Why it's dangerous to overpay Nick Young this summer
by Mike Prada on Feb 10, 2011 1:32 PM EST
in Free Agency
Email
PrintThe comments in the last thread (specifically, ones raised by DCrez) got me thinking about the future of Nick Young with this team. As everyone knows, Young is a restricted free agent this summer, at least according to the current collective bargaining rules that are likely to change. Just in the nick of time (I promise that wasn't intentional), he's come forward with his best season as a pro.
But this being the NBA, we always have to keep one eye on the future even as we enjoy the growth of a youngster in the present. So with that in mind, I wanted to lay out why I think it's dangerous to overpay Nick Young going forward.
First, let's start with DCrez's comment that got me thinking about this:
I dont get the thinking that it's ok to pay Nick $6mill, but that $8mill is somehow insanity...I dont see that kind of deal as hamstringing the team going forward. I'm not saying they definitely should pay him that much, I'm saying if they did, it's certainly not a franchise crippling move
The three-part answer below the jump.
1. Nick Young is a slightly above-average basketball player, not a building block
The biggest line of disagreement among people here stems from this fundamental question. How good is Nick Young, really? Is he someone you can hold up as a "core piece" to a future contender? If you believe he is, then anything that follows here is somewhat irrelevant, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, I just don't buy it. I say this not to demean Young's contributions, but ultimately, he's raised himself to being slightly above-average. Strip away the per-game numbers for a second, because Young can accumulate those more easily since his team has few good shot creators. Right now, Young's PER is 15.3, about league average. His true shooting percentage is 54.8 percent -- good, but not spectacular. He still isn't much of a passer, and he doesn't rebound, though I see where people come from when they say those aren't huge problems given the way Flip Saunders runs his offense. Defensively, he's become a very good on-ball defender, to his credit, but his help defense is still a bit lacking (though his teammates have bigger issues).
For a point of reference, here's a list of guys 6'3'' to 6'8'' who are in the range of Young's production (PER between 14-17, TS% above 54, usage above 20) this season (click to enlarge).
That's a list of decent players, but there aren't any future stars on there, unless you really believe in Wilson Chandler or Shannon Brown.
All this is what he is in a sample of less than a full season. Now, I'm not suggesting that all of Young's growth is unsustainable. What I am suggesting is that we're ultimately talking about him playing 50 games out of 281 like this, or, more accurately, 50 of 124 with Flip Saunders as his coach. There's reason to wonder whether some of this is an Andray Blatche-like mirage.
Take his shooting, for example. Back in December, Young's true shooting percentage was in the 58-percent range, which would obviously make him extremely valuable. Since then, though, it's fallen pretty far once defenders started focusing more on him. It's still at a decent level, but there's a big difference between great and decent, especially when you shoot as much as Young. His percentage on long two-pointers (16-23 feet) is 48 percent, well above his previous marks (40, 40, 41). A lot of that is within reason, but jumps like that can come back to earth very easily from year to year, even if all the conditions are better. If you split the difference (44-45 percent), that's still a pretty big drop for someone who takes a lot of shots from that area.
More fundamentally, the reason for Young's success is because Saunders has simplified things for him, amplifying what he does best (shoot, one-on-one defense) while lessening and accounting for what he doesn't (pass, rebound, create off the dribble). In other words, Saunders is turning him into a more limited player. For someone to pay a core guy kind of salary to a limited player means they must be great at what they do well. Young is merely good.
(And, while I hate this argument, it's still worth noting that Young is doing this all on a bad team. I say this not to demean Young's contributions, because production is production, but more because there's less of an argument about the necessity to "keep a good thing going." This is not yet a good thing).
All this is why, on my mythical ideal team, Young is an ace sixth man that plays 25-30 minutes a night and provides the second-unit scoring you need in some games.
2. Okay, fine, so he's average. What's the big deal about overpaying average players?
Because I firmly believe this is where teams run into trouble with how they manage their cap.
Let's think for a second about the NBA talent pool as one giant pyramid. When you scan the vast group of professional basketball players, what you're really doing is putting them into certain categories. Essentially, those categories are: superstars, all-stars, building blocks, decent/average players, replacement-level players and roster filler. The analytics to determine these distinctions may differ, but these are still the distinctions teams have to make. As you go down the list, the number of players in each category becomes greater. There are only a few true superstars in this league, and so on.
Now, I realize that not every single player ever is attainable at one given time. I also realize that the current cap rules give hometown teams incentives to keep their players. But there also reaches a certain point where, from a pure resources perspective, it doesn't provide much value to overpay. You have to overpay superstars and even all-stars because there are so few of them available at any given time. It's not like the Hawks can just dump Joe Johnson (an all-star) and go sign another one. Not only are there fewer all-stars period, but those teams rarely let them go. So, unless you want to replace your all-star with someone from a lower spot on the pyramid (which dramatically hurts your team), you have to overpay your all-star.
But that's not the case with guys in the decent/average range. The talent pool is so much wider, especially at a position like shooting guard. There's no need to give those guys too much money when you have many more means to find that person's replacement. Maybe the dollar cost isn't significant, but the on-court performance bump is close to non-existent. Sure, paying Joe Johnson $20 million when he's probably worth $12-13 million is a waste of more dollars than paying Nick Young $8 million when he's worth $6 million, but the difference is that $12-13 million replacement almost never exists on the open market. That $6 million replacement, though, is always there, and in fact, many of those replacements cost even less.
Sure, maybe it's not the kind of replacement that can replicate all of Young's game, and sure, it's not one who knows the system. But coaches' shelf lives are so small in this league that the "system" argument usually doesn't matter a ton. Either a new coach comes in soon with a new system, or the current coach is so good that he can teach the new guy his system quickly.
Every $2 million counts. Now, that's that much more you've saved out of your bottom line that can be used to really lock in the guys that matter, to overpay the Joe Johnson types, either in free agency or the ones you own already.
But then who replaces Nick Young?
First of all, as mentioned above, I think this is a bit of a red herring. But to go further into this, I think teams get into trouble when they think in these terms. "How do we replace our average to slightly above-average role player??" they say, causing them to overpay for those guys. What ends up happening is that you begin a downward spiral where each re-signing of average players can be more justified. That's how the Hawks end up giving Marvin Williams too much money, then paying Mike Bibby $6 million. That's how the Bucks pay Drew Gooden $6 million, trade for Corey Maggette at $10 million and give John Salmons $8 million. It's a repetitive cycle that hurts your bottom line, your salary-cap flexibility and your ability to acquire guys that truly matter. One could argue we've already started the cycle by giving Andray Blatche $7 million (though I will say that deal made sense at the time because Blatche's flashes were building-block quality, whereas Young's are not in my opinion).
But more practically, here's a list of shooting guards in the average/decent range (or maybe slightly below) that are available this summer:
- Jamal Crawford
- Arron Afflalo
- J.R. Smith
- Reggie Williams
- Shannon Brown
- Marcus Thornton
- Wilson Chandler
- Jason RIchardson
- Leandro Barbosa
- C.J. Miles
And then you also have your potential trade targets, guys like O.J. Mayo, Courtney Lee, Mo Williams, Rip Hamilton (less years) and Rudy Fernandez, as well as current or future draft picks. You can live with many of these guys while using money you may save to upgrade other positions on the roster, invest in scouting, facilities, player development -- all things that ensure that your money isn't just going to waste (i.e. curbing the "John Wall thinks the organization is cheap" worry).
237 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like Afflalo, Lee, and Wilson Chandler
that is all
I like those guys too
I hate seeing Chandler play shooting guard, though, since he really isn’t a great shooter or ball handler. He’d be a nice pickup to play small forward or as a smallball 4 for us, though.
Follow me on twitter -
http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt
by pantslessyoda1 on Feb 10, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
I really like Afflalo
I’d be willing to give him a 4 years, $30-35 million. And I’m pretty sure he can be had for less than that. Afflalo is a much more efficient shooter, has an incredibly well rounded game, and would fit well next to Wall.
you guys know that Afflalo and NY don't get along at all, right??
Going back to their days at USC/UCLA.
It’d be a HUGE slap in the face to NY if we let NY walk and then signed Afflalo.
NY’s mom calls Afflalo “All-fall-down” for his propensity to flop
by John Park Williams on Feb 10, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
We're all fairly superstitious, breathing cursed air
The last thing we want to do is create a monster…but yeah, not a particularly serious argument
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 10, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
The other issue is why would Afflao even want to sign here
unless it was because we offered him more than he was really worth? What good player that wants to win is choosing the Wizards for average money, unless it’s his only option? In which case, is the guy really any good to begin with?
This is a nice "problem" to have
That is, he’s playing much better than Ernie thought when he didn’t pick up the option.
Young would fit well here as a role player if the Wiz get a superstar forward. However, similar opportunities will be available elsewhere, so the Wiz will have to pay market value if they want to keep him. At his current pace of scoring more than 20 points per game, that will be more than $6M a year.
This is why I would advocate trying to find a trade partner now, to see if we can squeeze out some value from Nick rather than letting him go for free…even if we only get a mid-first round pick out of whatever trade package we come up with. There are going to be some decent 2-guard prospects in the mid round of this year’s draft; we could take one of those guys and let him learn behind Captain Kirk for another year.
Great article Mike...
One point on Nick’s shooting from 16-23 feet. When the Arenas trade went down, Young was shooting .574 from that range. Since then, .414.
by TheSecretWeapon on Feb 10, 2011 2:31 PM EST reply actions
NY is the player you want on your team....
if you are trying to tank.
by John Park Williams on Feb 10, 2011 2:55 PM EST reply actions
flawed argument though
Nick’s PPG would be a LOT higher if he had gotten the playing time he’s had since the trade. Instead of putting up 14 off the bench earlier in the season, he would have been starting and dropping 20+ a game.
Be fair here: we both know he would have much better numbers had he started all season long.
What’s his ppg since the trade?
by DCeee on Feb 10, 2011 3:17 PM EST via mobile reply actions
but the wiz arent winning.
mike james put up 20 points per game for the Raptors one season, and they didnt bring him back, because his shot-jacking led them to the #1 overall pick.
We always knew that NY could score. Thats not at issue. His rookie year at LALakers he put up 27 points on 10-16 shooting. He can still score. He will probably always be able to score.
But he is not a good enough scorer to make up for the rest of his game, where he is below-average at best.
by John Park Williams on Feb 10, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
He's a well above average man defender at this point.
Hard to quantify as a stat, and basically is just opinion based on the eyeball test….but he is making elite 2s work for their production, and he is hammering the streaky-to-average type 2s that used to have big games against him.
Sure it isn't
But if we start pointing towards post-Arenas production, then we need to take a comprehensive look at those stats to address everyone’s concerns
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 10, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That's precisely the one I asked Broom about that he didn't respond to with respect to a holistic view
You don’t seem to take a holistic approach to interpreting the few statistics you selected, and I believe that’s what Rook is disagreeing with. In light of the fact that the Wiz have little in the way of a defensive post presence (sorry, Javale), I would think you have to conclude that a 3.6 points per 100 possessions differential with his ability to get and exploit position pushes Nick over the line into good defender territory. Nick is able to alter shots and bother the longer SGs in the league with enough lateral quickness to stay in front of them. He hasn’t matured into a shut down defender yet. It’s easy to identify his flaws offensively, or on the glass (though I think the glass may be coming), but you don’t provide ANY statistical quantification for your posit that Nick is flawed defensively, other than a glib acknowledgement that the rest of the team is so bad at defense that Nick looks better by comparison.
I might be willing to reconsider my position, but Broom’s statistic and subsuquent analysis just didn’t hold enough water for me to take his argument too seriously without more evidence
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 10, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
And then there's the argument about "which" stats to use...
My stance is that Nick Young is a completely different player from his Rookie and 2nd years…. That essentially, his first two years were wasted by poor coaching, bad habits not corrected, inconsistent playing time, that all brought on poor confidence.
Even last year, for most of the year, he was still trying to learn how to shoot off screens (something he had never done before in his basketball career) – and become a better defender.
