About Stuckey, and rookies in general.

[Cwell]

lol the definition of hindsight.he's talking about freakin summer league lol.when Acie comes out on fire this summer and next season he'll be like,"I knew he'd be great,Stuckey WHO,Stuckey WHO?" lol

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

lol the definition of hindsight.he's talking about freakin summer league lol.when Acie comes out on fire this summer and next season he'll be like,"I knew he'd be great,Stuckey WHO,Stuckey WHO?" lol

I love revisionist history.

[vdunkndunk]

Revisionist history? I'll admit, I tried to come around on Law because I'm a Hawks fan, but I was getting killed around here for months for bashing the Law pick. And I've wanted Stuckey from the beginning.

For instance, here's what I said on the night of the draft:

Quote:

---

Re: Speak now, or forever hold your peace. [Re: bumpyphish1]

Posted: 06/28/07 02:18 PM

I'm ready to go on the record with Horford at 3 and Stuckey at 11, assuming no trades.

Horford and Stuckey!

Horford and Stuckey!

Horford and Stuckey!

I'm almost willing to guarantee that this is the Hawks best-case scenario if you're goal is to fill our two biggest needs.

And this on the night of the draft:

Quote:

---

Don't be fooled by law or Critt just because they're name players.

Horford and Stuckey - that's something to get excited about.

And this:

Quote:

---

Stuckey can play the point just as well as either guy and is a better scorer and defender - he's also far faster than either guy, longer than either, has a higher standing reach than either guy, plus he's a better leaper than law.

You go on record with your guys and I'll go on record with mine. But I strongly believe that Stuckey will be a better player than law or Critt.

And this:

Quote:

---

Stuckey is as much a PG as law or Critt.

law was considered a combo guard at best until his senior senior season - it's basically only this season that he has really been considered as an NBA prospect at PG.

And Critt has played PG all his life, but man...if you watched GT this year you know he's far away from being able to run an offense. He looked lost out there all the time.

And since Stuckey is significantly quicker than Critt and just as good a ballhandler, a see no reason why he won't be just as good as Critt in the NBA at the point - except he should also be a better defender and better scorer.

I used to want law or Critt myself, but lately I feel like I've seen the light. Stuckey is the guy we need at 11 if we don't trade the pick.

This is what I said after the draft played out:

Quote:

---

e: For all the people complaining HomeCourt vdunkndunk 06/28/07 09:10 PM

Horford was the right move. But Stuckey is going to be much better than Law. I really don't like the Law pick at all. Just a guy who will come off the bench and maybe make some shots - can't defend, won't run the offense very well.

And this:

Quote:

---

Re: ACIE LAW HomeCourt vdunkndunk 06/28/07 09:18 PM

Here's the explanation - we took the 11 pick and tossed out the window. Law is a bust. We are stupid and we suck.

[exodus]

You've certainly got your bases covered. You have called Acie a great pick and a terrible pick so no matter what happens you can claim to be right.

[vdunkndunk]

Revisionist history is Exodus going back and finding the three or four positive posts I've ever made about Law, ignoring the majority of posts about Law where I was pissed that we took Law instead of Stuckey, and then acting like those three or four posts are represntative of my opinion. Yes, I've gotten excited about Law on a couple of occassions when he has a good game (in a "maybe we didn't blow the 11th pick after all") because I'm a Hawks fan and I don't cheer for our guys to fail just so I can be right (like some people here), but I've never backed off my position that we should have taken Stuckey.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Revisionist history is Exodus going back and finding the three or four positive posts I've ever made about Law, ignoring the majority of posts about Law where I was pissed that we took Law instead of Stuckey, and then acting like those three or four posts are represntative of my opinion. Yes, I've gotten excited about Law on a couple of occassions when he has a good game (in a "maybe we didn't blow the 11th pick after all") because I'm a Hawks fan and I don't cheer for our guys to fail just so I can be right (like some people here), but I've never backed off my position that we should have taken Stuckey.

