ImageImageImageImageImage

The 2012 Rookie Class

Moderators: nate33, WizStorm, miller31time, LyricalRico, pineappleheadindc

User avatar
dandridge 10
Starter
Posts: 2,344
And1: 322
Joined: Feb 16, 2005

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#91 » by dandridge 10 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:45 pm

payitforward wrote:So now we have people saying a good player will play better on a good team, and a good player will play better on a bad team.

What would you regard as empirical evidence for either of these positions?


Where is all of your empirical evidence? We are stating our opinions, and mine is based on my personal experience. I didn't know we were in a court of law.
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,859
And1: 609
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#92 » by payitforward » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:46 pm

To extend the point in a slightly different direction: either position seems to posit that how "good" a player is, and how well that player plays, are two different things. But, they aren't.

A player is as good as he plays. Not as good as he plays his best game(s), or his worst, but as good as he plays overall over some significant stretch of time (i.e. a large sample to work w/).

The only evidence for the positions some of you seem to want to take would be a significant tendency for players to put up significantly different numbers for different teams they are on -- especially if some of them are good teams and others are bad teams. This would have to be regressed out of the rest of the factors affecting a guy's play (the arc of development and decline, injuries, etc.).

Dave Berri claims to have studied this and concludes that no there is no such significant variation. Doesn't mean no exceptions, of course.
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
I_Like_Dirt
RealGM
Posts: 16,646
And1: 453
Joined: Jul 12, 2003
Location: Game: Blouses.

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#93 » by I_Like_Dirt » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:02 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:Yeah, I gotta agree with Kevin. The Wizards have brought in, through the draft or trades, a CRAP TON of lousy players. Yes, the environment here sucks -- but mainly because a ton of flawed or flat out sucky players have come through this franchise. Players here suck because management has chosen to bring in players who suck. Players who go to the Spurs are awesome because the Spurs bring in players who are awesome.


Yeah, this is pretty much something I agree with, too. There are the odd exceptions where a guy like Diaw is awful for the Bobcats because he doesn't try and looks much better for the Spurs but even there Diaw wasn't nearly as amazing for the Spurs as he was made out to be. The Spurs tend to sign good players to good contracts. The majority of the rest of the league tends not to do so. It's amazing how quickly an environment can turn around when you bring in good players. The Sonics weren't considered a great environment and it wasn't the sale of the team and moving them to OKC that changed the environment. They changed their management and their new management decided to stop bringing in mediocre or worse players and start bringing in players like Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka and suddenly they have an amazing team environment.

The one exception where the Wizards are concerned is that a player seems to become about 398% more likely to be injured the second he dons a Wizards roster.
Prepare to be RASHOWNED!
User avatar
dandridge 10
Starter
Posts: 2,344
And1: 322
Joined: Feb 16, 2005

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#94 » by dandridge 10 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:05 pm

payitforward wrote:To extend the point in a slightly different direction: either position seems to posit that how "good" a player is, and how well that player plays, are two different things. But, they aren't.

A player is as good as he plays. Not as good as he plays his best game(s), or his worst, but as good as he plays overall over some significant stretch of time (i.e. a large sample to work w/).

The only evidence for the positions some of you seem to want to take would be a significant tendency for players to put up significantly different numbers for different teams they are on -- especially if some of them are good teams and others are bad teams. This would have to be regressed out of the rest of the factors affecting a guy's play (the arc of development and decline, injuries, etc.).

Dave Berri claims to have studied this and concludes that no there is no such significant variation. Doesn't mean no exceptions, of course.


I think a large part also depends on the type of player we are talking about. A player like Michael Jordan is going to be great no matter where he goes just because he was so versatile and talented. However, lets say we are talking about a player that is not so talented and versatile. For example, let's talk about someone like Mike Miller or Bruce Bowen. Both of these players would likely maximize their talents playing with a team like the Heat or Spurs because those teams had more weapons to space the floor. Put those players on a team that had no offensive weapons and they are not going to do so well.
User avatar
dandridge 10
Starter
Posts: 2,344
And1: 322
Joined: Feb 16, 2005

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#95 » by dandridge 10 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:21 pm

Another example is John Wall. How many here thinks that John would have played better last year if he was with the Boston Celtics or the Heat instead of the Wizards?

