User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.8152 seconds
52 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Sure. His name might rhyme with Dark Moo-ban.
Solid, yes, as was Howard. Neither were all star caliber though, which is what I was referring to. I know that PPG isn't everything of course, but Dwight was around 12 and Amare about 13.5. Still a ways away from the 18-20 that similarly talented players who went to college were putting up in their rookie seasons.
Simmons is often funny, but he can be so blatantly biased sometimes that he's hard to take seriously as a credible NBA analyst. Doc Rivers coach of the year? Really? Is he even on anyone else's radar? I don't know if he'd crack my top 10.
And maybe it's my own bias as a Jazz fan, but Simmons irrational hatred of Karl Malone has long passed the 'boring and predictable' phase and is starting to enter into 'creepy, obsessive, jilted lover' territory. We get it, Bill; you disagree with the 1997 MVP vote (even though statistics show it was a perfectly defensible choice). It's been 15 years. Get over it.
His discussion of the coach of the year is legitimately hilarious. Right after acknowledging the absurdity that Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, and Jerry Sloan combined have only won the award twice, he gives it to Doc Rivers for coaching the 30-22 Celtics rather than Popovich for coaching the mostly Ginobili-less Spurs to a 37-14 record. Does he realize how crazy that sounds? His justification is that Doc at various points in the season has had to deal with losing Jeff Green, Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Wilcox, and Mickael Pietrus -- 4 below-average players -- in addition to trade rumors leading up to the deadline. I'm struggling to figure out how that constitutes exceptional hardship this season. The Grizzlies have the same record despite losing Z-Bo for most of the year and Arthur for all of it. Meanwhile, Popovich cobbled together a highly-effective wing rotation out of Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Gary Neal, and Richard Jefferson with Ginobili out, and he's getting major production out of Tiago Splitter and a formerly-disgruntled Stephen Jackson off the bench.
Also in relation to his Celtics-bias, Simmons argues that last Sunday's game in Boston was a must-win for the Heat. I could try to explain how he reaches that conclusion, but it makes my head hurt.
Side note: Despite his pro-Celtics, anti-Kobe, and LeBron psycho-babble biases, I still generally enjoy reading Simmons's NBA columns. He seems to be paying even more attention to the league this year than in previous seasons, and I think his enthusiasm and interest really come through in how he writes about it versus other topics.
Agree that River as coach of the year is a bit silly (though he's done a very good job) and I sort of can't believe how much Simmons is getting excited by this stretch of good basketball the Celtics have played.
I do assume the "friend in Dallas" exists, though. I'm not going to start calling the guy a liar without any previous evidence of that, as far as I'm aware.
A friend of Simmons was at game four of the finals last year with courtside seats. He was watching the Heat bench when the Mavs called a timeout down seven with about 10 minutes to go. LeBron sat on the bench and chewed his fingernails instead of being excited. Wade got a disgusted look on his face eventually.
I think that's pretty much it.
I heard that podcast and let's just say Bob Ryan is not a Malone fan. I do struggle with Malone, as I do think that his situation was just so consistently good for him that its just hard to rate him effectively. Similarily, while I might be biased I've always thought that its hard for people to rate James Worthy. While I do think that Malone would have been thought of as a lesser (even if slightly) player if we'd seem him in his prime playing w/o Stockton, I think that Worthy would have been seen as a better player historically if he hadn't played with the Showtime Lakers and Magic. Nothing worse than being the third wheel.
It's to be expected when looking at basketball from a baseball perspective. Nomar Garciaparra and Mark Prior won't ever be in the HOF.
Sampson's HOF case is perfectly in line with the precedents set for the basketball HOF: A great college career can get you in on it's own merits. I fully expect Christian Laettner to one day get in, though his NBA career falls more in the Hall of solidly above average, and short of the Hall of Very Good.
Really? This is the kind of amateur hour crap that people hate about sports talk radio and shout-tv that ESPN runs. This is the perfect example of the result framing the story. If they win, the whole thing is spun that Lebron's cool under pressure and nothing fazes him.
the league is just much healthier when they make players wait a year to enter the league.