Quote:

---

I love what he's done shooting the ball tonight (3rd quarter) and his defense on Prince and Billups has been amazing.

Great pick! I'm fully on the bandwagon and feel stupid for criticizing this guy!

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

You've certainly got your bases covered. You have called Acie a great pick and a terrible pick so no matter what happens you can claim to be right.

Maybe I shouldn't have said in one of the posts above that I hated it the Law pick all the way through the regular season - I admit, I did try and get excited about him a couple of times after he had a good game. Maybe, for accuracy's sake, I should have said that I hated the Law pick about 80% of the time during the regular season. The Hawks piss me off all the time, but if Marvin or Shelden or Childress or Law have a good game, I try to get excited about it - even though I hated all those picks at the time. (Unlike some people who feel obligated to root for people to fail if they didn't agree with the pick.) But what I'm wondering, Exodus, is if you're sincere in thinking that I ever really liked the Law pick, or that I was ever glad we took him over Stuckey? I've argued with you on this point over and over again on this board.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You've certainly got your bases covered. You have called Acie a great pick and a terrible pick so no matter what happens you can claim to be right.

Maybe I shouldn't have said in one of the posts above that I hated it the Law pick all the way through the regular season - I admit, I did try and get excited about him a couple of times after he had a good game. Maybe, for accuracy's sake, I should have said that I hated the Law pick about 80% of the time during the regular season. The Hawks piss me off all the time, but if Marvin or Shelden or Childress or Law have a good game, I try to get excited about it - even though I hated all those picks at the time. (Unlike some people who feel obligated to root for people to fail if they didn't agree with the pick.) But what I'm wondering, Exodus, is if you're sincere in thinking that I ever really liked the Law pick, or that I was ever glad we took him over Stuckey? I've argued with you on this point over and over again on this board.

I am well aware of what your stance was on draft night. But when you actually saw Acie play you changed your tune completely. Then you turn around and act like you hated him all along.

You can root for a guy even if you didn't like the pick.

It isn't like Stuckey is owning the league either. He had the worst +/- on the team of all the guys who played more than 100 minutes on the season.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708DET.HTM

He shot 40% in the regular season (just like Acie) and is shooting 40% in the postseason.

Overall the Pistons are -10 when Stuckey has played in the posteason.

[Chris18]

Law will be fine. He will tear up the summer leauge like Deron Williams did in his second year and push Bibby for the starting spot.

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

[i am well aware of what your stance was on draft night. But when you actually saw Acie play you changed your tune completely. Then you turn around and act like you hated him all along.

I guess you didn't feel liike posting this quote from me in January of 2008:

Quote:

---

Yeah...I hated the Acie Law pick after the draft, then he sucked in the summer league...looked pretty good for a couple of games in the regular season...got hurt...now he just looks terrible. I think he still has a chance to become an NBA player in the future, but right now it looks like he's not going to help us much this season or next.

The above has pretty much been my tune ever since Law got hurt and came back looking like a deer in the headlights. And you'll never find a post, as far as I'm aware, that says I'd rather have Law than Stuckey (feel free to correct me if you find a post to the contrary). Basically, I eventually got tired of complaining about Law all the time, just like I eventually tried to get over my distaste for Childress, Marvin, and Shelden.

[vdunkndunk]

I guess you also felt the need to skp this post for some reason:

Quote:

---

I'm getting a little concerned that the offense grinds to a hault when Acie comes in. Is it partly the fault of his surrounding cast? Maybe. But right now he's really not a threat to score; he's having trouble finishing and he's not hitting jumpshots, either. And he's really not doing much to create anything for anyone else, except for a nice drive and dish every now and then. In the playoffs I'd rather see Bibby at PG with Joe or Chill backing him up. Hopefully a summer of work and a new start will help Acie next year, but right now he's struggling.

