PDA

View Full Version : Croshere, Thomas, and Carlisle



Anthem
01-18-2004, 10:14 PM
Here's what I want to know.

You guys remember the quote from Bird about how Thomas was wrecking Croshere's career?

You think Bird has changed his mind yet?

It's been said before, but now that Bender's back, imagine how few minutes Croshere would be getting under Carlisle if we had Big Bad Brad instead of Scot Pollard.

Kegboy
01-18-2004, 11:31 PM
I find it pretty damn funny whenever I hear someone say how much better Austin's playing under Carlisle, and he's showing Isiah up with his play (last said by Bill Walton in the Dallas game, I believe.)

Austin 02-03/03-04

MPG 12.9/12.6
FG% .411/.397
3P% .391/.388
FT% .815/.842
RPG 3.20/3.10
APG 1.1/0.4
SPG 0.12/0.33
BPG 0.27/0.26
TO 0.57/0.67
PF 1.00/1.50
PPG 5.1/5.1

:unimpressed:

Ragnar
01-19-2004, 10:17 AM
Well the stats lie a bit. They leave out that he rarely played at all. The DNP-CD's are not mentioned.

Up until the last two games he has played in pretty much every single game. I dont know why he didnt play in the Nets game I thought there werestreached where he could help. But it may be that they are "showcasing" Pollard for a trade.

sixthman
01-19-2004, 10:57 AM
If Brad Miller were here, Cro's playing pattern this year would be much like last year. Plus Cro was less healthy last year as I remember.

The Zeke was unfair to Cro buzz is bogus.

wintermute
01-20-2004, 04:50 AM
well, if the issue now is that cro wasn't getting minutes under isiah, let's check totals instead of game averages then:

Austin 02-03/03-04

minutes 633/493
rebounds 155/120
assists 56/15
steals 6/13
blocks 13/10
turnovers 28/26
fouls 48/57
points 252/198

if we project the 03-04 numbers (double them since we're halfway), then cro will be on track to exceed his 02-03 totals in all categories except assists.

so i guess that argument is valid. actually, i think cro's per 48 minute numbers are pretty good, and that applies to the 02-03 cro too, since the numbers are identical.

Unclebuck
01-20-2004, 08:59 AM
OK, so what is the point.