|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 1:57:15 GMT
Current Rating: 67 Suggested Rating: 81 Stats | FG% | FT% | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | | 50% | 78.4% | 9.3 | 8.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
STATS in JANUARY
| FG% | FT% | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | | 49.6% | 83.7% | 11.1 | 9.6 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 2.1 |
Up to 32:50 mpg, still holding strong in his increased opportunities. Actually improving with more time. 4mpg does not account for 1.8 points and 1.5 rebounds, 0.6 ast, and 0.5 block increases.
PER for those of you who like that is 18.24 in 28mpg. Also keeps the TO's pretty low at 1.4 a game. He's increasing his role lately as well. The last 10 games he's putting up 10.5 / 9 / 2 with 0.9 spg and 2.4 bpg in 32mpg. %'s are basically holding up as well. The 67 is obviously ridiculously low, the question is how high to take him. I'm not going to play the "this guy has this rating in the game and Dieng is doing better so put him higher" game. I know you are all big boys (and girls?). He does the big man stuff with his 50% shooting, 8 rebounds, 1.6 blocks in just 28 mpg. He also adds in very good FT% for a big man. He is a solid passer. And he gets over a steal a game. I think his "big man" stats probably warrant 77 or 78 considering his mpg, and his other peripherals bump him up higher. I doubt many of you are going to be willing to go past the 80, at least not yet, so I'm in at a 79 until he proves it longer. Thanks for your time! |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 31, 2014 2:41:10 GMT
78
|
|
Glenn Robinson
 Milwaukee Bucks
Starter
Posts: 1,226
Nov 22, 2024 4:29:32 GMT
|
Post by Glenn Robinson on Dec 31, 2014 2:41:56 GMT
I love Dieng. I'd go 78-79 right now. If Minnesota can get a good package for Pekovic, I think they take it and feel comfortable knowing they have Dieng for years to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 2:43:56 GMT
I love Dieng. I'd go 78-79 right now. If Minnesota can get a good package for Pekovic, I think they take it and feel comfortable knowing they have Dieng for years to come. Completely agree. Dieng's defense is something they sorely lack, and have lacked for a looooong time. They should be finding and giving this guy all the minutes he can handle. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 31, 2014 3:29:45 GMT
I don't watch much T'Wolves basketball, so I go off of their box scores. He had a solid end to last season and has been kind of underwhelming thus far, from reading the box scores. I feel like a 79 is too high, but I understand why you suggested that Walt  I feel comfortable going with a 76 for right now. Can change depending on his play these next games until the ASB. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 31, 2014 3:33:05 GMT
I also think 79 is too high. I'll go with a 77.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 3:36:43 GMT
I also think 79 is too high. I'll go with a 77. So you honestly believe, Alex, that Marreese Speights is worthy of a higher rating than Gorgui Dieng? Is it just a "needs to do it longer" thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 31, 2014 3:58:09 GMT
I also think 79 is too high. I'll go with a 77. So you honestly believe, Alex, that Marreese Speights is worthy of a higher rating than Gorgui Dieng? Is it just a "needs to do it longer" thing? Sure that's part of it. If he continues this level of performance for the rest of the year and into next season then he might need to be looked at to be raised again. If you want to compare Dieng and Speights, then yes I do think Speights deserves a higher rating. Dieng plays 11 minutes more per game but their stats are still kind of comparable. Speights: 17.4mpg 11.8ppg, 5.1rpg, 0.9apg, 0.6bpg, 0.3spg, 21.9PER Dieng: 28.2mpg, 9.3ppg, 8.1rpg, 2.0spg, 1.6bpg, 1.1spg, 18.3PER If you really want to see the difference though, look at their per 36 stats: Speights: 24.3ppg, 10.6rpg, 1.9apg, 1.3bpg, 0.6spg, 21.9PER Dieng: 11.9ppg, 10.4rpg, 2.5spg, 2.0bpg, 1.4spg, 18.3PER There is also the factor that the Warriors are one of the best teams in the league while the Timberwolves are one of the worst. We saw this with Kevin Love his whole career, his stats looked great, but his team's were never very good. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 31, 2014 4:00:47 GMT
I also think 79 is too high. I'll go with a 77. So you honestly believe, Alex, that Marreese Speights is worthy of a higher rating than Gorgui Dieng? Is it just a "needs to do it longer" thing? Lol you just said in another thread to not cross compare guys, although it was Rookies. I try to not cross compare players because I know some ratings are just crazy inflated or suppressed. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 4:20:26 GMT