As his defense got better – Flip started playing him more… he earned consistent minutes – and was in a real rotation where he knew when he would play and when he would sit… Playing time was not based on whether he hit his first shot or not. His confidence grew….. Then came the Arenas trade, and for the last 27 games this year, we’ve seen a player that has averaged 21 points on efficient shooting….. He’s been a remarkably consistent scorer, with 23 of the last 27 games in double figures.
So do you choose to look at Nick Young’s career numbers? The ones where, for two years, he was lost in the wilderness? Or do you look at the last two years?
Or do you look at the PROGRESSION from the first two years, to last year, to this year, to the last 27 games?
Kevin Broom (and Mike Prada) will choose to look at Career stats… or look at a selection of stats like shooting percentages from 15-23 feet – and say things like 48% shooting from 15-23 feet is simply “not sustainable” because he has never shot that well from that distance before… Like that statement makes it a fact… that kind of shooting is “not sustainable”… period. end of discussion.
I’m sure Mike and Kevin understand that Nick is shooting better from 15-23 feet because he’s shooting coming off screens and he’s open …. as opposed to his first 2 years for instance, when he did a lot of dribbling to get himself free and shot a ton of contested mid-range 2 point shots…. Flip Saunders says the difference between a contested shot and an open shot is somewhere between 5-7% …
Well – While Nick was shooting contested jumpers his first two years in the League – his rate from 15-23 feet was 40%-41%…. This year Nick is shooting more open jumpers coming off screens, and in catch-and-shoot situations, and his rate from 15-23 feet is 48%…. seems simple to me… Nick is better at shooting open jumpers than he is at shooting contested jumpers… by about 7% – - – - – but that’s “not sustainable”….? Because….. well….. because it is!!!!
Or in the case of Kevin Broom – he’ll dig up a stat from a source that not very many people have even heard of – make a list of comparable players to Nick Young’s stats that were spit out by this magical statistical program (probably based on career numbers) – and point to that and say – “see, Nick is not a core piece”….
I may be wrong…. as a matter of fact, when scouting players, I definitely don’t have a 100% track record… although, if there is ONE thing I can say that I do well – it’s evaluating players strengths and weaknesses….. But perhaps Nick Young is fooling me with his efficient shooting – and good effort on defense… and his slight increases in rebound rate and assist rate since he became a starter… Maybe Nick has so blinded me to his faults, that I read the smallest increases in his productivity, or the nice pass, or huge rebound… and say “see, Nick is good”…. Maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe I see things in the games that Nick just never did before (nice assist to Javale McGee, ripping a rebound down in traffic, taking a charge, or chasing down a player from behind for a block) – things that NEVER happened before…. and I see them as perhaps a player starting to “get it”… starting to put it together…. starting to get a glimmer of basketball IQ… to go along with his obvious athletic and physical attributes and his skills….. and maybe I’m wrong… and it’s just Nick fooling me (like Blatche did……)
Because I respect Mike and Kevin, I have doubts about Nick and whether he can be a “core” piece (whatever that means)… Is it madness to pay Nick $40 Million to keep him as a Wizard, playing next to John Wall for the next 5 years? Perhaps they see something in the stats that I don’t… Maybe their stats can look underneath the mask of good shooting and solid defense to see a remarkably flawed player that can’t get any better than he is right now. Maybe it’s better to have a Wilson Chandler or a Shannon Brown play next to John Wall…
Nah – I still believe…. Go Nick.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Nick's scoring 21pts/night as a starter.
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems we will manage to keep him.
Agreed
I think Mike’s case for not overpaying role players is a good one, and I think it’s pretty likely that if we don’t overpay for Nick, some other team will.
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
The Wizards are a lousy team
so I don’t see Grunfeld locking himself into contracts with players on a losing team unless those contracts are trade friendly. Do he and Saunders really believe that the team is a championship caliber team? I see Grunfeld keeping his payroll down and his options open. I can see him letting Young go and then draft another shooting guard and devote money to the 3-5 players.I see this team rebuilding through this draft and that will be the end of the rebuilding through the draft era. After next season, 21 mil becomes available just by getting out of the Lewis and Hinrich contracts. I see the possibility, that by the end of next season, Wall being the only starter left on this team.
Blatche's deal has burned Grunfeld badly
Could cost him his job eventually….that alone may be a big enough factor to where he is hesitant to trust Nick’s current production
pER ignores defense.
If you believe nick Young’s defense is good + average offensive production then hens a better player than those you list.
The PER of the opposing SG....
…when Young is on the floor is under 11. That implies great D.
Hey izman
Where do you get the Opponent’s PER when a particular player is on the court?
Which stat site is that on?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
82games
Says opposing SGs have a 10.6 PER with Nick in the game, that’s terrific defense. Opposing SFs a 12.6 when Nick is at the 3. Those are “per48” so I dont know if that skews things….but I hadnt seen those and they’re great numbers.
Wes Mathews opponents have a 19.2 PER at SG and a 15.7 PER at SF
Thanks for the shout out!
But again I think his defense is being undervalued. Rudy Fernandez is nowhere near the player Nick is now, not even close. Neither is JR Smith, nor several of the others. Further, just how much less would they really cost? That’s key too, if you arent saving that much money…is it really worth it to break up the budding tandem we are starting to see between Wall and Nick? Just to save $1.5mill/yr or something? Or is it better to spend it on the possibility that Young and Wall become a lethal backcourt?
Also, what do you think about the point that a contract to retain him isnt going to be an immovable object? The Bucks traded for Maggette afterall. Nick can score the basketball like few others, that we can agree on….would it really be that hard to trade him when he is 29 and has 2yrs/$16mill on his deal?
That's the one thing I forgot to mentioned
The problem with that logic is you’ve now turned an asset into a liability. Even if you move that contract, you’re not moving it from a position of strength, and unless you strike lightning in a bottle, you have to move that contract for a contract or a series of contracts that equal roughly the same thing, which just means you now have to think about the worse players you get.
Whereas, if you move him before he gets paid, suddenly that’s the other teams’ problem.
But the problem with that logic is the assumption he becomes a liability.
I’m saying you’ll be able to move him if you need to, and best case scenario, you dont want to and are thrilled to have him at $8mill/yr. IMO, we have to be competitive going into Wall’s 3rd year or he’s taking his talents elsewhere (CBA aside). If we have a good thing going with Wall/NY…I dont see the smarts in breaking it up because we are already grossly overpaying Rashard (for instance).
The more I read thoughts on this, the more I think the crux of the issue is what folks think of his defense. That makes or breaks his value IMO
not necessarily
i don’t like nick because his lack of understanding of team concepts like passing. like mike wrote, we are really simplifying the offense and riding his strengths. not sure you can do that if you’re actually a good team.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
It's a liability from an asset management perspective
When you pay $8 million for a guy, either he’s someone you don’t want to trade anyway (i.e. he’s underpaid) or he’s not someone with much value until the end of his contract. So from a trade perspective, there’s no upside. If you unload him, you’re unloading him because you made a mistake signing him.
Movement
A lot of those hypothetically comparable guys are getting their shots by spotting up. Spot up shooters are nice, but they don’t put that much pressure on the defense. A spot up shooter is defended by one man, except occasionally when the defender leaves him alone to give help defense . Usually one defender, occasionally zero defender- on average, let’s say it takes 0.9 defenders to stop a spot up shooter.
In contrast, Nick is doing a lot of his scoring on the move, coming off screens. In the instant when Nick comes off a screen, his man can’t get position to defend him. Help defense is required. Nick usually has the attention of one guy, except sometimes when he has the attention of two- on average, let’s say it takes 1.1 defenders to stop Nick.
1.1 > 0.9. That’s a huge difference. That difference can allow John Wall to get a half step further down the lane before the weak side defender can rotate, or allow JaVale McGee to get inside offensive rebounding position, or allow Seraphin to establish deeper post position, etc., etc.
They're not just standing out behind the three point line and waiting.
They move into open space, stop and wait for a second, move into open space, stop and wait for another second, etc.
Nick, on the other hand, never stops moving, except for two split seconds:
The first instance is just after he catches the ball. He stops moving for an instant as he stops on a dime behind a screen.
From there, he elevates and launches a shot at the top of his jump. That split second at the top of his jump is his second split second of not moving.
Again, I'd watch more of Courtney Lee, Shannon Brown and Fernandez in particular
They don’t just stand around – Lee runs off a lot of high-low action in Houston’s high-post offense, Brown runs off lots of cuts in the Triangle and the Blazers set a lot of baseline screens for Rudy.
There's only a bare handful of players who have reminded me of Reggie Miller, and Nick is one of them
Lee, Brown, and Fernandez have never given me that vibe. Dunno, maybe it’s a usage rate thing.
Off the ball
Nick is also doing most of his damage without the ball. A lot of those hypothetically comparable guys are getting their shots by iso-ing up off the dribble. I’d rather keep the ball in John Wall’s hands as much as possible.
That's why I dont care about the assists
and also because Dray’s abysmal season contributes to lower assists.
But I want the ball in Wall’s hands, and Young is the perfect compliment to that. Doesnt need the ball nor particularly want it, just catch, see what he can, reset to Wall if there’s nothing there.
I don't disagree with any of this, really
Except that I think Nick’s going to be worth the money of a 5 year, 40 million dollar deal…to say that he’s just slightly above average when opposing team’s gameplans are ‘stop Nick Young from shooting’ just doesn’t feel right.
There’s no easy way to ask this: what about the Allen Iverson phenomena? Namely, is Nick’s expanding offensive game opening things up for our other guys? Our perimeter shooting is so poor it’s hard to tell…more time for Cartier might be instructive…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 10, 2011 4:45 PM EST reply actions
to say that he’s just slightly above average when opposing team’s gameplans are ‘stop Nick Young from shooting’ just doesn’t feel right.
That’s because his teammates are much worse than “slightly above average.” Gotta gameplan to stop somebody.
but
the point remains…. Nick is still productive and efficient when the other team is geared to stop him…
How much more productive and efficient would Nick be if the other 4 guys on the court were better – MUCH better?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Whoops-- But they would be, in theory, better shots, right?
So would his production really drop that much? Shooting a lot of open jumpers?
Yes
Unless, Mike, you feel freelancing is becoming ingrained…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Feb 10, 2011 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
If no one else offers Nick $8 million...
We could come in with a four-year qualifying offer slightly above $6 million and peaking at $7.5… a total package around $27-28 million…
However, I feel Nick Young is worth more if need be, right on up to the $8 mil ceiling that seems to strike fiscal fear here.
Also, it is dangerous reasoning to assume that what we are seeing from Nick now is akin to what we saw from Dray last year. These are two very different men, you cannot extrapolate from one to the other. Nick is an ideal two-guard next to Wall, and there is no one on the list you cite that will do the job over the next four years that Nick will do. Jason Richardson four or five years ago maybe, but that’s it. When Jamal Crawford was available a few years back and people like me proposed him as a possible alternative here, the idea was dismissed by everyone out of hand… one dimensional, no defense, blah blah.
I dont think NY will do us any favors.
When Ernie decided not to pick up the option, then went out and got Kirk while saying Nick would have to pick up scrap minutes at SF….that was probably that as far as Young feeling any desire to stay. Not that EG should have done differently, just that now it’s time for the open market and to see how other GMs appreciate what he brings.
I agree that he will probably sign with someone for at least 5 yrs /40 mil – and I’ll bet 5 yrs/50 mil will be closer to the truth. I’m scared of re-signing him, for one reason as Prada pointed out, Nick just hasn’t proven his consistency yet. He’s not a proven commodity in the same way that Jason Richardson and Jamal Crawford are. I’d feel much more secure with either one of those two guys, if the GM makes the business decision to pay our 2 guard significantly more than the MLE. Which is what we’re discussing. My personal preference would be to plug in a newer, younger guy, and see how he develops.
right, as fans we overvalue our own players
nick young to me doesn’t pass the pervis ellison harvey grant test. those guys were average players on bad teams asked to do more than they would elsewhere. i’ll reiterate my point about hinrich – he at least proved he can be a key guy on a good team. i’m not ready to say nick young can be a key guy on a good team.
it all comes down to whether you are enamored with his game. i’m not. others are. we’ll see whether mgmt and other gms around the league are.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Hinrich is playing more like Nick every game.
