PDA

View Full Version : Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?



Y2J
07-10-2007, 07:01 AM
People are always raving about Granger and Shawne, but what about Ike? I think he has the tools to be better than both of them. His career per-minute numbers are sick and John Hollinger thinks he's a future star, so why do we underrate him so much?

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1715/ikenf9.png

You can use the excuse that he's only 6'8", yet he's still a career 50%+ shooter and a good rebounder. His defense might not be great, but he's a solid shot blocker and has shown the desire to play defense. He gets to the line a lot, and he makes it count, as he's a fantastic 80% free throw shooter. His only glaring flaws are his turnovers and to a lesser extent his fouling. But remember - he's a big man who's played 2 seasons in the NBA. He's far from a finished product. Yet per-minute he's already putting up star numbers.

So what's stopping Ike from being a future 20/10 guy?

travmil
07-10-2007, 07:33 AM
I hate the use of per minute stats to "project" what a guy would do with more playing time. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Anthony Johnson's per minute stats are off the charts.

NPFII
07-10-2007, 07:38 AM
Personally - I dont see it.

He's not smart enough. He can't pass to save his life, and his defense both man-to-man and help-D is flawed at best.

I dont think those are aspects that can be ammended over time. I just dont see it.

Then again there's Zach Randolph... and Eddy Curry... ouch!

Y2J
07-10-2007, 07:44 AM
Per-minute stats are usually very accurate indicators of a players ability. As I've said, go back and look at stars when they were still youngsters on the bench, and you'll see the vast majority put up great per-minute numbers. There's no valid reason to think Ike couldn't keep up his production over 35 minutes per game.

Rajah Brown
07-10-2007, 07:44 AM
I'm not nearly as high on Ike as many seem to be. But I could be wrong.
He could be a 20/10 guy at some point. But the real question is
wether he can do it on a 55-60 win team ? Putting up 'numbers'
on a team that sucks is meaningless.

I see Ike the way I saw Harrington. He's the ideal go-to-guy in the post
on the 'second unit'.

Y2J
07-10-2007, 07:53 AM
Personally - I dont see it.

He's not smart enough. He can't pass to save his life, and his defense both man-to-man and help-D is flawed at best.

I dont think those are aspects that can be ammended over time. I just dont see it.

Then again there's Zach Randolph... and Eddy Curry... ouch!

Zach's a great player who has a bad attitude. If Ike can duplicate his scoring and rebounding, with his willingness to play defense and great attitude, then he's our franchise player for the next decade.

The Eddy Curry comparison is bad.

skyfire
07-10-2007, 08:00 AM
There is a certain level of 'cant be taught' in the skill of great defenders. But an average defender with the right physical attributes and willingness to improve can become a good defender.

With the way that the NBA has become focused on perimeter players in recent years, I think requires a very smart big man to be the primary scoring option on a succesful team.

I'm not sure if Ike will become a 20/10 player, but I think he could definately be a starting PF.

Unclebuck
07-10-2007, 08:15 AM
I really don't know. He has something that you cannot teach - the ability to score the ball - and not just in the low post - we'll see this season how good his face up jumper is out to about 15 ft.

His defense baffles me from time to time. But he's played under 3 different head coaches in 2 seasons and 3 very different coaches and very different systems. it also appears to me that he is a little slow in learning things. But I'm hopefull that the OB/Harter defensive system will help him. it isn't an easy system to learn - but one good thing is that it is the same every game, so once it is learned he should be OK. We'll see if he ever acquires the instincts needed to play good defense.

Ike seems like a good guy who will not embarass the franchise (Carlisle made several unsolicited comments last season about how Ike is a very hard worker and a very popular guy with his teammates - his teammates like to see him play well)- but Ike is a quiet guy by nature. Overall I like Ike he seem to have a quiet determination that I like.

Can he be a 20/10 - I suppose he could on a really bad team where Ike is the main offensive player.

Skaut_Ech
07-10-2007, 08:24 AM
I'm really mixed about Ike. I try to not to fall into the "potential" trap with him. I see a guy with some pretty impressive footwork on offense and the ability to play with his back to the basket, but then, I wonder about the true stopping point to him being a really strong player and that's the old basketball IQ bugaboo.

Nelson made some references to Ike just not "getting it", but then Nelson sometimes rides a player to see if he'll step up. Was it Ike not getting Don's system, or does IKe have some fundamental problems? We've mentioned on here how Ike seemed to have some problems with his spacing on both ends of the floor as a Pacer. So is it a guy needing to get familiar with a system, or something more?

The guy is such an X-factor. Right now I just don't see him being a 20/10 guy, despite my initial enthusiasm about him. Right now the best comparision I can see about him is that I can see him being another Clarence Weatherspoon.

Unclebuck
07-10-2007, 08:33 AM
The guy is such an X-factor. Right now I just don't see him being a 20/10 guy, despite my initial enthusiasm about him. Right now the best comparision I can see about him is that I can see him being another Clarence Weatherspoon.

Really? I have little higher hopes for Ike, but I see a valid comparison there. Weatherspoon wasn't terrible

able
07-10-2007, 08:41 AM
Ike is to small to "make" IT as PF, the trouble he got in every time he got doubled was outright scary and he has some nice attributes, but not enough to become "elite".
20-10 is not an everyday occurrence, despite what some here seem to think when they write about it, just tell me how many players do so in the league and the number in itself tells you it is "elite".

Ike will be better "servicable" then Al, simply because of his attitude (if we can believe what is written about that) and only if he keeps that attitude.
But he will never be "elite".

Probably a very good #6 and a "decent" starter.

One of the main reasons "per minute" stats are useless is that they are with "low minute players" "deceiptfull" because once that player gets more minutes he will also see more attention from defense and perhaps even double teams, can he then "still" score? We know Ike gets into trouble.

Yes they are "correct" for the "elite" but that is hindsight, take the other 100's of role players with "more minutes" and look at their 1st 2 -3 years and you will see often the same "great" per minute numbers.

Anthem
07-10-2007, 08:45 AM
I'm with able on this one... we take 20-10 for granted because of JO, but it's actually quite rare. Ike may turn into a good player, but his ceiling just isn't that high. It would be easier if he was 3-5 inches taller, but then those are the breaks.

Danny Granger and Shawne Williams are taller than Ike.

OakMoses
07-10-2007, 09:03 AM
Ike is to small to "make" IT as PF

Elton Brand - 6'8" - 20.3 pts, 10.4 rebs (Career)
Charles Barkley - 6'5" - 22.1 pts, 11.7 rebs (Career)
Zach Randolph - 6'9" - 23.6 pts, 10 rebs (06-07)
Carlos Boozer - 6'9" - 20.9 pts, 11.7 rebs (06-07)
Antawn Jamison - 6'9" - 19.4 pts, 7.6 rebs (Career)
Shawn Marion - 6'7" - 18.6 pts, 10.0 rebs (Career)

Ike is not too short to play PF.

We all know he's not Barkley, but I don't see anything that physically separates Ike from any of these guys. Certain guys have certain traits that are better, but he could potentially learn to be as good as any of these guys. His major hold-ups so far have been mental. He looks like a guy who's never really been taught how to do anything but score. Even when he rebounds he does it with his athletic ability and will rather than by using technique.

It sounds like the O'Brien-Harter combo may be perfect for Ike as they seem to focus on hands-on teaching of the little things. With some solid instruction and some consistent playing time, I see no reason why Ike couldn't be a 16/7 guy next year who could improve to a 18-20/10 guy with a couple 30+ mpg years and some good coaching.

I hate the assumption that one or two inches of height is a determining factor in a guys career. It's not. Strength, athletic ability, and a desire to get better by learning/being coached are much bigger factors for PF's than height. Ike has the 1st two attributes in spades, I'm just hoping he can show that he's ready to learn to take the next step.

Y2J
07-10-2007, 09:06 AM
Guy's shorter than Ike have had greater production than what I'm predicting he's capable of. Charles Barkley for example. Now I'm not predicting Ike to be the next Barkley, but if a guy 6'5" can become an MVP (while Jordan's in his prime no less), than a guy 6'8" can become a very good to great starting PF. Elton Brand is also listed as 6'8", and I'd say he's made it. With a little work, I see no reason why Ike can't be as productive as Elton.

As for J.O., J.O.'s not even a great scorer, he never has been. I believe Ike will be a better scorer than J.O., and possibly as good a rebounder. He'll of course never be the defender, but he has shown a willingness to at least attempt to play defense (which is one reason why he's foul prone) which is something bums like Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph have yet to do. His passing out of double teams needs worked on, but he's played 2 seasons in the NBA, give the guy some time. If we keep J.O., I wouldn't object to starting both he and Ike together.

Speed
07-10-2007, 09:34 AM
I think he has Allstar ceiling, to be honest. I think when he gets it, and I think its right, it will take some experience, but I think he will be completely unstoppable. He shows flashes of this now. He's way strong for his build, he can knock down the 17 footer all day, he can get to the line because he really tough to guard one on one. Just like JO he's bad at seeing the double come and bad at passing out of the double, even though JO finally got it this last year, sort of. He also has to understand his match up, he tries to muscle 7 footers and gets stuffed, he needs to take them out away from the basket and hit that jumper or make a hgih post move. Yes he's limited defensively, but he is long armed and athletic and probably the strongest guy on the team outside clueless Hulk. All that means you can be a good defender. Lastly, I think the Want to is there or at least seems to be. If they do ship JO somewhere that would be my favorite thing to see Ike HAVE to play 39 mins a night or foul out trying.

naptownmenace
07-10-2007, 09:52 AM
Diogu was known as a scorer in college and averged 22 ppg his sophomore and senior seasons. He scored in double figures in all 91 collegiate games played, surpassing the 30-point mark 11 times and the 20-point mark 50 times. He also shot 57% average for his entire college career and 38% from the 3pt line. Offensively, he has range out to 20 feet and he can bull his way to the basket like Charles Barkley.

