PDA

View Full Version : #1 players under the age of 24?



dsickich123
07-29-2009, 11:58 PM
We are going to run this the same way as the top 10 players from each position...
Accept we are doing the top 10 PLAYERS under the age of 24...
we are not factoring in rookies because we have not seen them play yet...
and LEBRON is 24 so that is why he is not on the list....
So lets see what you all think....

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

*AND SORRY I FORGOT DWIGHT HOWARD...THOUGHT HE WAS OLDER....SO LETS COUNT HIM OUT TWO ASSUMING THAT HE WOULD BE TOP 3*

jakesmail123
07-30-2009, 12:02 AM
kd

dsickich123
07-30-2009, 12:04 AM
I think Durant also...

airforceones25
07-30-2009, 12:14 AM
1. Durant
2. Howard (makes the cut by a few months)
3. Rondo
4. Rose
5. B. Griffin (believe the hype)
6. B. Lopez
7. E. Gordon
8. Mayo
9. Stuckey
10. Ellis (needs to stay healthy)

yanksknicksgmen
07-30-2009, 01:06 AM
durant

B.JenningsMVP
07-30-2009, 01:13 AM
Mayo

asandhu23
07-30-2009, 01:15 AM
show some love for Monta Ellis. and Kevin Durant. and after this year Marco Belinelli

bowieinspace
07-30-2009, 01:16 AM
rose is better than rondo

IrespectNumber3
07-30-2009, 01:18 AM
Beasley is better then half of the people on this list...Where the hell is Monta Ellis ...Where the hell is Aaron Brooks?...

RainbowCow
07-30-2009, 01:19 AM
Durant

Earmuffed1
07-30-2009, 01:20 AM
the fact thaddeus young is not an option is a disgrace

GoatMilk
07-30-2009, 01:23 AM
Kevin Durant
Derrick Rose







everyone else

zachattach
07-30-2009, 01:24 AM
How old is Al Jefferson?? Never mind he's 24.. had to go with kevin durant

Lakergirl24
07-30-2009, 01:39 AM
KD, then d. rose. those two are going to be great ones

disk 8
07-30-2009, 01:41 AM
durant

Kyle N.
07-30-2009, 02:09 AM
Where's Dwight Howard! He's 23.

HuRRiCaNeS324
07-30-2009, 02:16 AM
I voted for Durant, but you would put anthony randolph, aaron brooks, brook lopez, NOAH!, and a whole bunch of others scrubs without putting beasley. :eyebrow:

Raph12
07-30-2009, 03:17 AM
D12, Dwight "Superman" Howard should be number one for sure, Durantula number 2 for sure, then if take Rose over anyone else on the list

azkarraga
07-30-2009, 03:41 AM
i went for fernandez. i like the guy. but you're right: #1 and #2 are Howard and Durant. Rose might be #3. And from them on, Fernandez.

Denver-boy
07-30-2009, 03:50 AM
1)Howard
2)Rose
3)Durant
4)Rondo

thats all u need to know

Beno7500
07-30-2009, 03:51 AM
Durant... easy

NYY NYJ NYK
07-30-2009, 03:57 AM
Durant

DamnGoat
07-30-2009, 04:03 AM
It's gotta be Durant. And if we're just going by that list I'd take Rose next.

HesterTrain
07-30-2009, 04:07 AM
Rookie of the Year Derrick Rose

DaddyCool
07-30-2009, 04:10 AM
I like how you spelled half the guys' names wrong on that list. But yeah it's Durantula.

dbeastly
07-30-2009, 04:18 AM
Beasley is better than everyone on this list except durant
(33 points rookie game)

dbeastly
07-30-2009, 04:26 AM
Whoever made this thread is a massive fail
Your gonna say: Randolph,Hernandez,Noah,Green,Gordon,Thornton,Oden ,Westbrook,Lopez,Millsap,Young
are all better than beasley?
Hes probably the youngest of the group and he seems to be the only one to actually prove something(most points per minute)on a non scrubby team

Korman12
07-30-2009, 05:08 AM
Beasley is better than everyone on this list except durant
(33 points rookie game)

You're gonna gauge his abilities based on his performance from the Rookie v. Soph game?

Kyle N.
07-30-2009, 05:17 AM
The fact Dwight Howard isn't on the poll = massive :pity:

dodie53
07-30-2009, 05:30 AM
1. durant
2. rose

chitownbulls
07-30-2009, 05:43 AM
Beasley is better than everyone on this list except durant
(33 points rookie game)

Rose 36 point playoff game.:cool:

BigEric
07-30-2009, 05:59 AM
Dang man Im having trouble choosing an Eric Gordon. I mean the one on the Clippers is good, but there is also the one on the Clippers, thank god they are both listed though, what would happen if only one were listed?

