A.Randolph vs M.Beasley

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Since the league started tracking blocked shots as a stat in 1973, there have been only a handful of rookies who have played at least 890 minutes (the same amount Randolph clocked heading into Friday’s game with the New Orleans Hornets) and put up per-minute averages as high or better than Randolph’s in terms of scoring (21.3 points per 48 minutes), rebounding (15.5) and blocks (3.6).

And let’s just say the list puts Randolph in pretty good company.

In chronological order:

** Hakeem Olajuwon (HOU, 1984-85, 27.9 points, 16.0 rebounds, 3.6 blocks per 48 minutes)

** David Robinson (SAS, 1989-90, 31.9, 15.7, 5.1)

** Shaquille O’Neal (ORL, 1992-93, 29.6, 17.5, 4.5)

That’s it.

His 20/15 backs him up on the per 48 even though he only played 35

Actually he played 39 minutes. And if we're going on per 48 numbers, can we post Beasley's?

26.3 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 1.9 apg, .9 spg, .8 bpg all on .460 shooting, .373 from 3.

And if anything, Beasley's per 48 numbers are a lot more accurate than Randolphs, not based on one good performance in which he played minutes, but on having averaged more minutes over the course of the season.

Btw, the potential argument doesn't work against Beasley if he isn't even meeting his potential yet. If he were already performing like experts predicted, than yeah, you could say Randolph has more potential. But Beasley hasn't even scratched the surface yet.

Udonis Haslem just went down with an injury in tonights game, so until the end of the regular season pretty much, Beasley will likely get 30+ minutes a night. I'll be very interested to see how he performs.

I find it comical that Warriors fans can knock Beasley for not getting minutes on a playoff team with a veteran like Udonis Haslem in front of him, but Randolph can't get minutes on a lottery team. And then they'll tell you "Nellie is crazy!". Yes, who am I going to trust, the guy who's going to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame one day, or a bunch of internet posters.

[some_rand]

haha man nellie IS crazy, everyone knows how he is with rookies. he ran webber out of town.

[J-Rich-]

Since the league started tracking blocked shots as a stat in 1973, there have been only a handful of rookies who have played at least 890 minutes (the same amount Randolph clocked heading into Friday’s game with the New Orleans Hornets) and put up per-minute averages as high or better than Randolph’s in terms of scoring (21.3 points per 48 minutes), rebounding (15.5) and blocks (3.6).

And let’s just say the list puts Randolph in pretty good company.

In chronological order:

** Hakeem Olajuwon (HOU, 1984-85, 27.9 points, 16.0 rebounds, 3.6 blocks per 48 minutes)

** David Robinson (SAS, 1989-90, 31.9, 15.7, 5.1)

** Shaquille O’Neal (ORL, 1992-93, 29.6, 17.5, 4.5)

That’s it.

His 20/15 backs him up on the per 48 even though he only played 35

Actually he played 39 minutes. And if we're going on per 48 numbers, can we post Beasley's?

26.3 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 1.9 apg, .9 spg, .8 bpg all on .460 shooting, .373 from 3.

And if anything, Beasley's per 48 numbers are a lot more accurate than Randolphs, not based on one good performance in which he played minutes, but on having averaged more minutes over the course of the season.

Btw, the potential argument doesn't work against Beasley if he isn't even meeting his potential yet. If he were already performing like experts predicted, than yeah, you could say Randolph has more potential. But Beasley hasn't even scratched the surface yet.

Udonis Haslem just went down with an injury in tonights game, so until the end of the regular season pretty much, Beasley will likely get 30+ minutes a night. I'll be very interested to see how he performs.

I find it comical that Warriors fans can knock Beasley for not getting minutes on a playoff team with a veteran like Udonis Haslem in front of him, but Randolph can't get minutes on a lottery team. And then they'll tell you "Nellie is crazy!". Yes, who am I going to trust, the guy who's going to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame one day, or a bunch of internet posters.

Don't talk if you dont know what yoiu're talking about. Randolph has been taken out for small mistakes and then didnt play for the rest of the game earlier in the season even when he played well and he didnt do this only to randolph. now nellie has been better lately but like i said nellie was pretty bad early on and even non warrior fans AND opposing team's tv announcers ask why the hell does randolph not play more...I find it hilarious that people think nellie is still a good coach. Don't trust warrior fans or even nellie. Trust non warrior fans, national and non warrior sports writers and opposing team's tv announcers whose been saying the same thing as warrior fans.