Another example is Rondo. He is a great player. However, put him on a crappy team with a lack of scorers like the Wizards and see how well he does.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#96 » by Nivek » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:52 pm

I don't think Wall would have been any better Boston. His turnovers and poor shooting would have hurt them. They might have had enough vets to get him to shoot less often or something, but he would have had the same flaws.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
dandridge 10
Starter
Posts: 2,344
And1: 322
Joined: Feb 16, 2005

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#97 » by dandridge 10 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:45 am

Nivek wrote:I don't think Wall would have been any better Boston. His turnovers and poor shooting would have hurt them. They might have had enough vets to get him to shoot less often or something, but he would have had the same flaws.


I'm surprised you think that Nivek. Sure he would still have flaws, just like Rondo has flaws. However, having better shooters around would have opened the paint more for him to drive. There would have been a whole lot less pressure for him to score. Having better rebounders would allow him to get on the break more often. There is no way I can prove it, but I am pretty sure Wall would have benefitted from playing in Boston. But, I guess we will agree to disagree.
User avatar
tontoz
RealGM
Posts: 14,261
And1: 900
Joined: Apr 11, 2005

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#98 » by tontoz » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:52 am

Wall would have been much more effective in Boston. Everyone in their starting lineup could hit jumpers. Garnett and Bass were probably better shooters than anyone on the Wizards roster last year other than Young.

Boston was one of the best perimeter shooting teams in the league as well as one of the smartest. In contrast the Wizards were one of the worst shooting teams in the league as well as the dumbest. Much better spacing and teamates who had a clue would have surely made a big difference for Wall.

Just the frustration of playing on a lousy team with a bunch of knuckleheads probably hurt his game.
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,859
And1: 609
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#99 » by payitforward » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:16 am

tontoz wrote:Wall would have been...(fill in the blank).

This kind of thing -- for Wall or Leonard or whoever you choose -- is not an empirical statement. It's not a claim made about the world or something that happens in the world. It's a picture in someone's mind, and that's all it is. I could make an opposite statement -- "the Celtics wouldn't put up with Wall's turnovers or his egotism or his (fill in the blanks)." That too would be a picture in my mind, nothing more. Not a claim about the world outside -- in which those things didn't happen.

Put with this statement of the "it stands to reason that x" or "common sense tells you that y" type as other ways of using language that have no relationship w/ statements about the world.

First a player actually does the things he actually does in the situation he actually is in, then you conclude something about him. What you conclude about him, the description of him as a player, isn't some kind of premise you can take away as if it was metaphysics, then wipe all the things that made it so, and go forward to say what would have been had that guy been in a different situation.

This is akin to the GM practices like thinking "we need 'shooting'" -- as if "shooting" was something that existed independent of actual players and *everything* they did on the floor.
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
User avatar
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 16,232
And1: 397
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#100 » by closg00 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:42 am

This could go in a couple of threads.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-preseason ... surprises/
Guys on a message board could do a better job managing the Wizards than Ernie Grunfeld.
User avatar
DCZards
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,041
And1: 401
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#101 » by DCZards » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:36 am

Of course the environment/situation that a player is in has an impact on their productivity. Yes, Wall would still be a poor shooter and turnover prone if he played with Boston, but those flaws would be mitigated by the fact that he would be surrounded by more talented and experienced teammates than he is with the Zards (players who would serve as mentors and role models for Wall) as well as a coach who played the same position as John.
User avatar
miller31time
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 26,163
And1: 807
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
     

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#102 » by miller31time » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:54 am

closg00 wrote:This could go in a couple of threads.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-preseason ... surprises/


To think, if we had competent management, our starting lineup this season could look as follows...

Wall/Mack/Price
Beal/Crawford/Martin
Crowder/Singleton
(Anderson-FA signing)/Booker/Vesely
Nene/Seraphin

Young, explosive, adept inside and out, fairly deep with room to grow, and cap flexibility to boot. If signing Anderson is either too expensive or not possible due to another team (like New Orleans) beating us to the punch, sign Elton Brand to a small contract.

But the lifeless corpse of Trevor Ariza and the redundancy of Okafor are good too.
User avatar
dangermouse
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,291
And1: 239
Joined: Dec 08, 2009

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#103 » by dangermouse » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:48 am

I like that team more than the one we have now :(
pineappleheadindc wrote:Q: What is Nene girlfriend's name?

A: Noah.
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,859
And1: 609
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#104 » by payitforward » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:55 pm

miller31time wrote:To think, if we had competent management, our starting lineup this season could look as follows...

