Ray Felton as our starting PG
Moderators: JDR720, Diop, fatlever, yosemiteben, BigSlam
-
fluffernutter
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,690
- And1: 52
- Joined: Oct 10, 2007
- Location: Here
I found this site to be very useful.
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/playerstats/08/2/eff/7-1
It essentially breaks down the point guards into strata that match pretty closely my thinking.
At the top, at 22+, is Paul, Nash, Baron Davis, etc. Paul is really a an A++ category all by himself. The others here are just A+.
Below that from 19 to 20 is Calderon and Kidd and Billups. Call them the A- group.
Next strata is the 17's. Williams, Parker, Miller. They are the B+ group.
Throw out Arenas due to injury.
Next is the 14's and very very low 15's.
It's the B and B- category of point guards. Harris and Ford at the top, then Tinsley Felton Hinrich Rondo. Perhaps Carter too at 13.7.
After that tier there is a mass of 13's dropping down pretty evenly to 12 and lower. That's C, average, and lower.
Just thought it was interesting.
You can also sort by home/away, last 10 games, etc.
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/playerstats/08/2/eff/7-1
It essentially breaks down the point guards into strata that match pretty closely my thinking.
At the top, at 22+, is Paul, Nash, Baron Davis, etc. Paul is really a an A++ category all by himself. The others here are just A+.
Below that from 19 to 20 is Calderon and Kidd and Billups. Call them the A- group.
Next strata is the 17's. Williams, Parker, Miller. They are the B+ group.
Throw out Arenas due to injury.
Next is the 14's and very very low 15's.
It's the B and B- category of point guards. Harris and Ford at the top, then Tinsley Felton Hinrich Rondo. Perhaps Carter too at 13.7.
After that tier there is a mass of 13's dropping down pretty evenly to 12 and lower. That's C, average, and lower.
Just thought it was interesting.
You can also sort by home/away, last 10 games, etc.
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
The efficiency stat is silly... it's just a tally of all the stats someone racks up, without regard to how valuable each one is, and it's not adjusted for pace. Heck, it's not even adjusted for playing time!
PER is vastly superior. You can think of it as:
20+ = Star
16-19 = Very good
14-16 = Average
11-14 = Below Average
<11 = Replacement level
The biggest thing using PER will show you is A) Jason Kidd is not nearly so valuable as people seem to think. He has a serious turnover problem (3rd worst among PGs), and his shooting is horrendous (49/63 in PG TS%). He has only two things going for him: He racks up a lot of assists because he can't shoot so he only passes (Brevin Knight style!), and he is still the best rebounding guard in the league.
B) The Toronto PGs are much better than you think. Both are amazing passers, but they're very different otherwise. Calderon doesn't use the ball as much, he's very efficient when he shoots but that's because he doesn't do it a lot. His turnovers are also amazingly low, and he's a good rebounder. TJ can score effectively despite taking a lot of shots, is his main advantage.
PER is vastly superior. You can think of it as:
20+ = Star
16-19 = Very good
14-16 = Average
11-14 = Below Average
<11 = Replacement level
The biggest thing using PER will show you is A) Jason Kidd is not nearly so valuable as people seem to think. He has a serious turnover problem (3rd worst among PGs), and his shooting is horrendous (49/63 in PG TS%). He has only two things going for him: He racks up a lot of assists because he can't shoot so he only passes (Brevin Knight style!), and he is still the best rebounding guard in the league.
B) The Toronto PGs are much better than you think. Both are amazing passers, but they're very different otherwise. Calderon doesn't use the ball as much, he's very efficient when he shoots but that's because he doesn't do it a lot. His turnovers are also amazingly low, and he's a good rebounder. TJ can score effectively despite taking a lot of shots, is his main advantage.
-
fluffernutter
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,690
- And1: 52
- Joined: Oct 10, 2007
- Location: Here
Paydro70 wrote:The efficiency stat is silly... it's just a tally of all the stats someone racks up, without regard to how valuable each one is, and it's not adjusted for pace. Heck, it's not even adjusted for playing time!
PER is vastly superior. You can think of it as:
20+ = Star
16-19 = Very good
14-16 = Average
11-14 = Below Average
<11 = Replacement level
The biggest thing using PER will show you is A) Jason Kidd is not nearly so valuable as people seem to think. He has a serious turnover problem (3rd worst among PGs), and his shooting is horrendous (49/63 in PG TS%). He has only two things going for him: He racks up a lot of assists because he can't shoot so he only passes (Brevin Knight style!), and he is still the best rebounding guard in the league.
B) The Toronto PGs are much better than you think. Both are amazing passers, but they're very different otherwise. Calderon doesn't use the ball as much, he's very efficient when he shoots but that's because he doesn't do it a lot. His turnovers are also amazingly low, and he's a good rebounder. TJ can score effectively despite taking a lot of shots, is his main advantage.
All that might be perfectly correct.
I just think that the tiers represented fit pretty well with my own thinking.
I am making no comment about the validity of the stats.
Although Kidd was anomalously high - that was a good point. Would you pick Calderon over Kidd if you could choose? Yes. I suppose that is true, although it just FEELS wrong to say it.
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
Oh I thought you were endorsing the stat not just listing your own opinion of the players. Obviously PER doesn't include defense either, so that might boost some player (like Kidd for instance).
I would definitely take Calderon over Kidd. Kidd has at best another year or two at playing at a decent level, he's lost a LOT in the past year or two.
I think most people would agree with your tiers... any stat or personal opinion would probably come pretty close.
I would definitely take Calderon over Kidd. Kidd has at best another year or two at playing at a decent level, he's lost a LOT in the past year or two.
I think most people would agree with your tiers... any stat or personal opinion would probably come pretty close.