I wouldn't be surprised if he were to average 20 points per game if he played 35 minutes a game and shot about 14 times a game. Could he do that this season as a starter? If JO is traded, it's very possible - 16 ppg I could definitely see happening. It is his 3rd season and for players that came into the league from college usually make their first big jump of improvement in their 3rd season. I think he has the potential to be a better scorer than JO but not a better defender.

Ike has shown glimpses of good defense against Shaq and in the game against San Antonio (he pulled down 13 boards in that game). If he can learn to hold his position and not fall for pump-fakes, he could be a good defender. He picked up a lot of his fouls on help defense. If we can improve our porous perimeter defense he won't pick up as many fouls.

I definitely think he could be a good PF player, better than Al Harrington possibly. The Clarence Witherspoon comparison is a good one.

GrangerRanger
07-10-2007, 09:55 AM
Ike will be good. I watched him come in against Memphis and San Antinio last year. He dominated against Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol. Two premier big men. Although I watched every game that Ike played for the Pacers last year, I also got to catch some of his action the past few years and the 28 games in Golden State.

Do I think he'll be a legit 20/10 guy? Nah. He's too short to grab a consistant ammount of boards every night. But, I do see him starting for us and scoring above twenty. Though, I hope to god he won't turn out to be a Zach and average like what? 1 assist a game.

avoidingtheclowns
07-10-2007, 10:04 AM
Personally - I dont see it.

He's not smart enough. He can't pass to save his life, and his defense both man-to-man and help-D is flawed at best.

I dont think those are aspects that can be ammended over time. I just dont see it.

Then again there's Zach Randolph... and Eddy Curry... ouch!


I really don't know. He has something that you cannot teach - the ability to score the ball - and not just in the low post - we'll see this season how good his face up jumper is out to about 15 ft.

His defense baffles me from time to time. But he's played under 3 different head coaches in 2 seasons and 3 very different coaches and very different systems. it also appears to me that he is a little slow in learning things. But I'm hopefull that the OB/Harter defensive system will help him. it isn't an easy system to learn - but one good thing is that it is the same every game, so once it is learned he should be OK. We'll see if he ever acquires the instincts needed to play good defense.

i think the fact about playing in so many systems that are so different in just two seasons would contribute to his being slow learning. i'm not ready to write the guy off yet in that dept. i think ike getting a coaching staff that he'll play for more than half a season will help.

another major point about diogu: he played several years of college sure but at the time the only other dominant big in the pac-10 was channing frye (who ike beat up on). he didn't have great coaching in college and has been tossed through several systems. then add to the fact that he never got practice going against elite bigs in college and i can't imagine he faced much competition in HS. so there is a learning curve. the guy has natural offensive ability pouring out of him... he has some major flaws like passing out of double-teams and defense which are all compounded by his being shorter for the PF.

i think ike has a lot of great tools and he has a coaching staff that likes to teach the fundamentals (as we've read from defensive hand position to screens ... one would imagine passing out of double teams to get to open 3pt shooters would be important to o'brien) and defense. so even though i'm not entirely sure where o'briens offensive system leaves ike (or JO for that matter) i think the qualities that o'brien brings (as well as harter's defense) will be very important to ike. this is one reason i'm disappointed he isn't practicing with granger and williams and the FA/rookies. i admire going back to finish his degree, but this i think it would have been important to ike's development.


I think he has Allstar ceiling, to be honest.

with your avy i would never have guessed...


I think when he gets it, and I think its right, it will take some experience, but I think he will be completely unstoppable. He shows flashes of this now. He's way strong for his build, he can knock down the 17 footer all day, he can get to the line because he really tough to guard one on one. Just like JO he's bad at seeing the double come and bad at passing out of the double, even though JO finally got it this last year, sort of. He also has to understand his match up, he tries to muscle 7 footers and gets stuffed, he needs to take them out away from the basket and hit that jumper or make a hgih post move. Yes he's limited defensively, but he is long armed and athletic and probably the strongest guy on the team outside clueless Hulk. All that means you can be a good defender. Lastly, I think the Want to is there or at least seems to be. If they do ship JO somewhere that would be my favorite thing to see Ike HAVE to play 39 mins a night or foul out trying.

i can't entirely see what ike's ceiling is, weatherspoon seems somewhat appropriate at the moment. one reason i wanted to see charles oakley come in was to try and improve the defensive toughness and maybe ike would emerge as a barkley-esque talent (he already has the size and scoring capacity). but i think we should try to get some type of big man coach (not necessarily a kareem or elite but someone competent) so work with ike on scoring over bigs. he has a high release which is good but still needs some work.

ultimately i'm more optimistic about ike than i am shawne.

Trader Joe
07-10-2007, 10:15 AM
I don't see it from Ike. If he explodes I'll be happy, but like Able brought up the reason I fear to fall into the trap of loving Ike's per 48 stats is because Ike's biggest problems occur when he gets more attention. He is a horrible decision maker right now and really needs to work on that if he is ever going to be a consistent player in this league. I think Ike's ceiling is probably something like 15 and 6 or 15 and 8 which isn't bad by any stretch, but I definetely don't think he has the ability to become a 20 and 10 player.

FlavaDave
07-10-2007, 10:44 AM
I might be the only person left in Indy that still likes the Golden State deal. But I do, and Ike is the reason.

I feel like we acquired Carlos Boozer. I would put money on him having at least one 20/10 season. I see him as more of an 18/10 guy.

ChicagoJ
07-10-2007, 10:46 AM
Per-minute stats are usually very accurate indicators of a players ability.

No they aren't.

If players can stay on the floor, and not lose effectiveness, they stay on the floor.

I like Ike. I don't see how he fits into JO'B's offense, however. He's not interchangable with the SF, so he's either the backup C (and that's fine, if he and JO are the two C's we could do worse) or out of the rotation. But he's a bit small, he's way too mechanical, and needs to be more instinctive.

He's got a surprising slow release, and he's late to get into position.

I like what he can do, but I'm worried that he may plateau at "first big man off the bench". Which is where Antonio Davis should've plateuaed but he wanted to see if he could be a starter somewhere.

ChicagoJ
07-10-2007, 10:49 AM
I'm not nearly as high on Ike as many seem to be. But I could be wrong.
He could be a 20/10 guy at some point. But the real question is
wether he can do it on a 55-60 win team ? Putting up 'numbers'
on a team that sucks is meaningless.

I see Ike the way I saw Harrington. He's the ideal go-to-guy in the post
on the 'second unit'.

Ditto.

MagicRat
07-10-2007, 10:56 AM
It would be easier if he was 3-5 inches taller, but then those are the breaks.

Danny Granger and Shawne Williams are taller than Ike.

Ike has freakishly long arms that make up for it, though.....

ajbry
07-10-2007, 11:16 AM
Any prediction based SOLELY on speculative extrapolation ain't valid in my book.

Ike isn't a bad player, but I honestly think his ceiling is 15 and 8, as I've stated before. Good scorer and the 3rd option on a medicore team. Anything more would be overachieving.

FlavaDave
07-10-2007, 11:20 AM
Here are the per 48's of Pacer's big men in their second season, along with their career highs in each category (sometimes not with the Pacers; career highs not per 48 minutes):


Antonio Davis: 15.58, 13.12 / 14.5, 10.1
Jermaine O'Neal: 15.75, 11.9 / 24.3, 10.5
Rik Smits: 24.8, 9.92 / 18.5, 7.7
Dale Davis: 15.13, 14.96 / 11.7, 10.9
Erick Dampier: 17.46, 12.88 / 12.3, 12.0
Jeff Foster: 10.5, 16.5 / 7.0, 9.1



Take that as you will. I realize that the career averages are skewed in relation to the per 48 because of playing time, but we are discussing whether or not per 48 minute stats are an indicator of future success.

SoupIsGood
07-10-2007, 11:28 AM
I like Ike. I think our future is with him starting as one of our big men, either beside JO or in his spot.

I think most of us are down on him because of how he played here. I don't think he played very well as a Pacer and I think it's because he had a hard time adjusting mid-season. I mean he shot 45% as a Pacer, and that just ain't like him. I expect him to really perform next year.

ChicagoJ
07-10-2007, 12:11 PM
Here are the per 48's of Pacer's big men in their second season, along with their career highs in each category (sometimes not with the Pacers; career highs not per 48 minutes):


Antonio Davis: 15.58, 13.12 / 14.5, 10.1
Jermaine O'Neal: 15.75, 11.9 / 24.3, 10.5
Rik Smits: 24.8, 9.92 / 18.5, 7.7
Dale Davis: 15.13, 14.96 / 11.7, 10.9
Erick Dampier: 17.46, 12.88 / 12.3, 12.0
Jeff Foster: 10.5, 16.5 / 7.0, 9.1



Take that as you will. I realize that the career averages are skewed in relation to the per 48 because of playing time, but we are discussing whether or not per 48 minute stats are an indicator of future success.

I'd love Dampier's 17 and 13.

Hell, I'd seetle for a double-double from Jeff Foster, since he's never exactly averaged a double in either category.

But then again, Foster can't stay on the court because he gets pushed around.

David Harrison's per-48 stats are nice too, but his per-48 fouls are astronomical and he can't stay on the court.

Per-48 is about as useful as a tarot card for indicating future performance.

Slick Pinkham
07-10-2007, 12:19 PM
It might be rather unlikely that JO is a 20-10 player ever again, since he's done it twice* in 7 years as a starter, but not in the past 3 years


*twice since you can "round-up" of rpg from 9.97 rpg to 10.0 for 2003-2004 season, only once if you don't round up


I think it is unlikely that Ike will get there, but he is a good prospect

Hicks
07-10-2007, 03:06 PM
Is it really so awful if he's not 20/10? I've seen this from many, many posters for the past 7 years and it makes less sense to me each time. The Pacers get someone new, young, or both, and we all sit around wondering if he'll be a star. What's wrong with just being a good player on a good team? Jeff Foster isn't a star. Al Harrington wasn't a start (first time or second), Jalen Rose wasn't a star. Dale Davis wasn't a star (or Antonio).

