| 0 |
Subject: PROFL Experts League
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 09:36
This year, I am going to be in two "expert" Hoops leagues. Last year, I finished 4th in a 12-team "Dirty Dozen" League, and will be competing in that league again this year as well. In addition, I'm also in a PROFL league (more on that in a moment). Both leagues are sponsored and organzied by FantasyRef.com.
I'm still not clear on the particulars of our Dirty Dozen draft this year, but the PROFL draft has just started. As I did last year, I'll post the results of this draft as it unfolds. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts, as I found your input last year to be helpful in clarifying my thinking, and in providing some alternative ideas.
The PROFL is actually a four sport league, with 12 teams competing in each of the four major sports, and some sort of consolidated ranking at the end of the full year - I'm just running the basketball leg of one team. There is more info about this league at FantasyRef, although the Hoops info is still based on last season, I believe.
We are using traditional roto scoring with eight standard categories: Points, Assists, Rebounds, Steals, Blocks, 3-pointers, FG%, and FT%. This is the same format used in the ESPN leagues, which is convenient because the ESPN player rater is a relevant resource, (even though it is based on last year's stats).
I get the first pick, and then the picks snake back and forth. So I don't pick again until #24 and #25. I'm not sure I like that position, but it's the luck of the draw. It is a slow (email) draft, and we'll be doing well if we can get this done before the season starts!
Here are the league participants (in 1st round draft order):
1.01 Dave Hall (RotoGuru)
1.02 Kip Ludwig (not sure of his affiliation, if any)
1.03 Adam Slotnick (Jackpotsports)
1.04 Ken Slight (MonsterBasketball
1.05 Liss - (RotoWire)
1.06 Dave Fitzpatrick (HoopsAvenue)
1.07 Georgoplous (BasketballGuys)
1.08 McLaughlin (FRef)
1.09 Gentles (ProFantasySports)
1.10 McRae - (Sportsline)
1.11 Langendorf - (Sporting News)
1.12 Connors - (FantasyRef)
Along with each pick, we are expected to provide a brief commentary. My experience last year is that most managers waited until after the draft was over to do this, so I may not be able to share much of that as we go along.
My first pick was Tim Duncan, who unfortunately is only eligible as a forward at this point, but may gain center eligibility sometime this season.
My commentary:
Tim Duncan, F – Duncan offers superior totals in rebounds and shot blocking, and also very good numbers for scoring and FG percent. Perhaps just as importantly, he isn’t likely to trash the team’s free throw percentage (as long as he doesn’t shoot like he did two years ago). He’s also been durable, playing in all 82 regular season games in each of the last two seasons. He was the top rated player (for this scoring format) last year, and is certainly capable of a repeat performance. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 86 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 00:57
|
SillySpheres - you are grossly underestimating Wallace's FT impact. The only player with a worse impact on FT% is Shaq.
It's nowhere close to "almost irrelevant."
|
| 87 | Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 09:04
|
Yup. A Wallace-Nowitzki combo, for example, would be shooting a collective 72% from the line (and that's factoring in that Dirk has more than twice as many ft attempts). You usually want to aim your team ft% as close to 80% as possible.
Nice picks, assists need to be shored up, but under any scenario there was always at least one category you'd be lagging in a little bit at this stage.
|
| 88 | Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 10:32
|
Karl Malone is a no-brainer for this next guy. Malone, KG, and Baron would be an interesting combo because he'd have 2 big men shooting 80% from the line to offset his bad ft shooting guard.
Question, can players obtain center-eligibility during the course of the year? If not, then under your strict center requirements there just aren't any worth taking this early . . .
|
| 89 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 10:46
|
Yes, they can attain center eligibility if they start 10 games at center (again, as reported in the ESPN splits). It would be nice if Duncan would do that - although I'm not banking on it.
You're right - under this eligibilty rule, there just aren't many centers worth owning at all. And I'm going to have to find 2 for my roster. Ugh.
|
| 90 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 11:10
|
With the 3.02 pick of the PROFL Draft, Kip Ludwig selects Forward J. Rose, Chicago.
