Just turned on the game on MSG. Henry 1-6 so far. early second half.
Walt Frazier commenting.
Still getting easy rebounds. And shooting 3's.
Quote from: tower912 on July 02, 2016, 03:21:27 PM
Still getting easy rebounds. And shooting 3's.
He is an easy rebound genious. Good form on the 3s.
Ha. He looks OK. A long way to go.
Quote from: tower912 on July 02, 2016, 03:27:54 PM
Ha. He looks OK. A long way to go.
Only a fool would suggest differently. The same is true of pretty much every rookie except for the truly special ones.
Heck, many consider Simmons "special," and he indeed was/is special enough to have been drafted No. 1. And he also has a long way to go.
Quote from: tower912 on July 02, 2016, 03:27:54 PM
Ha. He looks OK. A long way to go.
It is very easy to see the benefit of Henry being a first round draft choice. He is calm out there and not forcing things to happen. Pretty much sticking with the things he is good at . He is also doing little things he never did at MU, such as setting picks and moving the ball nicely .
I think it will take him a while to get up to the speed of play when actual league play come around. Once he does things will get interesting as one of his big assets is his Basketball IQ.
As a Pistons fan, I am thrilled to have Henry. I expect him to play, but not star this year. Hanging out on the perimeter today.
How much moola did Henry sign for?
Quote from: tower912 on July 02, 2016, 03:43:50 PM
As a Pistons fan, I am thrilled to have Henry. I expect him to play, but not star this year. Hanging out on the perimeter today.
Henry ended up with 12 points and 8 boards in 26 minutes today. He ran the floor well in the second half.
Happy for him to get off to a nice start.
I agree with the announcer that HE will have to get stronger.
Quote from: tower912 on July 02, 2016, 04:01:42 PM
I agree with the announcer that HE will have to get stronger.
The good news is getting stronger is in his own control.
Quote from: tower912 on July 02, 2016, 04:01:42 PM
I agree with the announcer that HE will have to get stronger.
All teams have programs for that. Look at MJs body as a rookie and then again a few years later.
Quote from: brandx on July 02, 2016, 06:04:15 PM
All teams have programs for that. Look at MJs body as a rookie and then again a few years later.
Good article on Henry and his first game, refers to the strength issue.
http://www.mlive.com/pistons/index.ssf/2016/07/jon_leuer_and_henry_ellenson_h.html
He's 19. He has a good frame. He'll be fine.
Quote from: real chili 83 on July 02, 2016, 03:45:31 PM
How much moola did Henry sign for?
Much like NFL rookies, NBA rookies sign for scale.
http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/info/rookie_scale
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 03, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Much like NFL rookies, NBA rookies sign for scale.
http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/info/rookie_scale
Thanks Hards
Henry has a game today in summer league at 3 eastern.
Henry having another weak shooting game but decent on rebounds again.
Watched some of the first half today. Amazing how much smaller Henry looks surrounded by potential NBA players. Tried to go to the hoop a few times, but wasn't strong enough. Missed a three. Was active on defense, but seemed to get pushed around under the boards. Obviously a work in progress.
Quote from: ChuckyChip on July 04, 2016, 04:20:46 PM
Watched some of the first half today. Amazing how much smaller Henry looks surrounded by potential NBA players. Tried to go to the hoop a few times, but wasn't strong enough. Missed a three. Was active on defense, but seemed to get pushed around under the boards. Obviously a work in progress.
Ended up 2-11 from the field. 0-6 from 3. 6-7 free throws. 10 points.
He is 6-24 from the field in the two games combined. Room for improvement.
Shoulda stayed in college longer, ai na?
Quote from: ChuckyChip on July 04, 2016, 04:20:46 PM
Watched some of the first half today. Amazing how much smaller Henry looks surrounded by potential NBA players. Tried to go to the hoop a few times, but wasn't strong enough. Missed a three. Was active on defense, but seemed to get pushed around under the boards. Obviously a work in progress.
I had the same feeling watching Frank Kaminsky play for the Hornets last season. He was so tall and strong his last year at Wisconsin but seemed almost puny compared to pro bigs. The Hornets used him outside a lot, and he was decent behind the arc, but he usually was a defensive liability and did very little posting up.
And, sources say, he went to college for four years.
It will take Hank some time to take this huge step. It's too early to even make an educated guess as to how good he'll be.
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2016, 04:36:57 PM
It's too early to even make an educated guess as to how good he'll be.
Huh?
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2016, 04:36:57 PM
I had the same feeling watching Frank Kaminsky play for the Hornets last season. He was so tall and strong his last year at Wisconsin but seemed almost puny compared to pro bigs. The Hornets used him outside a lot, and he was decent behind the arc, but he usually was a defensive liability and did very little posting up.
And, sources say, he went to college for four years.
It will take Hank some time to take this huge step. It's too early to even make an educated guess as to how good he'll be.
