↓ Login/Logout ↓
↓ Roster ↓
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Pistons aren’t close to winning 60 games

I know, right? Check back tomorrow for the following posts: “Kevin Durant should be paid more than John Salmons,” “Kevin Love is a better rebounder than Andrea Bargnani,” and “Ten reasons the Bobcats won’t win the 2011 NBA title.”

But Keith Langlois of Pistons.com – although he never explicitly said the Pistons would, or even could, win 60 games next season – wrote an article that seems to imply it’s reasonable.

How wide is the gulf between 30- and 60-win teams in today’s NBA? Maybe not as pronounced as conventional wisdom suggests.

I think I’ll stick with conventional wisdom on this one.

Langlois explains:

Chicago got to 62 wins this season despite playing large chunks of the schedule without either Joakim Noah or Carlos Boozer. Indiana won 25 fewer games to earn the East’s No. 8 seed. The Bulls are almost certain to win their first-round playoff series after taking a 3-0 lead, but the Pacers could just as easily be up 3-1 instead of down by that count heading to Tuesday’s Game 5.

No, the Pacers couldn’t just as easily be up 3-1. They haven’t played nearly as well as the Bulls have. Chicago is the better team and that’s why it leads the series. It’s not that complicated.

Also, I’m not really sure how Indiana, which won 37 games, counts as a 30-win team in this context. There’s a big difference between 30-win teams like the Pistons and 37-win teams like Indiana. And even then, the gap is huge between that and 60 wins.

Using Langlois’ seven-game wiggle, since the NBA expanded to 82-game seasons, teams that won between 23 and 37 games have an 11-46 record in the playoffs against teams that won between 53 and 67 games. In fact, 23-to-37-win teams haven’t won any series against 53-to-67-win teams and have been swept as many times as they’ve won at least a game.

Langlois continues:

And even the most pessimistic Pistons fan would concede it’s not a stretch to believe the Pistons could finish ahead of Indiana in next year’s standings.

Step one: pass the Pacers.

Step two: win 60 games.

It’s that easy.

Obviously, that’s not exactly what Langlois is saying, but the implication that 60 wins is just a hop (Pistons), skip (Pacers) and a jump (Bulls) away doesn’t sit well with me. Quite a bit separates each of those three teams.

Langlois lays out six individualized hopes for next season and says:

Give them one or two of the following ingredients and they’ll be a playoff qualifier. Give them three or four on the list and they’ll be next year’s turnaround success. Give them the clean sweep and all bets are off.

I agree these ingredients, which I’ll examine one by one, would help the Pistons greatly. I just don’t see them as likely enough to discuss seriously. If the gulf between 30 wins and 60 wins isn’t as wide as I think, there better be more reasonable ways to bridge it than the following six steps:

Greg Monroe continues to improve at the same rate he did this season

A Monroe that averages 15-18 points and 10-12 rebounds a game isn’t that far from reality.

If Greg Monroe hits those averages next year, he’d be the youngest player ever to do so. It’s possible, but it’s a long way from reality.

I also think it’s unreasonable to expect Monroe will improve at the same rate. The better a player gets,the more his rate of return on improvement diminishes. There’s just less to learn.

Although it’s not a perfect measure, here’s a rough idea. Monroe posted 6.6 win shares this year. Since 1980, 19 other players had between six and seven win shares as a rookie.* They averaged 6.3 win shares in their first year. In their second year? 6.4.

*Marc Gasol, Rudy Fernandez, Luis Scola, Andre Iguodala , Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony , Amar’e Stoudemire , Steve Francis, Wally Szczerbiak, Kerry Kittles , Dean Garrett, Joe Smith, Michael Finley , Brad Daugherty , Ralph Sampson , Clark Kellogg , Larry Smith, Reggie King, Dave Greenwood

Outside of Steve Francis, who exploded in his second year for 12.2 win shares, Luis Scola (8.6 win shares his second season), Marc Gasol (8.4), Kerry Kittles (8.4) and Reggie King (8.3) are the non-outlying examples of high-end second-year improvement. Those latter four probably represent a realistic best-case scenario for Monroe next season. For perspective, that’s about Tony Parker-level production.

I think Monroe could improve a lot, still. There’s so much of his game left to uncover, so I could definitely see him making a best-case jump.

