot attempts I believe). NY's got a deeper bench, though
Atlanta has a better coach.
My main worry with Atlanta will be who is going to score. They don't
really have an offensive superstar on the team while NY has 3.
Atlanta, with Wilkins' coaching, will be a defensive monster. I see
them fighting Indiana for the 3 spot in the EC.
dave
Ward R Drennan
chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter) wrote:
>
> In <51ui2s$5...@uwm.edu> shy...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Bryan Thomas
> Nelson) writes:
> >Jim McIlvane is the TOP defensive center in this league!
> >He average blah blah blah blocks per minute!
> >
> Well, of course you must factor the team, the situation, and
> serious bricklaying (shooting solely to improve stats) into
> any equation.
So the per minute stats don't really say much.
Generally, the per minute stats are nearly worthless unless
you're playing at least 20 minutes/game - even then if you have
better per minute stats than someone with better all-around numbers,
there must be some reason you're not getting the playing time.
Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play, streaky shooting, etc. etc.
> And in the mean time, quit filling up the newsgroup with your
> angry drivel.
There wasn't much drivel in that note.
Ward Drennan
IU SPHS
Todd Trubey
dacr...@cco.caltech.edu (David Crotty) writes:
>Well, NY has the better center. LJ is better than whatever stiff Atlanta
>is throwing out at SF. Laettner is better all around than Oakley.
>Houston/Smith is a wash at off guard, and I'll give Atlanta a slight
>edge at PG, though Mookie takes way too many 3 point shots (more than
>half his shot attempts I believe). NY's got a deeper bench, though
>Atlanta has a better coach.
Although I would agree with NY having the better center, the difference is
not extreme: Mutumbo is pretty damn good at what he does.
>My main worry with Atlanta will be who is going to score.
Last I saw the Hawks--as Orlando put them out in the playoffs (sigh)--Steve
Smith was still able to light it up.
They don't
>really have an offensive superstar on the team while NY has 3.
And we don't really know how that's going to work. Either LJ or Ewing will
seemingly have to do considerably less scoring unless both work really well
together without getting their noses out of joint.
>Atlanta, with Wilkins' coaching, will be a defensive monster. I see
>them fighting Indiana for the 3 spot in the EC.
INDIANA!?! Led by Dale Davis and who the heck else? Now that Reggie's
signed that deal with Magic Johnson's barnstorming team, those guys is going
to SUCK.
>dave
Trube
Bryan Thomas Nelson
From article <51umeg$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, by chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter):
>>debate but, really, let's think logically.
>
> Or, in your case, let's not.
>
>>How often has a top five(at his position) player had
>>to rely on per minute statistics to show how good he was?
>
> O.k. if you want to play like that, Campbell is THE best shot
> blocking PF in the league. He has TWICE the number of blocks
> as the next best blocking PF in the league. TWICE!!! Without
> even going to per-minute stats. Your argument is tanking.
Fine. I'll give you that. Campbell is the best shot blocker in the
league at PF. Dikembe Mutombo and Shawn Bradley are the best C's at shot
blocking. Therefore they are top five Centers. Hmm, whose argument is
tanking now?
>>If he is top five he is getting the minutes to prove it,
>
> O.K.... here your argument tanks again. Campbell had 2699 minutes
> in a crowded rotation.
Fine, he got minutes, and did not show top five potential.
So what are you saying? That he got a lot of minutes and deserved them,
therefore becoming a top five PF? Is it just me, or was his main
competition (if you want to use that word) at PF Corie Blount and George
Lynch? In addition playing backup center? I'd say that he better average
about 35mpg at least in those circumstances to be considered fair to middling.
Corie Blount? Please. No one that averages under 15 points is top five
regardless of his other skills or what position he plays.
>
>>Blocked shots does not make one an excellent defender.
>
> O.K... how's this: he was in the top ten in steals for PF's.
> Tanked.
