Rookie Discussion Thread

[JMac1]

20 points on 20 shots is not good.

19 points on 16 shots is good after you started 0-4, but slice it however you feel like slicing. If he was jacking up shots, you'd have a point, but read this...http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2016/3/27/11312540/aftermath-suns-come-up-short-but-devin-booker-is-the-real-deal-and

No matter what I say, it is just easy to say 20 points on 20 shots is not good, when you haven't looked at the totality of the game. The game the night before he went 11-21 and had 26 pts but I pointed out on this thread, it wasn't within the flow of the game. Last night's performance was better than the night before. But, I could care less if you or the other poster thought it was bad, I liked the performance, just as Brightside of the Sun did. Trying to teach the blind to see is a waste of time, especially when they want to be blind.

Have a good one.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good performance, nor do I dislike Booker. What I am saying is 8-20 is bad and 20 points on 20 shots is not good (and 19 on 16 isn't good either). You're right though - trying to teach the blind to see is a waste of time. The fact that you can't see that (as evidenced by your excuses for his poor % and lack of efficiency) makes the last part of your post somewhat ironic.

I like Booker - what I don't like is (in general) people thinking a criticism of the player is blasphemous and fans coming with swords to battle for their savior.

Your hole post is ironic. I didn't say 20 point on 20 shots was good did I? Second, if shooting 50% is not good, then . Lastly, criticize til your heart content good or bad; I don't care. I was only stating just looking at his shots and points didn't tell the whole story after the first post "20 points on 20 shots" I explain the situation and never said it was a good shooting performance as a whole and then you "20 points on 20 shots is bad," never once saying it could have been a good performance possibly when that is exactly what I posted prior to this post of yours. SMH.....

But if you posted this first, you would have been agreeing with my response to the original poster, that's ironic.

[JMac1]

Finds a way to get 20? He took 20 shots.

He should have taken more. He started 0-4, I guess you missed that part. Again, 8-16 in second half and missed (had blocked) the game tying shot. He was bringing us back from down 20 damn near by himself.........take more shots! That is what your franchise cornerstone player does, get up shots.

20 points on 20 shots is not good.

See that. I didn't say his shooting was good, I said his performance was. You ignored that, I think intentionally btw, and focused on something I did not dispute (20 points on 20 shots is bad), as if I did. I was saying he had a good game. GotCHA!
Just be real with, but I know you don'tlike me and that's cool, I get it.

[Domejandro]

Congrats to Julius Randle! First career triple double, and first rookie triple double this season.

13 points (6-10), 18 rebounds, 10 assists (2TO), 1 block

Undersized T-Rex Beast.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0FPycPPEAY[/youtube]

I really have no problem with you posting Julius Randle highlights in this thread, as he is a terrific young player and he deserves to be recognized. That said, your insistence on calling him a rookie is bordering on obnoxious at this point.

The people who are annoyed by this are even more obnoxious.

The argument about Randle is similar to positional arguments. Is Duncan a PF or C? He's always been listed as a PF, but has almost always finished games at C.

Is it bordering on obnoxious to call Duncan (circa 2008) a center? Or is it just that people have limited vision, too anal, literal, and linear for their own good?

I hate to be so blunt, but that analogy is awful. Tim Duncan has played both positions throughout his career, so it is fair to question which position he should be categorized in (it should be Center, in my opinion). In contrast, there is definitive reasoning to why Julius Randle is not a rookie, he is absolutely not a rookie; there is no feelings or observations to make on this topic, he is a Sophomore player.

[NBA Fan 1234]

He should have taken more. He started 0-4, I guess you missed that part. Again, 8-16 in second half and missed (had blocked) the game tying shot. He was bringing us back from down 20 damn near by himself.........take more shots! That is what your franchise cornerstone player does, get up shots.

20 points on 20 shots is not good.

