A.Randolph vs M.Beasley

BROWN · Post #121 » by **BROWN** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 4:03 am

My mistake, but there's no way we can actually compare the two, with such a small sample. Beasley has shown flashes of being an outstanding offensive forward, while Randolph has with his defense.

There's allot of misconception of Beasley being slow, which is wrong, cause the dude is quick, has a nice first step and has great footwork, something that Randolph doesn't have. Randolph cannot create for himself as good as Beasley can in the triple threat position.

As a rebounder Randolph takes this with ease, no matter where Randolph is on the court he's getting that ball.

Passion, Randolph has it, the kid never stops playing when he's out there.

It's honestly a toss up and I can't say for sure who'd I'd pick.. but because I'm a warrior fan, I'm going with AR

bill curley II · Post #122 » by **bill curley II** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:58 am

BBallFreak wrote:
GswStorm3 wrote:Randolph and Prince are Apples and Oranges.

That's right. Prince is a far more complete player.

AR is already ahead of Prince in rebounding, steals, and blocks on a per 36 basis. Hell, even on a pure straight forward statistical view, they're even on blocks and steals, and Prince averages about half a rebound more than Randolph playing 38 mins a game vs. 17 mins a game for AR.

Edit: Actually, AR is averaging double the amount of blocks compared to Prince

Tim_Hardawayy · Post #123 » by **Tim_Hardawayy** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 6:12 am

bill curley II wrote:
BBallFreak wrote:
GswStorm3 wrote:Randolph and Prince are Apples and Oranges.

That's right. Prince is a far more complete player.

AR is already ahead of Prince in rebounding, steals, and blocks on a per 36 basis. Hell, even on a pure straight forward statistical view, they're even on blocks and steals, and Prince averages about half a rebound more than Randolph playing 38 mins a game vs. 17 mins a game for AR.

Edit: Actually, AR is averaging double the amount of blocks compared to Prince

Per 36 is a good stat to use when you have 2 guys who play around the same number of minutes, to get an accurate idea of how they'd perform with equal minutes.

It is a terrible stat to use to compare a rookie who only plays 16 minutes a night (and has the luxury of going all out for those 16 minutes) and a full-time starter like Prince.

Of course, if we're just assuming per 36 numbers count for real, I guess Beasley is already a 20/7 player. Not bad.

WarFan · Post #124 » by **WarFan** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 9:58 am

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:Per 36 is a good stat to use when you have 2 guys who play around the same number of minutes, to get an accurate idea of how they'd perform with equal minutes.

It is a terrible stat to use to compare a rookie who only plays 16 minutes a night (and has the luxury of going all out for those 16 minutes) and a full-time starter like Prince.

Of course, if we're just assuming per 36 numbers count for real, I guess Beasley is already a 20/7 player. Not bad.

Did you read his post?

Randolph this year:
16.5 minutes, 5.5 rebounds, 1.2 blocks, 0.6 steals

Prince this year:
37.8 minutes, 6.0 rebounds, 0.6 blocks, 0.6 steals

Prince career:
33.4 minutes, 4.7 rebounds, 0.6 blocks, 0.6 steals

Post #125 » by **BBallFreak** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 3:44 pm

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.

bill curley II · Post #126 » by **bill curley II** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 6:44 pm

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."

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.

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.

Post #127 » by **BBallFreak** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 6:55 pm

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...

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #128 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:51 pm

BBallFreak wrote:Call me when Randolph GETS AN OFFENSIVE GAME!

This is the difference, Randolph has all the tools to become a great offensive player. At the age of 19 it would be strange if his offensive game didn't develop. He can put the ball on the floor, finish at the basket and he already has a few dependable moves.

Beasley on the other hand has something that wont develop. Yes, the rumors are true... a man-gina. As long as he has a mangina, which he will always have, he will never have amazing potential. Much like Boozer, he has a mangina. That's why Utah does better with the less skilled/large balled Paul Millsap. That's why Beasley can't get off the bench. MANGINA.

yehyeh82 · Post #129 » by **yehyeh82** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 8:33 pm

You're crazy, Oaktown. Beasley has the whole offensive repertoire, he just doesn't have defensive tenacity right now. Having Wade in his ear will only help him on that side of the floor. Pair him next to a defensive big man and he will be fine.

Randolph has some alright footwork, but he has a long ways to go on the offensive end. He has form for a good 20 foot jumper, he just needs to start consistently hitting it. His low post game is not very good. He shies away near the rim a lot and goes for a little fadeaways. I would like to see him develop a baby hook and a finger-roll so that he could take it a little stronger, but there is no guarantee that he will. He is good at drawing fouls and that is an area I think he could excel at in the future.

What Randolph has, and he will always have, is shot blocking, rebounding, and tons of intensity. He also has an innate sense of knowing which angles to take on the floor, especially defensively.

Post #130 » by **BBallFreak** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 9:23 pm

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Beasley on the other hand has something that wont develop. Yes, the rumors are true... a man-gina. As long as he has a mangina, which he will always have, he will never have amazing potential. Much like Boozer, he has a mangina. That's why Utah does better with the less skilled/large balled Paul Millsap. That's why Beasley can't get off the bench. MANGINA.

Are you projecting your own issues onto Beasley? I mean, seriously, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Tim_Hardawayy · Post #131 » by **Tim_Hardawayy** » Tue Apr 7, 2009 10:15 pm

BBallFreak wrote:
oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Beasley on the other hand has something that wont develop. Yes, the rumors are true... a man-gina. As long as he has a mangina, which he will always have, he will never have amazing potential. Much like Boozer, he has a mangina. That's why Utah does better with the less skilled/large balled Paul Millsap. That's why Beasley can't get off the bench. MANGINA.