Best shotblocker, decent stealer. That does not change the fact that he is
an average scorer at best and has nothing on Howard, Malone, Kemp, Baker,
Radja, Barkley, Larry Johnson, should I go on? He is the defensive version
of Gugliotta. Big hairy deal.
Is Nick Anderson a top five SG? He is a great defender, a
decent scorer, a decent passer and can get a respectable amount of boards.
Top five? No. Good player? Sure.
>
>
>>Jim McIlvane is the TOP defensive center in this league!
>>He average blah blah blah blocks per minute!
>>
>>BIG FUCKING DEAL.
>
> Your "logic" is really shining through here!
Say what you will, but you did not refute the statement. You just used
"quotes" to show your sarcasm. Did it have a point? What is your opinion?
Is McIlvane the best defensive center based on his per minute stats or not?
If you say no, you admit per minute stats are bull. If you say yes, you
admit that you are full of shit. Take your pick.
>
>>Ricky Pierce scores more points than Jordan on a per minute basis some
>>years, does that mean he was a better offensive player than Jordan?
>
> Well, of course you must factor the team, the situation, and
> serious bricklaying (shooting solely to improve stats) into
> any equation.
Uh-huh, fine.
But are you going to answer the question or not? Is Ricky Pierce a better
scorer than Jordan? Per minute stats would indicate he is.
Here your argument TANKS TANKS TANKS, and TANKS
> again. Campbell was called in often to handle the larger centers
> or to play general back-up center. This led to early foul
> trouble often, and limited his rebounding due to size mismatches.
Baker plays center all the time and gets 10 rebounds a game. Charles Barkley
is (maybe) 6'6" and pulls down 10 or 11 a game. Sorry. That argument does
not cut it. Try again.
> He also shot .503, and played very unselfish team ball. Look next
> year for Campbell to continue his annual improvement on the stats
> list.
Since when is 50% for a PF a mark of excellence?
Maybe he will, and maybe he won't. But a player is not considered top five
based on what he might do, but rather on what he has done. And right now
there are more than five power forwards better than him. You can lie to
yourself about it if you want to, but that won't change the facts. Don't
get me wrong - I would love for him to be on my team. I'll take any decent
player I can get. But I would much rather have Kemp, Malone, Barkley,
Howard, Webber, Baker, and even Radja over him. SO would any sane GM in the
league.
>
> And in the mean time, quit filling up the newsgroup with your
> angry drivel.
Angry? No. Exasperated? Yes.
*flush*
Bryan
Anthony D Gunter
In <51uoms$a...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> Ward R Drennan
<wdre...@indiana.edu> writes:
>chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter) wrote:
>>
>> In <51ui2s$5...@uwm.edu> shy...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Bryan Thomas
>> Nelson) writes:
>
>
>> >Jim McIlvane is the TOP defensive center in this league!
>> >He average blah blah blah blocks per minute!
>> >
>
>> serious bricklaying (shooting solely to improve stats) into
>> any equation.
>
No, it's you who doesn't really say much.
>
>Generally, the per minute stats are nearly worthless unless
>you're playing at least 20 minutes/game - even then if you have
>better per minute stats than someone with better all-around numbers,
>there must be some reason you're not getting the playing time.
>Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play, streaky shooting, etc. etc.
Vin Baker had more 2ppg more than Kemp, but Kemp played 700 minutes
less than Vin Baker. 700 MINUTES!!! Now, which of the following
applies to Shawn Kemp: Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play,
streaky shooting, etc. etc.
>
>
>> And in the mean time, quit filling up the newsgroup with your
>> angry drivel.
>
>There wasn't much drivel in that note.
>
Oh... no drivel in this one...
Here's an article attacking me for supporting Campbell
based on per-minute stats.
:How often has a top five(at his position) player had
:to rely on per minute statistics to show how good he was?
:If he is top five he is getting the minutes to prove it,
DRIVEL: Campbell gets plenty of PT. 2699 minutes. More than
Shawn Kemp. Almost as much as Olajuwon.
:Campbell is not comprable. Blocked shots does not make one an
:excellent defender.
