The Bucks' Makeover; News About Felton
Has anyone else noticed the Milwaukee Bucks' remarkable makeover this offseason? Andrew Bogut anchors their middle, but even if they lose Ramon Sessions along with Charlie Villanueva, they could surround the Aussie with Brandon Jennings, Michael Redd, Hakim Warrick, Amir Johnson, Luc-Richard Mbah a Amoute, Joe Alexander, and Jodie Meeks. Talk about a team built to ball-hawk and run.
At the bottom of the post, though, is information about the Bobcats, including the revelation that they tried very hard to get Hakim Warrick(!), and this note about Felton's situation:
"It's not really a stalemate, and I think in every story I've seen, writers have been calling it a stalemate," Felton's agent, Kevin Bradbury, told Sporting News. "That's not really what Rod was saying. I am not a chess champion here, but I know a stalemate ends the game. The game's not over. We don't have concrete plans to meet with the Bobcats right now, but there's time. We're not giving up. Neither are they. If it winds up that Raymond has to play out his last year and become unrestricted next year, that's OK. But that's the last option and we're still far from that.
about 1 year ago
David A. Arnott
46 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Hakim Warrick would have made alot of sense.
But, the article’s right. After looking over Milwaukee’s roster he would have a greater chance to play and/or start there than in Charlotte.
I think it’s still wine and roses at the moment, but I think this Felton situation is going to start to get ugly.
by James The Aussie on Aug 4, 2009 8:50 AM EDT reply actions
I doubt it.
They’ll either cave quickly and give him way too big a deal, or they’ll stick to their guns and make him play out the QO. They love their boy Ray Ray and his toughness and leadership and grittiness and durability too much to risk hurting his feelings.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 4, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
As the good people at Amazin’ Avenue would say, Ray Ray is full of grission.
(Grit + Passion = GRISSION)
by David A. Arnott on Aug 4, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Hah
Yes, I’m sure they would (although the only reason I’ve ever gone over there is to see their reactions to having one Jeffrey Brayden Francoeur manning RF for them.)
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 4, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
And too bad about Warrick.
I’m sure he could have been had for a little bit more money, but you know we’re not spending that.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
Some are still bitter about the Chokafor trade I see. lol. Warrick would not have made a difference here and Im glad they didnt over pay for him. Brown knows what he’s doing, I would much rather trust his basketball genius then writers and bloggers.
Yes, Brown is awesome!
That’s obviously why he’s averaged 29 wins in his last two seasons. And you’re totally right about Warrick. Why would we want an athletic PF who can score off the bench when we’ve got such a glut of frontcourt talent and scoring on this team?
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 4, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Larry Brown
Blah blah blah more procton nay-saying. I don’t know or care if I just speak for myself but I am tired of all this negativity. I, for one, don’t care about his past records, but the future records. Yes, the past two years haven’t been wonderful times of constant winning and playoffs, but I too have confidence in Larry. A span of two years is hardly any judge for a coach’s value. Undoubtedly, Pat Riley is a HoF coach but he had averaged wins of 30.5 in 01-03 (not to mention 07-08!).Furthermore, Don Nelson has won the NBA coach of the year 3 times and yet has had trouble reaching the .500 mark many times. I choose the more optimistic route and trust Coach Brown with the future of our Bobcats.
by WhatAboutBob_cats on Aug 4, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, because blind optimism is the only way of the "true fan."
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 5, 2009 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Not quite "blind optimism,"
but that’s better than blind cynicism.
by WhatAboutBob_cats on Aug 5, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Far from blind optimism
to see the success that Brown has had as an NBA coach.
You’re not being blindly cynical by only looking at Brown’s record in NY, but you sure do have your “anyone but Carolina” blinders on when that’s the best criticism you have. Oh I forgot, you also have the Darko pick because draft busts NEVER happen in the NBA right?
Come up w/ another rant to make us all laugh Procton.
The difference between Procton's point of view and yours is clear though...
What you call ‘blind cynicism’ is actually quite well foundered concerns that he is able to support with evidence, wheras you would rather address Procton directly than support why you are so optomistic for everything the team does.
I like Brown as a coach, and think he was a good pick… however, he’s not the savior everyone annoints him to be. Lets face it, he’s a guy with 25 years NBA coaching experience with 1 title and 3 total finals appearances.
Personally, I was EXTREMELY optimistic going into this offseason, but a anemic summer (no signings) and the Okafor trade will, at best, only make us a shade better while the rest of the East went forward leaps and bounds. This was the one offseason we could stand to be timid and with 1 good signing we were a playoff team. Here we are in July with no FA talent and the best FAs gone. Front office blew the opportunity.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
James...why are you always Procton's lackey?