Howard, Durant, Rose. Everyone below that....is pretty far below that.

kbaxter34
07-30-2009, 07:14 AM
Durant in a landslide, moving on to #2?

tland22
07-30-2009, 01:49 PM
Chris Paul just turned 24 in May two months ago....so im going to just take him for the sake of it....LOL

Durant though

skizzlebizzle35
07-30-2009, 02:07 PM
wat bout luol deng, hes gonna go crazy this year....17.8ppg 7.1rpg 1.3spg 1bpg

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 02:07 PM
Durant
Howard
Rose





Everyone else

itsripcity32
07-30-2009, 02:18 PM
Rose 36 point playoff game.:cool:

o dang!!! 1 playoff game! WOAH,

what54!?
07-30-2009, 02:20 PM
durant and its not even close

IBleedPurple
07-30-2009, 02:40 PM
Dwight Howard

(but voted Durant, he is clearly the best, and a future superstar in all likelyhood)

IBleedPurple
07-30-2009, 02:41 PM
Dwight Howard

(but voted Durant, he is clearly the best, and likely a future superstar )

todu82
07-30-2009, 03:34 PM
Kevin Durant

B.JenningsMVP
07-30-2009, 03:36 PM
OJ Mayonnaise

arkanian215
07-30-2009, 03:38 PM
im not liking gordon on that list. he doesnt do much but shoot well. that makes him as good as reddick, korver, morrison brandon rush. once he develops a more well rounded game ill put him up there maybe. sg's with that production arent too hard to come by.

arkanian215
07-30-2009, 03:41 PM
I think Lopez will end up in the top 5. A good, healthy, young center is hard to find. One that plays both ends of the court is even harder to find. Throw a solid mid range game that may go out to 3pt range and good character and is still 21 until the end of the 2009-10 season and that's pretty good. Not to mention one that hits free throws.

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 03:47 PM
o dang!!! 1 playoff game! WOAH,

True, your Pistons saw two 36+ point playoff games when they got swept.


From LeBron!

B.JenningsMVP
07-30-2009, 03:48 PM
Shannon Brown

CityofTreez
07-30-2009, 03:52 PM
Derrick Rose is a beast, can't wait for D-Rose & 2 Easy to match up this year

The Riot
07-30-2009, 03:54 PM
shannon brown

ha!

J_M_B
07-30-2009, 03:56 PM
Kevin Durant

Lakers4ItAll
07-30-2009, 03:57 PM
Kevin Durant
Derrick Rose







everyone else

Agreed

J_M_B
07-30-2009, 04:03 PM
I don't want to sound like a homer, but you should at least add Micheal Beasley to the poll. You have Joakim Noah, Anthony Randolph, Rudy Fernandez, and Jeff Green in the poll. Micheal Beasley had a better statistical year than all of them with the limited minutes he was given.

JWO35
07-30-2009, 04:04 PM
I think Rodney Stuckey should be on the next poll

Kevin Durant....is the best without Question

dbeastly
07-30-2009, 04:14 PM
Rose 36 point playoff game.:cool:

My friend, Derrick Rose is your first option.
Michael Beasley is our 3rd option and he comes off the bench with less minutes than Rose thus why he only averaged 3 points less than him. Everyone knows Beasley is a better scorer than Rose which is why I used the rookie game as an example.

DrDEADalready
07-30-2009, 04:15 PM
The paper boy.

AK23
07-30-2009, 04:17 PM
I think Durant also...

me too, but in the future i think brooks :D

theuuord
07-30-2009, 04:18 PM
Durant and this one isn't close.

JWO35
07-30-2009, 04:20 PM
This Poll is worthless....you don't have Dwight "The Flight" Howard on here

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 04:25 PM
My friend, Derrick Rose is your first option.
Michael Beasley is our 3rd option and he comes off the bench with less minutes than Rose thus why he only averaged 3 points less than him. Everyone knows Beasley is a better scorer than Rose which is why I used the rookie game as an example.

Everyone knows there is no defense played in the Rookie game. And there's a reason Beasley didn't see as much playing time. From what I remember, his defense was took away too much from the team for what his offense added.

Rose>>>Beasley. I'm sooo glad we had the 1st pick in the 2008 draft and not the 2nd! There is no possible argument that Beasley is a better player than Rose.

theuuord
07-30-2009, 04:34 PM
Everyone knows there is no defense played in the Rookie game. And there's a reason Beasley didn't see as much playing time. From what I remember, his defense was took away too much from the team for what his offense added.

Rose>>>Beasley. I'm sooo glad we had the 1st pick in the 2008 draft and not the 2nd! There is no possible argument that Beasley is a better player than Rose.

there are a few, actually, despite your rose-colored glasses.

b_rad23
07-30-2009, 04:36 PM
Good post.

Not voting because of Beasley's exclusion.

