Anthony Randolph?

Bballkingsrock

Bballkingsrock

All-Star
#1
#1
He could be our defensive minded big man.

Every time Randolph plays and gets minutes, he does really well. He has a 17.6 PER, which is just as good as ITs.

He is only 23 years old and has the potential to be a borderline all-star player.

What do you guys think? We could get him for cheap which is perfect for the Maloofs.
 
L

Larry David

Starter
#2
#2
Bballkingsrock said:
He could be our defensive minded big man.

Every time Randolph plays and gets minutes, he does really well. He has a 17.6 PER, which is just as good as ITs.

He is only 23 years old and has the potential to be a borderline all-star player.

What do you guys think? We could get him for cheap which is perfect for the Maloofs.
Click to expand...
If the Kings can't keep Thompson, miss on Anderson, sign Kaman, and are looking for another 4, and he's cheap - then maybe take a flyer.

The Kings have become the Clippers and are trying to change the culture. If you have T-Will and Randolph on the bench that could be the start of a very bad mix.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#3
#3
If you were to look up unrealized potential, you'd find Randolph's picture there. In his first four years in the league, he's done nothing to make me want him on my team. Oh you can point to that occasional game where he looked like an all star, but by and large, he's been the poster boy for inconsistency. We might as well just resign Donte Greene. Randolph is a terrible rebounder for his size, and has literally no outside shot at all.
 
beb0p

beb0p

Starter
#4
#4
Anthony Randolph is about as defensive minded a big as Nick Young is a defensive minded big. The guy can't guard anyone, if you ever wonder why he can't get mins, that's the #1 reason. Don't get me wrong, he actually does try to play defense, the key word being: try.

Now, if the Kings is looking for a big who can create his own shots and has no problem jacking up 20 shots a game and don't care if his man has a career game, Anthony is your man.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#5
#5
beb0p said:
Anthony Randolph is about as defensive minded a big as Nick Young is a defensive minded big. The guy can't guard anyone, if you ever wonder why he can't get mins, that's the #1 reason. Don't get me wrong, he actually does try to play defense, the key word being: try.

Now, if the Kings is looking for a big who can create his own shots and has no problem jacking up 20 shots a game and don't care if his man has a career game, Anthony is your man.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is a guy that shoots a blistering 15% from the 3pt line for his career. The major question is, just what is he? He's not a PF! He can't rebound. He's not a SF. He can't shoot! He doesn't play defense. I want no part of him.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#6
#6
Bballkingsrock said:
He could be our defensive minded big man.

Every time Randolph plays and gets minutes, he does really well. He has a 17.6 PER, which is just as good as ITs.

He is only 23 years old and has the potential to be a borderline all-star player.

What do you guys think? We could get him for cheap which is perfect for the Maloofs.
Click to expand...
Hes done nothing to this point to make me want him over Donte Greene, who has at least shown flashes of playing good defense and inexplicably has a higher 3 pt% than Randolph. And since we don't want Donte, we most definitely won't take Randolph.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#7
#7
bajaden said:
Yeah, this is a guy that shoots a blistering 15% from the 3pt line for his career. The major question is, just what is he? He's not a PF! He can't rebound. He's not a SF. He can't shoot! He doesn't play defense. I want no part of him.
Click to expand...
2011-12 Per 36:
Anth. Randolph 17.5pts (.470 .000 .762) 8.6reb 1.3ast 0.9stl 2.4blk 2.8TO
Ryan Anderson 18.0pts (.439 .393 .877) 8.6reb 1.0ast 0.9stl 0.5blk 1.0TO

just sayin'
 
Bballkingsrock

Bballkingsrock

All-Star
#9
#9
jdbraver said:
Not sure what u r sayin.
Click to expand...
He is saying he can rebound, block shots, and overall play well when ( like I mentioned in my original post) he gets the minutes.

Probably not the most ideal solution but the Maloofs have no money and Randolph could come cheap. I obviously would still rather have 2 of Anderson/JT/Andrei.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#10
#10
jdbraver said:
Not sure what u r sayin.
Click to expand...
would have thoguht it was fairly obvious -- wanting no part of one guy because you don't know what he is, while endorsing the other guy doesn't make much sense in light of the numbers. They are the same concept. The same tweener that people constantly forget causes as many problems for you as they do the opponent. In fact as Randolph's "extra" skill is shotblocking, while Anderson's is 3pt shooting, I might actually argue that he comes closer to fitting a coherent profile -- weak rebounding PF -- than does Anderson who is called a "stretch PF" mostly just because he's not quick enough to guard 3s.

