ROY: Andrew Wiggins or Nerlens Noel

[Beat LA]

Clay.  I hear what you're saying.  It's not worth mentioning Marcus Smart in the same discussion as Nerlens Noel.  Very different caliber of prospects.   Feel free to keep arguing with public consensus that Jordan Clarkson compares favorably to Marcus Smart, but let's leave the phenom prospects like Wiggins and Noel out of those petty debates.  Maybe you can start a new thread comparing Clarkson vs Smart.  Let's keep this thread for discussing the ROY candidates.

I don't think I have really said Smart is as good as Noel. My point is that in this thread you have repeatedly posted stats for both Noel and Clarkson. I think it is pretty basic basketball knowledge that stats on really bad teams don't hold a lot of water so I am not sure why you keep posting them. I also have no idea in the world how you have a public consensus that Clarkson compares favorably to Smart. This is not a topic I have really seen debated on many places. You posted a few links that ranked the rookies. One of these lists seemed really dubious in that it listed Galloway who may not be in the league next year.

I think if anything the kind of consensus I have seen on non-Boston forums regarding Clarkson is that he has been putting up some really good numbers on a bad team, but we will have to wait to see him in real games that aren't 25 point blowouts with NBA level teammates to determine just how good he is. Their coach recently said something to the effect that he was a piece, but he wasn't sure he was a piece they would build with or around for what that's worth.

Also it seems pretty silly that you made by my count 5 posts in a row about Clarkson and then all of a sudden the thread has to be about Noel and Wiggins again?

I wasn't the one who decided to taint this ROY conversation with the likes of Jordan Clarkson, Galloway and Marcus Smart.   I jumped into that late.   NBA.Com has Nerlens as the top rookie right now.  Just figured I'd show that they had Clarkson #5 and Smart #7 since the thread had been railroaded by Clarkson/Smart debates.   Seems like a better conversation for a separate thread.   Neither player is that impressive.   Probably both project to be role players.

I guess you can keep saying Smart projects as a role player. I know you have said it many times.  Why do you say this? Generally a role player means someone you bring in for a specific role off the bench and not a starter. He is already starting as a rookie on a team that has been at worst, average, the second half of the season. He just turned 21. You think he is going to get worse and has no ability to improve? Again it would be pretty meaningless if we were a team like the 76ers or Lakers that was routinely getting blown out, but he is out there every night against other starters in competitive games.

You've explained your pessimism and maybe this is a case of that, but you seem pessimistic about our players and really optimistic about guys not on our team. I think Noel has a chance to be really good and would probably say I think I view him higher than the average fan. However, you brought Anthony Davis into the mix. I wish if you were going to be pessimistic you could at least be pessimistic about all players and not super optimistic about the players on other teams.

If Nerlens or Wiggins was on Boston, I'd have no trouble glowing about their potential.  The last Celtic prospect I was super optimistic about was Al Jefferson.  That kid had all the potential to be an all-star.  He didn't totally reach his potential, but he's had a pretty nice career. 

My lack of enthusiasm about Boston prospects has less to do with my pessimism and more to do with our lack of elite prospects over the years.   There's a looooooooooong list of Boston prospects I was less than enthusiastic about.  In the past 15 years, how many have we developed into all-star players?  1?  I liked Rondo.  He had flaws, but I liked him.   If there's a history of me being more excited about prospects like Anthony Davis, Steph Curry and Kyrie Irving than guys like Gerald Green, Fab Melo and Jajuan Johnson, it's not totally because of pessimism.  When Boston lands an elite prospect, I'll be properly excited about it.   Smart has some potential.   I hope he exceeds expectations, but right now there seems to be a good chance of him developing into a defensive role player.  There were several guys I liked more heading into the draft.  Haven't seen much to change my mind yet.

You wrote before the season that it would be 3-5 years before we won 35 games in a season.

You are just pessimistic.

Lol, so am I.

[wayupnorth]

I think it should be between Mirotic and Noel.  Those two have had the best rookie seasons of anyone; Mirotic is playing well as an integral member of a good team.  Other than scoring, Noel's numbers are far and away better than any other rookie playing this year.

It's ironic that the two best rookies this year aren't members of the vaunted 2014 draft class.

Unfortunately, the voters will probably just look at PPG and the hype surrounding Wiggins, and undeservedly give him the award.

Have you watched any full games that Wiggins has played in this year?

He absolutely deserves the award. No his team hasn't done so hot, but they are not a particularly talented team.

Dude is extremely poised, and offensively is extremely polished. He has more talent that either Mirotic or Noel.

He will be a certified star in this league.

I have seen many games this year, and Wiggins is absolutely the real deal.

It is fair to want Noel or Mirotic to get ROY, but to say that Wiggins does not even deserve it is incredibly foolish and shows to me that you really have not watched Wiggins play much.

Admittedly, I haven't watched all that many T-Wolf games this year.  I did see a couple where they played the Celtics, and frankly I wasn't all that impressed.

And that is fair. They are not a great team to watch. I get the local FSN North broadcast and so get most T-Wolves homes games.

I am by no means a great evaluator of talent, but I really doubted Wiggins ability to adjust to the NBA quickly.

I was really wrong. He is a solid if not spectacular defender, but the important thing is that he works at it, and has the size to become even better at it.

His offensive game is really impressive though. He can drive and dunk as advertised, but it is his versatility that has impressed me. He has an array of mid range moves, and very light touch. He has not shot super well, but I think they will start to fall more as time goes on.

I know highlights don't tell the story, but some of the games he has had this year have been very impressive.

