About Stuckey, and rookies in general.

[Cwell]

yep,once again.Stats don't show everything.I can count about a hundred times this year Acie drives and tosses an excellent pass to Marvin only for him to fumble it out of bounds or miss the J.He hits Zaza only to see him throw up a retarded layup off the shot clock.and Childress only gets layups and sorts most of the time.I bet Salim or even Richardson would atleast be able to knock down the shot.and not only does those guys woody plas can't score they also can't play defense well either.anybody who watches notices Acie is a lockdown defender.funny how all the guy talks about is "statistically this,statistically that"

[Cwell]

so why is this even an arguement if Stuckey is a SG?lol

If u don't have guys that can score consistently the offensive movement should atleast help u out,but no Woody has no offense.If people are standing around watching what can he do?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I notice you don't even take into account Stuckey backs up all-stars because that would hurt your argument. And drawing that conclusion from what I said is fairly offbase.

Now you are just being dumb. The fact that they outscored opponents when Stuckey is on the floor has no relevance to anything.

Our opponents outscored us when JJ was on the floor so i guess that means Stuckey is better than JJ.

Bottom line is that both teams were 7 ppg worse with their rookies on the floor. Stuckey played behind far better players but he also played WITH far better players.

Quote:

---

Stuckey isn't a PG

Who started when Billups got hurt? I guess Billups must not be a pg either.

Stuckey played almost all his minutes at the point.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07DET4C.HTM

If stuckey wasn't a pg then why should we have drafted him, so he could play behind JJ?

[Guest]

Quote:

---

so why is this even an arguement if Stuckey is a SG?lol

If u don't have guys that can score consistently the offensive movement should atleast help u out,but no Woody has no offense.If people are standing around watching what can he do?

He is a combo, and pairing a combo with JJ works because either can effectively bring the ball up and put the offense into motion.

[hawkman]

With all due respect, screw all of these obscure stats. How do the respective players look ON THE FLOOR? Acie had his moments this season, but Stuckey looks like he's "ready" every time he gets an opportunity to play. It's as if he comes in with the mentality that he's going to make an impact when he gets out there. I actually like Acie, but I expected him to pack more of a scoring punch when he got in games. His jump shot simply was not there. He can get to the rim at will, but he had problems finishing at the rim this season. He was an "OK" distributor, but I think this team needs more of a scoring PG anyway so that really doesn't matter. When he got in games, he seemed to be content having as little of an impact as possible. Was that due to waning confidence? I'm not sure but I expected more out of a player who was a potent scorer and leader in college. As of right NOW, Stuckey is clearly the better player. He has that "it" factor. Size and all of those other measureables mean nothing without the drive to have an impact on the game when you get the opportunity. Hopefully, Acie can rediscover that drive.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Now you are just being dumb. The fact that they outscored opponents when Stuckey is on the floor has no relevance to anything.

Our opponents outscored us when JJ was on the floor so i guess that means Stuckey is better than JJ.

Already going to insults in this argument Ex? That is classy.

You are also strawmanning my argument and not understanding it. I am talking about magnitude of the opponents outscoring, not that outscoring is essential to one player being greater than the other. The Pistons score 10 more points with Stuckey off the court because Billups/Hamilton are All-Stars and they are able to produce at a very high rate. This is the reason why his +/- isn't as high as it would be if he was backing up Bibby/AJ. If you put Acie behind Billups, then Acie's +/- would be even worse because Billups is far greater than Bibby/AJ.

Quote:

---

Who started when Billups got hurt? I guess Billups must not be a pg either.

Stuckey played almost all his minutes at the point.

Semantics really and I guess it is my mistake for not elaborating. I would consider Stuckey a combo, not a PG or a SG much like in the mold of Jason Terry (what would you consider him?). So no I don't consider him a PG, but I would put him at the 1 with JJ at the 2.

Quote:

---

If stuckey wasn't a pg then why should we have drafted him, so he could play behind JJ?

Remember your arguments for having Roy instead of Shelden? Insert foot in mouth, I would respond to that with the same exact arguments you made for having Roy. Slide JJ to the 3, play them a the same time for a while, whatever else you said.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

His jump shot simply was not there. He can get to the rim at will, but he had problems finishing at the rim this season.

Acie still finished inside at a 6% better clip than Stuckey.

[hawkman]

Does that stat take into account missing uncontested layups? Because that's what I saw during the regular season from Acie.

[Cwell]

there is no motion in Woody's offense that's the problem

[exodus]

Quote:

---

If you put Acie behind Billups, then Acie's +/- would be even worse because Billups is far greater than Bibby/AJ.

So i guess the players that you play WITH have no effect on +/-. OK

You made the point that somehow being 7 pts worse with Stuckey on the floor wasn't a big deal because they were still outscoring the opponents. That is ridiculous. That is just a reflection of the strength of their team.

JJ is our best player by far. We were 7.3 ppg better with him on the floor. However we still got outscored with him on the floor because we aren't a good team.

the droppoff between our starters and our bench is dramatic. Not so much with the pistons. They rested their big 3 one game (against the cats i believe) but still won.

