The OFFICIAL rookie impressions thread pt.III

[Hendrix]

Henrix...

You're being a bit ridiculous about his comment. As I can agree with some of your previous statement about taking stats an molding them into frivolous record breaking statements. Jsun947's argument doesn't prove your point. There is nothing bogus about using points and assists as a form of criterium to analyze a player, let alone a point guard (scoring PG). He uses Lillard's current statiistics in those categories as the standard. There is nothing wrong with what he did.

He's using a whole bunch of criteria.

Basically the player must be.

1) A rookie
2) Meet a criteria for points
3) Meet a criteria for assist
4) Must have happened in the last 30 years
5) Must specifically be a gaurd according to basketball reference.
6) Must play a lot of minutes.

You're obviously not going to get a very long list with this kind of thing. I mean, his first list he got it down to 4 players (Iverson, Evans, Richmond, Lillard).

If you simply take one criteria out of the mix here (must be a gaurd), all of a sudden the list is 27 players long, and doesn't look nearly as historic. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

If you take the '30 year' criteria out, it's been done 56 times.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

And, if we were to compare the rate of scoring (per 36). It's been done hundreds of times.


All I'm saying is these 'records' he's breaking, and lists he's making really aren't all that historically impressive.

[Jsun947]

I'm not going to compare Lillards rookie season to a players non rookie season. That's moronic.

I'm not going to compare Lillard to Forwards or Centers. That doesn't make any sense.

There is no restrictions on minutes.

30 years isn't long enough?

You can ignore assist and just go points. The list is very short. I also included guard/forwards on that list.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

[Hendrix]

I'm not going to compare Lillards rookie season to a players non rookie season. That's moronic.

I'm not going to compare Lillard to Forwards or Centers. That doesn't make any sense.

There is no restrictions on minutes.

30 years isn't long enough?

You can ignore assist and just go points. The list is very short. I also included guard/forwards on that list.

Well, if you are hell bent on making these types of lists you are going to get short lists that have about as much validity as the ones that show Charlie Villanueva, and Andrea Bargnani had historically special rookie seasons.

At the end of the day, Lillard's a good rook. But, he's really not that good, and all these lists do is contort players into making them look better than they are by making a player that is 92nd all time in rook PER look like he is among the elites like Oscar Robertson.

[Shem]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

It's just another attempt to derail Lillard again in order to make their rookie look better. People are still bitter about how Lillard is going to win the ROY.

[rockmanslim]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

He's saying it's silly when people pick arbitrary stat filters to make players seem better than they are. In general, I agree with him. But in this case, I think he's off base. Lillard is legit.

[Hendrix]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

It's just another attempt to derail Lillard again in order to make their rookie look better. People are still bitter about how Lillard is going to win the ROY.

My team's rookie isn't in the argument for ROY, and isn't as good as Lillard. It has nothing to do with him.

I don't think the 'logic' is all that difficult. All I'm saying is that the 'records' he is breaking don't really mean anything if they require selecting a bunch of specific criteria. A lot of players can look good with that kind of thing.

What really matters is overall production, and in terms of production I don't think he's all that historic of a rook. A very good rook no doubt, but putting him on lists with all time greats like Oscar, Iverson, and saying he's one of only 'x' amount of players to do something adds a certain connotation, and attempts to make him look better than he actually is imo.

[BrooklynBulls]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

Comparing him is fine. But understand that the list of rookies who played 38 minutes or more only numbers 13. That's why he's a historically top scoring rookie. Because his backup is terrible.


If you want to look at how his scoring rate compares with other rookies, look at this list:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws


Suddenly, it puts Lillard's 19 points into context. He's really good, and that list is full of great names. But it's also full of players like Ben Gordon and Michael Beasley, who weren't given the keys to the team like Lillard has been, and faced much stiffer competition for their minutes.

The truth is somewhere between those two lists. But stratifying by overall scoring volume, position, era, etc etc is just selection bias, straight up.

[Hendrix]

He's saying it's silly when people pick arbitrary stat filters to make players seem better than they are. In general, I agree with him. But in this case, I think he's off base. Lillard is legit.

It really depends what you mean by legit.

If you mean, ROY. Absolutely he deserves the ROY.

If you mean, he's a very good rookie. Absolutely, he's very good.

But, some of these lists seem to try and paint a picture that he's breaking records, and put him on lists with guys like Lebron, Jordan, Oscar, and Iverson. Quite frankly I don't think his name belongs in the same sentence as any of those guys, and most of the reason he is on these lists is due to his minutes, and some creative selection of stats.

[King d]

He's saying it's silly when people pick arbitrary stat filters to make players seem better than they are. In general, I agree with him. But in this case, I think he's off base. Lillard is legit.

It really depends what you mean by legit.

If you mean, ROY. Absolutely he deserves the ROY.

If you mean, he's a very good rookie. Absolutely, he's very good.

But, some of these lists seem to try and paint a picture that he's breaking records, and put him on lists with guys like Lebron, Jordan, Oscar, and Iverson. Quite frankly I don't think his name belongs in the same sentence as any of those guys, and most of the reason he is on these lists is due to his minutes, and some creative selection of stats.

1st of all , nobody here is saying Lillard will be as good as Iverson, Robertson and all of those players (who knows anyways), but the FACT is that Lillard's rookie season is being amazing, specially for a point guard (as others said the hardest position to play/learn in the league)

When a future rookie comes and torches the league like Lillard is doing, the history will repeat and people will say the same thing, and compare the guy to Lillard's , Robertson's, Lebron's... rookie seasons.

Sorry if it hurts you (I'm starting to think it does) but you can't change it

[Jsun947]

I didn't post those stats to try and make Lillard look like Allen Iverson. I posted those stats to prove a point. Statistically Lillard is in very good company for a rookie guard. That is all.

