Comments on: Greg Monroe, Ben Gordon among top 100 NBA players

By: tarsier

tarsier — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:38:44 +0000

If I object to something one of the writers says and have an argument against it, I would rather the writer respond to my argument so that I can better see how he arrived at his divergent conclusion.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:08:38 +0000

I won’t speak for Dan, but I defend what I write. It’s not a matter of having thin skin. I respect the right of anyone, informed or uninformed, to express opinions down here. But part of the point of this site is for it to start conversations, debates, arguments, whatever. I’m not going to write something and then abstain from the discussion. If I feel like someone misinterprets what I write, I’m going to say so. If I feel like someone says something unfair, I’m going to say so. If I feel like someone raises a good point that I hadn’t considered, I’m going to say so.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:04:26 +0000

And further, since I know I'll get hit with the "OMGz! You're totally calling Prince a bad player!" rebuttals, I don't think he's a bad player at all. But consider this: his averages last season were pretty identical to what he's done throughout his career. The problem isn't his production, it's how he got it.

Last season, he worked almost exclusively in shot-clock-choking isos, he didn't pass much and he didn't get to the line much. He was usually the Pistons No. 1 option, and that is a problem, because Prince as No. 1 option can only create for himself if you toss him the ball, clear out and let him dribble for 22 seconds.

Now, when he was the third or four option on the contending teams, he got those nearly identical numbers in a variety of ways. He'd occasionally post up/iso if he had a matchup advantage, but he also moved without the ball, particularly on backdoor cuts. He'd spot up and hit open jumpers out of double teams. He'd run the floor. Getting 12-15 ppg in those variety of ways is more valuable than getting those points by dominating the ball.

Anyway, the point is, Prince wasn't very valuable to the Pistons last season in the role he played. He's miscast as a one or two option, it forces him out of his comfort zone offensively and it hurts the involvement of others in the offense.

By: TealBlackGold

TealBlackGold — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:58:18 +0000

This site would have much greater credibility if the writers of the articles didn’t reply, or at the very least didn’t reply when criticized.

Your opinions can be whatever, obviously we are here reading them – so you don’t have to defend your opinions every time one of us know-it-all’s puts them down. Please, get tougher skin. I like this site, but reading the comments section is maddening.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:15:50 +0000

The solution, then, would be for you to go start your own blog and provide the flawless analysis you are known for, build an audience that reads it, etc. Good luck with that.

As for your point, what is wrong with that statement? Prince put up like 14 ppg while having the ball in his hands more than any other player. So, the point is, that sure, his averages don't look bad, but when you consider how much his isolations bogged down the offense in order for him to get those numbers, then yes, I consider those 14 ppg to be quite hollow. I know you're of the opinion that Prince's 14 pts/4 rebs per game are irreplaceable. Personally, I think that's insane analysis that needs much more explanation than the sentence that I wrote.

By: Laser

Laser — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:02:48 +0000

gosh. “prince dominated the ball, so of course he had good numbers.” this blog has some of the wonkiest sports analysis i ever saw. there’s just so much wrong with that sentence. SMH

By: rob

rob — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:03:43 +0000

I really dont get the love Gordon seems to get nationally. Is it all because of that one first-round series against Boston 2 years ago? A series he lost btw. I could see having a great series in the CF or Finals while losing and getting some deserved credit, but losing in the first round deserves ZERO credit, imo.

If the GM’s around the league agree with the writers, I guess thats a good thing though, as he should be easily tradeable then.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:05:46 +0000

Yeah, totally agree. I mean, if being kinda good two years ago then having two straight wretched seasons still gets you into the top 100, why not throw Rip Hamilton in there too?

By: neutes

neutes — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:41:01 +0000

I agree with that. I’d easily say Monroe was the best Piston, therefore he should be ranked ahead of all other Pistons on any list. Stuckey had his best season to date and was probably the 2nd best player on the team. Then it’s a toss up between Prince and Mcgrady.

The eye on sports guy was “factoring how good they are right now, their age, their impact, and their limitations” while Lowe was clear that his rankings comprised of last year’s stats only, and not necessarily predicted future production. Still, I’m not sure how Gordon has performed the last couple seasons gives any indication he’s a top 100 player, or going to be one in the future. You can’t say he used to be good to make an argument. He isn’t good now, and hasn’t been for 2 seasons, so the fact he used to be good seems irrelevant at this point. You can’t ‘factor in how good they are right now’ and rank Gordon in the top 100 it makes no sense.