Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

2011 Report Card: Landry Fields

I remember flipping on NBA TV one rainy day last August (it was 80 and sunny and I was hungover), just in time to catch a solid hour’s worth of Knick training camp footage. The workout began with a rather amusing “drill”, wherein chief conditioner Greg Brittenham had the guys jog around the perimeter of the gym and toss footballs to one another. After realizing they were playing the wrong sport , the team partnered up for a stationary passing drill, this time using spherical grooved leather objects known as “basket-balls”. One player stood with the ball, roughly twenty feet from the other, who had his back turned. Brittenham would then bark “left” and “right” in random succession, indicating which direction the player without the ball was to turn to receive his partner’s pass.

The Knick training staff: ball enthusiasts.

The camera pointed down the matrix of zipping chest passes, where at the end stood a pair of rookies: Landry Fields and Andy Rautins. As the drill proceeded, most players — with the exception of an English-challenged Timofey Mozgov — turned the right direction with each verbal cue.  But Fields was doing it more quickly than anyone else. With the only laudatory tip from any of the coaching staff, Brittenham noted as much.

“Nice job, Stanford,” he said.

If there could be a singular epitaph for the 22-year-old rookie’s inaugural campaign, that might be it.

Despite a senior season in which he averaged a busty 22.8 points and 8.8 boards – tops in the PAC 10 in both – few had Fields projected as a first round pick entering the 2010 Draft. Such was the stigma of playing on a forgettable Cardinal squad (7-11 in the PAC 10, 14-18 overall) in a conference that boasted precisely one postseason Top 25 team (Washington at #21). Still, the gaudy numbers, combined with an impressive late spring workout, convinced the Knicks to take a flier on the Long Beach native with the 39th pick, acquired two years previous (along with Taurean Green [starting shooting guard on the Names That Sound Like Chemical Cleaning Products All-Star Team] and Bobby Jones [honorable mention]) after trading current Knick and P&T Sunshine Academy Graduate 7th year Senior Renaldo Balkman to the Nuggets.

By the time the regular season rolled around, a stellar Vegas Summer League and training camp had vaulted Fields into the starting lineup. He won Eastern Conference Rookie of the Month Awards in November and December. In February, he started for the East in the T-Mobile Rookie Challenge. He blogged. He made hilarious commercials. He filmed hilarious video shorts. He tweeted hilarious things. Spike Lee wore his jersey. I bought his shirt. (Photo not available — shirt in laundry. And yes, the Landry shirt is its own load of laundry. I call it “doing the Landry.” Which is a lot more fun than “doing the laundry.”)  And then came the trade.

"STOUDEMIRE!!!"

After the late February acquisition of Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups, Fields wasn’t quite the same. Though he never relinquished his starting job, Landry’s numbers tapered off noticeably in the final three months, steadily sliding from a December peak (10.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 1.9 apg, 66% TS%)  to a final month (18 games) in which he averaged just 7.7 points and 4.4 rebounds with a TS% of 49%. By the end of the Celtics series, a season that had started with such a clandestine bang had faded in a statistical whimper. Fields’ stat line for the 4-game sweep? You sure you want to know? Positive? 1.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 19.8% TS%, an ORtg of 49, and a WS/48 of -0.164.

Step off that ledge – it’s going to be OK. I promise. While the decline was as noticeable as it was disconcerting, there remain plenty of explanations for why The Landriest of Them All fell back to Earth. Some thought it the logical result of having to adjust to a new team dynamic. Others chalked it up to his simply hitting the rookie wall. My fiance said it was karmic retribution for buying his shirt and giving it its own load of laundry. Probably it was all of these things. Not that he didn’t put up some good games: during one post-trade stretch from March 2nd to the 10th, Fields averaged nearly 14 and 5 boards per. So it wasn’t so much that he fell off a statistical cliff; it was more of a steady roll — further evidence to the notion playing close to 32 minutes a game in all 82 contests had simply taken its grinding toll. Luckily, last time I checked, being tired isn’t a terminal illness. So fret we should not.

Chitwood's lift > Landry's. There will be none of this.

The guy will figure it out. He’s been figuring it out every year since entering Stanford looking like this – hitting the weight room, honing his craft, adding new weapons to his arsenal, putting his nose to the grindstone, partaking in other improvement-related cliches. When the brothers Lopez bailed early, it became Landry’s team to lead. Granted, it wasn’t a very good team. Still, being options one through fifteen on a crappy team arguably did more than anything to bolster both his game and his leadership. And it may have been the reason he was even drafted at all.

Given a full training camp to mesh properly with his new comrades (as well as improve both his defense and jump shot – as in being able to actually jump when shooting), Fields should once again find his groove. Whether that’s as a starter, or as a potent 6th man option, remains to be seen. Either way, the guy always seems to figure out a way to not only survive, but thrive. And after witnessing how quickly he figured out Mike D’Antoni’s system last year, there’s no reason to believe that, with a few adjustments, he can’t forge an equally effective and efficient niche going forward.

Hopefully there will be none of this either. Except the brain. And the well-rounded game. And the White House ambitions. Everything except this shot, really.

Just as Bill Bradley (that’s right, I went there) was in many ways the cerebral linchpin of the ’70 and ’73 title teams, Landry’s development will be crucial to the ultimate gelling of our star-laden squad. A college phenom who spent two years bookin’ and ballin’ abroad before arriving in New York amidst unprecedented fanfare and Olympian expectations, Bradley endured his own rookie struggles, eventually being relegated to the bench.  But it didn’t take long for the man they call Dollar Bill to morph into  an indispensable facilitator — the quintessential “glue guy” (and starter) on two title  teams that boasted no less than six Hall of Fame players between them.

But Bradley was a full two years older than Fields when the former made his Knick debut in the middle of the 1967-68 season, and arguably didn’t hit his prime until a few years after that. That bodes well for our precocious neophyte, who turns 23 on June 27th — four days after the Knicks attempt to once again catch lightning in a bottle when they pick 17th in Thursday’s Draft. And if that pick ends up being even close to as productive as Fields, Donnie Walsh’s rebuilding plan might end up yielding a true contender sooner than expected.


Report Card (5 point scale):

Offense: 3
Defense: 2
Teamwork: 3
Rootability: 4
Performance/Expectations: 5

Final Grade: A-

Similarity Scores:

PlayerID FLName Year Age Tm PER TS_P eFG_P PTS ORB TRB AST STL BLK TOV
0 Landry Fields 2011 22 NYK 13.5 .598 .568 11.3 1.5 7.4 2.2 1.1 0.2 1.5
0.091 Josh Childress 2006 22 ATL 15.8 .626 .583 11.9 2.1 6.2 2.1 1.4 0.6 1.6
0.094 Kevin Martin 2006 22 SAC 14.8 .604 .540 14.6 1.1 4.9 1.8 1.0 0.2 1.5
0.102 Andre Iguodala 2006 22 PHI 14.8 .598 .541 11.7 1.4 5.6 3.0 1.6 0.2 1.8
0.131 Kedrick Brown 2004 22 TOT 12.5 .543 .535 10.7 1.5 5.4 2.4 1.1 0.3 1.1
0.153 David Lee 2006 22 NYK 15.4 .607 .596 11.0 3.5 9.7 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.6
0.155 Casey Jacobsen 2004 22 PHO 9.6 .570 .521 9.2 0.8 4.0 1.9 0.9 0.2 1.3
0.162 Nicolas Batum 2011 22 POR 14.8 .563 .528 14.1 1.6 5.2 1.8 1.0 0.7 1.2
0.169 Marcus Vinicius 2007 22 NOK 6.9 .608 .567 7.7 0.7 3.8 1.7 0.7 0.3 2.1
0.171 Hassan Adams 2007 22 NJN 13.0 .577 .556 12.7 2.5 5.6 0.9 1.2 0.3 1.6
0.173 Reggie King 1980 22 KCK 13.5 .565 .515 11.8 3.2 9.9 1.9 1.2 0.5 1.8

121 comments on “2011 Report Card: Landry Fields

  1. Kikuchiyo

    I agree with this assessment. Especially if TD stays a Knick, I’m okay with the 2 spot for now. Landry’s smart and glue-y. I don’t think we have to worry about him pouting if/when Carmelo takes all the shots, and at least we get some rebounding.

    And I do attribute much of his drop-off to the soap opera of last year. Only the Heat had a more bizarre and under-the-microscope year.

    If nothing else, the Knicks need him to continue their run with the goofiest first names of any starting five.

  2. Nick C.

    Nice story. The grades don’t seem to synch up: the individual ones seem like full season grades and the A- the mid-term mark. Whatever it’s a nitpick. I’d like to think the seond half was just the rookie wall and adjustment to a new style of play.

  3. Frank

    Trouble with Landry is that he has such a SLOOOOOW release. Against the Torontos of the world he’ll get enough space to shoot the 3, but against the good defensive teams they close out too fast. Not sure what drills there are to improve shooting stroke speed ut hopefully he’s doing them.

    Interesting scouting report on Motiejunas here:
    http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/donatas-motiejunas-2011-international.html

    This guy makes him out to be a lot better of a defender than other scouting reports. And this is a guy that Alan Hahn had the Knicks looking at a few weeks back. Could be a Channing Frye type that worked really well with Amare in PHX.

