Dragic

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

How about the sample size for David Lee? Is it big enough yet to admit you were dead wrong about him?

first of all, that was really my brother carrying that torch. but even if i did badmouth him he"s obviousdly proven me wrong and i can readily admit that (if i bashed him).

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

What are his turnovers per 36 compared to other young PGs? And is there a stat for hesitance and timidness?

 

[leclerc]

Maybe if you look at minutes played, age and time living in the U.S. you get some feel for timidness... Give the kid some time.

 

[slinslin]

slin,
My memory for who posts what isn't great but didn't you push Travis Diener hard in here for years? How does Dragic stack up against him, in your opinion?

No, I never pushed for Diener, rather the oppposite.

And while my post probably is just my opinion, I don't think anyone wants to dispute many of those names that they are either much much better players than Dragic and second that they are at least more talented.

So I figure that in the next 2-10 years there will be at least 20 PGs better than Dragic in the NBA, which will make Dragic a below average starter for his entire career, so I can confidently say that Dragic will be a good backup PG some day but not more.

 

[nashman]

Sorry you have no idea what Dragic will or will not be in the NBA guy hasn't even played a season yet and already looks light years ahead of the first time he stepped onto the court. If he continues to play good minutes he will get better and better, he has athletic abilty and skills which translate into a good player give him time. A lot of PG's don't just come into the NBA like CP3 it takes time to learn you know kind of like our 2 time MVP that we traded away years ago took time to develop!

 

[slinslin]

I'm sorry but Dragic can barely dribble well enough to get out of backcourt, his shooting mechanics look questionable and YES I can say that these players are either better or more talented, which one do you want to argue? Do you even understand the point? How can Dragic ever be a "good" starter when 70% of the NBA's starting PGs are better than him.

And I would take any bet that Dragic as an "old" rookie won't overtake enough of them to become an average starter in the NBA which would mean 12th-18th on the PG ranking.

The Suns have traditionally been a team with great PGs. Over the last 22 years or so we went from Kevin Johnson to Jason Kidd to Stephon Marbury to Steve Nash.. Goran Dragic won't prolong that list, it either ends or we get a "PG of the future" before Nash is gone.

 

[joshstmarie]

I'm sorry but Dragic can barely dribble well enough to get out of backcourt, his shooting mechanics look questionable and YES I can say that these players are either better or more talented, which one do you want to argue? Do you even understand the point? How can Dragic ever be a "good" starter when 70% of the NBA's starting PGs are better than him.

And I would take any bet that Dragic as an "old" rookie won't overtake enough of them to become an average starter in the NBA which would mean 12th-18th on the PG ranking.

because no rookie can improve right? lol @ "old rookie" becuase hes not 19.

 

[slinslin]

Of course he can and probably will, but so will the others who are already better than him or will come in with much more talent like Rubio, Jennings, Wall etc.

 

[JS22]

Dragic just needs time. He's starting to show that he at least has talent. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. He's quick, a solid defender, and a fantastic passer. He's even begun to hit some shots. (Occasionally.)

He's a rookie, from another country, learning the hardest position in basketball in very limited minutes under a hard-ass coach. (Porter.) He's starting to improve a bit under Gentry. And people tend to forget that he was a second round pick. I don't care what Suns management was trying to feed the fans. There's no way they would have taken him with their first pick.

 

[elindholm]

I don't care what Suns management was trying to feed the fans. There's no way they would have taken him with their first pick.

Maybe not, but the funny thing is, had they taken him instead of Lopez in the first round, even that would have been a better decision.

 

[Cheesewater]

I'm sorry but Dragic can barely dribble well enough to get out of backcourt, his shooting mechanics look questionable and YES I can say that these players are either better or more talented, which one do you want to argue? Do you even understand the point? How can Dragic ever be a "good" starter when 70% of the NBA's starting PGs are better than him.

I don't know how your assessment of what his shooting mechanics look like is worth more than just another opinion. Is his shooting percentage around the same as the other rookie point guards with similar experience? In a response to you on page 1, I submitted that he is already playing as well or better than Bayless, Chalmers, Felton, and Conley - names you offered up as more talented than Dragic.

And I would take any bet that Dragic as an "old" rookie won't overtake enough of them to become an average starter in the NBA which would mean 12th-18th on the PG ranking.

He's two weeks older than Chalmers, so Chalmers is an "old" rookie too?

I'm sure you'd like to have a guy drafted at #45 overall to come in and be Chris Paul right out of the box. Wouldn't we all? But it doesn't work out that way most of the time. If the guy has good raw skills and a situation in which he can learn and grow into a starter that can help win a lot of games, I'm quite happy with that - and a lot of other people are too, apparently.

