What Should the Wizards Should Do with the 5th Pick?

[WizarDynasty]

Are you really that dense...??? most PF's get most of their shots assisted...

btw 70% isnt an average for AJ...

last year 70
07-08 53
06-07 53
05-06 51

KG gets 74% assisted this year, so KG post game sucks...

Why do I even bother, really...???

http://www.82games.com/0809/COM1S0.HTM
Team Player
Jamison 2008-2009 top notch beaten down and exposed.

Min 837

Fga 17.2

Fg% .460

3pA 3.7

3p% .341 * 1.5= .511 converted to 2Pt percentage.

Fta 4.4

Ft% 75%

Pts 20.6

Ast'd 78%

Reb 7.9

Ast 2.1

T/o 1.4

Blk 0.3

Stl 1.1
78 percent of all his points are easy points created by someone else and he still shoots under .50.
that means only 22% of his points does he actually earn from hard work. jamison is a FRAUD in the worst way possible for a powerforward. This is what he does against good playoff teams.
Just for people who really don't understand what 78% means. It means if Jamison scored ten points, 8 of his points where from handoffs because he was wide open. On two of the ten points did he actually earn because of an offensive move. This also means that if we need someone to score points, Jamison isn't scoring unless someone creates an easy opportunity for him. His stats are over inflated and empty. Again, he shoots way below .50 even after being assisted 78% of the time and that's pathetic. and for you, game over.
http://www.82games.com/0809/COM1S0.HTM
.542 Kg= is what a normal p/f shooting..so don't ever compare KG to AJ again, it makes you look bad.

[DaRealHibachi]

lol, you continue to surprise me... This my last post to you... I'm done with your ignorance...

You're the one here posting that Jamison's post game sucks b/c he get assisted 78% os his shots... I refute that fact by

1. Saying that 78% isn't an average for Jamison... The years before that he was assisted 53, 53 and 51%...

2. Saying that KG's postgame sucks, b/c by your logic anyone who has an allot of his shots assisted sucks...

You post the same BS you posted in another thread, simply read over my post and say that I shouldn't compare AJ with KG b/c he shoots an higher %... Dude everybody knows KG is better than AJ, which is prbably why he shoots an higher %... But we have AJ on our team, not KG...

Also it's funny how you say I shouldn't compare him to KG, but you continually compare AJ and Butler with worse SF's/PF's...

Anyway I'm puttin you on ignore, I sincerely hope you have someone to dicuss your "facts" with...

[closg00]

Ha! I just met Tryke Evans at the AT&T store in China-block, he was in jeans and a tee-shirt. Not very friendly, but I understand.

[WizarDynasty]

what fool. .460 versus .542. Some people really are just a waste of time. Please don't respond to my post because math isn't your subject. Shooting under .50 from the field means you are not a good post player.

[Ruzious]

Are you really that dense...??? most PF's get most of their shots assisted...

btw 70% isnt an average for AJ...

last year 70
07-08 53
06-07 53
05-06 51

KG gets 74% assisted this year, so KG post game sucks...

Why do I even bother, really...???

And if he had ever actually watched Jamison - going back to when he was at UNC, he'd know that Jamison almost always gets rid of the ball very quickly. Inside he takes advantage of his quick leaping ability and "wily veteran moves" - his uncanny flip shots. That leads to assists for players passing to him - because he doesn't waist/waste motion.

[Tyrone Messby]

Jordan Hill is a project. No please. Also, he looked TERRIBLE in the NCAA tournament. Showed absolutely no desire or inside game against Louisville. I'm going to be extremely pissed at EG if he drafts this guy. I like the Rudy and Portland draft pick trade idea. Getting Rudy and Blair would be a success.

[miller31time]

what fool. .460 versus .542. Some people really are just a waste of time. Please don't respond to my post because math isn't your subject. Shooting under .50 from the field means you are not a good post player.

Ugh....Jamison shoots a lot of threes. That's going to skew his fg% which, as I have said many times before, is an outdated statistical metric that has since been replaced by eFG% and TS%.

Antawn's eFG% and TS% are much more comparable to Garnett's.

