Rookies Most Likely To...

by user Davis21wylie

It's been a few days since the Draft went down, and hopefully everyone's had time to thoughtfully reflect on the picks that were made, and the reasonings behind each General Manager's selections...

Just kidding — it's time to rip on Isiah Thomas! (Seriously, Renaldo Balkman? Wtf?) Anyway, tearing a page (har!) from SLAM Magazine's book, I've decided to look at what the future holds for some of the players taken last week. As always, no rookies were harmed during the writing of this article...

Rookies Most Likely To...

Average 20 Points — Adam Morrison, Bobcats

Average 10 Rebounds — Tyrus Thomas, Bulls

Average 10 Assists — Marcus Williams, Nets

Unfairly get bench splinters — Marcus Williams and Rudy Gay, Grizzlies (tie)

Lead the league in turnovers — Jordan Farmar, Lakers

Lead the league in blocks — Tyrus Thomas

Be Rookie Of The Year — Brandon Roy, Blazers

Hurt himself running laps — Loukas Mavrokefalidis, T-Wolves

Fade into obscurity — Dee Brown, Jazz

Wish he never left school — Josh Boone, Nets, and Jordan Farmar (tie)

Never play a single NBA minute, ever — Practically every European taken in the Second Round

Have Kwame Brown's number on speed-dial — Adam Morrison

Be mentored by LaMarcus Aldridge — Joel Freeland, Blazers

Be on the receiving end of a poster — Patrick O'Bryant, Warriors

Replace Mario Williams as 2006's "Unlikeliest to be drafted where he was" — Renaldo Balkman, Knicks

Get hated on by fans on the road and at home — J.J. Redick, Magic

Beg for their draft-day trades to be revoked — Sergio Rodriguez, Blazers, and Rajon Rondo, Celtics

Make GM's regret not drafting him — Mike Gansey

Make Otis Smith wish he'd traded Redick instead — Lior Eliyahu, Rockets

Lead the league in Matt Bullard references — Steve Novak, Rockets

Make Isiah the coach want to kill Isiah the GM — Renaldo Balkman and the entire Knicks roster

Win the annual "Serta Sleeper Award®" — Shannon Brown, Cavs

Be more Nikoloz Tskitishvili than Dirk Nowitzki — Andrea Bargnani, Raptors

Recall John Salmons — Mardy Collins, Knicks

Dominate the NBA — Greg Oden (Whoops, that's next year)

Date

Sat 07/01/06, 1:56 pm EST

ASwaffAll-American

1245 days ago

Score 0

I'll admit a bias here, but I think Aldridge is more likely to average 10 rebounds per game than Tyrus Thomas. He led the Big 12 all season in rebounds per game, and he'll be playing in a more advantageous position to grab rebounds. If he elevates his game and plays to his physical capacity, he really could be the kind of player Tim Duncan is - not putting up outrageous numbers like 40 points per game, but averaging around 20 points and 10 rebounds per game. Aldridge is perfectly capable of being that kind of player. He just needs to be more consistent with his shots, and be a little more aggressive inside.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1245 days ago

Score 0

Thomas' per-game figures were limited by his playing only 25.1 mpg a year ago, while Aldridge played 33.1. On a pace-adjusted per-35-minute basis, though (courtesy of <a href="http://www.h...0506ew14.htm">HoopsAnalyst</a>), Thomas averaged 12.08 reb/35 minutes, while Aldridge averaged only 9.42. Aldridge was also a year older than Thomas when he put up those numbers. Not that Aldrige isn't a good prospect, but Thomas is pretty clearly superior on the glass.

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1245 days ago

Score 0

Why do you say "clearly" superior? I'm looking at them having the same RPG, and wondering how you can say that. You talk about pace-adjusted stats, but why? If he averaged 25.1 minutes per game, he averaged 25.1 minutes per game. He grabbed 9.2 rebounds per game for his team. That's what matters, not that he would have grabbed 12.08 if he'd played 35 minutes. Furthermore, I look at Aldridge playing more minutes in college and have to think that translates to more minutes in the NBA than Thomas. Aldridge plays the kind of game that allows him to conserve his energy and play for more minutes. Nothing wrong with the kind of game Thomas plays, that's just how it goes at different positions.