Last night is a great example, he comes in takes a ton of shots. No playmaking at all, just dribble, shoot, maybe one pass. I’m not saying that’s bad, just that I certainly dont see a complex offense being run when Kirk is out there only to have it simplify for Young’s sake.
IMO, the biggest change in offense this season has been the switch from Dray to Nick as primary scoring option
Isn't this the beauty of restricted free agency?
The question isn’t what we should offer Young; it’s whether we should match a crazy offer if/when he gets one.
Will someone offer him more than the MLE? I think it could happen. Sure, his statistics point to an average to slightly above average SG, but the film shows him to be scary dominant at times. it also shows the good defense that doesn’t show up in the numbers. Someone may very well offer him $8 million/year or more.
If that does happen, we’ll have to think long and hard before matching. I’m not sure where I fall on this, but I will say $8 million/year doesn’t sound too high. As deficient a rebounder and passer as Nick is, we’ve seen him take over games; it’s a rare talent that should be valued. And besides, we could overpay for Young, still have him come off the bench, and start a cheaper SG who rebounds and plays defense like a mad-man a la Landry Fields.
If the question is should we forestall the whole free agency thing by offering NY a ridiculous contract, the answer is “no.”
yeah
he might be the etan thomas of 2011
by DarrellWalkerFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
The whole thing with off guards intrigues me actually...
Dallas starts Stevenson, who was washed up here. Then relies on an undersized Jason Terry for the major minutes and numbers,
Chicago paid long term money to Hinrich but let Gordon (who I think is a bit better scorer than Nick but no match phsyically) go to Detroit for substantial money and buyer’s remorse, plus the whole Rip Hamilton saga…
Then there are the Knicks who are making a go with Landry Fields, who had an absoultely terrible game against the Clips last night and is probably maxed out at his potential now.
The Thunder make to with the Thabo/Harden combo. And the Bulls use the cerberus of Bogans, Brewer and Korver, none of whom could carry Ben Gordon or Nick Young’s jockstrap.
Not every 2-guard can be Kobe or DWade, and those who come close but fall short (McGrady, Carter) wind up almost universally reviled.
Ray Allen is a demigod in this universe,
I think some of the people on this site would be more comfortable if Nick was having a dud season this year, but he isn’t. He is here, he is producing, and if last night is not far off his norm we would be nuts not to keep him at anything up to 8 mil… But perhaps let him test the market first…
Hey might as well put EG to the test again!
by khrabb on Feb 10, 2011 5:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Jason Terry makes $10mill/yr or something
And the Mavs dont seem to have trouble signing whomever they need, regardless of how often they overpay. Getting the arena filled with paying customers on a nightly basis allows for that, and is Ted’s foremost goal.
I am getting very lost....
First, can you clarify?
You appear to be using PER and TS as two guide posts for quality. Accepting that? Can you explain this?
Wes Matthews got 5-years, $33 million – and Young is much better…..
The market has already been set…. I believe regardless of what happens with the new CBA….
to which you replied?
but yet….
Nick Young PER = 15.3 Wes Matthews = 15.2.
So you think Matthews is paid correctly, but the Wizards shouldn’t pay him a commensurate amount because Young isn’t as good. Even though using your own selected statistic, Young is better. Help me understand your position.
Next, is it your contention that these players are better “core”, to use your term, building blocks for the long term plan and better values?
O.J. Mayo, Courtney Lee, Mo Williams, Rip Hamilton (less years) and Rudy Fernandez,
Really? That is a tough one to swallow. I wouldn’t take any of them before Nick Young. Not one.
And which of the FA’s outside of Affalo would you prefer over Nick at the same price?
Third, what is your rationale for telling Ted L. to lose all credibility by shedding one of his core principles due to a statistical analysis showing the one player may be worth 500k or 1M more?
5. Be patient with young players– throw them in the pool to see if they can swim. Believe in them. Show them loyalty. Re-sign the best young players to long term high priced deals. Show the players you are very loyal to them as compared to free agents who achieved highly for another team.
So in your first big chance, go ahead a show everyone you don’t believe in your own core principles?
Finally, why are we discussing a trade for a SG? Am I crazy for thinking that any player of value should be traded to address current gaps (i.e inside presence on offense and defense), not ones that we decide to create due to calculations in spreadsheets?
Moneyball worked ok, but how many championships did it win?
I think we are missing the forest from the trees. We have much bigger issues than Nick Young. Why are we focusing on creating a new one?
If Nick Young demands some ridiculous amount, send him out of town. Otherwise, to have a scorer, who is complimentary to the face of the team (Wall) without a conflict, and decide to gamble on finding another similar player who may want to be “the Man” (Mayo), doesn’t seem very wise to me.
But then again, I could be wrong.
by DavidDunn on Feb 10, 2011 5:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Matthews has the same PER as Nick Young on a better team playing better team defense displaying better shot selection and scoring more efficiently
That’s why Matthews is better than Nick Young – not because of PER. But realistically, they’re in the same bracket. Would you give Wes Matthews a dime more than he currently makes?
And respectfully, you’re completely missing the point with those comparables. NONE of those guys are building blocks, Young included. The reason they’re brought up is that they are in the same bracket, or perhaps slightly below (indeed, Chandler, Brown, Crawford, Matthews, etc are on that very chart). The point is that downgrading from Nick Young to, say, Reggie Williams or Shannon Brown (really, the specific player doesn’t matter) is relatively insignificant with respect to their on-court value and does make a difference in payroll.
You scoff at it as “Moneyball,” but that shows a lack of understanding about team building. This isn’t a sport where you have an unlimited pile of money that you can give to anyone, especially with a hard cap pending. This is a sport where the best teams throw their money at their best guys and treat those people in that pool of “average to decent” as fairly disposable. Just think about all the guys the Spurs cycled around the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili trio. That allowed them to maintain cap flexibility and not have their ability to improve their roster hamstrung.
You act as if this is creating a new hole. In reality, this has to be spoken more fundamentally. There is exactly one player on the roster in the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili mode, and it isn’t Nick Young (again, if you disagree, and you think Young is in the Eric Gordon/Ginobili/JJ/Ray Allen/ group or has a legit chance to get there, then this conversation is pretty moot). The Wizards need to find that player at the top of the draft for this whole strategy to work. To maintain all ability to build around that future core, (ESPECIALLY in an area where a hard cap is possibly coming – when there are no cap exceptions to add talent), you have to be careful how much you give average to slightly above-average talent.
We are talking past each other...
I think we are talking past each other.
But realistically, they’re in the same bracket. Would you give Wes Matthews a dime more than he currently makes?
My point is that as opposed to simply looking at a pure calculation, you have to account for what your team’s plan is. If you want to build morale, a culture that a good work ethic and improvement are rewarded, and that people should want to come to Washington, then I don’t think paying an extra 500k – 1M is out of bounds. It would be different if we were making runs at major FAs down the line like Melo or Chris Paul, but we are not. So you have to take what the team is trying to do into account. Not just “run the numbers”.
And respectfully, you’re completely missing the point with those comparables. NONE of those guys are building blocks, Young included.
You scoff at it as "Moneyball," but that shows a lack of understanding about team building. This isn’t a sport where you have an unlimited pile of money that you can give to anyone, especially with a hard cap pending.
Actually these points go together. Your definition of “team building” is apparently different than the owner’s and mine to an extent. I don’t see team building as an endless search for your big three, and dumping people until you find them. I see it as building a team to find your big three, and then moving into a mode of holding on to it.
You act as if this is creating a new hole. In reality, this has to be spoken more fundamentally. There is exactly one player on the roster in the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili mode, and it isn’t Nick Young (again, if you disagree, and you think Young is in the Eric Gordon/Ginobili/JJ/Ray Allen/ group or has a legit chance to get there, then this conversation is pretty moot). The Wizards need to find that player at the top of the draft for this whole strategy to work
So if I understand your plan correctly, it is drop players with potential because it isn’t clear that they will be a top five player, in the hope that you stay in the lottery for a few years, and hope you don’t draft Greg Oden, Evan Turner, or Ricky Rubio. Because you have to keep money in petty cash in case you stumble onto your “Big Three” so you can pay to keep them 5 years down the road.
If that is the case, may I ask how you intend to hold on to your “Big One” while your team is constantly in the lottery, on 0-25 road losing streaks?
Confidence comes with winning. Fans come to games because of winning. Buzz starts because of winning. Free Agents make 50-50 decisions based on winning (and women and weather, but that is a another story :) ). While we are waiting for the next MJ to land in our laps, I don’t see why we should simply languish in the gutter until that happens. Your first bullet said “Nick Young is a slightly above-average basketball player, not a building block”. The difference between us is that apparently you believe that a languishing team should shuffle players around until they find exclusively building blocks, while I believe it is ok to slightly overpay “above average” players if necessary, to keep franchise players happy and create a culture of winning. Especially when you have no chance of bringing in FAs. I don’t say that in the sense that you are wrong and I right, or to say your PoV is invalid. I just have a different opinion, and that is fine.
Just think about all the guys the Spurs cycled around the Duncan/Parker/Ginobili trio. That allowed them to maintain cap flexibility and not have their ability to improve their roster hamstrung.
May I ask if you would have made the same argument about Rip Hamilton in 2002. Comparable numbers, comparable belief that he was only above average on a bad team at the time.
Seems to have worked out ok for Detroit.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. I will see your Spurs analogy and call you with the Pistons. Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace…(lots of slightly above average guys there who happened to find a way to become significantly above average during their second contracts…funny how all but one played for a certain team at one time.).
I am not questioning your numbers. I am not question the legitimacy of your argument. I am not arguing to give Nick Young a blank check. What I am questioning is the argument that you have to burn the village to save it because that is what the “book” says.
I believe we do have a potential top ten SG in our hands based on the growth that I have seen. I question letting that go due to a strict numbers game that doesn’t have a long term impact on a team that is at least 3-4 years away from seriously contending at a minimum. I would prefer to have pieces around Wall and this year’s lottery pick to build a winning culture, to build a program, to give those two a belief that they are growing. Otherwise, we will stay in a destructive cycle while watching others pass us by.
With that hard cap, will also likely even more stringent rookie caps. So we don’t have to worry about the money issue likely until NY’s next contract is up. If you are worried, limit it to 4 years. But I just don’t see the purpose of essentially telling the city and team, we traded Gil to go young, but the player who stepped up the most, we booted him because our calculations said he wasn’t worth another 500K per year. I seriously worry about the precedent.
If I ran the numbers, I could argue that the Steelers should dump Ben Rothelisberger and dump him unceremoniously. Is NY Big Ben? Of course, not. But it proves that statistics alone can’t be used as the pure basis of salary evaluation.
And by the way...I used the PER stat because
you raised it as one of the two key criteria…my point of view on Young goes beyond those statistics. I also disagree with you on defense. But that is an argument for another day.
Per DCRez above
Says opposing SGs have a 10.6 PER with Nick in the game, that’s terrific defense. Opposing SFs a 12.6 when Nick is at the 3. Those are "per48" so I dont know if that skews things….but I hadnt seen those and they’re great numbers.
Wes Mathews opponents have a 19.2 PER at SG and a 15.7 PER at SF
I wonder what the basis is for assuming Matthews plays better team defense than Nick as well.
That stat kinda shocked me
I’ve thought Nick was playing really good man defense this season…but a 10.6 PER on the opposing SG? That is awesome. Maybe it’s a sketchy stat, dont know, but that 10.6 number is better than the likes of DWade and KBogans
Where did the stat come from?
do you have a link?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Because it sounds too good to be true....
I can believe Nick is holding opposing SG’s to a below average PER, but 10.6 is way low…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Wow....
That’s really hard to believe…
And further down the page, it says the Wizards are 3.6 points better (per 100 possessions) defensively when Nick is on the court…
According to those numbers on 82games – Young is better than Hinrich defending Shooting Guards – which by my eye when I’m watching the games, is not the case… Those Nick Young opponent PER stats are also better than Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Rajon Rondo and Thabo Sefolosha – all of those players are “All-Defensive” team….
So I wouldn’t put too much stock in those stats…. Nick is good on Defense – but not THAT good…. not even close….. (yet)…
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Hey - but don't let your eyes fool you....
