THE FAIREST STAT Exactly what I wrote fair for judging a player's shooting ability. FG percentage, makes and misses. What I wrote. Your signature states that stats suck, the conversation turned to field goal percentage before you wrote that. I am saying that field percentage is perfectly acceptable statistic, because you can't twist it around unlike you did to my posts. Its straight forward. Makes and misses. Then you twisted my words as to say I think the center with the best field goal percentage is the best center. I never wrote that, I wrote that fg% is a fair stat, and it should be used in evaluating centers. REIT made a fair point in relation to Ilgaskus, but you totally took my words and twisted them.
pgabriel, i do understand what you're saying. i wouldn't term it as "fair"...more like "simple"...but i understand what you're saying. it shows makes v misses. to me, "makes v misses" in and of itself is useless. and i didn't mean to twist your words so much as to point out that FG% (makes v misses) allows you to conclude absolutely zero about a player's actual skill. it, to me, is a a useless stat.
I understand your point but two things, about field goal percentage in particular, 9 of the 10 ten teams in field goal percentage were playoff teams. Utah, Sacramento, Minnesota, and San Antonio, were the top 4, and I think most of us would contend these were 4 of the more fundamentally sound basketball teams in the league this past season. Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, all shot above 48% for their career. Now, obviously this post has nothing to do with the Stapanias, Catos, or Ilgaskuses of the world, I am only trying to make the point, that good teams and good or should I say winning players shoot higher percentages. Obviously, percentages have gone down across the board in today's league as opposed to when the guys I list played so its relative in that sense. At the same time, I don't think its a stat you can easily dismiss. There is however one exception to this rule as far as players are concerned and he is one glaring ommission from the list.
Everybody, let's put it down. If ever you see verse use ANY kind of statistical info, we can all point our collective finger at him and say: YOU SUCK!! It's easy just brushing off stats and say "it sucks." To me, it's just a convenient way to avoid responsible argument. If you don't agree with what the stats indicate, you'll have to explain how a certain player achieves those numbers. I don't think anybody is saying that you can judge a player simply by looking at the numbers. But numbers aren't as meaningless as you make it to be. The thing is, it's the only objective measurement. All the other stuff is just you-say I-say. You say A is better than B by watching them play. I say B is better than A by watching them play. So who's right and who's wrong? How do you prove it?
Easy (like sunday morning).... prove to me that JYD (jerome williams) is a better player than chris gatling, using stats. by the #s, iirc, gatling is superior. yet anyone who has seen a fair amount of games where JYD or gatling played will readily tell you who the better player is. i'm not anti-stat to the extreme. i do look at things like scoring average, rebounds, etc., because they are interesting. but i would NEVER put those #s into an evaluation of a player. there are far too many variables that can skew those #s. for example, the rockets, by the #s were a very, very good defensive team last year. #7 or something like that in FG%, iirc. but i'd never call last years team a good defensive club. why? because our backcourt allowed waaaay too much penetration (namely steve), we were always susceptible to the p-n-r (classic rudy), and we were not very good at stopping the paint bruisers. none of those things, however, can be accurately reflected in statistics. those are the things that i am interested in, as a fan of the game. i want to see players play. i want to know that the reason cato's FG% is so high is because he blows half his dunks. i want to know that the reason gatling blows is because he never passes the damn ball. i want to know that steve is a horrid defender, despite being in the top 10 in steals. i want to know that gary payton's defense is nowhere near what it used to be, despite being top 10 steals, nba all-defensive yadda yadda. and stats, imo, do nothing to assist me in achieving my objectives. they are the "cliff clavins" of basketball. interesting, yet ultimately useless information....
Trade cato to a team of cap space... get a second round in return... sign vladimir stepania... Personally i like cato and would like to keep him.... I would love playing him power forward next to yao... Its all great.
It doesn't really matter. You think teams would rather have their C taking high % shots, or jumpers? If Stepania COULD average 50%, don't you think he would? Fact of the matter is, Cato is WAY better than Stepania on defense, while Stepania is BARELY better than Stepania. If you don't remember, Cato can hit the 15ft jumper with great consistency. He can dunk on you. He can grab alley oops. Kelvin Cato is a better player than Vladimir Stepania. The fact that he sticks to what he does best (easy shots) means he's smart, and doesn't take low % shots like Stepania. Kelvin Cato is an average NBA starter at C. He's nowhere near great, but he's nowhere near horrible. He's just decent. He'll grab you 10 rebounds, block a couple of shots, and score off putbacks, alley oops, and open dunks in 30 minutes. Minnesotta could not offer Kandi more than the MCE, and they in fact did NOT offer Nesterovic more money, which is why Nesterovic bolted to the Spurs. They offered him more years, because they're 100% on who he is, and what he can be. Bringing in Kandi, who's character has been questioned, no **** they won't give him mroe than 6 years. The beauty of opinion is such that, San Antonio may think Nesterovic is better, and Minnesotta may think Kandi is better. I may think Brad Miller is better than all. Just because YOU think that Nesterovic is better than Kandi, and THINK that Minny or San Antonio preffered him, doesn't make it so. I think that San Antonio didn't like Kandi as much as Nesterovic, because he'd take way more touches in the post. I think that Minny went to Kandi as a last resort, and found that "hey, this guy's willing to talk". Does that make it right? No. But it sure makes a compelling case that no one can disprove but the Minnesotta Timberwolves organization.
