Comparing Nick Young to Rodney Stuckey = Unfair
by Rook6980 on Dec 27, 2008 1:34 PM EST
7 comments
The Detroit Pistons and Coach Flip Saunders (and now Michael Curry) know how to develop young players.
They gave Rodney Stuckey a set role – gave him steady minutes early in the year - and advanced his minutes throughout all of last season – to the point where Stuckey was comfortable to be major part of the rotation in the playoffs.
Nick Young on the other hand, plays for Washington. Where they don’t even know how to spell D E V E L O P. Where roles and playing time are left up to chance, a roll of the dice, a sign from the Gods, or a Coach’s whim. Where, unless you are a “veteran”, your playing time could go from zero minutes one night, to 25 the next. Where, as a Rookie or young player, one mistake on the court means splinters for days or weeks.
A look at the playing time (minutes per game) given to each player in 2007-2008 is eye-opening. Just remember that Stuckey was playing behind “veteran” All-Star PG Chauncey Billups, who typically played 32-35 minutes per game…. and Nick Young was behind “veteran” DeShawn Stevenson, who averaged 31 minutes per game in 2007-08.
Stuckey:
Nov Injured
Dec 14:47
Jan 15:01
Feb 19:25
Mar 19:12
Apr 24:05
May 24:03
(see a pattern here?)
Young:
Nov 12:08
Dec 14:53
Jan 12:18
Feb 16:00
Mar 16:17
Apr 8:53
Give Nick Young a TEACHING Coach, and the minutes necessary to develop – and perhaps then you could fairly compare him to Stuckey.
If the draft picks were reversed… and Detroit had picked Nick Young, and Washington picked Stuckey – we’d all be marveling on how this Nick Young kid looks like the next coming of Kobe Bryant; and how did the Wizards get stuck with another defensive liability that is turn-over prone, and a clueless gunner?
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
0 recs |
7 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Couldn't agree more.
The Washington Wizards: providing career scoring nights for unknown opposing bench players since 2004.
by mamemimo on Dec 28, 2008 12:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Uhh....not really
First of all, Young’s minutes per game (by month) in 07-08 went like this:
Nov. 14.4
Dec. 16.2
Jan. 12.3
Feb. 16.0
Mar. 18.6
Apr. 16.8
Your numbers for Stuckey seem to be a bit off too (at least in comparison to Basketball-Reference.com)….but here’s the point:
Rodney Stuckey does many more little things, such as defense and creating for others (which are actually two huge things), that Nick Young does not do.
Thus, Stuckey has E-A-R-N-E-D more run…..plus, this year, he better fits with Curry’s philosophy of going small. It’s not like Detroit (Curry) is correlating the development of young players with just throwing them on the court. In fact, Curry has caught some heat for playing Jason Maxiell less.
Call the comparison unfair, but it seems evident to me that one guy has advanced more rapidly because he has a more well-rounded game while the other continues to be more one-dimensional.
Perhaps Young would develop more with increased minutes, but that’s a surface assumption because we are not privy to behind the scenes observation, team film sessions, and practices. Most people think that Tapscott is a reasonable man and I’d like to think that if warranted, Nick Young would see more time on the court.
Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It Dot Net
by Truth About It on Dec 28, 2008 5:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Uh - yes
I used Yahoo sports game logs for both Nick Young and Stuckey
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4294/gamelog;ylt=ArR.pLTcpzsffvCZTcEL.uZPaB4?year=2007
As you can see, Basketball Reference does not count DNP-CD in their calculations….
For comparison purposes, I DO…. and I included all DNP-CD for both Stuckey (none) and Young (7 times)…..
As for the “Creating for others” argument – That is the JOB of a Point Guard… Stuckey is listed as a PG.. and that is the position he plays most for Detroit. Nick is a SG. I would expect Stuckey to have higher assist numbers than Nick… ie: creating for others.