DRIVEL: Campbell gets TWICE the number of blocked shots, not
only per minute, but PER GAME, as the next best
blocking PF. TWICE!!! Not only that, but he's in
the top ten for steals, also!
:How many times does a player let his opponent score trying to
:get a piece of the ball?
DRIVEL: Not often when you can block as good as a 5 and still work
in some steals to boot.
:
:BIG FUCKING DEAL.
:
No need to point out the drivel here.
Ok, Mr. Beaver Drennan, how many of the following factors apply
to Campbell: Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play, streaky
shooting, etc. etc.
I mean, besides the etc. etc.
Kevin W. Dolorico
William Keleher (kel...@cs.tulane.edu) wrote:
: I know that NY and LA are the popular choices here.
:
: But it may depend on how you measure improvement.
:
: If you measure improvement by the playoffs, LA is probably your best bet.
Hmm... Well, ya know... the Lakers had a formidable record last year. In
terms of improvement by the playoffs, we'll just assume they have enough
power to get out of the first round (they had the "pleasure" of meeting
the recently "healthy" Rockets team...)
:
: But if you use W-L records, take a good look at the Hawks. By picking up
: Dikembe, they really add two players because L8 is back at PF where he can
: be quite effective. If L8 can provide Atlanta with the kind of credible
: 4-10' scoring threat they have been missing, Smith will become very very
: dangerous.
I don't think the Hawks will win tremendously more than last season. 10
more wins at the best? Same thing w/ the Knicks and Lakers.
If you're looking for best overall improvement: Check out the Raptors,
Philly, Vancouver, Dallas, and Milwaukee.
The Raptors picked up a couple of good frontcourt players and backcourt
players. By virtue of being pretty weak last year, you can bet they'll
improve. Of course, they hired a completely inexperienced coach, you
never know, perhaps they'll stagnate on purpose.
Philly got Coleman's weight under control, a "solid" center/rebounder
(Cage), and a guy @ point (Iverson). I expect them to make the biggest
improvement, to a .500+ level from whatever they were @ last year.
Vancouver picked up a frontcourt in SAR and Rogers... on top of this, they
also added a bit of depth. Perhaps they'll gain 15 games over last year,
maybe not.
Dallas has everyone healthy again and a new frontcourt... if Jackson
returns to form... if Montross turns into a player...if Mashburn wears his
glasses... well, they could be a .500+ team.
Milwaukee did a lot of improving last year. Considering they had two
all-star quality forwards, you'd expect more. This year, they've added
Andrew Lang (solid center), Armon Gilliam to back up the forward slots
(arguably as potent a player as Baker...), Ray Allen to fill the "vacant"
SG slot, and Moochie Norris to play backup point. They're arguably the
most improved team, since they filled so many holes (every hole?)...
As far as the Knicks are concerned, they fall into the same category of
the Lakers/Hawks/Houston--- they've increased their chances of getting
deep in the playoffs by a lot. Given the team the Knicks sported in the
playoffs, having warm bodies on the bench certainly couldn't hurt. The
old core is there... and expect the team to win *at least* 55. That's
only an improvement of 7... but they certainly have many more weapons and
more quality depth than last season's playoff team.
Ward R Drennan
chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter) wrote:
>
> In <51uoms$a...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> Ward R Drennan
> <wdre...@indiana.edu> writes:
> >
> >chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter) wrote:
> >>
> >> In <51ui2s$5...@uwm.edu> shy...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Bryan Thomas
> >> Nelson) writes:
> >
> >
> >> >Jim McIlvane is the TOP defensive center in this league!
> >> >He average blah blah blah blocks per minute!
> >> >
> >
> >> Well, of course you must factor the team, the situation, and
> >> serious bricklaying (shooting solely to improve stats) into
> >> any equation.
> >
> >So the per minute stats don't really say much.
>
> No, it's you who doesn't really say much.
If you can't win, get personal. It's any politicians motto.