  4. nicos

    Nice Breakdown Jim- A- is what I’d give him as well. I do think he really hit the wall- in the Celtics series he was seemed be 3 feet behind Ray Allen on every screen and while he wasn’t a great defender earlier in the season he wasn’t that bad- it seemed he had no legs towards the end of the year. One thing that would really improve his game (and this goes for Walker and S. Williams as well) would be to develop a pull-up jumper- when he gets run off the 3 point line he’s really not quick enough to get all the way to the rim so if he could just take two dribbles and pull up from 15 (rather than that ugly jump stop stuff he was trying) he’d be much more successful. Agree with Frank that he needs to speed up his release a bit as well.
    I look for him to have a very solid 11/12 season- I think his offensive rebounding may take a hit as with Melo playing the other wing, fields is going to have more responsibility in transition defense but his defensive rebounding, 3 point shooting, etc… should bounce back to his early season numbers with a full summer of conditioning. He does seem like the kind of guy who’ll work his butt off so he may come up with an unexpected wrinkle or two to his game as well.

  5. Ted Nelson

    Nick C.: the A- the mid-term mark

    He was a rookie (2nd rounder) who finished the season with a 13.5 PER and .100 WS/48 averaging 31 MPG. I think an A- is pretty fair for the season as a whole.

    Frank: Interesting scouting report on Motiejunas here:

    I sort of doubt he lasts till the Knicks in this thin a draft, but maybe that’s why they want to move up. Great upside period, but especially outside the top 10. Very skilled, but still needs to grow into his body. He might start out limited to a Channing Frye role, but I think he has a good chance of reaching his much higher potential than that.

    I don’t particularly like the Bargnani comparisons that have been thrown around a lot lately. I think Motiejunas will bring more fire and more of a willingness/ability to play the post on both sides of the ball. I think he’s more athletic than Bargnani as well. Bargnani was more skilled/refined when he was drafted, but also a plodder.

  6. ess-dog

    I like Motiejunas too. Even though they are constantly slotted to take Markieff Morris, I think he’s a perfect fit for the Sixers. But if he falls to us, I think we would bite, depending on who else is there. I’d be curious to see who we select if both Motie and Biyombo are still there.

  7. Z

    What does a guy need to do to earn a “rootability” score of 5??

    Between the obliteration of all reasonable expectations for the 39th pick, his high basketball IQ, his bi-racial crossover marketing appeal, and the charming Andy and Landry show, where did he lose points?

    I’d also give him a 5 for teamwork, but maybe the fact that Billups and Anthony refused to pass him the ball is actually his fault. The rook should have been more demanding!

  8. Jim Cavan Post author

    Z: What does a guy need to do to earn a “rootability” score of 5??

    I hear ya. They’re all Knicks. We’re all Knicks fans. Therefore, we should be rooting for them, no? I thought about giving him a 5 for that. I guess I would reserve 5s for grizzled, likeable veterans without rings / guys recovering from a dreaded disease or injury / guys below 5’6″. Or any combination thereof.

    As for the teamwork thing, I suppose a 3 was a little harsh. He certainly seems like a great locker room presence, doesn’t bitch and moan, does his job, etc. I guess I’d just like to see him get more vocal, which should come with age / experience.

  9. flossy

    Landry Fields is a smart cookie who applied himself perfectly to SSOL. More than anyone else (except maybe Felton) his early season production was a product of our system, and the reason he fell off a cliff once Melo and Billups showed up is simply because we pretty much entirely abandoned the seven seconds or less offense or anything resembling it.

    Now, if he can adjust over the summer and/or if Billups decides to actually give D’Antoni’s system a try then I could see him bouncing back strong next year. He is not a true 2-guard however, and he reeeeallly needs to work on speeding up the release on his jump shot.

  10. Jim Cavan Post author

    Getting a little nervous about all this chatter indicating the Knicks want to move up — way up — to land Fredette (from Chad Ford). Obviously it all depends on what we give up, but unless it’s a pu-pu platter offering, I don’t see the logic. Typically whenever a highly touted player is met with questions like: “Jimmer Fredette: the next Steve Nash, or the next Dan Dickau?”, it’s not a good sign. Not to say he’ll end up the latter — he’ll probably end up somewhere in between. Say a poor man’s JJ Reddick. Either way, don’t know if I like this thinking.

  11. iserp

    FWIW, Hollinger posted his draft rater. He rates Klay Thompson the 18, Fredette 22, Markieff Morris 27, Faried 29, Selby 47, Marshon Brooks 56.

    He likes Tristan Thompson 3, Kawhi Leonard 5. He has as sleepers Jon Leuer 14, and Norris Cole 19 and Greg Smith 24.

  12. Ted Nelson

    Jim Cavan: Typically whenever a highly touted player is met with questions like: “Jimmer Fredette: the next Steve Nash, or the next Dan Dickau?”, it’s not a good sign.

    I wouldn’t read too much into the media lumping a bunch of white boy PGs together. I wouldn’t even read too much into them expecting D’Antoni’s team to draft a white PG being compared to Nash. At best those kind of rumors have even some bit of truth behind them 1/2 the time.

  13. Ted Nelson

    I like to look at Hollinger’s rater… but his results are questionable. He fits them to the historic data (and I think keeps updating that year after year… based on his now calling Augustin a 10-11 rated player after rating him at 14.88 in 2008). Therefore, the rater looks great historically, but like crap projecting forward. Perhaps he’s improving the model and it will get better at predicting, but perhaps he’s just always fitting it to historical results and it’s predictive power doesn’t improve.

    I like looking at it, but I’d guess it’s sort of 50/50… for every undervalued/overvalued player he finds, he does the opposite to another player. I’m not sure I trust his rater any more than any scout’s “gut”… and I’m a very analytical guy.

    Take 2008:
    Augustin ahead of Rose: 14.88 to 14.69.
    Mike Green and Drew Neitzel ahead of George Hill: 12.75 and 11.14 to 11.05. (He had George Hill as a “better update that passport” player with no NBA future.)
    Joe Alexander was his top wing player at 14.58. And this year he says the rater is always right on perimeter guys…
    Eric Gordon and Russell Westbrook are both listed with “the riff-raff.” Yet, again, he says it’s always right with perimeter players.

  14. Ted Nelson

    The 2009 results were pretty good.

    Way too early to judge 2010, but there appear to be some big misses. Ed Davis, for example, was #54 on his list at 9.88. As a rookie he had a PER of 15.8 in 25 MPG across 65 games. Patrick Patterson was #37. Fields wasn’t in the top 37. Way too early to write anyone off as a bust, but those two certainly exceeded Hollinger’s expectations.

  15. BigBlueAL

    I think its still for the most part all a crap shoot outside of the Top 5 picks in any draft and in this draft it looks like a crap shoot outside of the Top 2 picks.

    Not to say there isnt value in Hollinger or Berri’s statistical models for potential draft picks but suffice it so say there are no perfect models in predicting draft picks in any sport.

  16. NYKLETSGO

    i dont understand why the Knicks are drafting for d’antoni and his system when i believe that it is inevitable that he will be fired and replaced as a head coach since this team is meant to run half court sets on offense. I think that our top target should be Kenneth Faried. He is not going to be our star but we need him for rebounding, energy and defense.

  17. DS

    I can’t believe the Knicks will end up moving up.

    They have pretty much nothing to offer other than Douglas and Landry and neither one is worth it. Esp. if they have to throw in the #17 pick.

    I don’t think teams drafting ahead of the Knicks are going to move down 5-10 picks for Extra E or Walker.

  18. Ben R

    DS: I don’t think teams drafting ahead of the Knicks are going to move down 5-10 picks for Extra E or Walker.

    I doubt that we can really move up either but we can always offer money. 3 million dollars to move down 4-5 slots in a weak draft might not sound too bad for a cash strapped team. Pheonix is cheap maybe they would move down for 3 million and Walker for example.

  19. DS

    I wouldn’t mind giving up Walker for that, but who do the Knicks really like that that would that put them in a position to get? Biyombo?

    By the way, what does that guy bring to the table that Ant Randolph didn’t already?

  20. d-mar

    DS:
    I wouldn’t mind giving up Walker for that, but who do the Knicks really like that that would that put them in a position to get? Biyombo?

    By the way, what does that guy bring to the table that Ant Randolph didn’t already?

    A more fun name for the PA guy? “and at center, from the Congo, Bismak Bee-yom-boooooo”

  21. flossy

    DS:

    By the way, what does that guy bring to the table that Ant Randolph didn’t already?

    A few brain cells to rub together?

  22. Ted Nelson

    Ben R: 3 million dollars to move down 4-5 slots in a weak draft might not sound too bad for a cash strapped team.

    Especially if they feel sure the guy they really like at 13 will still be there at 17 anyway.

    DS: who do the Knicks really like that that would that put them in a position to get? Biyombo?

    Who knows? Could be any guy. 4 more prospects will definitely be on the board at 13 than 17, though.

    DS: By the way, what does that guy bring to the table that Ant Randolph didn’t already?

    He’s a totally different player and person… not all raw, athletic players are exactly the same. I don’t see why you would even compare him to AR, especially since I really doubt you’ve seen Bismack play much. He’s not going to float around on the perimeter taking long Js or over-dribbling, so I don’t see AR as even a half way decent comparison. I could just as easily ask “what did Ben Wallace bring to the table that Bismack doesn’t?” See why that doesn’t work to project a player’s future with any accuracy?

  23. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    PER is an awful statistic. It’s worth mentioning about as much as points per game is.

  24. Ted Nelson

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    PER is an awful statistic. It’s worth mentioning about as much as points per game is.

    Hollinger’s Draft Rater is designed by Hollinger, and PER was designed by Hollinger… So whatever your personal view of it is, PER is definitely worth mentioning when evaluating Hollinger’s draft rater. I believe his draft rater literally projects PER. His draft rater is how his framework projects a prospect to do, and PER is how his framework judges a player as having done.