My point is, you can have quality players with significant roles in making your team win a lot of games without them being a star or being able to do everything (shoot/pass/defend/rebound/etc) well, and the reason I'm mentioning it is I think too many seem to get caught up in this "star or crap" debate about players (I'm exaggerating) instead of being happy with what they do and what they can do, instead of worrying about what they can't do and can't become.

With Ike Diogu, I'd be thrilled if he could give us 12-15 points and 6-8 rebounds per game off the bench on a winning team. That's a good player.

I have more to say on this, but it'll get lost here.

naptown
07-10-2007, 03:13 PM
Great post Hicks!!

Dr. Goldfoot
07-10-2007, 03:48 PM
Here are the per 48's of Pacer's big men in their second season, along with their career highs in each category (sometimes not with the Pacers; career highs not per 48 minutes):


Antonio Davis: 15.58, 13.12 / 14.5, 10.1
Jermaine O'Neal: 15.75, 11.9 / 24.3, 10.5
Rik Smits: 24.8, 9.92 / 18.5, 7.7
Dale Davis: 15.13, 14.96 / 11.7, 10.9
Erick Dampier: 17.46, 12.88 / 12.3, 12.0
Jeff Foster: 10.5, 16.5 / 7.0, 9.1



Take that as you will. I realize that the career averages are skewed in relation to the per 48 because of playing time, but we are discussing whether or not per 48 minute stats are an indicator of future success.

Only one of those guys ever reached their second year per 48 numbers in their career. JO has reached that scoring level but none of them have reached their rebound numbers and that's their career best's.

Travis Best was never an 18 and 8 player.
Dale Davis was never a 15 and 15 guy.
Brad Miller was never a 21 and 15 guy.
Kenny Williams was never a 21 and 15 guy.
Fred Hoiberg was never an 18 and 7 boards! guy.
Remember Sean Green his rookie numbers put him in the 26 ppg, 8 boards and 4 ast range he ended his career with 85 rebounds 45 assists and 352 points in 84 games over 3 seasons.


Most players never come close to what a per 48 would suggest. Ike will never be a 20/10 guy. There are only a handful of players in that range.

Swingman
07-10-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm with able on this one... we take 20-10 for granted because of JO, but it's actually quite rare. Ike may turn into a good player, but his ceiling just isn't that high. It would be easier if he was 3-5 inches taller, but then those are the breaks.

Danny Granger and Shawne Williams are taller than Ike.

People put too much value in a couple inches.

We already know Ike is good on offense so don't need to debate his height on that side of the court.

On defense, there are many things more important than a couple inches. Timing, strength, moving your feet and IQ are all more important than a few inches IMO. The only time height would really be a big problem for Ike is when he is matched up against 7 foot or taller players. Although I think he could still do well if he played strong defense and didn't give up good position.

My biggest concern with Ike is whether or not he actually fits the new direction of the pacers.

Hoop
07-10-2007, 04:17 PM
I like Ike and think he can be a good player, but he will never be a 20/10 guy.... ever. It has nothing to do with his height, he just ain't that good.

ChicagoJ
07-10-2007, 05:18 PM
Only one of those guys ever reached their second year per 48 numbers in their career. JO has reached that scoring level but none of them have reached their rebound numbers and that's their career best's.

Travis Best was never an 18 and 8 player.
Dale Davis was never a 15 and 15 guy.
Brad Miller was never a 21 and 15 guy.
Kenny Williams was never a 21 and 15 guy.
Fred Hoiberg was never an 18 and 7 boards! guy.
Remember Sean Green his rookie numbers put him in the 26 ppg, 8 boards and 4 ast range he ended his career with 85 rebounds 45 assists and 352 points in 84 games over 3 seasons.


Most players never come close to what a per 48 would suggest. Ike will never be a 20/10 guy. There are only a handful of players in that range.

I was going to mention Sean Green, but since (a) the original post only considered big men, and (b) only about seven or eight of us actually watched Sean Green play, I figured I shouldn't.

Remember his tomahawk dunk over Hot Rod Williams? Wow. I'd love a poster of that.

JayRedd
07-10-2007, 05:18 PM
Most players never come close to what a per 48 would suggest.

Most players don't play 48 mpg either.

I understand why some of you think the extrapolation stats are pointless. I believe they have merit in many cases, but I'd also urge those of you that are interested to use the "per 40" stats (use www.basketball-reference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com)). Only a handful of guys in the league ever average more than 40 mpg, so using these give you a little better insight into what you could expect if the player was a starter getting what most starters get (around 35 mpg in my estimate).

For a lot of established players, per-40 stats are indeed meaningless. Jeff Foster's per-40 stats, for instance, say he's one of the best rebounders in the game (which is true). But the notion that he could get 13-14 rebounds in a game for a team on a night-to-night basis is absurd because no quality team could play such a one-dimensial player that many minutes in a night. Other guys per-40s also lack substance because they could never play that much for stamina reasons. Yao, while very good, will likely never be able to handle 40 mpg in the NBA. So while the 29.6 points/40 and 11.1 rebounds/40 he posted in his break-through season last year are nice, they are probably never achievable.

Where the per-40 stats become more of a useful tool are for guys who have shown a lot of potential, but for whatever reason are stuck in bench roles. Often, it's because there just aren't any minutes to go around on a quality team, or because they are just a young'n buried by a coach who prefers to play his vets.

Chauncey Billups (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html) is a good representation. He was run out of Boston for whatever reason and never really handed the reigns in Minny or Denver. But when he went to Detroit and got the minutes, he put up essentially what his rookie per-40s said he could.

Or look at Monta Ellis' rookie year (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellismo01.html). Stuck behind too many guards his rookie year, he only got 18 mpg. The next year, he got almost twice that and put up even better than his rookie per-40s would have suggested.

The JO case shows how you can see good per-40s to evaluate low mpg talent as well. He showed definite potential to be an above-average scorer and rebounder despite hovering around the 10 mpg mark during his time in Portland. The year before we got him, his per-40s were 12.7 points and 10.7 boards. And when he got here, he ended up exceeding those numbers in his first season by scoring 12.9 points and getting 9.8 boards per game in only 32.6 minutes a night. The next year, he got 5 more minutes a night and become a much bigger part of the offense (5 more shots per night), and upped his productivity by 6 points a night. In JO's case, he proved even more productive.


Look, I know there are hundreds of examples yall could come up with the other way too. I'm just saying that "extrapolation stats" are not entirely useless and are best applied to guys who are capable of playing 35+mpg in this League, but just haven't been given the opportunity.

Of course, you have to properly analyze them and weigh the expectations with the individual situations instead of just assuming the guy would do that with more minutes, and using them in an argument doesn't "prove" anything about a guy's future.

But like peripheral stats in baseball, they can be useful in projecting a player's potential ability.

--------------------------------

For the record, here are some of the per-40 stats for the Pacers yall brought up:

Antonio Davis' per-40s in his 2nd season predicted 13 points and 11 boards. The first year he got anything close to that (35 mpg in Toronto in 01-02) he put up 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg.

Smits (who really fits into the Yao category of "couldn't physically handle 40 mpg") put up 2nd Year per-40s: 21.1 points and 8.5 boards. In the two seasons he played (barely) over 30 mpg, he gave us around 18 ppg and 7 rpg, which is about what we could have expected from his 2nd year per-40s.

Dale Davis had 2nd-year per-40s of 12.8 & 12.8. The next season he put up 12.9 & 11.7 in 34 mpg.

Brad Miller had 2nd Year per-40s of 17.6 & 12.2. The first year he got major run (in Sacto with 36 mpg) he put up 14.1 & 10.3.

FlavaDave
07-10-2007, 05:38 PM
A bunch of logical awesomeness.......



Great post. I was thinking of calculating the per 40's, but I got lazy. Didn't know basketballreference did that for me. Sweet.

Is there a place on the site where those stats are sortable? I didn't find it.

For reference sake, last year Ike Diogu's per 40 line was this:

19.3/10.7/1.4/48% FG/80% FT

Not too shabby.

spreedom
07-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Any prediction based SOLELY on speculative extrapolation ain't valid in my book.


You're really good at sounding smart by using big words when much smaller ones would be better.

Hicks
07-10-2007, 06:08 PM
Great post. I was thinking of calculating the per 40's, but I got lazy. Didn't know basketballreference did that for me. Sweet.

Is there a place on the site where those stats are sortable? I didn't find it.

For reference sake, last year Ike Diogu's per 40 line was this:

19.3/10.7/1.4/48% FG/80% FT

Not too shabby.

Now this and JayRedd's post have me intrigued at what Ike could do with minutes. But I don't know if I see him being a 40mpg player. Maybe 30. What would his numbers be in 30mpg?

Naptown_Seth
07-10-2007, 06:20 PM
Yes they are "correct" for the "elite" but that is hindsight, take the other 100's of role players with "more minutes" and look at their 1st 2 -3 years and you will see often the same "great" per minute numbers.
I agree. I love stats and see that per minute is very useful, but it has limits. As Able says there are plenty of guys who have great P48, not just the stars.

Big Smooth
07-10-2007, 06:37 PM
Future 20/10 guy? No, I don't see it for reasons already mentioned.

ajbry
07-10-2007, 06:49 PM
You're really good at sounding smart by using big words when much smaller ones would be better.

That's cool, but next time you might want to tell somebody who gives a ****.

JayRedd
07-10-2007, 07:57 PM
I was thinking of calculating the per 40's, but I got lazy. Didn't know basketballreference did that for me. Sweet.

Is there a place on the site where those stats are sortable? I didn't find it.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any site that has all the per-40s sortable in the same place.

You can get sortable Points/40 here for the current season:
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_P40.htm

And NBA.com has the rebounds/40 starting two years ago:
http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Rebounds.jsp?league=00&season=22006&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams

But for points, assists, blocks, etc. everything is only sortable per-48. You think they would do one or the other, but that's the NBA for you, I suppose.

