|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 13, 2014 2:56:45 GMT
Ive liked what hes been doing I vote 79
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 23, 2014 3:20:38 GMT
Quality player, 79.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 23, 2014 5:26:23 GMT
Going 81 for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 23, 2014 14:59:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 24, 2014 1:50:11 GMT
Thanks, I honestly think his season so far deserves better, but I'll make him prove it longer. As of now, he's amazing but I'll keep my rating "low" (in my eyes) until he's done it longer. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 24, 2014 7:59:32 GMT
79
|
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 25, 2014 19:14:30 GMT
79
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 25, 2014 23:04:40 GMT
78
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 2:32:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 21:12:38 GMT
78
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 27, 2014 3:56:56 GMT
I'm gonna post his stats since they haven't been posted yet. He's being underrated, but maybe it's just caution b/c he hasn't done it for years yet?
44.3% / 34.1% / 74% - I'll admit, nothing here is that great, but he is well-rounded and isn't bad in any of these areas either. He's putting up 4.4 3's a night, making 1.5 of them, very legit 3pt threat who also pulls down 8 boards a game. Getting to those other stats...
12.5 / 8.0 / 3.3a / 1.3stl / 1.3blk
Points aren't really there but remember he plays next to Curry and Klay who are going bonkers. The boards are great, he is a pretty good passer for a guy who goes 6'7" 230lb, and as the steals and blocks help point out, he's another very good defender who is probably not getting quite enough credit for what he does.
I have no real stake in this other than pointing out a good player who is being underrated btw. Heck, he's even on JR's team last I checked and I don't mean to do that guy any favors, but I think a 78 or 79 is a bit low. But, maybe most of you are waiting to see it longer. He did do very similar things in the playoffs last year, if you missed it.
46.7% / 27.6% (he's developing) / 79.2%....12 / 8 / 3 / 1.7 / 1.7
Steve Kerr loves the kid b/c of his all-around game (read, especially, defense) and he's looking like he's going to hold off David Lee for the starting job.
I just think he needs to get out of the 70's, he's a legit player, not a back-end starter or good backup anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 27, 2014 4:31:21 GMT
78. Again, this is his breakout season, can't be too ambitious yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 3:13:30 GMT
78. Again, this is his breakout season, can't be too ambitious yet. This plays into one of my points about Rookies. No, Draymond isn't a rookie obviously, but hold on a second lol He is breaking out, he is an easy 80+ IMO especially factoring defense, and yet here we are taking an uber cautious approach. We've seen this guy in the league for a couple years now, including a very impressive playoff appearance last year, but we're going to be cautious and not too ambitious. Yet, when a bunch of rookies play their first 7-8 weeks of NBA games, they need lowered 3+ points across the board? You made this post just 2 days ago, I think we really do need different standards. It seems like you are overly cautious with a guy we have some date on, and overly ambitious on guys we have almost no information on. Seems odd. It's not an attack Alex, we've been doing ratings for awhile but this was our first created rookie class, but I still think the standards are reversed on your end from where they should be. Let's be a little ambitious with Vets. Make them match their real-life production with ratings. But Rookies need time to acclimate, let's let them get that time and assess at the end of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 3:37:56 GMT
78. Again, this is his breakout season, can't be too ambitious yet. This plays into one of my points about Rookies. No, Draymond isn't a rookie obviously, but hold on a second lol He is breaking out, he is an easy 80+ IMO especially factoring defense, and yet here we are taking an uber cautious approach. We've seen this guy in the league for a couple years now, including a very impressive playoff appearance last year, but we're going to be cautious and not too ambitious. Yet, when a bunch of rookies play their first 7-8 weeks of NBA games, they need lowered 3+ points across the board? You made this post just 2 days ago, I think we really do need different standards. It seems like you are overly cautious with a guy we have some date on, and overly ambitious on guys we have almost no information on. Seems odd. It's not an attack Alex, we've been doing ratings for awhile but this was our first created rookie class, but I still think the standards are reversed on your end from where they should be. Let's be a little ambitious with Vets. Make them match their real-life production with ratings. But Rookies need time to acclimate, let's let them get that time and assess at the end of the season. This isn't an equal comparison. The burden of proof is to show evidence that a player is talented and deserves a high rating. The default assumption is that a player isn't very good and to give them a low rating. Rating decreases don't need the same amount of evidence because because proving that a player with little to no track record isn't talented is proving a negative. Their lack of talent is the default assumption, and we work our way up from there. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 4:05:24 GMT
I guess we just disagree on that. I think most assume that Jabari and Wiggins and Embiid do not lack for talent at all. It's definitely not a cut and dry thing. I respect your opinion greatly on ratings Alex, but to say the assumption is that all Rookies lack talent...I can't really get around to agreeing on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 4:06:34 GMT
Maybe put another way - All ratings should need the same amount of proof IMO. Would rather people weren't lazy on increases or decreases. Post your rating, post your reasons why, that's all I ask. I don't expect less from decreases, and I don't think anyone else should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 4:27:02 GMT
I'm not really talking about anyone specifically or saying decreasing a player can be done based only on assumption. I'm talking more philosophically and about the burden of proof in any logical argument and that it lies with whoever is making a positive claim, since proving a negative is impossible. Applying that to this situation means you need evidence in favour of a player's high rating. For players without any or a lot of evidence (rookies) then the assumption is with a lower rating as the burden of proof is to show they are talented, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 4:50:20 GMT
I disagree that the burden of proof applies to this. It is just as easy to prove that a player has gone from 6 apg to 9 apg as it is to prove that a player has gone from 6 apg to 3 apg.