Got proof? This is always thrown out by old sportswriters, but no one ever offers the why. Or the justification. So, got proof?
Daryl Morey defends end game isolations. I think Henry Abbott's head probably exploded having to write that. One of the paragons of applying stats likes end game isolations! The horror!
Agreed. Really, every year you can justify giving it to Pop or Phil Jackson or Thibs or SVG. Those guys are all so good. I think Adelman's going to win it, though. He's done a great job, but he owes Rambis some thanks. Following someone so bad always makes you look good.
Bizarre.
Don't you mean Abbott?
in addition to the argument on the other page--that by forcing players to go to college for a year, the rookie contracts that they come into the league on wind up paying for their age 20-24 seasons instead of their 19-23 seasons. also, there is the thing about evaluating high school players against high school competition versus evaluating collegiate players against collegiate competition--there's also the part about players being more productive in their first year out of college, versus their first year out of high school.
i just think that most every high school player who's come into the NBA had to caddied around for some time because they were physically, mentally, or skillfully unprepared for the level of competition in the NBA. by making those players wait a year, you're not only making the league better, you're giving those players a chance to make themselves better--or at least more prepared.
I don't think it's the biggest thing in the world, but I suspect--can't know for sure--that some of the people who washed out would have developed more or at least maintained their confidence had they had a couple of years of college stardom behind them. (Of course some would have been revealed as non-prospects.)
Given the limitations on NBA practice time, I've never really understood the argument that players learn more sitting on an NBA bench than playing in college. Does the #11 guy really get so much out of game day walkthroughs?
And confidence is key, I think, and something that can easily be shattered in any sport by moving up too fast.
I don't really care about this. I think worrying about NBA owners' finances ranks about -10,000 in my list of life priorities.
also, there is the thing about evaluating high school players against high school competition versus evaluating collegiate players against collegiate competition
Even in college you have this issue. Is a guy at Lehigh on the same plane as Duke? (in this case, yes) Add in the foreign guys, and requiring college is still an issue. And, even if I concede the point that the NCAA is a flat level of talent on which to evaluate guys, why are there still busts? Why is Hasheem Thabeet taken 2nd, or Adam Morrison taken at all, Olowakandi taken at all much less 1st overall?
there's also the part about players being more productive in their first year out of college, versus their first year out of high school.
Is there a huge amount of proof for this? Even if there is, does it really matter? Is a team looking to take a guy 4th and vault to contender immediately? Let's face it, players aren't drafted for their productivity the following year, they're drafted for their productivity in five years. It's why a guy like Kawhi Leonard falls and guys like Jan Vesely and Valunciunus are top 5 picks.
i just think that most every high school player who's come into the NBA had to caddied around for some time because they were physically, mentally, or skillfully unprepared for the level of competition in the NBA.
I really don't see how that changes. Sure, Anthony Davis may know how to cook for himself next year, but maybe not. He'll still be only 19. It's not like college makes you mature overnight. I know I was far from mature and ready to live alone at 19. I was no closer than I was the previous year, I just wanted to live under my parents' roof less.
Given the limitations on NBA practice time, I've never really understood the argument that players learn more sitting on an NBA bench than playing in college.
NCAA practice limitations are far more restrictive. They're limited on time with the coach. Time in season. Number of games. And, on top of all that, they're required to spend an equal amount of time or more on something that will not help them play basketball. Add in that the coaches in college have a conflict of interest in developing a player. An NBA team wants to develop a guy to win and be successful in the NBA. The NCAA coach doesn't have that as a top priority, he's looking to save his job.
Re: Malone - Maybe, but I think you could say this about almost anybody. The "count the ringzzz!!!" argument for ranking players is used in the NBA more than in any other sport, and it's hard to deny that many of the all time greats benefitted immensely from playing on ridiculously stacked teams (Magic, Bird, and Bill Russell to name three). Of course it's not a coincidence that the all time assist leader (Stock) and the second all time scorer (Malone) had each other for 18 years to pad their numbers. Just like it's not a coincidence that the previous all time assist leader (Magic) had the number one all time scorer (Kareem) as a teammate for many years. You're supposed to utilize your teammates strengths and abilities. I don't think Stockton/Malone should be dinged for discovering how to play to each others strengths better than almost any other teammates in history any more than Joe Montana and Jerry Rice should be knocked down a few pegs for doing the same thing.
