Antawn Jamison

[Jeremiah Hill]

I'm not even sure if he played for the Clippers the whole time he was there before he got traded today (IRL)

Current Rating: 82 (seriously?)

Proposed Rating: 74

[Deleted]

I wouldn't go lower than 80. He can still score 15-20 ppg and 5-10 rpg if given mins.

[Jeremiah Hill]

If I was 6'9" I probably could too, that's not the point. He's obviously a shell of his former self.

[Walt Frazier]

74

[Brian Scalabrine]

75. He only a shooter at this point, and an average one really. Terrible defense, can't create.

[Mike Krzyzewski]

Again, even though this is my player, just like Pierce, I think 8-10 points is too much at 1 time.

Trying to be unbiased, I vote for a 5 point decrease, 77.

[Walt Frazier]

Apr 3, 2014 1:25:29 GMT Mike Krzyzewski said:

Again, even though this is my player, just like Pierce, I think 8-10 points is too much at 1 time.

Trying to be unbiased, I vote for a 5 point decrease, 77.

Mike, that's just a bad attitude honestly. Just b/c we've all been lazy and overlooked an overrated player for a long time, doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it now. What is jamison actually worth? You are maxing out your decrease, but what should he actually be rated? Forget what he's rated now, what's he playing like? A 77 is a joke.

[Mike Krzyzewski]

Well Walt - It's my opinion, not a bad attitude.

You are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine.

I have expressed my opinions in about 100 of these ratings changes threads now. Sorry you don't like my input on this one.

[Walt Frazier]

It's not that, I just think you should base your rating on how the player is performing, not on what his rating used to be.

[Chris Mullin]

75

[Mike Krzyzewski]

Apr 4, 2014 15:51:18 GMT Walt Frazier said:

It's not that, I just think you should base your rating on how the player is performing, not on what his rating used to be.

So Kobe deserves a 60?

[Walt Frazier]

Apr 4, 2014 18:10:38 GMT Mike Krzyzewski said:

Apr 4, 2014 15:51:18 GMT Walt Frazier said:

It's not that, I just think you should base your rating on how the player is performing, not on what his rating used to be.

So Kobe deserves a 60?

Not sure this even deserves a response. Pretty different situations.

- Have Kobe's minutes dropped from 33 in 2011 to 21 in 2012 to 11 in 2013?
- Has Kobe been shooting 31.5% this year, and just 19.5% from 3?
- Is Kobe putting up 4 points and 2 rebounds a game to go with his horrendous %'s?
- Was Kobe playing so poorly for his team that he got traded to the Hawks on February 20th, where he has so far earned ZERO MINUTES AND ZERO GAMES PLAYED?
- Was Kobe not only traded, but traded for the rights to a 2nd Round Pick from 2005, Cenk Akyol?

Yea, same situation. Jamison is playing like a 60 actually, yes, but I'll give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt at a 74.

You could stop reading at the first bullet point to see how Antawn has declined.

[Mike Krzyzewski]

You put a lot more effort into that post than I did.

I understand exactly what you are saying and agree for the most part. I just didn't appreciate the bad attitude comment.

No big deal though. Thanks for the work with updating the players.

[Walt Frazier]

Attitude could be taken the wrong way I guess, I think it's a bad thought-process to get caught up in.

All things considered (when I say this, I mean everything you know about them in real life), what should the player be rated? I think we should basically ignore what a player is currently rated when deciding upon a new rating for them.

[Mike Krzyzewski]

I understand that and agree for the most part.

The thing is that if a player who is aging but can still play goes to a team and gets very little playing time, then how quickly do you reduce his rating? I am not even talking about Jamison as he might not be the best example but shouldn't there be a cap on a player from 1 year to the next?

Maybe Derrick Rose is a good example? He hasn't produced in 2 years but no one is looking to drastically reduce his rating. Is Rose really as valuable as he was 2 years ago? Of course not. Steve Nash is a good one if you are talking about old guys. He can't play anymore and it is clear he is just cashing a paycheck at this point. He will never be an effective player in the NBA. Yet, how much of a decrease will he really get (or deserve) short term.

I will change my rating down a point to 76.

[Walt Frazier]

Apr 4, 2014 18:41:17 GMT Mike Krzyzewski said:

I understand that and agree for the most part.

The thing is that if a player who is aging but can still play goes to a team and gets very little playing time, then how quickly do you reduce his rating? I am not even talking about Jamison as he might not be the best example but shouldn't there be a cap on a player from 1 year to the next?