It is also worth noting that today, most of the time Henry was being guarded by Stephen Zimmerman, who is also a one and done.
I have never liked the Henry on the perimeter look. I much prefer the inside game he has and would like to see him combine that with his rebounding instincts which are very strong.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 04, 2016, 04:38:27 PM
Huh?
Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...
OK, maybe my lingo isn't the best here. But I still think you know what I mean. (As Chris Chelios once said, "Don't quote what I say, quote what I meant to say.")
Right now, none of us really knows how good Henry will be. I have a pretty good idea how good Ingram will be, but I'd just be taking a stab at guessing Hank's ceiling.
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2016, 05:00:45 PM
Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...
OK, maybe my lingo isn't the best here. But I still think you know what I mean. (As Chris Chelios once said, "Don't quote what I say, quote what I meant to say.")
Right now, none of us really knows how good Henry will be. I have a pretty good idea how good Ingram will be, but I'd just be taking a stab at guessing Hank's ceiling.
I always look at the downside and then figure the upside is gravy. If Henry can build up his body a bit, he should be a decent rebounder, can set picks and make some junk baskets. If he ever gets a dependable shot he has good upside.
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2016, 05:00:45 PM
Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...
OK, maybe my lingo isn't the best here. But I still think you know what I mean. (As Chris Chelios once said, "Don't quote what I say, quote what I meant to say.")
Right now, none of us really knows how good Henry will be. I have a pretty good idea how good Ingram will be, but I'd just be taking a stab at guessing Hank's ceiling.
Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 25, 2013, 09:34:07 PM
#13 Brandon Ingram could wind up a top 5 guy (or better). Lanky and a little awkward, but the length and skill is there. Easily one of my favorite players to watch in this class.
That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.
I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...
...but don't discount those that do.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 04, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.
That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.
I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...
...but don't discount those that do.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 04, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.
That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.
I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...
...but don't discount those that do.
I just said Ingram was going to be a good pro, and I thought he would be a great college player the very first time I saw him play for Duke. That's not good enough?
I'd appreciate your perspective on Henry. What kind of NBA career do
you expect him to have?
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2016, 07:54:53 PM
I just said Ingram was going to be a good pro, and I thought he would be a great college player the very first time I saw him play for Duke. That's not good enough?
I'd appreciate your perspective on Henry. What kind of NBA career do you expect him to have?
Put some repseck on it
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 04, 2016, 08:05:21 PM
Put some repseck on it
Enquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: MU82 on July 04, 2016, 05:00:45 PMWell, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...
I'd have to side with JB on this one. Granted, you would need to put the time and effort in, but if it couldn't be predicted, what would the point of recruiting be? This is why I still feel Bo is one of the most underrated recruiters of the past couple decades, because while he may not have landed the stars, he was very good at finding guys that would be very good in his system. The best recruiters can land guys that are not just highly regarded, but also are going to be good.
Now granted, not even all the experts pick them right all the time, but I definitely feel there are some that are better than others and the ones that spend time watching and evaluating these guys and looking at the numbers they put up and the competition they put it up against can give a legitimately educated guess.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 04, 2016, 09:32:34 PM
I'd have to side with JB on this one. Granted, you would need to put the time and effort in, but if it couldn't be predicted, what would the point of recruiting be? This is why I still feel Bo is one of the most underrated recruiters of the past couple decades, because while he may not have landed the stars, he was very good at finding guys that would be very good in his system. The best recruiters can land guys that are not just highly regarded, but also are going to be good.
Now granted, not even all the experts pick them right all the time, but I definitely feel there are some that are better than others and the ones that spend time watching and evaluating these guys and looking at the numbers they put up and the competition they put it up against can give a legitimately educated guess.
I think you posted this in the wrong thread.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on July 04, 2016, 09:55:57 PM
I think you posted this in the wrong thread.
The topic at hand is player evaluation. The title may be Henry Summer League, but it's been adjacent to topic for a few posts now. Drafting, recruiting, it's all player evaluation, and if we're going back to Brandon Ingram from years ago, then I'm pretty sure it's germane.
Henry had 14 versus pacers today. Shooting improved 4-10 2-4 from 3.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 04, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.
That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.
I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...
...but don't discount those that do.
Impressive.
Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but Vander is playing on the Mavs summer league team
Some commentary from Henry at the Summer League
http://www.nba.com/magic/video/teams/magic/2016/07/02/1467495587604-henryellenson722016.mp4-628392
Quote from: Eldon on July 06, 2016, 07:27:56 AM
Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but Vander is playing on the Mavs summer league team
I'm going to operate under the illusion that this is brilliant sarcasm.
This is an excellent article on Henry with very detailed commentary on aspects of his game by his coaches on the Pistons:
http://www.mlive.com/pistons/index.ssf/2016/07/pistons_notes_svg_likes_first-.html
How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?
My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?
I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.
Quote from: brandx on July 06, 2016, 01:12:19 PM
How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?
My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?
I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.
Dean Smith was calculating points per possession.