[Celtics18]

I think it should be between Mirotic and Noel.  Those two have had the best rookie seasons of anyone; Mirotic is playing well as an integral member of a good team.  Other than scoring, Noel's numbers are far and away better than any other rookie playing this year.

It's ironic that the two best rookies this year aren't members of the vaunted 2014 draft class.

Unfortunately, the voters will probably just look at PPG and the hype surrounding Wiggins, and undeservedly give him the award.

Have you watched any full games that Wiggins has played in this year?

He absolutely deserves the award. No his team hasn't done so hot, but they are not a particularly talented team.

Dude is extremely poised, and offensively is extremely polished. He has more talent that either Mirotic or Noel.

He will be a certified star in this league.

I have seen many games this year, and Wiggins is absolutely the real deal.

It is fair to want Noel or Mirotic to get ROY, but to say that Wiggins does not even deserve it is incredibly foolish and shows to me that you really have not watched Wiggins play much.

Admittedly, I haven't watched all that many T-Wolf games this year.  I did see a couple where they played the Celtics, and frankly I wasn't all that impressed.

And that is fair. They are not a great team to watch. I get the local FSN North broadcast and so get most T-Wolves homes games.

I am by no means a great evaluator of talent, but I really doubted Wiggins ability to adjust to the NBA quickly.

I was really wrong. He is a solid if not spectacular defender, but the important thing is that he works at it, and has the size to become even better at it.

His offensive game is really impressive though. He can drive and dunk as advertised, but it is his versatility that has impressed me. He has an array of mid range moves, and very light touch. He has not shot super well, but I think they will start to fall more as time goes on.

I know highlights don't tell the story, but some of the games he has had this year have been very impressive.

I'm not denying anything you say.  I'm also not saying that Andrew Wiggins isn't a good, young player with a bright future.

I'm just saying that I believe Nerlens and Mirotic would both be more deserving of ROY. 

[LarBrd33]

Clay.  I hear what you're saying.  It's not worth mentioning Marcus Smart in the same discussion as Nerlens Noel.  Very different caliber of prospects.   Feel free to keep arguing with public consensus that Jordan Clarkson compares favorably to Marcus Smart, but let's leave the phenom prospects like Wiggins and Noel out of those petty debates.  Maybe you can start a new thread comparing Clarkson vs Smart.  Let's keep this thread for discussing the ROY candidates.

I don't think I have really said Smart is as good as Noel. My point is that in this thread you have repeatedly posted stats for both Noel and Clarkson. I think it is pretty basic basketball knowledge that stats on really bad teams don't hold a lot of water so I am not sure why you keep posting them. I also have no idea in the world how you have a public consensus that Clarkson compares favorably to Smart. This is not a topic I have really seen debated on many places. You posted a few links that ranked the rookies. One of these lists seemed really dubious in that it listed Galloway who may not be in the league next year.

I think if anything the kind of consensus I have seen on non-Boston forums regarding Clarkson is that he has been putting up some really good numbers on a bad team, but we will have to wait to see him in real games that aren't 25 point blowouts with NBA level teammates to determine just how good he is. Their coach recently said something to the effect that he was a piece, but he wasn't sure he was a piece they would build with or around for what that's worth.

Also it seems pretty silly that you made by my count 5 posts in a row about Clarkson and then all of a sudden the thread has to be about Noel and Wiggins again?

I wasn't the one who decided to taint this ROY conversation with the likes of Jordan Clarkson, Galloway and Marcus Smart.   I jumped into that late.   NBA.Com has Nerlens as the top rookie right now.  Just figured I'd show that they had Clarkson #5 and Smart #7 since the thread had been railroaded by Clarkson/Smart debates.   Seems like a better conversation for a separate thread.   Neither player is that impressive.   Probably both project to be role players.

I guess you can keep saying Smart projects as a role player. I know you have said it many times.  Why do you say this? Generally a role player means someone you bring in for a specific role off the bench and not a starter. He is already starting as a rookie on a team that has been at worst, average, the second half of the season. He just turned 21. You think he is going to get worse and has no ability to improve? Again it would be pretty meaningless if we were a team like the 76ers or Lakers that was routinely getting blown out, but he is out there every night against other starters in competitive games.

You've explained your pessimism and maybe this is a case of that, but you seem pessimistic about our players and really optimistic about guys not on our team. I think Noel has a chance to be really good and would probably say I think I view him higher than the average fan. However, you brought Anthony Davis into the mix. I wish if you were going to be pessimistic you could at least be pessimistic about all players and not super optimistic about the players on other teams.

If Nerlens or Wiggins was on Boston, I'd have no trouble glowing about their potential.  The last Celtic prospect I was super optimistic about was Al Jefferson.  That kid had all the potential to be an all-star.  He didn't totally reach his potential, but he's had a pretty nice career. 

My lack of enthusiasm about Boston prospects has less to do with my pessimism and more to do with our lack of elite prospects over the years.   There's a looooooooooong list of Boston prospects I was less than enthusiastic about.  In the past 15 years, how many have we developed into all-star players?  1?  I liked Rondo.  He had flaws, but I liked him.   If there's a history of me being more excited about prospects like Anthony Davis, Steph Curry and Kyrie Irving than guys like Gerald Green, Fab Melo and Jajuan Johnson, it's not totally because of pessimism.  When Boston lands an elite prospect, I'll be properly excited about it.   Smart has some potential.   I hope he exceeds expectations, but right now there seems to be a good chance of him developing into a defensive role player.  There were several guys I liked more heading into the draft.  Haven't seen much to change my mind yet.

You wrote before the season that it would be 3-5 years before we won 35 games in a season.

You are just pessimistic.

