Not hitting his prime but he was in his prime, he was 29 years old when he went to Detroit.
edit: And the Celtics offer to West was 27/29 mil for 3 years but the deal didn't go through because the Celtics were not able to find a taker for JO's expiring contract, if the Celtics would have found a taker West would be a Celtic and not a Pacer.
Last edited by vnzla81; 10-10-2012 at 12:30 PM.
If y'all wanna just be cynics all the time that is fine, but David West has done nothing to show that he is not a straight shooter.
[QUOTE=vnzla81;1508171]You do realize he takes less shots per game and plays fewer minutes? He plays in an entirely different system where the minutes and scoring are spread. I guarantee you the Pacers were cautious with his minutes too due to the ACL recovery. You constantly evaluate players by their PPG or RPG, when in reality it should be based upon efficiency (percentages and statistics per 36 mins). It's ridiculous that you're even evaluating a player based upon those statistics without pealing back the layers. Jeff Pendegraph could average 20PPG if we gave him 25 shots and you'd want to toss him the max.
I know that it takes a while for somebody to fully recover from a knee injury like the one West had, I also know that older players like him sometimes don't fully recover from an injury like that and they usually lose and step or two, not only because of the injury but because of age, that happens to a lot of players every year but it seems like many here are leaving in some type of alternate universe were older players don't get old and someway somehow they even get better than what they were in their prime.
He was getting 18.9 before the injury and with CP3 feeding all the time, he is never going to get back to where he was before the injury, PLAYERS GET OLDER, the guy is going to be 33, why is so hard for people to understand this? Jeff Foster retired last year at 33 years of age, West is going to be lucky if he has two years left in him.
I also see that when you talk about him getting better you mean on the offensive side of the court, but why you and others don't talk about the defensive side of the court when you talk about him? or his lack of rebounding? I remember few years ago when the Pacers had a power forward that averaged 15 and 10 but the only thing everybody in PD would talk about was about his defense, now defense doesn't matter anymore?
By the way once again I'm coming across as a hater but I'm not, I know what he brings to the table, I also like his leadership, I like that he is vocal on the court but the thing that grind my gears around here is that many of the people that are elevating West into "Pacers MVP" status are the ones that when they talk about other players (specially Seth with Tyler Hansbrough) all of the sudden they remember that there is another side of the court.
So, let's compare apples to apples here and look at his stats adjusted for shots taken and minutes played. 2008 was his best year (all-star)
YR 2008 2011
PPG 21 21 (adjusted for attempts)
RB/36 7.8 8.1
AS/36 2.1 2.6
STL/36 .6 1
BLK/36 .8 .9
TO/36 2 1.7
PER 18.9 17.8
TS% 54% 53%
Wow, what a huge decline. Sure you can say we need to upgrade the PF position to win a championship, but the same could be said for any position. With the exception of Hibbert, West is no further down the talent list for his position than Danny, Paul, or Hill. You just have an agenda with West.
Last edited by purdue101; 10-10-2012 at 01:25 PM.
good post. how did you adjust PER for shots taken?
re the final point, I think Danny is probably the highest on the talent list in the league, if we are looking at position depth. SF isn't very deep right now.
Also, if it was simply a matter of Boston not being able to afford West, why would Ray Allen make negative comments in regards to the fact that West signed here instead of with Boston? Just doesn't add up to me.
I am not sure why you guys are arguing with V here. He didn't like the West signing before so he won't like it now.
In either case you got to know whats available for a reasonable price and make a decision then. IF Milsaps there for 10 million then you take it. If West is willing to go down in his yearly salary and there is no better option then you take it.
Edit: By the way, Barbosa's per 36min is as good as anybody in the NBA does that means that he needs to play 36mpg? No!
Last edited by vnzla81; 10-10-2012 at 02:13 PM.
Yeah, it's basically 8 or 7 deep when it comes to marginal All Stars (depends on where you count Iggy, since he'll play mostly 2 this year). And Danny's anywhere from 4 to 7 (8).
Marion and Wallace don't really belong there, though. I'd take Gallinari, Batum, Wilson Chandler over both of them easily - and I think all of these are in a lower tier compared to Danny/Gay/Deng types as well.