>
> >
> >Generally, the per minute stats are nearly worthless unless
> >you're playing at least 20 minutes/game - even then if you have
> >better per minute stats than someone with better all-around numbers,
> >there must be some reason you're not getting the playing time.
> >Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play, streaky shooting, etc. etc.
>
> Vin Baker had more 2ppg more than Kemp, but Kemp played 700 minutes
> less than Vin Baker. 700 MINUTES!!! Now, which of the following
> applies to Shawn Kemp: Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play,
> streaky shooting, etc. etc.
>
Jesus Christ. Baker got mega minutes because his team sucked.
Kemp got fewer minutes because the Sonics had players to fill in and
many times they were ahead by enough they could take Kemp out in the
4th. I'm not referring to any players specifically. It's merely
a general comment. If you're comparing JoeSmoe bench mate
to Kemp or Jordan or any other star based on per minute stats,
the comparison is bogus.
> >
> >
> >> And in the mean time, quit filling up the newsgroup with your
> >> angry drivel.
> >
> >There wasn't much drivel in that note.
> >
>
> Oh... no drivel in this one...
> Here's an article attacking me for supporting Campbell
> based on per-minute stats.
>
I didn't say anything about Campbell, just the limited validity
of per minute stats. I have no critisisms of Campbell. The previous
poster made some non-drivel comments about the limited validity
of per minute stats. You COULD defend Campbell without said stats.
> how many of the following factors apply
> to Campbell: Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play, streaky
> shooting, etc. etc.
>
Fatigue obviously and having players on your team that can fill
in when you're gettin tired.
Ward Drennan
IU SPHS
Paul A. Lebar
What do the Bulls do with two All-Star small fowards (Ok Tony isn't exactly
an All-Star , but he did win smoty which makes him an All-Star by the
loose definiton). Anyway, having an extra all-star is never a bad
thing. You then can always have a team leader on the court and that is
never a bad thing. Additionally, if you have another positiona where you
are week then you have a good trade. I think the biggest advantage of
depth though, especially in the NBA is that you can play a
non-traditional lineup. The lakers can use a three guard lineup with
Shaq to run the ball like crazy. Think about how effective that woudl be
against a team like Houston that has a relatively old lineup that would
have trouble keeping up with young legs running for the whole game.
Paul A. Lebar
Undergraduate - Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
> My question is what will the Lakers do with 2 all star shooting
> guards?
>
> dave
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony D Gunter
In <5220hs$6...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> Ward R Drennan
<wdre...@indiana.edu> writes:
>> >Generally, the per minute stats are nearly worthless unless
>> >you're playing at least 20 minutes/game - even then if you have
>> >better per minute stats than someone with better all-around
numbers,
>> >there must be some reason you're not getting the playing time.
>> >Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play, streaky shooting, etc. etc.
>>
>> Vin Baker had more 2ppg more than Kemp, but Kemp played 700 minutes
>> less than Vin Baker. 700 MINUTES!!! Now, which of the following
>> applies to Shawn Kemp: Fatigue, inexperience, bad clutch play,
>> streaky shooting, etc. etc.
>>
>Jesus Christ. Baker got mega minutes because his team sucked.
>Kemp got fewer minutes because the Sonics had players to fill in and
>many times they were ahead by enough they could take Kemp out in the
>4th. I'm not referring to any players specifically. It's merely
>a general comment. If you're comparing JoeSmoe bench mate
>to Kemp or Jordan or any other star based on per minute stats,
>the comparison is bogus.
I don't think I have EVER used per minute stats to support someone
who has gotten under 20 minutes per game. But the point is, if you
are going to compare stars, you MUST use per minute stats, or a Vin
Baker will look better, per game, than Shawn Kemp. Per minute
stats are the perfect vehicle for comparing players of comparable
stature, when used with a grain of common sense. However, you
want to throw the baby out with the bath water by supporting some
bone head who chooses to say (and I paraphrase) FUCK YOU AND YOUR
STINKING PER MINUTE STATS.
>> Here's an article attacking me for supporting Campbell
>> based on per-minute stats.