Honestly though, the important thing is that you're essentially comparing everyone on a theoretical "per-minute" basis, so either per-40 or per-48 works for comparison's sake. The only benefit for per-40, really, is that it gives you a rough per-game estimate for high minute players, which makes the numbers a litte more familiar.

I'm mainly offering the per-40 unit because yall started wondering why people weren't hitting their unattainable per-48 numbers.

If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend reading this guy (who's site is really good), who explains the whole reasoning way better than I ever could.

http://www.courtsidetimes.net/articles/21/

Y2J
07-10-2007, 08:11 PM
ANTONIO DAVIS
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3478/antoniouc8.gif



BRAD MILLER
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7661/bradwb2.gif



DIRK NOWITZKI (his rookie season was the nly season he played sub-35 mpg)
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/8255/dirkar9.gif



JERMAINE O'NEAL
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3972/jermaineqc5.gif



KOBE BRYANT
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3885/kobesb9.gif



STEVE NASH
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5157/nashst7.gif


These were just random current stars. They weren't picked out to support my claims. In fact, if anyone has a request for a player's per-35 numbers before they became a star, I'll gladly accept it.

Anthem
07-10-2007, 08:22 PM
Wow. So I went back and read the original post again, and I noticed something I've never noticed before.

After moving from GSW to Indiana, Ike's FG% dropped from .530 to .454. That's in the same season. He didn't magically become a lesser player, so why did his FG% drop so badly? Could it be because of the offense we run? And if so, does this put a new spin on the "Jermaine sucks because he shoots a poor percentage" line I've been hearing for the past six months?

idioteque
07-10-2007, 08:37 PM
I dunno about Ike. I was heavily annoyed that RC didn't give him a consistent place in the rotation last year. His sporadic playing team prevented me from coming to a good conclusion about him, I hope that OB will at least play him consistently so that the curtain will be lifted in regards to whether or not we were completely screwed on the GS deal.

Right now I don't see Ike as a 20/10. I would be very satisfied if he was a 15/8 guy and I would be really disappointed if he was a 12/6. Anything in between that, meh, he's alright.

But I think that he needs to be around a 15/8 or better if the GS trade will ever be justified.

Y2J
07-10-2007, 08:46 PM
Yes, I noticed that about Ike and I attributed it to Carlisle's horrible offensive system. I think that, and lingering injuries is also why JO shot such a horrible percentage. He's never shot a great FG% for a big man, but he was around 47% for his career pre-Rick Carlisle and around 44% during the Carlisle era.

SoupIsGood
07-10-2007, 09:02 PM
Could it be because of the offense we run? And if so, does this put a new spin on the "Jermaine sucks because he shoots a poor percentage" line I've been hearing for the past six months?

Yes and yes.

I liked Rick, but his offensive was like poison to JO's FG%, most the time.

madison
07-10-2007, 09:11 PM
Have any Ike fans actually seen him play? He turns the ball over at a very high rate -- terrible hands, especially in the open court. He doesn't blockout for rebounds and he doesn't play defense with his feet -- I'm not a fan of using block-statistics as a metric for defense -- defense is about keeping a body between the offensive player and the basket. Ike can make a couple of good moves two-feet from the basket and can power his way into a thunder dunk after an offensive rebound once or twice a game against the other team's second team. The sad thing is threads like this just show how starved we are for decent talent. Come on, guys, he's never going to be more than a second stringer on an 8th seed team. Geeze!

Kstat
07-10-2007, 09:27 PM
...maybe the 10 was supposed to be turnovers? :p

MagicRat
07-10-2007, 09:44 PM
Wow. So I went back and read the original post again, and I noticed something I've never noticed before.

After moving from GSW to Indiana, Ike's FG% dropped from .530 to .454. That's in the same season. He didn't magically become a lesser player, so why did his FG% drop so badly? Could it be because of the offense we run? And if so, does this put a new spin on the "Jermaine sucks because he shoots a poor percentage" line I've been hearing for the past six months?

Shirley you're not just now catching on to the fact that Rick's offense stunk?.........

LoneGranger33
07-10-2007, 10:23 PM
Shirley you're not just now catching on to the fact that Rick's offense stunk?.........

I think he's going for another string of Airplane! references...don't humor him!

Kegboy
07-10-2007, 10:26 PM
I think he's going for another string of Airplane! references...don't humor him!

He lost all rights to Airplane! jokes when he replaced his Kareem avatar with that picture of Btown's mom.

Y2J
07-10-2007, 10:28 PM
I don't care what anyone says, Ike is a beast. So what if he's only 6'8" in shoes? The rest of the NBA better be thanking their lucky stars for that because, with his skills and his relentless beast-like mentality, if Ike were 6'10" he'd be one of the most unguardable players in the league, easily. Still at 6'8" he has the tools necessary to be a very good power forward. He works his *** off in the post and has a great shooting touch to boot. He's a good rebounder. Not great, but good. And as I've stated, he has the desire to be good defender, which is as important as anything.



...maybe the 10 was supposed to be turnovers? :p

And this adds to the discussion how? Lots of young big men have had turnover problems, including the reigning MVP. To me, Ike is Jason Maxiell but with actual skill. He has similar size (an inch taller) and the similar bullheaded style of play, but Ike has a ton of offensive skill that Maxiell could only dream of having.

MagicRat
07-10-2007, 10:39 PM
As a Pacer Ike played over 20 minutes 8 times.

In those games he averaged:

Min: 26.63
Pts: 14.38
Reb: 8
Ast: .5
Stl: .38
Blk: .5
TO: 2.25
FG%: 48%
FT%: 80%

Not too shabby. Of course they were 2-6 in those games........

wintermute
07-10-2007, 11:04 PM
late to the discussion, so i'll keep it short. i'm rather partial towards ike, so my answer is "yes" for reasons others have posted


I might be the only person left in Indy that still likes the Golden State deal. But I do, and Ike is the reason.


:buddies:




I like Ike. I don't see how he fits into JO'B's offense, however. He's not interchangable with the SF, so he's either the backup C (and that's fine, if he and JO are the two C's we could do worse) or out of the rotation. But he's a bit small, he's way too mechanical, and needs to be more instinctive.



i share this concern. i really don't see ike as the kind of versatile face-up forward that obie seems to favor. that means he'll have to cut it at center - at 6'8'' and without ben wallace-like leaping ability, that's a bit of a concern.

JayRedd
07-11-2007, 10:36 AM
Have any Ike fans actually seen him play? He turns the ball over at a very high rate -- terrible hands, especially in the open court. He doesn't blockout for rebounds and he doesn't play defense with his feet

I agree he's not a physical on-the-ball defender and not a particularly active rebounder....But terrible hands?!?!?!

Have you seen him play?

avoidingtheclowns
07-11-2007, 11:15 AM
As a Pacer Ike played over 20 minutes 8 times.

Not too shabby. Of course they were 2-6 in those games........

its not like we lost less games when he wasn't starting...


I agree he's not a physical on-the-ball defender and not a particularly active rebounder....But terrible hands?!?!?!

Have you seen him play?

they call him fingers... and he doesn't play the piano

Slick Pinkham
07-11-2007, 11:26 AM
The draft profiles can be way off, but at the time of the draft he was praised for having great hands:

http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/ikediogu.asp

NBA Comparison: Malik Rose

Strengths: Diogu possesses maybe the most refined post-up game in college basketball...Amazing footwork...Very fundamentally sound on the block...Knows how to get himself open...Great at drawing fouls...When he's clicking, he can get an opponent's entire front line in foul trouble......Remarkable free throw shooter (around 90%), which is important because of the amount of times he gets to the line...Good weakside help defender...High basketball awareness...Serviceable perimeter defender but is much more comfortable in the paint...Phenomenal shot blocker for his size...Plays with good intensity...Fantastic rebounder...Terrific hands...Catches nearly every entry pass and comes down with nearly ever rebound...Thick upper body...Once he establishes post position, impossible to push him off his spot...Sets solid picks and rolls to the open spot...Very productive, despite being the primary focus of each opponent’s defensive scheme...Passes well out of the double/triple team...Very coachable...Uses high basketball IQ to make up for lack of lateral footspeed...Great stamina...Seemingly never comes out of the game...Developing a nice perimeter game solid jumper out to the college 3...Very high field goal percentage shooter...Exceptionally long arms...Solid physique...Fantastic body control...

Weaknesses: Lack of height will hurt him at the next level...Listed at 6'8" but might be closer to 6'7"...Not nearly quick enough to play or defend the small forward position at the pro level... You will never see the word "explosive" when reading a Diogu scouting report...Similar game to former Iowa St. star Marcus Fizer and we all know where his pro career ended up...If he's not involved on offense the rest of his game suffers slightly...Not a freak athlete...Not a slug by any means, but doesn't run the floor as well as he should...Not much "upside" left...The player you see now is basically the same player you'll see five years from now, for better or worse...At times, doesn't post up with much authority if his teammates aren't looking his way on every trip down the floor...Like Elton Brand in the NBA, always seems to find himself on losing teams, which isn't his fault entirely but still cause for concern... Lack of solid guard play sometimes limits his number of touches...Lack of quickness hurts his ability to step out and defend opposing guards on the pick and roll...Not a superior ball handler.

Notes: Has scored in double-digits in every game at Arizona State.

JayRedd
07-11-2007, 11:29 AM
they call him fingers...

Does that mean he's the guy that hit Jack with a car?

Y2J
07-11-2007, 11:36 AM
http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/albumes/2006/11/02/debut_garbajosa/42d0196949b279fc89b3f4b7f76009ff_extras_albumes_0. jpg

SoupIsGood
07-11-2007, 12:28 PM
Pic of Bynum and Diogu

I wish the Lakers would just offer us a fair deal already, really. I mean I don't want to hand JO away, but a future frontline w/ Bynum and Diogu at the big spots and Granger and Williams at the F spots could be dominant. I could really get behind rooting for those guys.

d_c
07-11-2007, 02:48 PM
Ike can definitely be a good player and I was sorry to see him leave us when we unloaded Murphleavy, but I don't think 20/10 is anything in his future.