Re: Worthy - I don't know. I think Worthy actually is generally ranked HIGHER than he would be without Magic/Kareem. His individual numbers might be greater, but without the championships, how would people see him? Simmons himself pointed out in his book that Worthy had a very comparable career to Tom Chambers. But Worthy won rings and Chambers didn't. And as a result, Big Game James usually places 40-50 spots higher on all the rankings I've seen. I think he was a much bigger beneficiary of the "right place, right time" career boost than Malone was.
The coaching ranks in the Hall are even more screwed up. I went on a mini-rant when they announced that Phil Knight bought his way in a few months ago. To get in the Hall as a college coach, you just have to be at a school for a long time and win 20-30 a year. You don't have to have a ton of tourney success, you definitely don't need a title, just rack up counting stats.
The NBA should make their own HoF.
I don't know about this. His NBA career hurts him and I don't think there is anyone in the universe who likes him.
Halls of Fame are just constructs around some idea. Laettner belongs in THIS basketball HoF as much as MJ does (or no less than anyone else not named MJ). Laettner hit literally one of the greatest shots in the history of the sport and, to boot, was one of the winningest players ever. And, that's not to mention his very above average pro career.
Jimmy: I don't understand what you mean here.
If a college player develops *too* much, he's gone.
Like Gene Keady? <ducks>
Nah, he sits by the Dallas bench. I won't get into my other problems with the story in detail (Wade, a Final MVP, needs LeBron to "take them home" in a game they're winning"), but what utter horseshit.
Agreed. Really, every year you can justify giving it to Pop or Phil Jackson or Thibs or SVG. Those guys are all so good. I think Adelman's going to win it, though. He's done a great job, but he owes Rambis some thanks. Following someone so bad always makes you look good.
I don't think Adelman is in the picture. From what I've read, most people thinks it's between Pop and Thibs. The T'Wolves won't make the playoffs, so even though he's done a great job that probably makes him ineligible on a lot of people's ballots.
Jimmy: I don't understand what you mean here.
What I think he means, and said poorly, is that a college coach's job isn't to get players ready to succeed in the NBA. But if a 19 year old is being coached by someone who's job it is to ensure their success, it's a different story.
That's Simmons's schtick, though. Moments of clarity rendered in body language. He's blabbed the same kind of crap before, often with himself as witness.(*) I seem to recall a crystallizing moment when someone's demeanor foretold the certain doom of Mike Dunleavy's Clipper run.
Which also means the story's probably BS.
(*) Sometimes it's the crowd that "realizes" the truth and expresses it in a single, snapshot reaction. Typically it's, of course, the Boston/TD Garden or Fenway crowd.
I assumed this, but it makes no sense. Your players getting better (such that they get NBA attention) makes your program better.
Yeah, the Wolves have faded with every legitimate NBA player other than Love getting hurt. Seriously, since Rubio has been out, they have lost Ridnour, Barea, Beasley, Pekovic, and even Darko for several games. That's 5 of the team's 7 best players and the only other big man on the roster. It's a shame that the season fell apart that way, but I'm not letting it get in the way of my positive vibes going forward.
I like how the story says:
"And for the monolith of a program that he’s constructed in Lexington – an assembly line of recruiting and player development – Calipari understands that the nature of big-time recruiting leaves him vulnerable to investigation and scandal."
... as if the cheating Calipari apparently did -- or why would something like this be in this kind of story? -- was inevitable and not the product of an inveterate cheat continuing to cheat.
If the Knicks hire him, its 2-3 more years of utter dysfunction. I'm done.
List of High School Draftees I'm going to ignore the second round guys, because nobody expects production out of a second round pick anyway. I'm going to base "NBA Ready" or "Not NBA Ready" on playing 10+ minutes a game at 15+ PER. Not perfect, but it says a guy is getting minutes and playing at an above average level. If you're doing that at age 18-19, chances are you're going to be a good player.