3-5 years was an optimistic projection for the team becoming a contender again.  A below .500 35 win team was always something that could happen.  You can get stuck there for a while, though.

[Moranis]

Let's not throw rocks in glass houses.  Boston overhypes the crap out of their rookies as well.

Here's how NBA.com recently ranked the rooks: http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/04/01/2014-15-rookie-ladder-week-22/index.html

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3 - Elfrid Peyton
#4 - Nikola Mirotic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Jusuf Nurkic
#7 - Marcus Smart

Seems accurate.

And another from last week:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2415391-2015-nba-rookie-ladder-roy-race-heating-up-as-season-winds-down/page/11

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3A - Elfrid Payton
#3B - Nikola Mirtic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Langson Galloway
#7 - Marcus Smart

lol... Galloway over Smart caught me a bit by surprise.  Funny. 

At least this proves I'm not alone in picking Noel.

What are these based on present performance? Future value? Nurkic for the last month plus has been averaging almost as many fouls as rebounds and cant seem to stay on the court for more than 20 minutes a night. If we are doing performance to day hard to see him being very high.

I also tend to side with the anti-clarkson people. Being on the west coast and the Lakers being one of the teams that are always on national tv for some reason. I get to see more of their games than I would ever want to. Like the 76ers, a lot of their games are absolute dumpster fires where they are down 30 points and a team is not playing its' starters in the second half. For example, Clarkson recently "exploded" for 26 points according to the ESPN fantasy site against Portland. However, if you watched that game Portland took a double digit lead in the first quarter that it never really relinquished and he spent a lot of the time being guarded by Blake. He had a lot of his points at the end of the second and third quarters against backups and the Lakers as a team only scored 12 points in the first quarter. This is just one game, but it happens a lot with them. Last night they were down 20+ at halftime again (although clarkson didn't pad his stats). I hope we can all at least acknowledge that if Smart was in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway his stats would look a heck of a lot different than playing in CBS system.

Its mildly disappointing that they have writers at these sites that don't recognize that either... Galloway in particular will not be in the NBA in a few years so having him as one of the best rookies says a lot about that writer talent/evaluator?...

I agree.  My only question, however, is would he average more points but on the same percentages?  That's what I like about Clarkson.  He's just a really good player who at least knows his strengths and plays to them.  Whether that's due to the difference in offensive philosophies between Byron Scott and CBS, idk, but at least Clarkson can get to the basket and make his free throws.

Smart IS in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway.  His team just happens to be winning some games.   Smart thus far has proven to be a bad offensive player.  He can't just go to a bad team and put up 20 points per game... he's ON a bad team.  They just happen to be winning a bit more. 

That takes nothing away from Smart's defense.  There's a reason why both of those sites rank him 7th out of all the rookies.  Kid can play defense.

Team-wise, I agree, although the Celtics are probably the best of those three.  However, unlike Clarkson, or even Noel (I don't keep up with the knicks), Smart isn't the focal point or even a primary option on offense because of how inept he's been when it comes to scoring, while Clarkson has essentially been given the keys to run the show because he's the best option at point guard that the lakers currently have.  To me, in the case of Clarkson vs. Smart, it's really more about the eye test, and right now, save for about 5 games, iirc, Smart has made me want to gouge my eyes out, lol. Ugh.

Really? Do you hate countless hustle plays, huge clutch shots, intangibles, game-changing defense and competitive fire or something? Even if you don't like him, how can watching Smart make you wanna gouge your eyes out? Are you even watching? Cause if you were, you'd be watching him parked on the 3 point line opposite an AB curl off a screen or an IT/Zeller P&R. And then you'd see all those other things I just mentioned and say "Jesus, that kid is something" four or five times a game.

All I'm saying is your not being objective. Smarts team is much better than Clarkson's. Oh, and they're actually trying to win instead of trying their hardest to lose so their 1st rounder doesn't go away like LA is. If your trying to win, handing your 20 year old rookie PG the keys to the offense and game-planning around him is not the way to do it. And since we have guys with a bunch of different above-average offensive skills including a ball-dominant Turner and IT, Smart doesn't even bring the ball up court half the time. When your the only person on a garbage team that's a legit option and everything goes through you, like it has been lately with Clarkson, or course your gonna score more points and assists.

Saying something like "Clarkson is much better than Smart, I wish we had him instead" and pointing to highlight videos and box scores ignores context. There's more important things than just box scores when evaluating players, especially rookies.

Absolutely not - I love all of those traits that Smart exhibits without question, and he has hit a few big shots this year, I'll give you that, it's just that I was hoping for more from the 6th pick in the draft, and I mean offensively.  Maybe I simply set my standards too high, but they've come down dramatically, lol. At this point, all I want to see out of Marcus is him attacking the basket and setting people up, in addition to his defense, but his inability to score inside worries me.  The first time I saw him attempt a floater the darn thing was so off that it went over the top of the backboard - yikes.

Maybe I'm not being objective, and I do think that our team is better than LA's, especially because, like you said, they're doing everything in their power to not have to hand over their pick to Phoenix, but I also wonder if our team was in the western conference and the lakers were in the east, would the records be virtually equal?  I know that Stevens has done a fantastic job this year, even though he frustrates me at times with his inconsistent rotations and offensive philosophy, etc., but if we had to play primarily against western conference opponents over the course of the season, I'd have to think that we'd have the 4th-5th worst record in the league.

Finally, I completely agree and understand about box scores and video highlights, because you're right, they don't tell the whole story.  All I'm saying is that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the 6th pick in the draft would have had a better year than a guy picked at 46, iirc.  Is that fair, or am I way off base?