If Monroe plays as well as Tony Parker next season, that would be great. But that’s practically the best-case scenario, and it’s not nearly as good as 15-18 and 10-12.

Pistons draft an impact player

But as Monroe proved last year, you don’t have to draw into the top three to find a player who radically alters the makeup of the roster.

The Pistons have a 9.2 percent chance of landing a top-two pick, and in this draft, their odds of drafting someone who can make an immediate impact isn’t much higher. Outside of Kyrie and Derrick Williams, the field is pretty thin at the top.

Just because the Pistons picked Greg Monroe at No. 7 last year doesn’t mean they can or will find value like that this year.

Jonas Jerebko returns and takes  the next step

But he gave strong hints that he had much more in him offensively than what he exhibited as a rookie, and with added strength that was the byproduct of sitting out a season – Jerebko is up to 240 after a year spent under Arnie Kander’s watchful eye – he should come back with even greater versatility.

Last season, Jonas Jerebko stood out because he provided, by far, the most hustle and grit on a lousy team. What he does is important, but players of that ilk don’t often become polished all-around players. That’s why I expressed doubt about Jerebko’s offseason plan of working on his ball-handling and mid-range jumper.

After he sat out for a year, I’d be happy if Jerebko matches his rookie-year production. After that, we can worry about an expanded offensive role.

Jerebko at 240 pounds intrigues me, though.

Ben Gordon plays like he did with the Bulls

There is no logical explanation for why Gordon’s production has declined sharply from the player who was a model of consistency in his first five years in the NBA.

I have a longer post on this planned, so I won’t go too deep into it here, but players whose production has fallen as much as Ben Gordon’s rarely revert to their previous level.

Before this season, I predicted Gordon would bounce back. Basically, I didn’t see any logical reason, besides injury, to explain Gordon’s 2009-10 struggles. When something so abnormal happens, it’s logical to predict a regression to the mean, which in Gordon’s case was very good basketball.

But I’m afraid his mean has changed to tentative and subpar basketball. With two years of playing like that, Gordon has established a new baseline for himself.

The question before was, why won’t Gordon bounce back? I couldn’t find an answer.

Now it’s become, why will Gordon bounce back? Again, I don’t see an answer.

Rodney Stuckey plays as well he did late in the season

The last five games for Stuckey were pretty much what the Pistons envisioned for him all along, from his rookie season as understudy to both Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton.

He averaged 25 points and nine assists, made over half his field-goal tries and got to the line almost 10 times a game. No one will count on that level of production over 82 games – he’d be solidly in the MVP discussion if he did – but if he scores 18 to 20 with seven or eight assists, shoots 45 percent and plays with the aggressiveness that gets him to the line frequently without becoming turnover prone, he’ll be every bit the point guard the Pistons need.

At least Langlois didn’t cling to the numbers Stuckey actually put up in his last five games, but 18-20 and 7-8 on 45 percent shooting is probably unrealistic. That’s basically Russell Westbrook.

I usually back up my arguments better than this, but I don’t think we’ll have much disagreement here. Just watch a Thunder playoff game and decide whether you legitimately believe Stuckey will play like Westbrook next season.

Austin Daye earns the starting position and improves as much as he did in the last year

Austin Daye wins the starting small forward job and improves as much in year three as he did in year two.

I don’t really need to explain why the Pistons can’t count on this happening. Langlois already does it for me.

But it’s a big leap from where he’s at to 30 minutes a night and consistent production.

It’s a big leap, indeed.

Not like going from 30 wins to 60 wins, though. That’s nothing.


  • Apr 26, 20113:21 pm
    by LEVI



    • Apr 26, 20113:45 pm
      by Dan Feldman


      Have you ever seen me say something negative about Langlois?

      • Apr 26, 20116:11 pm
        by Laser


        feldman was 100% fair and said nothing remotely objectionable. compared to me, i’d say he was rather kind. langlois wrote a silly article, and a dissection like this is perfectly acceptable.

        • Apr 27, 20119:27 am
          by Larry


          I agree.  Keith is highly knowledgeable but discredited himself with all the stretches in this article.  Perhaps the Palace Guard insists but Keith spins much, much harder that his MLB counterpart at the Tigers, Jason Beck.  Trying to spin a huge uptick in next year’s from Stuckey, Daye, and Gordon is insulting to observant fans.

  • Apr 26, 20113:22 pm
    by Tom Y.