Those type of players do have a roster posiiton they fit smoothly into:

1) C
2) PF
3) SF
4) SG
5) PG

6) SG/SF
7) PF/C
8) PG/SG
9) PF/SF <-------


the 8th/9th man mobile/stretch PF that you don't rely on as the main backup to anything, but that you spot in to create matchup problems or change the tempo of the game. Useful style player for that kind of thing.
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#11
#11
bajaden said:
If you were to look up unrealized potential, you'd find Randolph's picture there. In his first four years in the league, he's done nothing to make me want him on my team. Oh you can point to that occasional game where he looked like an all star, but by and large, he's been the poster boy for inconsistency. We might as well just resign Donte Greene. Randolph is a terrible rebounder for his size, and has literally no outside shot at all.
Click to expand...
Except in April! :)
 
J

jdbraver

Guest
#12
#12
Bricklayer said:
would have thoguht it was fairly obvious -- wanting no part of one guy because you don't know what he is, while endorsing the other guy doesn't make much sense in light of the numbers. They are the same concept. The same tweener that people constantly forget causes as many problems for you as they do the opponent. In fact as Randolph's "extra" skill is shotblocking, while Anderson's is 3pt shooting, I might actually argue that he comes closer to fitting a coherent profile -- weak rebounding PF -- than does Anderson who is called a "stretch PF" mostly just because he's not quick enough to guard 3s.

Those type of players do have a roster posiiton they fit smoothly into:

1) C
2) PF
3) SF
4) SG
5) PG

6) SG/SF
7) PF/C
8) PG/SG
9) PF/SF <-------


the 8th/9th man mobile/stretch PF that you don't rely on as the main backup to anything, but that you spot in to create matchup problems or change the tempo of the game. Useful style player for that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
I
What is it lies Damn lies, and statistics?
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#14
#14
Bricklayer said:
2011-12 Per 36:
Anth. Randolph 17.5pts (.470 .000 .762) 8.6reb 1.3ast 0.9stl 2.4blk 2.8TO
Ryan Anderson 18.0pts (.439 .393 .877) 8.6reb 1.0ast 0.9stl 0.5blk 1.0TO

just sayin'
Click to expand...
I've seen both play, and if you want Randolph based on those stats, you have at it. Not me. Those stats are worthless and you know it.
 
MassachusettsKingsFan

MassachusettsKingsFan

All-Star
#15
#15
Per36 numbers can actually be right sometimes.

Those kind of numbers were always there for a guy like Brandan Wright, a player no one gave any playing time to. Dallas gives him a shot, and sure enough he is effective (and his per36 numbers match up with the numbers he was putting up earlier in his career. Gerald Green is another good example. Marreese Speights is another example. Ryan Anderson is another example. Jerryd Bayless is another example.

The goal would be to find the next diamond in the rough. The next guy who never got a real shot but can actually play. It could be Randolph, but some other good per36 guys who never got a real chance are Jordan Hill and Robin Lopez.

I am a basketball risk taker. Always have been. Randolph CAN be good, and players like him have a track record of figuring it out. In fact, I'd take a look at any of the guys I brought up (Randolph, Hill, or Lopez) .. and I would absolutely target Brandan Wright in next years free agency.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#16
#16
bajaden said:
I've seen both play, and if you want Randolph based on those stats, you have at it. Not me. Those stats are worthless and you know it.
Click to expand...
I don't want either based on those stats. Drawing this dramatic line between the two is the problem. Randolph is dumber but more atheltic. Anderson is a more athletic Matt Bonner. Either way they are messy fits on your frontline. Want to sign them as a 4th big? Sure. Why not.
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#17
#17
Check Randolph's stats from this past April and from April two years ago. Based off of those two months I would be willing to take a risk on the guy. I liked him more than I liked JT in the draft where they both were eligible. I still think Randolph has a higher ceiling at SF than JT has at PF.
 
KingsFanSince85

KingsFanSince85

All-Star
#18
#18
Comparing Randolph to Anderson is just plain ridiculous. There's no comparison. Anderson just won MIP while Randolph can't manage more than 15 minutes of PT. Skewing stats in an attempt to make the players appear equal is misleading. If you want to play that game, take a handful of bench scrubs that only see 5 minutes per game and project their numbers for 36 minutes. You'll see some projections that look like they'd be pretty productive if given the time. However, everyone should know that things don't translate that way.

The fact is, Randolph doesn't play 36 minutes per night and he's never averaged more than 22 in any one season. There's a reason for that. He can't maintain the same production level. If he could, he'd be getting the time by now. But he's not.

Anderson has proven he can maintain production with the increased minutes. HUGE difference. And the guy can shoot. Another HUGE difference.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#19
#19
Bricklayer said:
I don't want either based on those stats. Drawing this dramatic line between the two is the problem. Randolph is dumber but more atheltic. Anderson is a more athletic Matt Bonner. Either way they are messy fits on your frontline. Want to sign them as a 4th big? Sure. Why not.
Click to expand...
If I'm going after a 4th big and my choice is between those two, I'm taking Anderson by a longshot. Anderson is a much better overall player than Bonner, and its not even close. And Anderson is certainly athletic enough to play the PF position. I don't know how many times you've seen him play, but he does have a very nice post game and he's not afraid to bang under the basket and rebound. I think you have some image of a guy that just stands out at the 3 pt line and chucks away. Yes, he's capable of making that shot, but he's also capable of doing other things offensively as well.