 

[slinslin]

I am not unhappy with him, just saying he isn't more than our backup PG of the future.

Also your stats are not a good sample. It's just a few games and in a stat stuffing offense.

Pretty sure that Chalmers, Bayless and co would put up better numbers at the pace of this team since they have looked better over the course of the entire season, well maybe not Bayless since he is stuck on the bench of a better team (thanks to Terry Porter and Diaw's finger).

 

[Errntknght]

first of all, that was really my brother carrying that torch. but even if i did badmouth him he"s obviousdly proven me wrong and i can readily admit that (if i bashed him).

I apologize Ouchie - its too bad that I know you guys are brothers otherwise I'm sure I wouldn't confuse you two with each other...

On the other hand there is some counter evidence to that as I just confused 'slin' with whoever it was pimping Diener in here a couple of years back.

No, I never pushed for Diener, rather the oppposite.

My apologies, slin

 

[Cheesewater]

I am not unhappy with him, just saying he isn't more than our backup PG of the future.

Fair enough.

Also your stats are not a good sample. It's just a few games and in a stat stuffing offense.

Well I didn't give you any actual stats so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they are not a good sample. I compared their per-36 minutes stats for the season to date from basketball-reference.com as the source given by the OP Kolo. The stats are taken from the beginning of the season for all the players in my comparison - I don't know how much of a sample you would consider sufficient. If the whole season to date is not enough then I don't know how you can come to any conclusion at all.

Pretty sure that Chalmers, Bayless and co would put up better numbers at the pace of this team since they have looked better over the course of the entire season, well maybe not Bayless since he is stuck on the bench of a better team (thanks to Terry Porter and Diaw's finger).

But they haven't looked better. It's worthwhile to note that an observer is going to be more critical of the player they see more of. I'm sure there are Chalmers-haters over at heatfans.net and Bayless-bashers at blazerland.com or whatever their forums are.

 

[Covert Rain]

I am not happy with him overall. Though it seems like he has been playing better as of late, the only thing I have seen out of him that I like is his ability to pass the ball. Everything else leaves much to be desired. In fact, he is looking a little too much like Nash in 2 areas. Defense and turnovers.

Also, it's dumb to take a sampling and use 36 minutes. You use 48 because that is equivalent of a full game.

Per 48 #'s at PG
Points per 48 - 18.8 (good)
Assists per 48 - 7.8 (good)
Turnovers per 48- 6.1 (worse then Nash - which is hard)
Personal Fouls per 48- 6.8 (which is almost Lopez bad)
Opponent scoring per 48 - 19.7

Plus the guy is shooting 39% from the field. Just to put that into perspective, everybody says Jason Kidd is not a good shooter and Dragic is shooting worse then Kidd's career average of 40%.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

He will be a very good backup some day but never anything close to a star or our PG of the future.

There are too many great young PGs in the leauge (Rondo, Paul, Williams, Rose, Parker, Harris, Arenas...), many PGs with more talent (Conley, Sessions, Foye, Bayless, Westbrook, Stuckey, Felton, Augustin, Chalmers...) and the next 2 draft years will feature some great PG talent like Ricky Rubio, Brandon Jennings, John Wall and some more proven college PGs who could turn out great.

Also Dragic turns 23 in a couple of month, he is just 4 years younger than Arenas and Parker.

What specious reasoning for your argument. All those players are going to have ups and downs in there careers, some might get injured and some won't grow and develop at the rate others will. And likely none of them will be playing on the Suns.

What I like about Dragic's game is the nuance to it. He makes smart decisions on both defense and offense for a young guy new to the country. I could see as he gets more conifidence he could use his elite length and height to become a top 10 PG. Depends on a lot of things.

All those players you listed first are established (mostly) high draft pick stars. As the second list You can line up all those "talented" players in a post you want but it doesn't mean there game is going to evolve like Dragic's may or may not. You know who else is talented? Ndi Ebi, Darius Miles, Eddy Curry and on and on.

Why is it you think you can project these guys careers out like this only to say Dragic won't be more then a backup? I'm guessing there is no professional scouting in your background.

I like what I have seen out of him. And not much of it has to do with physical talent. But like Ouchie said this is a small sample size.

But with the above post you sound at best uniformed.

 

[Ryanwb]

IAlso, it's dumb to take a sampling and use 36 minutes. You use 48 because that is equivalent of a full game.

Yes, but nobody PLAYS 48 minutes a game so how is that an accurate assessment? Besides, at 48 minutes the numbers get slightly inflated

 

[Covert Rain]

What I like about Dragic's game is the nuance to it. He makes smart decisions on both defense and offense for a young guy new to the country.