>>
>
>I didn't say anything about Campbell, just the limited validity
>of per minute stats. I have no critisisms of Campbell. The previous
>poster made some non-drivel comments about the limited validity
>of per minute stats. You COULD defend Campbell without said stats.
Or not. Without per-minute stats, Campbell's stature seems to fade
against players like Vin Baker who get 700 more minutes of PT for
no better reason than the team sucks. Campbell is unarguably one
of the best defensive PF's in the league. His stats per game,
however, do not point to his domination the way that his stats per
minute do.
No, I do not propose that per-minute stats support McIlvaine as
the best defensive C in the league. At C, if you KNOW you can
average a foul every 3 minutes and still not foul out of the
game, your game becomes much more physical and daring (spelled
hacking... see Longley, 95-96). However, if McIlvaine's per-
minute stats as a starter playing 30+ minutes per game match
his stats as a 20 minute per game second rate bench warmer,
I'll be one of the first to give him his props.
Anthony D Gunter
In <52059h$o...@uwm.edu> shy...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Bryan Thomas
Nelson) writes:
>
>From article <51umeg$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, by
chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter):
>> In <51ui2s$5...@uwm.edu> shy...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Bryan Thomas
>> Nelson) writes:
>>>Per minute stats have their place in a sports argument or
>>>debate but, really, let's think logically.
>>
>> Or, in your case, let's not.
>>
>>>How often has a top five(at his position) player had
>>>to rely on per minute statistics to show how good he was?
>>
>> O.k. if you want to play like that, Campbell is THE best shot
>> blocking PF in the league. He has TWICE the number of blocks
>> as the next best blocking PF in the league. TWICE!!! Without
>> even going to per-minute stats. Your argument is tanking.
>
>Fine. I'll give you that. Campbell is the best shot blocker in
>the league at PF. Dikembe Mutombo and Shawn Bradley are the best
>C's at shot blocking. Therefore they are top five Centers. Hmm,
>whose argument is tanking now?
Campbell is in the top ten for steals also. I'd say you are.
Not only that, but Bradley and Mutumbo do not record TWICE the
number of blocks as the next best blocking C's...
TWICE!!!
>
>>>If he is top five he is getting the minutes to prove it,
>>
>> O.K.... here your argument tanks again. Campbell had 2699 minutes
>> in a crowded rotation.
>
>Fine, he got minutes, and did not show top five potential.
Or got minutes and showed everyone he was arguably the best defensive
PF in the league.
>Is it just me, or was his main competition (if you want to use that
>word) at PF Corie Blount and George Lynch? In addition playing backup
>center?
Let's see... at 4/5 we have Blount Divac Campbell Lynch and don't
forget Magic. Hmmm... somewhat crowded, if not exceptional.
>I'd say that he better average about 35mpg at least in those
>circumstances to be considered fair to middling.
Well, gee! You just eliminated Shawn Kemp. You'll probably
attribute that to the brilliant PF play of Frank "I didn't mean
to choke Rodman" Brickowski.
>No one that averages under 15 points is top five
>regardless of his other skills or what position he plays.
So you have eliminated John Stockton from top five PG.
Interesting.
Roy Navarre
>>>7. Rookie Ronnie Henderson from LSU, who if healthy can challenge
>>be overrating him a bit.
>Actually, he was the SEC's leading scorer for two straight
>years. He dropped out of first round contention after poor
>workouts, but the guy has definite potential...
Not entirely accurate. Ronny had a knee injury earlier this year
which teams were worried about. Then, someone floated a rumor around
drafttime that he was in an alchol rehabilitation center--which both he
and Dale Brown denied. Those two factors combined caused him to slide.
Bottom line? Washington got a steal.
Pinhead
Roy Navarre
Rob Carpenter <rm...@erols.com> wrote:
>I was waiting for this. I for one am hoping he stays healthy because
>he will kick Cheaney's no-talent ass.
Yea, one could argue about which school produces the most overhyped
stiffs--Dook or Indiana.