The stats say that Nick Young is a better defender than Kobe Bryant….. WAY better….. according to 82games… and using PER as the criteria……
right Mike and Kevin?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Nick is much better on SGs than Kirk
IMO, that’s been pretty clear all season. Also doesnt surprise me to see that both Wall and Kirk have lower PERs than opposing PGs.
But that stat is basically a man defense stat…so Nick could play great man D and lousy help/team D and still look good on opponent PER.
so Nick could play great man D and lousy help/team D and still look good on opponent PER.
How do you define help/team Defense for a Shooting Guard?
I get it that your Center and/or PF should help out when a guard gets beat – and on Pick-and-roll defense….
but how exactly do you define good help defense from a perimeter player like your PG or SG – other than doubling down on a big man in the post….
If you keep your opponent from driving into the lane – and you contest his shots… and you don’t allow him to cleanly get around screens for open shots… and you keep your opponent shooting a poor percentage … and you take charges… and block shots… and chase down fast breaks… and don’t foul excessively – how exactly does that hurt the “team” defense?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Like
I’m really confused about this whole “help” defense thing….
Nick Young, or Cartier Martin, or John Wall should “help” JaVale McGee from being scored on over and over again in the post?
Should they be gambling for steals? (like Caron Butler)? Is that team defense?
Seems to me that if EVERY player on your team kept his opponent from driving…. contested shots…. and didn’t foul a lot – your team defense should be GREAT – and there would be no need for “help” defense….
The only time I ever heard “help” when I was playing defense is when one of my teammates got beat by his man….. Help… help!!
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
of course they should
It’s foolhardy to think Mcgee will stop DHoward 1-on-1. Just watching the Cs-Lakers tonight you see wings collapsing on the post all the time.
Folks blame our bigs all the time for “layup lines”…well, that happens when our guards don’t stop opposition guards from driving.
you see wings collapsing on the post all the time.
Ah yes – the old Eddie Jordan defense…. “Defend the rim”… collapse all 5 guys into the paint…. and allow the other team to rain threes down all night long…
I remember it well..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Ah , memories....
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I hate the floating rhombozodial pyramid scheme zone
Everybody looks a step slow as they think about what they should be doing, would much rather see more man coverage
Yeah - but who knows...
As the Wizards young guys get used to playing it – it should become second nature….
Ball moves here, I move there…. Better yet, anticipating movement…. as they get more playing time, and know teams and players tendencies – they will move BEFORE the ball moves…. BEFORE the play starts… cutting off the lanes, shutting down the play before it starts…
Once it becomes second nature, perhaps the zone will actually work – because as it is now – those hesitations while the players try to think where they’re supposed to be are leaving openings in the zone…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I predict it becomes second nature right before
Flip goes elsewhere and a new system is implemented. ;)
It's not realistic with screening
If every guy only worries about his own guy, the team defense would be crap. A guard can’t stop a ball handler from driving (especially with the hand check rules now) if he gets hung up on a screen that no one warned him about. Even then, it’s not easy to get through it on a solid screen. Or on an illegal moving screen that never seems to get called on our opponents.
If Nick gets screened off and Kirk picks up his man
that will stop the opposing SG from scoring, but Nick (as the SG) gets “credit” for it. Conversely if Nick does nothing but focus in on his man, it hurts others “opponents PER”
Wow - yeah - I see that a lot...
Nick getting screened, and his teammates shutting down his man…… I see Nick’s poor defense being propped up by the team’s superior “help” defense – - – NOT
What I see mostly is Nick Young contesting the opponent’s Shooting Guard’s shots… fighting around screens… taking charges… blocking shots.. and generally making life miserable for the likes of Andre Iguodala, Dwyane Wade and others….
Of course, when Flip goes into his trapezoidal… uh…………. semi-paranoidal………..uh……… whatever. ZONE… then all bets are off…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I've said all along Nick is playing serious D this season.
I’m just theorizing on what would make opponents PERs so low, 10.6 seems TOO low
it IS too low...
That stat is bogus… has to be…
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I dont think the stat itself is bogus
Nick’s absurdly low number may be some kind of anomaly…but Kobe and Wade are at around 12, while guys like Monta and Curry are 20 and 17. That fits with what you would expect…Nick’s 10.6 may be artificially low for some reason, but there is no doubt it indicates he is playing stout defense this season
Maybe he's concentrating too hard on stopping his own man
And not helping stop other players. Finding the right balance between sticking to his man vs helping out is a big, big part of what is called basketball IQ, which is not Nick’s strength.
Yeah, you really do have to take that stat with a grain of salt
It’s cool and interesting and all, and I check the 82games stats a lot.
But, it basically gives whoever plays a position credit/blame for whoever plays the same position for the opponent. That’s a problem with switches, with non-traditional defensive assignments (like if Flip has Nick or Kirk take the ball handler to hide John on a less capable SG), with help defense. 82games also isn’t always great about who gets assigned to what position. Kirk used to have that issue a lot in 3 guard sets with the Bulls – it would switch Ben Gordon to SF and assign Kirk at SG since Kirk was a PG/SG and Ben just an SG.
So basically, it’s interesting, but not exactly precise in its calculations. (And I’m not blaming 82games – you’d have to track every possession of every game to be more accurate.)
Yeah but even so...
The stat is saying that WHOEVER is guarding the SG, whether it’s Nick, or if it’s Hinrich on a switch, or if Nick gets beat and JaVale has to cover… that the opponent has a PER of only 10.6
That’s crazy – it’s WRONG no matter how you try to defense it away – - – even if they were looking at the wrong player half the time… NO ONE on the Wizards is holding the opponent to 10.6 PER….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
There are major issues with splitting it up by position
Those splits also say Nick has a 50 PER at PG, while the opponent has a 0. Of course, he played how many minutes there? Trevor has a negative net PER everywhere except center.
Heck, that bastion of SG defense, Kyle Korver, has an opponent PER of 10.4.
It is interesting to see what they are trying to do, and it can be a fun stat to think about, but when you think about the difficulty of tracking this with all the lineup changes for both teams, plus being strictly by position, you can see how it’s impossible to rely on it.
It’s not WRONG – it’s a formula. Stats can’t be WRONG – but they can be useless, and they can be misinterpreted, and they can be cherry-picked.
Korver plays 20mins on the 2nd best defensive team
in the nba…opponents in general dont score on the Bulls. Whether it’s due to help D or whatever. He’s also facing backups much of the time.
For Young’s number to be so low given he plays big minutes on a poor defensive team can’t be completely written off as a bad stat IMO.
Sounds like JaVale's PER suddenly.
Hence the interpretation issue.
The point is that you have to be very careful with any stat, especially one that produces odd results. You can’t attribute Korver’s to his teammates or the opponent in one breath then turn around and assure people that Nick’s is all about him and his defensive prowess – without also acknowledging that this stat needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.
Fortunately, there are other pieces of evidence for use in evaluating defense.
PER itself isnt that much different
Earl Borgans has a significantly higher PER than John Wall…uh oh, we should have kept him? ;)
I’m just not seeing where PER is this foundational stat, but opponent PER should be tossed out- mainly because it seems to indicate Nick is a terrific man defender.
Because offensive PER is much, much more direct
Since it’s minutes based, it’s not at all unusual for a lower minute guy to have a higher PER than a high minute guy. Where people screw up is in using it to directly measure players against each other without considering any other information. John’s is low-ish because he’s incredibly inefficient and doesn’t score a ton when adjusted for minutes. Those things are directly related to what John does on the court.
Opponent PER is so much more indirect because it is trying to attribute what an offensive player on the other side has done to a defender. That involves more nuance, more guess work, and more chance for error. If, say, Kobe scores, we know exactly what that means for his PER. But for opponent PER, that will depend on who else was on the floor for the Lakers and who was on the floor for the Wizards – and even then we’re assigning “blame” based on a formula rather than on an analysis of exactly where the breakdown occurred.
PER is used so prominently because it combines a lot of information into a single number that (theoretically) allows for a comparison of players across playing time and position. I absolutely think it gets overused – not everyone understands what it really does and what its weaknesses are.
And most significantly, I did not and don’t think anyone else has said opponent PER is problematic because it shows Nick is a good defender. I happen to think he’s a very good defender. You just can’t hang an argument that he is is on opponent PER. It’s an interesting piece to bring up, but it’s too interpretive a stat to use as a key piece of evidence.
Wow - sorry to go on so
I spent a lot of money and effort in graduate stats courses, and now I seem to feel entitled to get all soap-boxy.
Short version: not all stats are created equal.
i hadnt seen it til tonight
but it confirms what my eyes have told me all season, John and Kirk get beat by their man and Nick doesnt….so i’d say grain of salt is a little harsh on it IMO
but all the stats are iffy of course
Well that stat should have a mountain of salt with it….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
seems like PER is considered important
until it’s noted that Mcgee has the highest PER on the team…
It's not a problem with the stat in McGee's case
It’s that people forget sometimes that PER is minutes-based. McGee does a lot of good statistical things when he’s on the floor. PER isn’t going to address the issues that are keeping JaVale off the floor (whether you believe those issues stem from coach or player).
And Nick has high character
He has never gotten in trouble. That fits with Ted’s “no knucklehead” policy (except Blatche)
The problem on the team is the front court.
Basically, its bad. Why pour money into a shooting guard when the team can draft one and then use the money to rebuild the front court? This team needs a vertran front court that can get the job done. watching McGee and Blatche struggling the way they do drives me crazy.Lets put money into players like Perkins and Landry and put them with Lewis. I would rather see that then Young and Yi. And certainly more than Blatche and McGee.
Sorry
I was on my out and forgot to hit the reply
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
In what round?
Do you plan on drafting an SG with our lottery pick? I know you don’t…
So you are saying dump a guy and hope you hit an Arenas early second round, with Grunfeld at the helm?
First 3 SG picked last year:
Evan Turner
Xavier Henry
James Anderson?
You trust Ernie more than I do…
I would stick with NY and see if we can address some of these big gaping holes…but that is just me…
What about a player like Harrison Barnes?
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Barnes will be a SF in the NBA...
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Offensively he could work,....
But he would be torn up by NBA starting shooting guards on Defense….
Barnes has good, but not elite lateral quickness – good enough for SF, not good enough for SG…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
and you think nick young has elite lateral quickness?
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
just about as good as it gets at his size/length
physically he’s upper echelon
Wade has elite lateral quickness
Young gets beat by players and I have seen it many times. He is in no way an elite defender. he can play man to man and I do not agree that Barnes is necessarily a SF, by the way. I’ve watched enough of Barnes to believe he can be a 2 guy. Just as I was convinced that Booker could be a 3. Nor do i believe in pouring money into the 2 guard on a teach that may or may not win 20 games this season. What this teams needs are front court players and that is where the team needs to put its money. To replace 20 points can also come from preventing the other team from scoring those 20 points.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think Nick is just about as quick laterally
In fact what seems to surprise the likes of Kobe, Wade, Joe Johnson is the degree to which they have no clear physical advantage over him. That’s just what I see anyway.
If Nick had Wade’s handle, he would be a devastating player..he’s never going to have that handle tho
Young has a quicker 1st step than Wade
but he does not move side to side as well as Wade. He can defend Wade because Wade depends on that forward 1st step and that is to Youngs advantage. But Wade simply moves better than Young laterally. That is why Wade is the better overall defender.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know if it is quicker.
TNT should've treated Lebron's return to Cleveland game like 2k11 and cut the game off after the Cavs were down by 30. lol
I think it is
In fact, i know it is. I watched Young defend Wade a couple of seasons and I knew Young could give Wade fits. Wades first step isn’t as good as you would think for a player of his caliber, but if he beats on that 1st step, you are toast. He could not beat Young on that 1st step so he resorted to fall away jumpers which is again to Youngs advanatge because Young is taller than Wade. I think part of it has to do with Wades game. Unlike other players, he likes to get close to the defenders as other players prefer to stand a few steps back. When players can put a couple of steps between themselves and Young and have a pretty good 1st step, as long as there is enough room between them and the baseline, they get around Young because he does does not move so well laterally and he needs to at this point to keep the player in front of him. He gets beat quite often that way. Like most Wiz, he moves forward and backward, just not side to side.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 7:39 PM EST up reply actions
Who has cap space this summer, anyway?