  25. KnickfaninNJ

    One thing Berri has going for him is that last year his PAWS correctly predicted that Fields was not onlythe best of the three Knick picks but also much better than his draft position, and this before he played a minute for them. If you lookat his recent post, the same methodology says Faried is the best pick in the draft.

  26. DS

    Ted Nelson: Who knows? Could be any guy. 4 more prospects will definitely be on the board at 13 than 17, though.

    Well, obviously. But I’m curious WHO.

    Ted – I was not really saying his game would resemble AR as much as I was saying AR has shown to be a capable rebounder and shot blocker who was not given much of a shake in NY. So it’s just a bit surprising that D’Antoni and Walsh (as draft consultant) would be super excited about an 18 year-old who at this point doesn’t sound as though he can do much else other than rebound and block shots.

    Flossy – Good point. I read the NBA.com interview and I liked how articulate the columnist made him seem. I think standard IQ (as opposed to “basketball IQ”) is an underrated quality by fans and prob. scouts and GM’s too. Readers of this blog and all Landry Fields fans excluded.

  27. jaylamerique

    DS:
    Ted Nelson: Who knows? Could be any guy. 4 more prospects will definitely be on the board at 13 than 17, though.

    Well, obviously. But I’m curious WHO.

    Ted – I was not really saying his game would resemble AR as much as I was saying AR has shown to be a capable rebounder and shot blocker who was not given much of a shake in NY. So it’s just a bit surprising that D’Antoni and Walsh (as draft consultant) would be super excited about an 18 year-old who at this point doesn’t sound as though he can do much else other than rebound and block shots.

    the difference between the two players is that Biyomia has a high basketball IQ and is a leader on the floor. Those are two things we can’t say about AR. Having a good IQ is important on the defensive end.

  28. DS

    OK – so maybe they’ll try to move up to get him. I’m not sure Phoenix’s pick would get it done though.

    I’m hoping the Knicks can take advantage of a Cleveland fire sale. Maybe Varejao’s contract and Sessions for Chauncey or something.

    Sessions-Fields-Carmelo-Amare-Varejao is a fairly nice looking starting lineup. But as always depends on the new CBA and how likely it is that CP3 or D-12 could come over.

  29. taggart4800

    Douglas plus $3 mill for Omri Casspi is the latest I heard. I am cool with it as long as we can swap the 17th for the 7th. Even if that has to include Fields.

  30. Brian Cronin

    Douglas plus $3 mill for Omri Casspi is the latest I heard. I am cool with it as long as we can swap the 17th for the 7th. Even if that has to include Fields.

    Wow, Douglas for Casspi is a nice deal for the Knicks. But where does Casspi play? A really tall 2?

  31. BigBlueAL

    Whats so good about Casspi?? His stats arent that good. Cant imagine he is much of a defender to boot.

  32. Jim Cavan Post author

    If we’re going to do that deal, we have to be targeting a PG in the Draft, right? BTW, where is everyone seeing this rumor?

  33. BigBlueAL

    I just think many fans are eager to just trade away TD. He will never become an All-Star obviously or perhaps even a solid starting PG but he has proven that he is a solid rotation player on a playoff team and has the ability to have huge games on offense and isnt afraid to take and make big shots late in games. Plus of course he is a rare player on this team who actually tries to play defense every game.

  34. Jim Cavan Post author

    I agree, BBL. Obviously you have to keep all options on the table, but I feel bad that he’s literally the central piece of every rumored deal. He was more-than-serviceable when Chauncey went down with the [first] knee injury. As I said in the previous thread, I think Jonny Flynn would be worth the flier, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see TD go in the deal. As far as I’m concerned TD can serve an important role going forward, even if he’s not the backup PG.

  35. Ben R

    I don’t think we should trade TD at all. TD is the best defender on this entire team and is a great shooter and an improving PG. Even after a sophmore campaign that was marred by injury he still put up a serviceable 53% TS% and a 37% 3pt%. Last year he increased his asts per 36 from 3.7 to 4.5 and during the 6 games Billups sat out TD averaged 7.4 assists per 36.

    With Melo taking a lot of the ball handling duties in the half court TD is enough of a PG to be in our plans in a very big way. I know we’re Knick fans and the grass is always greener on every one elses team but TD is exactly the kind of player we would be wanting to trade for after an injury filled year depleated his value.

    I think both Fields and TD need to be virtually untradeable right now because their values are down after poor finishes to last season. Let’s give them another year to see how they handle playing next to Melo and Amare before we give them away for mediocre draft picks or the Casspi’s and Flynn’s of the world.

  36. Ted Nelson

    KnickfaninNJ,
    I don’t think Berri’s any worse than Hollinger or anything, but I don’t think he’s any better. Misuses econometrics to assign team stats to players, thereby overvaluing rebounds. Sometimes he hits on an undervalued rebounding demon like Blair or Fields, but just about every year he also overvalues some bigmen who rebound and do nothing else. I like Faried, but am not surprised Berri loves him.

    DS, point is just that not all guys who rebound and block some shots are the same. Josh Smith and Ben Wallace aren’t the same, even though they’ve both had good careers. Bismack is a 5, which AR never seemed to want to be. I have no idea how Walshtoni feel on him.

    BBA, the deal sounds like it’s more about #17 for #7 than TD for Casspi. The Kings would almost have to think TD is better than Casspi to move down 10 spots.the hope would be that Casspi can develop. He can shoot and slash and started last season well.

    Jim, certainly could be a G… But Gs are easy to come by, so I don’t think it has to be by any means. Would like to see them get a 2nd or late 1st, since there should be some Gs there like Selby, Cole, etc.

    TD’s about their only trade asset, so it makes sense he’d be involved in a lot of rumors. I am a big fan, but combo guards are so abundant that I’d be all for getting good trade value for him.

  37. BigBlueAL

    I just hope the Knicks stay put at 17 then buy a late-1st rounder or a 2nd round pick or two. If they do trade guys like TD or Fields I hope its not to just move up in the draft.

  38. Frank

    I’m kinda surprised to hear that the Lakers are shopping Odom, trying to get a PG. Bear with me here but what do you guys think of this trade– who says no?

    NYK gets: Lamar Odom, Ramon Sessions, Derek Caracter, Manny Harris, Cavs #32 pick

    CLE gets: Shannon Brown, NYK #17 pick

    LAL gets: Chauncey Billups, Landry Fields

    Odom is a New Yorker and is a pretty darn good rebounder and good stretch 4 for this system. Can come off the bench against teams that have a big center (start Turiaf at 5 and Amare at 4). High bball IQ, handles the ball well, can shoot the 3 well enough to keep defenses honest, and is an excellent post defender. Sessions would be the PG of the future. Caracter and Manny Harris are warm bodies with some upside. With the #32 pick we take BPA, hopefully someone like Shumpert, Jeremy Tyler, etc..

    Cleveland gets to turn the expendable Sessions into two reasonable assets – an athletic 2 to play with Irving in Shannon Brown and the #17 pick that they can use themselves or flip.

    Lakers get the veteran PG they’ve needed so badly (who disappears off their cap if they want to blow up the whole thing or as trade bait for Dwight Howard) as well as a young asset in Fields. I gather they’re tossing around trading Odom for a lottery pick somehow, but I assume they’d rather have a veteran to play with Kobe at the end of Kobe’s prime.

    All works under the cap (as soon as July 1 hits and Shannon Brown’s trade restriction ends).

    Thoughts? I kinda think that all 3 teams benefit here…

  39. Ted Nelson

    BBA, why do you say that? The draft can be a great place to acquire talent, and if they were to move up 10 spots to #7… That’s not a small difference. Wide open drafts like this especially often see the best player taken outside the top 5. I like TD, but he’s hardly irreplaceable.

    Ben R, you’re making a big assumption that TD’s trade value is low. If you see TD’s value, I have to guess that Donnie Walsh and Geoff Petrie do too. You have no idea whether the pick would be “mediocre” which is sort of the point. Moving from #17 to #7 is hardly marginal… Especially with Casspi coming back too.

  40. ess-dog

    Where are you guys hearing the TD for Casspi talk?
    Idk, his WS and PER are pretty bad. I hear he’s an ok defender. If the 7 and 17 picks are involved, I don’t know why either team would do that.
    My guess is that we’re trying to trade for another mid 1st which we could then package with the 17 to get a lottery pick for Jimmer or Biyombo or whoever. Honestly, if I had the #8-10 pick, I would trade that for a 15 and 20 in this draft, that’s a good deal.
    I think Landry is probably worth a 10-15 pick in this draft. TD a bit less. It does seem like something is going to go down, but what?

  41. BigBlueAL

    Ted Nelson:
    BBA, why do you say that? The draft can be a great place to acquire talent, and if they were to move up 10 spots to #7… That’s not a small difference. Wide open drafts like this especially often see the best player taken outside the top 5. I like TD, but he’s hardly irreplaceable.

    Ben R, you’re making a big assumption that TD’s trade value is low. If you see TD’s value, I have to guess that Donnie Walsh andGeoff Petrie do too. You have no idea whether the pick would be “mediocre” which is sort of the point. Moving from #17 to #7 is hardly marginal… Especially with Casspi coming back too.

    Like I stated earlier to me the draft is a crap shoot. Especially this year’s it looks like. Id rather just stay put and draft a player who could be just as good as any player drafted after the Top 2 at 17 and possibly pickup a couple of other later draft picks and keep the couple of proven NBA caliber young players on this roster.

    I dont think this is a draft where trading up to a late Top 10 pick is worth giving up the only couple of young proven players this team has thats all. Im not saying TD is untouchable at all but I dont think its worth trading him for a draft pick thats not Irving or Derrick Williams in this draft.