Rookies are their own thing, I think we can maybe start to agree on that? They need to be treated differently. We haven't found a conclusion on the proper way to rate them or handle them, but they are different than veterans, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 10, 2015 4:10:30 GMT
In December, he averages 3.9 asts 1.9 stls and 2.1 blks. Unique stats. His PER increase by 3 from last season. And lastly, his DBPM is at 4.3.
His only downside is scoring and basketball is not all about scoring points.
I am going with 82
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 10, 2015 17:03:23 GMT
Going with a 79 for now. May need to adjust by year end if he keeps playing this well. However, as noted above, this is his breakout season.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 2:32:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 1:35:47 GMT
Golden State Warriors
NBA Blogs
Does Draymond Green deserve a max deal?
By Ethan Sherwood Strauss | January 16, 2015 3:10:25 PM PST
During Golden State’s game against the Cleveland Cavaliers on Jan. 9, analyst Jeff Van Gundy made a bold prediction about Draymond Green on the broadcast: “I really think he's going to be a max player.”
Twitter did a double take over a valuation that few, if any, had offered publicly. Van Gundy had a solid case, though, even if it went against conventional wisdom: "How many guys defend, rebound, pass and make 3s? That combination, you just don't see."
While you just don’t see Green’s combination of skills, you also just don’t see guys averaging fewer than 12 points getting max restricted offers -- unless they’re 7 feet tall. If Van Gundy’s right, if this does indeed happen, it would have to mark a sea change in the business of basketball.
We’re talking about a second-round pick who’s shorter than 6-6 in socks, who doesn't jump high, create his own shot or dominate the ball. A rookie max deal for a scrappy “tweener” averaging the fourth-most points per game on his team? Basketball doesn’t work that way -- yet. This summer will be a good test of whether teams pay big for a guy who does all the “little things.”
Green might not boast gaudy traditional stats, but one stat in particular loudly agrees with Van Gundy's assertion. Real plus-minus, which measures a player by how his team does when he’s in the game, lists Green as the 10th-best player in the league. He’s first among wings, ahead of even LeBron James. Of course, Green isn't technically a wing this season; he’s starting at power forward. But that ambiguity of position reflects the value he brings. Against the Mavericks, he ably guarded Dirk Nowitzki and Monta Ellis in the same game. It’s difficult to fit a player like this into a box.
Perhaps you assume his RPM is a fluke, some bizarre byproduct of an excellent Warriors run. That would make sense except Green was third among wings in real plus-minus last season, when he played much of the season among an anemic bench lineup. Green also produced a positive RPM as a rookie despite shooting a horrific 32.7 percent from the field.
“Draymond Green is the poster boy for the defensive superstar who is making contributions that are on par with offensive superstars that we easily recognize,” said Steve Ilardi, one of the architects of RPM.
Green’s ability to guard five positions has been praised, but the underpaid are often paid in compliments like “heart,” “grit” and “hustle.” The idea behind using a team success stat is to make Green’s production register in the way, “25 points per game” resonates. That kind of resonance might elevate an athlete’s status from “gritty” to “superstar.” When I asked if the Warriors should match a rookie max offer, Ilardi answered: “Yes.”
“His defense would probably be the same almost no matter what team he plays on, in part because he can defend so many positions," Jeremias Engelmann, the other half of the RPM team, said via email. "Further, I think he could play a very similar role as he's now playing for GSW for a number of other teams such as TOR, CHI, ATL, WAS, POR, OKC, LAC, (PHX), HOU, MEM, DAL, SAS. That's 12 teams for which I think his role wouldn't change much, and his value would thus not change much either.”