Ready:
(*)1995: Kevin Garnett: 28.7 MPG / 15.8 PER
(*)1997: Tracy McGrady: 18.4 / 17.4
(*)2002: Amare Stoudemire(3): 31.3 / 16.2
(+)2003: LeBron James: 39.5 / 18.3
(+)2004: Dwight Howard: 32.6 / 17.2
2004: Al Jefferson: 14.8 / 16.6
2004: Josh Smith: 27.7 / 14.4
Borderline:
(*)1996: Kobe Bryant(1): 15.5 / 14.4
(*)2000: Darius Miles: 26.3 / 14.7
(*)2001: Tyson Chandler: 19.6 / 13.0
(*)2001: Eddy Curry: 16.0 / 14.4
Not Ready:
1996: Jermaine O'Neal: 10.2 / 13.7
1998: Al Harrington: 7.6 / 6.4
(*)1998: Jonathan Bender: 5.4 / 7.6
1999: Leon Smith(2): 7.1 / 14
2000: DeShawn Stevenson: 7.4 / 4.3
(+)2001: Kwame Brown: 14.4 / 11.2
(*)2001: Desagana Diop: 6.1 / 3.2
2003: Travis Outlaw: 2.4 / 16.4
2003: Ndudi Ebi: 1.9 / 9.3
2003: Kendrick Perkins(4): 3.5 / 22.8
2004: Shaun Livingston: 27.1 / 10.4
(*)2004: Robert Swift: 4.5 / 5.2
(*)2004: Sebastian Telfair: 19.6 / 9.7
2004: J.R. Smith: 24.5 / 10.9
2004: Dorell Wright: 9.0 / 5.2
(*)2005: Martell Webster: 17.5 / 11.6
(*)2005: Andrew Bynum: 7.3 / 7.4
2005: Gerald Green: 11.7 / 13.1
(+) #1 overall pick
(*) Lottery pick
(1) Ask the Lakers if they're upset about drafting Kobe when they did
(2) Small sample size -- essentially no NBA career. But there's probably only a handful of colleges at which he would have been successful. He had issues, sadly.
(3) Age 20 for his first NBA season
(4) Bill Simmons is crying because you didn't let the C's draft Perkins
#1 overall picks: 2 Ready for the NBA, 1 Not Ready (and a bust)
Lottery picks: 5 Ready for the NBA, 4 Borderline, 7 Not Ready
I can see a good argument for why a basketball HOF inducts college and pro players, while baseball only focuses on the major leagues. It's simply recognizing what people care about. Very few people care about college baseball or minor league baseball. But NCAA basketball is a big deal. The final four gets ratings usually pretty close to the NBA finals ratings. Sometimes better.
But Phil Knight getting in? That is terrible, and delegitimizes the institution far more than mistakes like Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter could ever do for baseball. So yeah, time to start over and build an NBA Hall of Fame.
And what about women's basketball? Or touring teams, like the red heads? It's still not just an NBA/men's NCAA division 1 hall.
Later that night, with Wade out, Lebron puts up 41 points on 15-25 shooting against a solid Philadelphia team who has one of the better guys in the league to guard him.
Obviously, Lebron has had some inexplicably bad games at big moments, but he has also had inexplicably great games in big moments, so I don't get where the "he doesn't have it in him" argument is grounded.
He's a great example. He's really good, but that's as far as my biased eyes will take it. No Final Fours. Only a few Elite Eights. But lots and lots of Ws.
What I think he means, and said poorly, is that a college coach's job isn't to get players ready to succeed in the NBA. But if a 19 year old is being coached by someone who's job it is to ensure their success, it's a different story.
Thanks, Moses.
I assumed this, but it makes no sense. Your players getting better (such that they get NBA attention) makes your program better.
Not necessarily. What if you have someone that's just physically more dominant than everyone else, but has real weaknesses elsewhere. As a college coach, I know I can ride this guy far on just his strengths and not really improving his weaknesses. Even though his weaknesses will be exposed at the next level. I don't care, though, my job depends on riding his strengths.