Do the teams with enough space need a SG?
And are they willing to tie up a big part of their cap space for a week (or whatever the time period is) during a critical part of the free agent signing period on a risky offer to a restricted free agent?
Personally, this is why I think Young stays anyway
I don’t think he gets $8 million/year. I’m guessing he won’t get an offer over the MLE, and we keep him on something like a four-year, $20-22 million deal. All I’m saying is if that offer does come, jump ship.
Wait a second....is the argument about whether
Nick is worth 8 million a year?
I thought you were saying he wasn’t even worth the MLE?
Do you think he is worth 5.5? Or is that just what you think he will get?
If so, my point is exactly that if he demanded 6 – 6.5 it is worth the short term gain, even if he is only worth 5.5 by the books. Maybe we really are talking past each other…
MLE = $5.765 million
So a 4-year MLE deal (assuming NO increases) would be $23.0 Million…
A standard 4-year MLE deal with standard 10.5% raises (most NBA contracts have these raises built in – and I would expect Nick Young’s agent to demand it) would be $26.5 Million
A standard 5-year deal, starting at $6.5 Million (the number I think the Wizards can afford, and that Nick Young will accept) would be $38 Million
So when Mike proposes 4-years, 20-22 Million, he is asking Nick to take less than League average….. (MLE)….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I agree if Young comes in relatively cheap
but would you pay 8 mil. for him? If this team has to sign Yi because he has to play in place of the teams starting center some games, that will cost the team 13.4 mil. For 13.4 mil, this team can get players like Perkins and Landry. Why not draft a Harrison Barnes and stick him at the 2 so the team can invest in players that can make this a respectable team. the team will still have McGee and Blatche to develop, but at least we will win some games. This team has won 14 games and may win 20 if lucky and that is with Young and that is because this team has players like Blatche and McGee and Yi and Armstrong.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
The big flaw in your argument is that you suggest teams pay players based on their current production....
In the ideal world that is Mike Prada-land, a GM would only pay an average player an average salary… a below average player a below average salary, etc…. So Nick Young (with a PER of 15.3, slightly above League Average) should get a contract with an average salary of $5.765 million. And of course, the Prada-land Wizards would never give a decent/average player more than 3-years… So 3-years, $17.3 Million…. is apparently what you are willing to spend on Nick Young…
But what happens when you have a player that has shown real growth…. That player may be an average player today, but what about next year? Where will that player be in his development cycle then?
Teams DON’T pay on current production, but rather they pay based on what they believe is that player’s upside… especially young players, and players coming off their Rookie contracts.
I did like the fact that you at least acknowledged Nick’s lost first two years, when you questioned whether Nick’s production was sustainable:
What I am suggesting is that we’re ultimately talking about him playing 50 games out of 281 like this, or, more accurately, 50 of 124 with Flip Saunders as his coach. There’s reason to wonder whether some of this is an Andray Blatche-like mirage.
So – let’s think out loud here – - – We have a player that has only played 124 Professional games (throw out the first two lost years)… and after the first 70 or so games, a light bulb went off and he as has dramatically increased his scoring, improved his efficiency and improved his defense – and has now started the last 26 games… Now let’s assume that same player continues his efficient shooting and plays good defense for the last 31 games – showing that his increased scoring and efficiency might NOT be a fluke… And further, let’s say that we see some slight incremental increases in his rebounding numbers, and he seems to be seeing the floor better and has an extra assist here and there.
So now – we’ve essentially described a second year player – that had a rough Rookie season adjusting to playing a certain style for a new Coach – but seemed to get some understanding late in his Rookie season, got some consistent minutes and was able to produce – The player comes back in his Second season, even better and puts up 20 points a game with good shooting percentages while playing adequate perimeter defense (and showing flashes of lock-down potential in certain games against some top notch opponents)….
How much better would you expect that player to be in his 3rd year? Do you expect him to plateau? Regress? There is a GM out there (not in Prada-land) that will offer that player 5-years, $40 Million… (Starting first year salary $6.5 Million)….. based on the presumption that the player has more upside…..
Nick Young is a 20 point per game scorer. A decent perimeter defender. A good person (no off-court crap)….. and a home grown, Wizards drafted player. In my opinion, well worth 5-years and $40 Million.
Now, while you are pondering offering him that 3-years, 17 million contract – think on this… When Nick Young walks – where do you replace those 20 points? (You do realize, don’t you , that there are only twenty-one 20 point per game scorers in the entire NBA…!! Right?) – - – Over 430 players in the National Basketball League – and only 21 of them can average 20 points a night. Only 8 of them are guards….
Putting the basketball in the hoop, and preventing the basketball from being put in the hoop are (or should be) the two major factors in paying a player.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Feb 10, 2011 6:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
You never replace 20 points with one guy
Again, this is the thinking that gets teams in trouble. Young is 25. Once you get to the end of your rookie contract, you rarely make huge jumps, unless you came out of high school. Any improvements are incrimental.
Also, Young is not essentially a rookie
Those first games matter – it’s still working with an NBA coach in an NBA setting. Plus, Flip won’t be around forever.
And there is the major difference between our views of Nick Young...
You see a player essentially done improving – or at least not going to get much better….
Whereas I see a player just starting to scratch the surface of his potential… and on a team, and with a Coach, and a PG that can bring all that untapped potential out… I actually could see Nick Young as being a Ray Allen type player by the time he’s 28-29…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
And for that kind of potential...
I’d be willing to pay 5-years, $40 Million…..
As for those saying trade Nick, and draft a SG….. Besides moving Harrison Barnes from his natural position of SF (a risky proposition) – name me any other Shooting Guard currently in the Draft that you think could become an efficient scorer, putting up 15-20 points a night….
Here are a couple that stand out:
Alec Burks – Good shooter from mid range… not much range on his shot (3P = 31%). Gets beat on defense when he gets flat footed, or stands upright – which he does all the time… Decent rebounder for a guard. Should be picked somewhere in the 20’s…
Josh Selby – Good shooter. Good defender. Got a mean streak. Plays physical. But he’s only 6’1"… May be picked in the 1st round, only if he can show some Point Guard skills.
Travis Leslie – 6’4" – Great athleticism. Plays bigger than his height. Not a great shooter. Poor shooter from distance. Great rebounder for a guard. Should be able to play defense… but I have visions of Randy Foye – - – with Joe Johnson or Andre Iguodala posting him up…
Those are the only Shooting Guards I feel will be picked in the first round….
So you think one of those guys is gonna replace Nick Young’s productivity?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I wrote this else where. I did not see this post.
Again. This team has won 14 games so far this season. that is a fact. Nick Young is on this team. He is not winning a lot of games for this team. This is obvious. Just look at the standings. Winning games is the ultimate number to look at. put Wade on this team and he alone can carry this team to the play offs. So, there is a huge difference between these types of players. The ultimate question is, how to win more games? Weell, the team sure isn’t winning them from the 2 guard position, so you have to ask yourself how much you want to invest in to that position? Where are you losing games and how are you losing games? This team is losing games in 2 ways, the front court and at the perimeter. Since that means players need to be added to this team, because this team does not have enough of them, then you better ask yourself how you can use 40 million dollars to win games, not because you think Nick young is the next Ray Allen. I don’t think Grunfeld and Saunders are on your time frame.
From watching Barnes, he looks more like an NBA 2, but depending on the team and their needs, they may use him at the 3. I still think he is really a 2.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
You and I have a very different view of this year's draft
and the strength of the players involved….
The strength of this draft is SF and PF…. Big men with athleticism, or big men with power….
Very few (if any) good shooting perimeter players – INCLUDING Harrison Barnes…
The best players in this coming draft?
Kyrie Irving - PG = not needed on the Wizards
Jared Sullinger – PF – low post scoring – defense, rebounding – a beast inside , almost unstoppable in the post.= desperately needed on the Wiz
Derrick Williams PF – versatile offensive player. Good shooter. Good post player – most productive player in College = needed on the Wizards
Enes Kanter PF/C – another beast. Interior player with great foot work. Nice mid-range jump shot. Mostly scores inside. Cannot move him. Sets good screens. Good rebounder. Great size. = desperately needed on the Wizards
Perry Jones PF – Tremendous athlete. Great ball handler. All-Star potential. Huge upside. = needed on Wizards
Terrence Jones PF – Very productive. Does everything. Good defender. Scores all over the court. = Needed on the Wizards.
Notice a trend here? Nary a Shooting Guard in sight…. With the Wizards almost guaranteed a top 6 pick – those are the guys you have to choose from….
So, once again , I don’t understand why all the talk of trading Nick Young – when all you would be doing is creating a hole at the SG position…. when one did not exist before.
Put Enes Kanter or Jared Sullinger on the team, along with Wall and Young – and that is the nucleus of a very, very good team…. in 3 years…. Championship material? I don’t know… but certainly another lottery pick in 2012 wouldn’t hurt…
My point has been , there are glaring holes all over this team …. Inside scoring, worst defensive rebounding team in the League, they need a Small Forward, They need a Center that can defend. They need to groom a back-up Point Guard (for when Hinrich leaves, or if he’s traded)…
The LAST think the Wizards need to do is throw away a 20 point scorer that can defend on the perimeter, just because he doesn’t rack up assists, or get more than 3 rebounds….
Nick Young is on this team. He is not winning a lot of games for this team.
John Wall is on this team. He is not winning a lot of games for this team.
This is obvious.!???!?!?
Where are you losing games and how are you losing games? This team is losing games in 2 ways, the front court and at the perimeter.
The team is losing games for 3 reasons –
Lack of interior defense and PnR defense from the Wiz bigs – Solution? Get better big men…
Lack of defensive rebounding (it matters not how well Kirk, John Wall or Nick Young play defense if the Wizards big men cannot secure the rebound)… Solution? Get better rebounding big men….
Inexperience….. Lack of experience, late in games leads to mistakes, lapses in defense, turn overs, bad passes and ultimately the Wizards lose leads or cannot close out games…. Solution? Experience…
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Feb 10, 2011 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
You have a different view re: Barnes
but how he is viewed in the NBA is how he will be viewed. Our real difference is how you use money and what it takes to win games. You ant to put money into the 2 guard position. My contention is, this team needs to win games and the 2 guard is not winning games for this team. Hence. there must be an assessment re: what this team needs to do to win games. Mt belief is that reconstructing the front line of this team is a good 1st step. I think they need to face facts, McGee and Blatche either need more time or they need to be bye bye. I thinnk this team could live with Thorton and Booker at the 3 next season. They have Lewis, so i think the team can get by on the 3. This team needs to put some new 4 and 5 guys in there. i don’t believe that Blatche and McGee will be a good combo for them next season. The real fools gold is to believe there is some light bulb that will go off on those 2 players head. There is no light bulb. They are what they are. So my argument is to replace them and I think they should be replaced next season. If Young is relatively cheap for this team, then keep him, but do not pour money in to a position that is not helping you win games.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
what about Jordan Hamilton from Texas?
TNT should've treated Lebron's return to Cleveland game like 2k11 and cut the game off after the Cavs were down by 30. lol
Literally one of the worst defenders in the draft....
He can score… but he’s also a shot jacker… shoots almost every time he touches the ball… whether he’s open or not…
And like I said – a really, really bad defender….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Chauncey Billups, Corey Maggette, Gerald Wallace
Michael Redd, Ben Wallace,….
Does it happen with every player? No. Is it rare? Not as rare as you are implying in my opinion.
Young is 25. Once you get to the end of your rookie contract, you rarely make huge jumps, unless you came out of high school. Any improvements are incremental.
Yep – there’s the crux of Mike’s argument against paying Nick Young more than the MLE (actually, Mike is advocating paying Nick 4-years 20-22 Million – which is LESS than League Average , MLE). His argument is that Nick has been in the League 4 years and is 25 years old – therefore, he is close to his ceiling as a player… And he will point to lots of players that peaked at 25-26 and say – “see”…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Actually
If Mike is allowing 10.5% raises in his offer to Nick…. then Nick’s first year salary would be between $4.4 – $4.8 Million
Assuming 4-year contract with 10.5% raises each year….