Quote from: brandx on July 06, 2016, 01:12:19 PM
How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?
My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?
I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.
There aren't a lot of stats for HS kids that are worthwhile. Those doing work in this field also keep things pretty close to the vest.
Rest assured, recruiting preps is similar today compared to years left my past for many folks
Quote from: brandx on July 06, 2016, 01:12:19 PM
How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?
My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?
I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.
I think the bottom line is that advanced stats are of limited value at the HS level. The degree of competition is highly variable, the style of play in AAU does not match that at the college level at all.
Much is still done in open gyms, where you are looking to get a feel for the kids work ethic, athletic ability and fundamentals. The game play gives you a really solid idea of how that translates to organized competition.
The key element is having a good eye for the ability to develop. Advanced stats are just a small element in a grand picture of evaluating talent.
Quote from: brandx on July 06, 2016, 01:12:19 PM
How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?
My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?
I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.
This is silly.
Everybody knows Bobby just choked the statsheet until it gave him the numbers he wanted.
Quote from: brandx on July 06, 2016, 01:12:19 PM
How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?
My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?
I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.
Well, in those days, eFG% would have had far less value. The reason it is important today is because of the three point line and evaluates the points earned per shot attempt. Prior to the advent of the three, all the shots were worth 2 points.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 06, 2016, 04:46:06 PM
Well, in those days, eFG% would have had far less value. The reason it is important today is because of the three point line and evaluates the points earned per shot attempt. Prior to the advent of the three, all the shots were worth 2 points.
I get that, Brew. And as I said, I am not against advanced stats. But they aren't the final answer.
I am a huge fan of advanced stats in baseball and have been since the early '80s and still own all of Bill James' early books, but even there, the eye test is often enough. There is no advanced stat that can tell me anything about Mike Trout that I cannot see with my eyes watching him over a period of time. Advanced stats will only provide metrics that people can point to as proof.
The same is true in hoops. We know that a good 3 point shooter is going to have a high eFG%.
It's pretty easy to give a Top Ten NBA players list without ever looking at an advanced stat. I watched MJ. I watch Lebron. Our eyes tell us they are two of the best ever.
Quote from: brandx on July 06, 2016, 05:08:32 PM
Advanced stats will only provide metrics that people can point to as proof.
False. That's a personal problem of yours.
There is predictive value and there are identifiers in prep hoops (projecting to college) and in college to NBA.
Stats alone would be silly to use, but they aren't a tiny complement to the eye test. They can help identify where your eyes should be.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 06, 2016, 06:39:18 PM
False. That's a personal problem of yours.
There is predictive value and there are identifiers in prep hoops (projecting to college) and in college to NBA.
Stats alone would be silly to use, but they aren't a tiny complement to the eye test. They can help identify where your eyes should be.
I shouldn't have used the word "only".
I also don't disagree with your last paragraph. If you look back, my original point was that stats are not the end-all, be-all. Your statement seems to agree.
I'm not an advanced-stat guy, so I don't know the answer to this.
Do advanced stats support the notion that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever?
Quote from: MU82 on July 06, 2016, 09:49:46 PM
I'm not an advanced-stat guy, so I don't know the answer to this.
Do advanced stats support the notion that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever?
He has the highest career win shares per 48 minutes and the highest career player efficiency rating.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on July 06, 2016, 11:12:37 PM
He has the highest career win shares per 48 minutes and the highest career player efficiency rating.
Thanks, Andy. I wasn't sure if my eyes were correct or not. ;)
Henry sporting an untucked look today. Went 1-5 from field 4 points . 6 boards. 3 turnovers.
He seems like he is having a lot of fun out there.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on July 06, 2016, 11:12:37 PM
He has the highest career win shares per 48 minutes and the highest career player efficiency rating.
Thanks. Those do sound very impressive!
Who is No. 2 in those categories?
Another detailed story on Henry.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nba/pistons/2016/07/07/detroit-pistons-henry-ellenson-nba-summer-league/86835910/
Quote from: MU82 on July 07, 2016, 09:41:22 PM
Thanks. Those do sound very impressive!
Who is No. 2 in those categories?
