Fox: Francis As Upset as Being Drafted by Vancover

Can someone compare Steve Francis's stats of his first four years to Stephon Marbury, Jason Kidd, and Gary Payton's?

 

YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG

Steve Francis
02-03 HOU 81 81 41.0 .435 .354 .800 2.00 4.20 6.20 6.2 1.74 .51 3.69 3.10 21.0

Jason Kidd
96-97 Dallas 55 45 35.7 .403 .370 .679 1.20 3.40 4.50 9.0 2.25 .36 2.58 2.10 10.9

Stephon Marbury
98-99 NJN 31 31 39.8 .439 .367 .832 .60 1.90 2.60 8.7 .97 .10 3.52 2.60 23.4

Gary Payton
93-94 SEA 82 82 35.1 .504 .278 .595 1.30 2.00 3.30 6.0 2.29 .23 2.11 2.80 16.5

 

I like Steve's loyalty but the choice of words is high questionable. This was not an impromtu interview - he could have come with something better.

Please Francis stop insulting Vancouver - many players today will give anything to have an opportunity to play in The Association regardless of City. I thought we agreed that that was not a "good" thing to do.

To say the least I am dissapointed by this Vancouver reference (did Vancouver - one of the best cities in North America - commit a sin for drafting him?). It is opening a semi healed wound .

 

I agree 100%. Steve's just standing up for Rudy. He's gonna say things he doesn't really mean, and he's gonna say things a lot of you will take waaay to seriously. But you also gotta look at the fact that Francis probably knows a whole lot more about the situation than any of us. We don't know exactly what went down, and Steve might not know the whole situation either, but he definitely knows more about it than we do. Maybe that's why he's getting so mad....

 

Well the person paying that huge contract of Steve's has made a business decision that he hopes will increase the chances of the team making the playoffs sooner not later. After all, another year of excuses will not fill the seats in the new arena.

Now that Rudy has stepped down, I don't think there would be any hesitation sending a player packing who can't follow the game plan.

It's about time.

 

Everyone's catching on to every word waiting for him to say something at the spur of the moment. That would make most of these people nice media reporters. Take one sentence and twist it out of proportion. I mean, seriously, some of you guys think that everything that happens (Rudy's firing), that SF only thinks how it affects him. Where do you guys get these ideas anyways?
If anyone actually followed the Rockets game by game you'll see that Francis:
1) developed a sense to take a medium range jumper
2) didn't take close to as many shots
3) tried to do all he could to help Yao out... how many times have we seen those two get together...

Here's my outtake for all those who kept saying why Yao didn't get the ball every time. As a Chinese Rockets fan I'm very well aware of what Yao can or cannot do at this time. If we have Yao post every single time. You think he can play 30 minutes a game and be effective? You have to factor in that Yao has already played how many games before he even came to Houston? What kind of shape is he in to take the daily bumps and bruises of the NBA level? Is it just me that saw how worn out Yao was towards the second half of the season? Dang, the guy started taking meditation to relieve the stress and weariness.

Here's another thing. Why is it so much easier with Dream back then and difficult for Yao now? Until Yao gets stronger, he won't be able to hold the low post for 5-10 seconds like Dream could. It was easy to get the ball down to Dream because he can hold the potision without getting pushed out. Yao takes that long just to get there half the time. But hey... if we wait for him to take 10 seconds to get the position just to get it in... and maybe another 6 to get downcourt... people might complain that we didn't give Yao enough time on the shotclock to produce a shot for someone else. AND THEN, we'll complain about WHY
the offense is standing still (probably because it's hard to move the ball around if we have to wait for Yao to get position.. what if he loses the position and get shoved out in 2 seconds? ) You gotta move the ball around to keep the defenders on its feet.. but we opted to go down to Yao when we can. Maybe SF can work on when to get to Yao and when not, but it's not the easiest thing to do when everyone kept saying "throw the ball down low" and "keep the ball moving" at the same time. One thing I liked about our old teams is how we have tall people like Horry who could get the ball to Dream so easily and efficiently. We don't have that right now... or else we'd talk about how EG waits around at the 3 point line again.