PhyscoT007
07-30-2009, 04:38 PM
give beaseley more playing time this year, rose has way more pt than him last year

PhyscoT007
07-30-2009, 04:39 PM
agreed^^^ the fact beasley's not on here and randolph is makes me sick

asadf
07-30-2009, 04:41 PM
JR smith

theuuord
07-30-2009, 04:43 PM
I'm curious how anyone is able to justify not choosing Kevin Durant in this poll.

For instance, three people chose Aaron Brooks over Kevin Durant. Two chose Anthony Randolph over Kevin Durant.
One person even saw this thread, looked over the players, and decided that Rudy Fernandez was more valuable to his team than Kevin Durant.

Can you guys explain yourselves?

goose15
07-30-2009, 04:45 PM
1 Howard
2 Durant
3 Rose
4 Gay
5 Mayo
6 Horford
7 Randolph
8 W. Chandler
9 Milsap
10 Lopez

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 04:47 PM
there are a few, actually, despite your rose-colored glasses.

Well why don't you inform all of us then?

arkanian215
07-30-2009, 04:49 PM
i dont see why people wouldnt pick kd. if rose doesnt develop range, it'll be a lot easier for guys to guard him. kd is the total package or the closest it gets right now.

theuuord
07-30-2009, 04:50 PM
Well why don't you inform all of us then?

Do you really want me to? Because the way I see it, you'll think Rose is better no matter what, and you're free to think that (it is justifiable after all), so even if I broke it down intricately and spent a good solid 30 minutes on a post about it, it wouldn't change much....

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 04:51 PM
Do you really want me to? Because the way I see it, you'll think Rose is better no matter what, and you're free to think that (it is justifiable after all), so even if I broke it down intricately and spent a good solid 30 minutes on a post about it, it wouldn't change much....

No, I'm fair. I'd like you to try and convince me. I wanna see some of the other viewpoints.

J$mo0th_3o5
07-30-2009, 04:51 PM
This thread fails without Beasley:pity:

arkanian215
07-30-2009, 04:54 PM
lol we'll include him next time. he wasnt gonna win #1 anyway. he didnt get a single vote for roy did he?

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 04:54 PM
i dont see why people wouldnt pick kd. if rose doesnt develop range, it'll be a lot easier for guys to guard him. kd is the total package or the closest it gets right now.

From what I've heard, Rose has turned himself into a "respectable" 3 point shooter this offseason (some have estimated he'll shoot 35% from 3 this upcoming year), and has become much better from mid-range too.

theuuord
07-30-2009, 05:24 PM
No, I'm fair. I'd like you to try and convince me. I wanna see some of the other viewpoints.

Allright, I'll give it a shot... But I'd also like to note that believing Rose is better than Beasley is certainly arguable, too.

First of all, it should be noted that the impact of Derrick Rose has been greatly overstated by Bulls fans. He's a good point guard, and will likely be a very good/great one, but most Bulls fans (and most of the media) is treating him like the second coming of Chris Paul. He's not, or at the very least, that's very unlikely.

The year before Rose came to the Bulls, they were 33-49. The differences between that team and this year's team are not significant; Chris Duhon, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith (who played limited minutes) left the team and Rose joined it, but other than that the roster stability was pretty solid. The team, with Rose or not, was expected to get better regardless of Rose's involvement, because their core was young and gaining experience.

Before the trade to acquire Salmons and Miller, the team was 25-30, or on pace to win about 36 games (25-31 if you count their first game, where they played limited minutes). That's only three more than the previous season - not a huge difference, and certainly not one that you can only attribute to Rose. After the trade, they were 16-11 (16-10). That's a significant difference that Bulls fans have seemingly given most of the credit for to Rose. The fact of the matter is that his team surrounding him deserves the most of it. This is not necessarily a knock on Rose - he shouldn't be expected to lead a team so much so quickly - but it's a fallacy that has been used to prop up his abilities that just isn't true.

Michael Beasley, on the other hand, was stuck in a situation where Erik Spoelstra did not want to give him minutes. I'm not quite sure why, considering Beasley's offensive dominance from pretty much everywhere on the floor. It's always hard to compare players across positions - because the things you're looking for are different at each spot - but in limited playing time (24 min. per game), Beasley nearly matched Rose's overall production, even though Rose had 1.5 times as many minutes.

Beasley and Rose shot essentially identically from the field. The only real difference is that Beasley shot much better from outside (.407 to .222), which meant he has an edge in both true shooting percentage and eFG%, although they're both slight. Beasley used far more possessions while he was on the floor (27.7% to 22.6%), so the fact that he was able to keep such high shooting numbers up is pretty remarkable for a rookie.