Per basketball-reference.com, here's the top-10 for both categories, including NBA and ABA:
Win Shares per 48 Minutes1) Michael Jordan
2) David Robinson
3) Chris Paul
4) Wilt Chamberlain
5) Neil Johnston
6) Lebron James
7) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8) Magic Johnson
9) Charles Barkley
10) Kevin Durant
Player Efficiency Rating1) Michael Jordan
2) Lebron James
3) Shaquille O'Neal
4) David Robinson
5) Wilt Chamberlain
6) Chris Paul
7) Bob Pettit
8) Kevin Durant
9) Neil Johnston
10) Dwyane Wade
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 08, 2016, 10:34:10 AM
Per basketball-reference.com, here's the top-10 for both categories, including NBA and ABA:
Win Shares per 48 Minutes
1) Michael Jordan
2) David Robinson
3) Chris Paul
4) Wilt Chamberlain
5) Neil Johnston
6) Lebron James
7) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8) Magic Johnson
9) Charles Barkley
10) Kevin Durant
Player Efficiency Rating
1) Michael Jordan
2) Lebron James
3) Shaquille O'Neal
4) David Robinson
5) Wilt Chamberlain
6) Chris Paul
7) Bob Pettit
8) Kevin Durant
9) Neil Johnston
10) Dwyane Wade
Any type of stat with the word "win" in it that has Chris Paul #3 all-time and doesn't include Bill Russell is incredibly flawed.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 08, 2016, 10:34:10 AM
Per basketball-reference.com, here's the top-10 for both categories, including NBA and ABA:
Win Shares per 48 Minutes
1) Michael Jordan
2) David Robinson
3) Chris Paul
4) Wilt Chamberlain
5) Neil Johnston
6) Lebron James
7) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8) Magic Johnson
9) Charles Barkley
10) Kevin Durant
Player Efficiency Rating
1) Michael Jordan
2) Lebron James
3) Shaquille O'Neal
4) David Robinson
5) Wilt Chamberlain
6) Chris Paul
7) Bob Pettit
8) Kevin Durant
9) Neil Johnston
10) Dwyane Wade
These stats have some value in a general sense. However, common sense needs to be applied. There have been significant rules changes over the years which makes compassion difficult.
For example Oscar Robertson had a season which he averaged a triple double. Any player efficiency rating that does not have Oscar Robertson among the top has flaws.
Robertson is 16th in win shares/48 and 20th in PER. The lack of a three-point line hurt him as he only had 3 seasons over 50% FG% and his best percentage for a full season was only 0.518. Either way, I'd consider being in the top-20 to be "among the top", and Neil Johnston is up there and he played in the 1950s, so it's not like it was impossible to be efficient back in the day.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 08, 2016, 11:43:18 AM
Robertson is 16th in win shares/48 and 20th in PER. The lack of a three-point line hurt him as he only had 3 seasons over 50% FG% and his best percentage for a full season was only 0.518. Either way, I'd consider being in the top-20 to be "among the top", and Neil Johnston is up there and he played in the 1950s, so it's not like it was impossible to be efficient back in the day.
Did you ever see Oscar play?
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on July 08, 2016, 11:49:15 AM
Did you ever see Oscar play?
No. But I could watch every minute and he'd still be a top-20 WS/48 and PER player. As the last NBA "greatest" list had 50 players on it, I'd say that's pretty much elite. And he did it without a three-point line. So all the better. Seems like you're trying to hatch an argument out of nothing. Pretty sure that role on Scoop has already been taken by AnotherHeisenLivermore.
The basic reason that Oscar averaged a triple-double that season was due to the pace of the game. Some perspective:
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2014/01/29/a-closer-look-at-oscar-robertsons-triple-double-season/5027023/
"In 1961-62, teams averaged 71.4 rebounds per game, 23.9 assists and 118.8 points. When Jason Kidd averaged 13.0 points, 8.2 rebounds and 9.2 assists in 2006-07, the league averages were 41.1, 21.3 and 98.7, respectively. If Kidd had the benefit of '61-62's pace, he would have averaged 15.6 points, 14.2 rebounds and 10.3 assists.
Put Robertson's '61-62 season at the pace in '06-07 and his numbers drop to 25.6 points, 7.2 rebounds and 10.2 assists; still Hall of Fame-worthy numbers....
So Robertson's season was still amazing as a quick scan through www.basketball-reference.com's Play Index indicates there have only been four others that would have averaged a triple-double – and none within five points per game of Robertson – but it was not quite as unique as the surface stats indicate."
And this...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/russell-westbrook-is-the-greatest-triple-double-machine-in-recorded-history/
"But Westbrook's triple-double splurge — and the league's as a whole — is way more impressive than it appears on the surface. That's because Magic's "Showtime" Lakers teams from the '80s played at a much faster pace, giving players more possessions per game to score, assist and rebound. Ditto for Oscar Robertson: The Big O played in the early 1960s, a time of breakneck back-and-forth play that allowed him to pick up a mountain of box score stats.
Adjusting for pace shows that Westbrook is in rarefied territory in averaging a triple-double per 100 possessions; and he did it last year, too. It's an exclusive group: Only eight players have ever done so for a season, and just four of them — Westbrook, LeBron James, Jason Kidd and Magic Johnson — have done it for multiple seasons. Also on this list: Draymond Green this season...
Where is Oscar, though? While the Big O's 1961-62 season remains the only time a player managed to average a triple-double per game for an entire season, he's not included in this list. His Cincinnati Royals played at an incredible pace: nearly 125 possessions per 48 minutes. And because of that, Robertson fell just short of averaging a pace-adjusted triple-double that vaunted season — his stat line was 26.7 points, 10.8 rebounds and 9.9 assists per 100 possessions. That said, Robertson averaged a ridiculous 30-10-10 per game over his first six seasons."