Having said that, I'd gladly trade Cato for a starter at another position. However, I think it's silly to think that Stepania can come in and be as effective as Cato was in hsi minutes.
This is ABSURD When has he ever played 30 minutes or averaged 10 rebounds? You are making this sh*t up. he has NEVER done this. 100% contradiction. "Bringing in Kandi, who's character has been questioned,No *** they won't give him more than 6 years" "and Minnesotta may think Kandi is better. " Let me get this straight. Minnesota thinks Kandi is better but only offered him a 3 year deal versus a 7 year deal for Nesterovic. That is absurd.
verse, It's a lot harder to judge individual defense than offense by numbers. You know why? Because there are far fewer defesive statistical categories than offensive categories. I agree that you can't tell whether you can say a player is a good defender by just looking at his steals and blocked shots. Scoring average and rebound etc. are not just "interesting." They do tell you something. Of course, you can always give examples of extreme exceptions by pointing to some out-of-context numbers. (You do know that you can't just look at one category and make conclusion, don't you.) But as I say, you still need to give explanation how those numbers come about. If the Rockets were such a poor defensive team, how did they get those numbers? You never give any explanations. Why were teams shooting bad against us? Did they get dizzy because of the ugly pajamas? You said Cato's fg% is because all his shots were dunks. Then how come Stepania didn't dunk? Do you think getting into position where you can dunk is also an offensive skill? Is Shaq a poor offensive player because he never scores from more than 7 feet? So what if he missed half of the dunks? (I'm pretty sure that was an exaggeration. But I grant it just for argument's sake.) Is it worse than missing 60% of other kinds of shots? The fact is, Cato could score the same amount of points with far less shots than Stepania. Who is the better offensive player? Or maybe you think style counts for your player evaluation. Stepania misses his shots beautifully while Cato makes his uglily, so the former must be better. For the record, I am not a Cato fan. And I don't think he is a "stud." But to put Cato on the same level as Stepania, as RIET did, is just ignoring the facts.
off topic,but,Dream's FG% is all the more impressive when you consider his points came with teams gearing up to stop him...also many 15-20 foot j's..Cato throws down jams mostly,but has a little range. For him it's all between the ears..If he's right and stays motivated,he can play 30 - 40 for someone.His production was consistently big albeit in short minutes.I agree that we can't afford to deal him yet,as he backs up Yao and the 4(gives us quite a bit of versatility).That 7 mil a year will look sweet to someone if they get a focused Cato...and I would imagine JVG,Ewing,and the prospect of starting somewhere should give him sufficient motivation to TCB.It was mentioned before,but a team in the East would pay plenty.
RIET, This discussion will not end because both of our views are based on opinion. We reached a point in this conversation where each has what the other has to say, and I've come to an understanding that your opinion will not change my opinion, and my opinion will not change yours. Thanks for your time anyway.
Cato is not a good or even average starting caliber of center, he failed in this role. He is however a very good back-up center or servicable starter who can give you 20 some minutes of a defesive/physical presence (which some teams do lack). However it is not worth it to pay 7 mil for a very good back-up center when he have a great young center who will only consume more and more C minutes over time and have such gaping holes in terms of lack of starter quality players in both forward spots. He is a luxury we cannot afford when have missing neccesities (like an NBA caliber starting 3 or starting 4). I do think we would be much better serviced if we could trade Cato to upgrade our 3 or 4 spot and then sign a guy like Stepania. Cato is better than Stepania--but the difference they will give over the 12 minutes or so you eventually will want them to play does not come close to be worth their salary differential. If there is an EC team in depserate need for a defensive center that would provide an adequate return for Cato (Milw, Boston, Mia, NY, Atl, Phil?) by all means we should do it. No 12-15 MPG player is worth that kind of money when you have great holes in your line-up elsewhere.
If you're analyzing whether or not to trade Kelvin Cato from this point forward, he's making about $8 million for the next 3 years. That's why I don't think anyone will take him now.
Dude you want him to play the 4? The guy is a center. I dont think he can keep up with the likes of Ducan, Garnett, Witzski, Brand and many more. Cato cant gaurd people out on the perimeter and he'll be usless on the offensive end. People will leave the guy wide open and double team Yao. CAto is an awesome complimet to Yao. But for 8 million a year? I say we trade Cato for someone like Eric Montross.
Of course you might be right, but it is still worth exploring with Milw, Mia, Boston, Atl, Orl or Phily. I'd consider taking a similarly bad contract/contracts for a guy/guys who are also overpayed but are still good enough to plug a major hole in our team. How about? Eric Williams + Mark Blount for Cato Tim Thomas for Cato + Mooch D Mason + Caffey for Cato B. Grant for Cato + Mooch Ratliff for Cato + Mooch. McKie + Buckner or Delembret + Clancy for Cato Basically in each case we present Cato--a defensive true center they really could use even if he is overpriced, for a bad contract and a surplus player they have in a position (3 or 4) we are fairly desperate in. It could be a win-win all around as all teams more even spread their big money contracts to better cover their critical needs.