Some splits.

Boston is 11-4 against the Atlantic (by FAR the worst division in basketball), 12-20 against the rest of the East, and 12-18 against the West.  One could thus argue it is the Atlantic division where they get to play the Knicks, Sixers, Nets, and Raptors more than any other teams that is inflating Boston's record.

The Lakers are 2-12 against the Pacific, 6-27 against the rest of the West, and 12-18 against the East.  So very bad against the West, including their division, and while better not exactly good against the East.

So it appears Boston would be a little bit better than LA if they switched spots, though not that much.

[celticsclay]

Let's not throw rocks in glass houses.  Boston overhypes the crap out of their rookies as well.

Here's how NBA.com recently ranked the rooks: http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/04/01/2014-15-rookie-ladder-week-22/index.html

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3 - Elfrid Peyton
#4 - Nikola Mirotic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Jusuf Nurkic
#7 - Marcus Smart

Seems accurate.

And another from last week:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2415391-2015-nba-rookie-ladder-roy-race-heating-up-as-season-winds-down/page/11

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3A - Elfrid Payton
#3B - Nikola Mirtic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Langson Galloway
#7 - Marcus Smart

lol... Galloway over Smart caught me a bit by surprise.  Funny. 

At least this proves I'm not alone in picking Noel.

What are these based on present performance? Future value? Nurkic for the last month plus has been averaging almost as many fouls as rebounds and cant seem to stay on the court for more than 20 minutes a night. If we are doing performance to day hard to see him being very high.

I also tend to side with the anti-clarkson people. Being on the west coast and the Lakers being one of the teams that are always on national tv for some reason. I get to see more of their games than I would ever want to. Like the 76ers, a lot of their games are absolute dumpster fires where they are down 30 points and a team is not playing its' starters in the second half. For example, Clarkson recently "exploded" for 26 points according to the ESPN fantasy site against Portland. However, if you watched that game Portland took a double digit lead in the first quarter that it never really relinquished and he spent a lot of the time being guarded by Blake. He had a lot of his points at the end of the second and third quarters against backups and the Lakers as a team only scored 12 points in the first quarter. This is just one game, but it happens a lot with them. Last night they were down 20+ at halftime again (although clarkson didn't pad his stats). I hope we can all at least acknowledge that if Smart was in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway his stats would look a heck of a lot different than playing in CBS system.

Its mildly disappointing that they have writers at these sites that don't recognize that either... Galloway in particular will not be in the NBA in a few years so having him as one of the best rookies says a lot about that writer talent/evaluator?...

I agree.  My only question, however, is would he average more points but on the same percentages?  That's what I like about Clarkson.  He's just a really good player who at least knows his strengths and plays to them.  Whether that's due to the difference in offensive philosophies between Byron Scott and CBS, idk, but at least Clarkson can get to the basket and make his free throws.

Smart IS in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway.  His team just happens to be winning some games.   Smart thus far has proven to be a bad offensive player.  He can't just go to a bad team and put up 20 points per game... he's ON a bad team.  They just happen to be winning a bit more. 

That takes nothing away from Smart's defense.  There's a reason why both of those sites rank him 7th out of all the rookies.  Kid can play defense.

Team-wise, I agree, although the Celtics are probably the best of those three.  However, unlike Clarkson, or even Noel (I don't keep up with the knicks), Smart isn't the focal point or even a primary option on offense because of how inept he's been when it comes to scoring, while Clarkson has essentially been given the keys to run the show because he's the best option at point guard that the lakers currently have.  To me, in the case of Clarkson vs. Smart, it's really more about the eye test, and right now, save for about 5 games, iirc, Smart has made me want to gouge my eyes out, lol. Ugh.

Really? Do you hate countless hustle plays, huge clutch shots, intangibles, game-changing defense and competitive fire or something? Even if you don't like him, how can watching Smart make you wanna gouge your eyes out? Are you even watching? Cause if you were, you'd be watching him parked on the 3 point line opposite an AB curl off a screen or an IT/Zeller P&R. And then you'd see all those other things I just mentioned and say "Jesus, that kid is something" four or five times a game.

All I'm saying is your not being objective. Smarts team is much better than Clarkson's. Oh, and they're actually trying to win instead of trying their hardest to lose so their 1st rounder doesn't go away like LA is. If your trying to win, handing your 20 year old rookie PG the keys to the offense and game-planning around him is not the way to do it. And since we have guys with a bunch of different above-average offensive skills including a ball-dominant Turner and IT, Smart doesn't even bring the ball up court half the time. When your the only person on a garbage team that's a legit option and everything goes through you, like it has been lately with Clarkson, or course your gonna score more points and assists.

Saying something like "Clarkson is much better than Smart, I wish we had him instead" and pointing to highlight videos and box scores ignores context. There's more important things than just box scores when evaluating players, especially rookies.

Absolutely not - I love all of those traits that Smart exhibits without question, and he has hit a few big shots this year, I'll give you that, it's just that I was hoping for more from the 6th pick in the draft, and I mean offensively.  Maybe I simply set my standards too high, but they've come down dramatically, lol. At this point, all I want to see out of Marcus is him attacking the basket and setting people up, in addition to his defense, but his inability to score inside worries me.  The first time I saw him attempt a floater the darn thing was so off that it went over the top of the backboard - yikes.

Maybe I'm not being objective, and I do think that our team is better than LA's, especially because, like you said, they're doing everything in their power to not have to hand over their pick to Phoenix, but I also wonder if our team was in the western conference and the lakers were in the east, would the records be virtually equal?  I know that Stevens has done a fantastic job this year, even though he frustrates me at times with his inconsistent rotations and offensive philosophy, etc., but if we had to play primarily against western conference opponents over the course of the season, I'd have to think that we'd have the 4th-5th worst record in the league.