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 04, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...
...but don't discount those that do.
by that same logic, you're not an NBA scout, so who cares about your opinion on hank...we'll take their's?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 08, 2016, 12:06:42 PM
The basic reason that Oscar averaged a triple-double that season was due to the pace of the game. Some perspective:
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2014/01/29/a-closer-look-at-oscar-robertsons-triple-double-season/5027023/
"In 1961-62, teams averaged 71.4 rebounds per game, 23.9 assists and 118.8 points. When Jason Kidd averaged 13.0 points, 8.2 rebounds and 9.2 assists in 2006-07, the league averages were 41.1, 21.3 and 98.7, respectively. If Kidd had the benefit of '61-62's pace, he would have averaged 15.6 points, 14.2 rebounds and 10.3 assists.
The NBA is a different game today than it was 50+ years ago. "Adjusting for pace" across eras is a fruitless exercise. NBA players should be compared to their peers who played during that time period. For example, the NBA played at that "breakneck back-and-forth" pace for over a decade. How many other guys averaged a triple-double in a season?
Quote from: avid1010 on July 08, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
by that same logic, you're not an NBA scout, so who cares about your opinion on hank...we'll take their's?
How do you know what I am or am not?
Henry 22 in summer league final. 7-19 from field 12 boards. Missed last second shot to tie championship game, but overall was very active.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 08, 2016, 12:47:54 PM
The NBA is a different game today than it was 50+ years ago. "Adjusting for pace" across eras is a fruitless exercise. NBA players should be compared to their peers who played during that time period. For example, the NBA played at that "breakneck back-and-forth" pace for over a decade. How many other guys averaged a triple-double in a season?
No one. I'm certainly not saying he wasn't a great player. Just that the entire "averaged a triple/double in a season" needs to be judged in context.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 08, 2016, 12:52:40 PM
How do you know what I am or am not?
enlighten me...because you seem to enjoy putting yourself on a pedestal on this site. i just figured someone who had time to do that wasn't working in the league.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 08, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
No one. I'm certainly not saying he wasn't a great player. Just that the entire "averaged a triple/double in a season" needs to be judged in context.
Sultan, I pretty much agree with your points. Another thing to remember is that 'O' was a full 6'5", 220+ pounds. He could compete with the power forwards in the league back then.
What made Oscar special was the way he played the game. Very sound fundamentals. His game was as well rounded as Lebron. And comparing the size of players then and now, he had the same physical advantages that Lebron has now at 6'8", 250 lbs.
Quote from: brandx on July 08, 2016, 03:57:12 PM
Sultan, I pretty much agree with your points. Another thing to remember is that 'O' was a full 6'5", 220+ pounds. He could compete with the power forwards in the league back then.
What made Oscar special was the way he played the game. Very sound fundamentals. His game was as well rounded as Lebron. And comparing the size of players then and now, he had the same physical advantages that Lebron has now at 6'8", 250 lbs.
One persons point of view
http://nba.nbcsports.com/2013/10/03/kareem-says-oscar-robertson-better-than-jordan-or-lebron/
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 08, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
Any type of stat with the word "win" in it that has Chris Paul #3 all-time and doesn't include Bill Russell is incredibly flawed.
Paul may be benefiting from modern basketball having more stats being kept than when Russell played. IIRC, steals, assists, and blocks are somewhat newer concepts, and each one of those in a career would earn you some fraction of a win share.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 08, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
Any type of stat with the word "win" in it that has Chris Paul #3 all-time and doesn't include Bill Russell is incredibly flawed.
Made me laugh ... but it's also so true.
But hey, Russell only got the
easy 22.5 rebounds per game over his career and only won the
easy 11 championships!
Also, I laugh every time I hear about somebody who sets a new record for blocked shots -- as if Russell and Chamberlain didn't have more back when they weren't "official" stats.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 08, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
Any type of stat with the word "win" in it that has Chris Paul #3 all-time and doesn't include Bill Russell is incredibly flawed.
Russell's rank (#26 all-time) does seem a bit surprising, especially with guys like Chamberlain, Johnston, West, Pettit, and Chamberlain all being in the top-20 despite playing in an era without an appreciation of advanced metrics. Russell's PER is even lower (#104 all-time) which seems incredibly low, regardless of the era he played in.
As Andy noted, Russell may suffer from fewer "official" stats being kept that aid those rankings, but with guys like Chamberlain and Johnston in the top-10 despite playing in similar or earlier eras, it does seem odd that Russell would be so far down.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on July 08, 2016, 09:27:51 AMAnother detailed story on Henry.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nba/pistons/2016/07/07/detroit-pistons-henry-ellenson-nba-summer-league/86835910/
This is a great piece. From Stan Van Gundy:
"It's one thing to get the shot off. It's another thing to knock it down on a consistent basis. We need some tweaks, nothing major, but we need some tweaks to his shooting mechanics and I think he can get there."
