Which player is good statistically, but actually a horrible player?

His efficiency as a scorer does not mean too much considering that he is averaging under 12 points and Randolph is the much better scorer. It is similar to saying that David Lee is a more efficient scorer than Al Jefferson. Defenses pay much more attention to Randolph than they do Bogut. Furthermore, Randolph has been a primary or secondary scoring option for most of his career, while Bogut has mostly been a third or fourth option. Though Bogut has good skills, Randolph trumps him in this department. He has the better jumper, handle, and is more adept in the post. Bogut is only the better team player. As for his rebounding, Bogut’s rebounding is only slightly higher and it definitely doesn’t make him a better player than Randolph, especially when you factor in Randolph is undersized and far less athletic.

Let’s also note that Bogut's PER has only been higher than Randolph's once in his career.

 

randolph being undersized and less athletic is who he is. there's no reason to consider those things as some sort of positive working in his favor.

bogut's rebounding is more than slightly better. and that's randolph's strength. randolph is an inefficient blackhole on offense. bogut is an efficient unselfish player. that leads to bogut taking for fewer shots and scoring less points. but he's still helping his team more.

and defensively, bogut is miles ahead.

 

They are virtually identical in RPG. The only difference is that Randolph plays four more minutes per game. He, however, does split the boarding with Marcus Camby. Randolph is inefficient at times but he shoots 47% from the field. This includes 3-point field goals, midrange jumpers, and shots in the low and high posts. Coaches focus on defending Randolph in their game plans. If such were the case for Bogut, he wouldn't be as effective. And as I said, Bogut's efficiency does not make him a better scorer. He is mostly relegated to a hook shot, anyway.

Bogut is the superior defender, but he isn't particularly good at it. He's pretty average.

 

Quality player when healthy. Unfortunately he is very injury prone and plays in a system that doesn't even go close to utilising his strengths.

By that definition, this thread shouldn't even exist, as I'd have thought a player who is putting up decent numbers is probably contributing on the court more than 'little to none'.

I never said he wasn't talented. He is. I said he was horrible, which he also is. He takes horrible shots, he plays horrible defense and is a genuine cancer around his teammates. Unfortunately your definition of a horrible player makes it almost impossible to class Randolph as such, as he still puts up numbers and can contribute offensively.

So why has he bounced around the league if he has such rare and valuable skills?

If you hadn't noticed, he is currently playing for the Clippers.

 

The woman who filed the complaint said Randolph was disappointed that the [paid] sex show had only simulated sex and refused to pay her. After the show, she said, she had consensual sex with Randolph's friend and then fell asleep or "passed out." She claimed she awoke and found Randolph trying to have anal sex with her. She told investigators she awoke and "slapped" Randolph away twice. Ultimately, she told police that Randolph lifted her onto a table and had sex with her while she shook her head "no," the memo says.

 

And how does this relate to the thread at all?

 

#1 overall picks are not drafted to only be "quality players". You yourself thought he would be a franchise player. But there are at least seven players who have had equally or more productive careers as him: Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger, Nate Robinson, David Lee, and Monta Ellis. There might even be more I’m missing. As far as his strengths being underutilized, he has played under three coaches. It seems to be more than a coincidence that all three coaches have failed to utilize a talented center who cost the organization the rare and precious #1 overall pick.

Either that or we need to reach a consensus on what "horrible" means in the context of this discussion.

So is that your definition of "horrible"? A player who takes horrible shots, plays horrible defense, and is a genuine cancer around his teammates? If this is so, then it is pretty difficult to gauge how a player can be a "genuine cancer around his teammates". We do not attend their practices nor are we in their hotels or locker rooms. So how then do we assess who is a cancer around his teammates?

Even if that were the case, then a player like Carmelo Anthony would also be classified as horrible. He takes horrible shots, his defense is comparably horrible, and he, too, can be considered a cancer as he has been suspended by both his team and the NBA, defied coach's orders, and has been involved in controversial matters (Stop Snitchin’, for example). You can make a similar case for Allen Iverson sans the defense (though his defense has been quite lackluster in recent years).

That’s one way to look at it: two rebuilding teams traded him. Another way to look at it is two teams deemed his skills valuable enough to add $50-60M to their caps for the next 3-4 years.

And the fact that he plays for the Clippers is irrelevant. There are too many incidents where non-horrible players have played for bad teams.

 

It doesn't, it's just funny.

And MrJ, where have I said Bogut was worth the top pick? He clearly hasn't been, especially when you consider who went three and four.

You've turned a discussion on Zach Randolph into why Andrew Bogut wasn't worth the number one pick and I'm not sure why.

Get your head out of the sand. But, just because I'm not on personal terms with Zach, I'll change my assessment from a cancer around teammates to just a complete, immature idiot in general. Is that one better?

Do you think Denver would ever consider trading Carmelo?

Iverson has been a liability for quite a few seasons now.

Or an even better way to look at it. Portland signed him to an $84million deal and traded him when he was only 25. To the Knicks under Isiah, which says enough as it is. And then he goes to the Clippers. Could you ever see a winning team interested in Randolph, this apparent enigma who has the rare skills to average 20/10?

 

Kobe Bryant

 

No, the discussion is still very much on Zach. The Bogut thing was more of a shot back to you in regards to the bias twat Knick fan thing.

I don’t deny that Randolph is immature. I do, however, question the ability of anyone who can accurately assess whether a player is a “cancer” if they do not see what goes on in the locker room, etc.

Whether Denver ever considers trading Carmelo is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it fits your criteria for “horrible”. If Carmelo is horrible – no defense, immature, bad shot selection – he isn’t going to be any less horrible because Denver wants to keep him. It just means Denver wants to keep a horrible player.

So I guess you agree that Iverson is also horrible then.

Portland thought he would improve in the years following his re-signing. They were banking on him maturing and improving his other shortcomings (defense, shot selection, etc). But he did not. Still, this does not make Randolph horrible. Rather, it makes him overrated, like I said in a previous post.

Could a winning team trade for Randolph? It depends on the circumstances. If a winning team is looking to get over the hump, I can definitely see such a team considering swinging a trade for him. Sprewell and Rasheed Wallace were in similar situations and the teams that traded for them prospered.