List of High School Draftees I'm going to ignore the second round guys, because nobody expects production out of a second round pick anyway. I'm going to base "NBA Ready" or "Not NBA Ready" on playing 10+ minutes a game at 15+ PER. Not perfect, but it says a guy is getting minutes and playing at an above average level. If you're doing that at age 18-19, chances are you're going to be a good player.
Nice list. Even the "Not NBA Ready" guys have a good chance of success. Especially since a lot of them weren't lottery picks. There's some solid players there.
first, I just don't think that happens much. I'm no fan of Calipari's, but his players definitely seem to improve under him. Second, if someone does this, he'll get a rap for doing so. Players of the caliber we're discussing want to succeed in the NBA. Cal gets players b/c (1) he's a cheat and pays them or allows others to pay them, (2) he's a good coach, and (2a or 3) his players play ball in the NBA.
OTOH, Calipari is probably lower on my "disliked coaches" list than Calhoun, who really made a joke of "Student Athlete". Of all the 1-and-done's UK had last year, apparently Daniel Orton was the only one who stopped going to class and impacted UK's APR.
He had some huge moments early in his career-the "48 Special", making the Finals in Cleveland, hitting the buzzer beater and his general superhuman series against Orlando, his duels with Pierce and the Celtics...but those were essentially LeBron fighting uphill battles. When his team's been favored, they've underachieved (the last three seasons, basically).
Agreed. I probably wouldn't vote for him either, but I think he's got a better argument than Simmons' homer pick of Rivers. Corbin has a team with no all stars, only two above average veterans (Millsap, Jefferson), and several first or second year lottery picks that no one expected to do anything competing for a playoff spot. Rivers has coached a super talented but aging squad that was expected to be a middle of the pack playoff team and turned them into...a middle of the pack playoff team. The C's have done exactly what they were expected to do. And the fact that they've had injuries to a few of their insignificant role players doesn't change things much.
As much as I loved Sloan, the one thing that always bugged me about him was his reluctance to give minutes to young players, and it seemed that Corbin was going to follow that unfortunate trend. But the injuries to Josh Howard and Raja Bell turned out to be the best thing that could've happened to the Jazz. Youngens like Favors, Hayward, and Burks are better players NOW than those two, and they're only going to improve. Let the kids play! :)
Before Lebron choked out against the Mavericks he came up with some huge 4th quarter moments against the Heat and Celtics. I'm not too worried about Miami losing last Sunday. While distasteful, it might even be good for them to see Boston as a threat in a round 2 series, instead of coming in overconfident. Go in with the assumption that it will be a war and will requre maximum Miami effort.
I don't really buy that narrative. I think that comes the fact that when they've lost series, they've lost them in 6, instead of 7.
2009: 8-0 until the ECF, then 2-4.
2010: 4-1 in first round, 2-4 in ECSF
2011: 12-3 until Finals, then 2-4
That doesn't look like a favored team underacheiving to me. That "choking" narrative also come from the fact that his team was up 2-1 in both 2010 and 2011.
2010: 4-1 in first round, 2-4 in ECSF
2011: 12-3 until Finals, then 2-4
Uh, they were favored in every one of those series where they lost. Their record up to that point doesn't matter; if anything, it makes the losses worse since they were playing so well it only strengthened their favored status. IOW, no one cares about the overall playoff record of a non-champion. Going into the playoffs in each of those 3 seasons and into each of those individual series, they were the favored team and lost. If you lose 3 straight years as a favorite, you get the reputation as an underachiever.
Maybe they shouldn't have been favored, but that's a different discussion.
Would be nice if Belien could convince these guys to stay rather than surrender themselves to the 2nd round of the draft. Michigan would've been good next year, too. Damn.
At worst, he plays internationally, right? Can't blame a guy for wanting to get paid for his job, especially if his ceiling is borderline NBA prospect.
http://tracking.si.com/2012/04/04/report-dwight-howard-wants-stan-van-gundy-gone/?sct=hp_t2_a9&eref=sihp
D'Antoni and Nash to ORL?
This is going to be a "be careful what you wish for" lesson for Dwight, I think.
If I'm the Clippers, or really any team, SVG is my first call.
Hypothesis: Being a star player on an major college team is better than spending a year in the D-League.
