06/19 ESPN & DX.com Speculation

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

People actually tried in college? They played this little thing called defense?

Yeah, but they're horrible basketball players. I try hard when I play pickup games at the park, but it doesn't mean that if somebody lights me up they've shown more than what Sessions showed in the NBA.

[LUKE23]

Division one college players are "horrible" basketball players? The ignorance train rolls on.

[raferfenix]

I guess I was wrong. I think some of you are going to be in for a sad draft night

I want nothing to do with Mobley or TT. It'd be nice to figure out a way to aquire a talent like Mayo without giving up our best scorer. I'd give up Yi and #8 for Mayo. Trade Mo/CV for a banger. I think that's our best shot at contending now rather than down the road. I think we've all had enough of the waiting game. I hope whatever trade is made helps us NOW.

I think everyone is taking these posts far too broadly. IMO, he say's "I guess I was wrong - some of you will be sad" - meaning he thought most would be happy until he read some post(s).

Than he imeediately followed it with a quoted post - no comments of his own. I read it to be that something in aaprigs31's post is on track with what wichmae is hearing, and it is something that aaprigs31 is not happy about. It is also after this post that he says a poster a while back was close.

What was aaprigs31 upset about:
- he did not want TT or Mobley
- he wanted Mayo without giving up the Bucks best scorer
- more likely it is the part about "I hope this trade is made to help us NOW", because it is bolded in wichmae's post.

I think those are the clue's he has given us, and the other theories are what is way off. JMHO.

I think Tripledouble is on to something here---or at least I'm letting my bias for my prediciton seep through.

Anyways, I proposed a trade where the wolves got Redd, but if they prefer the Clippers pick and it's really avaiallbe I can see us taking on TT and Mobley while relaying the pick to Minnesota to close a deal. We give up our best scorer and our pick and take on TT and Mobley (who we would not need so much), but we get a great passer and defender who is one of hte few players the Bucks could possibly acquire who has superstar potential.

Wehther it's this kind of deal or the one with just Minnesota I suggested, I'm still predicting Wichmae's comment that there woudl be many upset was in regards to those expecting us getting big value in return for Redd and getting Mayo on the cheap.

[midranger]

Back to my point about D-League defenses.

The Tulsa 66ers (our team) played 50 games last year.

2 teams per game x 50 games = 100 team games played

Of those 100 team games, how many times was a team held to under 92 points?

6 times. 6% of the time will a D league team score less than 92 points.

The defense in that league is beyond horrible. And I mean beyond Bucks horrible.

[Chuck Diesel]

Is the defense in college that much better, or are the players just much worse offensively?

[midranger]

Is the defense in college that much better, or are the players just much worse offensively?

It's kind of a combination of both, but I'd say it's definitely more the former than the latter.

Pick-up games at the Y have untalented offensive basketball players but there is no defense played, and the games are played at a break neck pace. If stats were kept, these guys would be putting up huge numbers. That's the D-League. YMCA games with moderately talented basketball players.

EDIT
Furthermore, NBA teams certainly have VASTLY more talented offensive players than the D-League, yet NBA teams don't score at the clip of D-League teams. It's all about horrible defense in that league.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Division one college players are "horrible" basketball players? The ignorance train rolls on.

Luke, if you're calling names over this, you better have some serious logic backing up your position. Every year, the top 50 or so college players graduate to the NBA. Of these top 50, perhaps 3 or 4 are good enough to be considered average NBA players. That means that 45 of the top 50 college players are below-average, and the other several hundred are even worse than that. In other words, horrible and not even worthy of an NBA bench spot.

[midranger]

There is absolutely no way that only 3-4 players per draft are average.

Otherwise every ten years, we'd have 30-40 average players in a league of 360+ players.

[Chuck Diesel]

I agree, I might be the only person on here who actually watches D-league basketball. But I think the poor defense is attributed to lack of structure as opposed to lack of effort. Players come and go every other day, so it's very difficult to have any kind of defensive system in place. Offensively players have no problem coming in and getting their own shot, but on defense guys are often left scratching their heads when a rotation breaks down or help doesn't arrive or whatever. The 1 on 1 defense in that league is much better than the team defense, if that makes sense.

But I don't think you can discount the level of competition. I think there were over 20 guys called up to the NBA and at least that many sent down. It's a pretty good league.

[LUKE23]

Division one college players are "horrible" basketball players? The ignorance train rolls on.

Luke, if you're calling names over this, you better have some serious logic backing up your position. Every year, the top 50 or so college players graduate to the NBA. Of these top 50, perhaps 3 or 4 are good enough to be considered average NBA players. That means that 45 of the top 50 college players are below-average, and the other several hundred are even worse than that. In other words, horrible and not even worthy of an NBA bench spot.

Your biggest issue is that you are an extremist with everything and you also analyze things in a vacuum of your theories without taking the time to actually see if they stand up in real life. It's like saying Gordon cannot be a good pro, he simply cannot because of his height, without seeing him play one game (something you will be incorrect on).