See that. I didn't say his shooting was good, I said his performance was. You ignored that, I think intentionally btw, and focused on something I did not dispute (20 points on 20 shots is bad), as if I did. I was saying he had a good game. GotCHA!
Just be real with, but I know you don'tlike me and that's cool, I get it.

I didn't ignore that intentionally - my first post was saying 20 points on 20 shots was bad and you ended up ranting about the rest of his game. You said 19 points on 16 shots is good ("19 points on 16 shots is good after you started 0-4")...and it's still not good - that's Rudy Gay efficiency. Now, I personally have higher hopes for Booker than that...but if you don't, that's cool too - everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

As for the rest of your post...not even gonna touch that.

[Takingbaconback]

Rofl how is Randle a definitive sophomore player in terms of evalution? He didn't even play his first year and had to rehabilitate back.
He's officially a 2nd year player with rookie experience.

That's like saying you were accepted into med school and you couldn't participate at all because you were hospitalized for the entire school year but being expected to know everything a first year went through.

[NBA Fan 1234]

19 points on 16 shots is good after you started 0-4, but slice it however you feel like slicing. If he was jacking up shots, you'd have a point, but read this...http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2016/3/27/11312540/aftermath-suns-come-up-short-but-devin-booker-is-the-real-deal-and

No matter what I say, it is just easy to say 20 points on 20 shots is not good, when you haven't looked at the totality of the game. The game the night before he went 11-21 and had 26 pts but I pointed out on this thread, it wasn't within the flow of the game. Last night's performance was better than the night before. But, I could care less if you or the other poster thought it was bad, I liked the performance, just as Brightside of the Sun did. Trying to teach the blind to see is a waste of time, especially when they want to be blind.

Have a good one.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good performance, nor do I dislike Booker. What I am saying is 8-20 is bad and 20 points on 20 shots is not good (and 19 on 16 isn't good either). You're right though - trying to teach the blind to see is a waste of time. The fact that you can't see that (as evidenced by your excuses for his poor % and lack of efficiency) makes the last part of your post somewhat ironic.

I like Booker - what I don't like is (in general) people thinking a criticism of the player is blasphemous and fans coming with swords to battle for their savior.

Your hole post is ironic. I didn't say 20 point on 20 shots was good did I? Second, if shooting 50% is not good, then . Lastly, criticize til your heart content good or bad; I don't care. I was only stating just looking at his shots and points didn't tell the whole story after the first post "20 points on 20 shots" I explain the situation and never said it was a good shooting performance as a whole and then you "20 points on 20 shots is bad," never once saying it could have been a good performance possibly when that is exactly what I posted prior to this post of yours. SMH.....

But if you posted this first, you would have been agreeing with my response to the original poster, that's ironic.

Efficiency is key. I'm done with you though Later, bud.

[cyclix]

Devin Booker 21 points on 20 shots game = .483 TS% (.544 TS% season)
Emmanuel Mudiay this season = .423 TS%

[Slava]

Looks like someone just qualified for the nobel prize.

[NikolaPekovic]

Randle is not a rookie.

A big part of what it is to be a rookie in the NBA is experiencing everything as a pro for the first time. The travel, nutrition, NBA training staff, as well as the newly found wealth and everything that comes with it.. the good and the bad. Handling all of these experiences while playing NBA ball for the first time is what makes you a rook, in my mind anyway.

I doubt Randle is carrying bags or grabbing donuts for the vets this season.

[Domejandro]

Rofl how is Randle a definitive sophomore player in terms of evalution? He didn't even play his first year and had to rehabilitate back.
He's officially a 2nd year player with rookie experience.

That's like saying you were accepted into med school and you couldn't participate at all because you were hospitalized for the entire school year but being expected to know everything a first year went through.