-
Bowens
- Inactive user
- Posts: 1,165
- And1: 1
- Joined: Nov 04, 2007
Paydro70 wrote:....really? Beasley doesn't impress you at all? Kid is incredible.
He does impress me on offense. I'd like to see him in the tournament and against tougher competition first before I make any real projections. That goes for all the players in the draft. But as for Beasely, I want to see him against better defenses and how he reacts. Is he a SF or a PF? But most importantly, I want to see how he plays DEFENSE. It's very difficult for me to take a SF/PF #1 if they aren't a good defensive player. Unless of course you're telling me he's Lebron James.
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
I don't think it can be contested, even at this stage, that he is the #1 prospect. The PGs don't pass, Gordon's undersized, and Jordan is very raw.
Personally I don't care if he's an SF or a PF... he'll either be a sick, giant, inside-minded SF, or a sick, super-athletic, rangy PF.
Whether he can play defense against strong PFs is a valid question, but it's also one that he probably will never get to answer in college.
Against his best opponents so far, he's had no trouble scoring. I would be a little more concerned about his two worst rebounding games, which were against his toughest opponents: Kansas and TAMU. However, against Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and California, he had no trouble.
Personally I don't care if he's an SF or a PF... he'll either be a sick, giant, inside-minded SF, or a sick, super-athletic, rangy PF.
Whether he can play defense against strong PFs is a valid question, but it's also one that he probably will never get to answer in college.
Against his best opponents so far, he's had no trouble scoring. I would be a little more concerned about his two worst rebounding games, which were against his toughest opponents: Kansas and TAMU. However, against Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and California, he had no trouble.
-
Bowens
- Inactive user
- Posts: 1,165
- And1: 1
- Joined: Nov 04, 2007
Paydro70 wrote:I don't think it can be contested, even at this stage, that he is the #1 prospect. The PGs don't pass, Gordon's undersized, and Jordan is very raw.
Personally I don't care if he's an SF or a PF... he'll either be a sick, giant, inside-minded SF, or a sick, super-athletic, rangy PF.
Whether he can play defense against strong PFs is a valid question, but it's also one that he probably will never get to answer in college.
Against his best opponents so far, he's had no trouble scoring. I would be a little more concerned about his two worst rebounding games, which were against his toughest opponents: Kansas and TAMU. However, against Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and California, he had no trouble.
See the difference between you and I is that you're main focus is numbers. You are all about stats and how "sick" someone looks on offense. My main focus is always defense first, then secondly, can this person pass the ball and be a good teammate.
Defense, passing, and the ability to understand the team game, is what I look for in a player. Selfish scorers who bully their way to rim, or chuck up bad ill-advised shots, (like Vince Carter and RJ did last night) do not float my boat.
I will wait to see Beasley in the tournament. But if he can't play D, then I don't know how we're building for a championship with Wallace, JRich and Beasley. Basically we would be wasting our time every season because we would never go far if we made it to the playoffs.
-
W_HAMILTON
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,453
- And1: 16,994
- Joined: Jun 13, 2004
-
DaBassSource wrote:It sounds to me like most arguments that would support Ray...are changed to say that if we get an all-star point guard we would be a better team...Of course we would!!!!
(1) Duh.
(2) Personally, I never said we need an all-star PG. The only reason I bring up Chris Paul is because we had the opportunity to draft him, and let it slip away twice. It doesn't take an all-star PG to run the team the way it needs to be run. We found two guys to do it just fine our first season, and they weren't exactly hard to come by, seeing as how they were probably viewed as discards.
spectre_ wrote:We might have been "PG oriented" in the past, but 1) I don't think that works well unless you have one of the 3 or 4 stellar pass first PGs and 2) I like ball/player movement offenses much better.
I'm sure Knight thanks you for your high praise. Or do you not consider him one of the "3 or 4 stellar pass first PGs?" Because the Knight of our 1st and 2nd season would be perfect for this team. If he could get the most from crap players, and underdeveloped players like Wallace and Okafor of previous seasons, then I'm sure he could do a helluva lot more with a more developed Wallace/Okafor, along with a scorer like Richardson.
And I also like "ball/player movement offenses" as well, but (1) the type of PG that I want would thrive even better in that type of offense and (2) Felton hasn't shown he can run that sort of offense either. If he had the skills that would allow him to be a better PG in that type of offense, we would have seen them by now. He hasn't shown the court vision, he hasn't shown that he knows how to balance everyone's offense, he frequently makes poor decisions and silly turnovers, etc. It just goes back to adding a "20/10" big man; adding a "20/10" big man, or changing the offense might make Felton look better, but it doesn't mean he's any better of a PG, or any more helpful to this team.
Paydro70 wrote:What this line of argument assumes is that Crash, Emeka, and JRich are not those types of players. They have great skills, but because they are not good handlers or passers (or even "average") we absolutely NEED a player who is a pass-first point guard with fantastic handle and decision-making. A scoring PG might be useful to another team, but this argument assumes that we have sufficient offensive firepower, we just need someone to help make the team more efficient on offense.
Bingo. But you go on to miss the point in your comments afterwards. A "legit scoring option in the post" is to 2007 what a "20ppg SG" was in 2006. Remember when everyone thought all we needed was a "legit" SG that could score? Well, we got one. And we might do worse this year than last. Wonder why that is? Bet I know why!
But, hey, I'm all up for the model of filling out the roster with super-talented players, that means we'll come to a point where it will be obvious to even the dumbest that our problem is our poor PG play.
And I don't think Okafor is "a beast" offensively; I said, and continue to believe, that if you give him the shots, he will give you 16-18ppg on his usual 50% shooting. Add in a real PG, and it's even easier. Considering what else he provides, his position is pretty damn solid. He ain't the problem.