Procton does provide evidence for his views yes, tiny windows of data that rarely look at the whole picture. He’s also known for making shit up just to satisfy his own need to criticize players he doesn’t like (He called Felton a whiner in contract talks, when he’s never been able to quote any negative comment coming from Felton or his agent). Further, his logic is far from stable. I refer you to his Jamal Tinsley argument. Procton excused Tinsley for shooting a similar FG% to Felton by saying he had to be an “offensive force” in Indy. I reminded him that Tinsley played alongside several all stars to Charlotte’s never having played along side an all star scorer. Procton then went on to show us that Tinsley never took that many shots per game, thus debunking the excuse that Tinsley “had to be an offensive force.” His anti-carolina bias is well founded. That’s the knock on Procton.
I like to think of Procton as “fool’s gold.” He speaks with so much authority and pulls out so many stats that he may come off as knowing what he’s talking about. If you know the first things about statistics, however, you know that Procton probably hasn’t even taken an intro stats class at University yet. There’s plenty to criticize in his use of stats. Don’t believe me? Go back and read how I’ve had to correct him several times. The guy just doesn’t make sense.
I know we’re here to talk about basketball, and that’s what I want to do, but Procton is so infuriatingly backwards and incapable of making a logical argument that I had to address it. Good luck.
Wait, what?
Felton has never played next to an All-Star scorer? What was Richardson? What about when Wallace was putting up 20 PPG?
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 5, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Seriously?
Comparing Richardson and Wallace to O’Neal in his prime (20 ppg) Artest during his best scoring seasons, and Stephen Jackson having 2 strong years. All three of those guys in the same season? Then during Tinsley’s early years you throw in Reggie Miller towards the end of his career (still solid scoring). Yea Procton, you do that.
Way to once again ignore the real point of what I wrote. You’re the one who made the stupid, circular argument about TInsley. I was just providing evidence for my claim that you don’t make sense.
Before you take things further out of context...
I am not making a Pro-Felton argument. I acknowledge Felton’s weaknesses.
I'm not a lackey.... but I also don't believe in 2 on 1 arguments. Especially when said person hasn't defended themselves.
Furthermore, just because Procton and I agree on several sports issues (Okafor, Julius Peppers, Gerald Henderson) there are others that I disagree with him on too i.e. Ajinca, the fervor in which he dislikes Felton.
This part of the thread started with him replying to a ludicrous post by D.W.G using the tired ‘Chokafor’ line and calling Hakim Warrick ‘overpaid’ despite being one of the cheapest big men on the market in relation to his production.
Give me specific examples of him bending stats and I might agree with you, but in my time on the site he’s either given good statistical proof to back up hard facts or has a decent base for his skepticism. Personally, I see too many people resorting to attacking him directly rather than argue his points effectively.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Then you haven't looked at what I've written
Some people do attack him directly. I debate his points head on, but make no bones about how biased and silly I think he is.
Procton stated that Okafor scored 50% more than Chandler. That is bending a stat and taking it out of context. Okafor scores about 40 % more, which is significantly less than 50%. It’s a lot less actually. Then he ignored the context that Okafor takes 65% more shots than Chandler has. Of course you’re going to score more if you take many more shots. Chandler also shoots the ball at a higher %.
That is a perfect, recent example of bending the stats in a bias way. I don’t catalog every example but Procton sticks out to me because he does it so often.
If you don't know a lot about statistics...
maybe Procton does make sense. Go take an intro course to stats and you’ll learn that every stat needs context to be meaningful.
And yet again you just pointed out what I'm talking about...
Now you’re attempting to insult me rather than make a clear point.
If Procton was comparing the career scoring of Okafor and Chandler, then over their careers Chandler has scored 42% less (career average) than Okafor.
Regarding shooting percentages, absolutely, that is a very important point. I just think you should concentrate on arguing the facts rather than resorting to arguing the person, as you have done so again telling me ‘Go take an intro course to stats’.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
I have not insulted you James
I’m sorry if you’re reading that, but that’s not at all what I’m doing.
I understand your point about arguing the person. That’s not what I do. I have provided clear evidence and reasoning in terms of just talking basketball.
I am criticizing, Procton’s ability to argue facts because I find his blatant biases infuriating. I can’t tell you how many times he has taken what I’ve written, turned it into something that I never said and decided to ignore the facts that I present to him.
Well, when I say Procton has made sense to me then you counter with ‘If you don’t know alot about statistics, then maybe it makes sense’ then follow with “Go take an intro course to stats and you’ll learn that every stat needs context to be meaningful.” then yeah, I’m going to take it as a stab at me.
To be honest, I don’t know when, or where this Tinsley vs. Felton conversation too place, nor do I care. From my 3rd party observation people in general both here and at the Observer’s site are more willing to go after Procton directly than make cogent claims about his points.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
and when "cogent claims about his points" are made...
