And BTW, the following are B Miller's stat when he played for Chicago bulls, probably the crappiest team in NBA history. Now you tell me how he "definitely" scored or rebounded more. YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 00-01 CHI 57 45 25.2 .435 .200 .743 2.50 4.80 7.40 1.9 .58 .67 1.28 3.10 8.9 01-02 CHI 48 47 29.0 .460 .500 .751 3.70 4.70 8.40 2.1 1.08 .60 1.54 3.30 12.7
Bill Walton aka one of the world's biggest YAOFs just said that he'd pick Shaq to start in the All-Star Game on Sportscenter. Bill Walton gave Shaq the vote. Mark Stein gave Shaq the vote. Steve Kerr gave Brad Miller the vote. Marty Burns gave Brad Miller the vote. Charles Barkley gave Shaq the vote. Kenny Smith gave Shaq the vote.
Mr. Shrimpie, My belief that Miller is more consistent than Yao is based on following the NBA and looking at the game logs. Even when Miller shoots bad, he usually has some assists to offset that. Not to mention I also question your numbers because those are not the numbers found on nba.com. this was found on nba.com: Brad Miller with an average of: 14.2 ppg / 10.5 rpg Yao with an average of: 16.3 ppg / 9.3 rpg "You can argue whatever you want, but make sure get your facts correct."
heh, heh. i've got nothing to deal with. i'm just enjoying a good argument, which is a big reason why these message boards exist. i haven't made any personal attacks. just having fun!
First of all, I don't know why Peeler, Massenburg, Jones and Pollard are even your argument. Hardly any of them would make much contribution even on a lousy team, not to mention their lack of PT hardly make them significant factors. That leaves Bobby Jackson, JJ, Keon Clark, Turkeyglue and Gerald Wallace. Of those, BJ and GW are still on the team. The remaining don't make a huge swing in the record of a good team either. On top of that, the strongest bench for the Kings was last year, yet the year before that, the one where Webber missed even more games, the Kings had an even better record. Why is that?
Munco, Good, at least you are reading. I included the preseason data because I had a program doing all the data pulling and calculations. And my program doesn't recognize those preseason data. Now the stat for regular season games: B. Miller: Point average 14.23, Point stdev 6.07 Yao: Point average 16.31111111, Point stdev 5.934575968 B. Miller: Rebound average 10.55, Rebound 3.43; Yao: Rebound average 9.266666667, rebound standard devaition 3.264130122. Now you tell me why Miller is more consistent than Yao?
Munco, Sorry to give you some hard time, but the correlation coefficient of B. Miller's points and assistant numbers is -0.02. Therefore, you claim that "when Miller shoots bad, he usually has some assists to offset that" doesn't hold water either. I am done with this. Have a nice weekend. Shrimpie
I thought my argument was very clear. I believed all along that the ASG is a popularity contest, which is why I don't have a prob with Steve or Yao starting. Which is also why I don't even have a clue how I got involved in this mess. Having said that though, now that I'm here, let's look at couple of things. If you say that his rebounding number is up by 2 (25%), which is easy to do in 7 more minutes, shouldn't his scoring be up 25% also? Let's see, 13.2 last season * 1.25 = 17.75 PPG. That on a team like the Kings should be easy to do by your logic. Yet he doesn't. Let me assure you that his shots per game last year and this year makes no significant difference. So what does that mean? He's playing on a better team, gets more open looks, shoots a higher percentage yet score not as many points as you expected. Does it mean he's that offensively inept? Btw, a 2% increase in FG% IS a lot. In other factors like BPG, he more than increased it. He went from .59 to 1.34. Once again, I hardly think an increase of 7 MPG makes that significant a difference in this matter. The Pacers are a young team, I'll give you that. But can they be young enough to improve by 17 in winning percentage even with Carlisle? If they are, then they never needed Brad Miller in the first place, which once again cast doubt on his value. We are also a young team, yet when the Pacers are making their 17% stride, we are stuck in the same boat as last year (and this is after Yao's improvements, the rest of the team's supposed improvement AND the best offseason signing in years in JJ). Yes we are talking about a relatively small sample size, however, if Miller's impact is that huge AND Carlisle is just hired, shouldn't they suck at first, become great and then suck again instead of going steady half the way? And also think about this. Brad Miller is playing the 4 in Sac. Vlade Divac is playing the center. So Brad hangs around the high post shooting wide open jumpers while a 50 yr old bangs down low. What the hell is that? For all the talk about Yao, Rasho, Kandiman and Eddy Curry being soft, this year Brad Miller is softer than them all. I guess my point is, when we talk about selecting something, we talk about the better choice. And the better choice is Yao, so there is no sense in selecting Brad Miller as well. If we use a merit selection basis for the ASG, Shaq deserves to start (if he didn't miss all those games). Yao deserves to back him up. Brad Miller doesn't get the nod because: 1. he's not playing the 5 2. there are far better choices than him at the 4. That's all there is to it.