Here's my final comment on this thread: I wanted Stuckey badly at the draft and didn't want Law; I thought Law's stats at Summer League were a bad sign; I felt a little better about the pick when I actually saw him play; I got excited when he went through a good stretch for a little while; then he got hurt, came back scared, and I wrote him off for the rest of the year as a long term project. Meanwhile, I always watched Stuckey's box scores and wished we had drafted him. I just don't see what's wrong with that, and I don't see why Exodus feels the need to argue about it.

Hawksquawk, for me, is a place I come to complain about or get excited about the Hawks depending on how I feel at that particular moment. It's hard to do that here, though, because for some reason people seem to think Hawksquawk is the place where you state a position and stick to it until the bitter end, where it's wise to "cover your bases" and speak out of both sides of your mouth so you'll always be right (as Exodus thinks I do).

I just don't understand that, and that's why I don't post here all that often. Sometimes I'm excited, sometimes I'm frustrated, and I don't keep perfect track of everything I say just in case Exodus decides to search through all my posts, ignore 90% of the ones in which I was critical of the Law pick, and then post two or three in which I got excited about Law and felt bad for slamming him all the time.

Is Law better than I thought he'd be? Yes. Did I ever feel he was the right pick? No. Do my feelings change fairly quickly about most of our players? Yes. The only ones I consistently feel confident in are Joe and Horford - everyone else I'm happy with when they play well and I want to trade when they don't. That's just the way I am as a fan, but around here that's a big no-no.

[exodus]

it is fine to root for players even if you disagreed with the pick. That is what you are supposed to do. But when you say he was a bad pick, then say he was a great pick, then say he was a bad pick.....

[hawkman]

All of this back and forth is pointless. Stuckey is the truth and has been so since college. Law doesn't have to be a prolific scorer or a pure point in order for him to contribute. I've always felt that all this team needs is a 15 and 5 type of point. Bibby IS that for us right now and I think that Acie can get there eventually. But if the comparison is between Acie and Stuckey RIGHT NOW, there is no comparison. Stuckey is simply a better NBA player as of today.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

You still can't seem to acknowlege that who you play with has an effect on +/- as well.

The Pistons outscored their opponents with Stuckey in the game while the Hawks opponents outscored us with JJ in the game. Does that mean Stuckey > JJ?

I did acknowledge that who you play with affects +/- but in this situation it is arbitrary. Bibby/AJ play a similar distribution of minutes than Law does in terms of who they play with. Stuckey also has a similar distribution. And yet again you strawman (even though it isn't part of my argument so technically it isn't even a strawman) instead of using a little bit of effort and read what I said to realize in no way shape or form am I saying that by having you +/- be + makes you a better player than someone on another team who has a -.

Stuckey's difference in +/- is greater in magnitude because of who he backed up (Billups/Hamilton). Had he backed up say Bibby/AJ, then there would be much less of a magnitude in difference, although more than likely he would be a net +. On the other hand, Acie has a greater magnitude in difference than Stuckey even though he backed up Bibby/AJ which shows Acie was outplayed handily by those guys. The aspect of +/- that I am focusing on is that Acie was outplayed by backups/average starter while Stuckey was outplayed by all-stars.

I understand what you are trying to say, but that has nothing to do with what I have been arguing. I never concluded that having a + +/- makes you a good player or anything like that. I have tried to focus on the Net production +/- and why the magnitude of Stuckey is greater than it would be if he backed up the players that Acie did.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I did acknowledge that who you play with affects +/- but in this situation it is arbitrary.

Bibby/AJ play a similar distribution of minutes than Law does in terms of who they play with

.

You can't be serious.

Let's look at the link you posted again.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL2B.HTM

Acie played a total of 438 minutes in the lineups on that page and 865 total minutes on the season. That means that half his minutes were played in lineups not on that page ie that had less than 22 minutes of floor time together.

Also looking at that page Acie was -34 in those linups. He was -86 in the lineups not on that page. I wonder why.