Just because you average a decent amount of stats between 15-25 MPG does NOT mean those stats would progress equally in expanded minutes. Lillard plays 38 MPG and averages 19.1/6.6 because he's good enough to run a NBA offense and be a top tier scoring threat on a playoff contending team as a rookie. You cannot claim another player has a higher ceiling because he doesn't get the minutes. That logic is flawed. There are thousands of examples of players who would look like superstars if you used per 36 numbers to represent their potential output. The reality is a very small percentage of those players have actually proven they can do it given the opportunity. Lillard is proving it as a rookie guard and very few others have historically proven the same thing. Just because Lillard plays 38 MPG does not put a cap on his ability to improve either.

[j_angel]

Those stats are just random cutoff points to prove a point.

For one Kyrie would have averaged over 19/6.5 in his rookie year if he played more mins. Kyrie averaged 18.5/5.4 in 30 mins per game, not near 39 like Lillard.

Lillard has played, per basketball reference, 2665 minutes of basketball in his nba career (69 games). That will work out, if he continues playing the same on average, at 3167 minutes in his rookie year.
For comparisons sake, to date Lillard has only played 600-700 minutes less than Kyrie. By the end of the season they will be equal on minutes (I know Kyrie has been injured).

Another example, John Wall averaged 16.4 and 8.3 on a worse team in his rookie year.

I know they are number one picks but Lillard's rookie year is hardly unprecedented.
Curry - 17.5/5.9.
Jennings - 15.5/5.7 in 6 less mins.

Lillard should be ROY in my opinion but those stats mean next to nothing.

[thug-lyfe]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

It's just another attempt to derail Lillard again in order to make their rookie look better. People are still bitter about how Lillard is going to win the ROY.

I agree with this all the way. These people think their rookie is better than Lillard when it's not. I don't know if it's something but any person can clearly see that Lillard has the ROY locked up. Attempting to make other rookies look better won't help the case.

Please just give up and say that Lillard is ROY.

[j_angel]

This statistic is interesting though. Both rookie years and both show per 36.

Lillard: 17.8 - 6.1 - 3.0 with 0.9 steal.
Player B: 17.1 - 6.3 - 3.8 with 1.4 steal.
Turnovers also close with 2.8 to Lillard and 2.7 to the other player.

Lillard had a much higher shooting percentage though, .55 TS compared to .475. Although player B was a better 3 point shooter.

Lillard was 22 in the July before his rookie year started.
Player B was 20 in the September of his rookie year.

[Hendrix]

1st of all , nobody here is saying Lillard will be as good as Iverson, Robertson and all of those players (who knows anyways), but the FACT is that Lillard's rookie season is being amazing, specially for a point guard (as others said the hardest position to play/learn in the league)

When a future rookie comes and torches the league like Lillard is doing, the history will repeat and people will say the same thing, and compare the guy to Lillard's , Robertson's, Lebron's... rookie seasons.

Sorry if it hurts you (I'm starting to think it does) but you can't change it

I'm not sure why you think it would hurt me, lol. I have pretty much zero reason to care about the Blazers, or Lillard one way or the other. I'm simply calling it like I see it, and have no idea what you are talking about Lillard torching the league, and being amazing. Since when is posting a 22 year old posting a 16.8 PER torching the league/amazing? It's good, but it is hardly amazing.

[Hendrix]

It makes sense to compare Lillard to other rookies, at his same position, in his same era. I don't know the logic behind what Hendrix is saying.

It's just another attempt to derail Lillard again in order to make their rookie look better. People are still bitter about how Lillard is going to win the ROY.

I agree with this all the way. These people think their rookie is better than Lillard when it's not. I don't know if it's something but any person can clearly see that Lillard has the ROY locked up. Attempting to make other rookies look better won't help the case.

Please just give up and say that Lillard is ROY.

What the heck are you talking about? lol.

[King d]

Please just give up and say that Lillard is ROY.

They already said that as they finally gave up and figured it would be just dumb to say otherwise and prove you don't follow nba or you are a biased fan

Now that they can't argue with that, they are trying to discredit Lillard's amazing rookie season and trying to make it sound like if it is a common thing to watch a rookie like him and trying to convince themselves that he is just an average rookie.

It's called envy. Don't blame them.

PD- http://thenosebleeds.com/how-does-super ... me-greats/

enjoy hendrix

[j_angel]

there’s not much room for improvement, so if he can keep playing like this- which is basically at an all-star level- for the rest of his career, we should continue to discuss Dame amongst the greats.

I am not entirely sure this article is objective.

[deepeeenn]

Hendrix,

A rookie season does not make the Player. All that Jsun947 says is that they had comparable "rookie seasons". That's all. Like I said, you have some good points about molding stats to set or break a record. But you have to understand that one reason why stats are recorded is for comparison. They get broken all the time and sometimes not as often.

Obviously adding pre-requisites to isolate a group of players is going to increase the possibility of breaking records and make the players look great but if the parameters pertain to the point of their production, there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not like he's saying which rookies have averaged 19pts and 6 ast in the last 30 yrs while being a 6'3" 22 yr old short hair black male who played at a small conference college...

[deepeeenn]

I think when you compare Lillard's great rookie season with those other great players rookie season's you are doing him such a disservice. It's obvious that what's so glamourous about the comparisons is that when most people think of Oscar Robertson or Iverson or who ever else, the first thing they think about is their careers. Hardly do people ever think about their rookie seasons alone. That's no ones fault but the person that can misinterpret that as if these averages of Damian's implies that he will have the same effect on the game as they did. As that's yet to have been seen. Who knows? But you can't disregard the raw stats and that he is in good company with them.