|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:21:12 GMT -5
Hes been playing extremely well since coming back from his knee injury. While still not 100% hes led the Warriors to a 7-2 record since his return. Check the stats....
In March 8 8 27.8 .530 .481 .851 0.5 4.3 4.8 6.8 2.5 0.13 19.9
His minutes have been limited because his knee is still a bit sore, but hes putting up 20 ppg in less then 28 mpg. His shooting %s are very good, and hes also playing great defense. His FT % is up 20 percent from earlier in the season.
Hes more focused, and hes got better players surrounding him. And if you watched the Wizard game Friday night you can see a difference in the team play overall.
Im not saying everyone should change their opinion of him from this small 9 game sample, but I am saying I think hes a legit top 5 PG and hopefully his play will continue to improve and maybe hell get a little more resepct.
|
|
kjkeelty
Starter
Celtics
Go Green
Posts: 802
|
Post by kjkeelty on Mar 25, 2007 11:25:00 GMT -5
I've always loved his talent, but he's the type of guy that I'm always afraid to draft in fantasy leagues. It's never a question of if he's getting hurt, but when. I hope they can sneak into the playoffs. I don't see much of them here in the East, but they seem like a fun team to watch. They'll probably get bounced in round one anyway, though.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:26:14 GMT -5
They match up well with Dallas.
|
|
kjkeelty
Starter
Celtics
Go Green
Posts: 802
|
Post by kjkeelty on Mar 25, 2007 11:26:52 GMT -5
Yeah, if nothing else, it'd be a very entertaining series. Should be lots of offense, plus the whole Don Nelson subplot.
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Mar 25, 2007 11:29:08 GMT -5
that'd be enjoyable
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:30:55 GMT -5
Brian and I went to the last Warriors-Mavs game and the Warriors were up the whole game. Dirk was like 3 of 12 with 7 TOs. Awesome game to watch.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Mar 25, 2007 11:31:58 GMT -5
Nash, Paul, Kidd, Williams, Billups.
Just by virtue of those five existing, he ain't top five.
He'll always produce pretty nicely, no denying that. But his teams have no rhythm to their offenses (undeniable!), they don't win, and he can't stay healthy. He's a second-tier point guard (with guys like Hinrich, Parker, Marbury, Ford, Bibby, Terry) with a world of talent and an inability to stay healthy. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to.
I'm not trying to shut you down for arguing in his favor. If he's doing good things, I won't dispute that he's capable of producing and leading the Warriors to the playoffs. I just don't think, for injuries and a lack of success, you can call him top five.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:36:47 GMT -5
Nash, Paul, Kidd, Williams, Billups. Just by virtue of those five existing, he ain't top five. He'll always produce pretty nicely, no denying that. But his teams have no rhythm to their offenses (undeniable!), they don't win, and he can't stay healthy. He's a second-tier point guard (with guys like Hinrich, Parker, Marbury, Ford, Bibby, Terry) with a world of talent and an inability to stay healthy. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. I'm not trying to shut you down for arguing in his favor. If he's doing good things, I won't dispute that he's capable of producing and leading the Warriors to the playoffs. I just don't think, for injuries and a lack of success, you can call him top five. I love Deron Williams but I dont see him being better then Baron Davis. But thats just my opinion. All your points are valid though. Baron is pretty young, we'll have to see if he can stay healthy, and or lead the Warriors to a playoff series win.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Mar 25, 2007 11:38:18 GMT -5
Spence, on talent alone, would you take Baron or Stephon?
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 25, 2007 11:39:37 GMT -5
not for nothing but i would take tony parker over both baron and derron.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:40:07 GMT -5
Spence, on talent alone, would you take Baron or Stephon? Id much rather have Baron Davis. Hes more of a true PG then Steph IMO. For whatever reason their is a huge anti-Baron sentiment from guys that dont see him play much. If you watch him, you realize how much better he makes everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:40:50 GMT -5
not for nothing but i would take tony parker over both baron and derron. I dont think TP makes guys around him better. Hes a very good shooter, and hes super quick. But I dont think he makes guys around him better players, which is a huge thing for a PG.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 25, 2007 11:42:56 GMT -5
i mean that is all true, but he still plays the PG position effectively and is one of the best. for the same reasons michael vick can be one of the most dangerous qb's without even throwing 60%.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 25, 2007 11:44:41 GMT -5
well anyway if we go by making team mates better as that much of a factor then i would take baron over billups too. i just don't think it's fair to say that's the only quality at this point.