$4,752,000
$5,250,960
$5,749,920
$6,248,880
$22,000,000
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Nick Young is not a very good perimeter defender at all.
He gets killed on the perimeter. the whole team does and game after game. He is good when the player to attack the basket from the wing, but he gets he gets picked and loses his man. Its not all his fault. But I would not call him a good perimeter defender.
by hambonejackson on Feb 10, 2011 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
There is this hilarious fantasy floating around that Nick's first two years in the league "don't count".
Like he was in suspended animation or something. Like he wasn’t still learning. Like plenty of players don’t have a rough time adjusting their first few years.
by MR on Feb 12, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
Ouch
Get rid of Nick Young…. and give his job to one of the poorest defending Shooting Guards in the NBA… in Rudy Fernandez….
He can shoot the 3-point shot when his feet are set and he’s open, and he can get out on the break and finish…. and those two things are the only reason his True Shooting percentage is 52.6% (relatively poor, but not terrible).
Fernandez can’t shoot off the dribble… Can’t shoot off screens… Can’t create his own shot. He is TERRIBLE from mid-range (23.5% from 10-15 feet ; 22.1% from 16-23 feet) and he only rebounds 4.1 per 40 minutes (half a rebound more than Nick Young)…
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Rudy just has that Killers Instinct just like John Wall that special Instinct that helps teams win close games
I love NY and am happy to see him finally get his game together but he is too calm friendly and goofy I hope we target more players with John Walls mentality
Lakers Boston Spurs Heat Mavs have that Edge that Killers instinct mentality thats why they are on Top of the NBA Chain
Boston, Spurs, Heat and Mavericks also play DEFENSE….. something Rudy doesn’t even know how to spell….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Not to mention
Manu Ginobili is about 25 lbs heavier, Rudy Fernandez (6’6" 180 lb) can’t cut through screens very well he is quick, but his numbers are not that impressive
Plus if he doesn't get enough playing time
he might threaten to return to Spain
I will give you this Mike, you know how to drive
traffic…
If I were you, I would put Nick Young in the title of at least one post per day..
:)
the bullards would be dead to me
If they resigned Nick Young. NY isn’t even better than Cartier Martin. He doesn’t get any rebounds or assists and can’t create off the dribble, and his shooting is mediocre – so what’s he good at then?
by ReturnofBillyJOe on Feb 10, 2011 9:33 PM EST reply actions
In the game of basketball....
the way you win is to put the basketball in the hoop more times than your opponent….
Nick Young does that better than anyone else on the Wizards… and better than all but 21 other players in the entire NBA…. But let’s get rid of him, because he doesn’t rebound …. Keep Blatche , who doesn’t rebound either… even though it’s HIS JOB… but get rid of Young… Keep JaVale, one of the worst defensive rebounding Centers in the League…. but get rid of Young because he can’t rebound….
Never mind that…. get rid of everyone!!! Give me a team full of guys that rebound, pass, do a lot of creating off the dribble (like Kirk Hinrich and Earl Boykins – yeah, give me some of those creative dribblers)….. Don’t care if they can shoot efficiently… Matter of fact, give me a 15 man roster made up of players like Michael Ruffin – he could definitely rebound and was a good passer… Throw in some fake energy guys like Etan Thomas….. and some fake defense guys like Deshawn Stevenson…. While we’re at it, let’s throw in some fake shooters like Mike Miller – he can pass too… and create off the dribble… and rebound…. and make believe that he might shoot the ball some day…….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Agree its ridiculous the amount some people think he is worth and that we should let him walk for anything more
This team struggles so much at exactly what you stated NY can do.. put the ball in the hoop. Wall will be able to penetrate the defense for years to come but he’s not going to get his shot off like Nick can. First of all his shot doesnt go in and second of all its a set shot. Nick can take his man off the dribble and drive, pull up and shoot over him and catch and shoot. We need that so bad and I’m shocked at how people are undervaluing that aspect.
I think this team badly needs to get a big physical low post presence as much as anyone but to let are best perimeter scoring threat go will make it extremely hard for whoever is down low.
and people that think we can just make up for it in FA are dreaming
when do free agents come to washington. The only reason we’ll get a player with as much promise is Nick is if we.. PAY THEM. We going to turn into the Redskins??
Our best chance is to keep our young core, develop them… draft the right players and then in a couple years after we have shown improvement as a team we could pick up a couple pieces to complete our rotation
I agree (other than the part where you imply Kirk is inefficient - he's just not volume enough)
BUT – there’s a line where the cost is too high. The problem is that we don’t really agree on that line – but even the most ardent Nick supporters have got to have a point where they admit it would be more hurtful to the team to have Nick at that price than to lose him.
The issue is not being so fearful of losing the skill set Nick brings to the team that we confuse the skills with a single player.
Itty bitty little pyramid
I see John Wall playing a lot like Rondo. I think he’ll develop into a better shooter, but temperamentally, I think he wants to play like Rondo, and rightfully so. To complement him, we need a Ray Allen type of player who is great at moving without the ball and shooting off of screens.
How many Ray Allen type players are out there?
Ray Allen. Richard Hamilton. Maybe Nick Young. Maybe one or two others? (Names, please.)
That’s not a giant pyramid of players to choose from if we let Nick go, and the first two guys on the list are 35 and 32 years old.
Good post Prada
This is why I read this site. Some good comments by others as well. I want to keep NY, but anything more than MLE money is not going advance the ball in terms of getting Wiz to a championship (or, for that matter, a playoff spot).
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Feb 10, 2011 11:00 PM EST reply actions
So
The Wizards have a big hole to fill at SF.
They need a low post scorer
They need rebounding and post defense.
They need a back-up PG (for when Hinrich leaves or is traded)
Now, we let Nick Young walk in Free Agency because the Bulls offer 5-years, $38 Million…. fine… it’s too much to spend…. (Starting Salary of $6.5 Million with 10.5% raises)
What then?
Now you’ve created a hole at SG as well… and building through the draft (since we’re assuming that Ted Lenosis is loathe to shell out money for FA’s and wants to build the core through the draft) – you’ve set back the rebuilding another year…. because you cannot fill all those holes above with just one draft…. and now you need ANOTHER draft to get a SG….
Assuming we get our low post scorer and rebounder this draft (Kanter, Jared Sullinger, etc…) – and perhaps a back-up PG in the second round…. Now they still need a SF and a SG… at least ONE of those guys has to be considered a “core” piece – meaning we have to have ANOTHER year of losing so we can get ANOTHER lottery pick.. to select a Shooting Guard that may or may not be as good as Nick Young is right now……
Now, John Wall is in his 4th year of losing – - – looking at his 5th and final Rookie contract year – wondering if he shouldn’t just go to Miami, or New York , or the Lakers where he can win immediately
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Pretty sure the Bulls are over the cap for next year.
Probably not a lot of teams with cap space and who need a SG, especially with the new CBA coming in.
Ok... whatever... so you want specifics.... instead of out of the hat generalities
Nick walks because the Cleveland Cavaliers offer………….
http://www.hoopdata.com/salaries/CLE.aspx
Nick walks because the Dallas Mavericks offer………….
http://www.hoopdata.com/salaries/DAL.aspx
Nick walks because the Denver Nuggets offer…………..
http://www.hoopdata.com/salaries/DEN.aspx
The Indiana Pacers offer………
http://www.hoopdata.com/salaries/IND.aspx
The Hornets offer……….
http://www.hoopdata.com/salaries/NOR.aspx
The Lakers offer the MLE … and it’s Nick’s home town….
The Miami Heat offer the MLE .. and Nick walks for a championship
The point is, Nick isn’t going to give the Wizards the home town discount…. ESPECIALLY if they low ball him with a 4-year, 20 Million offer.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I see Dallas using their cap space to retain Tyson Chandler or find a replacement.
I see New Orleans using their cap space to retain David West.
Denver has Afflalo already.
Indiana has Paul George already.
The Lakers and Heat each have pretty good SGs already. Doubt Nick wants to play short minutes off the bench again. Anyway, LA and Miami have bigger holes than backup SG to fill with their MLEs.
That leaves Cleveland, which is… Cleveland.
The other question to ask with Young is roster construction.
He has one plus and one negative.
On the plus side, he is the perfect compliment to Wall. He doesn’t need the ball to score, hen doesn’t have to break the offense to score, and he is a great shooter. A lot of off guards like the ball in their hands. But we want the ball in Wall’s hands. Wall, offensively meshes with Young. Great compliment. Perhaps rare?
He is a below average rebound, on a team that can’t rebound, that is a problem.
Do you really want to fix the Wizards rebounding problems
BY getting rid of a poor rebounding guard, and replacing him with a good rebounding guard?
Shouldn’t we be thinking instead of getting rid of the poor rebounding big men and replacing them instead?
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
amazes me how hard people try to justify nick not being a good sg
he use to not play defense… now he can guard but why cant he help dray and javale in the paint?? he does his role scoring but why cant he avg. 4-5 assist?? can’t rebound… even those all his numbers are increasing with more experience and most all minutes
Some people (probably many people) make up their mind about players
And then see whatever evidence supports their existing opinion.
Kind of like some people with kirk... ;)
the ones the say “kirk throws up another brick” when he’s shooting 5-8 from the field
We all do it with some players… just some people seem to go to extreme measures to support it. Have to try to stay away from that and go on watching games instead of the 47 different stat categories we like to use on them. And just give credit where credit is due… sometimes that leads to being more open-minded of a player
I’m more worried about Wall as a player in the future than I am about NY.. maybe I made my mind on him, but hard to say that cuz if i did… well I probably have to find another team to watch and root for, not happening. Just the mistakes and holes in his game scare me that they could be long term problems… but then i just say to myself he is 20.. he is 20.. he is 20…. over and over again
Ah, Wall
He is a rookie. Did you see 6 rings in Jordans rookie year or Bryants rookie year? You really have to judge guards over the course of 3 seasons to see how good they are. Bigs, for instance, get over valued initially. Odin and Sampson and the slew of others. Smaller players tend to be undervalued at 1st because they are smaller players. What impact will Wall have? He is already having an impact. Look at the Bucks? They had to race down to the other side of the court before Wall could get there. How many times in his 1st season has he blown through teams and right to the basket? Teams have to think about transition with Wall because he is setting speed records.That led McGee to grab 17 rebounds in that game. And Wall has not even touched his potential. He is getting that mid range jumper down. He knocked down a 3 last game. So you think in a couple of seasons, with some really good players, this team will compete. Its getting those players.
by hambonejackson on Feb 11, 2011 1:45 AM EST up reply actions
I think everyone here watches the games
and then finds stats that backup what their eyeballs tell them.
I think most people watch the game
I’m not sure about what percentage then actually checks the stats as a backup/clarification.
And there are at least a few people who can’t watch the game and go off the box score.
I mean most people cite stats when making their points
and it would appear there is no shortage of stats to support whatever point you want to make.
Look, I'm a NY apologist.
I love his fit offensively. I love his defense. I think he is a starter on a championship team. I know the bulls would love to have him.
I am poiintingnout that Young’s poor rebounding is exasperated by our teams poor rebounding. If we had Kevin love/Blair (ouch), we wouldn’t see nearly the criticism of Young’s rebounding, but we don’t, so it is a problem. But the main solution is drafting kanter.
Nick is PERFECT for the Bulls
and he schooled their trio of SGs in front of their GM…I wouldnt be surprised if they go after him.
The Bulls have no cap space
They’d have to find a way to get both Korver and Brewer off the books.
They have the assets to do it, but will they? Their last foray into the free agent market didn’t go as well as they’d hoped, and trying to land a RFA is a very high risk play.
If the Wizards low-ball Nick in their negotiations...
Chicago could swoop in with a MLE offer….
iF Chicago offers Young a 5-year Full MLE contract (5.765 Million starting, with 8% raises)… that works out to $33.4 Million…. Will the Wizards match?