So you honestly believe, Alex, that Marreese Speights is worthy of a higher rating than Gorgui Dieng? Is it just a "needs to do it longer" thing? Sure that's part of it. If he continues this level of performance for the rest of the year and into next season then he might need to be looked at to be raised again. If you want to compare Dieng and Speights, then yes I do think Speights deserves a higher rating. Dieng plays 11 minutes more per game but their stats are still kind of comparable. Speights: 17.4mpg 11.8ppg, 5.1rpg, 0.9apg, 0.6bpg, 0.3spg, 21.9PER Dieng: 28.2mpg, 9.3ppg, 8.1rpg, 2.0spg, 1.6bpg, 1.1spg, 18.3PER If you really want to see the difference though, look at their per 36 stats: Speights: 24.3ppg, 10.6rpg, 1.9apg, 1.3bpg, 0.6spg, 21.9PER Dieng: 11.9ppg, 10.4rpg, 2.5spg, 2.0bpg, 1.4spg, 18.3PER There is also the factor that the Warriors are one of the best teams in the league while the Timberwolves are one of the worst. We saw this with Kevin Love his whole career, his stats looked great, but his team's were never very good. The Per 36 really point out even more how Dieng is an overall better player though. Sure maybe Speights can score better in an awesome Offensive environment. Maybe Dieng's environment is holding him down? Something you all never seem to consider. Better passer Better blocks, significantly Better steals by over twice as much I believe Dieng to be a better defender overall as well but we'll let that play out a little longer. I'm not much of a PER guy, always seems to be something glaring it misses as an overall rating tool. Not that it's a bad tool to use, but it really does not seem to completely capture the total picture. You can give me Speights' ppg, I give you Dieng's bpg. Then I give you Diengs spg Then I give you Diengs apg Not sure how Speights is better but whatever. I know he's a guy you like a lot. I really think Dieng's core big-man #'s would get him a 77 from most in this league - around 9, 8, and 1.6 blocks on 50% shooting. I don't believe those giving him 76/77 are giving him credit for his assists, steals, AND FT. That's a lot to leave out. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 4:25:03 GMT
So you honestly believe, Alex, that Marreese Speights is worthy of a higher rating than Gorgui Dieng? Is it just a "needs to do it longer" thing? Lol you just said in another thread to not cross compare guys, although it was Rookies. I try to not cross compare players because I know some ratings are just crazy inflated or suppressed. I was more just asking a question than asking to compare them. B/c, it doesn't add up in my head. I do think it's a little different to compare two current players up for changes than it is to compare one player who hasn't been touched in 2-4 years vs another guy who is developing as we speak. Fair point overall but my intention really was not to ask for a comparison the way it is often done in these things. I'm more just debating real players, which happens to be happening in the Stock Watch area. I dunno if that makes any sense to you but it's not being done the same way others do it sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 31, 2014 4:32:20 GMT
Lol you just said in another thread to not cross compare guys, although it was Rookies. I try to not cross compare players because I know some ratings are just crazy inflated or suppressed. I was more just asking a question than asking to compare them. B/c, it doesn't add up in my head. I do think it's a little different to compare two current players up for changes than it is to compare one player who hasn't been touched in 2-4 years vs another guy who is developing as we speak. Fair point overall but my intention really was not to ask for a comparison the way it is often done in these things. I'm more just debating real players, which happens to be happening in the Stock Watch area. I dunno if that makes any sense to you but it's not being done the same way others do it sometimes. I get it, was just busting your balls. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 31, 2014 4:46:20 GMT
Either way he's getting a 10pt increase. I say that he's a better all around player than Pek just because of Peks difficulties on the defensive side of the ball. I'd feel perfectly comfortable giving him a 79. A steal and a block is not easy to average in the NBA. When he plays few minutes he's a per 36 monster, when he plays big minutes those number slip a bit, but he actually delivers on most of them. 79 might actually be low.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 5:17:32 GMT
Either way he's getting a 10pt increase. I say that he's a better all around player than Pek just because of Peks difficulties on the defensive side of the ball. I'd feel perfectly comfortable giving him a 79. A steal and a block is not easy to average in the NBA. When he plays few minutes he's a per 36 monster, when he plays big minutes those number slip a bit, but he actually delivers on most of them. 79 might actually be low. Personally I would put him higher, but if I go with my own thoughts, Barber usually comes in and puts down like a 73 just to counter my high rating. I think 79 is where most people would put him after looking at everything, but maybe I sold him short by being cautious. 79 for now is pretty appropriate IMHO. As he continues to improve, play more minutes, and play more games, I think he will get more and more higher votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 31, 2014 5:19:58 GMT
Either way he's getting a 10pt increase. I say that he's a better all around player than Pek just because of Peks difficulties on the defensive side of the ball. I'd feel perfectly comfortable giving him a 79. A steal and a block is not easy to average in the NBA. When he plays few minutes he's a per 36 monster, when he plays big minutes those number slip a bit, but he actually delivers on most of them. 79 might actually be low. Personally I would put him higher, but if I go with my own thoughts, Barber usually comes in and puts down like a 73 just to counter my high rating. I think 79 is where most people would put him after looking at everything, but maybe I sold him short by being cautious. 79 for now is pretty appropriate IMHO. As he continues to improve, play more minutes, and play more games, I think he will get more and more higher votes. There is a HUGE psychological aspect to the suggested rating, I think most people don't fully grasp it. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 5:22:26 GMT
