this is a good way to put it w/o naming names, too. well done. chandler is decent when he's not relied offensively at all. hopefully, he wasnt drafted for his offense! lol.

LOL Stoyachovich

fwiw however many field goal attempts u have doesn't automatically mean the better option u are.

That being said, Chandler is not even an "option". He basacally gets all his baskets on wide open dunks off pick and roll or penetration/offensive rebounds.


Options imo have to be players that can create their own shot; either off the dribble, running off screens for jumpshots, or in the post. Chandler can't do any of this.

I think this is a general misunderstanding amongst people, posters on this board, and drafters in this league. It's equating OWS (or ORtg) with effectiveness. One of the reason PER is (great/suitable/terrible) is it takes Usg% into account. The other stat does not. It measures efficiency "better," but typically is a step back in terms of "effectiveness" on the offensive end. So, yes, Chandler had a respectable OWS, but that has less to do with his offensive skills as it does with the fact he was utilized in a manner (ie. not shooting alot) that enabled him to put up efficient numbers.

One thing about Dave Berri's wages of wins (he has some articles on his blog) that is interesting is he makes a point about this: There are some players who shoot >60% from the field. But it's not in a team's general interest to have those guys take 100% of shots. Why is this?

Same deal with Chandler - think about it. Then perhaps start analyzing players based on conventional metrics ("ppg" for example) advanced metrics (PER and WNS) and team dynamics. (Visuals/chemistry with our team)

A general *memo* to everyone in the league: For some reason people expect that there is a ton of scoring to go around. Yes, there is a ton of scoring. But quality scoring is actually in a lot shorter supply than people think. I've analyzed some future rounds, and the pickings w/ 40 man teams is actually a little slimmer than everyone expects.

I mean - look at some recent picks. Some guys who are expected to be the #2 option on a championship caliber team - take a look at their scoring capacity. Some of the teams have a great #2 option... Others THINK they have a great #2 option. (Same thinking w/ 3rd option)

why do you constantly do this bobbo. It never makes any point you couldn't make without doing it. I really don't get it.

I do agree with cowboy that Chandler's offensive rebounds are sexy as ****ing hell. That's such a huge +

this prolly belongs in a different thread (either general playoff or boston/detroit) but a few of us think he's injured. plus, he had a decent game tonight. watching him warm up he never misses ('never') but when he dribbles he creates zero space and can't penetrate as well. so.. he's getting older, but again, we feel he's injured and not telling anyone.

I guess this is my question....to be able to score off the dribble in the NBA you have to either be ultra quick like Tony Parker or Allen Iverson, be physically strong enough to just shrug off contact like Lebron or Artest, be extrodinarily craft getting your shot off around the rim with floaters and quick scoop layups like Steve Nash, or be a great dunker like Vince Carter....and I just don't see Allen having any of that.

Now I'm not bashing him, as his numbers are great. I'm just wondering "how?"

No, but they have to have coached at least one NBA game inbetween 1979 and the present. You can pick them at any age(as long as they were that age when they coached in between that timeframe).

didnt want to look it up, so figured id just butcher it instead.

Who said they'd take him in the 3rd? And yes there are quite a few similar players imo, but obviously I can't mention them now.

Wait - why do I do what? Im really confused.

Honestly, the element of surprise IMO. Who the **** expects Ray Allen to take it to the basket? Surprises the hell out of me every time he puts up one of those two handed jams.

Uh having a great jump shot (Ray Allen) is 10x more important than being a great dunker in terms of creating ur own shot because the defenses have to play way up on u, allowing it to be much easier to get by them even if u don't have elite quickness.

Heck James White is the best dunker imo in NBA history and he can't create his own shot, he can't even get NBA minutes.

he was healthier/better pre-Boston. He just had double ankle surgery about a year ago. His mobility is gone.

I was gonna call you and tell you, but you're being pretty suggestive. It's like saying "Scottie Pippen had a REALLY good shooting guard he played with named ______ that might be good as a first overall pick." You're not naming him, but you might as well be. It's not a huge deal considering the people you are naming (by not naming them) should be pretty fresh, but still the rule is "don't mention other players" and I'm going to assume that extends to "don't directly suggest any players" either.

Tbach, I edited, but I really don't see the harm in what I'm doing. Just good basketball conversation.

"There's a certain player" "Not to name names but there's this guy" "don't want to name names" and now the new "____________"

the "not to name names" isn't really that bad, but really.. "there's a guy on Y who shoots X". you're better than that

so were the other comments you got banned for...

I agree, but as Assani pointed out, it's good in the short term, but overall probably harmful in the long run.

looked up mm, and:
damn.

I sent him a PM immediately after my pick, he should be alerted whenever he logs back in.

for the record, i will be up late, TBach PMed me his pick, and gave me the go ahead to post it. so, if mm does log on, i will have his pick up minutes afterward (lol. probably tho.)

in hopes of inspiring others to do this:

GOOD JOB TBACH