And associate head coach Bob Beyer:
"We have to get his balance really square and he has to finish square to the rim. He twists a little bit, with his body and with his hand. I think that's an easy thing that we can tweak, and once he gets that down, I think he has the ability to be a consistent three-point shooter, especially at that position."
I certainly hope Henry can address the issue with his shooting form. Identifying what he needs to work on is the first step. Now it's up to him to put in the work.
DET really is one of the best places for him. SVG is a good coach, and the offensive flow will be ideal for Henry, what with Drummond inside. In theory, if Henry can develop a consistent outside shot, they complement each other very well. Henry won't be expected to contribute substantially right away, and can just focus on his game.
So, Henry needs to get stronger and shoot better. Which we all pretty much knew.
Watch Oscar Robertson YouTube clips sometime. Witness the size of the defenders, the lack of help defense, and the lack of a left hand. I checked the clips out after he started criticizing Curry. He would be average in today's NBA. 55 years ago, he was a revelation, the first of his kind, a guidepost for others to try to emulate. But so many have that he would now be ordinary.
Quote from: tower912 on July 11, 2016, 09:33:51 AMSo, Henry needs to get stronger and shoot better. Which we all pretty much knew.
I thought the quote about his release mechanics was news. Van Gundy said more about Henry's shooting in one quote than Wojo did in an entire season. Most of the discussion this past year was about Henry's shot selection — not whether he fully squares up for his shot.
Quote from: MU82 on July 10, 2016, 11:05:45 PM
Made me laugh ... but it's also so true.
But hey, Russell only got the easy 22.5 rebounds per game over his career and only won the easy 11 championships!
Also, I laugh every time I hear about somebody who sets a new record for blocked shots -- as if Russell and Chamberlain didn't have more back when they weren't "official" stats.
The nature of the game led to the gaudy rebound stats.
Bob Petit averaged 26 pts. and 16+ rebounds, made the All-Star team every single season and was 1st team All-NBA every season but one. Sadly, he didn't play with teams full of HoFers.
Bill Russell is one of the greatest human beings to ever play in the NBA, but I don't thing he was as great on the court as Wilt and Kareem. They didn't have to change the rules of the game in order to stop Russell; they did to try to slow down Kareem and Wilt.
I'd probably rate Bill as #5 all-time.
Quote from: Marcus92 on July 11, 2016, 10:33:24 AM
I thought the quote about his release mechanics was news. Van Gundy said more about Henry's shooting in one quote than Wojo did in an entire season. Most of the discussion this past year was about Henry's shot selection — not whether he fully squares up for his shot.
So, maybe Wojo knows nothin' 'bout shootin', hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 11, 2016, 12:13:15 PMSo, maybe Wojo knows nothin' 'bout shootin', hey?
Or he doesn't believe in talking about it in the media.
Wojo seems to follow the same approach as Coach K, who rarely offers much of substance in his public statements.
Quote from: brandx on July 11, 2016, 12:10:59 PM
The nature of the game led to the gaudy rebound stats.
Bob Petit averaged 26 pts. and 16+ rebounds, made the All-Star team every single season and was 1st team All-NBA every season but one. Sadly, he didn't play with teams full of HoFers.
Bill Russell is one of the greatest human beings to ever play in the NBA, but I don't thing he was as great on the court as Wilt and Kareem. They didn't have to change the rules of the game in order to stop Russell; they did to try to slow down Kareem and Wilt.
I'd probably rate Bill as #5 all-time.
I mostly agree.
I'd definitely rate Russell behind Wilt and Kareem. I'm blanking on another center I'd rate over Russell, though. Maybe Shaq, but probably not. Was Olajuwon a center or a PF?
Quote from: MU82 on July 11, 2016, 02:14:54 PM
I mostly agree.
I'd definitely rate Russell behind Wilt and Kareem. I'm blanking on another center I'd rate over Russell, though. Maybe Shaq, but probably not. Was Olajuwon a center or a PF?
Center. Even when paired with Sampson in Houston, Hakeem played the pivot.
It's seriously hard to compare NBA players from different generations. The game was way different in 1965 than it was in 1985, and it's way different today than it was even 25-30 years ago.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 11, 2016, 02:20:23 PM
Center. Even when paired with Sampson in Houston, Hakeem played the pivot.
It's seriously hard to compare NBA players from different generations. The game was way different in 1965 than it was in 1985, and it's way different today than it was even 25-30 years ago.
It's way different, sure, but it's still fun to make comparisons. That's what we dopey sports fans do!
If we're calling Olajuwon a center, I'd rate him right up there with Russell. A far superior offensive player who still could block shots, intimidate and rebound.
I am careful not to dismiss Russell, because aside from his rebound and defensive play, he also was the ultimate leader and warrior. Those intangibles translate well in any era!
Quote from: MU82 on July 11, 2016, 02:14:54 PM
I mostly agree.