In fantasy terms, there is often nothing better than the best player on a terrible team. When Rose was in Indiana, he averaged around 18 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists. After the move to Chi-town, Rose up those numbers to 23.8 points and 5.3 assists. Moreover, Rose shoots for 45 percent from the field, and well over 80 percent from the line. The introduction of J. Williams into the lineup should take some of the pressure off of Rose, and allow Jalen to keep his shooting percentages up.
|
| 91 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 13:02
|
3.03 Pau Gasol, F (no comment yet)
3.04 Karl Malone, F - Comment: I consider this a safe pick. I think his value will remain about the same as last year when he was a top 20 player. He'll probably get less steals but should improve in fg%. Plus there's no one on the bench that can take his minutes.
|
| 92 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 13:07
|
3.05 Ben Wallace - F
While his foul shooting can be a category killer, his block and rebounds can be category winners. And we hope that our first two selections will dull the effect of his free throw shooting somewhat. 3.5 blocks and 13 rebounds per game are huge numbers for a third round pick (or any pick) and his 1.7 steals per game and high shooting from the field will help as well. We were thrilled to get him in the third round.
|
| 93 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 13:42
|
I really like that Bryant/Nash/B. Wallace team so far (sorry Guru!). Turning out to be an interesting draft.
|
| 94 | Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 14:19
|
just for fun . . .
based on last year's stats the kobe/nash/wallace team free throw average is 76%, which is lower than you want to have. But to be fair, they are looking nice in all the other categories.
|
| 95 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 14:51
|
Actually, that team is also in the hole in total points.
I think the team with Pierce, R. Wallace, and Malone is looking the best (excluding mine) at this point. Its major weakness is assists, and perhaps FG%.
|
| 96 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:08
|
Kobe was 3rd in the league in points, and Nash was 29th. Definitely workable!
|
| 97 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:38
|
Another reason I liked Ben Wallace (understanding his ft%) are his steals and blocks. These are two difficulot categories where numbers matter. Also, as far as FT % goes, he does get to the line less than shaq, but % are %--so that can't be thrown out. He also fits that center slot. But like Guru said, every team is different and you have to fit selections within your team. The best player available doesn't nec. mean it's the right pick for that team.
|
| 98 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:42
|
Yes, it's workable. But the good scorers with other good stats are getting pretty rare now. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It just puts more constraints on the players that will fit this roster going forward.
I'm not saying you can't succeed with Ben Wallace. I had him last year, and if Francis and Allen had stayed healthy throughout, I might have won it all. I still finished fourth. But points scored is a difficult category to augment once the early rounds are history. And virtually impossible to address through free agency.
One of my strategies this year is to try to get some good scorers in the early rounds, while you can players who can produce stats other than points. Some of the other stats - like rebounds - are easier to pick up in subsequent rounds. We'll see how it works.
|
| 99 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:44
|
Ref - as mentioned abefore, B. Wallace is not eligible at center in this league. That is a significant negative factor.
|
| 100 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 15:53
|
Also, as far as FT % goes, he does get to the line less than shaq, but % are %--so that can't be thrown out.
Actually %s aren't just %s. I would guess that team % are calculated using (team FT Made)/(team FT attempted), no? so it's really just like two count stats, each counting for approx. 1/2 a ranking (though this isn't quite right, it is a useful way to think about %s in general, I feel).
|
| 101 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:02
|
Guru, my bad, that does change a lot of strategy.
Obviously, my skimming of msgs comes back to bite me sometimes.
|
| 102 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 87192619
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:07
|
Great thread--finally got the chance to read through the whole thing.
Mike D, you are clearly more hopeful about Marbury than I am! I understand he'll be playing with a painful left ankle all season.
Guru, it's interesting that you are placing such a high emphasis on percentages for the team. But I think you are right to take the scorers early and do spot stat cleanup the later rounds. It's difficult to pick up real consistent scorers later on--you end up with guys like Jordan, who can give you 25 or 5 depending upon which way the wind is blowing.