I guess the bottom line for me is, if we're going to talk about stats, let's talk about real stats. Let's talk about real contributions. Not what would have happened if Thomas played 10 more minutes per game than he did.

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

1245 days ago

Score 1

<a href="http://sonic...cs/index.php">APBRmetrics</a> rule No. 1: "What a player does on a per-minute basis is far more important than his per-game stats. The latter tend to be influenced more by playing time than by quality of play, yet remain the most common metric of player performance." Corollary to rule No. 1: In most cases, players who receive increases in playing time continue to play with the same effectiveness that they did in fewer minutes. Thomas only played 25.1 mpg not because he couldn't handle more, but because Thomas was a freshman and John Brady also needed to find minutes for Darnell Lazare, Magnum Rolle, and Tasmin Mitchell in a crowded backcourt. Except in the case of scandalously out-of-shape players (which we can agree neither Aldridge nor Thomas is), per-minute stats cut through coaches' decisions on playing time and give a better idea of true ability. And if you want to talk "real stats", let's go even further in-depth and look at <a href="http://www.a...Rebound_Rate">Rebound Rate</a>, which is the % of rebounds that a player hauls in when he is on the court -- an even better measure of rebounding ability than per-game or per-minute numbers. Courtesy of <a href="http://kenpom.com/stats.php">Ken Pomeroy</a>'s blog: Aldridge grabbed 12.8% of ORebs while he was on the court (80th in the NCAA) and 18.1% of DRebs (257th). By contrast, Thomas snagged 12.5% of ORebs (94th) but dwarfs Aldridge at defensive rebounding, grabbing 26.4% of DRebs available, good for 6th in the country! Any way you cut it, Thomas was a better rebounder last year in college, and that points to him being a better one in the pros next year.

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1245 days ago

Score 0

PERCENT of rebounds based on what? The percent he grabs against the rest of his team? If that's the case, then Aldridge gets punished for playing alongside two other good rebounders in PJ Tucker (who was second in the Big 12 in RPG) and Brad Buckman (who was their number one rebounded the previous year). APBRmetrics may believe it more important to measure potential contribution, but I still have to disagree. I want a player that has tangible contributions, not a player that contributes more based on time-adjustment.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1245 days ago

Score 0

For definition's sake, rebound rate is an estimate of the percentage of missed shots a player rebounded while he was on the floor. The formula is (TRB * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm TRB + Opp TRB)), multiplied by 100. I wasn't really clear on that earlier. And you're right, per-game stats are effective in telling you what a player actually did. But per-minute stats are effective in telling you what a player will do, and isn't that more what we're going after here? It's been proven that tangible contributions can be effectively predicted from per-minute numbers -- look at players like Michael Redd and Zach Randolph, who had great per-minute stats but were overlooked by everyone because of their per-game numbers. But when they finally got starters' playing time, voila! Their per-game numbers followed because their per-minute production never changed -- just their playing time did. Obviously college stats are less reliable than NBA stats, but we're talking about the Big 12 and the SEC, so the level of competition was basically the same (LSU actually played a tougher schedule). The bottom line is that if Thomas was a better per-minute rebounder in college than Aldridge, history tells us that he will likely be a better per-minute rebounder in the NBA.

Permalink | Reply

ASwaffAll-American

1245 days ago

Score 0

No, per-minute stats don't tell you what a player will do, they tell you what a player could do. That's a crucial difference. If there were actually some crystal ball we could look into and determine what a player will do, we wouldn't be having this debate. That's the problem I have with stats like that. They tell you what a player could do, but advertise it as meaning what a player will do. That's what Thomas COULD do if he played 35 minutes. But he didn't, so what's the point of that stat?

Permalink