I think some people put it well when they said that Jermaine has kind of made some people take for granted just how hard it is to be a 20/10 guy (while doing it for a team that wins).

Another thing I want to address is these Elton Brand comparisons: Ike isn't Elton Brand and will never be Brand. Right now, Luke Ridnour is closer to Steve Nash than Ike is to Brand.

Brand is a true 6'8" while Ike measured out at 6'6.5". He's not as big as Brand nor is he as quick or athletic. Brand is a deterrant at the rim defensively while the interior defense tends to suffer when Ike enters the game. Brand knows how to pass out of a double team. Ike doesn't. You can play Brand for stretches at center and still break even, while it's generally a proposition for the other team to make a big run if you try it with Ike.

Ike can certainly be a good player in this game, but he needs to get better at a lot of things in the game besides scoring one on one in the low post. I still conisder the guy a potential starter, but you need a good defensive center and SF next to him for it to work. He's not a stand alone guy like Jermaine (a guy who can be good no matter who you put next to him).

ChicagoJ
07-11-2007, 03:09 PM
Ike can definitely be a good player and I was sorry to see him leave us when we unloaded Murphleavy, but I don't think 20/10 is anything in his future.

I think some people put it well when they said that Jermaine has kind of made some people take for granted just how hard it is to be a 20/10 guy (while doing it for a team that wins).

Another thing I want to address is these Elton Brand comparisons: Ike isn't Elton Brand and will never be Brand. Right now, Luke Ridnour is closer to Steve Nash than Ike is to Brand.

Brand is a true 6'8" while Ike measured out at 6'6.5". He's not as big as Brand nor is he as quick or athletic. Brand is a deterrant at the rim defensively while the interior defense tends to suffer when Ike enters the game. Brand knows how to pass out of a double team. Ike doesn't. You can play Brand for stretches at center and still break even, while it's generally a proposition for the other team to make a big run if you try it with Ike.

Ike can certainly be a good player in this game, but he needs to get better at a lot of things in the game besides scoring one on one in the low post. I still conisder the guy a potential starter, but you need a good defensive center and SF next to him for it to work. He's not a stand alone guy like Jermaine (a guy who can be good no matter who you put next to him).

How dare you come onto Pacers Digest and complimentary things about JO?

Now you've done it.

:zip:

Slick Pinkham
07-11-2007, 03:37 PM
Brand is a true 6'8" while Ike measured out at 6'6.5

Ike isn't allowed to play in shoes but Brand is?

Ike measured out at 6'8" in shoes, with a crazy long reach and wingspan:

http://www.insidehoops.com/chicago-camp-measurements.shtml

I can't find official measurements for Brand (1999 draft) but he is generally listed at 6'8" and the listed measurements are always in shoes.

a discussion on Brand and Diogu's measurements:

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1004

Elton Brand plays as big as any player in the league despite being substantially undersized- perhaps as short as 6’6 according to some. Yet his insane length practically makes him a 7 footer on the floor, and thanks to his smaller stature, he has coordination and quickness that only a select few of the really tall guys in the league possess. Likewise, bigger guys with T-Rex arms (think Rafael Araujo) frequently end up struggling in the NBA. Not to say that length is the entire story- athletic ability, skill, and mentality can more than make up for it- but you rarely find a truly great big man in the NBA with below average reach for his position.

As for the wingspan versus standing reach debate, I’m a proponent of the latter, primarily because wingspan doesn’t measure arm length so much as shoulder width. In this year’s draft for example, Danny Granger, who is almost identical in height and wingspan to Hakim Warrick, measured a whopping 5 inches shorter in the standing reach test. While a prodigious wingspan alone doesn’t hurt, and all but guarantees that the prospect in question has the frame to take on some serious weight, a high vertical reach allows a more universal impact: shot blocking, shooting over tough D, snagging high rebounds. But I digress.

Since college and foreign player measurements are equally unreliable, it’s easy to see why the Chicago Pre-Draft measurements are so important. They completely change the entire game- in essence players can grow and shrink several inches overnight. While the 2005 draft will probably not be radically transformed by these uncovered revelations, certain players will undoubtedly be rising or falling because of them. Listed below are the most important ones, as well as others of interest.

Stock Up:

Ike Diogu
6' 6˝" (height without shoes)
7' 3˝" (wingspan)
9' 1" (standing reach)

At first it seems like Ike got the short stick, measuring out at a paltry 6' 6˝" without shoes. A closer look reveals that his overall results were fantastic, giving him a standing reach on par with Taft and Villanueva (who will be listed at 6’10 in the NBA), and a longer wingspan than Andrew Bogut. Combine that with his terrific skill set and he could now be considered all but a lottery lock, and has an outside chance at being the first true PF taken.

d_c
07-11-2007, 04:33 PM
Back in 99', people expected Brand to measure out at just over 6'6" and it was assumed he'd slip in the draft because of it. Then something strange happened.

Brand measured out at 6'8" w/o shoes, to the shock of many. That's what essentially propeled him into being the #1 pick, as it quelled a lot of fears. He's one of those rare NCAA players that really measured out at the height he's listed to be at. (Listed heights of most Euro players are true more often).

But don't take a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper to be your guide. Use your own set of eyes.

The next time the Clips play the Pacers, just watch Ike when he's standing next to Brand. He's shorter than Brand. And then watch them play.

Regardless of measurements, I've always liked Ike and he could eventually be the best player in that 8 man trade, but he's not Elton Brand. He doesn't affect the game at nearly the same magnitude.

Y2J
07-11-2007, 08:09 PM
If Brand were in fact 6'8" without shoes he'd be listed at 6'9" minimum, probably 6'10". Me thinks you're just making up an excuse to hate on Ike.

d_c
07-11-2007, 08:36 PM
If Brand were in fact 6'8" without shoes he'd be listed at 6'9" minimum, probably 6'10". Me thinks you're just making up an excuse to hate on Ike.

Oh geez. I'm hating on Ike for saying that he's shorter than Elton Brand?

The listed heights of players are some of the least consistent things in this league. Some guys are listed at their real heights, but most aren't.

Example:

Mickael Pietrus is listed at 6'6"
Jason Richardson is listed at 6'6"

Those are the official listed heights of both players.

When both stand next to each other on court (and I've seen it in real life and on TV many, many, many times), Pietrus is clearly taller than JRich by at least an inch. It's pretty damn obvious. Maybe it's because JRich actually measured out at 6'4.75" while Pietrus really is 6'6". But notice that Pietrus doesn't list himself at 6'7" or 6'8".

Brand is one of the few US college players these days who didn't exaggerate his height and listed himself as 6'8" w/o shoes, which he really is.

But as I've said before, you can just screw what's on paper on go use your own set of eyes when the Pacers and Clips play eachother next year. It's not a science.

Y2J
07-11-2007, 09:02 PM
LINK 1 (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:lLHC4LMM8K0J:www.basketballforum.co m/nba-draft-forum/25320-pre-draft-measurements-past.html+%22elton+brand%22+measurements+6%277%22+ 7%275%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
LINK 2 (http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=689027)

It's official....

Ike
Barefoot - 6.6'5"
Shoes - 6'8"
Wingspan - 7'3.5"

Elton
Barefoot - 6'7"
Shoes - 6'8"
Wingspan - 7'5"


Extremely similar. Elton has been dominate, one of the few guys with a career 20/10 average currently in the league. Ike plays with much more intensity than Brand, perhaps too a fault. Ike has a nice outside touch, as soon as he uses that to his advantage the way Brand does, he's gonna become a constant 18-21 ppg player.

d_c
07-11-2007, 09:43 PM
LINK 1 (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:lLHC4LMM8K0J:www.basketballforum.co m/nba-draft-forum/25320-pre-draft-measurements-past.html+%22elton+brand%22+measurements+6%277%22+ 7%275%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
LINK 2 (http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=689027)

It's official....

Ike
Barefoot - 6.6'5"
Shoes - 6'8"
Wingspan - 7'3.5"

Elton
Barefoot - 6'7"
Shoes - 6'8"
Wingspan - 7'5"


Extremely similar. Elton has been dominate, one of the few guys with a career 20/10 average currently in the league. Ike plays with much more intensity than Brand, perhaps too a fault. Ike has a nice outside touch, as soon as he uses that to his advantage the way Brand does, he's gonna become a constant 18-21 ppg player.

The info that Clipper fan gave said those weren't even official numbers and to take it FWIW. The other list (which was compilation made by a poster) seemed peculiar to me because Brand was the only guy on it from the 99' draft. Everyone else on that list was from the 2001 or 2002 draft. Where did he pull the Brand info from, and was it indeed using heights w/ or w/o shoes?

But whatever. My main point in all of this listed height business is to use your own set of eyes when you see them standing next to eachother next year on the court. It's the easiest way of telling who's taller between two players, just as the best way to evaluate a player is to watch the actual game, not simply to read a boxscore.

I don't think Ike plays with more intensity, but I'm not going to argue about that if you think he does. Watch the game and see who affects it more on both ends of the floor. Ike can be a very good player and right now I consider him a potential starter.

Elton Brand is at another level. He's made the all-star team twice playing in a conference that's had the likes of KG, Dirk, Duncan and Webber (back when he was still good) playing the same position he does. He's made the all NBA 2nd team.

Saying that Ike probably won't turn out to be as good as Brand isn't a slap in the face to anyone or saying that he's a failure. He could wind up falling well short of Brand yet still be considered valuable and productive asset.

Graham Mernatsi
07-11-2007, 11:35 PM
Elton has been dominate
DOMINANT! THE FREAKING WORD IS DOMINANT!

"Dominate" is a verb, not an adjective. I see this all the time and it MAKES ME CRAZY!

:arrgh:

Kstat
07-11-2007, 11:36 PM
easy there, Skeletor....