Quote:

---

Remember your arguments for having Roy instead of Shelden? Insert foot in mouth, I would respond to that with the same exact arguments you made for having Roy. Slide JJ to the 3, play them a the same time for a while, whatever else you said.

Stuckey played almost all his minutes at the point. That is the whole reason people are comparing him to Acie.

Stuckey rarely played the 2 and is a full 3" shorter than JJ, 2" shorter than Roy. It is not clear that he would be able to play well at the 2 since he would be undersized and has not played there much.

Comparing this to the Roy/Shelden argument is a joke. The talent gap there makes any positional considerations irrelevant. Roy is an All-Star in his second season. Shelden is a bust.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

So i guess the players that you play WITH have no effect on +/-. OK

You made the point that somehow being 7 pts worse with Stuckey on the floor wasn't a big deal because they were still outscoring the opponents. That is ridiculous. That is just a reflection of the strength of their team.

+/- is affected by who you are replacing and who replaces you. Who you play with affects the total number of ppg you score as a whole, but that is arbitrary and have you once seen me make an argument about the team scoring 111 ppg with Stuckey in the game and Acie only scoring 108 ppg in the game? No, that would be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Comparing this to the Roy/Shelden argument is a joke. The talent gap there makes any positional considerations irrelevant. Roy is an All-Star in his second season. Shelden is a bust.

You missed the point. I meant the arguments you used for having Roy play with JJ are the same reasons I see JJ and Stuckey working. I guess I didn't really elaborate well enough, but I thought it was clear since I was responding to your comments of how JJ could play with Stuckey if I felt he was a SG (which I never said he was, I hope I cleared that up).

[DrReality]

Put Acie on that Pistons team and he would being tearing it up. With Billups as his mentor . . . . he'd be tough.

[thefloydian]

I don't know who's better because I haven't seen enough of either of them. However, it doesn't matter because all I was saying is the teams that drafted them has impacted their development both positively (Stuckey) and negatively (Acie).

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

I guess I should have also pointed out that with Acie on the court, our team was outscored by 7.8 points while with him off the court we were outscored by only .5 points. For Stuckey, they outscored opponents by 3.2 points and with him off the court they outscored by 10 points.

That's probably because he plays with the bench players, and they are obviously going to be outscored by more points than the starters. Isn't that kind of obvious?

Even when playing with the Bench, Stuckey is playing with better players, and I'm sure he got some minutes with a lot of the starters too.

[Guest]

Then please point to which of these floor units that Law played the majority of his minutes with are filled with bench players:

1 Law-J.Johnson-M.Williams-Smith-Horford 105 1.14 0.97 +30 13 5 72.2

2 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-Horford 63 0.93 1.13 -19 9 18 33.3

3 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Pachulia 49 1.28 1.28 +1 7 7 50.0

4 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Horford 45 0.91 1.22 -29 5 13 27.7

5 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-Pachulia 40 1.03 1.22 -22 3 9 25.0

6 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-Pachulia 35 1.03 1.16 -8 4 8 33.3

7 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Smith 30 1.11 1.06 +8 5 6 45.4

8 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-Horford 27 1.07 1.01 +6 10 4 71.4

9 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-S.Williams 22 0.64 1.13 -23 2 5 28.5

10 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-S.Williams 22 1.25 0.78 +22 5 0 100

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL2B.HTM

If you really consider Childress a bench player, then he plays a total of 4 line-ups (out of the top 10) with 2 bench players. The majority of his minutes are with starters, which is also the majority of minutes for Bibby/AJ. Both combinations spend a similar distributions of minutes with the same players.

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

Then please point to which of these floor units that Law played the majority of his minutes with are filled with bench players:

1 Law-J.Johnson-M.Williams-Smith-Horford 105 1.14 0.97 +30 13 5 72.2

2 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-Horford 63 0.93 1.13 -19 9 18 33.3

3 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Pachulia 49 1.28 1.28 +1 7 7 50.0

4 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Horford 45 0.91 1.22 -29 5 13 27.7

5 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-Pachulia 40 1.03 1.22 -22 3 9 25.0

6 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-Pachulia 35 1.03 1.16 -8 4 8 33.3

7 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Smith 30 1.11 1.06 +8 5 6 45.4

8 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-Horford 27 1.07 1.01 +6 10 4 71.4

9 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-S.Williams 22 0.64 1.13 -23 2 5 28.5

10 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-S.Williams 22 1.25 0.78 +22 5 0 100

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL2B.HTM

If you really consider Childress a bench player, then he plays a total of 4 line-ups (out of the top 10) with 2 bench players. The majority of his minutes are with starters, which is also the majority of minutes for Bibby/AJ. Both combinations spend a similar distributions of minutes with the same players.

Interesting, although I wonder where all these minutes come from. I swear I can't remember ever seeing Acie with the starting lineup except for the very begining of the season when he played pretty well.

What do all the numbers mean? Are those his individual stats?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

+/- is affected by who you are replacing and who replaces you. Who you play with affects the total number of ppg you score as a whole, but that is arbitrary and have you once seen me make an argument about the team scoring 111 ppg with Stuckey in the game and Acie only scoring 108 ppg in the game? No, that would be ridiculous.