Has anyone considered WHY things are how they are? Maybe a new coach is the answer, but u can't keep going around saying, Francis thinks only for himself and how Rudy's firing makes Steve think about how that would effect him personally. Only Steve knows how he thinks and if I were to take a guess, I'd say that he's lost a friend and someone he has a lot of respect in. Maybe even a little guilt that maybe him not taking his team to the playoffs cost his friend and mentor his job. Yeah, he should be upset, maybe he thinks that if he'd make a few game winning shots and made the playoffs (he had a few of those), that maybe Rudy, Yao, and SF can be together and win a championship and maybe going even further.... fulfill Rudy's legacy as a coach. However, I sincerely doubt that Francis is thinking... there goes my protector and I'm gonna get blamed for everything from now on now that Rudy's gone... c'mon guys.. think rationally before you say stuff... isn't that what you're saying about Francis speaking out of emotions?

 

Roger that!
Nice and short. I like it.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!!

 

what a great post

 

Well said, candlegreen.

 

um its actaully 6.3, and 10 dimes... Jason kidd shouldn't be a all-star then right?

 

Kidd averaged over 9 dimes and only 2.3 T.O. compared to S.F. 6 dimes and 3.5 T.O. - a ratio difference of almost 5. And, besides the actual stats, the biggest problem that I have with Francis is his "me-first play/attitude and sense of entitlement.

The guy not only has no b-ball I.Q. on the court, but regularly has his head in his ass when making comments off of it.

Any "real" leader would have said:

"I'm sad to see Rudy go. I love the guy and I owe him a lot, but maybe this is the best thing for Rudy and for the team. The bottom line is that we ARE a team, and regardless of who comes in, I am committed to working hard for the new coach, and to making myself a better player and helping my teammates to improve so we can move closer to our eventual goal of winning a championship..."

If Kidd or Payton or Marbury, (hell even Parker) were interviewed last night, that's what they would have said. Not "I have to talk with Rudy and make some personal decisions". Francis talks the talk but DOES NOT walk the walk.

He plays with EGO rather than Pride and there's a huge difference!!!!

 

None of those players played for Rudy. If I played for Popovich or George Karl I would say those things too. Because Rudy fostered a kind of bond with his players, was loyal to them, deserved loyalty from them, and both loved and was loved, in return, by his players. Francis did just fine. I'm glad that our leader has a senses of loyalty. The statement you claimed a leader should make, might be made at the start of the year, or after a few games into the season. When emotions are running high, and the only NBA coach Steve has known, the coach that Steve has spent more time with than any other coach in high shcool and college levels, added to the fact, that Les is trying to make it look as if it was all Rudy's idea, emotions are going to be very high.

I wouldn't want a leader to make as passionless of a statement as you claim he should make. That's the kind of thing that comes with time, refelction, and adjustment.

And basically that's what Steve said he was going to do. Talk to Rudy, deal with the personal loss, and go from there. He was honest about being upset, but at the same time showed that he was under control and didn't start making demands or badmouthing anyone.

Making a statement like the one you posted on the day it happened, would mean we had a 'me first' type of player who didn't care about loyalty, and was just concerned with himself.

Instead a leader who shows loyalty, but doesn't allow that surface in a dstructive way, and is wise enough to know that it will take time, communication and reflection to deal with a rough situation is a leader who's has the dedication to do what it takes to lead.

 

OH GOD. No point guard even averaged over 9 assists per game.

Francis will not leave.

He is only in his 4th year.

Please don't say Tony Parker is a better player than him.

Francis just needs to play smarter and be more mature.........

And our new coach better do a good job.

 

Um, perhaps you don't understand the word Ratio?

Ratio defined:
6 entries found.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

Inverse \In*verse"\, a. [L. inversus, p. p. of invertere: cf. F.
inverse. See {Invert}.]
1. Opposite in order, relation, or effect; reversed;
inverted; reciprocal; -- opposed to {direct}.