Anthem
07-12-2007, 12:40 AM
easy there, Skeletor....
Dude's mental, but he does have a point. It's been going on a lot recently.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31366
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=28564
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=640
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=22294
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31312
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=562731
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=2495
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31729
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31525

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 12:50 AM
And yet he lets some guy put "smokin' a stoogie" with nary a word......:shakehead

Anthem
07-12-2007, 01:11 AM
And yet he let's some guy put "smokin' a stoogie" with nary a word......:shakehead
I hear he's been drinking a lot lately. But I wouldn't know, really. I've mostly been ignoring him.

clownskull
07-12-2007, 03:13 AM
i will say this about brand- despite being only 6'8 his freakish arm length makes him a legit 6'10 with good instincts. the dude can nearly scratch his kneecaps without bending over. he has insane reach- that is a huge reason why he can dominate. he is like "what if harrison had his arms?" (i wish he did) because of that- it makes a major difference. oh well, just my 2cents.

Kstat
07-12-2007, 03:38 AM
I'd say the fact Brand was born without a neck means he should measure out to be a little taller than he really is...

From the chest down, he's got the body of a 6'10" player.

able
07-12-2007, 03:55 AM
I hear he's been drinking a lot lately. But I wouldn't know, really. I've mostly been ignoring him.


You must be right, seeing as he's missing simple things like "defiantly" for "definitely" on a multiple times a day bases.

(and yes it gets on my tits as they say here, "defiant" is NOT definitive, a decent smack on the head usually makes people a lot less defiant)

Kegboy
07-12-2007, 08:39 AM
And yet he lets some guy put "smokin' a stoogie" with nary a word......:shakehead

**** off, troll.

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 10:01 AM
**** off, troll.

I think the Pacers should trade JO to the Lakers for their next 5 2nd round picks. I think that would be a win-win.

avoidingtheclowns
07-12-2007, 10:07 AM
I think the Pacers should trade JO to the Lakers for their next 5 2nd round picks. I think that would be a win-win.

thats not fair. we can't expect to cripple their franchise like that. some of you are so unreasonable and really overvaluing a six-time allstar - if you want to trade him for 4 2nds we can just expect him to walk cos no one is gonna pay that price...3 2nd round picks 2008, 2010 and 2011 best we'll get.

Skaut_Ech
07-12-2007, 11:32 AM
OMG!! :spitout: :shakehead :duh: :laugh: MR, your sacasm isn't lost on EVERYONE here. ;)

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 11:50 AM
OMG!! :spitout: :shakehead :duh: :laugh: MR, your sacasm isn't lost on EVERYONE here. ;)

Wait, I don't see anyone that responded to MagicRat who the sarcasm was lost on. So maybe everyone else's is just lost on you?

:buddies:

FlavaDave
07-12-2007, 12:41 PM
Wait, I don't see anyone that responded to MagicRat who the sarcasm was lost on. So maybe everyone else's is just lost on you?

:buddies:

:-o:D:rolleyes::laugh::box:

OMG!! Skaut_ech's sarcasm about the interpretation of Rat's sarcasm was ironically lost on you!!!



(i'm being sarcastic)

Anthem
07-12-2007, 01:20 PM
You must be right, seeing as he's missing simple things like "defiantly" for "definitely" on a multiple times a day bases.
I doubt he's actually missing them. He probably sits at his computer, seething with rage.

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 01:25 PM
:-o:D:rolleyes::laugh::box:

OMG!! Skaut_ech's sarcasm about the interpretation of Rat's sarcasm was ironically lost on you!!!



(i'm being sarcastic)

Uh, maybe my sarcastic interpretation of Skaut Etch's sarcasm was lost on YOU?

(I'm never not being non-sarcastic)

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:21 PM
Uh, maybe my sarcastic interpretation of Skaut Etch's sarcasm was lost on YOU?

(I'm never not being non-sarcastic)

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

RushToConclusions
07-12-2007, 02:22 PM
Ike will not be a future 20/10 guy! Mark my words.

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 02:27 PM
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:29 PM
Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

Sarcasm.

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 02:31 PM
Sarcasm.

Yes, sarcasm. And you must have suspected I would have known the posters' intent, so I can clearly not choose the post in front of me.

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:45 PM
You're just stalling now....

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 02:48 PM
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my admin, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the post in your own cache, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the post in front of you. But, you've also bested my non-Robo counterpart, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that posts are fallible, so you would have put the post as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the post in front of me.

LoneGranger33
07-12-2007, 02:50 PM
What is going on? I think it would be appropriate to use the word "confuzzled" at this point.

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:52 PM
You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work......

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 02:53 PM
IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POST IS!

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:54 PM
What is going on? I think it would be appropriate to use the word "confuzzled" at this point.

Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Morons.

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:55 PM
IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE SARCASM IS!

Then make your choice.....

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 02:57 PM
I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?

[Robobtowncolt gestures up and away from the browser. MagicRat looks. Robobtowncolt swaps the caches]

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 02:58 PM
What? Where? I don't see anything.......

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 02:59 PM
Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let's post. Me from my cache, and you from yours.

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 03:02 PM
You guessed wrong.....

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 03:03 PM
You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched caches when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a IU grad when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

(Robobtowncolt suddenly stops, receving a lifetime ban)

btowncolt
07-12-2007, 03:04 PM
And to think, all that time it was your cache that had the sarcastic post.

MagicRat
07-12-2007, 03:05 PM
They were all sarcasm. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to sarcastic posts..........:star:

FlavaDave
07-12-2007, 03:06 PM
what

Hicks
07-12-2007, 03:20 PM
:laugh: Bravo.

JayRedd
07-12-2007, 03:37 PM
That was inconceivably well done.

Three cheers.

Anthem
07-12-2007, 03:39 PM
and in studying you must have learned that posts are fallable,
Especially yours.





EDIT: Although I have to agree with Mal, that whole series was well done.

avoidingtheclowns
07-12-2007, 03:51 PM
what

inconceivable that you didn't pick up on the princess bride dialogue


http://imdb.com/title/tt0093779/

SparkyPacer
07-12-2007, 03:56 PM
The Princess Bride reference makes this my thread of the year. Bravo:dance:

FlavaDave
07-12-2007, 03:58 PM
inconceivable that you didn't pick up on the princess bride dialogue

Actually, there is something I haven't told you................

I don't type left handed.

LoneGranger33
07-12-2007, 03:59 PM
inconceivable that you didn't pick up on the princess bride dialogue


http://imdb.com/title/tt0093779/

Oh man, now I fool feelish. :blush:

Robobtowncolt
07-12-2007, 04:00 PM
Especially yours.





EDIT: Although I have to agree with Mal, that whole series was well done.

You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.

Naptown_Seth
07-12-2007, 04:17 PM
Leave it to me to crap all over a nice run like this. Sorry, continue on with your dribble (in your face Graham) in 3 posts.



A bunch of logical awesomeness (per Flava)
Great post way back pages ago. Loved it.


I don't get where people rip on the Per48 as if 48 is the point. It's not. It's really just PER MINUTE. Any "rate" statistic is just that, a rate. The ONLY REASON it's done over more (or less) than just a denominator of "1" is to help people read the numbers and perhaps make sense of it.

Per10 is the same as Per48. So it's a strawman to berate the stat for suggesting 48 minutes of play. WE ALL KNOW THE GUY AIN'T GETTING 48. You aren't breaking news to anyone with that revalation.

As JayRedd points out, you simply look at what the per minute output suggests and you often see a good prediction of things to come, barring major changes to the situation (traded, injured, forced to play a new position, maturity).

Obviously endurance (or MPG) is another stat. The fact that Spreewell could keep up his pace for 40+, or AI, were factors in rating them as players. No one is foolish enough to assume any player could just play 48.


Jay had my favorite goof though when he blasted Harrison's Per48 as irrelevant, and then used his Per48 Fouls stat to show why Harrison could never stay on the court long enough to get his per48 numbers.


We also all realize that 2 minutes a game put into the per48 (or 40 or whatever) might not be a good indicator. This isn't because it's a bad method, it's because the SAMPLE SIZE is too small to knock out the anomolies. This is where Sean Green looks great.

If you want a real example look at this...

JO 4th year (859 minutes)
PP48 15.3
RP48 12.8
AP48 1.0
BLK48 3.1
STL48 0.6
FOULS48 7.1

JO 5th year (2641 minutes)
PP48 18.9
RP48 14.4
AP48 1.8
BLK48 4.1
STL48 0.9
FOULS48 5.1

Not only that, but his P48 from his 3rd year are also on par with these. He tripled his playing time and saw slight improvements in everything he did, including reducing his fouls rate (he was over 6 per48 in years 2, 3, and 4).

So his PER MINUTE production (remember that's all P48 really is) was very consistant and a strong predictor that if he simply got more time he'd produce more. His per game stats jumped, but you could see it coming a mile away.

The only stupid thing would have been for anyone to suggest that he would hit his P48 target as if he was actually going to play 48.


With a goal of 28 mpg in mind for Ike, I think he could be a:
14/7.5 guy with maybe 1 block per night. Hicks makes the case for why this is acceptable quite well. But you can't count on 20/10 or any level of star output based on what he's done so far. His PP48 are above JO and his R48 is at year 2, but he's also several years OLDER than JO was in year 2.

But he's also got a turnover concern. JO's per48 TO's ran roughly at the 3 rate his first 5 years (2.2 to 3.3) with a 2.9 in Indy that first year. Compare that with Ike's TO48 rate of 3.6 and then 4.2 last year. More touches don't just mean more points.

Plus his Fouls48 is higher than JOs, 7.6 and 7.7. JO's peaked at 7.1, even when he was younger. His year 2 was only 6.0 for example and his minutes that year were actually more than Ike got last season.

The fouls, the lack of shot blocking or height to deny post scoring (as Able alluded to), and a slightly lesser rebounding rate could all keep Ike from getting into the 34 mpg area where he might catch an 18/10 season or something.