Finally, I completely agree and understand about box scores and video highlights, because you're right, they don't tell the whole story.  All I'm saying is that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the 6th pick in the draft would have had a better year than a guy picked at 46, iirc.  Is that fair, or am I way off base?

Some splits.

Boston is 11-4 against the Atlantic (by FAR the worst division in basketball), 12-20 against the rest of the East, and 12-18 against the West.  One could thus argue it is the Atlantic division where they get to play the Knicks, Sixers, Nets, and Raptors more than any other teams that is inflating Boston's record.

The Lakers are 2-12 against the Pacific, 6-27 against the rest of the West, and 12-18 against the East.  So very bad against the West, including their division, and while better not exactly good against the East.

So it appears Boston would be a little bit better than LA if they switched spots, though not that much.

This is incredibly misguided cherry picking of stats. The Celtics have played about .600 ball over their 30 games, a stretch that includes a trip out west and wins over Memphis, New Orleans, Utah 2x, Phoenix, Denver 2x, and Portland. We also had some additional close losses (6 points or less) to OKC, Houston, Golden State. Some teams like the Spurs and Clippers have dominated us from start to finish, but with a few exceptions we at least kept this games respectable. In fact, the last time I looked this up the Celtics had lost one game by 20 or more points all season while the Lakers had lost 10 of these games including 3 last week alone.

As stated in another thread, the difference in pt differential between the Lakers -.6.5 and Celtics -.7 is the same difference as between the Celtics and Spurs and Celtics and Cavs. If anything the Lakers have been extremely lucky to get the number of wins they actually do have winning a league high 6 games in overtime (against 3 losses) While the Celtics have gone (2-5) including one of the games being against LA.

I honestly don't know how you can say with a straight face that the Celtics team right now is only a little better than the Lakers.

You could maybe have made an argument in the 1/3rd of the season that we were not that much better than them. However, our team has completely changed since then and we have won as many games in our last 32 as they have in their first 77. Yes they do play a harder schedule but saying that is the difference between us winning 15 games since the All Star break and them winning 6 doesn't make any sense. 


 

[LarBrd33]

Some more Noel propaganda for those on the fence:

http://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/237348/Nerlens-Noel-Emerging-As-One-Of-NBAs-Premier-Big-Men


Apparently over the last two months, when Noel was on the court the 76ers gave up 94.5 points per 100 possessions.  The best team in the league (Golden State) gives up 97.8 on the season: 

Interview with him:  http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12646795

[Moranis]

Let's not throw rocks in glass houses.  Boston overhypes the crap out of their rookies as well.

Here's how NBA.com recently ranked the rooks: http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/04/01/2014-15-rookie-ladder-week-22/index.html

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3 - Elfrid Peyton
#4 - Nikola Mirotic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Jusuf Nurkic
#7 - Marcus Smart

Seems accurate.

And another from last week:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2415391-2015-nba-rookie-ladder-roy-race-heating-up-as-season-winds-down/page/11

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3A - Elfrid Payton
#3B - Nikola Mirtic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Langson Galloway
#7 - Marcus Smart

lol... Galloway over Smart caught me a bit by surprise.  Funny. 

At least this proves I'm not alone in picking Noel.

What are these based on present performance? Future value? Nurkic for the last month plus has been averaging almost as many fouls as rebounds and cant seem to stay on the court for more than 20 minutes a night. If we are doing performance to day hard to see him being very high.

I also tend to side with the anti-clarkson people. Being on the west coast and the Lakers being one of the teams that are always on national tv for some reason. I get to see more of their games than I would ever want to. Like the 76ers, a lot of their games are absolute dumpster fires where they are down 30 points and a team is not playing its' starters in the second half. For example, Clarkson recently "exploded" for 26 points according to the ESPN fantasy site against Portland. However, if you watched that game Portland took a double digit lead in the first quarter that it never really relinquished and he spent a lot of the time being guarded by Blake. He had a lot of his points at the end of the second and third quarters against backups and the Lakers as a team only scored 12 points in the first quarter. This is just one game, but it happens a lot with them. Last night they were down 20+ at halftime again (although clarkson didn't pad his stats). I hope we can all at least acknowledge that if Smart was in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway his stats would look a heck of a lot different than playing in CBS system.

Its mildly disappointing that they have writers at these sites that don't recognize that either... Galloway in particular will not be in the NBA in a few years so having him as one of the best rookies says a lot about that writer talent/evaluator?...

I agree.  My only question, however, is would he average more points but on the same percentages?  That's what I like about Clarkson.  He's just a really good player who at least knows his strengths and plays to them.  Whether that's due to the difference in offensive philosophies between Byron Scott and CBS, idk, but at least Clarkson can get to the basket and make his free throws.

Smart IS in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway.  His team just happens to be winning some games.   Smart thus far has proven to be a bad offensive player.  He can't just go to a bad team and put up 20 points per game... he's ON a bad team.  They just happen to be winning a bit more. 

That takes nothing away from Smart's defense.  There's a reason why both of those sites rank him 7th out of all the rookies.  Kid can play defense.

Team-wise, I agree, although the Celtics are probably the best of those three.  However, unlike Clarkson, or even Noel (I don't keep up with the knicks), Smart isn't the focal point or even a primary option on offense because of how inept he's been when it comes to scoring, while Clarkson has essentially been given the keys to run the show because he's the best option at point guard that the lakers currently have.  To me, in the case of Clarkson vs. Smart, it's really more about the eye test, and right now, save for about 5 games, iirc, Smart has made me want to gouge my eyes out, lol. Ugh.

