whoopty damn doo.. I hate the per 48 min stat.. wtf does that tell anyone since no one plays 48mins per game for an entire season. It's plain useless. Most times that guy who plays 12 mins/game but could average all-star numbers over 48 mins plays 12 mins per game for a freaking reason.
Well, it's a better stat than per game averages, IMO. If two players both average 20pts per game, but one plays 15 mpg and the other plays 30 mpg, who is more productive with their PT? In Randolph's case, it's completely fair, IMO, because for the first 1/2 of the season, he was only given little tidbits of PT, 1 minute here, 4 minutes there -- if he was lucky -- and yet he produced in several ways every moment on the court. Blocking shots, diving for loose balls, taking charges, tipping in missed shots, rebounding, tipping loose balls to teammates, running the floor on both ends, hitting jumpers, throwing down dunks, setting screens, constantly moving without the ball... Randolph is one of the more active players in the Western Conference, IMO. And per-48 gives a better representation of his activity, considering the coach wouldn't give him consistent minutes until recently. IMO, once Randolph averages 35 mins a game, his stats will reflect that. He will be a star here very shortly.
I've seen it happen too many times where a guy gets 10-15 more mins a game and his stats barely budge. Don't forget that guy coming off the bench is facing the other teams bench players for the most part and when they face the starters in a larger role tend to not do as well. that's not to say this is the case for Randolph, but I'd take a wait and see approach rather than juking the numbers to make a bench player look good because 90% of the time the player is on the bench for a good reason.
Geez, Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq? As much as I like Randolph, that's bit too much. 48 minutes stats may be similar, but in terms of skills and bulk, they are world apart from Randolph, and that's the reason why those 3 became one of the best player in NBA. For 48 minutes itself, I usually don't think of much except rebounding, because there are reasons why players don't average 36 minutes per game. And when they do average 36 minutes, their 48 minutes stats usually go down, because they simply can't play like energy players for 36 minutes as they could in 15 minutes. Those articles hypes Randolph way too early, and I can only hope that Randolph doesn't get a wrong idea after reading this article... For comparison... Randolph: 21.3 / 15.5 / 3.6 Speights: 24.2 / 11.4 / 2.32 Hibbert: 22.9 / 11.2 / 3.56 Love: 20.9 / 16.9 / 1.19 Lopez: 20.3 / 12.5 / 2.81 McGee: 20.1 / 12.6 / 2.98 Oden: 19.5 / 15.7 / 2.53 I don't think 08 draft is filled will legendary centers and PFs...
Good points by both -- it's easier to stay healthy playing 15 mins than it is playing 40 mins. And, CF's right about facing the other team's bench players. I guess a better stat to look at is percentages... FG %, FT, 3PT, Assist/TO ratio... But in general, when comparing normal rotation players, I still think per/48 is better than per/game.
IIRC, Randolph said he thought he was similar to Tayshaun Prince or Chris Bosh. He was a steal at # 14. I just checked draftexpress.com and they had him as max potential Rudy Gay and low potential Tim Thomas. I think he's going to be more in the Rudy Gay area than Tim Thomas. Yeah, it's easy to get carried away when you're a Warrior fan because I remember MDJ was supposed to be the next Larry Bird.
LOL, who the hell said that? I'd like to meet them. MDJ... he never showed even a hint of being great during his 4.5 years with GS. His rookie year was terrible, barely sniffing 40% FG. The next 3.5 years were bad, too. Randolph has already shown this year -- already showed in his first 5 games -- more star-potential than MDJ could ever dream of having. It's really apples and oranges there
I think for the per/48 to work, the player has to have played at least 1/3 of the season. Therefore, I don't think it works when you're gauging what a player does early in the season.
For a #3 pick, Dunleavy was pretty bad. That's not his fault he was drafted #3, but for all the hype that surrounded him and all the people defending him (me included), he never proved himself until he left.
Plain and simple. Don't pick Dookies (unless they're named Grant Hill)! Go with Tar Heels blue as a rule of thumb. And to think we could've got Andrew Bynum and Ronnie Brewer instead.
I remember one Dookie that would have been good: Jay Williams. Corey Maggette has had a decent career, speaking objectively.
Why is it a waste of a thread? It shows an interesting stat and people have actually put their input on it and it's created discussion. Off course it's a waste because it's Anthony Randolph and not someone like Mayo, Rose, or Beasley.
You can always point to something to make a comparison. Randolph is talented but not Shaq, Admiral or Dream-like. We can only dream that he has as much of an impact on a team as Barkley.
Yeah. I don't expect him to be a Dream, Admiral, Shaq, etc. Just the fact that hes not an enormous 7 foot C like those guys makes me believe he'll never be a guy with that kind of impact on a game. That being said, the kid is pretty nuts. In his last 6 games here are his stats: 12.2 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 2.2 bpg, 1.5 spg, 46% FGs, 100% FTs (on 11 FGAs) in 31 mpg. Hes still raw offensively but hes got crazy rebounding ability already and hes a stat stuffer. Hes the youngest guy in the NBA.