[WarFan]

The Beasley/Randolph per48 scorecard:

Beasley Randolph
26.3 ppg 21.3
10.0 rpg 15.5
1.9 apg 2.0
0.9 spg 1.7
0.8 bpg 3.6
3.0 to 3.9
4.5 pf 6.3

22.7 fga 18
.46 fg% .47
1.8 3pa 0.1
.37 3p% .00
5.9 fta 6.4
.78 ft% .70

1786 min 890

[BBallFreak]

Again you're misconstruing my argument on purpose. Just like that other guy. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt anyway. I'm not saying one has a higher ceiling BECAUSE he's not as polished. That was a response to that guy who argued with my statement that Beasley is closer to his ceiling than Randolph is. I think we can all agree on that. Beasley already has game. He can drive he can do a lot of things well. He has a stronger skillset than Randolph, as expected since Beasley was considered by all experts to be the most NBA-ready player in the draft. This isn't a comparison of who has the higher ceiling. This is a comparison of who is closer to it.

I don't think you're right at all.

That implies that you know where either player's ceiling actually is. I don't think you do. I know I don't. This is a pair of uber-young players who've both shown NBA talents. One of them has earned spot minutes all season long and put up 7 and 5, while the other has been a regular rotation player and is putting up 13 and 5.

Now as to why I think Randolph has the higher ceiling(note to repeat myself, this is separate from my previous paragraph. What I sad until now has nothing to do with this, it solely had to do with who was closer to their ceiling, not who has the higher one). I believe centers who can defend and protect the interior and rebound at a strong rate are a very valuable commodity in this league. The guy who's about 6'10 and up, can block shots, plays good help defense, and rebounds... I'd venture to say that's the most sought after player in basketball. Randolph can become that. Beasley on the other hand. If I gave him the benefit and assessed his ceiling, he'll always be a tweener forward who isn't quick enough to guard small forwards and is too small to guard big guys defensively. He'll get his shot blocked often when playing against taller frontlines and will never be a great finisher. He just doesn't have the tools, which limits his ceiling.. He'll certainly be able to hit the 20s though in points..

Extremely specious logic.

Randolph, at 210 pounds, weighs less than most shooting guards in this league. To assume he can be a sought after center, and more sought after than a team's second option, is ridiculous. Right now, he's Keon Clark. He's got a lot of work to do, both on his body and on his offensive game, before anyone can honestly claim he's an NBA caliber starting center. What he is now, ideally, is an energy guy off the bench.

Beasley, at 6'9" and 245 pounds, is honestly not undersized. He's going to get stronger, just like Randolph, but unlike Randolph, he already has the frame. All he needs is another 10 pounds and he's Elton Brand in terms of size (minus wingspan). No one claims Brand, Carlos Boozer, Ben Wallace, Kenyon Martin, David West, or Zack Randolph are undersized. All of them are the same 6'9" as Michael Beasley. All of them are, or in Wallace's case have been, effective NBA power players. Some weigh more than Beasley, some weigh less. It's about talent. Beasley has it. He'll succeed. The level at which he succeeds has yet to be determined.

P.S. Its a little bit of a misconception that I'm a Wade fan. I can only be a fan of a player if they play for my team. I'm a Knicks fan. As a Knicks fan I want to have a good team. To have a good team you need good players. In my opinion Dwyane Wade is the best player in the NBA currently. Thus I want him on the Knicks. If he goes 0-82 next season and doesn't sell any jerseys or sneakers I wouldn't care less.

Who cares? My point was still valid. Your argument about ceiling is an impossibly weak one. Wade was NBA ready as well, and averaged just 3 more points then Beasley. People said Melo and LeBron were far superior in terms of ceiling. Now, he's good enough that you feel he's the best player in the NBA. I'm not saying that Beasley will be that good, but saying his ceiling is lower because his offensive game is polished is ridiculous.

Like Wade and LeBron, this kid has not reached his physical peak - yeah, his body is still going to mature - even at 6'9" and 245 pounds! Like those players, he's still finding his stride in the league. Same with Randolph...

[NO-KG-AI]

Randolph being 210 is generous, he was 197 at the pre-draft camp.

I'm an LSU fan, and I love Randolph, but this is Beasley and it's not even close. He's better now, he's a more naturally talented player, and he has a much better NBA body.

Edit: Randolph will never be a center, and if he does, he'll look like Chris Bosh did when trying to play C full time, overwhelmed and more prone to fatigue and injury.