Unlike some other defensive specialists, Green plays enough offense to remain on the floor. His ability to capably hit open 3-pointers means he can play more minutes than Tony Allen or Andre Roberson. He also rebounds, passes, pushes the ball in transition and throws Kevin Love-style outlet passes. About the only thing Green can’t do on a basketball court is create his own shot. That’s minor in the grand scheme, but it's also the skill most associated with stardom. Tradition demands that we consider Green a “role player,” even if he’s excelling at all but one role.
Naturally, I asked Green what his take on the matter: “Do you know where you’re ranked in real plus-minus?”
Green has said before that his greatest defensive asset is his anticipation. He’s smart enough to see what an opponent wants to do in a given situation. It’s said that defense is all about “character,” and maybe it is. But defense also requires a good amount of foresight. It’s good to have heart, but don’t discount the value of psychic powers.
Draymond shredded my quiz tactics: “I mean, the way you making it sound, top 10?”
“You knew!” I said, half-accusingly.
“That's just the way you were making it sound,” Green insisted.
I’ve asked him before if he agreed that he’s a “top-four or -five power forward,” and he concurred. Green is the epitome of a team-first player, but unselfish play does not mean a dearth of confidence. He’s the guy who kept firing 3s through a rookie season where he shot 20.9 percent behind the arc. The man believes in himself and won’t get bashful over stats that speak well of his value.
On the stat: “I'm sure it's fair, obviously. I'm not going to go out on the court and say, ‘Oh, I need to get to No. 1, real plus-minus!’ Everything that happens out there will take care of itself. I'm not going to start worrying about it, but that's pretty cool.”
I asked if he thought new stats that reflected defense would catch on. Green assumes an inevitable shift: “I think it has to [catch on], because everything now is about winning. You can score 25 a night but if you're on a losing team nobody cares.”
I offered that new stats could help with his contract situation. He smiled. “Yeah. That’s pretty cool, too.”
For the Warriors, the issue of Green’s contract is bigger than just Green and bigger than just money. If you noticed a certain TMZ video, Green was at a football game in Seattle with Stephen Curry’s family, throwing grapes at Seahawks fans who’d gotten into a spat with Curry’s wife and mother. That incident doesn’t much matter, but it was illustrative of Green’s friendship with Golden State’s franchise face. Curry certainly wants Green around past this season. The Warriors might not want to pay Green a max offer, but keeping Curry happy, and keeping Curry in the Bay after 2017, are important considerations.
Luckily for the Warriors, Steph’s friend happens to be a very productive NBA player, a “role player” with star production. It’s hard to quantify just how much he does for Golden State, but the closer we get, the more green Draymond seems due.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 17, 2015 2:53:17 GMT
Draymond Green might get a max contract and the GM who gives is to him might be an idiot. There are plenty of those around though if Alec Burks can get a 4 year, $42 million contract and Ricky Rubio can get $55 million for 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 17, 2015 3:31:09 GMT
Maybe they meant max extension. If Draymond Green gets the max, what's Klay end up getting? Or did he sign something already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 17, 2015 3:55:37 GMT
Klay got a max extension. 4 years/$70 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 17, 2015 3:59:01 GMT
Klay got a max extension. 4 years/$70 million. I could see Draymond getting 8 mill. This is kind of like the whole Moneyball thing that happened in baseball, where the guys who do the little things, start to make more and more money because they become more in demand, and then everything is just inflated as hell. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 17, 2015 4:38:55 GMT
All these types of things are the things I've seen in guys like Draymond and Batum for awhile (more Batum on the long-term of course). Nice article, thanks for sharing JR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 17, 2015 4:42:16 GMT
Klay got a max extension. 4 years/$70 million. I could see Draymond getting 8 mill. This is kind of like the whole Moneyball thing that happened in baseball, where the guys who do the little things, start to make more and more money because they become more in demand, and then everything is just inflated as hell. Well with Moneyball the value of other things comes down. It changes why players get paid, not how much. I think the NBA right now is going crazy in anticipation of the cap jumping up. I'm curious to see if these massive contracts for non stars will become the new normal when the cap jumps or if it will end up hurting the teams throwing the dough around. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 17, 2015 5:09:49 GMT
I could see Draymond getting 8 mill. This is kind of like the whole Moneyball thing that happened in baseball, where the guys who do the little things, start to make more and more money because they become more in demand, and then everything is just inflated as hell. Well with Moneyball the value of other things comes down. It changes why players get paid, not how much. I think the NBA right now is going crazy in anticipation of the cap jumping up. I'm curious to see if these massive contracts for non stars will become the new normal when the cap jumps or if it will end up hurting the teams through dough around. What its hurting is the small market teams, because they cant afford to pay decent free agents if they don't have BRs on them. It seems like anything in any sport involving money always hurts the small market teams. |
|
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Orleans Pelicans
Denver Nuggets
Cleveland Cavaliers