2. (Bot.) Inverted; having a position or mode of attachment
the reverse of that which is usual.

3. (Math.) Opposite in nature and effect; -- said with
reference to any two operations, which, when both are
performed in succession upon any quantity, reproduce that
quantity; as, multiplication is the inverse operation to
division. The symbol of an inverse operation is the symbol
of the direct operation with -1 as an index. Thus sin-1 x
means the arc whose sine is x.

{Inverse figures} (Geom.), two figures, such that each point
of either figure is inverse to a corresponding point in
the order figure.

{Inverse points} (Geom.), two points lying on a line drawn
from the center of a fixed circle or sphere, and so
related that the product of their distances from the
center of the circle or sphere is equal to the square of
the radius.

{Inverse}, or {Reciprocal}, {ratio} (Math.), the ratio of the
reciprocals of two quantities.

{Inverse}, or {Reciprocal, {proportion}, an equality between
a direct ratio and a reciprocal ratio; thus, 4 : 2 : : 1/3
: 1/6, or 4 : 2 : : 3 : 6, inversely.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

Ratio \Ra"ti*o\, n. [L., fr. reri, ratus, to reckon, believe,
think, judge. See {Reason}.]
1. (Math.) The relation which one quantity or magnitude has
to another of the same kind. It is expressed by the
quotient of the division of the first by the second; thus,
the ratio of 3 to 6 is expressed by 3/6 or 1/2; of a to b
by a/b; or (less commonly) the second is made the
dividend; as, a:b = b/a.

Note: Some writers consider ratio as the quotient itself,
making ratio equivalent to a number. The term ratio is
also sometimes applied to the difference of two
quantities as well as to their quotient, in which case
the former is called arithmetical ratio, the latter,
geometrical ratio. The name ratio is sometimes given to
the rule of three in arithmetic. See under {Rule}.

2. Hence, fixed relation of number, quantity, or degree;
rate; proportion; as, the ratio of representation in
Congress.

{Compound ratio}, {Duplicate ratio}, {Inverse ratio}, etc.
See under {Compound}, {Duplicate}, etc.

{Ratio of a geometrical progression}, the constant quantity
by which each term is multiplied to produce the succeeding
one.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

Anharmonic \An`har*mon"ic\, a. [F. anharmonique, fr. Gr. 'an
priv. + ? harmonic.] (Math.)
Not harmonic.

{The anharmonic function} or {ratio} of four points abcd on a
straight line is the quantity (ac/ad)bc/bd), where the
segments are to be regarded as plus or minus, according to
the order of the letters.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

Duplicate \Du"pli*cate\, a. [L. duplicatus, p. p. of duplicare
to double, fr. duplex double, twofold. See {Duplex}.]
Double; twofold.

{Duplicate proportion} or {ratio} (Math.), the proportion or
ratio of squares. Thus, in geometrical proportion, the
first term to the third is said to be in a duplicate ratio
of the first to the second, or as its square is to the
square of the second. Thus, in 2, 4, 8, 16, the ratio of 2
to 8 is a duplicate of that of 2 to 4, or as the square of
2 is to the square of 4.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

Geometric \Ge`o*met"ric\, Geometrical \Ge`o*met"ric*al\, a. [L.
geometricus; Gr. ?: cf. F. g['e]om['e]trique.]
Pertaining to, or according to the rules or principles of,
geometry; determined by geometry; as, a geometrical solution
of a problem.

Note: Geometric is often used, as opposed to algebraic, to
include processes or solutions in which the
propositions or principles of geometry are made use of
rather than those of algebra.

Note: Geometrical is often used in a limited or strictly
technical sense, as opposed to mechanical; thus, a
construction or solution is geometrical which can be
made by ruler and compasses, i. e., by means of right
lines and circles. Every construction or solution which
requires any other curve, or such motion of a line or
circle as would generate any other curve, is not
geometrical, but mechanical. By another distinction, a
geometrical solution is one obtained by the rules of
geometry, or processes of analysis, and hence is exact;
while a mechanical solution is one obtained by trial,
by actual measurements, with instruments, etc., and is
only approximate and empirical.