Young HAS developed.. His turn over rate this year is down… His usage rate is down; while keeping his efficiency up. His assists are up as well (although still not where they should be for a SG).. And he is rebounding better. I’ve posted several times that Nick’s Defense is much improved over last year (as has Prada)…
The problem is that Nick is not developing as FAST as Stuckey – and although I don’t get to sit in on all the practices and shoot arounds for each team – what I do see is that Nick Young is a better player than last year, but is not getting significantly more minutes … even though the guy ahead of him sucks… Let me repeat that last statement…. the guy ahead of Nick Young sucks.
It’s my opinion that Young’s development has been retarded by the Yo-Yo playing time doled out first by Eddie Jordan and now by Ed Tapscott.
On the other hand, Detroit played Stuckey almost 25 minutes a game for the last half of last year – and were able to develop him to the point they could trade their All-Star PG…and make him the starter.
Call the comparison unfair, but it seems evident to me that one guy has advanced more rapidly because he has a more well-rounded game while the other continues to be more one-dimensional.
And I believe that it’s more “evident” that Nick Young would have been more “well-rounded” had he been given the steady, reliable, consistent playing time that Stuckey got.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Dec 28, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a combination
Stuckey entered with more tools and, like Truth said, a better all-around game. He was an outstanding scorer in college and mostly played as a combo guard, not a point guard. Nick entered as a guard that literally couldn’t pass even at a level for most shooting guards. He was a great scorer, but his rebounding was well below par for his position as well.
But Rook’s right too, because while Stuckey should be better than Young, he shouldn’t be this much better than Young. They’re literally producing in different stratospheres right now, and a lot of that is the way Detroit rewarded the dude’s improvements. Nick’s made strides too, but hasn’t seen any reward with increased playing time. Maybe his mentality is bad, maybe he’s a bad practice player and Ed doesn’t want to reward that, but Nick has played better, and that usually results from better preparation.
Detroit’s consistently gotten big contributions out of young guys. We haven’t. There’s a reason to that beyond the individuals.
But no, the Stuckey/Young question isn’t unfair. Stuckey’s better. He started that way.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Dec 28, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
Not sure Stuckey started out better than Young. Stuckey came from a mid-major College (Eastern Washington) where he averaged almost 25 ppg -— and Young , of course, from USC where he averaged 17.5 ppg his last year.
Assuming that the NBA GM’s know their stuff, since Stuckey was picked 17th and Young 18th, I guess you could assume that Stuckey was (very slightly) better than Young…
But there’s no question that Rodney Stuckey was given more minutes, and allowed to develop. Stuckey was NOT a star from the start. The first half of the season last year, he was turning the ball over too much, and his shooting percentage was poor. It wasn’t that he played bad every game; but he was inconsistent. (does that sound familiar?) Did the Pistons sit him? NO – they gave him more minutes.
Now?
Stuckey is shooting 48% from the floor, and is the starting PG on the Pistons…
Nick Young is still fighting for consistent minutes, on one of the worst teams in the league.
I still maintain that if Dumars had picked Nick Young over Stuckey, Nick would now be a major contributor to the Pistons….. and perhaps it would have been Rip Hamilton traded rather than Billups….
I hate to go off on a separate tangent, but it may help to make my point….
Or, are all of these young players development being retarded by an Organization that values “veterans” more than youth and talent?
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Dec 29, 2008 9:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a Piston fan...
I don’t really appreciate Nick’s game in comparison to Stuckey but as a Washington DC resident and having seen how little Nick plays, he hasn’t been given a chance to develop.
I believe Young will be ok, just needs to work on his defense and spacing.
by Boney on Jan 7, 2009 8:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
How Much Better Was Stuckey Than Nick Young?
I remember that draft very well. Almost every expert and (from what I remember hearing) GM other than Joe Dumars had Nick Young ranked higher than Stuckey. Maybe Joe knew something everybody else didn’t, but Stuckey certainly wasn’t universally considered better during the draft.
In fact, based on what I heard from the Javaris Crittenton reporting, if Stuckey and not Young was available at 16, Ernie would have drafted Crittenton. Stuckey was considered a reach at 15 at the time.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jan 8, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