[BBallFreak]

The Beasley/Randolph per48 scorecard:

Beasley Randolph
26.3 ppg 21.3
10.0 rpg 15.5
1.9 apg 2.0
0.9 spg 1.7
0.8 bpg 3.6
3.0 to 3.9
4.5 pf 6.3

22.7 fga 18
.46 fg% .47
1.8 3pa 0.1
.37 3p% .00
5.9 fta 6.4
.78 ft% .70

1786 min 890

Per 48 is one of the worst arguments you can make. If Randolph were capable of averaging 21 points, 15 boards, 2 assists, 1.7 steals, and 3.6 blocks on average in a 48 minute game, he'd be playing 48 minutes in a game! Reality check - he's not capable of doing that.

[miamiballer]

i like both players actually but randolph strikes me more as a tayshuan prince type in the future in terms of his impact on the game...good tertiary scorer and will do all the little thigns

beasley, however, has much more of a killer insinct offensively...his rotations are terrible but his man to man defense is actually pretty decent and hes only a rookie learning to play real d for the 1st time so i think in due time his d will be passable in the way that carlos boozer or chris bosh's is...beasley can be a # 1 guy (losing team) or # 2 guy (winning team)...ppl love to say that hes a sf but hes never played it in his life...beasley does 2 things offensively...drive and shoot jump shots from the elbow (same as boozer, bosh, amare)...he is 1 inch shorter than bosh and amare but hes only a rookie and can bulk up much more and has long arms to compensate...he is a PF now and in the future

future predictions:

beasley: 22-23 ppg, 9 rpg at pf

randolph: 16 ppg, 7 rpg, more stls and blks at sf

ill take beasley for sure but randolph is a nice prospect in his own right...randolph is the one that needs to play sf to be succesful in this league IMO

[GswStorm3]

Randolph being 210 is generous, he was 197 at the pre-draft camp.

I'm an LSU fan, and I love Randolph, but this is Beasley and it's not even close. He's better now, he's a more naturally talented player, and he has a much better NBA body.

Edit: Randolph will never be a center, and if he does, he'll look like Chris Bosh did when trying to play C full time, overwhelmed and more prone to fatigue and injury.

Please give some more details on how Beasley's the more naturally talented player.

BTW no one called Randolph a natural center. But Randolph played some center this season and held his own when Biedrins has been hurt and when Turiaf gets into foul trouble. He's more aggressive defensively than Bosh was his rookie season.

[WadeKnicks2010]

That implies that you know where either player's ceiling actually is. I don't think you do. I know I don't. This is a pair of uber-young players who've both shown NBA talents. One of them has earned spot minutes all season long and put up 7 and 5, while the other has been a regular rotation player and is putting up 13 and 5.

I'm making an assumption based on their physical gifts as observed by my own eyes. I probably don't know either of their ceilings either, but going by the trend, the best players this era have been Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. If you go back beyond that the best players are Wilt, Russel, Kareem, Jordan. Either big man or guards. Not undersized power forwards. No, I'm not saying Randolph will reach those heights nor has the ability to, no one will for a long time. But Beasley is simply not of the superstar mold. He never ever ever will be. Neither of them will get to such an elite level, but that's besides the point. I'm saying Randolph simply has a higher potential.

Extremely specious logic.

Randolph, at 210 pounds, weighs less than most shooting guards in this league. To assume he can be a sought after center, and more sought after than a team's second option, is ridiculous. Right now, he's Keon Clark. He's got a lot of work to do, both on his body and on his offensive game, before anyone can honestly claim he's an NBA caliber starting center. What he is now, ideally, is an energy guy off the bench.

Um, the Heat themselves are starting Udonis Haslem over Michael Beasley. And Randolph, unless he completely misses out on his expectations, should be much better than the undrafted and undersized forward who isn't even tall enough to contest bigger players. So yes defensive big men are much more valuable than a one dimensional offensive player. The Heat franchise has been famous for going after solid defensive bigs in the Riley era. He knows how important they are to success. Your team's best forwards, guys like Antoine Walker and Jamal Mashburn, who are always at abundance in the league, weren't quite as instrumental as players like Alonzo Mourning, PJ Brown, hell even Brian Grant in their primes.

Beasley, at 6'9" and 245 pounds, is honestly not undersized. He's going to get stronger, just like Randolph, but unlike Randolph, he already has the frame. All he needs is another 10 pounds and he's Elton Brand in terms of size (minus wingspan). No one claims Brand, Carlos Boozer, Ben Wallace, Kenyon Martin, David West, or Zack Randolph are undersized. All of them are the same 6'9" as Michael Beasley. All of them are, or in Wallace's case have been, effective NBA power players. Some weigh more than Beasley, some weigh less. It's about talent. Beasley has it. He'll succeed. The level at which he succeeds has yet to be determined.