Wall/Mack/Price
Beal/Crawford/Martin
Crowder/Singleton
(Anderson-FA signing)/Booker/Vesely
Nene/Seraphin

Go back to the 2011 draft: Leonard and Faried instead of Vesely and Singleton.

Instead of Anderson, add Fields or Rush (long-term), Brand (for 1-2 years) and Ilyasova (long-term).

But, this has the problem that we'd have been better last year and not gotten Beal. So can't really include him in the rotation. Still, we'd have been somewhere in the lottery and gotten lets say Drummond (or whoever you prefer to put there.

And we'd have had 2 picks in Round two, and from this draft there will be very good players come from there. And, instead of Price how about an earlier move for a young backup point guard with a better resume (i.e. instead of the trade for Okaforiza). Then sign Machado as well.

miller31time wrote:Young, explosive, adept inside and out, fairly deep with room to grow, and cap flexibility to boot.... But the lifeless corpse of Trevor Ariza and the redundancy of Okafor are good too.

We'll likely have to start over to get there. :(
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 17,556
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#105 » by Dat2U » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:40 pm

Landry Fields stinks. That is all...
Sig bet w/ ibraheim718 - I guarantee less than 20 wins for Lakers this year
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,859
And1: 609
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#106 » by payitforward » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:47 pm

Dat2U wrote:Landry Fields stinks. That is all...

No, you're wrong. Landry Fields is a very good and very promising young NBA wing player. That is all....

Actually... I find it curious that people here seem not to see what a good young player Fields is. I can't figure out what you don't like -- or rather, I can see it, but... I don't get why you want to draw a conclusion from it. It's his 3-pt shooting last year, which obviously was bad. But the year before it was quite good: he shot 39+% on 3-pointers. So... I can't imagine drawing any conclusion about him on that basis.

Especially given that as a rookie his TS% was 59% -- among the very best 2 guards in the league. You might want to compare the numbers he put up in 2010-11 to the numbers James Harden put up that year. You'll be surprised at what you see.

Of course you may not want to go off of those numbers; you may just look at how many points he scored, and that does it for you. Guys who score a lot are better than guys who score less. Except... come on, we all know that's not true!

So... what's the problem w/ Landry Fields? The guy's terrific. Better yet, if I'm wrong you'll be able to tell me so at the end of the season. :)
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
montestewart
General Manager
Posts: 8,434
And1: 1,180
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#107 » by montestewart » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:30 pm

I'm not as sold as you are on Fields, but his four year college career showed (more or less) a progression of 3 pt shooting improvement that makes me think that last year might have been a little bit opposing teams adjusting for him, and that he can likewise make adjustments to get his shooting % a little closer to his college standard, if not reach the same level as his rookie year.

(EDIT) PS: His PER went from 13.5 to 12 and his WS/48 went from .100 to .85. It wasn't that big a drop, and his assists and steals were up, but his rebounding and FT% showed significant drops as well.
User avatar
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 16,232
And1: 397
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#108 » by closg00 » Tue Nov 6, 2012 11:04 am

Deon Waiters vs Brad Beal and Waiters is starting to heat-up....helps to be running with Irving.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/dion_waiters/index.html

Beal
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/bradley_beal/index.html
Guys on a message board could do a better job managing the Wizards than Ernie Grunfeld.
Upper Decker
Rookie
Posts: 1,108
And1: 110
Joined: Apr 05, 2012

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#109 » by Upper Decker » Tue Nov 6, 2012 11:26 am

I'm officially depressed. Seems like a requirement for drafting a 2/3 extremely high is that they must be elite at getting to the cup. Waiters is Wade like in getting to the rim. Beal seems like he has trouble getting to the rack in an empty gym. Irving/ waiter >>> wall/beal, but one thing the cavs don't have is savvy overpaid vets...hey gilbert, you're not going anywhere cause you don't have veteren leadership, ha!
fugop
Veteran
Posts: 2,744
And1: 9
Joined: Aug 09, 2004

Re: The 2012 Rookie Class 

Post#110 » by fugop » Tue Nov 6, 2012 12:00 pm

The skepticism about Fields really is as simple as that: he's had one good year, and one bad year. While it's not common, there have been plenty of guys who've surprised their rookie year, only to never again live up to that performance. Dejaun Blair, Tyreke Evans, possible Roddy Beaubois, etc.

It's obviously plausible to construct excuses for Fields' dropoff, but you can't ignore that half the evidence is cause for concern.

Return to Washington Wizards