I personally don't think hawes can do that. His game is special, but his development could go either way. Statistically, his doesn't do any thing particularly well. But stuffs the sheet anyways when given minutes. Which means he has potential yet to be tapped. I just can't see him leading the team for 48 minutes, and demanding more from his team mates on an every day basis. On the other hand, he will be starting at the 5 come november, and if the W's start stacking up with him in the starting lineup, its going to be hard not to argue that he is THE leader of the team. So, depending on performance, it could be Hawes, i give it a 5% likelyhood.
Hold on there, what? Your statement was contradictory in several areas.
I'm not sure that he's suffering from untapped potential, but rather minutes, as you suggested. I think we need the start of the season to get here soon, so we can see what these kids are all about.
Basically, for the first time in a long time, the Kings are looking towards youth to carry the team.
If this comes off as argumentative, I apologize. Sentiments don't translate well online.
I'm not sure that he's suffering from untapped potential, but rather minutes, as you suggested. I think we need the start of the season to get here soon, so we can see what these kids are all about.
Basically, for the first time in a long time, the Kings are looking towards youth to carry the team.
If this comes off as argumentative, I apologize. Sentiments don't translate well online.
To Fakeinjury: I wasnt talking in the now anyways.
Say Hawes reaches his potential as a dominant scoring force inside and out and starts putting up numbers like 25/9/3/2.....I know I know, its a longshot but bare with me..
...A lot of articles and interviews have people talking about how Hawes plays with intensity and an edge, is vocal on the sidelines, and supposedly already has a bit of an ego (could be a good or bad thing)...All of those sound like leadership traits to me.
So of course he needs the STATS to back it up, but I think Hawes definately has the PERSONALITY of a leader.
Say Hawes reaches his potential as a dominant scoring force inside and out and starts putting up numbers like 25/9/3/2.....I know I know, its a longshot but bare with me..
...A lot of articles and interviews have people talking about how Hawes plays with intensity and an edge, is vocal on the sidelines, and supposedly already has a bit of an ego (could be a good or bad thing)...All of those sound like leadership traits to me.
So of course he needs the STATS to back it up, but I think Hawes definately has the PERSONALITY of a leader.
Last edited:
Who will be the leader on this team? Revisited?
there is already a thread out, but i wanted to put up another, or if one of the mods will be kind enough to tie this with the other one or whatever. but picking up where the last thread left off i think we have our leader. bobby jackson. emotional, good defender, works hard and always in attack mode. as vf21 once said that he's a piece of the past that will help us move forward.
there is already a thread out, but i wanted to put up another, or if one of the mods will be kind enough to tie this with the other one or whatever. but picking up where the last thread left off i think we have our leader. bobby jackson. emotional, good defender, works hard and always in attack mode. as vf21 once said that he's a piece of the past that will help us move forward.
I just want to say that this is one of those dumb, useless and completely unimpressive stats that make me hate sports media and sports fans.
How many players have three vowels in their first name and three 40 point games?
WHO CARES
Sweet jebus. Stats are abstract and far too often used as an authority on player quality when they are incapable of reflecting the game. Someone who knows quality is someone who sees such a thing, not one who counts it. Sports statistics are like knowing the end of a story or the end of any popular book, without knowing the journey taken to get there.
As for leadership, you don't really need it if everyone is self motivated. Also, it doesn't need to come from the best player on the team. I think Bobby could provide leadership and the right attitude to a young team, while performing a small role from the bench.
Leadership, at least in my life, has been overrated. Give me someone who knows not to mess things up and things will be fine. Self motivated individuals do not need a big dog to follow around. Kobe is the best player on his team, he is vocal and demanding, but is lacking as a leader. Hell, MJ was as well, but his status was too high to speak up about.
Also, a young player enforcing his ego on other young players can rub some the wrong way. Nobody on this team has proven enough to demand obediance, not even Kevin.
How many players have ever averaged at least 9 FTAs per game and shot at least 40% from three (taking at least 1 three per game)?
One. Kevin Martin, this season.
I do.
While, as almost any stat, having nothing to do with "leadership", this little gem merely means that Kevin is as effective a two-way scorer as there has been, shooting accurately from long range and getting to the line a ton through his ability to drive to the hole. In that combo, no one else has done it better in a season in the history of the league. Both numbers in the combo are significant.
Pretty simple what this means, so I thought.
So, as you stated, you can hate THIS fan who believes that the two numerical achievements in combination are indeed telling and significant. And BTW, dumb analogy.
One. Kevin Martin, this season.
I do.
While, as almost any stat, having nothing to do with "leadership", this little gem merely means that Kevin is as effective a two-way scorer as there has been, shooting accurately from long range and getting to the line a ton through his ability to drive to the hole. In that combo, no one else has done it better in a season in the history of the league. Both numbers in the combo are significant.