Keep it coming!
pd
|
| 103 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:13
|
You are correct in your calculation of team %, but I don't really buy your "two stats, each worth 1/2" analogy.
The two shooting percentage stats are the trickiest ones to rank, I think. The regular counting stats are directly additive, but the percentages have an interrelationship with the other players on the team. Wallace's FT shooting would have a greater impact on a team with less FT's taken in total.
To rank these percentage categories, I create a ranking stat equal to a team percentage which includes 11 average shooters plus the player in question. (12 man rosters)
Here's an example. Using the top 144 players in my ranking universe, the average player shoots 3.78 FTs and makes 2.92 per game. That's a percentage of 77.2%. Now, suppose I have 11 average players plus Ben Wallace. Assume that Wallace is projected to make 1.2 out of 2.8 attempts per game. Eleven average players plus Wallace would have a team FT average of 75.1%, which is a little more than 2% under the league average.
I can calculate a similar stat for every player. This takes into account not only the shooting percentage, but also the shooting frequency. Once I have this stat for each player, I can calculate the mean and standard deviation, just like I can for all of the counting stats. This is the basic ranking approach that I take. It seems to me that it is more accurate than a variety of approximation techniques that I have seen others use. However, I've also noted that it tends to elevate the importance of shooting percentage vs. most other systems, which is why I tend to reward good shooters more than many systems, and also punish poor shooters.
Using my system, although Wallace shoots very few FTs, he is still the second worst player to own for that category (behind only Shaq, who shoots better, but takes a ton of shots).
|
| 104 | miguel p
ID: 44912013
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:29
|
For the record, the ESPN player rater agrees with that; the lowest-rated players in FT% are Shaq (-6.21), Wallace (-3.29), Baron (-2.59), Vlade (-2.12), Miles (-1.54). I don't know exactly how they arrive at those numbers, but they clearly take into account # of FT attempts, and I'm assuming they're just some linear function of standard deviations from the mean scaled according to FTA.
|
| 105 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:29
|
Now I feel stupid ;)
I definitely wouldn't have made some of the choices that these people have made. But they could be right. Lord knows I'm no expert--but it's still fun trying.
|
| 106 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:31
|
miguel, those numbers may be related to everyone else in the league in that category.
Btw, guru, thanks for this thread. the best thing about it are the comments and philosophy behind those picks.
|
| 107 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:35
|
3.06 Sam Cassell
Comments later.
|
| 108 | Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:42
|
Like I said - Wallace brings the stellar FT shooting of Kobe and nash down to 76% for the team. Even though he shoots less, being nearly FORTY POINTS below a desirable percentage creates a non-trivial amount of downward drag.
|
| 109 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:46
|
I'm a good foul shooter, and owning Wallace is a challenge, but I think I can turn him around.
|
| 110 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:46
|
BTW, I'm fairly sure that some of the "experts" in our league have no numerical expertise with this type of scoring format, even though it is a fairly standard roto format. So don't assume that these "expert" picks are necessarily made by "qualified" experts.
There are some who seem to know what they're doing, however. In last year's league, I'd surmise that about half were reasonably astute, and half were not managing in a very "expert" fashion.
My competitive advantage is my strength with numbers. If I had a better crytal ball, and could better anticipate the stats for each player, I think I could mop up. (I know, duhhh...) I know how to fit a roster together, but if I don't do a good job estimate the components, I'm going to be off.
Conversely, there are other experts who can undoubtedly do a much better job of projecting individual player stats. But some of them are relatively clueless at how to rank players (for this type of scoring framework) once they have a good set of projections.
|
| 111 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:47
|
Hmmmm... For %s, wouldn't calculating a z-score using a mean and SD for your 144 that are weighted by a player's (shot/ft) attempts be more accurate? Then weight by attempts again when adding the individual z-scores for the 8 cats together.