Procto either
a) counters with more out of context statistics
or
b) puts words in others’ mouths by attributing arguments to them they aren’t actually making
you can not have a logical debate with people that are not logical
Also, it is interesting....
…that when android logically explained to you why Procto’s out of context statistics are bogus, you are offended.
If you haven’t taken any stat classes and don’t understand the science of probability & statistics, that is nothing to be ashamed of. As a 3rd party observer i don’t understand why you would be offended?
If that's how you viewed my responses, then I suggest you take some reading and comprehension classes.
See what I did there? That is the exact same thing that was said to me. Because something made sense to me, I was told I should ‘go take classes’.
That statement was directed AT ME, surely you can tell the difference.
What is it about Procton that annoys you? Is it the ‘griping’ as you call it, or the fact he disagrees with you? I’ve found that often the latter causes people to get upset more than the former.
I understand the MATHEMATICS behind statistics, and probability. Which is why when I make a statement like ‘probability shows Tyson Chandler will not improve his game by 6ppg’ as some people claim that is pased on his statistics.
Just because statistics don’t agree with you point of view does not make them untrue. Truth be told the VAST majority of people throw out their opinions and conjecture as a universal truths when they have no evidence to back up their claims.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I am speaking bluntly...
I’m not sugar coating my opinion, but please don’t take that as an insult.
You asked for cogent claims with evidence to support them. I feel that I have provided that. By saying you don’t care about the evidence I provide makes me wonder if you’re really willing to take an honest look at what I have to say.
The Tinsley debate took place on the post concerning what to do about Felton. The one right before the Chandler deal blew up.
I'll read that, trust me and1roid.. It's not you my ire is directed at.
It’s all good : )
I’ll look at that post.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
in hindsight...
I did call you a lackey, which was insulting.
You seem like a good enough fellow so I shouldn’t have said that.
I really don’t intend to insult you or most anyone else on here. I’m just trying to make a point.
Meh, it's all good
Ultimately, I think we all want to seem the team achieve but I understand the frustration from fans who were watching the first expansion draft with bated breath only to see that we haven’t really made the strides we should have and the majority of our lottery picks have been wholly dissapointing.
by James The Aussie on Aug 5, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
They have been disappointing.
I admit that I do err on the side of optimism when it comes to the Bobcats (not that I’m never critical of them, I want Bob Johnson out now!). It’s no fun watching the team otherwise.
I just try to take a balanced and reasoned approach when it comes to the value of the players.
And the point is...
He’s good at calling names!
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 5, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I said nearly 50%, but don't worry about it.
And frankly, the number of shots is pretty irrelevant if Chandler has never merited a higher number of shots.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 5, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Well his shooting % would argue a higher number of shots
at least according to the logic you espouse concerning Okafor. So why wouldn’t you use that same logic concerning Chandler…because you’re biased.
I personally don’t think either of them deserve more shots.
42% is statistically a far cry from 50% when you’re talking about the volume of data that we are. Also, you ignored the proper context of that stats, but don’t worry about it. Your bias shines through.
Because I've SEEN THEM BOTH PLAY!
Chandler’s capacity to make shots is almost entirely dependent on setting himself up in a way he can put the ball in an unguarded basket. Okafor actually has post moves.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 5, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Okafor has some post moves...
but you and perhaps his mother are the only 2 people in the world who seems to be impressed by them.
My point is, you took a stat, exaggerated the numbers to make your point, and took it out of context to make an argument that seems to be driven more by emotions than facts.
The facts just do not show that Okafor is that much more valuable on offense. His numbers are better yes, but only slightly so.
Some more stats to look at
In the interest of rounding out the offensive stats between Okafor and Chandler…
Okafor had 74% of his baskets assisted last year.
Chandler had 72% of his baskets assisted last year.
How do I interpret this? they depend on others to set their shot up for them at practically the same rate. Is that number more compelling than someone’s naked eye? To me it is. But we can’t just look at that alone.
Okafor showed that he was willing to take more jump shots and had a higher overall eFG%.
How do I interpret this? Okafor’s offensive game was more well rounded last season than was Chandler’s.
Okafor had 11% of his shots blocked last season.
Chandler had 4% of his shots blocked last season.
How do I interpret this? Now if I wanted to make an emotion driven claim to completely trash one player, I could accurately say that Okafor gets his shot blocked 275% more than does Chandler.
275% is a really emotionally compelling number is it not? It is an important number, but we shouldn’t over-value one stat for it’s emotional context. My conclusion is still the same. Okafor is somewhat better on offense, but not so much so that I’m losing my lunch at the thought of trading him for Chandler.
You don't seem to mind the trade at all.