I would agree that he should be looked at differently in evaluation, much like Jabari Parker. That said, the suggestion that we should simply ignore the rule and pretend he is a rookie because of circumstance is ridiculous. As stated, I have no problem with him being posted in this thread, but I will not back down on my statement that he is "absolutely" not a rookie by any objective standard. Subjectively you can look at circumstance and consider him a rookie, much of which I would agree with, but due to the minutes he played in his first season (yes, all fourteen of them), he is technically not a rookie. Frankly, looking at my posts, I am confused where your retort of evaluation even comes from, as I never suggested as much, but nonetheless, Julius Randle is not a rookie, haha.

As a side-note, for the love of God nobody turn this around as me disliking Julius Randle, I had him as my third favourite prospect after Joel Embiid's injury; that is a silly assumption that I want to clear the air on right away.

[jcsunsfan]

Finds a way to get 20? He took 20 shots.

He should have taken more. He started 0-4, I guess you missed that part. Again, 8-16 in second half and missed (had blocked) the game tying shot. He was bringing us back from down 20 damn near by himself.........take more shots! That is what your franchise cornerstone player does, get up shots.

20 points on 20 shots is not good.

Since when? That's an effective fg % of 50% which is better than Carmelo or Porzingis is doing FOR THE FREAKING SEASON! I will take that every night. There is not a coach or gm in the league that would not be pleased with that, especially for a guard.

Not good? That's a better than average shooting night for those two players plus other players like: Westbrook, Zack Randolph, Isaiah Thomas, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Pau Gasol, DeMarcus Cousins, and I could go on and.

20 points on 20 shot is good. Otherwise, you have just said that Melo and KP are BAD shooters.

[OFWGKTA]

He should have taken more. He started 0-4, I guess you missed that part. Again, 8-16 in second half and missed (had blocked) the game tying shot. He was bringing us back from down 20 damn near by himself.........take more shots! That is what your franchise cornerstone player does, get up shots.

20 points on 20 shots is not good.

Since when? That's an effective fg % of 50% which is better than Carmelo or Porzingis is doing FOR THE FREAKING SEASON! I will take that every night. There is not a coach or gm in the league that would not be pleased with that, especially for a guard.

Not good? That's a better than average shooting night for those two players plus other players like: Westbrook, Zack Randolph, Isaiah Thomas, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Pau Gasol, DeMarcus Cousins, and I could go on and.

20 points on 20 shot is good. Otherwise, you have just said that Melo and KP are BAD shooters.

Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).


Booker: (8 +.5*1)/20= .425 EFG%

[ALL HAIL]

Rofl how is Randle a definitive sophomore player in terms of evalution? He didn't even play his first year and had to rehabilitate back.
He's officially a 2nd year player with rookie experience.

That's like saying you were accepted into med school and you couldn't participate at all because you were hospitalized for the entire school year but being expected to know everything a first year went through.

I would agree that he should be looked at differently in evaluation, much like Jabari Parker. That said, the suggestion that we should simply ignore the rule and pretend he is a rookie because of circumstance is ridiculous. As stated, I have no problem with him being posted in this thread, but I will not back down on my statement that he is "absolutely" not a rookie by any objective standard. Subjectively you can look at circumstance and consider him a rookie, much of which I would agree with, but due to the minutes he played in his first season (yes, all fourteen of them), he is technically not a rookie. Frankly, looking at my posts, I am confused where your retort of evaluation even comes from, as I never suggested as much, but nonetheless, Julius Randle is not a rookie, haha.

As a side-note, for the love of God nobody turn this around as me disliking Julius Randle, I had him as my third favourite prospect after Joel Embiid's injury; that is a silly assumption that I want to clear the air on right away.

If you understand what you say you understand, then why is it "borderline obnoxious" to see him called a rookie? Why does it annoy you so ... when you say you understand the "circumstance"?

If you put a rock in between your butt cheeks, can you make a diamond? For you, I'm guessing yes.

So what a guy keeps calling Randle a rookie. That guys knows he's not eligible for ROY. He probably thinks the rule is stupid -- and he wouldn't be alone.

Are you that much of a slave to rules and laws that you're only capable of seeing things for how they are instead of seeing things for how they should be?

