You're right, MONSTER numbers. Such as, 34, 15, 11. Win totals for teams that gave Sessions the chance to play good minutes.
Very rational and well thought out post. I like Lowry and he's a solid starter, but I think people are a little quick to make our players into the next big star just because we don't have one.
Kyle has the pedigree, being a first round pick out of the Big East. He broke a wrist I believe 15 games or so into the 2007 season. Memphis's subsequent drafting of Mayo relegated a recovering Lowry to the bench. But even in our games with them, Kyle looked special as he came in during mop up time. What I'm saying is that I believe him capable of sustaining this level of play. Too many people underestimate his defense, leadership, and competitive fire. Yes, his offensive game is mostly about getting to the hoop, but his play of late suggests that is changing. If he keeps sticking the J like this then we're talking all star. ...The work ethic and talent are there. jopatmc - Kyle does have a tendency to blow up, but he has taken his conditioning more seriously lately. He's had back issues that have precluded him from being where we all want him to be. Lowry's healthy now and has the 1 to himself .....look out.
Thing with Rondo is... he was an okay play until he got services of the big three... Season before big 3 combined... he averaged 30 minutes 11 PPG and 5 APG... that's kinda below average. He is somewhat lucky that he has great supporting cast.. i mean come on... of course, he is going to score efficiently when the other team cares more about shooting of big three.... Guy is tough... guy has high IQ... but he is very lucky to be part of the system that is very efficient and to be with the teammates who are future hall of famers. We will only know how good he is when we see him in different situation. His assists are also inflated... it's all about Celtic's system and efficient shooters that he averages high assists and scores efficiently... P.S: I like Rondo a lot.. one of my favorites.. but he is overrated.
Typical. On one hand, the rockets have players putting up numbers on a lotto team, but thats ok. When another player does it not on the rockets, the win total highlights his lack of whatever. It doesnt matter as I've stated many times when posters like yourself have tried to point out how easy it is to put up numbers on bad teams. Zach randolph is the same 20-10 player he was 5 yrs ago, yet the criticism was rampant. Kevin martin is the same player he was in sacramento. Its not those players fault they're on poor teams. Yet when I mention session and his production vs lowry, now the win totals are brought in. Do you think lowry would have done any better on those same teams? Probably not.
That's a reasonable point, but you called Kyle a "placeholder," and I think that is unreasonable. Did you ever call AB a placeholder?
The point that you don't seem to get is there are other ways to measure how "good" a player is than "20-10". Sure a "good" player on a bad team is the same "good" player on a good team, but I don't define and evaluate players as "good" or "bad" based on the same boxscore stats that you limit yourself to. If you are ignorant enough to think Lowry and Sessions are the same because they both put up around the same amount of points and assists then you must think Stromile Swift has the same impact on winning as Shane Battier. They both put up 8 and 5 after all. Instead of looking for "20-10" players try to evaluate how they affect winning instead. And yes, to your point, there are plenty of "winning" players on losing teams. They simply make those teams lose by less than how much they otherwise would. With that said, just because they are out there it doesn't make Sessions one of them. And I don't even think he is that bad, just not as good as Lowry.
Just a quick trip to ESPNs stats page. among "qualified" PGs Lowry is 20th in ppg (below average) Lowry is 21st in FG% (below average) Lowry is 8th in rebounds (above average) Lowry is 31st in FT% (worst in the league) Lowry is 22nd in 3pt % (below average) Lowry is 15th in assists (average) Lowry is 10th in steals (above average) Lowry is 7th in blocks (above average) Lowry is 4th in fouls committed (far below average) Lowry is 22nd in turnovers (below average) You might want to raise your expectations a bit.
These stats are really surprising. From what I've seen on court, Lowry seems to be having a great season so far and has stepped it up even more since the trade deadline. He's been playing with a ton of poise and confidence.
That's because "poise" and "confidence" don't show up in ppg or fg% or rebounds or assists. It shows up in Wins, and he doesn't have a stat that will show you that.
There are 44 qualified PGs. Comparing Lowry's turnovers per game, for example, to Ronnie Price, CJ Watson, and Gary Neal, is meaningless. In terms of turnovers per 48 minutes, Lowry is 11th best, well above average.
Ok. There are 19 pgs who score more than Lowry. Considering Lowry averages fewer FGA than 18 of them and the point differential between #20 Lowry and #11 Augustin is 2 ppg, I don't really care if his ppg is "below average." Neither should you. Lowry's TS% is 53.4% and you're criticizing him. Yet last year, Brooks' TS% was 54.9%. And you were his 2nd biggest fan. No excuse. He needs to improve. I think this is pretty impressive considering his assists mainly come in transition. He doesn't have the luxury of being the primary ball-handler for the majority of the shot clock like Rondo, Nash, Williams, Paul, etc... 2.8 fouls per game. Who cares? Look at the names ahead of him. Ronnie Price? Gary Neal? In fact, I don't think a single PG on that list ahead of him has made an all-star game. So there are 21 pgs in the league who average fewer TO's than Lowry. Did you notice that Lowry has a higher AST/TO ratio than 20 of them? You might want to use some critical thinking.
While thats a reasonable post, I think you're exaggerating people overrating Lowry. This poll from last year about Lowry's ceiling, 12% voted "Very good starting PG capable of making 1 or 2 allstar games". (thats too much). Though 88% said he could be very good and under. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=167912&page=1&pp=20 I searched the names "Nash", "Billups", and "Rondo" in this thread and it doesnt come up that much. One person said Lowry will be better than those guys as A JOKE http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5830131&postcount=61 That doesnt seem like Clutchfans Gone Crazy to me, but I wont claim to know all what people have said.
but Daryl Morey thinks that Lowry is the #1 player on the rockets. how dumb is that guy right? he does not have access to all these advanced statistics that we CF members have access to.
hes probably one of the best nba2k players out there no denying that. I can't imagine a person being ignorant enough to say that he can summarize a player's worth on numbers alone.
Sure, there are varying degrees of effectiveness, but I have yet to see a "20-10" guy who is BAD player. It's very difficult to do and I'd say any of those players are good. He's no Tim Duncan but if you think Zach Randolph hasn't been a major contributor to Memphis' "success" then you're crazy.
I don't think Lowry is the next Kidd. I think Kidd proves that you don't need to be a lights out shooter to be a good PG, so Lowry can be a starting-level PG. Right now I think he's at the level of a starter, and while I think we need a PG upgrade to some degree, it's acceptable enough that it'll work until we fix our other problems.