Looking at rate statistics, the only thing Rose has on Beasley is assists (which is no surprise). What is a surprise is that Beasley was more proficient in all of the other rate categories: he has a better offensive rebound rate, a vastly better defensive rebound rate, an identical steal rate, a better block rate (despite being shorter than some of his PF counterparts) and a lower turnover rate. Beasley's physical gifts are also unbelievable - as much as Rose's, almost. He can make pretty much any play look effortless, and has a great shooting touch from everywhere - something Rose doesn't have yet.

The reason Rose received so much love from the media at large (and Bulls fans) is because he was Chicago born-and-bred, had a red-hot start, was quiet/humble/et cetera (thus making him an easy sell to the public), and was a point guard, which makes him more relatable than his giant counterparts. It was an automatic ticket to media heaven. Beasley, on the other hand, was delegated to the bench almost instantly (despite production that deserves a starting role) and didn't have the same easy-to-digest story as Rose.

If you look at the numbers per 36 minutes, you'll see that Beasley would have averaged 20-8 his rookie season had he been given that shot. If you put him on the Bulls, chances are those numbers would have been even higher, due to their increased pace (the Bulls play an average of 3 more possessions per game than the Heat, thus inflating the numbers slightly).
In fact, Beasley's per-36 numbers are strikingly similar to Kevin Durant's, - who he was compared to a LOT in college because of their equally insane production in their freshman years - just with better rebounding and outside shooting numbers. They're certainly two different types of players, but it's worthwhile to note that they do turn in similar production

All in all, it is pretty close. (I could bring Lopez into this discussion too, if we're just going to discuss the best rookie from last year, but I digress). The two players are the same age, play different positions, and had completely different coaching situations surrounding them their first years. If Beasley can get a chance to consistently play 35 minutes this season, I think we'll see a drastic increase in his production that may be too much for anyone to ignore.

Tmac,lt,berkman
07-30-2009, 05:46 PM
1. Durant
2. Howard (makes the cut by a few months)
3. Rondo
4. Rose
5. B. Griffin (believe the hype)
6. B. Lopez
7. E. Gordon
8. Mayo
9. Stuckey
10. Ellis (needs to stay healthy)

add aaron brooks cuz and rondo is trash

B.JenningsMVP
07-30-2009, 05:47 PM
agreed^^^ the fact beasley's not on here and randolph is makes me sick

you agreed to your own post? LMAO

Tmac,lt,berkman
07-30-2009, 05:49 PM
agreed^^^ the fact beasley's not on here and randolph is makes me sick

anthony randolph is just as good if not better than beasley

Jeff559
07-30-2009, 06:14 PM
anthony randolph is just as good if not better than beasley.
X2...AR has the better upside

The Ooh Child
07-30-2009, 06:24 PM
Good to see Bulls fans are getting their votes in.

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 06:28 PM
Allright, I'll give it a shot... But I'd also like to note that believing Rose is better than Beasley is certainly arguable, too.

First of all, it should be noted that the impact of Derrick Rose has been greatly overstated by Bulls fans. He's a good point guard, and will likely be a very good/great one, but most Bulls fans (and most of the media) is treating him like the second coming of Chris Paul. He's not, or at the very least, that's very unlikely.

The year before Rose came to the Bulls, they were 33-49. The differences between that team and this year's team are not significant; Chris Duhon, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith (who played limited minutes) left the team and Rose joined it, but other than that the roster stability was pretty solid. The team, with Rose or not, was expected to get better regardless of Rose's involvement, because their core was young and gaining experience.

Before the trade to acquire Salmons and Miller, the team was 25-30, or on pace to win about 36 games (25-31 if you count their first game, where they played limited minutes). That's only three more than the previous season - not a huge difference, and certainly not one that you can only attribute to Rose. After the trade, they were 16-11 (16-10). That's a significant difference that Bulls fans have seemingly given most of the credit for to Rose. The fact of the matter is that his team surrounding him deserves the most of it. This is not necessarily a knock on Rose - he shouldn't be expected to lead a team so much so quickly - but it's a fallacy that has been used to prop up his abilities that just isn't true.

Michael Beasley, on the other hand, was stuck in a situation where Erik Spoelstra did not want to give him minutes. I'm not quite sure why, considering Beasley's offensive dominance from pretty much everywhere on the floor. It's always hard to compare players across positions - because the things you're looking for are different at each spot - but in limited playing time (24 min. per game), Beasley nearly matched Rose's overall production, even though Rose had 1.5 times as many minutes.

Beasley and Rose shot essentially identically from the field. The only real difference is that Beasley shot much better from outside (.407 to .222), which meant he has an edge in both true shooting percentage and eFG%, although they're both slight. Beasley used far more possessions while he was on the floor (27.7% to 22.6%), so the fact that he was able to keep such high shooting numbers up is pretty remarkable for a rookie.