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Mar 25, 2007 11:50:35 GMT -5
Nash, Paul, Kidd, Williams, Billups. Just by virtue of those five existing, he ain't top five. He'll always produce pretty nicely, no denying that. But his teams have no rhythm to their offenses (undeniable!), they don't win, and he can't stay healthy. He's a second-tier point guard (with guys like Hinrich, Parker, Marbury, Ford, Bibby, Terry) with a world of talent and an inability to stay healthy. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. I'm not trying to shut you down for arguing in his favor. If he's doing good things, I won't dispute that he's capable of producing and leading the Warriors to the playoffs. I just don't think, for injuries and a lack of success, you can call him top five. Paul's had a hard time staying healthy...not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that he's "robust"
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Mar 25, 2007 11:51:25 GMT -5
I'm an Illini fan so Deron Williams is my boy, but I'd say that I'd have to take Davis over him, at least for the next year or so.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:55:07 GMT -5
well anyway if we go by making team mates better as that much of a factor then i would take baron over billups too. i just don't think it's fair to say that's the only quality at this point. Did I say only quality? I definitely didnt mean that. I think it is a very important quality, but not the only quality. I think a PG that doesn't make his teammates better can be very good, but isnt an elite PG IMO. I think Billups is better the Parker because while he may not make players around him better, he is an emotional leader and hes really the Pistons go to scorer. When it counts Chauncey comes up big.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 11:55:37 GMT -5
Nash, Paul, Kidd, Williams, Billups. Just by virtue of those five existing, he ain't top five. He'll always produce pretty nicely, no denying that. But his teams have no rhythm to their offenses (undeniable!), they don't win, and he can't stay healthy. He's a second-tier point guard (with guys like Hinrich, Parker, Marbury, Ford, Bibby, Terry) with a world of talent and an inability to stay healthy. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. I'm not trying to shut you down for arguing in his favor. If he's doing good things, I won't dispute that he's capable of producing and leading the Warriors to the playoffs. I just don't think, for injuries and a lack of success, you can call him top five. Paul's had a hard time staying healthy...not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that he's "robust" Chris Paul is amazing. Hes the next great point guard in the NBA.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Mar 25, 2007 11:58:03 GMT -5
Nash, Paul, Kidd, Williams, Billups. Just by virtue of those five existing, he ain't top five. He'll always produce pretty nicely, no denying that. But his teams have no rhythm to their offenses (undeniable!), they don't win, and he can't stay healthy. He's a second-tier point guard (with guys like Hinrich, Parker, Marbury, Ford, Bibby, Terry) with a world of talent and an inability to stay healthy. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. I'm not trying to shut you down for arguing in his favor. If he's doing good things, I won't dispute that he's capable of producing and leading the Warriors to the playoffs. I just don't think, for injuries and a lack of success, you can call him top five. Paul's had a hard time staying healthy...not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that he's "robust" I don't recall making that conclusion. I said because the five guys I named existed, Davis isn't top five. Paul is much, MUCH better than Davis (Paul's the best point guard in the league next to Nash, IMO), so a 20 game ankle injury isn't gonna change that. Chronic injury is one of my criticisms of Baron. I would still think he's second tier if he played 82 games.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 25, 2007 11:59:44 GMT -5
well anyway if we go by making team mates better as that much of a factor then i would take baron over billups too. i just don't think it's fair to say that's the only quality at this point. Did I say only quality? I definitely didnt mean that. I think it is a very important quality, but not the only quality. I think a PG that doesn't make his teammates better can be very good, but isnt an elite PG IMO. I think Billups is better the Parker because while he may not make players around him better, he is an emotional leader and hes really the Pistons go to scorer. When it counts Chauncey comes up big. well you didn't say that but i guess it's all clarified now. i love a PG who makes his team mates better too, but i also think there's a great value to a PG who will score - and definitely one who goes to the hole and/or gets to the line and scores. nash, iverson, arenas, kidd, parker that is my top 5 with billups and baron getting the shaft, but i would never have a problem interchanging one for any of them except for nash. i understand your point but how can iverson/arenas not be elite players? they're not elite passers but still.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 12:02:47 GMT -5
Did I say only quality? I definitely didnt mean that. I think it is a very important quality, but not the only quality. I think a PG that doesn't make his teammates better can be very good, but isnt an elite PG IMO. I think Billups is better the Parker because while he may not make players around him better, he is an emotional leader and hes really the Pistons go to scorer. When it counts Chauncey comes up big. well you didn't say that but i guess it's all clarified now. i love a PG who makes his team mates better too, but i also think there's a great value to a PG who will score - and definitely one who goes to the hole and/or gets to the line and scores. nash, iverson, arenas, kidd, parker that is my top 5 with billups and baron getting the shaft, but i would never have a problem interchanging one for any of them except for nash. i understand your point but how can iverson/arenas not be elite players? they're not elite passers but still. AI and Arenas are in their own categories though. They are more SGs then true PGs, and always will be in my book. And they are both elite. The Arenas-BD matchup Friday night was quite lovely to watch by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 25, 2007 12:03:34 GMT -5
Paul's had a hard time staying healthy...not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that he's "robust" I don't recall making that conclusion. I said because the five guys I named existed, Davis isn't top five. Paul is much, MUCH better than Davis (Paul's the best point guard in the league next to Nash, IMO), so a 20 game ankle injury isn't gonna change that. Chronic injury is one of my criticisms of Baron. I would still think he's second tier if he played 82 games. I think Paul is the 2nd best PG in the league and would be the first PG selected in a fantasy draft type situation. Hes just a stud.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Mar 25, 2007 12:04:50 GMT -5
They're elite players, no doubt. I just don't consider either of them point guards. I'm not trying to be technical and only consider point guards in the conventional sense, but those guys are playing totally different positions than what we're discussing. They'd make the top five if we're considering the top five guards in the leauge who are shorter than the other starting guard on their team . I just think it distorts the point guard conversation to include Arenas and Iverson. They're not redefining the position; they're just combo guards who handle the ball by virtue of their size, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Mar 25, 2007 12:05:07 GMT -5
I don't recall making that conclusion. I said because the five guys I named existed, Davis isn't top five. Paul is much, MUCH better than Davis (Paul's the best point guard in the league next to Nash, IMO), so a 20 game ankle injury isn't gonna change that. Chronic injury is one of my criticisms of Baron. I would still think he's second tier if he played 82 games. I think Paul is the 2nd best PG in the league and would be the first PG selected in a fantasy draft type situation. Hes just a stud.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 25, 2007 12:17:27 GMT -5
i mean they're not redefining but winning basketball is being redefined. i completely understand and respect that you guys are talking about true PGs and i'll lay off in that matter.
i am partial to shooting/driving PGs being part of the discussion of best PGs because a lot of offensive systems don't rely on PGs. the mavs and spurs have offensive players that are independant. the teams benifit from guys like parker/terry playing PG and it's a big part of their success. but yea, shutting up now...
|
|