I agree the numerator and denominator each as 1/2 a rank analogy isn't perfect - you have to assume similar team totals. I just like it as a way of thinking about %s that I can get my head around - it highlights the importance of considering the different weights for each player. I find it more useful for something like assist/turnover ratio, though it has the same caveats.
|
| 112 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:53
|
Also, Guru, have worked with the rotowire projected stats before? I used them this year, though I have no idea how good they are. The few I took a closer look at seemed reasonable, but I think that I will try and compare them to actuals after the season to see how well they did.
|
| 113 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:54
|
ESPN player rater - as I understand it, a rating is based on how a player is likely to change your standing in each category.
For example, using per-game averages, Ben Wallace has a FT rating of -3.3. That means that if you replace an average player with Ben Wallace (for a full season), you should expect to drop three ranking points in that category. That is a similar approach to mine. The difference is that I use standard deviations in each cateory to assign relative ranks within the category. ESPN apparently uses empirical data, drawn from their vast database of league results, to scale the results for each category.
We generally get similar relative ranking results within a category, but when you compare totals across all categories, there are generally differences - although the overall results are still quite similar.
|
| 114 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 16:57
|
Perm Dude, one of many articles I have liked about Marbury for this season.
It's time Marbury deals with being Suns' leader
|
| 115 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:03
|
It certainly is time, Mike D, and with Gugs back it should be easier this year for him to assert the role (like his last year in NJ).
But last year he averaged 20 points & 8 assists a game. It'll be hard for him to really push those numbers up by a lot, especially with him getting season-long treatment on a broken bone in his foot.
Or, maybe he can really ice it down while he's servicing his opening game suspension...
pd
|
| 116 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:06
|
I wish I could find the article that I felt was the best. Oh well.
From the above post, I liked this part:
"The Suns were encouraged by how Marbury dedicated his offseason entirely to basketball -- other than his time in jail, of course -- and how he got into the best shape of his life. They also view his marriage to his long-time girlfriend as another sign that he's now all business. In training camp, he has been a leader for Frank Johnson."
He's got a large chip on his shoulder after Kidd had such success in NJ, as the trade has been celebrated there. I like motivated players.
|
| 117 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:06
|
I haven't tried using RotoWire projections, but maybe I'll give that a whirl. They don't seem to provide quite enough data to plug directly into my model, but I may be able to reasonably fill in the blanks.
Another project!
|
| 118 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 17:11
|
I guess Ben Wallace holders can only hope he doesn't go to the line much!!!
If he starts to be an offensive threat Hack a Shaq may turn into Wallop a Wallace?!?!
|
| 119 | miguel p
ID: 44912013
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 18:49
|
About ESPN's player rater, I had thought that it was based either on expected effect on ranking (like Guru said in post 113) or on some function of standard deviations from the mean. (BTW, Ref, re 106, that system does take into account how other players in the league did in the category.)
It seemed like the former possibility didn't really make sense, though, because I don't see how Shaq could impose an expected drop of 6.21 ranking points in FT% (using totals, or -7.50 using averages). In a 12 team league (is it 12 or 10? either way . . .) your expected ranking in FT% would pretty much have to be around 6.5 for the 'average' team that they use as a base, depending on how exactly they choose that average team. I guess it's possible that if they select 12 NBA players at random, not specifically those who tend to appear on fantasy teams, then that average team could have a higher FT% than the average fantasy team, leading to an expected FT% ranking higher than 6.5 for the average team. (I don't think this would be the case, but I can't think of any other way it works out here.) If that's how they do it, than their player rater is a bit less useful than I was thinking. It's general usefullness is really what I'm trying to get at, since it's a great time-saver for those of us too lazy to make our own spreadsheets and whatnot, provided they use a reasonable means of determining their numbers.
|
| 120 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 19:09
|
Cassell commentary: Sam Cassell will bring solid numbers in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and total 3s, and has strong shooting percentages. He has also played in at least 74 games in the last 3 seasons. With the departure of Big Dog and insertion of Tim Thomas into the lineup, Cassell will likely be given more scoring opportunities and possibly more assist opportunities with the more athletic style of Thomas as compared to Robinson.
