A.Randolph vs M.Beasley

WadeKnicks2010 · Post #141 » by **WadeKnicks2010** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:14 am

Spoelstra agrees with me. As does Riley I'm assuming. So yeah. Coaches of the Heat > Beasley homers.

Wade2k6 · Post #142 » by **Wade2k6** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:00 am

As BBallFreak has said, just because a player starts doesn't mean he is better. Because if that were the case then Ginobli would be starting.

And you can talk all you want about playing time, but you can't discount the fact that Beasley plays 8 more minutes a game on a 5th seeded playoff team, while Randolph plays 8 less minutes a game on a team 21 games under .500. Pretty big difference there buddy.

J-Rich- · Post #143 » by **J-Rich-** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:08 am

Wade2k6 wrote:As BBallFreak has said, just because a player starts doesn't mean he is better. Because if that were the case then Ginobli would be starting.

And you can talk all you want about playing time, but you can't discount the fact that Beasley plays 8 more minutes a game on a 5th seeded playoff team, while Randolph plays 8 less minutes a game on a team 21 games under .500. Pretty big difference there buddy.

You're right but the big difference is between nellie and the rest of the 29 other head coaches who wouldn't have benched randolph even though he has played extremely well like nellie has done. nellie has done a better job lately but still horrible with randolph's minutes. That's a fact not some excuse why randolph isnt playing more and every non warrior fan sees this as well as warrior fans

NetsForce · Post #144 » by **NetsForce** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:16 am

Lawrence Frank would have benched Anthony Randolph.

J-Rich- · Post #145 » by **J-Rich-** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:21 am

hes not benching lopez so he wouldnt have benched randolph

Tim_Hardawayy · Post #146 » by **Tim_Hardawayy** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:42 am

J-Rich- wrote:hes not benching lopez so he wouldnt have benched randolph

Thats because Brook Lopez is better at the game of basketball than Anthony Randolph.

killacalijatt · Post #147 » by **killacalijatt** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:18 am

NetsForce wrote:Lawrence Frank would have benched Anthony Randolph.

Thats cuzz hes an idiot like someone...................

J-Rich- · Post #148 » by **J-Rich-** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:19 am

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:
J-Rich- wrote:hes not benching lopez so he wouldnt have benched randolph

Thats because Brook Lopez is better at the game of basketball than Anthony Randolph.

the point was you bench scrubs not young players who should be regular permanent starters with the way randolph was playing from game one.

Post #149 » by **BBallFreak** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:13 am

WadeKnicks2010 wrote:Spoelstra agrees with me. As does Riley I'm assuming. So yeah. Coaches of the Heat > Beasley homers.

No he doesn't.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/bask ... 4027.story

MIAMI - Two days after backtracking on his choice to start Michael Beasley in placed of injured power forward Udonis Haslem, Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra offered clarity about the decision.

Spoelstra said after consulting with assistant coach Ron Rothstein and then meeting with Beasley before Saturday's victory over the Washington Wizards, it was decided to maintain Beasley's role as a sixth man.

Since starting the first 15 games, Beasley has played solely as a reserve since Nov. 28.

"The bench has been playing well, and we didn't want to make two changes," Spoelstra said after Monday's practice at AmericanAirlines Arena. "He actually agreed."

Maybe, just maybe, you want to actually know what you're talking about before opening up the big enormous pie hole of yours. You'll eat a lot fewer of your own appendages that way...

gswhoopsman · Post #150 » by **gswhoopsman** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:10 pm

NetsForce wrote:Lawrence Frank would have benched Anthony Randolph.

Lawrence Frank would have played Anthony Randolph 30 minutes a night.

See, I can unjustifiably speculate too!

WadeKnicks2010 · Post #151 » by **WadeKnicks2010** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 6:15 pm

BBallFreak wrote:it was decided to maintain Beasley's role as a sixth man.

Since starting the first 15 games, Beasley has played solely as a reserve since Nov. 28.

Maybe, just maybe, you want to actually know what you're talking about before opening up the big enormous pie hole of yours. You'll eat a lot fewer of your own appendages that way...[/quote]

Funny, there was nothing in there that remotely supported your argument and in fact only supports my point.

Post #152 » by **BBallFreak** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 7:38 pm

WadeKnicks2010 wrote:Funny, there was nothing in there that remotely supported your argument and in fact only supports my point.

"The bench has been playing well, and we didn't want to make two changes," Spoelstra said after Monday's practice at AmericanAirlines Arena.