If someone is "horrible" at something, that means they are not only well below average, it means they are in the lower tiers worldwide. So division one basketball players are some of the worst basketball players on earth? What does that make you, "beyond horrible"?

You need to watch how you word things and also realize that just because you think a rule applies, that does not mean it can be thrown around as the end all of everything. lf you're going to throw out all these comments about basketball, maybe it's time you started watching it.

"The level of competition in college is well below the level of competition in the NBA". Much better way to phrase it than, "college players are horrible".

[TheBluest]

IMHO your team should draft Gordon if he's on the board or Make a trade with the Clippers to make sure to pick him.

I think Knicks are taking Westbrook according to rumors although I'd rather them draft Gordon if Mayo is off the board.

[aaprigs311]

I was just reviewing the last 10-12 pages to try to figure this out and look for clues I missed. I found something that I overlooked. Not sure if anyone else caught it. After wichmae said that some of us would be disappointed he quoted my little rant. The last line of the quote I made was "whatever trade they make i i hope it helps us NOW." He put that quote in bold print. It sounds like whatever trade is in the making is for some younger players that will help us rebuild or another draft pick. Not even sure if anyone mentioned the "bolding" of that quote. If you did I'm sorry that to be the "captain obvious" guy right now. Anways, sounds like we're in for a youth movement which does indeed disappoint me.

[midranger]

I agree, I might be the only person on here who actually watches D-league basketball. But I think the poor defense is attributed to lack of structure as opposed to lack of effort. Players come and go every other day, so it's very difficult to have any kind of defensive system in place. Offensively players have no problem coming in and getting their own shot, but on defense guys are often left scratching their heads when a rotation breaks down or help doesn't arrive or whatever. The 1 on 1 defense in that league is much better than the team defense, if that makes sense.

But I don't think you can discount the level of competition. I think there were over 20 guys called up to the NBA and at least that many sent down. It's a pretty good league.

I can agree with most of that. But at the end of the day the defenses are awful.

I still think WAY more effort goes into offense than defense in the D-League because that's what gets noticed. But that's the way bad NBA teams play too, so whatever.

[smauss]

I was just reviewing the last 10-12 pages to try to figure this out and look for clues I missed. I found something that I overlooked. Not sure if anyone else caught it. After wichmae said that some of us would be disappointed he quoted my little rant. The last line of the quote I made was "whatever trade they make i i hope it helps us NOW." He put that quote in bold print. It sounds like whatever trade is in the making is for some younger players that will help us rebuild or another draft pick. Not even sure if anyone mentioned the "bolding" of that quote. If you did I'm sorry that to be the "captain obvious" guy right now. Anways, sounds like we're in for a youth movement which does indeed disappoint me.

Perception is a funny thing; you see I noticed that bolded statement and took it to mean the exact opposite of your comment (IE: that we would be including a pick in a deal for a vet who could help us now.)

[Bernman]

It's a gross over-simplification to say that all college players who don't make the NBA are inferior. Joe Crispin, Lynn Greer, etc. are far superior to Dan Gadzuric and DaSagana Diop. The NBA in general is a league where players need to be in a hyper-specific size window for their position or they won't translate.

And players in college in general have more incentive to give effort defensively.

Teams only play about 35 games in college instead of the NBA schedule where they play 82. Players get much more rest in college between games whereas the NBA is a grind. Players have to take off games mentally and physically to preserve themselves in the NBA. Especially the older guys. Remember when you were 19-20 years old, you had boundless energy.

College crowds are extraordinarily more intense than NBA crowds these days. Players feed off crowd noise and play with more intensity offensively and defensively.....why do you think home teams were so dominant in the NBA playoffs? Crowds aren't like that during the NBA regular season, nor are home records as impressive.

Statistics are mostly offensively based, not defensively based, and stats are what get you paid in the NBA Just ask Maurice Williams. A high majority of college players are playing for the love of competition and not for a paycheck.

In college, especially at the high major level, many more than half the teams are playing for something at the end of the season, unlike the NBA. A record above .500 puts you at least in the NIT, probably in the NCAA's. Teams can get most of the way to .500 by beating mid majors out of conference. The top teams are jockeying for seeding, because one loss can knock you down a peg, and orders are unknown unlike in the NBA because there it's subjective. Then we have conference and postseason tourneys to look at. We can focus on tougher matchups to get a more accurate indicator of how a player fares against tougher competition.

That's why NCAA stats offensively, in conjunction with projectible size and skills, can be more relevant than performances actually in the NBA at the end of a regular season.

[DanoMac]

IMHO your team should draft Gordon if he's on the board or Make a trade with the Clippers to make sure to pick him.

I think Knicks are taking Westbrook according to rumors although I'd rather them draft Gordon if Mayo is off the board.

I feel the exact same way about Gordon. I think he's gonna be an absolute stud. It baffles me that certain Bucks fans back away from him.