Looking at rate statistics, the only thing Rose has on Beasley is assists (which is no surprise). What is a surprise is that Beasley was more proficient in all of the other rate categories: he has a better offensive rebound rate, a vastly better defensive rebound rate, an identical steal rate, a better block rate (despite being shorter than some of his PF counterparts) and a lower turnover rate. Beasley's physical gifts are also unbelievable - as much as Rose's, almost. He can make pretty much any play look effortless, and has a great shooting touch from everywhere - something Rose doesn't have yet.

The reason Rose received so much love from the media at large (and Bulls fans) is because he was Chicago born-and-bred, had a red-hot start, was quiet/humble/et cetera (thus making him an easy sell to the public), and was a point guard, which makes him more relatable than his giant counterparts. It was an automatic ticket to media heaven. Beasley, on the other hand, was delegated to the bench almost instantly (despite production that deserves a starting role) and didn't have the same easy-to-digest story as Rose.

If you look at the numbers per 36 minutes, you'll see that Beasley would have averaged 20-8 his rookie season had he been given that shot. If you put him on the Bulls, chances are those numbers would have been even higher, due to their increased pace (the Bulls play an average of 3 more possessions per game than the Heat, thus inflating the numbers slightly).
In fact, Beasley's per-36 numbers are strikingly similar to Kevin Durant's, - who he was compared to a LOT in college because of their equally insane production in their freshman years - just with better rebounding and outside shooting numbers. They're certainly two different types of players, but it's worthwhile to note that they do turn in similar production

All in all, it is pretty close. (I could bring Lopez into this discussion too, if we're just going to discuss the best rookie from last year, but I digress). The two players are the same age, play different positions, and had completely different coaching situations surrounding them their first years. If Beasley can get a chance to consistently play 35 minutes this season, I think we'll see a drastic increase in his production that may be too much for anyone to ignore.

Thats all very impressive research, but here's my side.

Yes, we were 25-30 before the trade. But that was without both Kirk Hinrich and Luol Deng for long stretches.

And the reason Spoelstra didn't want to give Beasley minutes was due to his atrocious defense. He simply felt he could not be a great impact on the court when giving up that many points, regardless of how many he scored. (I read that in several articles last year).

Honestly, I could care less about how their rebound and block rates compare. Beasley is a 6'8 240 lb PF and Rose is a 6'3 190 lb PG. Beasley better have better rebound and block rates. Although, I'd say, considering the position he plays and how that effects both, Rose is better at both compared to Beasley (If you understand what I mean) I don't know if there are any stats adjusted for position as well (like ballparks in baseball).

The one knock on Rose, as you mentioned, during his rookie year was his outside shooting and its consistency. But that was the knock on him entering the draft. Supposedly he's been taking 500-1000 shots a day this summmer and has vastly improved both his mid-range and 3 point shots. Some Bulls officials have estimated he could shoot 35% from 3 this upcoming season, which would make him a ridiculous offensive weapon considering his ability to get to the basket.

And you also failed to mention that it is much easier for a player of Beasley's type (SF/PF) to transition to the NBA in comparison to a PG (the hardest in terms of transition), which Rose was able to handle and still put up better numbers than Beasley. Rose is a team leader, whereas Beasley is a guy who will get his numbers, but not near the leader Rose is/will be.

Even discounting, everything else I said, I'd still take Rose for one reason. He has a will to win that is simply unmatched. Beasley, however comes with a questionable work ethic and is a stat-padder.

Game 1 of the series against Boston is what Rose can do with a shot (even though he didn't have the 3 point shot he supposedly has now). He'll distribute and try to get teammates involved. But when he determines that the team needs him to score. He does it. And can do it with the best of them.

For me, it's not about Beasley not being good. He will clearly get his numbers every year and be a very good player. But Rose is just that much better and has a chance to be a Top 5 player in the league one day. With Rose's athleticsm and work ethic, the sky is the limit.

dre1990
07-30-2009, 06:36 PM
Kevin Durant

DaoudS
07-30-2009, 06:39 PM
Shouldn't Bargnani be on that list - or is he disqualified because he turns 24 in October? He wouldn't be the top guy but would certainly be ahead of 5 players you got on that list.

Pornstar86
07-30-2009, 07:56 PM
i love how eric gordon is listed twice in the poll....and of course beasley gets no love

JWO35
07-30-2009, 08:28 PM
Greg Oden shouldn't be on this list, he is really 35

B.JenningsMVP
07-30-2009, 08:32 PM
Greg Oden shouldn't be on this list, he is really 35

He's 72 actually.

GSW fan
07-30-2009, 08:38 PM
Durant

b_rad23
07-30-2009, 09:02 PM
anthony randolph is just as good if not better than beasley

.
X2...AR has the better upside

:laugh:


Allright, I'll give it a shot... But I'd also like to note that believing Rose is better than Beasley is certainly arguable, too.