Personally I would put him higher, but if I go with my own thoughts, Barber usually comes in and puts down like a 73 just to counter my high rating. I think 79 is where most people would put him after looking at everything, but maybe I sold him short by being cautious. 79 for now is pretty appropriate IMHO. As he continues to improve, play more minutes, and play more games, I think he will get more and more higher votes. There is a HUGE psychological aspect to the suggested rating, I think most people don't fully grasp it. I don't know if anyone can fully grasp it, mainly b/c there are some here who look very hard at that rating, and some who ignore it and do their own thing. I also think some managers just interpret players differently and if they don't like the guy as much as you, automatically go lower than you said, without actually looking at the #'s and seeing what they really think on their own. It's tough man. Inexact science but I do always admit to myself that there is a psychological aspect. I just don't have it all figured out yet :-p |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 31, 2014 5:26:53 GMT
There is a HUGE psychological aspect to the suggested rating, I think most people don't fully grasp it. I don't know if anyone can fully grasp it, mainly b/c there are some here who look very hard at that rating, and some who ignore it and do their own thing. I also think some managers just interpret players differently and if they don't like the guy as much as you, automatically go lower than you said, without actually looking at the #'s and seeing what they really think on their own. It's tough man. Inexact science but I do always admit to myself that there is a psychological aspect. I just don't have it all figured out yet :-p I won't admit to what I do, but I am pretty sure I've figured it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 31, 2014 5:33:39 GMT
I am planning to put 79 but when I read Alex's input, I change my mind..  78 |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 31, 2014 12:36:32 GMT
The difference between Speights and Dieng is that when you give Speights more minutes his FG% drops like a rock because he takes terrible shots and loafs on defense. This is a known problem with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 31, 2014 16:16:18 GMT
Sometimes I think you guys have actually gone insane. In what universe is Dieng close to a 79?
74
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 31, 2014 18:12:11 GMT
77
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 20:05:02 GMT
Sometimes I think you guys have actually gone insane. In what universe is Dieng close to a 79? 74 Barber, what in the actual fuck are you smoking to think those numbers are a 74? Lmao. I know you like to think you hold the ratings down or something, but do you honestly think anyone on this thread is going overboard? Or have you just not been paying attention to Dieng? He's pushing towards a double double with a block and a half, over a steal, great ft for a big, good FG %. Find me the weakness keeping him under a 76. I think that's the lowest a reasonable person without an alterior agenda could go. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 31, 2014 20:10:17 GMT
Psychological aspect brah
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 31, 2014 20:16:24 GMT
Psychological aspect brah This is Barber hating all Timberwolves players, even one of the only ones who plays any defense, for some reason. And thinking he is holding the ratings down. But no one here is going nuts over Dieng. His rating will start to get him looked at as a joke who doesn't understand basketball if he rates like this. 74? Come on. That's a solid bench player who puts up like 6 and 4 with a block and good fg%. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 31, 2014 21:04:37 GMT
Dieng is a solid bench player. In fact, every starter on the Wolves is a solid bench player. 74
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 1, 2015 5:46:22 GMT
Sometimes I think you guys have actually gone insane. In what universe is Dieng close to a 79? 74 Oh and btw, the universe where Dieng is close to a 79 is the REAL WORLD. Enjoy fantasy land. What a joke. I'll just put down an automatic 67 for every player from you from now on, no need to vote anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghazny Dimalen on Jan 2, 2015 7:10:21 GMT
I agree in 79 suggested ratings for dieng,
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Jan 27, 2015 14:44:50 GMT
79 ^^
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 27, 2015 16:32:47 GMT
73
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 27, 2015 18:28:51 GMT
Wow dude. Wow. Did you get hacked? 9.8 / 8.6 / 2.3 ast / 1.0 stl / 1.8 blk in just under 30 mpg, while shooting 50% from the field and 80% from the line?! 73?? What the holy hell lol. We won't be able to give him credit for half his FT, half his inside/dunk game, half his steal, half his block, or any of his passing game. Maybe not his rebounding game either. Gonna go update my 79 to an 82. |
|
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Orleans Pelicans
Denver Nuggets
Cleveland Cavaliers
Brooklyn Nets
Charlotte Hornets
Washington Wizards