I'd definitely rate Russell behind Wilt and Kareem. I'm blanking on another center I'd rate over Russell, though. Maybe Shaq, but probably not. Was Olajuwon a center or a PF?
Just to be clear, 82, I was rating Russell as the #5 player of all time - not just the #5 center.
Quote from: tower912 on July 11, 2016, 09:33:51 AM
So, Henry needs to get stronger and shoot better. Which we all pretty much knew.
Watch Oscar Robertson YouTube clips sometime. Witness the size of the defenders, the lack of help defense, and the lack of a left hand. I checked the clips out after he started criticizing Curry. He would be average in today's NBA. 55 years ago, he was a revelation, the first of his kind, a guidepost for others to try to emulate. But so many have that he would now be ordinary.
A caveat to this point should be that players develop within the training techniques and systems of their day and their game would probably benefit significantly if emerged today rather than 50 years ago.
Agreed. But at the end of the day, he was the first 6'5 power guard. Being guarded by guys 6'1 and 170. Today, he would still be as skilled (possibly more) as strong (possibly more) and guarded by guys his size or larger with far more sophisticated defensive schemes. He wouldn't the physical outlier today that he was then. Every team has 6'5-6'8 defensive specialists. Vander, at 6'4, isn't big enough to play shooting guard in the NBA. The Big O played at 6'5, 220. I am not downplaying his skills or his records. He was a trailblazer/pioneer/first of his kind ballplayer who should be celebrated. Today, however, he would be unable to dominate physically. He was an evolutionary landmark.
Quote from: tower912 on July 12, 2016, 08:19:27 AM
Agreed. But at the end of the day, he was the first 6'5 power guard. Being guarded by guys 6'1 and 170. Today, he would still be as skilled (possibly more) as strong (possibly more) and guarded by guys his size or larger with far more sophisticated defensive schemes. He wouldn't the physical outlier today that he was then. Every team has 6'5-6'8 defensive specialists. Vander, at 6'4, isn't big enough to play shooting guard in the NBA. The Big O played at 6'5, 220. I am not downplaying his skills or his records. He was a trailblazer/pioneer/first of his kind ballplayer who should be celebrated. Today, however, he would be unable to dominate physically. He was an evolutionary landmark.
The guards in Oscars day were very big and physical.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on July 12, 2016, 09:25:46 AM
The guards in Oscars day were very big and physical.
From Basketball Reference, they listed Robertson at 6'5", 205. Here are the sizes of the top point guard options for the rest of the league the year Robertson averaged a triple-double:
Fred LaCour, St. Louis, 6'5", 210
Al Bianchi, Syracuse, 6'3", 185
Slick Leonard, Chicago, 6'3", 185
Al Butler, New York, 6'2", 185
Jerry West, Los Angeles, 6'2", 175
Gene Shue, Detroit, 6'2", 170
Larry Costello, Syracuse, 6'1", 186
Bob Cousy, Boston, 6'1", 175
Guy Rodgers, Philadelphia, 6'0", 185
Al Attles, Philadelphia, 6'0", 175
So other than one guy, Robertson had at least 2 inches and 20 pounds on everyone he played against. I'm not at all saying that's the only reason he was successful, but comparably speaking, he was much bigger than the rest of the league.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 12, 2016, 11:38:00 AM
From Basketball Reference, they listed Robertson at 6'5", 205. Here are the sizes of the top point guard options for the rest of the league the year Robertson averaged a triple-double:
Fred LaCour, St. Louis, 6'5", 210
Al Bianchi, Syracuse, 6'3", 185
Slick Leonard, Chicago, 6'3", 185
Al Butler, New York, 6'2", 185
Jerry West, Los Angeles, 6'2", 175
Gene Shue, Detroit, 6'2", 170
Larry Costello, Syracuse, 6'1", 186
Bob Cousy, Boston, 6'1", 175
Guy Rodgers, Philadelphia, 6'0", 185
Al Attles, Philadelphia, 6'0", 175
So other than one guy, Robertson had at least 2 inches and 20 pounds on everyone he played against. I'm not at all saying that's the only reason he was successful, but comparably speaking, he was much bigger than the rest of the league.
Yeah but you could do that for any year. Not all guys at all positions are the exact same heights and weights. Some guys are bigger and stronger, some guys are quicker, some guys are better shooters, some guys have a higher motor, etc.
Heck Bucks fans are hoping for a 7' point guard this year. Compare him to other top PGs in the league and Giannis is a monster.
Quote from: tower912 on July 11, 2016, 09:33:51 AM
So, Henry needs to get stronger and shoot better. Which we all pretty much knew.
Watch Oscar Robertson YouTube clips sometime. Witness the size of the defenders, the lack of help defense, and the lack of a left hand. I checked the clips out after he started criticizing Curry. He would be average in today's NBA. 55 years ago, he was a revelation, the first of his kind, a guidepost for others to try to emulate. But so many have that he would now be ordinary.