    I still have total faith in Walsh to do whats best for this team on Thursday so whatever happens I wont complain or criticize after the fact. I will say this Thursday could turn out to be a pretty interesting day which should be fun.

  42. Z-man

    Ted Nelson:
    KnickfaninNJ,
    I don’t think Berri’s any worse than Hollinger or anything, but I don’t think he’s any better. Misuses econometrics to assign team stats to players, thereby overvaluing rebounds. Sometimes he hits on an undervalued rebounding demon like Blair or Fields, but just about every year he also overvalues some bigmen who rebound and do nothing else. I like Faried, but am not surprised Berri loves him.

    DS, point is just that not all guys who rebound and block some shots are the same. Josh Smith and Ben Wallace aren’t the same, even though they’ve both had good careers. Bismack is a 5, which AR never seemed to want to be. I have no idea how Walshtoni feel on him.

    BBA, the deal sounds like it’s more about #17 for #7 than TD for Casspi. The Kings would almost have to think TD is better than Casspi to move down 10 spots.the hope would be that Casspi can develop. He can shoot and slash and started last season well.

    Jim, certainly could be a G… But Gs are easy to come by, so I don’t think it has to be by any means. Would like to see them get a 2nd or late 1st, since there should be some Gs there like Selby, Cole, etc.

    TD’s about their only trade asset, so it makes sense he’d be involved in a lot of rumors. I am a big fan, but combo guards are so abundant that I’d be all for getting good trade value for him.

    In the last thread @112, Frank lays out some issues with PAWS40, along the lines of your point above, Ted. Honesty, we don’t need advance stats to tell us that Blake Griffin will be a monster NBA player. We need them to differentiate the NBA players from the busts, and neither Berri nor Hollinger has been significantly better than the eye test. I like Faried, too, but question whether he is the best pick at #17, unlike THCJ who thinks it’s a no-brainer based on PAWS40.

  43. adrenaline98

    If you guys are watching the same videos of Motiejunas that I am watching, I’m not sure how any of you can come to the conclusion that he is a Channing Frye. Are you basing this on statistics or something? He’s ridiculously more skilled than Frye.

  44. Ben R

    ess-dog: I think Landry is probably worth a 10-15 pick in this draft.

    In this draft I think that is completely wrong. Landry Fields was the 3rd or 4th best rookie last year and when the younger players develop will probably be the 6th or 7th best player taken in last years draft which was both deeper and more top heavy than this draft.

    Ted Nelson: You have no idea whether the pick would be “mediocre” which is sort of the point.

    The reason why I called it a mediocre pick is that this is the worst draft in years, probably one of the worst ever. Value from about 7-25 are all similar and all about on par with a mid to late first in another draft. There are some players that are worth taking flyers on but no really strong talent in this draft at all. The players that pan out will be all over the map with lots of busts in the lottery and about the same amount at the end of the first round. We need to draft a good player but there will be a player just as good at 17 as there will be at 7, a couple more good ones at 7 but not any better as the best player availiable at 17.

    As for TD maybe they see his value as high but I am always nervous because GM’s often undervalue young players especially ones who were drafted late.

  45. Frank

    adrenaline98:
    If you guys are watching the same videos of Motiejunas that I am watching, I’m not sure how any of you can come to the conclusion that he is a Channing Frye. Are you basing this on statistics or something? He’s ridiculously more skilled than Frye.

    Guilty as charged. I guess i just meant soft 7 footer without good rebounding or defending skills with good outside shot.

  46. Ben R

    Hoopsanalyst has his first couple of draft previews up. His are always the best in my opinion. This year there a little light compared to previous years but still worlds better than Berri or Hollinger. He is great at spotting trends of both busts and good players, he has found some stats that are important for predicting failure at the NBA level.

  47. flossy

    @42 I’d love that deal, but if we’re going to kiss CP3 and Dwight goodbye (which I assume we’d have to), I’d try to figure out a way to squeeze Anderson Varejao into it. I don’t see why the Cavs wouldn’t agree–he’s an expensive role player that a young rebuilding team doesn’t need, especially one that can draft Kanter or Valenciunas this week. But he’s the kind of playoff-tested, strong-defense-and-dirty-work center that would really come in handy, sort of a poor man’s Joakim Noah. That would allow Odom to be a ace sixth man and spare Amar’e the bumps and bruises of guarding centers. Finding a random shooter to play the two probably couldn’t be that hard; I bet Michael Redd would come here for the vets minimum for example, and between Sessions and Odom that’s enough playmaking for a team with a ball-dominant wing scorer anyway.

    Re: Toney for Casspi… I don’t see how Casspi really fits into our plans, but I think Toney Douglas might be the absolute perfect guard to play next to Tyreke Evans.

  48. Jim Cavan Post author

    …. So NBA TV’s Draft Preview just revealed that the Morris twins have the same tattoos. On a scale of 1-10 of disturbing-ness, I’d put that at a solid 8.

  49. art vandelay

    I personally think this team needs to restock assets and depth after the Melo trade and its concomitant bludgeoning of our roster. To that end, I don’t think it makes a lot of logical sense to trade the few existing assets we have on the roster outside of the Big 2.5 (e.g. TD and Fields) to move up in a mediocre to poor draft to select a player just as likely to be a bust as the one we would choose at 17. Consequently, as some have already stated above, our best bet is to stockpile reserves for a) potential Cp3 pipedream trade and b) because we actually will need players off the bench to play meaningful minutes who aren’t Jared Jeffries, Anthony Carter or Roger Mason. A bench core of TD, Fields, Jerome Jordan (I am assuming he is serviceable and plays next season, two large assumptions, I know), #17 pick (say Faried or Singleton), plus another late 1st round pick (PG say Jenkins) or 2nd round pick….add all that in and I think we at least have a young bench to complement Walker and Sean Williams that surrounds the star talent. In that scenario we at least have some assets to work with for signs and trades, future maneuvers, etc.

  50. Z-man

    Ben R:
    Hoopsanalyst has his first couple of draft previews up. His are always the best in my opinion. This year there a little light compared to previous years but still worlds better than Berri or Hollinger. He is great at spotting trends of both busts and good players, he has found some stats that are important for predicting failure at the NBA level.

    He has Shumpert listed as the #3 PG prospect in this draft. I hope we snag this kid.

  51. adrenaline98

    Frank: Guilty as charged. I guess i just meant soft 7 footer without good rebounding or defending skills with good outside shot.

    Uhh, recent column, forgot where now. Was it here? I’m not sure, but there was a link that said Motiejunas’ defense isn’t nearly as bad as what the scouts say.

  52. KnickfaninNJ

    Ted, you are right, the discussion was already in the last thread and l missed it. The only thing I would add is that Berri’s numbers all seemed low supporting the consensus that this is a weak draft. To me this means we should draft for talent rather than need. In fact if there is nno one we like especiallyy it would be better to trade down and get picks in 2012 in return.

  53. Ben R

    Z-man: He has Shumpert listed as the #3 PG prospect in this draft.I hope we snag this kid.

    Yeah but that is not because he thinks Shumpert is good but because the PG class is weak. After the first two PGs he doesn’t think there is a single lottery talent among any of the point guards and thinks the couple that are even worth firsts are pretty big gambles.

    Shumpert is a defensive specialist and not a pure point guard. He’s not a bad pick but projects to be more of a combo guard than a point guard and we already have a really good combo defensive guard in Douglas. If we can get him with a pick we buy at the end of the 1st round begining of the 2nd then he is a good value pick and a potential specialist off the bench but if he’s the only player we come away with in this draft I’ll be disappointed.

  54. Ben R

    The PG prospect that intrigues me the most of all the PGs at the end of the first is Reggie Jackson, he is a bit of a one year wonder showing dramatic improvement this last season after two fairly mediocre seasons and his assits are a little low but he was such a good scorer last year I think he’s worth a flyer. Either him or Shumpert would be good picks with a pick we buy.

    Another player at the end of the first I really like is Mirotic. He is a bit of a combo forward and has a tricky buyout but I really like him and think he would be a much much better Extra E/poor mans Gallo as a forward that can stretch the floor at both the 3 and 4. He was a great scorer inside and outside last year and his rebounding numbers are good for a SF while slightly low for a PF but not terrible.

  55. massive

    I’m hoping we can get our hands on Bismack Biyombo. He’s the only player in this year’s draft that projects to be a total game changer on the defensive end. That’s the type of player we need that we won’t be able to get in free agency or through a trade. If we’re trading up to the #7 spot, it has to be for this guy. I’m just hoping Toronto doesn’t take him at 5.

  56. adrenaline98

    SAS, Stephen A Smith, was mentioning Biyombo, if he’s available. And I gotta agree with him, he’s right. We DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SHOOTER/SCORER. I know THCJ loves Faried and all, but I just don’t see him fitting in here unless Amare is at center.

    Biyombo is a bigger Faried, reminds me of Ben Wallance (even the shooting part :\). If he doesn’t drop, again, I’d rather see the Knicks draft BTA (best TALENT available) and hopefully, it pans out for use in a trade or even a solid starter.

    If we pick up Klay Thompson, or Marshon Brooks, it just feels we’ll be a better version of the GS Warriors, which is pretty fucking awful.

    We really need defense, hustle, and rebounding. Those are GLARING needs that even Faried fills. I’m torn between Markieff Morris (Shelden Williams) and Faried (Renaldo Balkman). I see both doing that more than being a Dennis Rodman/Kendrick Perkins.

    But I will say one thing, I won’t boo this year no matter who it is unlike Jordan Hill. Yea, he’s still ‘undetermined’, but we can pretty much label him as a KNICK bust.