I guess if the internet were around a hundred years ago you'd find it "borderline obnoxious" if a poster was referring to Black folks as "people" when the law/rule clearly stated they were property.

A rules a rule though, huh?

[ALL HAIL]

You better not utter a single word of complaint, Dome, if the police pull you over today for going 36 in a 35.

Speeding is speeding, right?

[Klomp]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLvugQ_gqYU[/youtube]

[tsherkin]

posting things

So clearly, whatever Klomp actually included in this post to support KAT is wrong.

We can't at all look at the fact that KAT is shooting 54.8% from the field on 15.7 FGA/g as a good sign; it's all stupid assisted baskets. He doesn't ever create his own shot. That's not a thing. We never see him isolate in the post or do smart things out of the PnR and he never moves intelligently without the ball. He has terrible hands. He has no range and he leaves points at the line. I mean, 82% from a big man at the FT line? What the hell is that? Where's that other 18%, Karl?

I dislike that he's ONLY a 3.2 ORB36 guy; c'mon Karl, quit slacking on the offensive glass.

Realistically, the Wolves have a stinker here. They should clearly trade him. Because Klomp thinks he's good. Pfffft.

[Marcus]

posting things

So clearly, whatever Klomp actually included in this post to support KAT is wrong.

We can't at all look at the fact that KAT is shooting 54.8% from the field on 15.7 FGA/g as a good sign; it's all stupid assisted baskets. He doesn't ever create his own shot. That's not a thing. We never see him isolate in the post or do smart things out of the PnR and he never moves intelligently without the ball. He has terrible hands. He has no range and he leaves points at the line. I mean, 82% from a big man at the FT line? What the hell is that? Where's that other 18%, Karl?

I dislike that he's ONLY a 3.2 ORB36 guy; c'mon Karl, quit slacking on the offensive glass.

Realistically, the Wolves have a stinker here. They should clearly trade him. Because Klomp thinks he's good. Pfffft.

I been thinking they should send the kid down to the D-League for a while now. Might be a lost cause with Towns and to think they let Anthony Bennett go.

[tsherkin]

I been thinking they should send the kid down to the D-League for a while now. Might be a lost cause with Towns and to think they let Anthony Bennett go.

Right? Small-ball PF for the win. Kid's got some theoretical range, more willing to let fly from deep that Towns.... that's the future right there, boy. None of this "quality low post C" BS we see from Towns.

[Klomp]

posting things

So clearly, whatever Klomp actually included in this post to support KAT is wrong.

We can't at all look at the fact that KAT is shooting 54.8% from the field on 15.7 FGA/g as a good sign; it's all stupid assisted baskets. He doesn't ever create his own shot. That's not a thing. We never see him isolate in the post or do smart things out of the PnR and he never moves intelligently without the ball. He has terrible hands. He has no range and he leaves points at the line. I mean, 82% from a big man at the FT line? What the hell is that? Where's that other 18%, Karl?

I dislike that he's ONLY a 3.2 ORB36 guy; c'mon Karl, quit slacking on the offensive glass.

Realistically, the Wolves have a stinker here. They should clearly trade him. Because Klomp thinks he's good. Pfffft.

I was worried you were actually being serious here for a while

[tsherkin]

I was worried you were actually being serious here for a while

I'm good at what I do, and what I do ain't real nice.


For serious, though, KAT is one of the best rookie bigs we've seen hit the league in the last.......quarter century, maybe? There have been a couple of guys who flashed more, but I mean, going back to like 1990, who can you REALLY say looked better as a rookie? Stretching all the way back to 89-90, we're talking about D-Rob, Shaq, Zo, Duncan and Blake Griffin as the only other guys to do 16/10 on 50% FG as a rookie who was 6'10+.

That's pretty impressive company, even if he's the lowest-scoring dude in the bunch. He's having a KILLER rookie campaign. KAT is awesome.