Good bench guy, not a star. For the pick you used to get Al this is okay. But then that means you traded Jack/Al for Dun/Troy...yech.

Naptown_Seth
07-12-2007, 04:28 PM
Yes and yes.

I liked Rick, but his offensive was like poison to JO's FG%, most the time.
I actually like Tinsley at times, but at least the last couple of years Baron >> Tinsley.

I don't think it was as simple as Rick, though I don't deny that it was a factor.

I mean Dunleavy saw his 2P% go UP in Indy, and he was on the court more than Ike. Troy's FG and 3P% both went up in Indy. Al's 3pt shot decreased in GS slightly.

Naptown_Seth
07-12-2007, 04:35 PM
On Ike's height issue, here's what I saw. He has reach, sure, but his shoulder/trunk is low enough that many bigger guys can get their elbow or armpit over his shoulder for leverage and just drive right over top of him. Sure his hands reach up to about where the ball is, but he can't deny the shot attempt off balance and being forced back like that.

His height puts him into the same spot people see with Durant. For whatever reason he's a big that can be moved off the block and that leads to decent close looks for opponents.

Kegboy
07-12-2007, 06:25 PM
I'd just like to point out, Andre the Giant had very short arms, and he got along just fine.

SoupIsGood
07-12-2007, 10:29 PM
The Princess Bride reference makes this my thread of the year. Bravo:dance:

I really need to see that movie sometime. Seriously, like everyone I meet has seen it. This one guy said something like 'this hand I'm hiding here in my pocket... don't tell anyone, but it's got six fingers' and I was like WTF.

JayRedd
07-12-2007, 11:03 PM
I'd just like to point out, Andre the Giant had very short arms, and he got along just fine.

Ummm....Not so much.

http://www.the11thhour.com/archives/072000/features/images/role_andre.jpg

Y2J
07-13-2007, 02:06 PM
I spent my Saturday morning calculating Ike's career stats when given sufficient minutes. Here's what I came up with....

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4365/ikeip9.png

Ike isn't just a good scorer, Ike's a phenomenal scorer. I'd argue that right now, as a 23 year old, he's a more gifted scorer than 90% of the leagues big men possibly including J.O. No joke. He's not just a good volume scorer, he's also very a efficient scorer. A good field goal percentage, and he gets to the line often where he's an outstanding 80% free throw shooter, as good as most guards. His rebounding isn't as star-like as his scoring but it's still fairly good. He'll likely never finish in the top-10 in rebounding, but his per-minute rate works out to around 9 per game as a full time starter, which is normally in the 10-15 range. He's an average shot blocker at best. Nowhere near J.O.'s level obviously, but he should average between 1-1.5 given starter minutes. He is turnover prone, but look around the league, almost all big men are including the stars. He also fouls too much, but that's a common trait found in young post players and that should improve with experience. Right now Ike's biggest flaw by far is his passing. If he can work on that in the coming year(s), then I see no reason why he can't become a very good to great starting power forward. What he lacks in height and athleticism he more than makes up for in wingspan, skill, and tenacity. Carlos Boozers only 1" taller yet with a much, much smaller wing span and he's a 21/12 All-Star. Actually, when given minutes throughout his career, Ike's production looks very similar to Amare Stoudemire's:

http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/7452/amareyy6.png

Extremely similar across the board, including the same major flaw (low assists/high turnovers). Of course they have different methods of scoring, with Amare being far more athletic, however there's no doubt in my mind that Ike is equally more skilled.


If JO's not traded, I expect Ike to either start beside him or to lead our bench in minutes....

27 minutes
54% from the field
82% from the line
14 points
7 rebounds
1 assist
1 block


If JO's traded, depending on what we get in return, I could see Ike being one of our top-2 scoring options....

33 minutes
53% from the field
82% from the line
19 points
9 rebounds
1 assist
1.2 blocks

In hindsight, I think acquiring Ike was worth taking on Murphleavy's contracts.

Kegboy
07-13-2007, 07:24 PM
Ummm....Not so much.

http://www.the11thhour.com/archives/072000/features/images/role_andre.jpg

Yes, but there's no choking in basketball! Well, not much, anyway.

Y2J
07-14-2007, 03:29 AM
Here's a great YouTube video of highlights from his rookie season.

Elton Brand, is that you? (:32 mark)
Tim Duncan has to be impressed (1:24 mark)
Great up-and-under move on Rasheed (2:44 mark)
Beautiful sweeping hook shot (4:53 mark)
Beautiful spin move into the finger roll (5:17 mark)
Taking Chris Bosh to school (5:27 mark)
Easily blowing by Carlos Boozer (5:42 mark)
AMAZING block on Dirk Nowitzki (6:36 mark)

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X3MyU_NCyu0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>



He clearly has some athleticism. Not Amare Stoudemire-level athleticism, but he's far from unathletic. You can also see he has some great post moves and puts his freakish wingspan to great use. I also love the intensity he plays with. He plays with a lot of heart, something this team needs.


Remember folks, Ike was a top-10 pick just two years ago for a reason. If his height was that big of an issue, no way would he have went top-10. His wingspan more than makes up for it. And he'll now be playing for 3 different coaches in 3 completely different styles in his first 3 seasons, so let's give the guy some time. He needs to fine tune some things, but he's got the talent to be a star. And in no way do I believe those Ike to Houston for #26 rumors. Ike was coveted for over a year, and was the key to the Warriors deal. No way would we give him up for a late 1st.

Speed
07-14-2007, 07:25 AM
that is fun, punishing, he really does have some skills.

Anthem
07-14-2007, 11:28 AM
Nobody's saying he's a bad player. But he's not a 20/10 guy. If you get 16 and 8 out of him, then he has a better career than Rasheed Wallace. I think that's a reasonable goal, but he's never going to be the primary scorer on a winning team.

I agree, though, with those who say a Bynum/Ike/Granger frontcourt would be awesome.

Y2J
07-14-2007, 11:39 AM
Why can't he be the primary scorer on a winning team?

Anthem
07-14-2007, 12:00 PM
Why can't he be the primary scorer on a winning team?
It's not possible in today's NBA. The only team over .500 whose leading scorer is a post man is the LA Clippers.

Ike could be very successful as a part of a complete and well-rounded frontcourt, especially with a strong backcourt. But unless there's no other scoring on the team, the dude's not going to be a 20ppg scorer.

JB's Breakout Year
07-14-2007, 12:04 PM
He clearly has some athleticism. Not Amare Stoudemire-level athleticism, but he's far from unathletic. You can also see he has some great post moves and puts his freakish wingspan to great use. I also love the intensity he plays with. He plays with a lot of heart, something this team needs.


Remember folks, Ike was a top-10 pick just two years ago for a reason. If his height was that big of an issue, no way would he have went top-10. His wingspan more than makes up for it. And he'll now be playing for 3 different coaches in 3 completely different styles in his first 3 seasons, so let's give the guy some time. He needs to fine tune some things, but he's got the talent to be a star. And in no way do I believe those Ike to Houston for #26 rumors. Ike was coveted for over a year, and was the key to the Warriors deal. No way would we give him up for a late 1st.
Isn't it 4 different coaches with 4 different styles now? Montgomery, Nelson, Carlisle, and now O'Brien? And I'm with you-I really like his game.
He's a pure post scorer. Give him time to learn how to pass and defend. His offensive game is already so advanced, it's worth the wait and investment to put up with the growing pains.

FlavaDave
07-14-2007, 12:18 PM
It's not possible in today's NBA. The only team over .500 whose leading scorer is a post man is the LA Clippers.

Ike could be very successful as a part of a complete and well-rounded frontcourt, especially with a strong backcourt. But unless there's no other scoring on the team, the dude's not going to be a 20ppg scorer.



Am I crazy or did the San Antonio Spurs win the title this year?

Anthem
07-14-2007, 12:42 PM
Am I crazy or did the San Antonio Spurs win the title this year?
Ah, forgot TD.

Still, TD can only score 20ppg because Manu and Parker score 35ppg between them.

bulldog
07-14-2007, 01:38 PM
It's not possible in today's NBA. The only team over .500 whose leading scorer is a post man is the LA Clippers.


Raptors, Chris Bosh
Rockets, Yao Ming (essentially tied with McGrady)
Jazz, Boozer
Clippers, Brand
Spurs, Duncan


and if you give me a little leeway Suns/Stoudamire, although he's a big but not really a post, and the Magic with Dwight Howard, who are one game below .500.

So if you want to stretch it a little bit, that's 7/15 teams that are at 500 or above, which ain't half bad.

Of course each of those teams has other good players, but that just means you can't have a decent team with only one good player. Waving off Duncan by bringing up Parker and Manu is, IMHO, silly.

Also, considering Ike's best case comparison is Elton Brand, I don't think thats a very good point.

Anthem
07-14-2007, 01:45 PM
Fair enough. I stand corrected.

I do maintain that if Ike's our primary scorer, then we won't be a playoff team.

I also maintain that Ike's ceiling is closer to 16/8 than 20/10. I'm more than happy to make a sig wager on that.

QuickRelease
07-14-2007, 01:52 PM
It's not possible in today's NBA. The only team over .500 whose leading scorer is a post man is the LA Clippers.

Ike could be very successful as a part of a complete and well-rounded frontcourt, especially with a strong backcourt. But unless there's no other scoring on the team, the dude's not going to be a 20ppg scorer.:confused::confused::confused:

Disagree totally. What about San Antonio, Houston, Memphis would have been if Gasol wasn't hurt.

QuickRelease
07-14-2007, 02:16 PM
Ike is a beast around the bucket. It's not like he's garbage when he gets out there. One small thing that concerns me is that on one of the other threads, someone noted that they saw him and Mccleod after the exit interviews, and Ike didn't seem to want to be bothered. Maybe not that big a deal, but just something that caught my eye. I will try to locate the thread it was in.

dohman
07-14-2007, 05:04 PM
Ike is a beast around the bucket. It's not like he's garbage when he gets out there. One small thing that concerns me is that on one of the other threads, someone noted that they saw him and Mccleod after the exit interviews, and Ike didn't seem to want to be bothered. Maybe not that big a deal, but just something that caught my eye. I will try to locate the thread it was in.