Garnett

53.2% eFG%
56.3 TS%
21.3 PER

Jamison

50.7% eFG%
54.9% TS%
20.5 PER

Why is Garnett's still slightly higher? Because he's Kevin Freaking Garnett.

Also of note - Garnett possesses a PER just 0.8 points higher. That's pretty impressive.

Anyone who actually watches Antawn Jamison play the game of basketball knows that he has a more than respectable post game. He probably doesn't go to it quite enough but to say that he doesn't have a good post game is flat-out wrong.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Ha! I just met Tryke Evans at the AT&T store in China-block, he was in jeans and a tee-shirt. Not very friendly, but I understand.

He's from Memphis.

Being an old n from PG County (oh, I've got degrees, education, and live in Hawaii now, but I haven't forgotten from whence I came), but with my parents and my siblings all born in Memphis, and with my late bro-in-law being from Memphis; I could probably get to know Evans real fast.

For good or bad.

I don't really know if he's from North Memphis or where, but I could probably find out a whole lot about him based on who he rides with, if you know what I mean.

Or, I could just hope the Wizards draft Curry, who's probably .... refined.

I'll leave my biases way out there front and center.

[fugop]

I probably dislike Jamison as much as any rational poster on this board, but the cherry-picking of arbitrary statistics to demonstrate his "failings" is pathetic.

The same 82games.com statistics show that Jamison shot 63% on "close" shots. Chris Bosh shoots 53% on close. Al Jefferson 61%. Pau Gasol 56%. Okafor 54%. Nowitzki 56%. West 59%. Jamison's paltry dunk numbers and high jumpshot volume account for much of the difference here, but it's nonetheless clear that he has a very efficient post game.

Jamison's problem is on the defensive side of the ball, not the offensive. If were a passable defender, he'd be a top 5 power forward.

[Ji]

I really think Curry is the best for us to draft. He represents the most value and in fact behind Blake, i have him as my #2 player even ahead of Rubio. Curry can just ball man....he has the most skill of anyone in the draft and the potential to be an incredible 6th man...he will score 30 pts a few times this year..maybe even a 40 pt game.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

what fool. .460 versus .542. Some people really are just a waste of time. Please don't respond to my post because math isn't your subject. Shooting under .50 from the field means you are not a good post player.

Ugh....Jamison shoots a lot of threes. That's going to skew his fg% which, as I have said many times before, is an outdated statistical metric that has since been replaced by eFG% and TS%.

Antawn's eFG% and TS% are much more comparable to Garnett's.

Garnett

53.2% eFG%
56.3 TS%
21.3 PER

Jamison

50.7% eFG%
54.9% TS%
20.5 PER

Why is Garnett's still slightly higher? Because he's Kevin Freaking Garnett.

Also of note - Garnett possesses a PER just 0.8 points higher. That's pretty impressive.

Anyone who actually watches Antawn Jamison play the game of basketball knows that he has a more than respectable post game. He probably doesn't go to it quite enough but to say that he doesn't have a good post game is flat-out wrong.

On the whole post up issue I think I see what WD is saying. KG has a really good face up game. He's been a very good rebounder who's scored on putback dunks and lobs earlier in his career. But he's pretty soft on posting up.

Where GArnett's bread has been buttered has been in transition, both offense and defense. And with his butter jumpshot. He's like Antawn in being a lot more finesse on offense and not a true post up threat.

Antawn's jut not 7'1" or else he'd be a monster just like KG IMO.

Before KG got hooked up with Pierce and Allen, the big knock on him was his sparsity of free throw attempts. He wasn't one to take many free throws because most of his damage came from elbow jumpers or off putbacks or in transition.

With Boston, Pierce, Powe, Big Baby, even Perkiins, and when he wants to Ray Allen probably post up as well as KG IMHO.