Did you stop reading before you got there?

bill curley II · Post #153 » by **bill curley II** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:07 pm

BBallFreak wrote:
bill curley II wrote:
BBallFreak wrote:I don't think you guys have a clue what a complete player actually is. It's not about stats. Really, that's a pathetic argument, especially when your stats don't actually strengthen your argument.

Using facts is pathetic? But your "it's not about stats" isn't? Like you somehow have some magical formula in your head that no one else can figure out? You have nothing to back up your point that "Prince is a far more complete player."

Yeah, let's see...

He's a better defender, scores in far more ways, rebounds well for his position, and generally does a bit of everything. That's what I mean by a more complete player.

Call me when Randolph GETS AN OFFENSIVE GAME!

The stats don't strengthen my argument? Showing that Randolph is about equal with Prince in rebounding, steals and blocks in less than half the minutes played? You think in those 17th to 37th minute he'll play eventually, that he's gonna suddenly not do anything? There's no argument against the fact that AR is better than Prince in those areas.

Which goes to prove why I don't think you know what a complete player is. It's about being able to do everything at least competently. Let's see him average at least 10 a game, while rebounding, blocking shots, and stealing the ball, for a season before we start calling him a complete player, OK?

I know there's areas that Prince is better at now. He's a better shooter, ball handler, and passer. I'd say their defense is about equal, but in the long run, AR has the advantage as a big guy vs. a perimeter wing defender, and thus making a bigger impact on the defensive end. So again, there's no basis to say that "Prince is a far more complete player," especially in a few years as AR becomes a better scorer and gets more minutes.

You're making assumptions here. You're assuming that, at 210 pounds, he can be an effective defender on the interior for more than 16 minutes a game, and you're assuming that his offensive game will at some point rival that of Tayshaun Prince's. Neither is a guarantee. Until they come to fruition, he is NOT a more complete player than Tayshaun Prince. Neither, for that matter, is Michael Beasley BTW. It's not a bias against Randolph, it's just a simple matter of fact.

Come on guys. Let's not be ridiculous here. Randolph and Beasley both have tons of potential, but neither is close to a complete player yet. Randolph doesn't have the offense, and Beasley doesn't have the defense or rebounding...

You're saying Randolph doesn't have a wide array of skills?
We know he's already better in those 3 areas I outlined. His dribbling sklils for a 6'10" PF is already one of the best in the league at that position.

Defensively, he holds his own inside pretty well for a 210 lb guy now. And you talk about all these assumptions I'm making, you just made a dumb one in thinking he'll stay at that weight. I'm not assuming that at 210 lbs he'll be a good post defender. I'm assuming that he'll gain weight and strength like almost every 19 year old in the NBA.

Scoring? Yes, Randolph finds it hard to score when Nellie's sitting him on the bench. When he does play 20+ mins, he's at a pretty respectable 12 ppg since Jan 1. Not a huge sample size, but if you watch him play, it's not hard to see that scoring isn't a huge obstacle for his career. And Prince is 14 ppg. So yeah, I'll take a huge leap of faith and say that he'll get those 2 extra ppg with a bit more experience and consistent minutes.

So again, AR is a lot better in 3 significant areas than Prince, can score almost as well when given the minutes, dribble, and defend inside. You talk about a complete player as doing a lot of things competently, and yet, there's not a whole lot AR can't do competently, and a handful of things he's already ahead in compared to Prince.

Wade2k6 · Post #154 » by **Wade2k6** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:32 pm

He's scoring 9.7 ppg post-all star break and 8.2 ppg since January. I'm not sure where some of you GS fans are getting your stats from, but this is about the 3rd/4th time in this thread alone that I've found an error in your stats.

J-Rich- · Post #155 » by **J-Rich-** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:24 pm

Scoring? Yes, Randolph finds it hard to score when Nellie's sitting him on the bench. When he does play 20+ mins, he's at a pretty respectable 12 ppg since Jan 1. Not a huge sample size, but if you watch him play, it's not hard to see that scoring isn't a huge obstacle for his career. And Prince is 14 ppg. So yeah, I'll take a huge leap of faith and say that he'll get those 2 extra ppg with a bit more experience and consistent minutes.

Wade2k6 wrote:He's scoring 9.7 ppg post-all star break and 8.2 ppg since January. I'm not sure where some of you GS fans are getting your stats from, but this is about the 3rd/4th time in this thread alone that I've found an error in your stats.