Are you projecting your own issues onto Beasley? I mean, seriously, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

+1

I'm slowly losing every ounce of respect I could ever possibly have had for GSW fans

gswhoopsman · Post #132 » by **gswhoopsman** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:02 am

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:
BBallFreak wrote:
oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Beasley on the other hand has something that wont develop. Yes, the rumors are true... a man-gina. As long as he has a mangina, which he will always have, he will never have amazing potential. Much like Boozer, he has a mangina. That's why Utah does better with the less skilled/large balled Paul Millsap. That's why Beasley can't get off the bench. MANGINA.

Are you projecting your own issues onto Beasley? I mean, seriously, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

+1

I'm slowly losing every ounce of respect I could ever possibly have had for GSW fans

please don't lump all of us in with this moron.

Beasley is not as good in his rookie year as we all thought he was going to be. That's not an indictment, just everyone thought he was going to be better. I think there's sort of a backlash now, and that's largely what this thread is about.

That being said..

Randolph has showed a ton of offensive potential....but he's still raw as hell. He was drafted in large part for his offensive potential...Nellie thought he was a genius and he was drafting a 7 foot small forward. There's 3 or 4 plays every game, on the offensive end, where he just drops your jaw. He has a really good handle for a man that big (yes, he does have to tighten it up as its very turnover prone). We've seen him hit jumpers with decent form (he obviously does have to improve in this area). He gets to the free throw line well. He throws down some of the best putback dunks I've ever seen. Hes a good finisher around the rim. And he HAS put on weight over the season.

IF he keeps improving and polishing those skills he COULD for sure pass beasley in terms of being a COMPLETE player....but we'll just have to wait and see.

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #133 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 12:12 am

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/baske ... 70082.html

Spoelstra and the coaching staff had been working with Beasley, who said he had never taken a charge during a game in his life.

Like I said... future all-star because of his talent but the mangina will keep him from the top.

GswStorm3 · Post #134 » by **GswStorm3** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:15 am

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/basketball/story/970082.html

Spoelstra and the coaching staff had been working with Beasley, who said he had never taken a charge during a game in his life.

Like I said... future all-star because of his talent but the mangina will keep him from the top.

You're basically saying he lacks the defensive tenacity. The mangina thing is a bit over the top.

Wade2k6 · Post #135 » by **Wade2k6** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:23 am

I don't know how much you guys watch Beasley play, but his man defense has not been bad since the all-star break. For all you guys continually saying his man defense sucks, well you're wrong. Beasley did a great job tonight on David West.

WadeKnicks2010 · Post #136 » by **WadeKnicks2010** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:27 am

Wade2k6 wrote:I don't know how much you guys watch Beasley play, but his man defense has not been bad since the all-star break. For all you guys continually saying his man defense sucks, well you're wrong. Beasley did a great job tonight on David West.

Except when I turned in at overtime, Beasley gave up essentially the game winning basket to David West, after Wade had tied the game just before that with the 3 with about 30ish seconds left. But sure. "good defense" by Beasley.

Wade2k6 · Post #137 » by **Wade2k6** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:39 am

WadeKnicks2010 wrote:
Wade2k6 wrote:I don't know how much you guys watch Beasley play, but his man defense has not been bad since the all-star break. For all you guys continually saying his man defense sucks, well you're wrong. Beasley did a great job tonight on David West.

Except when I turned in at overtime, Beasley gave up essentially the game winning basket to David West, after Wade had tied the game just before that with the 3 with about 30ish seconds left. But sure. "good defense" by Beasley.

Lol you are an exact reason i said "I don't know how much you guys watch Beasley play." Because it's obvious if you watched the entire game that Beasley played great man D on West. West shot 8 for 22 against Beasley.

And the play you're talking about is the end of OT where the shotclock was running down and West hit a fadeaway jumper with Beasleys hand right in his face. You can't do much more then Beasley did on that possession.

canefandynasty · Post #138 » by **canefandynasty** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:42 am

WadeKnicks2010 wrote:
Wade2k6 wrote:I don't know how much you guys watch Beasley play, but his man defense has not been bad since the all-star break. For all you guys continually saying his man defense sucks, well you're wrong. Beasley did a great job tonight on David West.

Except when I turned in at overtime, Beasley gave up essentially the game winning basket to David West, after Wade had tied the game just before that with the 3 with about 30ish seconds left. But sure. "good defense" by Beasley.

West got hot in OT. Beasley held him 0-12 FG until the end of regulation. That game should've ended by then had Wade sunk the FT.

Overall Beasley did a great job on West IMO. Beasley held West to like 2 points in a 40-minute span at one point

4-18 FG | 10 points

That's what Beas held West to, while having a better all around game tonight.

WadeKnicks2010 · Post #139 » by **WadeKnicks2010** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:51 am

West stepped up and hit the shots to help his man Paul win the game. Beasley disappeared in the late stages of OT, not scoring and getting clutch shots rained over his head.

canefandynasty · Post #140 » by **canefandynasty** » Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:02 am

WadeKnicks2010 wrote:West stepped up and hit the shots to help his man Paul win the game. Beasley disappeared in the late stages of OT, not scoring and getting clutch shots rained over his head.

Beasley was consistent throughout. It was more of Wade losing the game for us than West winning. You don't seem to give credit where it's due. Then again, this coming a person who believes Diawara is better than Beasley.