Pinhead
Ward R Drennan
chin...@ix.netcom.com(Anthony D Gunter) wrote:
>
> In <5220hs$6...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> Ward R Drennan
> <wdre...@indiana.edu> writes:
> >>
> >Jesus Christ. Baker got mega minutes because his team sucked.
> >Kemp got fewer minutes because the Sonics had players to fill in and
> >many times they were ahead by enough they could take Kemp out in the
> >4th. I'm not referring to any players specifically. It's merely
> >a general comment. If you're comparing JoeSmoe bench mate
> >to Kemp or Jordan or any other star based on per minute stats,
> >the comparison is bogus.
>
> I don't think I have EVER used per minute stats to support someone
> who has gotten under 20 minutes per game. But the point is, if you
> are going to compare stars, you MUST use per minute stats, or a Vin
> Baker will look better, per game, than Shawn Kemp. Per minute
> stats are the perfect vehicle for comparing players of comparable
> stature, when used with a grain of common sense.
Really, the best way to compare two players is to watch them play!
You know, Baker is really a good player. Kemp may be a little better.
He's a little more vivacious, he jumps a little higher, etc.
As for per minute stats, I don't like them much.
> >
> >I didn't say anything about Campbell, just the limited validity
> >of per minute stats. I have no critisisms of Campbell. The previous
> >poster made some non-drivel comments about the limited validity
> >of per minute stats. You COULD defend Campbell without said stats.
>
> Or not. Without per-minute stats, Campbell's stature seems to fade
> against players like Vin Baker who get 700 more minutes of PT for
> no better reason than the team sucks. Campbell is unarguably one
> of the best defensive PF's in the league. His stats per game,
> however, do not point to his domination the way that his stats per
> minute do.
>
All stats are limited. To know that Campbell was one of the best
defensive PF in the league, you'd have to watch ALL the PFs in the
league play several nights against qualified competition. There are
few stats that really show a player's defensive value.
Ward Drennan
IU SPHS
Brian Harper
Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<51umeg$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>...
> O.k. if you want to play like that, Campbell is THE best shot
> blocking PF in the league. He has TWICE the number of blocks
> as the next best blocking PF in the league. TWICE!!! Without
> even going to per-minute stats. Your argument is tanking.
I joined this late, but had to correct you here. Campbell had 2.6 blocks
per game, Shawn Kemp and Joe Smith each had 1.6. Last time I checked 2 x
1.6 was 3.2. If you use stats to support an argument, please at least use
correct math.
> >Blocked shots does not make one an excellent defender.
>
> O.K... how's this: he was in the top ten in steals for PF's.
> Tanked.
First off, Campbell averaged 1.1 steals per game. Sure, that's 8th among
power forwards, but 16 power forwards averaged between 0.8 and 1.3 steals
per game. That's over half the starting PFs in the league. The difference
between the 4th highest and 19th highest is half a steal. The difference is
minor at best, power forwards simply don't get enough steals to make much
of a difference. Secondly, steals aren't exactly a great indicator of
overall defensive ability either. Statistics are woefully inadequate in
determining the defensive performance of a player. There are plenty of
players that are excellent at stopping their opponent without either
blocking their shot or stealing the ball. And on the other side of that
coin, there are players that get a good number of blocks or steals, but
also get burned a lot.
You may argue that Campbell is a good defender, but unfortunately,
defensive prowess can not be proved or disproved by ANY stats, per-minute,
per-game, or per-whatever-you-want.
Brian Harper
Anthony D Gunter
In <01bba9db$cd78d240$ee44b6cc@yosemites> "Brian Harper"
<bri...@seanet.com> writes:
>
>
>
>Anthony D Gunter <chin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><51umeg$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>...
>> O.k. if you want to play like that, Campbell is THE best shot
>> blocking PF in the league. He has TWICE the number of blocks
>> as the next best blocking PF in the league. TWICE!!! Without
>> even going to per-minute stats. Your argument is tanking.