Well, since my actual argument is that Miller has made a significant impact for the Kings this season, the reason that Peeler and Massenburg are part of the argument is precisely to illustrate how much weaker the bench is this year. The point is that both of them get significant minutes this year, and last year they would have been the eleventh and twelfth men. Damon Jones is in the argument because he actually had to start the first two games of last season (the Kings won both of those) while Bibby was injured and Christie was suspended, and played very well, and continued to play significant minutes until after Bibby came back; he is now a key role player for the Milwaukee Bucks as TJ Ford's primary relief. Pollard is in the argument because, although his play has fallen dramatically, he averaged 6 pts and 7 rebs in 2001-02, was arguably the best backup center in the NBA, and the first player off the Kings bench (yes, even ahead of Bobby Jackson). Before he fractured his back in 2002, he was a very, very good backup. The point of all of them being included is to point out Brad Miller has had remarkable impact on the Kings' performance; in previous seasons, the Kings overcame injuries because of their depth. This year, while Webber is out, they don't have as much depth; Brad Miller has been the difference. As good, perhaps. Better? No. Webber missed the first 28 games of the 2001-02 season, and the Kings went 19-9. Through the first 30 games of this season, the Kings went 20-8. To say nothing of the fact that this year's team has already played sixteen more games without Webber than they did all of the 2001-02 season. The point is that the Kings had the best bench in basketball last season, and while they didn't have quite as good a bench the season before, it was better than the one they have now. This season, the Kings have Tony Massenburg and Anthony Peeler trying to fill the void left by Jim Jackson, Keon Clark and Hedo Turkoglu, and failing for the most part. That the Kings have been as successful as they have is due in large part to Brad Miller.
YAO IS ON OUR TEAM SO BE HAPPPY FOR HIM AND STEVE FOR MAKING THE ALL STAR TEAM. Why start these dumb threads. Make a thread in the kings forum if u want brad to start so much.
I agree with them about Shaq being a starter, errr.. in the back of my mind, that is. But Yao has given us some excitement this year while Shaq's been sitting on his fat ass most of the time. And Brad Miller? Who the hell is he? Seriously, the starters at the ASG are all about star power. Miller just won't get it - esp. if he stays in the western conference. Think about it guys, if there was an ASG for tennis, which chick would you choose: Serena Williams or Anna Kournikova? Something tells us that skills don't mean much here.
Let's be real here. I have nothing against Jones or Pollard, nor do I doubt they played well for 3rd string players. But that's all they are... 3rd string players. Maybe for a crappy team like the Heat they'd be higher but as far as the Kings are concerned, that's where they rank. Jones started all of 2 games, hardly a large sample size. He also averaged 14.5 MPG, that's basically what you expect from a backup. Pollard came off the bench after Keon FREAKIN' Clark. If that doesn't tell you he's not the best back up center in the league, nothing will. So if you think Jones and Pollard's contribution are THAT great you are saying one of two things: 1. Jones and Pollard are better players than most people think they are 2. Peja and co. are way overrated to need to depend on 3rd string scrubs to win. The Kings are better with Webber, I have no argument with that. In fact, that was my first assertion, if you cared to read it. But here's the point: the Kings went to a 19 - 9 record without Brad Miller and without Webber, they went to 20 - 8 with Brad Miller. That's a 1.5 game difference. The Kings, with the MUCH weaker bench (as you stated) in 2001 - 2002, played to a 680 winning percentage WITHOUT both Miller and Webber. So why do they need to sign Brad Miller to near MAX again? What they should have done is resigned JJ to 4.5 mil/3 yrs, who incidently, is the only Kings player that can play any D. Just wait and see, their lack of D will kill them in the playoffs again. You said Miller is the reason the Kings are as successful as last year, read above, I just proved you wrong. The Pacers, on the other hand, are more successful without him. What does that say about his usefulness? It also appeared that you saw the need to prove to me that, now that Webber is out, the Kings are a better team with more inside presence than a 50 yr old Divac, Songaila and Massenburg. Well, congratulations you've convinced me, except that was my opinion at the start. The bottom line is, yes Brad Miller does plug a hole temporarily with Webber being out, but he's importance is WAYYYYYYY overinflated. It makes me sick that it only take half a season (actually not even that) of decent games for everybody to kiss a guy's ass.
