Patterson is still better than the guys that were available at 12, like James Anderson, or were drafted ahead of him like Aldrich and Aminu.
i don't know that it's a sure thing, dust hasn't settled yet, there are some pretty good prospects outside of lottery in that draft. Some of them are breaking out right now. But at the moment, it's hard to know one way or the other. I think "Patterson hate" is caused not so much by his flaws, but the fact that there are exciting prospects behind him. If the Rockets drafted multiple talented SFs, people might be picking apart Parsons' weaknesses and upside.
I think you're correct about why Patterson is less appreciated than he normally would be, but Parsons exemplifies "exciting prospect". If the Rockets had drafted multiple talented SFs, Clutchfans would be arguing who should be playing beyond Parsons, not in front of him.
i wonder. Parsons is 24, he's been pretty impressive, but so has Patterson. If the Rockets had a "lesser LeBron" and a "lesser Durant" instead of "lesser Howard" and "lesser Dirk", i think Parsons would be less appreciated and picked apart more.
I haven't watched many games, this year. I only checked out a few guys like Anderson. We all know about Aldrich. Is Landry Fields still hot? I haven't had much luck up the guys individually in the 2010 draft after 14. I think Hayward and Crawford are doing good. I don't know if they are doing better than Patterson though. I am just looking at their averages. http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2010/index Who are the ones breaking out this year? I'll check out the other 2010 prospects . It's disappointing that other guys are so much better than him.
I like PPat's "Wheels Up," but he lacks an all-around game and isn't a true power forward. His recent play has been astounding, if he keeps up, we may have a hard time paying him. LaMarcus, or J.Smith over PPat!!!
I might be missing someone too, but just looking at the draft list, Larry Sanders, Eric Bledsoe and Lance Stephenson look like they've improved a lot this year. Greivis Vasquez has good moments. I wouldn't completely write Kevin Seraphin, Trevor Booker and Landry Fields off, though they've been disappointing. And my personal non-lottery favorite from 2010 is Avery Bradley, who's been injured --- of all these guys, he's the one who's truly dominant at something, kind of Asik of little guys, possibly the league's best perimeter defender last year, but the other parts of his game need so much work, that we can't really evaluate him yet. All these guys could be worse than Patterson in 3 years, all of of them have serious flaws right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them become much better.
The difference between a good player and a great player is co$tly, in a league where the difference between a good team and a great team is small. Using basic cost-benefit analysis, almost no "star" player would be quote "worth the money" for their production, and yet they are very sought after around the league anyway. Why? See above paragraph. (Also: You seem to be basing your comparison on Aldridge's worst start to a season in years, when he's been playing hurt. This is probably unfair.)
Actually, this is completely and utterly wrong. It's been pretty much proven that "upsets" for championship happens less in basketball than any other major sport. And that the usual suspects always, always win, short of catastrophic injuries. Another horribly incorrect statement. Star players making max money are worth more relative to their contracts than most other contracts in the NBA, the exception being star players making rookie money. Morey has stated this over and over. Lebron, Durant, Howard(healthy), etc. are worth $20-30 mil above their actual contracts. Parsons is worth maybe $7-8mil under his market value? And I'm being pretty kind here. There's no comparison. Of course, one does wonder how the hell you can possibly think of Aldridge in terms of being a star, when his team last year was 11th worst in the NBA with decent support. They sucked even before trading away Camby and Wallace. And with their new hot PG this year, they're 7-10. If Aldridge is a star, then so is Monte Ellis or Kevin Martin.
It would have been nice if you understood what was even being said before you treated the thing you didn't get so dismissively. With all due respect, your response has nothing to do with the text you quoted. The point is that there is an easily obtainable baseline of competitive play that most NBA franchises can reach, but anything beyond that involves obtaining is expensive. And now here you are agreeing with me anyway. My point was that star players have intrinsic value above and beyond what could be intimated from a cost-benefit analysis. Why else would Morey be so interested in obtaining them...constantly? And here you are belligerently agreeing with me. Incredible. Oh I get it now. You just wanted to fight with somebody on the internet. Yeah OK, LaMarcust Aldridge isn't a star player. Whatever you say. Nice posting.
I've never seen anybody use such silly, hyperbolic language like: "completely and utterly wrong" and "horribly incorrect" while agreeing with something they are basically restating. I don't know if the point is to seem like an edgy contrarian even while sharing the same views, but it sure comes across as dumb.
That intrinsic value is in wins and losses. Star players have them. Aldridge does not. This isn't some hidden value that no one can see. It's the most obvious value of them all: team wins.
If you're going to admit that you didn't read what I wrote correctly and want to shift gears and talk about LMA instead, that's fine. We can do that. I think he *is* a star player. You're saying he isn't because why else would the Blazers lose games? What? I think that Blazers team of his loses games for reasons that have nothing to do with LaMarcus Aldridge. They have the worst bench in the NBA and they are running their offense through a rookie point guard who still has a lot to learn about composure in tight games. And that's just where it begins. I mean if we're really going by the logic that star players are defined by the success of their teams, then it means Kevin Love isn't a star player either. This is just silliness to me. Your thoughts?
He helped me win in fantasy basketball this week..he's been balling especially since he's hitting the corner 3pt shot