First of all, it should be noted that the impact of Derrick Rose has been greatly overstated by Bulls fans. He's a good point guard, and will likely be a very good/great one, but most Bulls fans (and most of the media) is treating him like the second coming of Chris Paul. He's not, or at the very least, that's very unlikely.

The year before Rose came to the Bulls, they were 33-49. The differences between that team and this year's team are not significant; Chris Duhon, Ben Wallace and Joe Smith (who played limited minutes) left the team and Rose joined it, but other than that the roster stability was pretty solid. The team, with Rose or not, was expected to get better regardless of Rose's involvement, because their core was young and gaining experience.

Before the trade to acquire Salmons and Miller, the team was 25-30, or on pace to win about 36 games (25-31 if you count their first game, where they played limited minutes). That's only three more than the previous season - not a huge difference, and certainly not one that you can only attribute to Rose. After the trade, they were 16-11 (16-10). That's a significant difference that Bulls fans have seemingly given most of the credit for to Rose. The fact of the matter is that his team surrounding him deserves the most of it. This is not necessarily a knock on Rose - he shouldn't be expected to lead a team so much so quickly - but it's a fallacy that has been used to prop up his abilities that just isn't true.

Michael Beasley, on the other hand, was stuck in a situation where Erik Spoelstra did not want to give him minutes. I'm not quite sure why, considering Beasley's offensive dominance from pretty much everywhere on the floor. It's always hard to compare players across positions - because the things you're looking for are different at each spot - but in limited playing time (24 min. per game), Beasley nearly matched Rose's overall production, even though Rose had 1.5 times as many minutes.

Beasley and Rose shot essentially identically from the field. The only real difference is that Beasley shot much better from outside (.407 to .222), which meant he has an edge in both true shooting percentage and eFG%, although they're both slight. Beasley used far more possessions while he was on the floor (27.7% to 22.6%), so the fact that he was able to keep such high shooting numbers up is pretty remarkable for a rookie.

Looking at rate statistics, the only thing Rose has on Beasley is assists (which is no surprise). What is a surprise is that Beasley was more proficient in all of the other rate categories: he has a better offensive rebound rate, a vastly better defensive rebound rate, an identical steal rate, a better block rate (despite being shorter than some of his PF counterparts) and a lower turnover rate. Beasley's physical gifts are also unbelievable - as much as Rose's, almost. He can make pretty much any play look effortless, and has a great shooting touch from everywhere - something Rose doesn't have yet.

The reason Rose received so much love from the media at large (and Bulls fans) is because he was Chicago born-and-bred, had a red-hot start, was quiet/humble/et cetera (thus making him an easy sell to the public), and was a point guard, which makes him more relatable than his giant counterparts. It was an automatic ticket to media heaven. Beasley, on the other hand, was delegated to the bench almost instantly (despite production that deserves a starting role) and didn't have the same easy-to-digest story as Rose.

If you look at the numbers per 36 minutes, you'll see that Beasley would have averaged 20-8 his rookie season had he been given that shot. If you put him on the Bulls, chances are those numbers would have been even higher, due to their increased pace (the Bulls play an average of 3 more possessions per game than the Heat, thus inflating the numbers slightly).
In fact, Beasley's per-36 numbers are strikingly similar to Kevin Durant's, - who he was compared to a LOT in college because of their equally insane production in their freshman years - just with better rebounding and outside shooting numbers. They're certainly two different types of players, but it's worthwhile to note that they do turn in similar production

All in all, it is pretty close. (I could bring Lopez into this discussion too, if we're just going to discuss the best rookie from last year, but I digress). The two players are the same age, play different positions, and had completely different coaching situations surrounding them their first years. If Beasley can get a chance to consistently play 35 minutes this season, I think we'll see a drastic increase in his production that may be too much for anyone to ignore.

Nice breakdown. It's definitely a lot closer than people like to think.

Draco
07-30-2009, 09:08 PM
Nice breakdown. It's definitely a lot closer than people like to think.

So close that Spolstra not playing Beasley and Beasley not invited to USA basketball camp remains the worlds biggest mystery.

JJ81
07-30-2009, 09:18 PM
If Bynum never got injured he'd be top 3.

JWO35
07-30-2009, 09:31 PM
If Bynum never got injured he'd be top 3.

Take me to your dealer....

theuuord
07-30-2009, 09:41 PM
Thats all very impressive research, but here's my side.


Before I start my reply, I want to say it's good to have a rare intelligent discussion on this board. Appreciate the effort.


Yes, we were 25-30 before the trade. But that was without both Kirk Hinrich and Luol Deng for long stretches.

Yes, this is also true. The difference is the value of those two losses. Hinrich was essentially replaced by Rose in the lineup, and Deng played all of his 49 in the first 60 games of the season. His loss was more after the trade than before it.