Really? Do you hate countless hustle plays, huge clutch shots, intangibles, game-changing defense and competitive fire or something? Even if you don't like him, how can watching Smart make you wanna gouge your eyes out? Are you even watching? Cause if you were, you'd be watching him parked on the 3 point line opposite an AB curl off a screen or an IT/Zeller P&R. And then you'd see all those other things I just mentioned and say "Jesus, that kid is something" four or five times a game.

All I'm saying is your not being objective. Smarts team is much better than Clarkson's. Oh, and they're actually trying to win instead of trying their hardest to lose so their 1st rounder doesn't go away like LA is. If your trying to win, handing your 20 year old rookie PG the keys to the offense and game-planning around him is not the way to do it. And since we have guys with a bunch of different above-average offensive skills including a ball-dominant Turner and IT, Smart doesn't even bring the ball up court half the time. When your the only person on a garbage team that's a legit option and everything goes through you, like it has been lately with Clarkson, or course your gonna score more points and assists.

Saying something like "Clarkson is much better than Smart, I wish we had him instead" and pointing to highlight videos and box scores ignores context. There's more important things than just box scores when evaluating players, especially rookies.

Absolutely not - I love all of those traits that Smart exhibits without question, and he has hit a few big shots this year, I'll give you that, it's just that I was hoping for more from the 6th pick in the draft, and I mean offensively.  Maybe I simply set my standards too high, but they've come down dramatically, lol. At this point, all I want to see out of Marcus is him attacking the basket and setting people up, in addition to his defense, but his inability to score inside worries me.  The first time I saw him attempt a floater the darn thing was so off that it went over the top of the backboard - yikes.

Maybe I'm not being objective, and I do think that our team is better than LA's, especially because, like you said, they're doing everything in their power to not have to hand over their pick to Phoenix, but I also wonder if our team was in the western conference and the lakers were in the east, would the records be virtually equal?  I know that Stevens has done a fantastic job this year, even though he frustrates me at times with his inconsistent rotations and offensive philosophy, etc., but if we had to play primarily against western conference opponents over the course of the season, I'd have to think that we'd have the 4th-5th worst record in the league.

Finally, I completely agree and understand about box scores and video highlights, because you're right, they don't tell the whole story.  All I'm saying is that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the 6th pick in the draft would have had a better year than a guy picked at 46, iirc.  Is that fair, or am I way off base?

Some splits.

Boston is 11-4 against the Atlantic (by FAR the worst division in basketball), 12-20 against the rest of the East, and 12-18 against the West.  One could thus argue it is the Atlantic division where they get to play the Knicks, Sixers, Nets, and Raptors more than any other teams that is inflating Boston's record.

The Lakers are 2-12 against the Pacific, 6-27 against the rest of the West, and 12-18 against the East.  So very bad against the West, including their division, and while better not exactly good against the East.

So it appears Boston would be a little bit better than LA if they switched spots, though not that much.

This is incredibly misguided cherry picking of stats. The Celtics have played about .600 ball over their 30 games, a stretch that includes a trip out west and wins over Memphis, New Orleans, Utah 2x, Phoenix, Denver 2x, and Portland. We also had some additional close losses (6 points or less) to OKC, Houston, Golden State. Some teams like the Spurs and Clippers have dominated us from start to finish, but with a few exceptions we at least kept this games respectable. In fact, the last time I looked this up the Celtics had lost one game by 20 or more points all season while the Lakers had lost 10 of these games including 3 last week alone.

As stated in another thread, the difference in pt differential between the Lakers -.6.5 and Celtics -.7 is the same difference as between the Celtics and Spurs and Celtics and Cavs. If anything the Lakers have been extremely lucky to get the number of wins they actually do have winning a league high 6 games in overtime (against 3 losses) While the Celtics have gone (2-5) including one of the games being against LA.

I honestly don't know how you can say with a straight face that the Celtics team right now is only a little better than the Lakers.

You could maybe have made an argument in the 1/3rd of the season that we were not that much better than them. However, our team has completely changed since then and we have won as many games in our last 32 as they have in their first 77. Yes they do play a harder schedule but saying that is the difference between us winning 15 games since the All Star break and them winning 6 doesn't make any sense.

since the break Boston is 5-0 against the Atlantic.  The Atlantic is terrible.  Boston has also beaten Orlando, 2 wins against Charlotte, Utah, and 2 wins against the Pacers.  Boston has also lost to Orlando, Sacramento, and the Lakers.  Let's not going around acting like Boston has been awesome against a killer schedule.  And sure the wins against Memphis and New Orleans were nice, but those are the only 2 wins against teams with a winning record since the all star break (and it isn't like the schedule has been full of such teams as Boston's schedule has been very easy since the all star break). 

Now granted LA hasn't beaten a team with a winning record since the break and has lost to the terribleness that is NY, but their schedule has been significantly more difficult.  Heck their last 4 games have been more difficult than any stretch Boston has had since the break as all 4 games were against teams that currently have a winning record.  Boston has not played more than 2 such teams in a row since mid-January (i.e. before the all star break). 

Boston is better than LA and would have a better record if they switched positions, it just wouldn't be that much different based on schedules.  That has much more to do with how bad the Atlantic division is as anything. 

[GC003332]

The Celtics have had 4 wins against teams above .500 since the all star break, Phoenix, New Orleans, Memphis and Toronto

[celticsclay]

Let's not throw rocks in glass houses.  Boston overhypes the crap out of their rookies as well.