The money isn't that good for a second rounder, IMO, not worth the price of sacrificing a year of free room and board and tuition and chcks and the potential to get yourself in the first round (and get a guaranteed NBA deal). It's not like you don't get paid if you go to Europe a year later.
I'm not saying I necissarily agree with it 100%, but it's out there. Whether or not the Cavs were flawed, they were the best regular season team and had the best player. The narrative isn't always the 100% truth.
I get the feeling that right now Burke is hearing whispers of the 1st round and his Dad is saying to slow the ponies and not believe everything he's hearing.
If he does go pro, then this is 3 cases in a row (Manny Harris, Darius Morris and now Burke) where Beilien has been unable to convince borderline NBA players to return for another year. I think he's doing a hell of a job at UM, but this pattern can't be ignored.
Michigan fans are such whiny ####### however. I almost wish he goes pro just to spit in their eye. Grown men talking ish about a 19 year old trying to make the best decision for his future really rubs me the wrong ####### way.
I think Burke will make it in the NBA, he has the work ethic and attitude necessary. I just hope he stays one more year at UM, 'cause we are gonna be really, really good if he stays.
____________
Rose practiced fully today and might play tmr. Thank the lord. I was starting to think this was another cause of the Baghdad Bob style PR of the Bulls telling us that everything's fine when the building is on fire around them.
IMO, that's an issue about the coach. He either has to recruit better players who only play for a year, or recruit players that want to stick around or who are good enough in NCAA, but not quite good enough for the NBA.
That might be the NCAAs version of the success treadmill.
I don't agree. If you honestly think you shouldn't recruit the 20-50 best players in the country because they could be good and leave, I think you're flat out wrong. Some guys develop late. Some guys play well but don't want to leave. Some guys don't pan out quite as well, but a #20 prospect bust is still likely a decent player, where some random bust is at the end of the bench. I don't really think this is the coach's fault. This is a product of the system. There's 60 draft spots - there's a ton of good players coming out every year. A player has to get while the getting is good. If Burke comes back and isn't very improved/good, he may not even have a chance of playing in the second round or getting decent money in Europe. It's not like Europe is paying every decent player out of college six figures.
the sixers are going into a back-to-back these last two nights, and now's the time that collins figures he's shorten the rotation. no battie, no vucevic, no allen, no sam young. and it really worked out well, too, since the sixers managed to put up 22 ####### points in the 2nd ####### half against the toronto ####### raptors. it's just horrendous.
that's not to say the blame is all on collins, but i do not think he could have done a worse job this season of developing the young talent on this team. across the board, they've all stagnated or regressed or worn down. it's not that he's lost the team mentally, it's that he's actively causing them to be worse players than they were coming into this season.
What do you consider a successful program? Texas has had this "issue" for a while. It can be frustrating. But Texas is, in most people's estimation one of the top 10 or 15 programs in the country over the last 10 years. If you're not a Kentucky (or Calipari team) or UNC then what do you want? You're likely not getting too many of the top, top prospects anyways. After that you have the likes of Michigan State, Ohio State, Missouri, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Duke, Kansas, Texas, Florida, and a dozen other teams battling for any/all of the 20-50 you can get. You just want to be able to round them out with good role players. But deciding to not recruit the best players is not a good strategy. Some schools - like Michigan State and Kansas - do a really good job of rounding out their roster. But you can also argue that's more a product of the great coaching to get the best role players as well as being able to identify them.
Basketball is tough in some respects because you have so few scholarships and you're wanting to make offers to the best talents in the hopes of getting them even if they don't all fit perfect. The traditional powers and Calipari have managed to beat the system because they always get plenty of the best players.
What's ironic about this is that despite being Ohio's Mr. Basketball on a traditional powerhouse team (Sullinger's pops' team) Burke was rated anywhere from around 80th overall (ESPN) to 130 (Scout, Rivals). He was supposed to be good, but not "one and done" good. Burke has a helluva work ethic, obviously.
Beilien was widely sold to Michigan fans as a guy that would get kids that play 4 years, graduate, and maybe a couple of them get late 1st round looks, 2nd round looks as seniors. Go to a couple sweet 16s, maybe a final four every half decade. Instead, random 4 star kids he recruited (Morris, Burke) have flourished so much under him that they were able to get early NBA looks. Quite the conundrum for program building.