Brand, Boozer, Ben, Kenyon, West, never got to the highest tiers in their position though. Duncan's height and defensive presence elevates him to a level past any of them, same goes for prime Sheed and KG.. Same goes for a guy like Hakeem(different position, i know), Alonzo and Ewing. I'll take the taller defensive players over the undersized scorers at the forward position any day as would most teams around the NBA.

I'm not saying that Beasley will be that good, but saying his ceiling is lower because his offensive game is polished is ridiculous.

Yes, go back to something I'm not trying to imply again. Even after I explicitly cleared it up for you that I wasn't.

[Wade2k6]

I'm making an assumption based on their physical gifts as observed by my own eyes. I probably don't know either of their ceilings either, but going by the trend, the best players this era have been Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. If you go back beyond that the best players are Wilt, Russel, Kareem, Jordan. Either big man or guards. Not undersized power forwards. No, I'm not saying Randolph will reach those heights nor has the ability to, no one will for a long time. But Beasley is simply not of the superstar mold. He never ever ever will be. Neither of them will get to such an elite level, but that's besides the point. I'm saying Randolph simply has a higher potential.

You cannot say a player as talented as Beasley, especially for as young as he is, "is simply not of the superstar mold." You see players all the time break out when they're 25-26 years old, and he's showing great potential at the age of 20. A little premature to say he can't be a star.

You have yet to answer this question. How does Randolph have more potential?

Um, the Heat themselves are starting Udonis Haslem over Michael Beasley. And Randolph, unless he completely misses out on his expectations, should be much better than the undrafted and undersized forward who isn't even tall enough to contest bigger players. So yes defensive big men are much more valuable than a one dimensional offensive player. The Heat franchise has been famous for going after solid defensive bigs in the Riley era. He knows how important they are to success. Your team's best forwards, guys like Antoine Walker and Jamal Mashburn, who are always at abundance in the league, weren't quite as instrumental as players like Alonzo Mourning, PJ Brown, hell even Brian Grant in their primes.

So what if they're starting Haslem over Beasley? Haslem is a veteran PF that plays tough defense and has been on the biggest stage and won. He has a nice midrange shot and has great chemistry with Wade and Coach Spo. Maybe Beasleys expectations were too high coming into the draft. People were expecting him to be a 20-10 PF from his rookie year. That's totally unrealistic, not because he couldn't do it, but because of his situation. He's on a playoff team so obviously his minutes should be down (to an extent, compared to players like Rose/Mayo).

So what is Randolph will eventually become better then haslem? What does that have to do with this comparison? Beasley will be better then haslem too, I'd say he already is, he just isn't as consistent.

Obviously a player like Walker isn't going to be as important as somebody like Mourning. Mourning is a DPOY and going to be a hall of famer. I'd like to think that's pretty obvious.

Brand, Boozer, Ben, Kenyon, West, never got to the highest tiers in their position though. Duncan's height and defensive presence elevates him to a level past any of them, same goes for prime Sheed and KG.. Same goes for a guy like Hakeem(different position, i know), Alonzo and Ewing. I'll take the taller defensive players over the undersized scorers at the forward position any day as would most teams around the NBA.

Again, TD is one of the great players of all time. Every other guy you bring up in this paragraph is a top 50 player of all time too. So to compare, or even to begin to compare Randolph to these guys is useless and ridiculous. Going by your logic I'd guess you'd also take Haywood over Beasley too. He's a tall defensive minded player.

[J-Rich-]

i like both players actually but randolph strikes me more as a tayshuan prince type in the future in terms of his impact on the game...good tertiary scorer and will do all the little thigns

beasley, however, has much more of a killer insinct offensively...his rotations are terrible but his man to man defense is actually pretty decent and hes only a rookie learning to play real d for the 1st time so i think in due time his d will be passable in the way that carlos boozer or chris bosh's is...beasley can be a # 1 guy (losing team) or # 2 guy (winning team)...ppl love to say that hes a sf but hes never played it in his life...beasley does 2 things offensively...drive and shoot jump shots from the elbow (same as boozer, bosh, amare)...he is 1 inch shorter than bosh and amare but hes only a rookie and can bulk up much more and has long arms to compensate...he is a PF now and in the future

future predictions:

beasley: 22-23 ppg, 9 rpg at pf

randolph: 16 ppg, 7 rpg, more stls and blks at sf

ill take beasley for sure but randolph is a nice prospect in his own right...randolph is the one that needs to play sf to be succesful in this league IMO

Randolph is already averaging 5.3rpg in 16.3 minutes. He'll average at least 10rpg with starter minutes. Plus randolph is most effective as a pf and has been playing pf and center 97% of the time so i dont know why you said he's gonna do that at sf. if he plays sf his numbers will go down except for ppg

[WadeKnicks2010]

Wade2k6 stop talking jibberish. I was going to actually post a response until I saw the part about Randolph not going to become TD or an all time great. No kidding, I never said he would. Neither are likely to be great players or even superstars of their own era. The references to the other players came up because we were still wasting our time discussing "ceilings" because you have no concept of what that is and why Randolph's is higher than Beasley's. I never said that either would actually hit their ceiling, most players don't.