  57. adrenaline98

    Wait a minute, Frank linked that Motiejunas article. Frank, I think we’re fate brotha.

  58. adrenaline98

    P.S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqK-YXlsHs

    Seriously, Motiejunas looks WAY more like at LEAST a Tay Prince. He has like…McGrady skillset. If he’s available at 17, the only way I don’t take him is if Biyombo is available, who fills a MUCH MORE IMPORTANT need.

    Plus, his higlights video has SERBIAN RAP. Seriously, he has to be good based on that alone.

  59. njasdjdh

    So, I was looking at video of one draft prospect today and as I watched his highlights, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a current NBA player. This prompted me to go look up their respective measurements where I found this:

    (I have no idea how to format this properly, so you will have to bear with me as far as readability)

    Height, Weight, Wingspan, Lane Agility, 3/4 Sprint, No Step Vert, Max Vert, Bench Press

    Player A: 6’7.75,” 223, 6’11,” 10.96, 3.17, 31.5, 37.5, 12
    Player B: 6’7.50,” 233, 7’0,” 11.4, 3.15, 30.5, 33.5, 7

    Player B’s Hollinger Draft Rating number is 1.8 higher than Player A’s, but Player A has a solid/strong score in that regard as well. Guesses? Thoughts? For the record, I am not saying Player A IS Player B, but that upon further review I’m surprised Player A, given this year’s draft, isn’t getting more publicity.

  60. Ben R

    adrenaline98 – I wouldn’t hate Motiejunas but I think Mirotic is a better prospect if we want to go with a european stretch big. Draftexpress has Mirotic as the 7th best player in the draft (Motiejunas is ranked 16th) and I think their international scouting is pretty solid.

    The fact that Motiejunas struggled so much at this last eurocup worries me because it represents a step up in opposition and he responded by playing really poorly. It was only 16 games so it could have only been a slump but that combined with the under 7 rebounds per 40 he had during his regular season and it is enough of a red flag that I would rather go with Mirotic.

    Comparitively Miroitc is a better 3pt shooter, a better 2 pt shooter, a better ft shooter (though he gets there less), a better passer, shot blocker and a better rebounder, the same age and at 6’10″ only 2 inches shorter. Plus he did all of this playing on real madrid one of the top teams in all of europe.

  61. adrenaline98

    Ben R: adrenaline98 – I wouldn’t hate Motiejunas but I think Mirotic is a better prospect if we want to go with a european stretch big. Draftexpress has Mirotic as the 7th best player in the draft (Motiejunas is ranked 16th) and I think their international scouting is pretty solid. The fact that Motiejunas struggled so much at this last eurocup worries me because it represents a step up in opposition and he responded by playing really poorly. It was only 16 games so it could have only been a slump but that combined with the under 7 rebounds per 40 he had during his regular season and it is enough of a red flag that I would rather go with Mirotic.Comparitively Miroitc is a better 3pt shooter, a better 2 pt shooter, a better ft shooter (though he gets there less), a better passer, shot blocker and a better rebounder, the same age and at 6’10? only 2 inches shorter. Plus he did all of this playing on real madrid one of the top teams in all of europe.

    Look, Ben, if you told me, Motiejunas could be a major bust, you would find no argument from me. Looking at him though, he has some SERIOUS skills. He looks like he has Nowitzski skills against Euro competition, although that is DUBIOUS at best.

    I, 100%, agree that he has those issues going for him. You will find no argument from me if we go Markief Morris, Bismack Biyombo, Mirotic, or anyone else. I fell in love with Motieujunas watching his highlight video. Then again, I also fell in love with Darrius Morris. There is a lot of potential here later in the round, and the Knicks cannot afford to strikeout with Amare’s knees. I am for anything that anyone presents with good reason. In the end, i just want it to pan out.

    Njas, Frank Williams was one of the best PGs according to Hollingers draft rater. I’m not saying it’s inaccurate, but it certainly isn’t a sure thing either.

  62. adrenaline98

    cont.

    Another reason why I like Motiejunas, Valanciunas, Mirotic, these Euro bigs is…If Amare’s knees give out, could we look at a possible replacement? IF we cannot land Biyombo, or a hustle/rebound/defensive big, wouldn’t we have to look at one of these bigs? Or a REAL SOLID PG (that won’t be available?). I mean, I don’t want to be the pessimist here, but a huge part of my nightmares at night is seeing Amare go down with another knee injury and then go the ways of Jermaine O’Neal. Either way, I agree the roster is flawed, and we need luck not only drafting, but keeping our FA/S&T signings healthy.

  63. Ben R

    Motiejunas I think is a solid pick at 17 much better than Selby or Brooks and I think he has a pretty high ceiling. It’s just I think Mirotic is a real sleeper in this draft and put his value closer to top 10, top 12. The fact he should be availiable after pick 25 is just gravy. My first choice, much like you is Biyombo. I would be happy if we actually took a couple of euro bigs this year because they are the only group of players not affected by the impending lockout, the american players stayed in college.

    A perfect world would be moving up getting Biyombo or Valanciunas (if his difficult buyout makes him slide), then buying a couple late picks and getting Mirotic and a guard like Shumpert or Jackson.

  64. taggart4800

    Seeing as others have been on trade machine here is my offering. complete fantasy and never going to happen but fun nevertheless.

    Knicks: Chris Paul, Lakers 41st

    Lakers: Chauncey Billups, Knicks 17th

    Hornets: Lamar Odom, Toney Douglas, Landry Fields, Derek Fisher + 46th, 56th and 58th from Lakers. $3 mill and a future draft pick from the knicks.

  65. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Z-man,

    I responded to 112 of the last thread, at least partially. I don’t think there’s a problem with PAWS40. I think it’s cherry picking.

  66. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Ted Nelson: Hollinger’s Draft Rater is designed by Hollinger, and PER was designed by Hollinger… So whatever your personal view of it is, PER is definitely worth mentioning when evaluating Hollinger’s draft rater.I believe his draft rater literally projects PER. His draft rater is how his framework projects a prospect to do, and PER is how his framework judges a player as having done.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it projects how well a player will do according to PER, and PER is a bad statistic that does not correlate with actual wins.

  67. ess-dog

    Hearing a lot about Darius Morris interest now. While I like Morris, I think we could get him lower than 17. I think we could drop back and get him while picking up a late 1st/early 2nd where we could grab a project like Selby or Tyler or maybe even Faried.

    Not sexy (more about getting a couple of good bench guys than a starter) but not necessarily a bad way to go. Even if we stay at 17 (or move up to 15) I don’t know if we can find a starter in this draft.

    Btw, if Burks is still there at 17, don’t you think we have to take him? Not sure why he’s been dropping. He’s one of the few players that could make an all star game with a few adjustments to his game.

  68. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Selby’s PAWS40 of 3.8 is so low I can’t believe anyone’s thinking about drafting him at any position. He’s not even NBDL-worthy.

  69. ess-dog

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    Selby’s PAWS40 of 3.8 is so low I can’t believe anyone’s thinking about drafting him at any position. He’s not even NBDL-worthy.

    I think he somewhat gets a mulligan for various reasons. I don’t like his game, but I would still give him a break on his first year.

  70. flossy

    Please, Dave Berri’s voodoo statistics have no bearing on the value of a prospect like Josh Selby. Nobody is drafting Selby based on freshman year stats at Kansas, they’re drafting him because he’s built like Russell Westbrook/Derrick Rose with a Vince Carter-esque vertical leap. He was a consensus top-5 prospect coming into his freshman year who is now undervalued for reasons that have nothing to do with his NBA future. (i.e. NCAA suspension for receiving improper benefits–who cares; production impacted by poor fit at Kansas and playing through a stress fracture in his right foot).

  71. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    You better hope that Selby was playing at 50% so you might be able to use him as a tenth or eleventh man.

    As always, you can look at the statistic as a flawed, though probably accurate, barometer of playing ability, or you can see it as something that is wholly wrong when considered along with your eye-test. Damned are those who prefer the latter.

  72. Ted Nelson

    BigBlueAL: Like I stated earlier to me the draft is a crap shoot. Especially this year’s it looks like.

    There’s no right answer, and your strategy has merit. I just feel like these guys are paid to project talent and value NBA talent… so if they see a good chance to get value in a trade to move up for a prospect they like much, much more than those that will likely fall… I think they have to take it. At the very least they have to see what kind of trade value is out there, which seems like what they’re doing based on rumors. They’ve seen their guy taken before in Steph Curry, and if they see another Curry and the chance to move up to secure him… could be the right move. If they’d traded Hill and Douglas for Curry right after that draft, I doubt any of us would complain.

    adrenaline98: If you guys are watching the same videos of Motiejunas that I am watching

    I like him a lot as a prospect… but the first problem is that you’re watching highlight videos… everyone looks good in highlights. Motiejunas is still really raw considering how long he’s been on the scene and the level he’s been playing at. He makes a lot of mistakes and has holes in his game.
    The Frye comparisons are just saying that against NBA competition he might be reduced to that level. NBA competition is significantly better than European, especially for bigmen. There just aren’t many athletic bigs in Europe and those that are athletic usually aren’t skilled. I also think Motiejunas has a much, much higher ceiling than Frye… but that might be about all you get in the end.

  73. Jim Cavan Post author

    I’ve convinced myself that standing pat at 17, picking up a late first / early second, and taking Vucevic and Darrius Morris would be the way to go. Even subbing Faried for Vucevic, I’d be happy with that. Morris has his issues (three point shooting being biggest), but I think his upside is as high as any PG’s in this draft. In Vucevic you get a slightly shorter, more coordinated, more offensively refined Mozgov who’s also five years younger with more upside. It’ll almost be like we never unceremoniously threw Mozzy Bear into the Melo deal. Almost.