What's your point? You can't compare generations. Would Wilt be the same 55 years later? My goodness, Deandre Jordan would average 30 and 20 if he went back to 1955, but times change. 90MPH pitchers used to be fast in MLB and Paul Hornung rushed for 3700 yards and is in the HOF.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on July 12, 2016, 09:25:46 AM
The guards in Oscars day were very big and physical.
What??? No they weren't. WTF are you talking about?
Quote from: esotericmindguy on July 12, 2016, 12:19:57 PM
What's your point? You can't compare generations. Would Wilt be the same 55 years later? My goodness, Deandre Jordan would average 30 and 20 if he went back to 1955, but times change. 90MPH pitchers used to be fast in MLB and Paul Hornung rushed for 3700 yards and is in the HOF.
Jim Brown was a 6'2", 232 pound running back in an era when the average linebacker went about 225-230.
Another reason why comparing players across eras - while possibly fun for the sake of debate - is an exercise in futility.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 12, 2016, 12:39:11 PM
Jim Brown was a 6'2", 232 pound running back in an era when the average linebacker went about 225-230.
Another reason why comparing players across eras - while possibly fun for the sake of debate - is an exercise in futility.
Not to mention changing rules and many societal changes . each player is a product of his era. Judge all by when they played.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on July 12, 2016, 12:24:37 PM
What??? No they weren't. WTF are you talking about?
Oscar is what we would call today a combo guard or a switchable. To compare him to point guards is simple not reflective of what actually happened on the court.
Oscar would typically be guarded by the other teams best defender. Guys like Walt Frazier, who was 6-4 well over 200 pounds and cat quick or John Havliczek who was a very strong guy large man
There were lots of 6-5 6-6 guards in his days. Guys like the Van Arsdale twins, John Havliczek.
I think it is a fools errand to try and diminish Oscar's accomplishments because he was larger than everyone else.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar , stated :
LeBron is awesome, MJ was awesome—but I think Oscar Robertson would have kicked them both in the behind Absolutely. Oscar was awesome. He had brains. [...] He had all the skills.
He could rebound and box out guys four and six inches taller than him. He was ruggedly built. He had fluid, quickness and just understood the game. No flair, he just got the job done every night. Who's going to average double figures in points, assists and rebounds?
Quote from: Pakuni on July 12, 2016, 12:39:11 PM
Jim Brown was a 6'2", 232 pound running back in an era when the average linebacker went about 225-230.
Another reason why comparing players across eras - while possibly fun for the sake of debate - is an exercise in futility.
Not necessarily. We can look at league averages for any era and calculate how much better a player was than the league average. Then add standard deviations for the breadth of the talent in different eras (there are more, good/great players now than in the 50s or 60s) and you can get a general analysis across eras.
Comparing physical attributes of players is useless - saying players now are quicker, stronger because of changes in nutrition and training. What is to say that with modern nutrition and training that Oscar wouldn't have been a better player? So we really can't make comparisons on that.
We can only compare across eras on how a player did against those he played against.
Quote from: brandx on July 12, 2016, 01:53:10 PM
Not necessarily. We can look at league averages for any era and calculate how much better a player was than the league average. Then add standard deviations for the breadth of the talent in different eras (there are more, good/great players now than in the 50s or 60s) and you can get a general analysis across eras.
That sounds like some awesome bar chatter. ;)
Well Kareem was wrong. Yes Robertson was great, but he's no Jordan, or as much as I dislike him, even Lebron.
Jordan, Lebron, Pippen, all guys who all big, long and really quick would give Robertson fits. Not taking away his triple double year, you can only play against the guys that are there but to say he would kick Jordan in the behind? Please.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on July 12, 2016, 02:46:08 PM
Well Kareem was wrong. Yes Robertson was great, but he's no Jordan, or as much as I dislike him, even Lebron.
Jordan, Lebron, Pippen, all guys who all big, long and really quick would give Robertson fits. Not taking away his triple double year, you can only play against the guys that are there but to say he would kick Jordan in the behind? Please.
Aren't you like 22 years old?
Pistons have given 7-foot-3 Serbian Boban Marjanovic a 3-year, $21 million deal.
More P.T. competition for the Hankster.
Leuer is the competition. This guy will be the 3rd string center, behind Drummond and Baynes. Forwards are Leuer, HE, Morris, and Tobias Harris. Stanley Johnson will split time at the 2 and 3.
Quote from: tower912 on July 13, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Leuer is the competition. This guy will be the 3rd string center, behind Drummond and Baynes. Forwards are Leuer, HE, Morris, and Tobias Harris. Stanley Johnson will split time at the 2 and 3.
You're probably right. I don't know the Pistons.
I do know that there are only so many minutes in a game for PF/C types, and I also know that on many teams those are interchangeable. Whenever Drummond avoids foul trouble, he will play a ton of minutes.
But again, I don't know what SVG's plans are for his frontcourt.