[raferfenix]

I was just reviewing the last 10-12 pages to try to figure this out and look for clues I missed. I found something that I overlooked. Not sure if anyone else caught it. After wichmae said that some of us would be disappointed he quoted my little rant. The last line of the quote I made was "whatever trade they make i i hope it helps us NOW." He put that quote in bold print. It sounds like whatever trade is in the making is for some younger players that will help us rebuild or another draft pick. Not even sure if anyone mentioned the "bolding" of that quote. If you did I'm sorry that to be the "captain obvious" guy right now. Anways, sounds like we're in for a youth movement which does indeed disappoint me.

I didn't know that he was the one who put it in bold, so you are right that that is interesting. Many on this board are hoping for us to go young with a player we believe has superstar or at least star potential, so I'm not sure it's merely the fact that we are going young that he is presumign will piss people off.

Rather, I think we are trading the farm to go young by getting OJ Mayo. I think your post also mentioned that you did not want to trade our best scorer in addition to our pick to get OJ Mayo, and that would also be indicative of why people would be upset if we did do that as part of this youth movement.

[bigkurty]

Ahh, I was thinking it would help us win now and not just be for younger players but that makes some sense too. So I guess Miller is out of the question. That makes the Memphis possibility much easier.
It could be so many things without Miller
CV and 8 for 5, Warrick and Crittenton (maybe its Javaris rather than Lowry since we were close)
or
CV, Mase, and 8 for Collins, Warrick, Crittenton, and 5
or
CV, Mase and 8 for Collins, Crittenton, and 5

all three of those work and I would think if are goal is to draft love, we need to bring in another pg somewhere so that we can trade Mo later.

Any takers for one of those variations?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

There is absolutely no way that only 3-4 players per draft are average.

Otherwise every ten years, we'd have 30-40 average players in a league of 360+ players.

I meant during their rookie year. Rookies are almost never average players, which means that during the period that they were in college they weren't average NBA players either, which means that the ones who didn't get drafted were even worse than that. Nearly 100% of college players, during the period of time that they are in college, are horrible by NBA standards.

If someone is "horrible" at something, that means they are not only well below average, it means they are in the lower tiers worldwide.

No, that's not what it means. The word horrible is subjective, and I'll let you in on a secret of human interaction - subjective words "good, bad, average, horrible, fat, tall, skinny" should always be assumed to mean "in relation to the subject being discussed."

So when I say that Eric Gordon is short, I don't mean in relation to the average human being on earth (which is probably somewhere around 4' tall) or even the average full-grown adult on earth (which is probably somewhere around 5'9". What I mean, is in relation to NBA basketball players.

Likewise when I say that college players are horrible, and I say it on an NBA message board, and it happens in a conversation comparing the players Ramon Sessions has faced to the players that Augustin and other NCAA players have faced, I also mean in relation to NBA basketball players.

You can take this logic, and apply it to every conversation you have for the rest of your life. And now you owe me a huge thank you, because I just made you smarter.

[LUKE23]

There is absolutely no way that only 3-4 players per draft are average.

Otherwise every ten years, we'd have 30-40 average players in a league of 360+ players.

I meant during their rookie year. Rookies are almost never average players, which means that during the period that they were in college they weren't average NBA players either, which means that the ones who didn't get drafted were even worse than that. Nearly 100% of college players, during the period of time that they are in college, are horrible by NBA standards.

If someone is "horrible" at something, that means they are not only well below average, it means they are in the lower tiers worldwide.

No, that's not what it means. The word horrible is subjective, and I'll let you in on a secret of human interaction - subjective words "good, bad, average, horrible, fat, tall, skinny" should always be assumed to mean "in relation to the subject being discussed."

So when I say that Eric Gordon is short, I don't mean in relation to the average human being on earth (which is probably somewhere around 4' tall) or even the average full-grown adult on earth (which is probably somewhere around 5'9". What I mean, is in relation to NBA basketball players.

Likewise when I say that college players are horrible, and I say it on an NBA message board, and it happens in a conversation comparing the players Ramon Sessions has faced to the players that Augustin and other NCAA players have faced, I also mean in relation to NBA basketball players.

You can take this logic, and apply it to every conversation you have for the rest of your life. And now you owe me a huge thank you, because I just made you smarter.

Haha, thanks for the laugh. It's very evident you know a good amount about statistics/theories, but actually very little about the game of basketball by reading your posts. When you openly admit to never have seen a guy play, and then make the proclamation that he simply will not be good by looking at his height alone, it gives me all I need to know.

You said "horrible basketball players". You never said in relation to NBA players. If you're going to paint with a broad brush like you do, then you should probably be more specific on what you're talking about.

The other thing you seem to be incapable of is thinking about things in an indvidualistic way, and applying every single individual sample to a current theory of yours. In your world, the Chicago Cubs (no I'm not a fan, can't stand them) would be absolutely 100% incapable of winning a World Series title this year, because the last 100 years of data says they cannot. But then if you actually looked at their roster, you would say, "hmm, maybe they do have a shot".