Here's how NBA.com recently ranked the rooks: http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/scott_howard_cooper/04/01/2014-15-rookie-ladder-week-22/index.html

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3 - Elfrid Peyton
#4 - Nikola Mirotic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Jusuf Nurkic
#7 - Marcus Smart

Seems accurate.

And another from last week:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2415391-2015-nba-rookie-ladder-roy-race-heating-up-as-season-winds-down/page/11

#1 - Nerlens Noel
#2 - Andrew Wiggins
#3A - Elfrid Payton
#3B - Nikola Mirtic
#5 - Jordan Clarkson
#6 - Langson Galloway
#7 - Marcus Smart

lol... Galloway over Smart caught me a bit by surprise.  Funny. 

At least this proves I'm not alone in picking Noel.

What are these based on present performance? Future value? Nurkic for the last month plus has been averaging almost as many fouls as rebounds and cant seem to stay on the court for more than 20 minutes a night. If we are doing performance to day hard to see him being very high.

I also tend to side with the anti-clarkson people. Being on the west coast and the Lakers being one of the teams that are always on national tv for some reason. I get to see more of their games than I would ever want to. Like the 76ers, a lot of their games are absolute dumpster fires where they are down 30 points and a team is not playing its' starters in the second half. For example, Clarkson recently "exploded" for 26 points according to the ESPN fantasy site against Portland. However, if you watched that game Portland took a double digit lead in the first quarter that it never really relinquished and he spent a lot of the time being guarded by Blake. He had a lot of his points at the end of the second and third quarters against backups and the Lakers as a team only scored 12 points in the first quarter. This is just one game, but it happens a lot with them. Last night they were down 20+ at halftime again (although clarkson didn't pad his stats). I hope we can all at least acknowledge that if Smart was in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway his stats would look a heck of a lot different than playing in CBS system.

Its mildly disappointing that they have writers at these sites that don't recognize that either... Galloway in particular will not be in the NBA in a few years so having him as one of the best rookies says a lot about that writer talent/evaluator?...

I agree.  My only question, however, is would he average more points but on the same percentages?  That's what I like about Clarkson.  He's just a really good player who at least knows his strengths and plays to them.  Whether that's due to the difference in offensive philosophies between Byron Scott and CBS, idk, but at least Clarkson can get to the basket and make his free throws.

Smart IS in a situation like Noel, Clarkson or Galloway.  His team just happens to be winning some games.   Smart thus far has proven to be a bad offensive player.  He can't just go to a bad team and put up 20 points per game... he's ON a bad team.  They just happen to be winning a bit more. 

That takes nothing away from Smart's defense.  There's a reason why both of those sites rank him 7th out of all the rookies.  Kid can play defense.

Team-wise, I agree, although the Celtics are probably the best of those three.  However, unlike Clarkson, or even Noel (I don't keep up with the knicks), Smart isn't the focal point or even a primary option on offense because of how inept he's been when it comes to scoring, while Clarkson has essentially been given the keys to run the show because he's the best option at point guard that the lakers currently have.  To me, in the case of Clarkson vs. Smart, it's really more about the eye test, and right now, save for about 5 games, iirc, Smart has made me want to gouge my eyes out, lol. Ugh.

Really? Do you hate countless hustle plays, huge clutch shots, intangibles, game-changing defense and competitive fire or something? Even if you don't like him, how can watching Smart make you wanna gouge your eyes out? Are you even watching? Cause if you were, you'd be watching him parked on the 3 point line opposite an AB curl off a screen or an IT/Zeller P&R. And then you'd see all those other things I just mentioned and say "Jesus, that kid is something" four or five times a game.

All I'm saying is your not being objective. Smarts team is much better than Clarkson's. Oh, and they're actually trying to win instead of trying their hardest to lose so their 1st rounder doesn't go away like LA is. If your trying to win, handing your 20 year old rookie PG the keys to the offense and game-planning around him is not the way to do it. And since we have guys with a bunch of different above-average offensive skills including a ball-dominant Turner and IT, Smart doesn't even bring the ball up court half the time. When your the only person on a garbage team that's a legit option and everything goes through you, like it has been lately with Clarkson, or course your gonna score more points and assists.

Saying something like "Clarkson is much better than Smart, I wish we had him instead" and pointing to highlight videos and box scores ignores context. There's more important things than just box scores when evaluating players, especially rookies.

Absolutely not - I love all of those traits that Smart exhibits without question, and he has hit a few big shots this year, I'll give you that, it's just that I was hoping for more from the 6th pick in the draft, and I mean offensively.  Maybe I simply set my standards too high, but they've come down dramatically, lol. At this point, all I want to see out of Marcus is him attacking the basket and setting people up, in addition to his defense, but his inability to score inside worries me.  The first time I saw him attempt a floater the darn thing was so off that it went over the top of the backboard - yikes.

Maybe I'm not being objective, and I do think that our team is better than LA's, especially because, like you said, they're doing everything in their power to not have to hand over their pick to Phoenix, but I also wonder if our team was in the western conference and the lakers were in the east, would the records be virtually equal?  I know that Stevens has done a fantastic job this year, even though he frustrates me at times with his inconsistent rotations and offensive philosophy, etc., but if we had to play primarily against western conference opponents over the course of the season, I'd have to think that we'd have the 4th-5th worst record in the league.

Finally, I completely agree and understand about box scores and video highlights, because you're right, they don't tell the whole story.  All I'm saying is that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the 6th pick in the draft would have had a better year than a guy picked at 46, iirc.  Is that fair, or am I way off base?

Some splits.