He makes smart decisions on defense? He is averaging 6.1 turnovers Per 48 which is worse then Nash. Nash is the 2nd worst in the NBA. Dragic is also committing 6.8 fouls Per 48. He is allowing 19.7 opponent scoring per 48.

None of that says smart decisions on defense to me.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I am not happy with him overall. Though it seems like he has been playing better as of late, the only thing I have seen out of him that I like is his ability to pass the ball. Everything else leaves much to be desired. In fact, he is looking a little too much like Nash in 2 areas. Defense and turnovers.

Also, it's dumb to take a sampling and use 36 minutes. You use 48 because that is equivalent of a full game.

Per 48 #'s at PG
PPG - 18.8 (good)
Assists - 7.8 (good)
Turnovers - 6.1 (worse then Nash - which is hard)
Personal Fouls - 6.8 (which is almost Lopez bad)
Opponent PPG - 19.7

Plus the guy is shooting 39% from the field. Just to put that into perspective, everybody says Jason Kidd is not a good shooter and Dragic is shooting worse then Kidd's career average of 40%.

I think your are using the numbers over the whole season and putting them per 48. The OP used since a certain point. Dragic admitedly looked lost his first 35 games or so.

And as another poster mentioned 36 is what usually a starter plays per game. Thats why 36 is more realistic then 48.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

He makes smart decisions on defense? He is averaging 6.1 turnovers Per 48 which is worse then Nash. Nash is the 2nd worst in the NBA. Dragic is also committing 6.8 fouls Per 48. He is allowing 19.7 PPG to opponents per 48.

None of that says smart decisions on defense to me.

Well you would think the step up from Europe to the N freaking BA would be a little of an adjustment T.O. wise.

I live in Florida so I have only seen about 5 of the last 18 or so games. But when he got extended time he seemed to be facing opposition to their weak side, had fast hands, and managed to stay in front of most guys other then Deron Williams.

Its more of a feel thing with him. He may or may not realize his potential but like the stereotype goes the Europeans understand the game and have proper fundamentals.

 

[Ryanwb]

And as another poster mentioned 36 is what usually a starter plays per game. Thats why 36 is more realistic then 48.

exactly. Going back to my days of math and statistical inference, you can't make an accurate statistical analysis without accurate numbers.

A correlative item would be when you see statistcs concerning how people spend their day (watching TV, stuck in traffic, etc). Most of those stats use a ratio using 24 hours for their results (because the maths easier), when in actuality people aren't awake 24 hours a day.

 

[Covert Rain]

I think your are using the numbers over the whole season and putting them per 48. The OP used since a certain point. Dragic admitedly looked lost his first 35 games or so.

And as another poster mentioned 36 is what usually a starter plays per game. Thats why 36 is more realistic then 48.

You can't use 36 minutes because it skews the numbers. You have to look at a player over the course of a season. Because a season is measured in games and games equals 48, that's why 48 is used. Per 48 Stats is not meant to be a projection of what a player would average if he played 48 minutes per game. It is an expression of per minute stats. You use less then 36 minutes and your not getting a good #.

For example, one game can give an inaccurate representation. After five or more games, you can begin to get a more accurate read on how many points the player should be expected to score in 48 minutes period (one full game). Using anything less 48 minutes doesn't give you a accurate picture. It's not simply based on how many minutes per game a player plays. That's not how PER works.

 

[Ryanwb]

You can't use 36 minutes because it skews the numbers. You have to look at a player over the course of a season. Because a season is measured in games and games equals 48, that's why 48 is used.

I think you're missing the ball on this one. The statistic points per minute should not relate to 48 minutes because no player plays 48 minutes a game. Where as points per game, uses 48 minutes because time has no factor in the data

If you use 48 minutes in a points per minute analysis you are actually inflating the numbers.

 

[Covert Rain]

I think you're missing the ball on this one. The statistic points per minute should not relate to 48 minutes because no player plays 48 minutes a game. Where as points per game, uses 48 minutes because time has no factor in the data

If you use 48 minutes in a points per minute analysis you are actually inflating the numbers.

No you don't understand Per. Per is not meant to project how many number of points for example a player gets per game. Per is meant to calculate how many points per minute a player could get and for EVERY 48 minutes what that number would be. That takes into account that a player doesn't play 48 minutes per game.

That's different then per game. You can't pick a number off your head and use it like 36. Your skewing his per minute production the smaller the number gets. Dragic only plays 12 minutes per game. Use those same numbers and factor in 12 MPG. You will see how bad that skews results.

 

[elindholm]

Arguing about whether per-36 or per-48 stats are more useful is the same as asking, "Why does this shirt say 20% off when it's not $100?" It makes absolutely no difference what basis you use as long as you are consistent when comparing one player to another.