But again, I hope to see what you say when Okafor’s putting up 16-11 in New Orleans next year while Chandler’s doing 8-10 and missing half the season.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 5, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
See what I mean about Procton?
He puts words in my mouth, and essentially rants about his baseless opinions.
In the face of a balanced look at the numbers, he can’t do anything but tell me that one day I’ll be sorry.
For the record: I wish Okafor well and wouldn’t mind seeing him excel in NO.
Somehow, I don’t think Procton will be satisfied unless Charlotte goes down the shitter and hires Wojo as the next coach.
Hmmm, how did you know I was referring to you? lol. And why only mention Browns last two seasons? I’m sure Bickerstaff & Vincent are who you really want to run this team because their coaching records are so much better. lol. And Warrick is not the true power forward that this team needs, hes another Wallace with less athleticism, slightly more athletic than Diaw but not enough to warrant his price tag and the jury is still out on Derrick Brown.
I really didn't care who you were referring to. Just trying to tell you you were entirely wrong.
And why would I mention the two most recent seasons? Because those are the most relevant for his current coaching and personnel capacity as well as the severity of his challenge as the coach for this team. His ability to coach an already-constructed roster in Detroit, well, doesn’t really matter, because he ain’t got that here. And yes, I’d love to have had Bickerstaff at the helm rather than Jordan. With Bickerstaff, we never had to suffer the burden of anchor contracts on inferior players like the ones belonging to Diop, Mohammed, and Radmanovic. He knew we had to build through youth and the draft. Unfortunately, MJ thinks it’s better to spend up to the cap for 35 wins and the 11th pick than to save money, get 30 wins, and get the 8th pick. Oh, and Wallace is a great comparison to Warrick if you ignore the fact that Warrick has two inches in height than him and has even more advantage in wingspan and standing reach than that. And now that you’re complaining about Warrick’s whopping $3 million deal, which is an exceptional value for a veteran starting-caliber forward, I know that you’re going to defend any move this franchise makes, even the ones they don’t because they’re too fucking cheap.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 4, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
D.W.G
You are completely dilusional if you think $3 mil per is too much money for Warrick. I would suggest you spend some time looking over NBA salaries and find out what $3 mil actually gets you.
I will give one player from each team making over $3 million. Tell me if they’re worth more than Warrick, I’ll tell you who I think he’s worth more than by putting ‘******’ after their salary.
Detroit Pistons: Kwame Brown ($4.1 mil)*******************
Atlanta Hawks: Marvin Williams ($7.1 mil)
Memphis Grizzlies: Marco Jaric ($7.1 mil)******************
OKC Thunder: Etan Thomas ($7.35 mil)
Toronto Raptors: Marcus Banks ($4.4 mil)*****************
LA Clips: Marcus Camby ($7.34 mil)
Portland Trailblazers: Joel Przybilla ($6.8 mil)***************
NJ Nets: Tony Battie ($6.92 mil)
Sacramento Kings: Kenny Thomas ($8.5 mil)***************
Minnesota T’Wolves: Brian Cardinal ($6.7 mil)**************
Charlotte Bobcats: Nazr Mohammed ($6.4 mil)*************
Philadelphia 76ers: Jason Kapono ($6.2 mil)**************
Indiana Pacers: Jeff Foster ($6.1 mil)
Golden State Warriors: Andris Beidrins ($9 mil)
Phoenix Suns: Aleksandar Pavlovic ($4.9 mil)
Milwaukee Bucks: Dan Gadzurik ($6.7 mil)*****************
Houston Rockets: Brian Cook ($3.5 mil)*******************
Chicago Bulls: Brad Miller ($12.4 mil)
Dallas Mavericks: Matt Carroll ($4.7 mil)*****************
Miami Heat: Mark Blount ($7.9 mil)
Denver Nuggets: Steven Hunter ($3.9 mil)**************
NY Knicks: Darko Milicic ($7.5 mil)**********************
Washington Wizards: Brendan Haywood ($6)
New Orleans Hornets: Antonio Daniels ($6.6 mil)
Orlando Magic: Mickael Peitrus ($5.3 mil)
San Antonio Spurs: Matt Bonner ($3.2 mil)***************
Boston Celtics: Brian Scalabrine ($3.4 mil)**************
Cleveland Cavaliers: Anderson Varejao ($6.4 mil)
Utah Jazz: Matt Harpring ($6.5 mil)****************
LA Lakers: Adam Morrison ($5.2 mil)*************
So, to recap… 17 players I think are being paid VASTLY more in the NBA are are far worse players. I just don’t see how $3 mil for Warrick is being ‘overpaid’ when you look at alot of NBA salaries.
by James The Aussie on Aug 4, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Because people who use rational analysis to determine the status of the team are obviously bitter.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Aug 4, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Rufus on Fire
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