Boston is 11-4 against the Atlantic (by FAR the worst division in basketball), 12-20 against the rest of the East, and 12-18 against the West.  One could thus argue it is the Atlantic division where they get to play the Knicks, Sixers, Nets, and Raptors more than any other teams that is inflating Boston's record.

The Lakers are 2-12 against the Pacific, 6-27 against the rest of the West, and 12-18 against the East.  So very bad against the West, including their division, and while better not exactly good against the East.

So it appears Boston would be a little bit better than LA if they switched spots, though not that much.

This is incredibly misguided cherry picking of stats. The Celtics have played about .600 ball over their 30 games, a stretch that includes a trip out west and wins over Memphis, New Orleans, Utah 2x, Phoenix, Denver 2x, and Portland. We also had some additional close losses (6 points or less) to OKC, Houston, Golden State. Some teams like the Spurs and Clippers have dominated us from start to finish, but with a few exceptions we at least kept this games respectable. In fact, the last time I looked this up the Celtics had lost one game by 20 or more points all season while the Lakers had lost 10 of these games including 3 last week alone.

As stated in another thread, the difference in pt differential between the Lakers -.6.5 and Celtics -.7 is the same difference as between the Celtics and Spurs and Celtics and Cavs. If anything the Lakers have been extremely lucky to get the number of wins they actually do have winning a league high 6 games in overtime (against 3 losses) While the Celtics have gone (2-5) including one of the games being against LA.

I honestly don't know how you can say with a straight face that the Celtics team right now is only a little better than the Lakers.

You could maybe have made an argument in the 1/3rd of the season that we were not that much better than them. However, our team has completely changed since then and we have won as many games in our last 32 as they have in their first 77. Yes they do play a harder schedule but saying that is the difference between us winning 15 games since the All Star break and them winning 6 doesn't make any sense.

since the break Boston is 5-0 against the Atlantic.  The Atlantic is terrible.  Boston has also beaten Orlando, 2 wins against Charlotte, Utah, and 2 wins against the Pacers.  Boston has also lost to Orlando, Sacramento, and the Lakers.  Let's not going around acting like Boston has been awesome against a killer schedule.  And sure the wins against Memphis and New Orleans were nice, but those are the only 2 wins against teams with a winning record since the all star break (and it isn't like the schedule has been full of such teams as Boston's schedule has been very easy since the all star break). 

Now granted LA hasn't beaten a team with a winning record since the break and has lost to the terribleness that is NY, but their schedule has been significantly more difficult.  Heck their last 4 games have been more difficult than any stretch Boston has had since the break as all 4 games were against teams that currently have a winning record.  Boston has not played more than 2 such teams in a row since mid-January (i.e. before the all star break). 

Boston is better than LA and would have a better record if they switched positions, it just wouldn't be that much different based on schedules.  That has much more to do with how bad the Atlantic division is as anything.

Your stats are not even accurate... We just beat Toronto last game who is over .500 but Memphis and New Orleans were somehow our only wins against over .500 teams? Toronto is not amazing, but they are a solid team. We also beat the suns who are .500 and were above .500 when we beat them (and have been for almost the entire season). If you go back even further to a point when we made the trades (which is less arbitrary than the break) we have even more wins including Atlanta, New Orleans again and at Portland. The Lakers are absolutely horrible and would not have more than maybe 3 more wins if the played in the East. Between your support of Philly Bench players and arguing that the Lakers are not that bad, I really don't know what your deal is. You are in the extreme minority on both of these topics and they are not even fun things to be fans of. Even Lakers and Philly fans admit their teams are horrible and don't make the kind of claims you are. You could be a very good troll, but I would not think someone that posts as much as you would bother with that kind of stuff (and on these kinds of debates no less)

[Celtics18]

TP to LarBrd33 from the management of the DKC Sixers. 

[Moranis]

The Celtics have had 4 wins against teams above .500 since the all star break, Phoenix, New Orleans, Memphis and Toronto

Thanks.  I missed those.  I was looking at a schedule that didn't have records and Toronto totally slipped my mind.

[LarBrd33]

Wiggins has been amazing his last 5 games.   Kid is going to be a superstar.   

He averaged 18 points, 5 rebounds, 1.8 assists on 43%/19%/78% shooting during March.

So far in the first 5 games of April he's averaged 26.2 points, 6 rebounds, 3.6 assists on 46%/0%/83% shooting

He's been cold from long range, but the kid can obviously score. 

His season averages of like 17 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal on 44%/32%/75% are interesting when you compare them to rookie seasons of guys like LeBron (21 points on 42%/29%/75%), Durant (20 points on 43%/29%/87%) and Melo (21 points on 43%/32%/77%)... all of those guys got more efficient after their rookie season.  Wiggins is shooting better than some of them.

Wiggins is gonna be special. 

[Blaze4G]

Wiggins has been amazing his last 5 games.   Kid is going to be a superstar.   

He averaged 18 points, 5 rebounds, 1.8 assists on 43%/19%/78% shooting during March.

So far in the first 5 games of April he's averaged 26.2 points, 6 rebounds, 3.6 assists on 46%/0%/83% shooting

He's been cold from long range, but the kid can obviously score. 

His season averages of like 17 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal on 44%/32%/75% are interesting when you compare them to rookie seasons of guys like LeBron (21 points on 42%/29%/75%), Durant (20 points on 43%/29%/87%) and Melo (21 points on 43%/32%/77%)... all of those guys got more efficient after their rookie season.  Wiggins is shooting better than some of them.

Wiggins is gonna be special.

I believe if Cavaliers could go back in time they would keep wiggins instead of trading for love.