Now I admit that I'm biased. I love Anderson at Cal, and thought he was very underratted coming out of college, and I think he's proven me right so far. He was one of the leading rebounders in the Pac 10. Is he a star? No! But he'd be a very solid player with good BBIQ.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#20
#20
Gary said:
Check Randolph's stats from this past April and from April two years ago. Based off of those two months I would be willing to take a risk on the guy. I liked him more than I liked JT in the draft where they both were eligible. I still think Randolph has a higher ceiling at SF than JT has at PF.
Click to expand...
Really! You want a guy that shoots 15% for his career from the 3pt line as our SF? You just blew any respect I had for you as a judge of talent. I didn't like Randolph coming out of college, and he's proven me right at every step of the way. In the past 4 years JT has grew and developed. Randolph is still the same player that came into the league. At some point you have to realize that in some cases, a players potential is nothing more than smoke in the wind.

You want to pick out a particular month that plays into your arguement. Well how about I pick out a month where JT averaged 15 pts and 11 rebounds a game. I can do that if you want. But is that a true reflection of his total value? No! Its just one stinking month. You know what makes a player valuable to a coach and a team. CONSISTENCY, CONSISTENCY, AND CONSISTENCY!!!!!! Knowing what your going to get from said player night after night, whatever it is, 8 pts and 6 boards in 22 minutes, or 18 pts and 11 boards in 30 minutes. Randolph has been the poster boy for inconsistency. Ditto Donte Greene!!!!
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#21
#21
bajaden said:
If I'm going after a 4th big and my choice is between those two, I'm taking Anderson by a longshot. Anderson is a much better overall player than Bonner, and its not even close. And Anderson is certainly athletic enough to play the PF position. I don't know how many times you've seen him play, but he does have a very nice post game and he's not afraid to bang under the basket and rebound. I think you have some image of a guy that just stands out at the 3 pt line and chucks away. Yes, he's capable of making that shot, but he's also capable of doing other things offensively as well.

Now I admit that I'm biased. I love Anderson at Cal, and thought he was very underratted coming out of college, and I think he's proven me right so far. He was one of the leading rebounders in the Pac 10. Is he a star? No! But he'd be a very solid player with good BBIQ.
Click to expand...

I have seen a guy in Anderson going backward year by year until he became Rashard Lewis. Early on it looked like he might be a gutsier dirty work guy. But under the perverting force of that gimmick system by last season he was little more than a low shooting percentage three point chucker who wasn't rebounding and was at best a shrug defender.

But yes, I obviously think he could be a good 4th big. He could even be a good third big if both big #1 and big #2 were centers or C/PFs. But if he's your starter, and your center is anybody other than Dwight, you've got issues. He's gone from a scrappy player with range, to a one trick gimmick player taking more than half his shots from three point land. And once you took away Dwight, he began to struggle. He shot .275 from 3pt land in April. By the playoffs he averaged 9.6pts 4.8rebs on .345 shooting.
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#22
#22
bajaden said:
Really! You want a guy that shoots 15% for his career from the 3pt line as our SF? You just blew any respect I had for you as a judge of talent. I didn't like Randolph coming out of college, and he's proven me right at every step of the way. In the past 4 years JT has grew and developed. Randolph is still the same player that came into the league. At some point you have to realize that in some cases, a players potential is nothing more than smoke in the wind.

You want to pick out a particular month that plays into your arguement. Well how about I pick out a month where JT averaged 15 pts and 11 rebounds a game. I can do that if you want. But is that a true reflection of his total value? No! Its just one stinking month. You know what makes a player valuable to a coach and a team. CONSISTENCY, CONSISTENCY, AND CONSISTENCY!!!!!! Knowing what your going to get from said player night after night, whatever it is, 8 pts and 6 boards in 22 minutes, or 18 pts and 11 boards in 30 minutes. Randolph has been the poster boy for inconsistency. Ditto Donte Greene!!!!
Click to expand...
Come on man... I am using April stats saying that he has the "POTENTIAL" to put up numbers. Personally I would rather give TWILL the chance but if we were going to gamble on someone I would perfer it be Randolph. Anderson costs too much for something we don't really need, and Randolph COULD give us a weak side shot blocker although he's not really good defensively..

I am not saying he's the next coming of Jordan or anything, I just wanted to give him a chance.

And my talent scouting has been proven per my picks in the past 5-6 years, and my bust picks in the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.