>
Shawn Kemp had 127 blocks, Joe Smith had 134, Campbell had
212. O.k. not twice, but don't you have the common sense to
detect some frothing-at-the-mouth-wild-hand-waving-hyperbole
in my posts?
>You may argue that Campbell is a good defender, but
>unfortunately,defensive prowess can not be proved or disproved
>by ANY stats, per-minute,per-game, or per-whatever-you-want.
I definitely agree with you here. However, without stats, it
comes down to "He's a good defender" "IS NOT" "IS TOO" "IS NOT"
"IS TOO" and soon the whole rsbp is filled with it.
What would be ideal is if the stats people posted a POINTS SCORED
ON stat for each player, and an opposing FG%. It doesn't seem
like that would be very hard to compute... in fact, someone in
here may have those......
Larry Coon
Anthony D Gunter wrote:
> What would be ideal is if the stats people posted a POINTS SCORED
> ON stat for each player, and an opposing FG%. It doesn't seem
> like that would be very hard to compute... in fact, someone in
> here may have those......
Problem is, Campbell is one example of a player who would suffer in that
statistic, because he spent a lot of the season guarding centers.
Larry Coon
University of California
la...@fs2.assist.uci.edu
Anthony D Gunter
In <526lht$s...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> Ward R Drennan
O.k. then... having watched several of the PF'S in the league
against qualified talent, I hereby decree Elden Campbell to be
the greatest defensive power forward in the league!!!
Hey... that was easy! Ward, you make this so scientific...
Flapjacker
Per minute stats are a great indication of player ability.
Elden Campbell is one of the best players in the league!
Jim McIlvaine rules the lane with an iron fist, and will quickly
destroy the foolish and ball-hoggedy Jordan.
Spoon, master of the per-minute stat, will transcend the NBA
and form his own league!
The Pacers will perish at the hands of Toronto and be banished
to the CBA.
Dontae Jones will become starting shooting guard when angry
fans carry Houston from the court for his ball-hoggedy bricking.
These and other prognostications direct from the flapjacker!
Gary J. Heidenreich
Flapjacker (flapj...@aol.com) wrote:
: Per minute stats are a great indication of player ability.
Completely wrong!!! In the Statis-Pro Basketball game, there are many
players who have pretty cards (nice statistics) but only averaged 1 point
per game, whereas a superstars card might not be as nice but he is the
superstar. It's not if he can get .10 blocks a minute, it is his
consistency to play major minutes at a high level.
: Elden Campbell is one of the best players in the league!
Yeah, this is baiting...I can only laugh. This guy/gal (Flapjacker) I
guess is trying to make a name for his/her self (notice I'm being
politically correct) in RSBP. If so, he had one cardinal mistake,
Jordan, when used as below, should be spelled jordon. Hell, *I* know that.
I'll have to remember to read the whole post before responding to
an obvious bait (or is the word "Troll").
Gary Heidenreich
Go Bucks!!
: Jim McIlvaine rules the lane with an iron fist, and will quickly
: destroy the foolish and ball-hoggedy Jordan.
: These and other prognostications direct from the flapjacker!
Anthony D Gunter
In <52bupj$10...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> ghe...@post.its.mcw.edu (Gary J.
Heidenreich) writes:
>
>Flapjacker (flapj...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Per minute stats are a great indication of player ability.
Flapjacker, you are surely the master.
I'm sure you write more per minute than any other RSBPer!
Anthony D Gunter
In <52bupj$10...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> ghe...@post.its.mcw.edu (Gary J.
Heidenreich) writes:
>
>Flapjacker (flapj...@aol.com) wrote:
>
Laugh while you still can, funny boy. Elden Campbell will
destroy all takers this season. He and Shaq will jam the lane
so badly, and EJ, Ceballos, and NVE will prowl the perimeter
so profusely that the only open shots will be from half-court.
New Lakers motto: Drive the lane, get rejected, fool.
Douglas Glass
Anthony D Gunter (chin...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <52bupj$10...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net> ghe...@post.its.mcw.edu (Gary J.
Well at least someone is finally jocking a non-white role player as the
latest basketball god.