Well you'd know where he got those numbers from if you read what he said, not what you want to think what he said. He's saying since january 1, randolph has scored 12ppg when playing 20 minutes or more.

Number of games randolph played over 20 minutes since january 1st: 12
total pts from those 12 games: 153

153/12=12.75ppg

randolph had a 19 minute game and scored 17pts which i didnt add

Wade2k6 · Post #156 » by **Wade2k6** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 12:08 am

^^ Ehh, I mis-read it, I originally thought he meant since January 1st.

canefandynasty · Post #157 » by **canefandynasty** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 12:14 am

Beasleys man defense is very good. I don't think stick figure Randolph could hold an all-star PF to 5-19 shooting

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #158 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 7:32 am

Wade2k6 wrote:As BBallFreak has said, just because a player starts doesn't mean he is better. Because if that were the case then Ginobli would be starting.

And you can talk all you want about playing time, but you can't discount the fact that Beasley plays 8 more minutes a game on a 5th seeded playoff team, while Randolph plays 8 less minutes a game on a team 21 games under .500. Pretty big difference there buddy.

Ginobli comes off the bench so he can dominate the ball a little more rather than having Duncan, Parker and Ginobli sharing it. He's a spark off the bench, a different scenario.

Beasley hasn't been doing the little things and his minutes have gone down from the first two months of the season because of this. They gave him a chance to prove himself, and he didn't show up. I like this move, if he were getting big minutes he would would get about 18 points and 8 rebounds a game. This would result in a lot more positive attention from the media and the rookie of the year award. His intensity and attention to detail wouldn't grow, but his ego sure would. The media would love him and he would more than likely have a hard time listening to the coach. Something that has happened far to many times...

Instead they put in players who will do the little things... Beasleys ego takes a hit, the media sides with the coaches and he's forced to put up or shut up. Beasley isn't coming off the bench due to lack of size, talent or experience... it's his lack of intensity and attention to detail. This is the coaches way of trying to get Beasley to step it up so he can become all that he can be.

Randolph is also coming off the bench for similar and also much different reasons. The coaches of the Warriors also want him to step it up, but it's not his intensity... the things Randolph needs to over come are things that will go away with experience and a good off the court work ethic.

Post #159 » by **BBallFreak** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 2:23 pm

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Ginobli comes off the bench so he can dominate the ball a little more rather than having Duncan, Parker and Ginobli sharing it. He's a spark off the bench, a different scenario.

Beasley hasn't been doing the little things and his minutes have gone down from the first two months of the season because of this. They gave him a chance to prove himself, and he didn't show up. I like this move, if he were getting big minutes he would would get about 18 points and 8 rebounds a game. This would result in a lot more positive attention from the media and the rookie of the year award. His intensity and attention to detail wouldn't grow, but his ego sure would. The media would love him and he would more than likely have a hard time listening to the coach. Something that has happened far to many times...

Instead they put in players who will do the little things... Beasleys ego takes a hit, the media sides with the coaches and he's forced to put up or shut up. Beasley isn't coming off the bench due to lack of size, talent or experience... it's his lack of intensity and attention to detail. This is the coaches way of trying to get Beasley to step it up so he can become all that he can be.

Randolph is also coming off the bench for similar and also much different reasons. The coaches of the Warriors also want him to step it up, but it's not his intensity... the things Randolph needs to over come are things that will go away with experience and a good off the court work ethic.

That's dumb. Beasley's coming off the bench for two reasons - the first is so that he can be a spark off the bench for us (which he undeniably has been) and the second is so that he can learn the pro game without having the pressure of going up against the best of the best every second he's out there. It's exactly the same thing with Randolph, only Beasley earns more minutes on a playoff team. East or West, records don't matter because when the playoffs are in the picture, you either earn your minutes, or you sit down.

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #160 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:46 pm

BBallFreak wrote:That's dumb. Beasley's coming off the bench for two reasons - the first is so that he can be a spark off the bench for us (which he undeniably has been) and the second is so that he can learn the pro game without having the pressure of going up against the best of the best every second he's out there. It's exactly the same thing with Randolph, only Beasley earns more minutes on a playoff team. East or West, records don't matter because when the playoffs are in the picture, you either earn your minutes, or you sit down.

That's just pure denial. Neither Randolph nor Beasley are coming off the bench so they can be sparks, even though they may be. It's flat out because they are yet to learn some things and this is the best way to make them do that.