|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 5, 2014 1:18:41 GMT
This rating is insanely low. I'd say 82-83 at the lowest.
I'm curious billy, what rating would you give to Andrew Bogut?
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 5, 2014 4:28:31 GMT
Carlos does look like he's losing it a bit. I remember him as a guy who pushed towards 20-10+ and shot like 50% or higher.
Last 3 years his points are at 15, 16, and 14...rebounds are at 8.5, 10, and 8.3...and his FG%, most telling is at 53.2, 47.7, and 45.4%. This is his Twelfth Season in the league, he's 32 years old right now IRL, not too surprising that he may have lost a bit.
I'd probably go 82 right now but he's one to watch out for, if he continues on this path another season I'd drop him in the 78 range, and we'll see from there.
82 for right now though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 5, 2014 4:30:54 GMT
Current Rating: 85 Suggested Rating: 80-81 I think you guys are going to be shocked by some of these statistics: Boozer is averaging 13.8PPG on 8.3RPG! Sullinger, someone currently sitting at a 72, averages 13.1PPG and 8.1RPG. I'd actually love to pull this on you Billy. You rated Favors a 76. Remember that? Like, what in the actual fuck? Both guys have about the same points as Favors, and less rebounds, but Favors shoots WAAAAY better FG% than either, though a little lower FT%. Favors actually gets a full steal and a block and a half per game, while those guys combine those two stats to get about 1 steal+block per game (Favors at 2.5) How do you put in a 77 for Sully and an 80-81 for Boozer when you only put in 76 on Favors? Makes zero sense. Please people, I just ask for some god damn consistency. I realize Boozer has a track record, so I'm not saying Favors should be rated better than him quiiiiite yet, but a little consistency would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 5, 2014 16:09:05 GMT
79
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Krzyzewski on Apr 5, 2014 16:42:33 GMT
83
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 8:29:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 17:08:28 GMT
His stats are similar to Bosh's, so I think he is fine at an 85.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 5, 2014 17:10:11 GMT
83
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Apr 5, 2014 17:47:48 GMT
We kind of made precedent that the 15 and 10 range for a big man is around an 86 via Duncan and Pau.
I think Boozer is an 81. And I think that the Sullinger argument is pretty poor as Sully is probably deserving of a rating increase. I also think it is important for me to say that when Boozer is decreased, he should be dropped down in some of the physical attributes like speed/strength etc as he is getting old.
Also of note, Boozer is shooting a career low 45% from the field this season and his field goals attempted have not increased; they have actually decreased by shot attempt a game from last season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Apr 5, 2014 19:50:28 GMT
82
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2014 20:19:37 GMT
We kind of made precedent that the 15 and 10 range for a big man is around an 86 via Duncan and Pau. I think Boozer is an 81. And I think that the Sullinger argument is pretty poor as Sully is probably deserving of a rating increase. I also think it is important for me to say that when Boozer is decreased, he should be dropped down in some of the physical attributes like speed/strength etc as he is getting old. Also of note, Boozer is shooting a career low 45% from the field this season and his field goals attempted have not increased; they have actually decreased by shot attempt a game from last season. Yeah but not all 15-10 guys are alike and you know this. That's when context comes into play, watching the games and using such CRAZY "advanced" new stats like FG% come into play. Then a guy like Boozer has a lower one, well it's because his game is almost entirely reliant on mid-rangers. He's not as athletic to get space which is why I would agree that he's up for a slight decrease. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 8:29:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 20:23:44 GMT
We kind of made precedent that the 15 and 10 range for a big man is around an 86 via Duncan and Pau. I think Boozer is an 81. And I think that the Sullinger argument is pretty poor as Sully is probably deserving of a rating increase. I also think it is important for me to say that when Boozer is decreased, he should be dropped down in some of the physical attributes like speed/strength etc as he is getting old. Also of note, Boozer is shooting a career low 45% from the field this season and his field goals attempted have not increased; they have actually decreased by shot attempt a game from last season. Yeah but not all 15-10 guys are alike and you know this. That's when context comes into play, watching the games and using such CRAZY "advanced" new stats like FG% come into play. Then a guy like Boozer has a lower one, well it's because his game is almost entirely reliant on mid-rangers. He's not as athletic to get space which is why I would agree that he's up for a slight decrease. Neither can Bosh but you think he's better than Duncan, Alridge, Pau, Marc, Josh Smith, Ibaka, and a host of other cats. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2014 20:25:35 GMT
Neither can Bosh but you think he's better than Duncan, Alridge, Pau, Marc, Josh Smith, Ibaka, and a host of other cats. This sentence doesn't even make any damned sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Apr 5, 2014 20:26:30 GMT
We kind of made precedent that the 15 and 10 range for a big man is around an 86 via Duncan and Pau. I think Boozer is an 81. And I think that the Sullinger argument is pretty poor as Sully is probably deserving of a rating increase. I also think it is important for me to say that when Boozer is decreased, he should be dropped down in some of the physical attributes like speed/strength etc as he is getting old. Also of note, Boozer is shooting a career low 45% from the field this season and his field goals attempted have not increased; they have actually decreased by shot attempt a game from last season. Yeah but not all 15-10 guys are alike and you know this. That's when context comes into play, watching the games and using such CRAZY "advanced" new stats like FG% come into play. Then a guy like Boozer has a lower one, well it's because his game is almost entirely reliant on mid-rangers. He's not as athletic to get space which is why I would agree that he's up for a slight decrease. Did you read what I said? Because I said all of that.... |
|
|
|
Post by Clyde Drexler on Apr 5, 2014 20:48:10 GMT
Yeah I could see him getting as low as 81, but I'll give him an 82
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 8:29:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 20:56:10 GMT
Neither can Bosh but you think he's better than Duncan, Alridge, Pau, Marc, Josh Smith, Ibaka, and a host of other cats. This sentence doesn't even make any damned sense. Sure it does when you factor in the quote. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 8:29:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 20:56:37 GMT
Yeah but not all 15-10 guys are alike and you know this. That's when context comes into play, watching the games and using such CRAZY "advanced" new stats like FG% come into play. Then a guy like Boozer has a lower one, well it's because his game is almost entirely reliant on mid-rangers. He's not as athletic to get space which is why I would agree that he's up for a slight decrease. Did you read what I said? Because I said all of that....No Chuck, I don't think he reads. Personally, I would take him out of my fab 5. |
|
Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Orleans Pelicans
LA Clippers
Brooklyn Nets