I dunno what to think. At some level the kids either want to play for the coach or they don't. Seems like Beilien has a problem with his most talented players liking him.
As a Bulls fan, I'm not actively rooting for these teams to play again this year. However, damn, that was just a great game and would be a phenomenal series.
He might have been sold like that because at WVU, that's the only type of players he could recruit. His WVU teams that lost an elite 8 game in OT and a sweet 16 game on a buzzer beater in back to back years, had no one that was even remotely close to NBA level talent. Either he chose to recruit that caliber of players, that's all he could land at WVU, or there was some combination of both.
The 2 biggest talents he landed were:
Da'sean Butler - A big time recruit for WVU at the time. He stayed all 4 years (3 under Huggins) and if not for the knee injury might have been given a better look at the NBA.
Joe Alexander - A freak athlete who played 2 years under Beilien and turned a hot 6 weeks, one monstrous dunk, and impressive workouts into several million dollars and a D-league career.
Beilien is a hell of a coach, and it's clearly a positive that a 4-star kid can turn into a late draft pick in one year under him. That's a positive for the program, not a negative.
Damn, SVG on the Clippers is like a 10-15 win upgrade for them. I wish the Lakers would hire SVG. He can be a bit whiny sometimes, but he's a hell of a coach.
Pop should be COY by a lot, yeah? I could also see Thibodeau.
I think I double Paul here (110-106 with 24 ticks)
Pau boxed out there...maybe the posterizing stuck in his head.
There is this. Look at the perception of Barnes, Sullinger, Perry Jones, and Jeremy Lamb. None of them are any worse than they were last year, but since they didn't improve by a huge amount, they're viewed as disappointments. All of them are probably going to be drafted lower than they would've been last year. If Burke is being told by NBA people that he's late 1st round, but is a definite 1st round, then he may want to take the 3-5 years guaranteed NBA money.
Beilien was widely sold to Michigan fans as a guy that would get kids that play 4 years, graduate, and maybe a couple of them get late 1st round looks, 2nd round looks as seniors.
I just don't think this is true. When a big school like Michigan hires a coach, they're expecting a recruiting class like next year's Michigan class. If they don't have any seniors that play, I don't really think they care. Beilien was sold as a guy who wins. And he's doing that.
that's not to say the blame is all on collins, but i do not think he could have done a worse job this season of developing the young talent on this team. across the board, they've all stagnated or regressed or worn down.
Has he? I just don't see it. How good are you expecting Evan Turner to get? Because I think he's almost to his ceiling. I just don't see star potential here. He's going to be a very solid role player, but I don't see much more. I know everyone like Jrue Holiday and he's still very young, but at what point do we say the same thing? That he's a good player, but he's not going to be a star.
If Burke has a first round grade, he should leave. However, nearly every source has him mid-2nd round, though I don't doubt he's hearing first round whispers. If Burke's most likely draft slot is 35-40, then I don't think the economics are persuasive one way or the other. If he's at 20-25, he'd be crazy to stay. The falloff from the first round to the second, in terms of expected earnings, is huge.
Barnes, Sullinger, etc. are also hurt by a stronger draft class this year. Last year was a weak class, especially in terms of college players.
Not a chance. Scottie's a bona-fide Hall of Famer that led a very strong team. He was All-NBA 1st team numerous times. I don't even think Turner will sniff All-Star. What's Turner's offensive ceiling? I'm thinking if he's not on a terrible team he'll top off ~15 ppg. Maybe.
@HowardBeckNYT
Stan Van Gundy just acknowledged that Dwight Howard has asked that he be fired.
Stein, Ian O'Conner, and Zach Lowe are blowing up Twitter with what a mess Orlando is. Could Dwight Howard have come out of this looking worse? This isn't as bad as The Decision, but wow, he's handled this poorly.
I know we've had this argument a lot, but you should check that.
I honestly didn't know that until I click on the link for Pip's page.