{Geometrical curve}. Same as {Algebraic curve}; -- so called
because their different points may be constructed by the
operations of elementary geometry.

{Geometric lathe}, an instrument for engraving bank notes,
etc., with complicated patterns of interlacing lines; --
called also {cycloidal engine}.

{Geometrical pace}, a measure of five feet.

{Geometric pen}, an instrument for drawing geometric curves,
in which the movements of a pen or pencil attached to a
revolving arm of adjustable length may be indefinitely
varied by changing the toothed wheels which give motion to
the arm.

{Geometrical plane} (Persp.), the same as {Ground plane} .

{Geometrical progression}, {proportion}, {ratio}. See under
{Progression}, {Proportion} and {Ratio}.

{Geometrical radius}, in gearing, the radius of the pitch
circle of a cogwheel. --Knight.

{Geometric spider} (Zo["o]l.), one of many species of
spiders, which spin a geometrical web. They mostly belong
to {Epeira} and allied genera, as the garden spider. See
{Garden spider}.

{Geometric square}, a portable instrument in the form of a
square frame for ascertaining distances and heights by
measuring angles.

{Geometrical staircase}, one in which the stairs are
supported by the wall at one end only.

{Geometrical tracery}, in architecture and decoration,
tracery arranged in geometrical figures.

What I think you were searching for was the assist to turnover ratio and just failed high school math.

Your math:
Kidd 9 dimes and only 2.3 T.O.
S.F. 6 dimes and 3.5 T.O. - a ratio difference of almost 5.
9-6=3 + (3.5-2.3) = 4.2 so your scewed mathmatics were off anyway. You are also basing the on incorrect numbers. You can't use decimals in one and not in the other. 8.9 - 6.2 = 2.7.

In reality was the AssistperTurnover ratio difference is: .73

You'll note in the numbers below that J.Kidd had three fewer turnovers than S.Francis, making them 1-2 in the league in that regard.

Jason Kidd ( New Jersey Nets) 80 711 296 2.40 (ranks 36th in the league in this area by the way, not even close to the top of the league)
Steve Francis (Houston Rockets) 81 502 299 1.67 (very low as well but sure as hell not off by 5)


If you must bash know the facts and let your little sister do the math for you...

 

moderator,
please delete some of the definitions out once Rockets-R-Us has responded to the post by stating that he is indeed going to go get his G.E.D. or Good Enough Degree...

 

jason kdd
2002-03
Statistics
PPG 18.7
RPG 6.30
APG 8.9
EFF + 22.81

francis
2002-03
Statistics
PPG 21.0
RPG 6.20
APG 6.2
EFF + 21.32

turnover leaders...
1. Jason Kidd ( New Jersey Nets) 3.70
2. Steve Francis ( Houston Rockets) 3.69
3. Paul Pierce ( Boston Celtics) 3.65
4. Glenn Robinson ( Atlanta Hawks) 3.59
5. Gilbert Arenas ( Golden State Warriors) 3.54
6. Kobe Bryant ( Los Angeles Lakers)

i dont know were you get your info, but i got mine from nba.com


Your not a reliable source rockets-r-us...

 

lol, i dont see Rockets-R-us responding... Must be in hiding. Cant admit his ignorance

 

even more reliable... let's add the minutes played and get the "ratio" for turnovers per 48 minutes...

Gilbert Arenas 4.86
Jason Kidd 4.75
SF 4.33

 

sheer ignorance....

 

Also... everyone wants SF to pass it into Yao so he can create the play... if you pass it in.. yao passes.... then how can u complain about Francis's assists per game??? You guys want him to get assists.. for most guards.. meaning to create the play.. but then again u want Yao to create the play.. I'm confused