  74. Ted Nelson

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Damned are those who prefer the latter.

    ??? Small samples and samples that don’t represent the underlying population are statistical concepts… nothing to do with eye test.

    Ben R: Value from about 7-25 are all similar

    That’s a huge generalization and oversimplification. Even in strong drafts the “consensus” is wrong almost as often as right. If the Knicks see a prospect they like a lot more than other available prospects, I don’t want to see them sit back and just say that “odds are everyone 7-25 is the same” because historically that’s not been the case. Just because you see it as wide open along with many draft experts… that doesn’t mean someone the Knicks see at #7 won’t be the best player drafted. The draft is a series of individual decisions, not a unified whole.

    You’ve already decided the long-term future of this draft class before it’s even been picked… do you really not see why that’s disingenuous?

    Even going by your pure odds, no scouting/analysis thought process… you still point out yourself that there will almost definitely be more good players (long-term) available at #7 than #17… which could significantly increase your odds of finding one of those players.

  75. CRJoe

    Ted Nelson: Ben R: Value from about 7-25 are all similar

    That’s a huge generalization and oversimplification.

    Honestly, with so little talent on the board, I see that statement as accurate, outside of the top 5 players in the draft there might be a couple of solid sixth-man prospects, and then a bunch of roster fillers… If nobody worth it drops below say 10, pick 11 and pick 25 will probably end up having the same mediocre careers… I would say value from 10-25 are all similar..

  76. Ted Nelson

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it projects how well a player will do according to PER, and PER is a bad statistic that does not correlate with actual wins.

    You’re being a bit tiresome with your fanatical Berri-ism or whatever you’re doing. Berri is wrong as often as Hollinger: in 2007 & 8 among his top prospects were Nick Fazekas, Hendrix, and Dorsey. Kyle Weaver was a better prospect than Derrick Rose. His stats DO NOT correlate with team wins. He takes team stats and assigns them to individual players. This is a misuse of stats. Wins are a team stat.

    Yes, PER is flawed. We were discussing Hollinger’s draft rater, though. Berri’s stats are also flawed. Yet, in discussing his draft previews I’d look at his framework to see how accurate it was at predicting the things he was looking for.

    flossy: Please, Dave Berri’s voodoo statistics have no bearing on the value of a prospect like Josh Selby.

    Besides from them not being the end-all of player evaluation, Berri’s stats might think much more highly of Selby if he’d been healthy all season. In stats you try to find a sample that is representative of the underlying population. In this case the “population” is Selby’s basketball ability. The sample we’re working with is a small number of games in which he might not have been healthy. Therefore, the sample may or may not represent his actual ability.

    Ben R: The fact he should be availiable after pick 25 is just gravy.

    Based on what do you know he’ll be there at #25? NBADraft.net has him #12. Draftexpress has him 18.

  77. Ted Nelson

    CRJoe: Honestly, with so little talent on the board, I see that statement as accurate

    No one can decide exactly how a draft will turn out before anyone’s played a game… To just decide there’s not one talented player available after #5 is ridiculous. Not worth discussing. Can’t predict the future.

    adrenaline98: Seriously, Motiejunas looks WAY more like at LEAST a Tay Prince. He has like…McGrady skillset.

    I seriously disagree. His handle is awful. He turns it over a whole lot when he puts it on the floor, sometimes completely unforced. He has the potential… but it’s not there yet at all. He doesn’t have the athleticism to play the wing… so I wouldn’t compare him to wings. T-Mac was an incredible wing athlete even by NBA standards. I think he belongs at the 4 or 5 and will play there with enthusiasm. His favorite players are Luis Scola and Sabonis.

    Ben R: Comparitively Miroitc is a better

    It’s tough to translate athleticism from Europe to NBA. Mirotic is not athletic, but plays on the perimeter. Upside is maybe a Garbajosa, but might be an NBA 3. Seriously question him being 6-10, doesn’t play it. Not saying he’s not an interesting and productive prospect, but I think Motiejunas is in a different category in terms of potential. He’s raw, though, and will need to develop. He’s more of a true big: plays inside and in the post.

    I can’t think of a perfect analogy, but it can be a bit like Jimmer (or some good freshman) is a far better NCAA player than Selby, but Selby has the potential to be a much better NBA player.

  78. flossy

    Ted Nelson:

    Besides from them not being the end-all of player evaluation, Berri’s stats might think much more highly of Selby if he’d been healthy all season. In stats you try to find a sample that is representative of the underlying population. In this case the “population” is Selby’s basketball ability. The sample we’re working with is a small number of games in which he might not have been healthy. Therefore, the sample may or may not represent his actual ability.

    That’s the smarter version of what I’m trying to say. People who look at Selby’s freshman year stats as being representative of the height of his abilities are kidding themselves. Between his suspension (which affected his ability to play within the flow of the offense even after he was back with the team) and his injury he played about a dozen games. That’s hardly enough time to prove anything, so the fact that he’s an A+++ athlete, very highly regarded coming out of high school, with a ton of skills fit for the NBA style of play suggest he’s a very intriguing prospect despite whatever Dave Berri’s number crunching says.

  79. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    More tiresome than my Berri bent is your condescending phrasing and smug prickishness. Re-retire, please. I’d rather have Italian Stallion back.

  80. CRJoe

    Ted Nelson: No one can decide exactly how a draft will turn out before anyone’s played a game… To just decide there’s not one talented player available after #5 is ridiculous. Not worth discussing. Can’t predict the future.

    Can’t predict the future, but you can see how some classes were stacked and some players were standouts… I remember 03′s draft, everyone was excited about the abundance of talent, even if you couldn’t predict their careers, you could see Lebron, Bosh & Melo were going to be great players, Wade was underrated, and still properly evaluated as a top 10 talent… And I remember people saying ’07 was the worst draft class ever, but Durant and Oden were seen as standout beasts on that class, even Horford, Brewer & Noah, were excepcional within the class… Though a few teams let them slip for players with more “upside” (Yi, Milwaukee.. Really??? Not defending Brewer as a pro mind you)…

    But in this class you don’t see a strong generation, a lot of unproven players that were playing overseas, the standouts (Irving and Williams), even though are extraordinary players, aren’t as heralded as say Blake Griffin or John Wall…

    A lot of promising players retired from the draft due to the CBA negotiation… Leaving guys like Kanter, who didn’t even played last year, as a strong candidate for 3rd pick… There aren’t 10 nba players in this draft, and if one of them slips past the lottery, we can seriously thank our stars…

  81. ess-dog

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    More tiresome than my Berri bent is your condescending phrasing and smug prickishness. Re-retire, please. I’d rather have Italian Stallion back.

    God, I love this board.

    I am also of the opinion that after the top 2-4 guys, there are about 20-25 “rotation guys” – good solid players that should have long careers but lay somewhere between a fifth starter on a very good team to a 7th man. Of course, no one knows the future. Anything could happen. But I think Faried at 21 is likely to be just as good of a player as Fredette at 7 or Chris Singleton at 13.
    The only real wildcards are the euros and maybe Thompson or Harris. That’s why I think we’re trying to move up for Biyombo.

  82. BigBlueAL

    Interesting news coming out today about the owners proposing a flexible type cap set at 62 million. Players union to respond in a meeting on Friday with a proposal of their own.

  83. Ted Nelson

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: More tiresome than my Berri bent is your condescending phrasing and smug prickishness. Re-retire, please. I’d rather have Italian Stallion back.

    People are discussing draft prospects and various “analyst”-journalists’ takes and your contribution was basically “PER is useless.” And I’m the prick?

    CRJoe: But in this class you don’t see a strong generation

    I don’t think this is a strong draft either, but that doesn’t mean that every player from #3 to #25 (or whatever) is exactly the same either as a prospect today or will have the same career. I don’t think is as bad as 2000, though, for example. Has the potential… but that was just an awful class. Kanter was a #1 prospect coming into the year, so if he’d have played and dominated NCAA he easily might be the #1 pick. With European players like Jonas Valanciunas or Jan Vesely… just because you haven’t seen them play doesn’t mean they’re not good prospects. Kawhi Leonard is a lottery pick any year.

    Using your 2007 example… I think that works against you. If you’d have sat at #17 and taken any of the next 7 guys off the board the best you’d have done would be Jared Dudley. At #7 you’d have a chance at Joakim Noah, Thaddeus Young, or Brandan Wright (who might be good if he’s ever healthy). If the Knicks see that Joakim Noah-type who just stands out to them (and Noah stood out to me at that time… so I don’t think this is really revisionist) and can get good trade value to move up… I have no problem with that.

    And outside the top 5… was 2003 really that amazing? Good, solid draft even after top 5, but that top 5 really sets it apart. We haven’t really discussed the Knicks getting into the top 5.

  84. Ted Nelson

    What I mean, by the way, when I say that no one can predict the future… is that looking at the class as a whole all of these guys have a ceiling and a floor. We might look back in 5, 10 years or whatever and none of them panned out so this was an awful draft. A few guys reach those ceilings, though, and this might be a surprisingly good draft. All these guys have a chance to be good NBA players, or they wouldn’t be on the NBA radar. This draft has a relatively lower chance to be a good draft than other years, but that doesn’t mean it will definitely be an awful draft. Analyst/journalists are historically awful at picking out the good and bad NBA players, so I don’t see why people are buying so wholeheartedly into their predictions.