Pretty simple what this means, so I thought.
So, as you stated, you can hate THIS fan who believes that the two numerical achievements in combination are indeed telling and significant. And BTW, dumb analogy.
I'm not saying he is or he isn't, but the stat doesn't prove it. I mean, there is at least one person who I might say was a more effective two-way scorer.
It is telling in that he got the free throw line a lot and also shot well from three, but it is also such a random, made-up statistic that you have to admit it loses some effectiveness.
It is telling in that he got the free throw line a lot and also shot well from three, but it is also such a random, made-up statistic that you have to admit it loses some effectiveness.
I suppose it loses as much effectiveness as you want it to. The question is: which players are effective at BOTH shooting from three and getting to the line? This seems to be the most effective way of answering the question.
I believe the original cutoffs were 8 FTA/game, 3 3PTA/game, and 40% 3PT% - which gave only Kevin and Jordan. Sure, if you bump the criteria to 41% shooting, you leave only Jordan. But on the other hand, if you make the criteria less stringent (36%) the only new players who show up on the list are: Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Gilbert Arenas, Tracy McGrady Dominique Wilkins, and Magic Johnson. Drop the shooting criterion to 30% and you add Iverson, LeBron, Stackhouse, Maggette, and Rick Barry (ABA had three pointers). Nice company.
I think the point is this - random podunk players simply don't have anomalous seasons where they get to the line 8+ times AND shoot 3+ from deep. Those sorts of two-way scorers, of which Kevin Martin is one, don't come along very often, and when they do, they're GOOD players. Martin is on a list with 13 other players, and the slouches of the list are Corey Maggette and Jerry Stackhouse.
If you've got a better way of determining who the best two-way players are, I'd like to see it - but I just don't see how this method, crude as it may be, leaves much doubt that Martin is on the list.
I believe the original cutoffs were 8 FTA/game, 3 3PTA/game, and 40% 3PT% - which gave only Kevin and Jordan. Sure, if you bump the criteria to 41% shooting, you leave only Jordan. But on the other hand, if you make the criteria less stringent (36%) the only new players who show up on the list are: Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Gilbert Arenas, Tracy McGrady Dominique Wilkins, and Magic Johnson. Drop the shooting criterion to 30% and you add Iverson, LeBron, Stackhouse, Maggette, and Rick Barry (ABA had three pointers). Nice company.
I think the point is this - random podunk players simply don't have anomalous seasons where they get to the line 8+ times AND shoot 3+ from deep. Those sorts of two-way scorers, of which Kevin Martin is one, don't come along very often, and when they do, they're GOOD players. Martin is on a list with 13 other players, and the slouches of the list are Corey Maggette and Jerry Stackhouse.
If you've got a better way of determining who the best two-way players are, I'd like to see it - but I just don't see how this method, crude as it may be, leaves much doubt that Martin is on the list.
As I said, it is telling that he got to the line a lot and made a high percentage of his three pointers. My point was that the out-of-nowhere-ness of that statistic makes it difficult to determine its relevance.
Sure, use the less stringent criteria that gives a few more names and you get a little bit better perspective of the importance of the accomplishment.
I only brought that statistical discussion into this thread in response to some absurdly dismissive statements about Martin's game, not to suggest that he's one of the all-time greats.
It's also telling that by widening the parameters, you still get a list made up of the league's premiere perimeter scorers. Obviously, in the original Sac Bee column the parameters were intentionally set to target a very specific nexus where Martin stood only with Jordan, and alone in another version. I doubt anyone mistook it to show that Martin is a player on par with Jordan, or that this is the ultimate measure of a perimeter scorer. It just shows that he has a particular type of diversity in his game that's uncommon in the league.
It's also telling that by widening the parameters, you still get a list made up of the league's premiere perimeter scorers. Obviously, in the original Sac Bee column the parameters were intentionally set to target a very specific nexus where Martin stood only with Jordan, and alone in another version. I doubt anyone mistook it to show that Martin is a player on par with Jordan, or that this is the ultimate measure of a perimeter scorer. It just shows that he has a particular type of diversity in his game that's uncommon in the league.
And Marion and Laimbeer: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=mk4j3
But if you add in at least 3 assists per game then you get your comparison: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=w2w7u
Actually, that is a pretty darn cool site. I guess I don't mind that they made the only basketball reference change their name.
But if you add in at least 3 assists per game then you get your comparison: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=w2w7u
Actually, that is a pretty darn cool site. I guess I don't mind that they made the only basketball reference change their name.
Ya know, I was thinking if I ask how many players in league history have averaged at least 9.5rebs in a season where they shot 84% from the FT line and hit at least 25 3ptrs, I'm pretty sure I can get Brad on a short list with Dirk and Bird... 
Betcha can't.
Try to get Brad on an all-time NBA list with just him and Jordan with any number of meaningful season stats.
Betcha can't.