    Nice post and I mostly agree (Langlois’ post was pretty rediculous), but your search criteria excluded players who had more than 18 ppg and/or 12 rpg. Your sentence that Monroe would be the youngest to reach those averages seemed to imply that he would be beter at that age than say Dwight Howard (17.6 points and 12.3 rebounds per game at age 21), Tim Duncan (21.1 and 11.9 age 21) or Shaq (29.3 and 13.2 age 21).
    I had some problems with BB-reference so I can’t link to a more open search but that would probably have quite a few players with more than 15 ppg and 10 rpg at age 21.

    • Apr 26, 20113:43 pm
      by Dan Feldman


      Tom, I did that on purpose, mostly because those are the parameters Langlois set. But also because the players who eclipse those marks are mostly giants of the game, like Howard, Duncan and Shaq.

      Without the ceiling 16 players had at least 15 and 10 by age 21. All but two, Antoine Walker and Dwight Howard, met those marks as rookies. Walker averaged 18 and 9, and Howard averaged 12 and 10 when they were rookies.

      Monroe clearly isn’t on that level. He’ll need time to develop. Players like him aren’t likely to hit 15 and 10 so quickly.

  • Apr 26, 20113:32 pm
    by brgulker


    LOL AT LEVI!!!111
    Nice post, Dan.

  • Apr 26, 20113:34 pm
    by @DetroitBuckets


    Did Keith run over your dog? Date your sister?

    • Apr 26, 20113:47 pm
      by Dan Feldman


      Langlois’ job is to make a $400 million company look good. It’s nothing personal, but that shouldn’t go unchecked.

      • Apr 26, 20114:33 pm
        by Tim


        It’s true. Reading Langlois can be quite frustrating because he is so unrealistically positive about the Pistons. I remember a post of his entitled something like “In the end, Joe D pulls off a sweet deal,” about essentially turning Billups into Gordon and Villanueva. Cue all fans to groan. And then he explicitly denied that losing Sheed and McDyess was part of that. Like they would have inevitably left even without the Iverson trade.
        Not everything he writes is bull, but Pistons.com is by far the most biased website I read regularly. What I want to know is if he believes all the opinions he writes or if it’s just his job.

        • Apr 27, 201112:14 pm
          by Dan Feldman


          Tim, I don’t want to speak for Langlois, but I’d be shocked to find he actually believes everything he writes. He has a job, and he does it pretty well. But part of that job is slanting the truth to make the Pistons look good.

      • Apr 26, 20114:37 pm
        by Jeremy


        I’m glad he didn’t run over your dog.

  • Apr 26, 20113:48 pm
    by Ryan


    Keith has never uttered a negative thing about the stones.

    And one time he even said Will MF Bynum was nearly as good as Wade! ;)

  • Apr 26, 20116:29 pm
    by Tallin


    I have a hard time reading anything from Keith.

    If anything, this article took it VERY easy on him.

    Detroit has been absolutely horrible for two seasons in a row – but everything is aces in Keith’s world. 

    The fans would resonate more with Keith and the Stones if they didn’t continually paint a rosey picture of the current team.  The fans know things aren’t going well.  We know we’re no where near a 60 win team (let alone 40)…..Keith’s articles are almost a slap in the face for assuming we’re buying the jargon he spits out.

    No – he didn’t run over my dog either.

  • Apr 26, 20116:41 pm
    by detroitpcb


    the only comment (besides any desire to keep Ben Gordon on the roster) that i would disagree with is your comment about Indiana. Chicago is not definitely the better team. They have the best player, but now that he is injured i expect Indiana to win the next game. And Indiana could have easily won one or two more games. They are a young team and it takes some learning to be able to execute down the stretch in playoff games. They are not there yet but i do not think that team will regress like the Bucks did this year. Indiana is going to be a force in the Eastern Conference in the next few years. Maybe not the winner of the Conference but definitely a force.

    • Apr 26, 20117:17 pm
      by Laser


      it’s less about “learning” how to execute down the stretch, and more about “being better.” it’s easy to get confused about this when you watch games and think that all plays and all minutes are equal. nobody can afford to go full throttle all the time in this game, so better teams consistently execute when it comes to the plays where games are won and lost.