[WadeKnicks2010]

"You have yet to answer this question. How does Randolph have more potential? "

And to clarify, yes I did. Three times. If you're still stuck on this I really have nothing more to say to you.

[killacalijatt]

i like both players actually but randolph strikes me more as a tayshuan prince type in the future in terms of his impact on the game...good tertiary scorer and will do all the little thigns

beasley, however, has much more of a killer insinct offensively...his rotations are terrible but his man to man defense is actually pretty decent and hes only a rookie learning to play real d for the 1st time so i think in due time his d will be passable in the way that carlos boozer or chris bosh's is...beasley can be a # 1 guy (losing team) or # 2 guy (winning team)...ppl love to say that hes a sf but hes never played it in his life...beasley does 2 things offensively...drive and shoot jump shots from the elbow (same as boozer, bosh, amare)...he is 1 inch shorter than bosh and amare but hes only a rookie and can bulk up much more and has long arms to compensate...he is a PF now and in the future

future predictions:

beasley: 22-23 ppg, 9 rpg at pf

randolph: 16 ppg, 7 rpg, more stls and blks at sf

ill take beasley for sure but randolph is a nice prospect in his own right...randolph is the one that needs to play sf to be succesful in this league IMO

READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING,

RANDOLPH already averages MORE rebounds, MORE Steals,WAY MORE Blocks, then Beasley in 15 less minutes played,
Why the h3!! would he need to play SF inorder to be successfull hes already putting up better stats then BEasley in 15 less minutes ? He has a higher PER
Only thing Beasley does is score 6 more points in 15 more minutes, PERIOD

[Wade2k6]

Wade2k6 stop talking jibberish. I was going to actually post a response until I saw the part about Randolph not going to become TD or an all time great. No kidding, I never said he would. Neither are likely to be great players or even superstars of their own era. The references to the other players came up because we were still wasting our time discussing "ceilings" because you have no concept of what that is and why Randolph's is higher than Beasley's. I never said that either would actually hit their ceiling, most players don't.

Talking jibberish? Okay?

You stated that Zo, etc are more important to the Heat then Mashburn/Walker were. Well i mean duh, that's pretty obvious. I don't know why you brought this up. Zo, TD, KG could all be defensive anchors of great defenses, so unless you believe Randolph could be one I don't know why this is relevent at all, or even brought up for that matter.

You also go on to say that you'll take a taller defensive player over a undersized scorer at the forward spot. This is flawed. Would you take Haywood over Beasley? Would you take Chris Anderson over Beasley? Yeah obviously I'll take players like Zo, Ewing, Hakeem over a guy like Beasley, but Randolph is not going to anchor a defense or have the type of impact either of guys did. But yeah my argument is flawed

And yes I do know and have a concept of what a ceiling is. Beasley is the more skilled player, has a better frame, and has a more advanced offensive game to go along with improving defense. Randolph plays in a more benefitual system to his strengths, and plays in a much higher paced system. If you don't think that inflates his numbers then I don't know why I should even bother arguing with you.

[Wade2k6]

READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING,

RANDOLPH already averages MORE rebounds, MORE Steals,WAY MORE Blocks, then Beasley in 15 less minutes played,
Why the h3!! would he need to play SF inorder to be successfull hes already putting up better stats then BEasley in 15 less minutes ? He has a higher PER
Only thing Beasley does is score 6 more points in 15 more minutes, PERIOD

At least if you're going to try and make an argument, try and get the facts straight (which you're clearly wrong about). He does not play 15 less minutes then Beasley. Beasley plays 24.2 minutes a game compared to Randolphs 16.3 minutes a game.

[WadeKnicks2010]

And yes I do know and have a concept of what a ceiling is. Beasley is the more skilled player, has a better frame, and has a more advanced offensive game

No. You don't.

[Wade2k6]

And yes I do know and have a concept of what a ceiling is. Beasley is the more skilled player, has a better frame, and has a more advanced offensive game

No. You don't.

Okay, ignore everything I posted and just make a comment on whether I know what a ceiling is or not. Nice.

[NetsForce]

This is Beasley and it's not even close. Also don't post Randolph's stats without pace-adjusting first.