[pancakes3]

apologies for OT but AJ's post up game is top notch even if
it's not shaq-style based on brute strength and athletic
dominence. When Hill comes into the league and has
half as many 20-10 games as Jamison, I'll think about
taking certain people off ignore. Measureables are
all well and good but you gotta look at what happens
in actual games. By measureables, Javale McGee
would/should have been ROY. Now if you want
to argue that down the road potential is what
ROY should be based on, McGee /might/ be
better than Rose or Beasley. But I doubt MIA
or CHI would trade them straight up. It's silly.

let me put on my roleplaying hat and guess what counter-arguments are sure to follow:

1 - Jamison only gets rebounds because nobody else on the team can rebound.
2 - Jamison doesn't have a good 1-legged vertical so he can't operate in the post and resorts to jumpers and flip shots.
3 - Jamison's jumpers lower his fg% thus making him not elite.
4 - Jamison's jumpers are often assisted thus making him not a #1 option.
5 - Jamison's defense sucks and is not a 2-way pf like KG.
6 - never mind the fact that we're talking about Jordan Hill and not Kevin Garnett. we'll never be a dynasty unless we have an elite 2-way player at every single position.

*having an elite 2-way player at every position would roughly boil down to:
Billups/Deron/Rondo
Kobe/Wade
Lebron/Granger
Garnett/Duncan
Howard/Yao/Jefferson

and that's it. nobody else in the league is above average both offensively and defensively. not dirk, not gasol, not CP3, not Roy, not Pierce, etc. while i do agree that it'd be OPTIMAL if we had some of these players listed, but it's virtually impossible to get any of them so it's pretty much moot to wish for them.

The only 3 ways to get one of these guys is to:

max-offer them at the end of their rookie contract/extensions (like NYK is going to do to Lebron/Wade)
draft them and keep them (like LAL did with Kobe, and SAS did with Duncan.)
trade for them if they/their team are disgruntled (like BOS did with KG and DEN did with Billups).

-we dont' have enough money to max offer anyone in 2010.
-blake is the only surefire prospect that's ASG worthy. Earl Clark who can't even put up 15ppg in college, Jordan Hill who was shut down consecutively and thoroughly by Jeff Pendergraph, and even Stephen Curry weren't "elite 2-way players" in college. I doubt they'll become one in the pros.
-we've been floating Stoudemire and Bosh trades all year long. it's in direct conjunction with you wanting an elite big man - except even Stoudemire isn't elite enough.

sorry for the jag. just perturbed at the slew of replies to dobro, who i happen to respect.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

dobrojim, I don't even have to tell you how much I admire and respect you.

(Jim, I've got three kids running track and right now it's like forced labor to them. I feel mucho hypocritical, being not at all in running shape. Probably put on 20 since the blown achilles ... One of those do as I say do parenting moves. Much conflicted because they aren't Usain Bolts or Kip Keinos if you know what I mean. The cool part is the meets and the other track parents and the teachable moments and the times my boys forget they can't stand running and they try and improve their form and they .... have fun.)

[WizarDynasty]

let me put on my roleplaying hat and guess what counter-arguments are sure to follow:

1 - Jamison only gets rebounds because nobody else on the team can rebound.
2 - Jamison doesn't have a good 1-legged vertical so he can't operate in the post and resorts to jumpers and flip shots.
3 - Jamison's jumpers lower his fg% thus making him not elite.
4 - Jamison's jumpers are often assisted thus making him not a #1 option.
5 - Jamison's defense sucks and is not a 2-way pf like KG.
6 - never mind the fact that we're talking about Jordan Hill and not Kevin Garnett. we'll never be a dynasty unless we have an elite 2-way player at every single position.

*having an elite 2-way player at every position would roughly boil down to:
Billups/Deron/Rondo
Kobe/Wade
Lebron/Granger
Garnett/Duncan
Howard/Yao/Jefferson

and that's it. nobody else in the league is above average both offensively and defensively. not dirk, not gasol, not CP3, not Roy, not Pierce, etc. while i do agree that it'd be OPTIMAL if we had some of these players listed, but it's virtually impossible to get any of them so it's pretty much moot to wish for them.

The only 3 ways to get one of these guys is to:

max-offer them at the end of their rookie contract/extensions (like NYK is going to do to Lebron/Wade)
draft them and keep them (like LAL did with Kobe, and SAS did with Duncan.)
trade for them if they/their team are disgruntled (like BOS did with KG and DEN did with Billups).