    • Apr 26, 20118:49 pm
      by Patrick Hayes


      Agree with Laser here. The Bulls haven’t played their best this series and Indiana certainly has something to do with that, but the fact that the Bulls have mounted big comebacks and closed games out is a skill in itself. Good teams know how to play from behind, hit an extra gear on defense to get stops and not waste possessions on offense. Indiana doesn’t know how to do those things yet because the Bulls are just a much better team.

      And Chicago doesn’t just have the best player. They have the three best players in this series in Rose, Noah and Boozer (even if Boozer has struggled offensively). And personally, I don’t think Granger is significantly better than Deng. Granger is better offensively, Deng is much better defensively. The Bulls are superior in just about every way, even if I have been impressed with Indiana at times.

  • Apr 26, 20116:52 pm
    by BIG MARV


    Keith will make a little leauge team from the east side of detrot look like world beaters. He sugar coats everything thats why I dont read from pistons.com no more, reading his articles is like watching George Blaha broacast “the stones” games you will never see nothing wrong. George made that Charlie V scuffle sound like “disney on Ice” Dan you broke it down good my dude but I also think it has to come down to who will be the head coach and what will joe do in the free agent and trade markets if that goes well then we will have a playoff team.

  • Apr 26, 20117:11 pm
    by Laser


    feldman, glad to see we’re entirely on the same page for once. i read langlois’s article, and my head exploded. the man has no shame. there’s so much wrong with this article it’s not even funny. but this is endemic to this team’s public stance on the team’s situation. what really worries me is the notion that the team actually looks at things this way. nothing’s ever going to get better unless they realize the team’s myriad problems and address them, rather than clinging to vain hope and making excuses.
    as for monroe, i don’t think 12-14 & 10 is an unrealistic expectation. he was practically doing that for a significant portion of the season. but if he improves at the same rate next year as he did this year, he’s going to be a sure 20-10 machine (AT LEAST!) by the end of the season. and that’s just not reasonable to expect. he’ll probably get steadily better, but i think by now we’ve got a decent grasp of his ceiling, and it’s not a quantum leap from where he’s at.
    similarly, jonas is what he is. he’s good, but he’s not going to be a star. you put your finger on that one. these are two guys who are basically known quantities, and it’s not responsible to expect either of them to shock the world at this point.
    the pick is a big question mark, and isn’t it telling that this is the second glimmer of hope he listed? monroe’s obviously the first thing anyone’s going to mention when talking about this team having any kind of future. but i don’t think anyone can rightly say that this pick isn’t the next biggest thing to be optimistic about. and it’s as big a crapshoot as there is. so that’s that. sigh.
    hard to talk about getting gordon going with rip and stuckey around. he’s never going to be who he was in chicago as long as he’s splitting time behind those guys and whoever else as our third or fourth option. if there’s one thing about this team that’s not rocket science, it’s this.
    as for stuckey, he had some impressive stretches this year, but he’s had impressive stretches every year without actually building what could reasonably be considered “momentum.” it’s a fool’s bet to figure that stuckey’s finally ready to be the player joe always thought he was. maybe it happens, but nothing stuckey’s ever done indicates it’s coming.
    somehow, daye is the biggest problem i have with all of this. guy’s been solidly in the rotation for most of two seasons, and we don’t have the SLIGHTEST clue if he’s a starter. it’s madness. this is all madness, but it would have been nice to test him a little before we have to make a decision on his future.
    so… yeah. the whole thing’s ridiculous. we know the score with gordon, monroe and jerebko. and none of those guys are going to make the strides langlois is hoping for. daye and the pick are entirely unknown quantities, and nobody could sensibly predict what’s going to happen to them. stuckey’s somewhere in between, because it’s possible he’ll become the player we need him to be, but he has four solid years of being one of those known quantities in the first group.
    as for the 30-60 thing: this notion that the pacers could easily be ahead 3-1 is a lot like the argument people love to make about the pistons. the pacers LOOKED like they were in control for two of those games, but most basketball games are won in the last 6 minutes or so. it’s just how it is. great teams keep games close and consistently win them in the last quarter. bad teams fall apart in crunch time when better teams knuckle down. objective analysts know this and call it like it is. bad teams pretend like being ahead for a game’s first 40-or-so minutes means a thing. it doesn’t.
    it’s certainly possible that the pistons finish ahead of the pacers next year, but that’s meaningless. god did langlois make some strange leaps. there’s also such a thing as bad match-ups. maybe the pacers present a particular problem for the bulls. who knows. ugh. whatever. this is a joke. nice to see us on the same page for five minutes at least.

