Both Roy, Foye, and SW are 4 year college players

[Guest Walter]

...generally considered equally NBA-ready. For once the comparison seems easy as we can compare these players without qualifying one as a "project" or another as a "sure thing". Thus, I propose that we select a single objective criteria, TENDEX per 48, something, prior to the season that we use as a basis for the better player (and hence the better pick). Shelden "supporters" or BK "supporters" or whatever your reason apply. Select one objective criteria.

Subjectively, it appears Roy is gearing up for Pg-duty in Portland, and either he or Foye alongside JJ would flourish in the backcourt and would have filled a need. SW doesn't play center so for his interior defense we have to bench one of our young studs. He doesn't fill anymore of a need without benching MW or JS. Thus, siubjectively, need-based all selections weren't perfect but equatable. So simply, what will be your chosen objective all-around criteria for who was the correct draft pick?

Busboy, KB, others. Step up and name your objective forum so you cannot complain about it later.

W

[Final_quest]

Here it goes again. Objective criteria does not determine who a better pick is, that's the problem. Especially after/during a rookie season.

You might get some people to go along with this, but it just doesn't work.

I'm not convinced that Shelden was a good pick, but I don't need a PER to tell me whether that's the case or not.

[Guest Walter]

NOTHING tells the whole story (about anything), but at least we can agree on a forum. Fine, nothing's perfect, but short of perfect, in this case there is OBJECTIVE. So what would be your chosen objective criteria?

Fact: If one is the better player it is more likely to show up statistically than not.

W

[Final_quest]

I wouldn't worry about statistics so much. If Roy, Foye, and Gay show out, there will be plenty of angry people around here.

The same reason GMs don't draft based on statistics is the same reason it's ridiculous to try to judge who the better pick was based on statistics.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The same reason GMs don't draft based on statistics is the same reason it's ridiculous to try to judge who the better pick was based on statistics.

---

Actually, the reason is because GMs may not think college statistics will translate to statistics at the NBA level in the NBA game. That doesn't apply to this discussion. We're talking about players with the same level of experience, all considered NBA-ready, and all playing in the NBA, where the statistics don't have to translate, against the same levels of competition.

W

[AHF]

If you need a numbers comparison, the PER stat is the best out there right now, IMO. Either that or the EFF number from basketballreference.com. I would use both those numbers and see what they say.

However, guys whose main contribution is defense get killed statistically.

Consider some of the guys who statistically rank above Bruce Bowen like:

Brian Cook, Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Darius Miles, Ruben Patterson, Jared Jeffries, etc.

[Final_quest]

So you are hell bent on making statistics the standard for measuring rookies performance. Good luck with that.

What happend to Caron Butler? Damon Stoudemire? Steve Nash? Joe Johnson?

Another point. Players the same age can be at different points of development. Age does not equal experience/readiness. You have late bloomers, early bloomers that throw the curve. Also, you have different team situations. One player may get drafted to a team that needs to play them immediately, others are stuck behind star players.

[KB21]

Yep. That's the flaw in the PER rating. I like to use it because I think it is the best number to compare players, though I think per 40 minute numbers put the stats into more of an apples to apples comparison.

The PER rating boosts guys who score a lot though and doesn't put any value on good defensive play.

The Roland Rating is probably a better indicator of a player's impact on the game, because it takes into account defensive ability, but that is even flawed, IMO.

There's not a perfect stat out there, but I believe these stats are the best indicators rather than just looking at the scoring average and rebounding average.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

However, guys whose main contribution is defense get killed statistically.

Consider some of the guys who statistically rank above Bruce Bowen like:

Brian Cook, Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Darius Miles, Ruben Patterson, Jared Jeffries, etc.

---

Is there a way to seperate the defensive statistics, compile them together, do the same for offensive ones and have two, equal objective means to compare players.

W

[KB21]

http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2006.htm

This was done as a ranking based on similarity scores and who this guy thinks will be starting by the end of their contract.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However, guys whose main contribution is defense get killed statistically.

Consider some of the guys who statistically rank above Bruce Bowen like:

Brian Cook, Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Darius Miles, Ruben Patterson, Jared Jeffries, etc.

---

Is there a way to seperate the defensive statistics, compile them together, do the same for offensive ones and have two, equal objective means to compare players.

W

---

There is no statistic for most good defense. That is the whole problem. If you dog your man and just get him to take terrible shots so that the guy you are guarding never hits a shot the entire season, you would be DPOY and have had the greatest defensive season in NBA history. Yet, it would not show up at all in the statistics because getting your guy to miss is not a blk or stl and those are the only defensive stats. Consequently, guys who do that well are underrated and guys who play matador D but pick up steals, blocks, etc. by gambling and playing unsound defense are overrated.