-we dont' have enough money to max offer anyone in 2010.
-blake is the only surefire prospect that's ASG worthy. Earl Clark who can't even put up 15ppg in college, Jordan Hill who was shut down consecutively and thoroughly by Jeff Pendergraph, and even Stephen Curry weren't "elite 2-way players" in college. I doubt they'll become one in the pros.
-we've been floating Stoudemire and Bosh trades all year long. it's in direct conjunction with you wanting an elite big man - except even Stoudemire isn't elite enough.

sorry for the jag. just perturbed at the slew of replies to dobro, who i happen to respect.

[/quote]I think you got my point somewhat pancakes except that you always build your team with players who are established defenders in college that have offensive upside. Physical defensive talent can't be taught where as offensive skills can be taught. That's why we are stuck now as a team. A player can't improve his defensive physical talent like a jamison. he either had it when he came out of college or he didn't. You never hear of a player transforming into an elite defender who wasn't a dominant defender in college.
When you bring a player onto your team, that player should already have a defensive reputation.
EG screwed up because he brought players onto the team and thought they would magically develop a defensive reputation even though they never had one before they got here or while in college. Defensive reputation is what wins championships. A player can always develop a consistent shot but you rarely see a player turn into a shotblocker if he wasn't one in college.
You build your team around players who are gifted defenders that have the potential to be above average offensive players. you don't build a team around players who have limited defensive potential.
Physical defensive talent is something that can't be coached which is why Jamison and caron will never be all nba third team allstars. They both have reached their ceiling as far as offensive talent goes but EG couldn't see far enough to realize that they never had a defensive reputation in college.

[MF23]

Well if he WAS a franchise level player, that means we can build around him and he would be the player to lead us to a championship. He would DOMINATE. If you believe he's a PG, he should be on the level of Chris Paul/Daron Williams. If he's a SG, he should be on the level of Kobe or Wade. Please let me know which franchise position this man will play for us....Will he be our CP3 or Kobe?

Please tell me how you believe any part of his game translates to dominating. He can't blow by defenders, he can't shoot over them. His passing is average at best. He doesn't rebound very well. He'll be good moving without the ball, shooting open shots, and off picks.

oh and one more thing, his D will suck. He will be abused by either position. SG will punish him in the post and PG will blow past him.

I have to save your post, it's too funny......and this way if I'm wrong, I'll own up to it. But this Curry hype is WAYYYY out of hand.

I'm still wondering if you could belittle my post. But first you need to prove you can comprehend what pontential is.

I'll respond to a few of your questions just so you can maybe understand what potential I see. Curry has dominated college basketball for 3 years. Scoring wise he's dominated off the dribble, curling by picks and spot up shooting. He is a way above average passer. The fact that you can't see that either means you haven't watched him play especially in this last season or you just made that up so your opinion would matter to you more. He executes pick and rolls perfectly and passes the ball with precision in the half court set. You couldn't ask for better passes than he executes during a set play. Thats why he's projected as a lottery pick by NBA experts. Curry can play some SG in the NBA at 6'3 and he should improve his strength as he ages. Curry has never been a bad defender in college or lacked effort there. There is no indication that will change in the NBA. Keep my post and maybe it will do some good for you when all is said and done.

Dat, I see what your saying about his athleticism hindering him a bit but I think he can be as good as an athlete as Nick Van Exel was but with a little better size. The 6'2 w/o shoes got me thinking how much more effective all of his abilities will be. His shot is flat out going to be one of the quickest in the league and with the threat of his off the dribble floater a lot of guards are going to have problems stopping him. I have no doubt he's got the drive to work on his supposed weaknesses. IMO his weaknesses are about the bodies development process. I really like the fact he wants to play in NYC on that stage. Says a lot about him that people who watched him already knew. He's about becoming a great player and his confidence wont allow him to become comfortable. If anything his upside is a bit underrated when you think about what he'll do on the practice court.