It's been said that IKE is a very shy person and keeps mostly to himself. It shouldn't concern you that he doesn't shout his mouth off the the media.

bulldog
07-14-2007, 06:13 PM
I also maintain that Ike's ceiling is closer to 16/8 than 20/10. I'm more than happy to make a sig wager on that.

Oh, I agree with you about Ike. IMO, he won't be Elton Brand. But I think that is the "best case" comparison.

And, I don't mean to re-tread what's already been covered, but take a look at 20/10 guys. There's not that many of them, they're pretty elite players. And I think we should all be pretty darn happy if Ike becomes a 16/8 type player.

Anthem
07-14-2007, 06:25 PM
take a look at 20/10 guys. There's not that many of them, they're pretty elite players. And I think we should all be pretty darn happy if Ike becomes a 16/8 type player.
Exactly my point.

SoupIsGood
07-14-2007, 06:37 PM
The 16 is reasonable, but just 8? Why do you think Ike is just a 8 rpg kinda guy? If he was playing starter minutes I think he'd pull at least 9, maybe 10.

Anthem
07-14-2007, 07:01 PM
The 16 is reasonable, but just 8? Why do you think Ike is just a 8 rpg kinda guy? If he was playing starter minutes I think he'd pull at least 9, maybe 10.
What makes you say that? I'm not a fan of per-minute stats, but even if you use them there's nothing to say Ike's going to pull in 10rpg.

This year he had 3.3rpg in 12.8mpg. Assuming a straight linear progression (doubtful), if you multiplied it out to 30mpg, that's 7.7rpg. On the one hand, that's probably generous, because guys don't magically become better rebounders when given more minutes. If anything, the opposite happens.

SoupIsGood
07-14-2007, 08:04 PM
I usually consider starter minutes to be 34-35 minutes. And at 35 minutes his Indy production, Ike is at 9 rpg.

But he's still a while away from being a 35 mpg guy. That'd sure be nice thoug.

FlavaDave
07-14-2007, 08:07 PM
What makes you say that? I'm not a fan of per-minute stats, but even if you use them there's nothing to say Ike's going to pull in 10rpg.

This year he had 3.3rpg in 12.8mpg. Assuming a straight linear progression (doubtful), if you multiplied it out to 30mpg, that's 7.7rpg. On the one hand, that's probably generous, because guys don't magically become better rebounders when given more minutes. If anything, the opposite happens.

Every clear #1 post threat is good for at least one respect rebound a game. Have you ever seen JO go up for a rebound with a fellow Pacer in the area and not come down with the board?

You always let the guy with the face on the program grab the board.

Does that make him good? Not necessarily. But this happens to every single star post player, so for comparison's sake it is important. Every All-Star PF gets at least one of his 10 or so boards by deferral.

So you could probably tack on one board to his per 40 projection.

I wish I knew of a statistical way to back that claim up.

Anthem
07-14-2007, 08:11 PM
If we had Bynum/Ike/Granger, it could be hard for Ike to average more than 8 rebounds. But I'd be fine with that, because we'd have a VERY solid frontline in terms of rebounds.

Hicks
07-15-2007, 02:57 AM
We don't need Ike to be a 20/10 guy to be a successful starting PF.

ChicagoJ
07-17-2007, 04:57 PM
Jay had my favorite goof though when he blasted Harrison's Per48 as irrelevant, and then used his Per48 Fouls stat to show why Harrison could never stay on the court long enough to get his per48 numbers.

Hardly a "goof".

1) I was laughing when I typed that - but wondered if anyone else would get the irony

2) My point is, the flaw with any per minute extrapolation of stats is that there is usually a reason the coach isn't playing the player more, whether stats or otherwise.

Jeff doesn't play more becuase he gets pushed around too much.

David doesn't play more because he can't stay out of foul trouble.

In Portland, JO didn't play more because he was behind a star-studded front court of Brian Grant, Sabonis, Rasheed and Cato. Who would you bench? (And at that time, JO was too skinny to replace Cato as the backup C).

Also, its hard to extrapolate a "sixth man" who steps into the game and becomes the #1 option for a few minutes (think: Al Harrington) but is the fourth or fifth option when on the court with the "regular" starters and the offense isn't going through them every play.

As for the dialogue between Most Humerous #1 and Most Humerous #1a, we'll have to remember this one for the next award session. But it still doesn't beat "Stanky's Gang."

In September, we may need to have a "best thread of the offseason" poll.

Anthem
04-13-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm with able on this one... we take 20-10 for granted because of JO, but it's actually quite rare. Ike may turn into a good player, but his ceiling just isn't that high. It would be easier if he was 3-5 inches taller, but then those are the breaks.

Danny Granger and Shawne Williams are taller than Ike.
Was looking through Graham's old posts and found this thread.

Salt in the wounds, I know. But wild to read what some folks thought about Ike.

LoneGranger33
04-14-2008, 12:09 AM
20/10 vision?

JayRedd
04-14-2008, 12:10 AM
Offseason Lasik?

Young
04-14-2008, 12:31 AM
So what does everyone think of Ike now? Do you guys see him as a part of the future here?

I don't know what to think. I haven't seen much of him because he hardly plays. When he plays, he puts up numbers.

Do you guys think that we can pencil him in as the PF for the future? I'm not saying he is a all star level player, but maybe a 15-7 type of player?

This guy can score for sure. If he can put in a goods summers work hopefully he can find himself in the rotation next year. He started out decent this year, averaging 13 and 6 I think but then got injured and fell out of favor.

Doddage
04-14-2008, 12:41 AM
I still haven't given up on Ike and would like to see how he fares next season with increased minutes. He's going to camp with JO, where I'm sure he'll refine his post game and work on his defense, which are two glaring needs for the team.

He has proven to be effective in the minimal minutes that he's gotten. Granted, they were garbage minutes, but he still played with intensity. I think he'll remain a part of the team next season and possibly earn a solid spot in the rotation (which he was surely on pace to do early on this season).

Kaufman
04-14-2008, 12:48 AM
So what does everyone think of Ike now? Do you guys see him as a part of the future here?

I don't know what to think. I haven't seen much of him because he hardly plays. When he plays, he puts up numbers.

Do you guys think that we can pencil him in as the PF for the future? I'm not saying he is a all star level player, but maybe a 15-7 type of player?

This guy can score for sure. If he can put in a goods summers work hopefully he can find himself in the rotation next year. He started out decent this year, averaging 13 and 6 I think but then got injured and fell out of favor.

1. Poorly
2. Not at the rate he is developing, no. He is a vacuum when he gets the ball. Doesn't believe in passing. He will stunt the growth of other players.
3. No
4. 15 points maybe, no assists, and 3-4 rebounds maybe if he feels like working when he doesn't have the ball in his hands

Kemo
04-14-2008, 02:44 AM
I personally think that if Ike were playing a pretty much set 10 to 15 minutes per game .. as a backup , that we would see the great player develop that he has the potential of being..
I mean damn , a guy can only do so much with garbage minutes .. and when he has been on the floor, he has produced , and played with great intensity...

Sure his defense may not be as good as some would hope, but what REALLY can ANYONE tell with playing maybe 2-3 minutes out of every 10 games played .. lol

When he was on the floor, his shot percentage was damn near perfect , and he would put up a quick 6 points .. then next thing you know , he would be rewarded with not playing for another 5 to 10 games... utterly RIDICULOUS !!!
I love Ike , and would be really p.o'd if he gets traded or if he is continued to be treated with no playtime ..

JOB apparently doesn't know the kind of player Ike is , or he would be playing at LEAST a little bit every other game...

Besides Dunleavy ,Granger and Diener ... Ike is one of my favorite players on this team ..
As much as I like Rush and Williams , I would rather see them traded and Ike stay a Pacer and get some PT ..

{sorry for the Diener thread drift , but .. lol}

I still see Diener becoming a starting quality guard by the middle/end of next season.. Once he gets more confidence on shooting and scoring ,he will be awesome.. he HAS that killer instinct , he just needs to bring it out, like he did in them last few games getting the steal or offensive rebound and
nailing the 3 with little time left on the clock....
Just watch what I tell you...

and yes .. IF Ike were given , let's say 20 minutes per game , he would be a scoring and rebounding machine !!
I can see him being a 20/10 guy easily if given the opportunity..

duke dynamite
04-14-2008, 02:52 AM
Kemo, you won't have to worry about Rush getting traded. He is a FA.

Ike is a hit and miss. He has played a small amount of minutes. He plays well when he's in. But if JOB is not going to play him then we have to do something. There is no point to have players on the bench and never play.

I personally like Ike. He shown us all last season that he was a legit top-10 pick a few seasons ago.

Then again every other team has this problem...

Unclebuck
04-14-2008, 10:38 AM
Yes Ike is a 20/10 guy

20 mental mistakes for every 10 minutes he plays.

Not to be too critical, but he makes a ton of mistakes - among other things he has no feel for the game

Jonathan
04-14-2008, 10:42 AM
IKE is a future twenty ten guy on a twenty win team. He would never be a 20/10 guy on a championship caliber team.

Naptown_Seth
04-14-2008, 11:19 AM
Yes Ike is a 20/10 guy

20 mental mistakes for every 10 minutes he plays.

Notr to be too critical, but he makes a ton of mistakes - among other things he has no feel for the game
I agree. This year he was being rewarded...for not running the defense correctly usually. I saw JOB rip into him on several occasions after he would misplay the PnR or fail to rotate to the lane correctly.


But if I may speak on Y2J's bahalf - "Ya'll are just hatin'"


BTW, for the Rick bashing in this thread, he at least played other guys and didn't try to ride his stars for 40 per night. Ironically people thought Rick leaving would help Ike. Of course I'm still waiting for JOB to fix Tinsley too. And JO's FG%.