    Anyway, I don’t see much value in looking at the class as a whole. Rather as individual players. Again, historically people tend to be awful at predicting how individual prospects will do on their NBA careers. Walsh has a stronger track record, though. If he sees someone he loves, I’m fine with him taking that chance instead of just assuming all players #3-25 are the same. If he’s got a bunch of guys he likes equally, then I’m also fine with sitting back and seeing who falls.

    I just think it’s a mistake for fans like us who watch clips and games of these guys when we have a chance to decide definitively how guys whose jobs are to scout these prospects should think of each individual talent or the class as a whole.

  85. CRJoe

    Anyone picked after Noah on that draft doesn’t come up to be more than a solid role player, sure Chandler & Young are a thousand times more useful than Julian Wright, but in a good team (say a top 5 team) any of those 3 players would only be backups soaking up minutes while the Marionses and the Dengses rest, that’s kinda my point, no matter who you pick this year after the top 10 up to the 25th pick, everyone will be just a niche player in the NBA…

    And come on 2003 had plenty of good players after the top 5… Kaman & West are solid post players and former All Stars, Howard & Williams are on the decline but had 7 solid seasons even getting to the All Star game as well, Hinrich & Perkins are starters for good playoffs teams… Hell I wish the Knicks had Collison & Ford…

  86. Ted Nelson

    CRJoe: that’s kinda my point, no matter who you pick this year after the top 10 up to the 25th pick, everyone will be just a niche player in the NBA…

    Yeah, but 2007 is just one example. In 2007 very few guys after #9 have worked out at all… but they had the potential to when drafted. In other drafts some of the Bismack’s and Moteijunas’ and Selby’s and Jimmer’s and Tristan’s and Tobias’ and Burks’ etc. work out to some extent… sometimes in a big way and others in a small way. That’s the case even in weak drafts. 2007 is an exception in that regard. Maybe 2011 will be, maybe not.

    CRJoe: everyone will be just a niche player in the NBA…

    Not all non-stars are the same by any means. There are very valuable NBA “role players” and there are ok guys barely hanging onto their jobs and guys playing in Europe or out of the game.

    And the way a rotation works you’re not just subbing for one guy in most cases as a wing player… Brewer and Bogans and Korver got plenty of minutes playing next to and behind Deng.

    Thaddeus Young was 22 and had an 18.4 PER and 0.139 WS/48… he’s not a scrub.

    CRJoe: And come on 2003 had plenty of good players after the top 5

    I said it was a good draft, but not amazing. If the Knicks sat at #17 in 2003 and went for any of the next 10 players drafted… there’s about a 20% chance they’d have ended up with a good NBA player. A 70% chance they’d have ended up with nothing at all. And a 10% chance they’d have ended up with Travis Outlaw (in between).

  87. Ben R

    Ted Nelson: Based on what do you know he’ll be there at #25? NBADraft.net has him #12. Draftexpress has him 18.

    I was talking about Mirotic he is the player that should be availiable after 25. I’ve not seen any recent mocks that has him in the teens. I think you thought I was talking about someone else.

    Ted Nelson: It’s tough to translate athleticism from Europe to NBA. Mirotic is not athletic, but plays on the perimeter. Upside is maybe a Garbajosa, but might be an NBA 3. Seriously question him being 6-10, doesn’t play it. Not saying he’s not an interesting and productive prospect, but I think Motiejunas is in a different category in terms of potential. He’s raw, though, and will need to develop. He’s more of a true big: plays inside and in the post.

    I don’t understand this. Motiejunas averages less blocks and less rebounds per 40 and is only 2 months younger with more professional experience. How is his upside higher? Offensively he might play more like a big but defensively he does not. Mirotic wasn’t even supposed to really play this year but played so well he became a key player on one of the best teams in Europe. He plays the 4 for real madrid and defends both PFs and Cs. Offensively he is not nearly as much of a back to the basket player more of a face the basket 4 but he is a legitimate bigman. The main reason he is ranked lower than Motiejunas and a alot of the other Euros is that his buyout is difficult and it might be a couple of years before he can come over.

  88. SeeWhyDee77

    While we’re talkin about the draft..I got a couple ideas. 1st one..if neither player we’re targeting is on the board at 17, how about trading down with OKC or the Spurs and picking up another asset (pick, player) and drafting Singler or Tyler? In my scenario, this would mean we already have a deal in place for Sessions which would problee include Walker and Douglas. I don’t think Sefalosha will stay sub 30% from distance, so preferably I would like to add his defense and Singler’s shooting..as we kinda missed Danilo’s game and Singler is similar. Lower ceiling, but similar. In this scenario, we would also HAVE to add Dalembert. The second idea is, and I got this from my cousin who lives in Columbus Ohio and is a Cavs fan- if neither player we’re targeting is left at 17 and Cleveland drafts Irving and Kanter, how about Douglas, Walker and our 17 for Sessions, Hickson and Hollins? What do u guys think?

    Also I hear alotta chatter about Flynn. 2 words. Unequivocally NO. I like Flynn..but he’s really a bad fit. If Knicks brass are truly interested in Flynn then we could have kept Nate. I think Flynn’s a slightly taller Nate..albeit with less shooting. Flynn is problee a better leader than Nate, but i’m not necessarily sure that he’s the type of future lead guard we want. He’s hell bent on scoring. We do need more bench scoring, but is he better than Douglas or Sessions at this point? I doubt it.

    My girlfriend(fiancee fingers crossed) is gonna hate me on thursday. She’s carrying rite now an imma do dumb stuff like make her hold her belly up to the tv and/or talk knick hoops to it all nite lol. She’s only 1 month, but it’s never too early to create a future knick, no?

  89. Brian Cronin

    Wojo says that the Spurs are trying to deal Tony Parker for the #5 or #6 pick. Wow, that’s huge.

  90. taggart4800

    As much as it would be fun, big blockbuster trades are just not going to happen. Look for us to trade Douglas for Flynn and the 20th or possibly Douglas + 3mill for Matt Barnes and a heap of 2nd Rounders, something of that nature.
    Or conversely I think we just stay put and dont send Douglas because he is exactly what wee would want out of this draft, just a few inches to short.

  91. Z-man

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    More tiresome than my Berri bent is your condescending phrasing and smug prickishness. Re-retire, please. I’d rather have Italian Stallion back.

    Uncalled for, especially considering the source. FWIW, I happen to enjoy bantering with both of you, in fact, it is sometimes hard to distinguish one of you from the other. Condescending and prickishness is part of your charm. And comparing Ted and IS is like comparing Berri and Marc Berman.

  92. Ted Nelson

    Ben R: I was talking about Mirotic he is the player that should be availiable after 25.

    Ok, I read that wrong.

    Ben R: I don’t understand this. Motiejunas averages less blocks and less rebounds per 40 and is only 2 months younger with more professional experience. How is his upside higher?

    Motiejunas is a volatile prospect. You’re hoping he grows into his frame (he’s almost Jared Jeffries awkward) and his game translates to NBA. Might not happen. I just think Mirotic has a good chance of being a limited tweener, with a best case as a role player.

    It’s about athleticism and development. That Mirotic is further along right now doesn’t mean he’ll always be further along. He absolutely might be, but in terms of ceiling I would take Motiejunas. You don’t draft for what a player is now, but what he’ll be in the NBA for the next 5-15 years. Mirotic looks limited by a lack of athleticism: mostly a spot-up shooter. The European game is a lot different from the NBA game. Bigs are scarce, and the athletic/skilled ones play in the NBA. Saying you’re a 4/5 in Europe can be a lot like saying you’re a 4/5 in NCAA. It’s not easy to project how European players will do in NBA. Maybe Mirotic will be better, I just think Motiejunas has a lot more potential in the NBA game where athleticism is more valuable.

    In terms of the stats, you’re looking at pretty marginal differences over small samples. Does grabbing 1 more rebound per 40 in 800 min make you a superior prospect? I wouldn’t say it necessarily does, though I haven’t done an in-depth study on the subject. I would also point out that Mirotic was more of a role player surrounded by studs, so being on a better team can work against him. How often do we see a Duke (for example) system guy who…

  93. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    The issues with PER and scoring volume are well-documented, particularly in its ability to increase while shooting higher volumes at a minimum of 33% FG and 25% 3PT. That’s as simple a reason to ignore it as I can muster At this point, I don’t know why we’re even talking about it.

    I have no idea what Ted is talking about when he says that WP/48 is based on team performance, aside from the defensive adjustment. It, more than any other advanced stat I know, accounts for the four factors, which I’m sure we can all agree are the best indicators of performance.

  94. Doug

    rohank:
    After reading this article, I really REALLY hope biyombo falls to us.

    http://espn.go.com/espn/grantland/story/_/id/6679686/your-deal

    “Grantland: A lot of teams are giving you serious consideration in the draft. There’s easily 10 or 12 cities where you could wind up. Let’s play a game: I’ll say the name of a city and you say the first word that comes to mind. Any word you want — just the first word that pops into your head. Cool?

    Biyombo: Cool.

    Grantland: OK, here we go. Washington, D.C.

    Biyombo: No.”

    LOL

  95. Garson

    Did anyone notice that around the same time Ted Nelson made his return, the esteemed Tenebrous disappeared?

    Bizzaro Ted?
    The same person?

    Many questions, no answers….

  96. DS

    I’ve seen at least one comparison of Nikola Vucevic to Marc Gasol (Ford maybe?)… if that is at all an apt comparison why wouldn’t he be exactly what the Knicks are looking for?? A guy who can rebound, block shots, and hit open jumpers.