  • Apr 26, 20118:57 pm
    by Patrick Hayes


    Between Dan and Laser, virtually every little thing that annoyed me about that article has been dissected, so I’ll just add the one HUGE thing that bothers the hell out of me: it is, in fact, one of the hardest things in the NBA to go from mediocre to elite, let alone bad (and the Pistons are a bad team right now with three seasons of evidence to prove it) to elite.

    Using Keith’s example, how long was Chicago stuck at that “good enough to make the playoffs and lose in the first round” level? I mean, those Hinrich/Gordon/Deng teams were cute and scrappy. But until they landed Rose, they had no chance to take that next step and even after getting Rose it took him until his third season to be the MVP-level talent that has lifted them to title contender status. I mean, the Bulls were just above average, and even dipped below average once, which allowed them to get into the lottery, for a good six or seven years. It took getting an absolute gift in the lottery. It took waiting a couple full seasons before Noah developed into a competent player. It took hording enough cap space to sign an impact player in Boozer and a really good role player in Korver in an offseason. It took getting lucky that Rose is one of the hardest working stars in the league who made himself into a MVP candidate well before anyone expected him to be at that level. It took surviving two years of incompetent coaching by Vinny Del Negro. It took surviving a botched lottery pick when they swapped the rights to Lamarcus Aldridge for the rights to Ty Thomas. And it took getting lucky that a first-time head coach far exceeded anyone’s expectations for how well he’d be able to teach and get players to buy into his system.

    To act like the Bulls just transformed into a contender overnight is either dishonest or just plain incompetence.

    • Apr 26, 201110:20 pm
      by Laser


      agreed. what the bulls did involved a lot of things coming together at once. it took a tremendous amount of luck, a fair amount of time and some good decision making. i didn’t get that langlois was saying we’re on the same track as the bulls, but that the bulls are playing what looks like a competitive series against a team we could conceivably outpace (pun INTENDED!) next season. i think he was just doing a transitive property thing… or something. the entire article was a wreck. and the more i hear about our four young “core” players, the less i care.
      also i see that they’ve seemingly given up completely on charlie. usually you hear his name along with gordon’s right after the group of four promising up-and-comers as two more potential building blocks the pistons try to hype up. nice to see they’ve dropped that. (even though i STILL think he has a better chance of helping this team than gordon as long as we can’t make room for him.) i know these guys’ names come up partly because they’re the new guys, they’re uh sorta young, but as bad as it is that they’re relegated to this “potential promising building block” tag, given that they were hand-picked, represented all of our flexibility for half a decade, and were signed so recently… what’s much worse is that this tag is a pretty big stretch. charlie is a waste of space (of both physical and cap varieties) and there’s just no room for gordon no matter what anyone says.

  • [...] him post.9th:News-Herald. Bob Finnan with a must-read look into the life of a beat reporter.10th:Piston Powered. Dan Feldman with an immaculately researched and entertaining column about why, exactly, Detroit [...]

  • Apr 27, 20118:48 am
    by Jason


    We need a center like Chandler and a point guard then we can talk about winning more games. But I do think we are not that far off. Losing Prince is going to be really bad cause Daye will never be even close the player Prince is.

    Also I like Monroe a lot but lets look at the fact he didn’t really bring us extra wins yet.  The ultimate stat!  

    • Apr 27, 201110:27 am
      by Chris


      It is an ultimate stat, but look at a player like Love.  He did everything for the wolves and they still lost a ton of games.  So even if we got huge production out of Monroe, even at the level love performed this year, does anyone really think that Detroit will win many more games?  For sure we’d be a better team, but still most likely a first or maybe second round exit.  There are many more holes on this team.

      • Apr 27, 201110:40 am
        by Jason


        @ CHRIS

        I would be happy with a second round exit next year.  I disagree we have many more holes though. We are rock solid with depth at the 2 and 4 spot.  If we find a point guard and center we already have really good back-ups in Bynum and Wallace.  If we lose Prince we have Daye either as a semi weak starter or a really good back-up.   So if you include our draft pick we don’t have many more wholes than a solid point guard or center in my eyes.