There are those here that don’t think he’s worth it…. I personally think there are teams out there willing to offer the full MLE for a 20 point scorer…. and there may be a team out there, under the cap, that might offer more….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Quite honestly, I'd like to see Nick Young kept no matter what
Its always good business to reward players for what they have done and we’ve seen huge strides in Nick Young’s game. That’s not to say he got better overnight, but he’s bought in to what the coaching staff has been selling and is excelling in major ways.
The team can’t score much points. Period. Aside from Blatche, who can create their own shot? Young is scoring well without breaking the rhythm of the offense most times. Young is also still young, not only that, but a homegrown product and slowly becoming a fan-favorite.
Keeping Young solidifies a position and allows the Wiz to focus on a big man draft. Allowing themselves to be outbid on Young would open up an albatross sized hole in the Wizards back court and make the draft process a little harder than it needs to be.
Character issues in a league full of them= None.
I’m trying my best to look at this as unbiased as possible and I see no reason why Young hasn’t earned whatever money that the Wiz will need to pay to keep him.
by qthaballa on Feb 10, 2011 11:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
exactly.. NY as improved in every aspect of his game and he deserves whatever we think he's worth
not sure why ppl are nitpicking over 3 years instead of 4 or 5mil instead of 6 or 7mil… yes there is a limit and he should get what he is worth.. but bottom line we can’t afford losing a very good SG that has a long future ahead and tons of promise
The wizards can replace NY with Martin or any new Roger Mason
Players like Martin/Mason/Young are thick on the ground in the NBDL. And they come cheap.
Also, NY is a shooter who doesn’t shoot many threes. That’s what I find most puzzling about his game. He has a good three percentage but doesn’t take many. Cartier Martin has 26 threes, NY has 83 in 5x the minutes. And get this: Cartier Martin is a higher per minute scorer than NY! And with fewer turnovers. Now would anyone give Cartier more than a million per year? No.
by ReturnofBillyJOe on Feb 11, 2011 7:12 AM EST reply actions
NY is the new Ledell Eackles
If he’s lucky.
by ReturnofBillyJOe on Feb 11, 2011 7:13 AM EST up reply actions
Cartier
but his assist ratio is pathetic…. He’s averaging 0.5 assists per 40 minutes….
Amazing to me that people will tear Nick Young apart for not passing and then bring up Cartier Martin….. LOL
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Comparison
Who is a comparably one-dimensional player who was a borderline allstar for several seasons. As far as what comparably means, Nick has one of the four worst combined assist and rebound rates in the NBA, in a league with only four of the 71 other SGs: Marco Belinelli, Xavier Henry, and Jodie Meeks.
This isn’t a rhetorical question, I change positions a lot after listening to you guys. But what I am asking is if Nick remains this 1-d who’s somebody similar who has been successful while being that 1-d. Obviously if he becomes significant less 1-d there could be a comparable borderline allstar but I’m specifically asking if he remains as 1-d as he’s been so far.
Thanks, this is a strong thread, good posts all
Reggie Miller
18 – 3 – 3
Nick Young – Last 10 games
20.5-3.-1.5
Nick Young, – Season
17 – 3 – 1.3
Seems fine to me…and Nick is a better defender…
It may be a contract year run…but if it is real…I think Miller is a reasonable comparison…
You see what I see...
This has been a mind-boggling thread (thanks Mike)… Unless the money goes through the moon, why would you even think about renouncing rights to a 2-guard like Nick who has all the tools and is just beginning to reach his potential?
Do you think Reggie Miller and Rip Hamilton
had all the tools?
If so, which tools do they have that Nick doesn’t? (ball handling, defense, rebounding, passing game, inside the paint?)
You could wind up being right about how he ultimately pans out….but I am wondering if you believe those two, considered building blocks, had all of the tools.
Or do you think they had intangibles that NY doesn’t?
Ray Allen is in the gym 3hrs before every game
very, very few players have that level of intangibles
My point is clearly they have intangilbles
over NY (I didn’t bring up Ray Allen by the way)…
My question is about the tools and if Mike P. thinks those two had all the tools, or if it was their intangibles that made them great.
They had better tools to start with, yes
Rip played like he did in the NBA at Uconn and led them to a title. Ray Allen was a top-five pick and a superstar by age 25.
A reasonable point on Hamilton
Ray Allen isn’t even in this conversation to me. He has been a bonafide star since AAU. I haven’t brought him up. He indeed has all the tools. So let’s take him out of the equation.
Hamilton did indeed lead his team to a National Title. But so did Juan Dixon. So I don’t find that specifically persuasive regarding his all around game. I was really asking to be specific, was Rip an all around player (defender, rebounder, ball handler, slasher, inside presence etc…)
I assume your answer is still yes, but I wanted to clarify what I meant. I think he had some deficiencies in certain areas (passing, ball handling, defending), but we can agree to disagree.
But I don’t think anyone would argue Miller was a great passer or ball handler, or rebounder for that matter. But he made up for it by being consistent, a great shooter, and clutch. You did not address him, but I assume that was unintentional.
Because he doesn’t have all the tools, and we’re overrating his potential
I am not saying Nick Young is Reggie Miller. I am making the point that not having all of the tools is not a definitive measure of a player’s potential.
Maybe I misread the intent of your original statement. But I think you would agree that there have been and will be some NBA stars that were basically one – dimensional in terms of Pts-Reb-Assists.
Dennis Rodman is another that comes to mind.
Your point is likely that you have to be great at that one, if you are deficient at others. I think that is close to be right. We differ on NY’s potential to be a consistent scorer long term and improve enough in the other to be viable.
Fair enough. As I said elsewhere, we appreciate the research you put into the article and it is definitely a post that has created a lot of good discussion. Keep up the good work. And thanks for staying engaged.
Ray Allen
Ray Allen (per 40 minutes) 19.5 points , 4.0 rebounds, 3.3 assists, 50.5% from the field, 45.9% from three
Nick Young (per 40 minutes) 22.1 points, 3.5 rebounds, 1.6 assists , 44.7% from the field, 39.5% from three
As you can see, Allen doesn’t rebound much, or pass the ball a ton either… He does shoot a MUCH better percentage this year, but I contend that his shooting this year is an anomaly – If you look at Allen’s CAREER numbers (45.2%, 39.8%), Nick’s shooting percentages are more comparable.
Now – let’s not go all overboard here… because I’m NOT saying that Nick is as good as perrennial All-Star Ray Allen – but you asked the question "Who is a comparably one-dimensional player who was a borderline allstar for several seasons. " – and the answer is that there are quite a few…..
I’ll also put in just one more little tidbit – since Nick has been starting for the last 27 games, his rebounds and assists have gone up slightly… so he’s closer to 4 rebounds and 2 assists in the games he’s started. Again, VERY VERY close to Ray Allen and Reggie Miller territory…..
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
that was not the question...if I read it correctly
I can’t speak for Rook, but where did I say NY was the next Ray Allen or Reggie Miller?
Nick has one of the four worst combined assist and rebound rates in the NBA, in a league with only four of the 71 other SGs: Marco Belinelli, Xavier Henry, and Jodie Meeks.
This isn’t a rhetorical question, I change positions a lot after listening to you guys. But what I am asking is if Nick remains this 1-d who’s somebody similar who has been successful while being that 1-d.
I simply provided an example of someone with comparable statistics based on the specific question using assists and rebounds as the basis for being considered 1 dimensional. Nothing more, nothing less. (looks like the stats you posted confirm what I posted, similar rebounding, lower but not overwhelming assist difference).
not sure why that block quote didn't show up
but I was trying to bold this….
Nick has one of the four worst combined assist and rebound rates in the NBA, in a league with only four of the 71 other SGs: Marco Belinelli, Xavier Henry, and Jodie Meeks.
This isn’t a rhetorical question, I change positions a lot after listening to you guys. But what I am asking is if Nick remains this 1-d who’s somebody similar who has been successful while being that 1-d.
The point is Ray and Reggie were not one-dimensional like Nick
Nick’s assist percentage is a little more than one third the assist percentage Allen put up at 25. It’s less than half the assist percentage Reggie put up at 25. It’s less than half the assist percentage Reggie put up at 35.
That’s overwhelming when comparing two people who play the same position.
Let's take Ray Allen out of this for my responses
Nick Young will never be Ray Allen. Ever. That was Rook making that point,
Or Reggie Miller for that matter.
But are you saying that because Reggie Miller % being 200% of Nick’s, that is what made him more than a one dimensional player? I think you can see the flaw in you logic.
NY – 1.5 assists
Reggie Miller – 3 assists.
So if NY had 1 and Reggie had 2, he would be more than a one dimensional player? Can we agree that assist % comparison of one player to another is not the basis for determining who is one dimensional vs. who isn’t? Total number of assist seems to be the right measure for one’s passing ability, not player to player comparisons.
I think most who watched basketball would not call Reggie Miller a great or even average passer or rebounder. He was a scorer. Plain and Simple. And he was one of the best in the business. But he was basically one-dimensional. I don’t see anything wrong with that, and I am not trying to diminish Miller. I am simply saying the being a one-dimensional player is not the kiss of death or conclusive in terms of potential..
(I also happen to believe Nick’s assist will go up next year when he has better finishers around him, but that is an argument for another day).
Assist percentage is a better stat
Because it adjusts for usage, minutes and pace and shows just how many possessions you’re ending in that way while you’re on the court. In that area, Reggie and Ray destroy Nick. As for Rip, his career assist percentage is 19.8 percent.
I wouldn’t call those three players one dimensional at all.
I see what you did there....
We were not comparing assist totals exclusively…. but you have decided to end the discussion about rebounds…got it. So I assuming you admit Miller and Hamilton didn’t have “all the tools”. So there is a point of agreement. (Or you think three rebounds/game is enough to place you in the average to above average range for a SG, which means you are no longer arguing NY is one dimensional).
So back to assists….
First of all, I am not sure which stats works best in determining if you are good passer. Miller got down to the 10-11% range at 32-34, which you skipped over interestingly enough. Was he one-dimensional during those years? Is suspect it had more to do with Mark Jackson and what Miller was asked to do.
1996-1997 – 6th in Central – No Playoffs – Miller Ast% -17.4 – (Mark Jackson traded to Pacers during this season)
1997-1998 – 2nd in Central – NBA Finals – Miller Ast% -11.1
2000-2001 – 4th in Central – Bounced in First Round – Miller Ast% -15.0 (Mark Jackson to Toronto in offseason)
Hmmm….interesting. Miller’s ast% goes up when they are losing, down when they are winning and have a legitimate point guard. Seems like ast% may have a correlation to your PG play and how much they hold the ball as much as one’s passing ability.
(I would have just made that statement, but I wanted to provide an example. Given this, I am not even sure we should want NY to take on more of a passing role).
You see, statistics are a tool, not the final word, especially with context.
Glen Rice was at 2.2/9.9% at 25. Would you have sent him packing?
Kobe was at 5+/24.4% at 25. Was he Jason Kidd?
Your logic in this comment thread about tools has been based on a comparison to Nick Young. The question was do all core players have to be multi-dimensional. Can a 1 – 1 1/2 dimensional player be a core part of the team.
You have apparently come to the conclusion that Reggie Miller and Rip Hamilton were more than one-dimensional. If averaging 3 in one category is enough to clear the hurdle, then so does NY based on rebounds. Or if you want to base it on trb%…what is the cut off you propose?
But we know better. Reggie Miller and Rip Hamilton were incredible catch and shoot scorers. Two of the best and most consistent to play the game in history. I think it is clearly a stretch to then try to put them in the category of multi-dimensional players like Kobe or Ray or Michael (i.e. major contributors in more than one statistical category).
I feel like you are conflating your argument about Nick’s potential (where we disagree, but not as much as you probably think we do and your side is obviously reasonable), with an independent discussion about what constitutes having “all the tools”.
The argument here is pretty simple
1. Ray, Reggie et al were much better at their own awesome dimension (scoring) than Nick Young is even at his best. They have been better than him at pretty much every point in their careers.
2. They were not so severely limited in their other dimensions like Nick is. They were not so severely limited at 25; they were not so severely limited at 35. Nick has to make pretty large strides (and yes, the difference you note is pretty large on an individual level) to even get to where they were at their worst.
Where’s the cutoff for Nick for one-dimensionality? Where those guys are at and have been at consistently when they were young, old and everywhere in between.