And the reason Spoelstra didn't want to give Beasley minutes was due to his atrocious defense. He simply felt he could not be a great impact on the court when giving up that many points, regardless of how many he scored. (I read that in several articles last year).

Lots of things appear in articles, but that doesn't make them true. Saying that Beasley wasn't good on defense is one of those fallback criticisms that people say about offensive monsters who get the reputation of being lazy headcases. In reality he's average on defense. He's definitely no star on that side, but it's certainly not enough to keep him out of the lineup. Flat out, not playing him 30-35+ minutes per game was a huge mistake.


Honestly, I could care less about how their rebound and block rates compare. Beasley is a 6'8 240 lb PF and Rose is a 6'3 190 lb PG. Beasley better have better rebound and block rates. Although, I'd say, considering the position he plays and how that effects both, Rose is better at both compared to Beasley (If you understand what I mean) I don't know if there are any stats adjusted for position as well (like ballparks in baseball).

Compared to position Beasley is still better on the rebound side, but the comparison is a little closer.
The question here is what you place value on. I place a high value on bigs who can score and rebound, because they've been proven throughout basketball history to be a huge component to winning games (and conversely championships).


The one knock on Rose, as you mentioned, during his rookie year was his outside shooting and its consistency. But that was the knock on him entering the draft. Supposedly he's been taking 500-1000 shots a day this summmer and has vastly improved both his mid-range and 3 point shots. Some Bulls officials have estimated he could shoot 35% from 3 this upcoming season, which would make him a ridiculous offensive weapon considering his ability to get to the basket.

I hope he does, and I hope it helps his game. It'd be scary to see a guy with his gifts put together a decent outside shot. We'll have to wait and see what happens. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if Bulls officials may be exaggerating a bit.)
I'm not sure what Beasley is doing this offseason but I'm sure it involves improving his game as well. It's what basketball players do.


And you also failed to mention that it is much easier for a player of Beasley's type (SF/PF) to transition to the NBA in comparison to a PG (the hardest in terms of transition), which Rose was able to handle and still put up better numbers than Beasley. Rose is a team leader, whereas Beasley is a guy who will get his numbers, but not near the leader Rose is/will be.

This is a common misconception. There are more good-to-great PG's now than people seem to realize. It's easy to think that translating PG game to the pros is more difficult - it makes some sense - but in reality that's not how the game ends up working.

Rose's role as a team leader was definitely significant. That being said, I would argue that it also added to his statistical production - being the guy who had the ball in his hands so much.


Even discounting, everything else I said, I'd still take Rose for one reason. He has a will to win that is simply unmatched. Beasley, however comes with a questionable work ethic and is a stat-padder.

See, this is another misconception. People say this about Beasley all the time because it's easy to say. He doesn't have a questionable work ethic. He's not just a stat-padder. These are just things the media feeds people because it makes the story more logical - he makes things look easy, and he always looks relaxed, so he must be lazy.
Not to make this personal, but I think we all knew the kid in high school who ran faster than everyone else while looking like he was going at 60% speed. I certainly did. It's not laziness, it's just a certain style that appears effortless.


Game 1 of the series against Boston is what Rose can do with a shot (even though he didn't have the 3 point shot he supposedly has now). He'll distribute and try to get teammates involved. But when he determines that the team needs him to score. He does it. And can do it with the best of them.

I understand how exciting that game was (and that series), but one game does not a player make, and Rose after that (sans a few highlights) didn't have a jaw-dropping series.


For me, it's not about Beasley not being good. He will clearly get his numbers every year and be a very good player. But Rose is just that much better and has a chance to be a Top 5 player in the league one day. With Rose's athleticsm and work ethic, the sky is the limit.

And again, this is where I have to disagree. I don't see Rose's potential as that of a top-5 player. Basing his production from his rookie season and college, plus my subjective view of him, I can see him certainly becoming a great point guard, and a top 15 player. But putting his potential at this absolute max echelon is foolhardy, imo.

Give him a couple seasons. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, and admittedly with someone like Rose you're right that he could surprise. But my interpretation of the data doesn't support the theory.

Bulls_fan90
07-30-2009, 09:47 PM
anthony randolph is just as good if not better than beasley


.
X2...AR has the better upside

I agree.

nbaguy123
07-30-2009, 10:01 PM
kevin durantula. he has proved all his hype

dee279
07-30-2009, 10:02 PM
Kevin Durant definantly, but Beasley should atleast be a choice.

goblazers7
07-30-2009, 11:20 PM
where the hell is lamarcus aldridge

asandhu23
07-30-2009, 11:23 PM
Rubio!!!!!!!!

Cubs Win
07-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Before I start my reply, I want to say it's good to have a rare intelligent discussion on this board. Appreciate the effort.

Yes, this is also true. The difference is the value of those two losses. Hinrich was essentially replaced by Rose in the lineup, and Deng played all of his 49 in the first 60 games of the season. His loss was more after the trade than before it.