[ptown]

I don't think we're adequately considering how Curry's lethal jump shot and the perception of that shot will affect how teams guard him. Because of this, no defender is going to play off of Curry. The downside to playing close to an offensive player (especially in today's NBA) is that it makes the defender suseptible to fouls and getting blown by. It's really not that hard to dribble past a guy that's only a couple of inches away from you. If Curry didn't have his quick and accurate jump shot, then defenders could play off and his lack of ELITE athleticism would make it hard for him to drive past them. Luckily for Curry this isn't the case.

[fugop]

My concern with Curry is that he's another JJ Redick. Their measurements are similar across the board; Curry had better assist and rebound numbers in college, but played against far worse competition.

Much of what is being said about Curry's IQ and savvy could have been said about Redick back in the day. Makes me wary.

[MF23]

There's a big difference in shooting ability and ballhandling between Curry and Reddick. Reddick is a great shooter but not in one on one play. Curry is a great shooter but he also has the ability to score. What I mean is Curry can make the ball find the basket in almost all situations except probably in the post. I'd bet Curry will be a better defender than Reddick to. In clutch situations Curry can probably function a lot better than Reddick can.

[LyricalRico]

My concern with Curry is that he's another JJ Redick. Their measurements are similar across the board; Curry had better assist and rebound numbers in college, but played against far worse competition.

Much of what is being said about Curry's IQ and savvy could have been said about Redick back in the day. Makes me wary.

I was about to post the same thing. Of course the Curry supporters will say that Curry has an advantage over Redick because he has "PG skills". To me PG skills for a high scoring player rarely end up with them actually playing PG in the NBA. It's been tried over and over.

Iverson
Hughes
Crawford
Terry
Dixon
Barbosa
Felton
Ellis
Foye
Bayless

Those are just the names off the top of my head but all of them were drafted as undersized scoring guards who supposedly had point guard skills. All of them were played at PG at the beginning of their careers but most have had to switch to spending much, if not all, of their time off the ball. For some their teams have even continued looking for PGs because they recognize that they need a better option at the point.

Stephen Curry isn't some new phenomenon. The same things they are saying about Curry are the same things they've said about many guys over the years, most of whom did not turn out to be point guards. He's trying to do what lots of guys before him have tried to do and IMO the odds are against him.

Had he been two inches taller I'd be more interested because if/when he fails at PG we could always move him off the ball. But as small as he is, IMO he projects to be a 6th man type (a la Terry, Barbosa, etc). And if that's all I'm getting for the #5, I don't mind trading it for a 30+ vet to try to win now.

[Kanyewest]

My concern with Curry is that he's another JJ Redick. Their measurements are similar across the board; Curry had better assist and rebound numbers in college, but played against far worse competition.

Much of what is being said about Curry's IQ and savvy could have been said about Redick back in the day. Makes me wary.

I was about to post the same thing. Of course the Curry supporters will say that Curry has an advantage over Redick because he has "PG skills". To me PG skills for a high scoring player rarely end up with them actually playing PG in the NBA. It's been tried over and over.

Iverson
Hughes
Crawford
Terry
Dixon
Barbosa
Felton
Ellis
Foye
Bayless

Those are just the names off the top of my head but all of them were drafted as undersized scoring guards who supposedly had point guard skills. All of them were played at PG at the beginning of their careers but most have had to switch to spending much, if not all, of their time off the ball. For some their teams have even continued looking for PGs because they recognize that they need a better option at the point.

Stephen Curry isn't some new phenomenon. The same things they are saying about Curry are the same things they've said about many guys over the years, most of whom did not turn out to be point guards. He's trying to do what lots of guys before him have tried to do and IMO the odds are against him.

Had he been two inches taller I'd be more interested because if/when he fails at PG we could always move him off the ball. But as small as he is, IMO he projects to be a 6th man type (a la Terry, Barbosa, etc). And if that's all I'm getting for the #5, I don't mind trading it for a 30+ vet to try to win now.

And there have been successes to the experiment like Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis, Devin Harris, and Jameer Nelson. The odds are against you regardless of who you are when you enter the NBA.