        • Apr 27, 201112:46 pm
          by Laser


          i don’t know how anyone could think we’re “rock solid” at the 2 and 4… i mean, we’ve got depth at those positions, but that doesn’t mean we have the right players or are set when it comes to those spots. at the 4, we have charlie, jerebko and max. these three are not enough; charlie is as undependable as anyone in the NBA, jonas just lost an entire season to injury, and max hardly cracked the rotation last season. they’re not enough. period. and at the 2, our depth is too much. rip, gordon and stuckey. this town ain’t big enough for the three of them, and it might not even be big enough for two of them. every position on our roster needs work.

          • Apr 27, 20111:15 pm
            by Jason

            You questioning me when you don’t include Monroe as a 4.  He is not a Center.  So yes a depth of Rip, Gordon, and probably Stuckey is pretty good going forward at the two.  To think otherwise is stupid. And a depth of Monroe, Jerebko, Charlie and Max and the 4 is also pretty good. Yes to keep all 7 is stupid but my guess that will not be the case.

          • Apr 27, 20116:05 pm
            by Laser

            i considered that monroe isn’t a true center. but jerebko’s not a real power forward, stuckey’s not a real point guard, and so on and so on. all this team does is play guys out of position, and monroe’s probably going to play center for the most part, since (1) true centers are rare, (2) PF and C are basically interchangeable these days, and (3) all our frontcourt depth is at the four.
            it’s a stupid conversation anyways, because the pistons have to shake up the roster at every position (by subtraction in some cases) to be relevant again.

    • Apr 27, 201112:18 pm
      by Dan Feldman


      Jason, wins are not the ultimate stat for grading individuals. It makes sense to judge players by only what they can control. A single player, especially a rookie, doesn’t have much control about whether his team wins or loses.

      • Apr 27, 20111:22 pm
        by Jason


        Dan, grade how ever you want statboy. Monroe is going to be our power forward of the future no doubt.  But he did not make the team better cause he is not what we needed.  Monroe is playing better than Cousins but I bet we would have more wins if we had him.

        Every player has control over whether his team wins or loses.  You have it backwards.

        • Apr 27, 20113:41 pm
          by Patrick Hayes


          Haha. “Statboy.” Love the civil way you engage in conversations around here. So Cousins = Wins? Someone should tell that to Sacramento.

          • Apr 27, 20113:57 pm
            by Jason

            And all the articles putting down player, coaches and gm’s is civil?  I think some backlash is warranted buddy.  Unless I am hurting feelings.

            Cousins = wins?  If you are going to throw out an equation you need to consider the whole situation.  Sacramento is not the best organization right now either.

            I have been saying since the draft Cousins would look ten times better in Detroit.  The guy is a scrapper.

          • Apr 27, 20114:38 pm
            by Patrick Hayes

            What have Dan or I written that has “put down” players or coaches or GMs? We write about what happens in the games. We write about stats, which sorry, but stats don’t lie, and in a lot of cases, they aren’t very pretty. We’ve never once advocated for a front office person or coach to be fired. We certainly link to news reports that are out there that may be negative, but overall, the content here is pretty tone-neutral.

            You’re right, Sacramento is not the best situation. But you just said in your previous comment that “every player has control over whether his team wins or loses.” So now are you saying that winning and losing in Sac is out of Cousins’ control?

            i have no problem with debates. I have no problems with people who disagree with my opinions or other opinions here. But bring relevant information. All you do is rant.

          • Apr 27, 20114:43 pm
            by Patrick Hayes

            And another thing that’s important to note:

            Dan and I both have our identities and contact info readily available on this site. If people we write about feel something is unfair or overly critical, they have a means of getting in touch with us, talking and giving their view. In some instances, this has happened for both of us and added to our perception of a situation.

            You, on the other hand, have the advantage of making dickish comments anonymously. I’m not hating on anonymity — totally fine to be anonymous. But there’s a difference between putting your name and e-mail on a criticism that is researched and supported. You pretty much just call names behind a screen name.

          • Apr 27, 20115:04 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            Jason, it’s possible to put someone down civilly. Those aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.

          • Apr 28, 20119:54 am
            by Jason

            I don’t think I am “ranting”.   And to get the response I am getting from you guys there must be some truth in what I am saying.

            Pay me some money and I will put myself out there.