Lots of things appear in articles, but that doesn't make them true. Saying that Beasley wasn't good on defense is one of those fallback criticisms that people say about offensive monsters who get the reputation of being lazy headcases. In reality he's average on defense. He's definitely no star on that side, but it's certainly not enough to keep him out of the lineup. Flat out, not playing him 30-35+ minutes per game was a huge mistake.

Compared to position Beasley is still better on the rebound side, but the comparison is a little closer. The question here is what you place value on. I place a high value on bigs who can score and rebound, because they've been proven throughout basketball history to be a huge component to winning games (and conversely championships).

I hope he does, and I hope it helps his game. It'd be scary to see a guy with his gifts put together a decent outside shot. We'll have to wait and see what happens. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if Bulls officials may be exaggerating a bit.) I'm not sure what Beasley is doing this offseason but I'm sure it involves improving his game as well. It's what basketball players do.

This is a common misconception. There are more good-to-great PG's now than people seem to realize. It's easy to think that translating PG game to the pros is more difficult - it makes some sense - but in reality that's not how the game ends up working.

Rose's role as a team leader was definitely significant. That being said, I would argue that it also added to his statistical production - being the guy who had the ball in his hands so much.

See, this is another misconception. People say this about Beasley all the time because it's easy to say. He doesn't have a questionable work ethic. He's not just a stat-padder. These are just things the media feeds people because it makes the story more logical - he makes things look easy, and he always looks relaxed, so he must be lazy. Not to make this personal, but I think we all knew the kid in high school who ran faster than everyone else while looking like he was going at 60% speed. I certainly did. It's not laziness, it's just a certain style that appears effortless.



I understand how exciting that game was (and that series), but one game does not a player make, and Rose after that (sans a few highlights) didn't have a jaw-dropping series.

And again, this is where I have to disagree. I don't see Rose's potential as that of a top-5 player. Basing his production from his rookie season and college, plus my subjective view of him, I can see him certainly becoming a great point guard, and a top 15 player. But putting his potential at this absolute max echelon is foolhardy, imo.

Give him a couple seasons. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, and admittedly with someone like Rose you're right that he could surprise. But my interpretation of the data doesn't support the theory.

OK..I'm not gonna go as in depth this time because I have to wake up in 5 and a half hours to go on a vacation but anyways...

I'm not gonna say I saw all 82 Heat games, but I saw a good 15-20 so I'm basing my opinion of Beasley off of those and articles I read.

As for the defense, I read it in articles, but it wasn't speculation. The articles were explaining that which I am 99.9% certain came directly from Spoelstra. And on offense, when I saw him on the court he seemed to be more interested in finding his own shot than getting his points with in the offense's flow. And trust me, having watched Ben Gordon for 5 years, that can be a serious detriment to the team.

And I see Beasley as the type of tweener big that can score, but not really a championship big. Most of those are Centers or big PFs like Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, David Robinson, etc. In addition, some of the new rule changes make it much easier on the PGs (the handcheck rule specifically). In Derrick's case, with his combo of speed, size, and strength; it's only a matter of time before he takes full advantage of that. The game has been shifting towards the smaller players lately (Although, once again as a Bulls fan, I'm not gonna deny that having a quality big man is almost imperative to a championship).

And one thing about Derrick's transition. While he had veteran players, they were all in the first year of VDN's system. That only makes it tougher on him. And as for him having the ball in his hands more, while he was PG, he would defer almost too much. Ask any Bulls fan. As a rookie, his humble, you-first attitude was a detriment to has stat line. He tried to get everyone involved, which is great for a rookie to realize. But he almost never tried to "get his" until the game was on the line in the 3rd or 4th quarter. And with a guy like Ben Gordon, it's very easy to defer to another player. He didn't have the ball in his hands as much as he should have. In fact, on many possessions, he'd dribble up the court, pass the ball and never touch it again until the next possession.

As for Beasley's effort, I guess he only knows for sure, but I based that off of many articles I've read about him. But there's no doubt he often seems disinterested on the defensive side of the ball from what I've seen.

As for Rose's potential, like I said before his work ethic and athleticsm scream Superstar. He could very well be a Top 5 player in a few years. The way I see it Top 15 is almost a lock (for in a few years) and Top 5 is a distinct possibility depending on staying healthy and continuing to work hard.

And like I said before, Beasley should be a great player. But he comes with many more question marks than Derrick Rose. And like else someone said, if he was in Rose's league, why wouldn't he at least be invited to Team USA's tryouts? Especially when they actually said they were looking for someone like him. Well I guess, I kinda went in-depth again. Lol, you gotta love the NBA.

heyman321
07-31-2009, 12:11 AM
Dwight Howard by far.

Baller1
07-31-2009, 01:27 AM
Durant.