[craigo667]

Comparisons by these standards may not provide us with accurate information. The guards, by nature of position are going to score and assist more and Shelden will have more rebounds and blocks. Also, Shelden was brought in here to shore up our defense. So, one would have to take into account the teams points allowed, per game and in the paint to really judge SW's true contributions.

[KB21]

That's the inherent problem in making these blanket comparisons like this. You have to take into account things that aren't quantified with statistics such as the fit on the team, the role the player will play, and the teammates of the players.

For instance, if Atlanta had drafted Brandon Roy, it's very likely that he wouldn't put up big numbers coming off the bench. He would have been battling for playing time with Joe Johnson, Speedy Claxton (yes, I believe Atlanta would have still gotten a veteran point guard, because Roy isn't a point guard), and Salim Stoudamire. His impact on the Trailblazers will be far greater than his impact would have been for the Hawks.

Randy Foye is an interesting case, because he's a guy that might have been able to play point guard. Still, even with that said, Atlanta wanted a veteran point guard due to the Hawks being a young team. Had they just handed that job over to Randy Foye, he probably would have played good defense and given them a good scoring average, but he would have also turned the ball over a lot (turnovers were a problem for him in college) and likely would have shot a low percentage.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You have to take into account things that aren't quantified with statistics...

...such as the fit on the team

---

Chris Paul

Quote:

---

the role the player will play

---

Chris Paul.

Quote:

---

and the teammates of the players.

---

ask JJ, more Chris Paul.

Not to mention the statistics and overall impact on the game significantly favor Paul.

So having said this well reasoned case for not only considering best project available you still think MW was a better pick for us than CP3?

W

[frosgrim]

Walt are you saying the Hawks should have drafted Paul?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

For instance, if Atlanta had drafted Brandon Roy, it's very likely that he wouldn't put up big numbers coming off the bench.

---

First, Roy has more Pg skills than Foye (who you argue can play point because he's short). He can pass and has good court vision (Something Foye does not have) along with being a solid ball-handler (the only Pg-skill Foye has over Roy). Roy is starting Pg in the summer league for Portland (from day one they announced it, no question) and his college coach saw Pg in his future. Next to JJ, whom you incorrectly saw as a Pg, the Pg duties would still be diminished allowing Roy to be a great backcourt compliment to JJ.

Secondly, what do you think SW is going to be doing aside from coming off the bench (with or without putting up big numbers)? He either benches MW or JS, which is worse from a talent standpoint that SW coming off the bench himself, plays center alongside 2, Sfs giving us the shortest, least post-skilled frontline in the NBA, or he comes off the bench. All of those seem like worse poison pills.

...

And about Speedy...Truth is I would love to have a Speedy Claxton coming off the bench to spell JJ and Roy He steps in at the mid end of the 1st quarter and JJ goes to the bench for 6 minutes, then JJ comes back and Roy goes to the bench for 8 minutes. That give Speedy 28 MPG, Roy 32, and JJ 36 (not the 42 he was seeing last year). It does so in a regular, role defining manner. In fact that might just be the perfect backcourt and would allow us more easily to trade JC, who seems the odd man out anyhow, packaged with Al for a center .

W

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have to take into account things that aren't quantified with statistics...

...such as the fit on the team

---

Chris Paul

Quote:

---

the role the player will play

---

Chris Paul.

Quote:

---

and the teammates of the players.

---

ask JJ, more Chris Paul.

Not to mention the statistics and overall impact on the game significantly favor Paul.

So having said this well reasoned case for not only considering best project available you still think MW was a better pick for us than CP3?

W

---

Could you please go be a Hornets fan Walter. I will gladly pay for your ticket out of town and you can help Master P bail water out of the superdome.

[Johnnybravo4]

It is amazing how you have annointed Foye and Roy starters especially when none has played a single real preseason game yet, and one of them has to beat out Jarrett Jack for a position.

[Guest Walter]

Clearly. Concisely. KB argued for why we should've drafted Paul over MW. He'd just rather not or cannot see it so far up you know what.

W

[KB21]

No I didn't, because this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Brandon Roy and Randy Foye do not have nearly the potential to be a superstar that Marvin Williams has. It's not even close. The potential that Marvin Williams has far outweighs any need the team had at the time. There is no one in that draft that is in the same stratosphere when it comes to potential as Marvin.

Brandon Roy and Randy Foye do not bring that type of mega superstar ability, and therefore, ignoring a need to draft them is not warranted.

The opportunity to draft a player like Marvin just doesn't come around very often. Marvin Williams would have been the unquestioned #1 pick in this draft.