Center position is deeper right now. It's not as deep in Hall of Fame talent, but when it comes to marginal all stars, there are many.
How I remember it is that Boston offered 3 years with less money per year and Pacers offered 2 years with more money per year. West chose Indy because it was a deeper team at the time and he didn't want to be on a top heavy team with no bench.
My speculation here is that he didn't want to get locked in for 3 years at a lower salary for the 3rd year and lose out on the next contract. He also wanted an easy transition from his injury and not to be forced minutes to remain competitive as a team. Add in Bostons age and salary constraints with their prime players and its a fair assumption on his part.
Last edited by Gamble1; 10-10-2012 at 02:14 PM.
Go to basketball reference and do season split and look up how many games David West played atleast 30-39 minutes.
Thats 33 games with a average of 33.7 minutes per game. He averaged 15 ppg with 7.5 rpg while shooting .494 FG%.
Contrast that with 08-09 David West and you have 29 games with an average of 36.2 mpg. He averaged 17.8 ppg and 7.9 rpg with a FG% of .465.
Thats being the second best player on his team with now being the 3rd best player and no longer the focal point. Thats still good production IMO and I believe most of the board would agree with me here.
Also never mind it was a condensed season with more back to backs than any other season he has played so on that note I think your argument is pretty silly and borderline petty.
Last edited by Gamble1; 10-10-2012 at 02:43 PM.
I was trying to make the claim that West WANTED to come here, and didn't just decide to come here simply b/c Boston didn't have enough money to give him what he wanted. Yes he would have made a smaller annual salary, but it wasn't significantly less.
Good try though next time show me how he averaged 30ppg in 10 games last year and that his numbers are as good as Love...... you like it or not he averaged 12ppg last year so nope he is not the guy you think he is.
[QUOTE=vnzla81;1508260]Not that I'm surprised, but you're missing the point. I'm not stating whether a player is good or not by 36 mpg stats, or even comparing different players. I'm using the tool to look at a single player and trends in their output over time, which is what we are discussing. You said West's scoring ability is declining. When input is set contstant (mins, FGA, etc), West's output is not declining, which is the argument you are trying to make (and has been proven incorrect).
Let's put things into a real world scenario for you. I see on your profile that you're an auto mechanic. Let's say I buy a set of Bridgestone tires off you, drive 2 years, 50,000 miles, and then come back and purchase a second set. After only 1 year the second set is in need of replacement - does that mean they were bad or declining in performance. Of course not, it depends on whether my input (in this case mileage) was any different.
You can't pass judgement on a change in West's output until you neutralize the input. I know it's a beyond an elementary concept, but think about it.........
We have a guy with a good per-36 number. OK, that isn't unusual, a scrub playing 5 minutes of garbage time can have a great per-36.
In this case, though, you have two things that make West's per-36 worth considering. First is that he's a starter. He's not playing garbage time nor is he matched up against scrubs. Second is that when he has games where he place close to 36 minutes his scoring actually approaches the per-36 number. That is pretty important because it means the per-36 isn't somehow due to a burst of production in short minutes.
So, you point out, his OVERALL average was MUCH lower than his per-36, and a guy with similar numbers is considered to be a much better player.
This is where you have to start looking around to explain WHY that is instead of just saying that somehow the statistics are wrong. Is it that West commonly played far fewer minutes and therefore didn't have the opportunity to hit the scoring he could hit when playing over 30 minutes? If so, WHY was he playing fewer minutes? Were his shooting percentages bad in the games he played fewer minutes (in other words, he is inconsistent offensively)? Is it that he was pulled for defensive reasons (which I know you would focus on)?
Fitting a team together isn't about picking a statistic and finding everyone who is best at that statistic - all single statistics are flawed because they only show part of the picture. It is about figuring out WHY guys have certain statistics and whether another player can help overcome the weaknesses that are shown in this player's statistics while allowing him to use his strengths.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
LIke I said before David West played half the season 33 games total averaging 34 minutes per game. Thats with coming back from an injury and playing a condensed schedule which could explain the drop of production alone.
Even out side of that you could explain the lack of production with his role on the team which isn't to be the primary option or even the primary option in the low post. Why is that not a logical answer to you I have no idea.