Close enough?
No one expects Nick to be a first ballot Hall of Famer.
But some of us think that prime Nick Young could be close enough to an old Ray Allen to be a contributor on a championship team.
I am hoping that prime John Wall will be much better than 22 year old Rondo. Prime JaVale McGee will be much better than Kendrick Perkins. Prime Blatche is not too much of a step down from old KG. Prime “SF taken with a top pick in the 2011 draft” is not too much of a step down from old Paul Pierce. Prime Seraphin and prime Booker can wreak massive havoc. Prime Yi can be clutch. Prime N’Diaye can really wave a towel. Etc., etc.
So we have found semi common ground
1. Almost Identical to the points I have made. They were one dimensional, without “all the tools” (your term). Or at best mediocre is skills beyond scoring. What separated them was how incredibly consistent they were at there best skill. Therefore, you can include one dimensional players on your team if they are good enough. You are convinced Nick is just below the line. I think he is above it enough to keep even at a slight premium due to other franchise needs. A more major difference in a blog debate than reality. But we agree NY won’t be Reggie or Ray (a comparison you introduced btw, not me)
2. We will have to agree to disagree about the difference. The stats you put up show they are basically the same in rebounding, and 1.5 assists different in assists. You believe that is an incredible difference based on a stat that has as much to do with their teammates and role as their skill. I don’t see it as a dramatic, orders of magnitude difference. We aren’t going to settle that but we agree that they were both more consistent. That is the diff between hall of famers and NY. (again, Ray is not part of this conversation to me).
by DavidDunn on Feb 12, 2011 3:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
So we have found semi common ground
1. Almost Identical to the points I have made. They were one dimensional, without “all the tools” (your term). Or at best mediocre is skills beyond scoring. What separated them was how incredibly consistent they were at there best skill. Therefore, you can include one dimensional players on your team if they are good enough. You are convinced Nick is just below the line. I think he is above it enough to keep even at a slight premium due to other franchise needs. A more major difference in a blog debate than reality. But we agree NY won’t be Reggie or Ray (a comparison you introduced btw, not me)
2. We will have to agree to disagree about the difference. The stats you put up show they are basically the same in rebounding, and 1.5 assists different in assists. You believe that is an incredible difference based on a stat that has as much to do with their teammates and role as their skill. I don’t see it as a dramatic, orders of magnitude difference. We aren’t going to settle that but we agree that they were both more consistent. That is the diff between hall of famers and NY. (again, Ray is not part of this conversation to me).
by DavidDunn on Feb 12, 2011 4:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Don't forget how little Young turns the ball over!
The poor rebounding/assist numbers are proof that Young does not offer much beyond scoring/defense. But don’t forget how little Young turns the ball over. There is value in that.
by zeke5123 on Feb 11, 2011 7:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
ah - that don't matter...
Nick can’t get those extra 2 assists…… that he needs to be as good as a Hall of Fame , 10× NBA All-Star…
It doesn’t matter that he turns the ball over less than Ray Allen… or that his shooting percentages his first 4 years in the league are practically identical to Ray Allen’s first four years…. or that Nick Young is a better defender in his 4th season than Rip Hamilton or Reggie Miller…. Or that he’s as good or better 3-point shooter than all three of them (in their first 4 years)…
It doesn’t matter that Ray Allen is only averaging 2.9 assists this year….. and Nick has bumped his assists up to 1.9 per game…..as a starter…
It’s all about those 2 assists….. without those 2 assists , Nick Young is poop….. and not worth consideration as a core piece for the Wizard’s rebuild….. with those extra two assists Ray Allen is a Hall of Fame player….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
That's because he shoots it instead
They’ve simplified his role so much that they’d rather have him shooting than doing much dribbling, whereas Reggie and Ray were threats to get to the rim off the bounce. Nick turns it over less, but he also shoots more horrible shots that don’t go in because he’s not able to get all the way to the rim.
Sure he was
He had a great shot fake and drive, and Indiana used to isolate him in the triple threat late in his career in particular.
Why does this thing keep eating my posts?
Anyway,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=463f9vIeO6E&NR=1
That is Reggie’s Top Ten. There is one, count them, 1, dribble drive highlight.
I know you are not seriously trying to insinuate Reggie’s game was based on his ability to get to the rim at will, or even every now and then. Could he do it? Sure, he is a hall of famer. But we both now that he couldn’t get to the rim any more frequently than a below average SG in the NBA. His ups were non-existent, he had mediocre ball handling skills, and was not particularly fast or strong. He was a consistent, top 5 shooter, with a great jab step and fadeaway game. He was clutch beyond all belief.
But a slasher, a la Dwayne Wade or 50% of Wade?
Really?
If you are willing to say the Reggie was a get to the rim player, at any time of his career, then so are NY and 75% of the SG in the NBA today.
If you believe his opponents first thought was stop Reggie from getting to the rim or triple threat like Kobe or Ray, well I have got some ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you. ;)
No, that's not what I'm saying
I’m saying he could make plays off the bounce – he had a really effective one-foot floater, a really good escape dribble for a jumper and didn’t take a lot of bad shots. He also could pass off screens and hit his rolling or popping big men – something Nick is only starting to realize is even an option.
You’re not going to see those kind of plays on highlight tapes.
Sounds similar to what I said
But here is what your first comment was.
< blockquote> Reggie Miller a threat to get to the rim off the bounce?
I think you would even admit that one would not interpret that statement as “an escape dribble for a jumper” or “a one foot floater”.
It is also good to hear you admit NY is just finding out about those options. Hmmm…sound like….wait for it…“potential” for expanding his game. ;)
But that is misdirection anyway. The question was did Reggie Miller have a good threat to get to the rim. How we returned to a comparison of Miller to NY is beyond me?
Good debate though…value your opinion and knowledge even if I disagree with some of it. Glad to see you are willing to discuss to try to get clarity and find common ground.
by DavidDunn on Feb 12, 2011 3:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I also didn't see those kind of plays
early in Reggie’s career either… ESPECIALLY his first two seasons…. When he amassed over 5,000 minutes as a starter. He didn’t start to develop those advanced offensive moves and incorporate them into his arsenal until later….
For that matter, Nick Young is better at “getting to the Rim” right now than Reggie was in his first several years in the NBA.
Nick Young is at a similar developmental level that Reggie was in his 2nd or 3rd year…. Considering that Reggie had 10,000 minutes by the end of his 4th season -it seems only natural that Nick has not yet caught up, since he’s only played about 6,000 minutes….
I would expect a similar offensive development from Young over the next few years… He should be able to add similar advanced offensive moves to enhance his portfolio past just his deadly catch-and-shoot, corner 3, and shooting coming off screens.
Just as I expect Nick’s floor vision to improve…. I haven’t seen a lot of it yet, but I’ve seen glimpses of better court vision from Nick this year (his assist to Javale a couple games ago, the nice pass to Blatche on the baseline)… Yes, very few and far between…. but definitely more looks than his first 3 seasons…. As the Wizards add more talent, and as Nick gets more and more comfortable in Flip’s offense, he’ll start to see those opportunities to pass to his teammates – and his assists will naturally increase… I don’t believe he’ll EVER be a great passer – but I do see the opportunity for him to become “adequate”…
Same with his rebounding – as we’ve already seen, Young has been getting more rebounds as a starter (perhaps because of confidence, or maybe because he knows he has to do more than score)…. I expect him to continue to improve in that area as well…
In the end, for his career, I expect Nick Young to end up with career numbers similar to Rip Hamilton…. and a step below Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
nick young supporters lose me entirely when
they start comparing him to reggie miller and ray allen.
that’s not to say there aren’t some good pro-nick young arguments, but comparing him to some of the best players of all time is not one of them.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Feb 12, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Be careful about the word comparison
No one is arguing that NY will ever be Nick Young.
Mike has conflated the discussion into a comparison to make his arguments, but if you look at the start of this thread, the question really was were Reggie M and Rip H one-dimensional players. It had nothing to do with Ray Allen, nor was it a question of whether Nick Young will be better than Reggie Miller.
I am not sure what you meant, but please keep that context in mind.
I got stats too.....
These stats show Nick in a very good light…
Comparing these players per36 stats for their first four years in the League – Let’s remember, Nick was playing a total of 15 minutes per game his rookie year, and 19 minutes his second year, while Ray Allen, Reggie and Rip were piling up minutes, stats and building reputations…
Where Ray Allen and Reggie Miller accumulated 10,000 minutes their first four years, and were starters from the get-go – Nick has only 6,000 minutes for his career….. and as I’ve pointed out any number of times – no idea how much better he could have been by now with better coaching his first two years.
So – looking at the stats….
Everyone shoots between 15-17 shots (per 36) and everyone has a similar shooting percentage (except Reggie Miller’s incredible 50%)… Reggie Miller clear leader. Nick Young tied with Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton…..
As for 3-point shooting, Rip is obviously not as good a long distance shooter as the other three, but Reggie, Ray and Nick all have similar shooting percentages and shot between 4-5 three pointers per 36… Wash
Nick is not as good a Free Throw shooter as the other three, shooting “only” 82.2% to the other three averaging around 86%…All four players got to the line between 4-5 times per game… (Reggie 6 times…)..
Now we get to the stats that Nick Young is SO POOR that he’s considered a “one dimension” player and cannot be a core piece because of his “inability to do anything other than score”
But Nick is only about ONE rebound behind these other players….. and only about 1.5 assists behind the average of the other three… ONE rebound and 1.5 assists behind two Hall of Fame players, and a 3× NBA All-Star (2006–2008)
Nick turns the ball over less than the other three… Fouls about the same…with Steals and Blocks being marginal, at best….
So the argument against Nick is that he can’t rebound and doesn’t get assists… but compared to Ray Allen, Reggie Miller and Rip Hamilton – he’s lacking only 1 rebound and 1.5 assists… while turning the ball over less and IN MY OPINION, playing better defense than any of those players ever did in their first four years.
If you look at Nick’s starting numbers, he looks like he’s closing the gap on rebounds and assists. His scoring average per 36 (19.8) certainly has taken a bump up since becoming a starter…while fouling less and bringing his Turn Over rate down even further…
That is after playing only 6,000 minutes…… as compared to 10,000 for Ray Allen and Reggie Miller and 8,700 minutes for Rip. How much better will Nick Young be when he has another 4,000 minutes of playing time under his belt? Can he get that extra ONE rebound AND 1.5 assist?
I’d like to find out….. 5-years, 40 Million !
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
And again....
I NEVER want to imply that Nick Young is as good as Reggie Miller or Ray Allen…… And I certainly wouldn’t want to compare Nick’s first 4 years against Reggie or Ray’s CAREER numbers….. My only pointis that in the rebounding and assist department – he’s not that far behind catching up…..
Despite the fact that others want to IGNORE certain facts about playing time…. and the theory that more playing time a player gets the faster they develop… (Nick has played roughly 1/2 the minutes Miller and Allen played in their first 3 years)…. I believe that Nick still has a long way to go before he’s reached his ceiling – and I see things during games that make me believe he is still improving… especially in the assist and rebounding department….
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
let Nick Young go...
and sign either john Starks or Reggie Miller.
What an hilarious discussion.
Comparing numbers between NY and Reggie, Rip, Ray.
I’d say that’s eligible for an “unclear on the concept” award.
You’re talking about guys who nail it in the clutch when the pressure is on. And comparing them to a guy who wilts when the pressure is on. Like hitting 8 points in the last 13 seconds of the EC finals to get a win is the same as hitting 8 points in the first quarter.
Yeah, a shot in the first quarter is exactly the same as a shot in the last five minutes.
Sure, Nick is having a great season and is doing a great job. But let’s not inflate him too high.
Read the whole thread
There was a question about naming one dimensional players that became all
all stars. I raised Reggie Miller. Speaking for myself, I never tried to compare them in terms of the value or potential an made that clear in every post while It was reintroduced in responses as a way to conflate the two discussions.
Just to be clear.
by DavidDunn on Feb 12, 2011 11:35 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Think about J.Crawford....
If I was management I would take a look at J. Crawford…this guy is searching for a home he’s a proven NBA player and a starter on anyone’s team…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