*sigh* You're not listening. In 2002-03, Scot Pollard was a 3rd string player, but his reduced role has more to do with the fact that he fractured his spine over the offseason than with getting beat out by Keon Clark; he simply never recovered from a broken back. And that doesn't change the fact that in 2001-02, the season that they started without Webber, Pollard was the Kings sixth man, and the first guy off the bench, but I'll get back to that. Pollard was almost universally recognized as the best backup big man in the league in 2001-02, and was critical component of the bench that season, and both season prior to that. Pollard didn't become a third-string player until he got injured, something that he still hasn't fully recovered from. 1. Pollard isn't as good as he was, not even close. Jones is a quality reserve, contrary to what you appear to believe, and his play on the Bucks proves it. He's averaging almost 23 minutes per game on a playoff team; those aren't "third-string scrub" numbers. 2. This statement is wrong on all levels, simply because: 1) Peja wasn't nearly as good in 2001-02 as he is now, and 2) The Kings' role players were a much more important part of the team's offensive production than it was in the previous couple of years; up until last season, the Kings' bench scored about 45% of the team's offense. That is not, in fact, what I stated. I said that the bench last season was better than it was in 2001-02. I did not say that it is better right now than it was in 2001-02. I didn't even say the the bench was "much" better last season, becuase it it wasn't, really. It was better, but not "much" better. Pollard, in his 2001-02 form was better than Tony Massenburg is now. That was also a breakout year for Hedo Turkoglu, who was much better then than Anthony Peeler is now. The bench unit of Pollard, Bobby Jackson, Hedo Turkoglu and Lawrence Funderburke (who was, incidentally, the third-string big man for the Kings, and not Pollard as you want to believe), was much better in 2001-02 than the unit of Bobby Jackson, Anthony Peeler, Tony Massenburg and Darius Songaila are now. Judging the fact that you remain convinced that Scot Pollard is a "third-string scrub," and appear to believe that that's the only thing he's always been, I can only conclude that you never actually saw the Kings play in 2001-02 (outside of a handful of games that they might have been on national TV), and are trying to transpose his career numbers with what he did that season. As I said before, Pollard averaged better than 6 points and 7 rebounds in 2001-02, and finished 35th in the league in rebounds per game, the highest of any non-starter by a fair margin, and 37th in blocks per game. All I'm saying is that what he is doing right now, or even what he did last season, does not in any way reflect how good he was in 2001-02 while Webber was out. As far as I'm concerned, every professional athlete is grossly overpaid, so arguing about money is pointless. Miller was signed to become the eventual replacement to Vlade Divac, and judging by what I've seen so far this season (and I've seen nearly every game the Kings have played), he is going to be a great one. Incidentally, you're dead wrong. Doug Christie and Bobby Jackson are both good defenders. Chris Webber is a good defender. Brad Miller is a good defender when he's playing his natural position of center. Once the team is healthy and they get their timing down, the defense will improve. The Kings didn't lose in the playoffs last year because of a lack of defense; they lost because of a lack of Chris Webber. They lost in 2002 largely due to mental weaknesses; defense hasn't had a whole lot to do with it. The Kings aren't ever going to hold teams under ninety points, because that's just not the way they play; it would require them not to run the ball in transition and slow the ball down (ala your Houston Rockets), and they simply aren't going to do that. The Kings, for the most part, get stops when they need to. No you didn't; the only thing that you proved is that your sense of player evaluation needs fine tuning. The Kings have basically the same record now that they had last season, despite the fact that they're missing an All-Star and three key reserves, and replaced them with two scrubs. Why else do you think that they're doing so well? Peja's been playing great, but not that great. It doesn't prove anything about his usefulness; all it proves is that the Pacers finally have a head coach that actually knows how to coach. You can't possibly believe that Jeff Foster is as good as Brad Miller, no matter what Indiana's record is. Brad Miller's importance to the Kings this season cannot possibly be overstated; take him off the current team, and they have at least ten more losses than they have right now.
why in the world nobody mentioned about Eric Dampier (Warriors)...he's a pretty dominant Center and he can really dominates with a number of 20 pts 20 reb games....