You still can't seem to acknowlege that who you play with has an effect on +/- as well.

The Pistons outscored their opponents with Stuckey in the game while the Hawks opponents outscored us with JJ in the game. Does that mean Stuckey > JJ?

Quote:

---

You missed the point. I meant the arguments you used for having Roy play with JJ are the same reasons I see JJ and Stuckey working.

First of all we are talking about the draft and whether or not we should have drafted Stuckey or Law. Trying to use the Roy/Shelden debate simply doesn't work for two reasons. First is the obviously huge talent gap between Roy and Shelden.

Second is the fact that it isn't clear if Stuckey can play the 2, especially in a starting roll. He would be a short 2. Part of the reason for his "success" playing the point is that he can score on the smaller pgs guarding him (he is still only shooting 40%). Put him at the 2 and his size advantage becomes a size disadvantage.

Roy is taller than Stuckey (and Roy has a 40" vertical) so he doesn't have the same problem. If Roy didn't work at the point he could easily move to the 2. Stuckey hasn't shown he can play the point (where he has spent almost all of his time) or the 2.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Then please point to which of these floor units that Law played the majority of his minutes with are filled with bench players:

1 Law-J.Johnson-M.Williams-Smith-Horford 105 1.14 0.97 +30 13 5 72.2

2 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-Horford 63 0.93 1.13 -19 9 18 33.3

3 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Pachulia 49 1.28 1.28 +1 7 7 50.0

4 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Horford 45 0.91 1.22 -29 5 13 27.7

5 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-Pachulia 40 1.03 1.22 -22 3 9 25.0

6 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-Pachulia 35 1.03 1.16 -8 4 8 33.3

7 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-M.Williams-Smith 30 1.11 1.06 +8 5 6 45.4

8 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-Horford 27 1.07 1.01 +6 10 4 71.4

9 Law-J.Johnson-Childress-Smith-S.Williams 22 0.64 1.13 -23 2 5 28.5

10 Law-Childress-M.Williams-Smith-S.Williams 22 1.25 0.78 +22 5 0 100

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL2B.HTM

If you really consider Childress a bench player, then he plays a total of 4 line-ups (out of the top 10) with 2 bench players. The majority of his minutes are with starters, which is also the majority of minutes for Bibby/AJ. Both combinations spend a similar distributions of minutes with the same players.

The total number of minutes Acie played in the lineups above is 438. Acie played 865 minutes on the season. I would hope that i don't have to explain where the other 427 minutes came from.

[vdunkndunk]

As far as I can tell, no one in the NBA right now, with the benefit of hindsight, would even think about taking Law over Stuckey. That's the main point. Stuckey is two years younger and is better in almost every measurable way RIGHT NOW, despite being younger. Most observers feel like Stuckey's going to be somewhere between a solid starter in the NBA to a borderline all-star. The same can't be said of Law at this point.

And if it's all Woody's fault, why did Stuckey dominate Summer League while Law basically stunk it up? Like I said back then, Summer League DOES tell you something about a player. If you pay attention each year, you'll see that success in SL is a necessary but not sufficient condition for NBA success in your rookie year. If you can't do anything in SL, it almost always means you're not going to do much in the upcoming regular season. If you dominate summer league, it doesn't mean you're going to dominate in the regular season, but it does mean you've at least got a good chance to contribute. (And no, citing Dion Glover doesn't disprove my theory - remember, SL is a necessary but not sufficient condition.)

I hated the Law pick at the time, I hated it during summer league when Law was shooting something like .250 from the field, and I hated it during the regular season when Law didn't contribute anything. Blame it all on Woody if you want to, but I think Law was just a bad pick. I also like what I see from Stuckey: that's the guy I wanted at the time, that's the guy I wanted after summer league, and nothing has changed my mind since. The Pistons beat Orlando on the road in the playoffs without Billups and with Stuckey starting at PG - he would have helped us big time this year. (All I can say is that I'm thankful the Hawks didn't completely blow the last draft by picking Yi along with Law.)

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I hated the Law pick at the time, I hated it during summer league when Law was shooting something like .250 from the field, and

I hated it during the regular season when Law didn't contribute anything.

Blame it all on Woody if you want to, but I think Law was just a bad pick.

Do these posts look familiar?

Quote:

---

All I can say is that I'm extremely impressed with him. On the first night he showed he could get to the basket and dish, and tonight he's shown he can hit jump shots and defend. I love what he's done shooting the ball tonight (3rd quarter) and his defense on Prince and Billups has been amazing. Great pick!

I'm fully on the bandwagon and feel stupid for criticizing this guy!

Let's go Hawks!

click

Quote:

---

Between the way he's playing lately and the way Law is playing, it's a lot easier to get passed DW and CP, especially since we almost certainly wouldn't have gotten Horford if we had either of those PG's since we would have won too many games.

click

Quote:

---

I was totally against drafting Law, so I'm actually encouraged by what he's done. I think he's shown he can handle the ball, defend, and get into the lane on NBA level. He'll improve on those things, of course, and he needs to finish a little better around the basket, but I don't think he'll have a problem there.

click