          • Apr 28, 201110:04 am
            by Patrick Hayes

            You’ve yet to give an example of something we’ve written here that has unfairly attacked someone. I’ll hang up and wait for my response off the air.

  • Apr 27, 20119:33 am
    by Larry


    Thanks Dan, Laser, and Patrick for entirely deconstructing the Langlois piece and actually using this pt of mushy thinking a foundation for some solid analysis!

  • Apr 27, 201111:46 am
    by rick


    I doubt that you have a championship team if you get rid of every veteran player that you have on the team. The thing they do need is a defensive presence in the lane, and someone who is dedicated to his role. You do not have to get rid of everyone on that team because the way I see it the coach was not exactly the best man at managing ego’s. I am not gonna indict three players from the past who helped make the organization relevant again, but at the same time I am smart enough to look around the league and see that each team has that one veteran that has been through the wars.
    Look at the Knick’s besides Chauncey and Anthony Carter who did they have with any real experience? Amare ? Melo? Yeah right, so to think that we can just eliminate those core vets is laughable at best.
    Yes I am mad just as the next fan with what I have seen the last two years but I am not stupid to believe that we can just plug in new talent and make a run(Orlando/Atlanta/New York) .Stability in the Front office,Defense, Coaching, Winning Attitude, Desire, and the Team Concept is what I believe will bring the Piston’s back to greatness.

  • Apr 27, 201111:49 am
    by Andrew


    I think that perhaps the statistics you’re using to downplay Monroe’s prospects next season are a bit one sided.  Here is the list of players who have, with more than 2 games played, averaged as many PPG and RPG as Monroe at age 20:
    Dwight Howard
    Andris Biedrins
    Chris Bosh
    Elton Brand
    Andrew Bynum
    DeMarcus Cousins
    Adrian Dantley
    John Drew
    Kevin Garnett
    Magic Johnson
    Brook Lopez
    Kevin Love
    Cliff Robinson
    Joe Smith
    Amare Stoudemire
    Antoine Walker
    Chris Webber
    His production at age 20 actually places him in quite good company.  Given that we may have had a historically incompetent coach this season, 15  PPG seems an entirely reasonable figure for next season assuming the next coach has the guy who shoots 60% shoot more (an oversimplification, but should be far more plays run for him).  The 10 RPG might be a touch optimistic, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable goal.

    • Apr 27, 201112:12 pm
      by Dan Feldman



      At age 20, the group you listed collectively averaged 16.4 points and 9.3 rebounds per game. At age 21, they averaged 19.2 and 9.6 — a scoring increase of 17.2 percent and a rebounding increase of 3.5 percent.

      If you apply the same increases to Monroe, he’d average 11.0 and 7.8 next year. That’s well short of the numbers Langlois sets.

      I’m very high on Monroe. I think, at minimum, he’ll be a good starter, and he has the potential to become much more. But next year will still be just his second season in the league, and he’ll still be just 21. Let’s not expect too much from him too soon.

  • Apr 28, 20112:47 pm
    by Steve


    Monroe will continue to improve, I have no doubt. I see him as a legit 15/10 guy, and if they get the right coach that runs a high post offense through him, you could reasonably expect 3-5 assist on a given night.
    I think you’re jumping to conclusions on Jerebko being a hustle and grit guy. At 6’10″ and 240, he’s an inch shorter than Monroe and 15lbs lighter, which means that he can man the 4 with that extra weight.
    Statistically speaking, his rookie year he played the second most minutes on the team, obviously this was due to Prince and others being injured. In those vast minutes, he had the second highest true shooting %, his 113 points produced per 100 shots was second to ben wallace, which means he was finishing put backs.
    He averaged 9 pts and 6 boards a game, he then averaged 1 steal and almost 1 assist a game.
    Monroe, in his rookie season averaged, 9 pts and 8 rebounds, then he averaged 1 steal and 1 assist a game.
    So, at what point is Monroe a future all-star and Jerebko is a hustle guy?
    I think people are really sleeping on this guy. He has a great nose for the ball, he plays defense every time down the floor, and if he gets a consistent mid-range and baseline jumper, this guy is a legit contributor. Is he an All-star, probably not, could he be one of the best PF’s in the league? I’d prefer he was out there instead of Villanueva.

  • Apr 29, 20112:55 am
    by Mark


    30 to 60 wins in one year.  If you folks remember the Pistons did it under Carlisle way back when!

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here