I'll concede that's probably the majority opinion, but I definitely disagree. Howard has thrown this regular season and, presumably, next, into total chaos, while implicitly or explicitly criticizing his teammates, coach, and GM. I really don't think it would be accurate to accuse Lebron of those things.
By win shares, Pippen has more career value defensively than offensively. Scottie Pippen without that defense... I dunno, Rashard Lewis?
EDIT: Heh, Lewis is a 2-time All-Star.
How did you get through this whole post without mentioning Pittsnoggle? Unforgivable.
You know, from the video in the link, the defender never really had enough position that you could really consider him to have gotten "dunked on". I'm not all that impressed. And apparently neither was the NBA.
Just not sure on that, either. Pippen was averaging almost 20 per 36 minutes with a shade under 6 assists per 36 and the primary ballhandler on the team. During those two years without Jordan, he was the best player and first option on a 50 win team. If Andre Iguadala is an All-Star, Pippen would've been.
And I don't see that ceiling with Turner.
Turner's last year at OSU: 20/9.2/6.2
I admit that in my mind, Pippen was more of a 16/6/6 guy, but he had some outstanding years rebounding the ball.
Looking at the similar player list and trying to find one with the requisite rebounding and passing, but not a defensive rep I'd pick Detlef Schrempf.
whether he's likely to be it or not, pippin really is the 98th percentile of what turner could be.
OKC had a baseline inbounds towards the end of the game, and ran a nice backdoor for Perkins, who bricked both foul shots; I think the Thunder were 18-18 until that point. I almost wanted the inbounder to run the bounce off the defender's back and layup, like Battier (who made 3 3s in the 4th quarter) pulled against Boston on Sunday.
The most surprising thing to me: Haslem lost the homeless beard and dreadlocks. I didn't even recognize him.
---
OKC had a baseline inbounds towards the end of the game, and ran a nice backdoor for Perkins, who bricked both foul shots;
Not only the FTs, but he should have made that layup/dunk even with the foul.
Bulls also resigned Mike James today (for the rest of the season, finally). So if Rose plays, Watson is likely to sit to rest his injuries. Surprisingly, Rip hasn't gotten re-hurt again and is playing tonight.
---
I agree with 190. I'm on record as liking Turner more than most, but a poor-man's Pippen is a decent comp/goal for him.
I honestly didn't think anyone remembered him or anyone for that matter off those first few Beilien teams. Clearly I underestimated the appeal of Pittsnoggle. He did end up having a few good years in the CBA
There was an interview with Alexander after the game, either TV or paper I can't remember now, where he said he tried to wait on Robinson to dunk on him. If you watch the video you do see he takes a little extra time to collect himself after he hauls in the pass. He was drafted 8th overall, I say the NBA was impressed a little.
I often wonder would the Thunder be better in crunch time, esp when they are trailing, with Collison in the game instead of Perkins. The combo botched layup / bricked foul shots were huge.
Also, people forget this, but Pippen had a very unusual career arc and growth curve:
So, although Pippen started his NBA career at 22 as Turner has, the situation was very different:
IMO, Pippen came to the league as far less of a finished product than Turner has. Like David Robinson, Pippen was an unusual case due to the late growth spurt and in Pippen's case, coming to the game late. Also, while Turner has a 6-8 wingspan, Pippen's, according to various sources, was 7-2 or 7-3. Whatever it was, as those of us who saw Pippen remember, his wingspan was exceptional. Young Pippen also had awesome ups and used to get some nasty throwdowns--again, forgotten, because of who he played with.
I am not knocking Turner. He is pretty good. But Pippen was a very unusual, and great, player.
Yes, yes they would. The reason is that Nick Collison is better than Kendrick Perkins, so it actually applies to most other game situations as well, not just crunch time.
I suppose there is mild evidence that Perkins is a slightly better defender than Collison but it is dwarfed by the evidence that Collison is light years better on offense.
Perkins is terrible. The Thunder should amnesty him.
As a Laker fan, I support this idea completely.
He's certainly overrated. He's got a permanent winner's shine for being a starter on a world champ. I don't know if his defense is as good as his rep, but he's a non-factor on offense, and is a center who grabs 6 boards a game. He's OKC's third-leading rebounder.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main