  97. flossy

    DS:
    I’ve seen at least one comparison of Nikola Vucevic to Marc Gasol (Ford maybe?)… if that is at all an apt comparison why wouldn’t he be exactly what the Knicks are looking for??A guy who can rebound, block shots, and hit open jumpers.

    Is it crazy to think he could be sort of Mehmet Okur-ish? Good jump shot, good rebounder, unspectacular athlete but smart and fundamentally sound. He might not be the BPA at 17 but he seems like a low-risk prospect who could be just the center we need: someone who can clean the glass and guard players too big for Amar’e, while on offense creating space for Amar’e to operate near the basket by keeping his own man out of the paint with his jump shot. We could do a lot worse.

  98. DS

    flossy: s it crazy to think he could be sort of Mehmet Okur-ish?

    That’s what Draft Express had listed as his “best case scenario”; David Anderson being his worst. They also have him getting nabbed by Philly at #16.

  99. CRJoe

    Garson: Did anyone notice that around the same time Ted Nelson made his return, the esteemed Tenebrous disappeared?

    Bizzaro Ted?
    The same person?

    Many questions, no answers….

    Hahaha, was thinking the same thing… It’s like tenebrous went to grammar school…

    But no seriously, THCJ & Ted are far more alike…

  100. John Kenney

    Interestingly, Daryl Morey just tweeted that their numbers have 22 first-round quality players in this year’s draft…as compared to a norm of 15-19.

    PS: Check ou today’s ESPN 5 on 5 for my take on several draft prospects, including my favorite: JONAAAASSS.

  101. iserp

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: The issues with PER and scoring volume are well-documented, particularly in its ability to increase while shooting higher volumes at a minimum of 33% FG and 25% 3PT. That’s as simple a reason to ignore it as I can muster At this point, I don’t know why we’re even talking about it.

    I have no idea what Ted is talking about when he says that WP/48 is based on team performance, aside from the defensive adjustment. It, more than any other advanced stat I know, accounts for the four factors, which I’m sure we can all agree are the best indicators of performance.

    About PER and shooting volume, it probably happens because it is meant this way. Shooting volume is a strictly good characteristic, it means you have the stamina and willingness to do so. You can always choose to stop shooting that much; the problem only comes when you refuse to do so at expense of your team. But for example, as inefficient as was Iverson, he was very valuable to 2001 76ers, which were a defensive team that really put to use his ability to shoot at will. When the 76ers changed, or went to a different team with more diverse offensive options and he didn’t defer, he became a problem.

    And what Ted means about team stats (i believe), is that rebounds depend very much on which player surrounds you and what kind of basketball your team plays. For example, if a SG defends well his pair, who shoots an ill-advised 3, the one who gets more WP/48 is the C who grabs the rebound. Or for example, the willingness to commit to offensive rebounds vs. going back to defense. Of course there is a correlation between individual rebounds and being a good player, but when Berri puts so much emphasis in that you have to wonder if the results are skewed in the end.

  102. Ted Nelson

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: I have no idea what Ted is talking about when he says that WP/48 is based on team performance

    I am talking about how Berri arrived at his formula. He performed regressions to determine how much various stats correlate with wins. He then took these weights from the team level down to the individual player level. I’m not even sure his work is valid at the team level, but it’s a huge stretch at the individual level… largely ignores roles and the cohesion of a basketball team.

    PER is definitely flawed, and I am not arguing it’s not. What I am arguing is that Berri’s stats are just about as flawed. Hollinger overvalues scoring volume, Berri overvalues rebounding. Both are interesting and bring some things to light, neither is perfect.

    Garson: Did anyone notice that around the same time Ted Nelson made his return, the esteemed Tenebrous disappeared?

    I can honestly say that I am not in the loop on what a Tenebrous is.

  103. Doug

    CRJoe: Hahaha, was thinking the same thing… It’s like tenebrous went to grammar school…

    But no seriously, THCJ & Ted are far more alike…

    I’m telling you, tenebrous is Ted’s stoner alter ego.

    You guys seen the Jimmer interview where he says NY and Utah are his top two teams…. and NY is 1A and Utah is 1B?

  104. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    What does that mean, the “team level?” You mean individual rebounds? Steals? Defensive rating?

  105. Ted Nelson

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: What does that mean, the “team level?” You mean individual rebounds? Steals? Defensive rating?

    Listen, you are such a Berri enthusiast… yet you seem to have no grasp on what he’s actually done to arrive at his stats. Read his own words on what he’s done, maybe brush up on your econometrics if necessary, and then get back to me.

  106. Ted Nelson

    What I mean by “team level” is team stats. Running a regression that assigns weights to various team stats as far as how much they contribute to team wins.

  107. JK47

    Defense is pretty much impossible to quantify, and I don’t think any statistical system will ever be able to really nail it.

    Berri’s system has Kevin Love as an elite player– as good as or better than Dwight Howard. That just isn’t true. Kevin Love’s team was 27th in defensive rating and Dwight Howard’s team was 3rd. Now, I know there are other players on the floor and all that, but it’s pretty clear to me that Dwight Howard’s impact on a basketball game is far, far greater than Kevin Love’s. They’re not comparable players. Trade those two straight up and you will see Minnesota get a lot better and Orlando get a lot worse.

    That’s not to say Berri’s stats are useless– they’re very interesting– but he clearly places too much emphasis on rebounding.

  108. Frank

    @THCJ – no statistical model using individual stats in a team game is perfect . We all know you’re a Berri-kool-aid drinker, but even you must admit that any statistical model that had Troy Murphy in the top 20 players IN THE LEAGUE is a model that has flaws. So to trash PER while not acknowledging your own pet model’s obvious miscalls is just wrong.

    Meanwhile, we all judge the draft records of GMs based on their actual picks, which of course seems like the natural thing to do. But who they draft is often just an indication of how things fall to them in the draft. For instance, let’s say Dave Berri had the #7 pick in the 2009 draft, and let’s say the top 6 picks went Blake Griffin, Ty Lawson, DeJuan Blair, Tyreke Evans, James Harden, and Ricky Rubio. Berri looks down at his rankings and sees these guys as the 5 next-highest rated (and this is what they actually were in 2009):

    Ahmad Nivins, Lester Hudson, Hasheem Thabeet, Jon Brockman, Terrence Williams

    He knows that other than Thabeet, the other guys are sort of reaches at this point, but no one wants his pick. So he picks one of them. And he gets fired the next year. Doesn’t matter that he may have ranked other players correctly – it only matters who you picked. If you make one or two wrong calls on your draft rankings and that’s who you pick, no one cares whether 25 out of the other 29 were perfect calls.

    Maybe in 2009, Donnie Walsh’s remaining best guys were Jordan Hill, then Lawson, then Blair. Wrong on Hill but right on the other 2 but we only see the wrong on Hill because that’s who was picked. Them’s the breaks.

    IMHO, the job of an NBA GM is much harder when you don’t have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

    If anything – I really hope that Donnie doesn’t fall victim to crowd-think when #17 comes up. If he LOVES Darius Morris or whoever at 17 then pick him regardless of where the mocks have him going. Maybe that’s how we got roped into Jordan Hill.

  109. Ted Nelson

    Frank: Meanwhile, we all judge the draft records of GMs based on their actual picks, which of course seems like the natural thing to do. But who they draft is often just an indication of how things fall to them in the draft.

    This is a great point. Luck is a factor in a lot of ways, including who is on the board when you pick.

    Frank: Maybe in 2009, Donnie Walsh’s remaining best guys were Jordan Hill, then Lawson, then Blair. Wrong on Hill

    I want to first say I am nitpicking here. I agree with your post overall and find it to be very strong. I don’t think Hill was really a “wrong” pick, though. It wasn’t a strong pick, but it wasn’t bad either. He’s only 24 this season and has a 13.8 PER, 0.088 WS/48. Has a good shot to be a pretty average NBA PF on his career. So far looks like an average pick to me, and I think people tend to over-exaggerate the mistake in part because their expectations were a bit unrealistic to begin with.

  110. Frank

    I love the New Ted Nelson! We agree on everything!

    (the Hill pick was just an example. he’s probably not terrible, although certainly we could’ve done better there).

  111. Tony Pena

    All this draft talk is making me dizzy…
    Anyway, how about Billups, Toney and our 17th for B.Davis and Varejao. Then buy one of CHI’s first rounders and grab Shumpert. Sign Grant Hill.
    Baron, Hill, Melo, Stat, Varejao.
    Fields, Shumpert, Walker, Extra E, Turiaf off the bench.
    Championship.

  112. mura2337

    everybody looks good in a “system” that allows people to shoot in under 7 seconds. the celtics series was probably more indicative of landry fields than the regular season because it was a half court game. pointing to his rebounding stats is dumb, because he’s a forward. he played the 3 at stanford. if we let dantoni go, which we should since he doesnt coach knicks style basketball, where does fields fit in? he’s not a starter in this league. anybody ever see that movie step brothers? where the kids are trying to force them guys to lick a white dog turd? that should be a euphamism for dantoni and walsh’s tenure. im not licking any white dog s*&t. these guys fought against trading for melo. we blew 2 top 10 picks on guys who are no longer on the team, bypassing positions of need. walsh cleared up the cap? anybody with a calculator should have been able to do the same thing. im not licking and white dog s@%t. landry fields? are you guys serious? it would be great if he played d. it would be great if he was a knock down 3pt shooter or super athletic. but hes not! on any team with talent hes a bench player at best! for heavens sake, be realistic about our team and our players. walsh made this guy untouchable in the melo trade! id take gallinari over fields any day of the week and i think that a 6’10 forward whos only real skill set is shooting the 3 is highly overrated. stop…licking….the…white…dog…s&*t!

Comments are closed.