Only 12% of his minutes were played with the starting lineup.

Now lets look at Bibby.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL3B.HTM

He played in 951 minutes in the lineups on that page with at least 22 minutes together. He played 1100 total on the season. Therefore only 149 of his minutes (13.5%) were in lineups with less than 22 minutes of time together. 40% of Bibby's minutes were played with the starting lineup.

AJ played 48% of his minutes with the starting lineup but he had the same distribution of minutes as Law (12% with starters) in terms of who he played with?

Sure

[Cwell]

you know what's funny? we don't hear ANYTHING about Rodney Stuckey till now.don't act like Stuckey was filling up the box score during the season.He had alot of games with alot of minutes but not alot of games were he went off.Even game 2 when everyone was praising him,he only had 13 points.Acie had 12 on 2 mid range J's,2 layups,and 4-4 on FT's in game 2 with only 21 minutes.Stuckey gets those type of minutes on the regular.Acie had a great game 2 but I don't even think he got 21 minutes total for the rest of the series.and u can't say he only got minutes because he produced, becuase the minute he entered he turnd it over and the 2nd possession was a backcourt violation.Woody usually would pull him after that.It took him awhile to get going because he's been cold.Stuckey doesn't need to get going because he's played all year.If Woody was coaching the Pistons he would have starting Lindsey Hunter when Billups was out and people would be mad that they couldn't get Law because STuckey would LOOK not so good because of how Woody handled him.

It don't take stats to know Acie played with garbage most of the year and when he played with starters he shined,not always on the boxscore but the team was moving.Only person that debates that are guys who don't watch the games.All that guy has said in this thread is something about stats or some other numbers,as in measureables.

[lunar]

it should have been known from march on that we needed to win every game to make the playoffs. and during that time development was going to have to be sacrificed to make sure that we got to the postseason. some of you are looking at this like we are on par with the pistons. they had their seed lock up by the all-star break and they even admitted to shutting down the starters by march. that allowed them to play their bench alot more than other teams. we didn't have that oppurtunity however, and with his injuries earlier in the season and other point guards stepping up ( AJ saved our ass in december.) he just didn't have the time to get on the floor. stuckey is going to be a great pro (i would have been very surprised if he was a bust) but law is going to be good as well. this isn't sheldon williams, he is going to show his worth next year.

[Cwell]

yeah but playing a guy isn't just for development.SOMEBODY is gonna have to backup Bibby,it was dumb to try to give Salim the job so late in the year.even after the spot was locked up.we played Miami and he still played the starters the whole game.It's obvious Salim isn't a PG,so that was dumb on Woody's part once again.anybody given playing time is gonna play better than when they play sparingly,see Anthony Johnson.

[jhay610]

You can manipulate stats to say whatever you want them to say and back up any argument you want to make. The bottom line is, and anyone whoever played the game on any level knows this is fact, you need consistent, sustained minutes in order to play at your best.

Law's minutes were inconsistent or absent for most of the year. It is not reasonable to expect anything out of him when he doesn't know when or if his number will be called.

When he did get a string of games with some consistent burn I liked what i saw. He showed some flashes of being a creator and distributor, which is something our team needs desperately as currently configured.

We won't know anything concrete on Law until he gets consistent playing time. Attempting to render an opinion on him at this time is folly.

[Cwell]

Quote:

---

You can manipulate stats to say whatever you want them to say and back up any argument you want to make. The bottom line is, and anyone whoever played the game on any level knows this is fact, you need consistent, sustained minutes in order to play at your best.

Law's minutes were inconsistent or absent for most of the year. It is not reasonable to expect anything out of him when he doesn't know when or if his number will be called.

When he did get a string of games with some consistent burn I liked what i saw. He showed some flashes of being a creator and distributor, which is something our team needs desperately as currently configured.

We won't know anything concrete on Law until he gets consistent playing time. Attempting to render an opinion on him at this time is folly.

exactly