Maybe Derrick Rose is a good example? He hasn't produced in 2 years but no one is looking to drastically reduce his rating. Is Rose really as valuable as he was 2 years ago? Of course not. Steve Nash is a good one if you are talking about old guys. He can't play anymore and it is clear he is just cashing a paycheck at this point. He will never be an effective player in the NBA. Yet, how much of a decrease will he really get (or deserve) short term.

I will change my rating down a point to 76.

It's really just a case-by-case basis for me. Again I try to look at "everything" or all that I can to make a decision. Nash is due for a 6 point decrease btw.

Jamison should've already been decreased last year to like a 78 or 79 tops. Again, people were lazy and weren't paying enough attention to these types of players, so we missed that rating.

If this was only based on one year I kind of agree, but we've seen Jamison decrease rather rapidly in his shooting %'s and his ability to make coaches give him minutes.

To each their own, that's just how I see it, since it's now multiple years and he's "played" himself into zero minutes over the past month. I think he's been in one game since mid-late January total.

[Deleted]

Of course Walt wants to jump back on my players once again because he knows my plans. Do what's you must old man. Do what you must.

My thing is yeah his minutes have dropped but that's not because of his talent level. The teams he goes to depends on his role. Of course most franchises play their younger player's and that's why his minutes are down. If he would get starter mins for one game the guy would still put up close to 20pts and close to 10 rebs. Like I said that's why we need some kind of system in place. He's still talented. I don't care if you don't ageee.

[Deleted]

It hasn't been long enough to say he's terrible and deserves such a bad rating

Background

NBA CAREER SUPERLATIVES:

• Eastern Conference All-Star (2005, 2008).

• Named NBA Sixth Man of the Year (2004).

• Named to NBA All-Rookie Second Team (1999).



2012-13 (Lakers):



• Appeared in 76 games (six starts), averaging 9.4 points, 4.8 rebounds, 0.7 assists, 0.39 steals and 0.29 blocks in 21.5 minutes.

• Scored 10+ points 35 times, 20+ points twice and 30+ points once.

• Recorded five double-doubles.

• Grabbed 10+ rebounds five times.

• Recorded 19 points (7-11 FG) and a season-high 15 rebounds 11/24/12 at Dallas.

• Posted a season-high 33 points (13-19 FG, 5-10 3FG) and 12 rebounds 11/30/12 vs. Denver.

• In first start of season, notched 15 points, 10 rebounds and three blocks 12/4/12 at Houston.

• Posted 27 points (8-14 FG, 5-8 3FG) and nine rebounds 3/17/13 vs. Sacramento.

• Scored 18 points 3/27/13 at Minnesota.

PLAYOFFS: In four games, averaged 7.3 points, 1.8 rebounds and 19.8 minutes per game.



2011-12 (Cleveland):



• Appeared in 65 games (all starts), averaging 17.2 points, 6.3 rebounds, and 2.0 assists in 33.1 minutes.

• Recorded the 300th double-double of his career with 32 points (11-22 FG) and 10 rebounds 2/21/12 vs. Detroit.

• Set a season-high in points for the third consecutive game, finishing with 34 points on (14-21 FG) 2/10/12 vs. Milwaukee.

• Scored a season-high tying 34 points (12-19 FG) 4/8/12 at New Jersey.

• Scored 20+ points 27 times including four 30+ point games.

• Recorded 10+ rebounds eight times while posting seven double-doubles.

[Larry Bird]

78

[Walt Frazier]

JR, you are quoting "superlatives" where the most recent was 2008. That's 6 years ago dude. That's irrelevant to the player he is now.

And his time with the Lakers last year, those are not good #'s. 9 points and 5 boards is not impressive. We should've dropped him to like a 78-79 last year. Now he puts out this dud of a year, and he gets dropped further IMO.

[Deleted]

Last year he was avg almost 10ppg and 5 rpg in 21mpg. Last YEAR. But he's not terrible and like I said if he gets mins he produces. You can't drop him so far in ratings for one season. You guys want to give higher ratings to players that are younger because you guys are rebuilding. I understand that. But Plumlee a 77? Jamison is still better. But like I said this stock watch shit is stupid and unfair. Not every gm is voting. I say Every gm must vote before a rating goes up or down. That or we need to follow ratings from some updated game and go by that. All the stock watch is doing is fucking up gms rosters and the league, causing fights and unneeded bullshit. If this is great activity ok but if later this all fails don't say I didn't tell you so. Something needs to change!!!

[Deleted]

I don't think he was ever really that good, 75.

[Charles Barkley]

I think he is a 74.

He will likely be out of the NBA before next season unless he barter's his way into a team to ride the coat tails of a star for a tittle. I feel like a 74 is pretty generous considering his averages and where his career is likely headed.

[Clyde Drexler]

75

[Deleted]

65

[Brian Scalabrine]

65

[Larry Bird]

76