3.07 John Stockton
Commentary: We'll take Mr. Stockton in this spot. Yes, he's older than dirt and not the same player he was three years ago. But this is a roto league and you can't ignore the stats this guys is automatic for: 8+ apg, 1.8 spg, 3 rpg, 82%FT and perhaps most amazingly for a shooting guard, over 50% FG. Oh, and he's practically a given for 82 games.
|
| 121 | Aris
ID: 399161218
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 02:16
|
Re: post 103
My system also favors high percentage shooters and I usually win these categories. It is more simplistic than Guru's but has pretty much the same strengths and weaknesses. I subtract from the player's FT% the league average (say 77.1%)and divide by the league's standard deviation of FT%. This gives a rating for the percentage. Then I multiply by FTA/GM by the player divided by the average FT attempts of the league. It's less sophisticated than Guru's, but it should give very similar results.
The problem is that you cannot differentiate between contributions due to percentage and number of attempts. Eg, a player that takes 10 FT a game at 80% and a player that takes 3 at 90% might improve the percentage of the average team by the same amount, BUT not all teams are average. If you have a great shooting team (above 80%), the 80% guy with the large number of attempts is dragging you down. On the other hand, in a terrible roster, the 80% pulls you closer to the average.
A simpler example is that players who shoot exactly the league average have a ranking of 0 regardless of attempts.
|
| 122 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 07:47
|
3.08 Antawn Jamison, F
Commentary: Jamison was a 20 ppg guy with good percentage numbers whose outside shot has improved with last year's move to the three. I think he will eventually move back to power forward, where his inside moves and quick release will allow him to continue to improve.
3.09 Eddie Jones, G
Commentary: Jones is one of the most underrated roto players in the entire NBA. Sure he's a scorer, a decent 3-point shooter and one of the league leaders in steals but did you know he's averaged over 1.2 blocks over the last 6 years? That’s crazy for a 2-guard. He just doesn't hurt in any one category, which is what you look for in the opening rounds of a draft. And with Alonzo Mourning out for the year, the Heat will be looking for Jones to become more involved in the offense. He's struggled a bit when asked to step up in the past, but I think he's ready to do so this year.
|
| 123 | Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 09:36
|
uh, how do you guys employ such a sophisticated % analysis in a live draft??? I value shooting %s heavily myself, but I usually just go gut-instinct style.
|
| 124 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 09:54
|
It's very hard to keep this all organized during a live draft. That's why I like the slow draft for this particular league. Allows me to think and re-evaluate as the draft goes along. I can keep track not only of my team's statistical projection, but how it relates to all of the other teams.
For a live draft. I just set up a general list sorted in rank order, and then try to stay in balance by gut. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Unfortunately, my gut is not always finely calibrated.
|
| 125 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 10:04
|
You need to speak to Ender about that.
pd
|
| 126 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4372378
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 10:07
|
Indeed. No one can compare to his psychic Gut (capitalization intended).
|
| 127 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 11:25
|
:)
I'll let you know if I feel anything leading up to Tuesday night. It's been gurgling and rumbling a lot lately, but I believe that's simply due to some bad sausage :P
|
| 128 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 11:43
|
Then it sounds like good sausage to me!
|
| 129 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 11:53
|
3.10 S. Marbury, G - PHO
Commentary: Marbury should have another quality season averaging about 20 points and nine assists per game. His three-point percentage leaves a lot to be desired, but Marbury's field goal and free throw percentage will be adequate enough. Marbury's ankle injuries could be a problem later in the season, but he is worth the risk.
BTW, I'll start a new thread after the 3rd round is completed.
|
| 130 | Comeback Kid
ID: 23946239
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 12:52
|
By the way, I'm surprised Rashard Lewis still available. Is his injury really that serious? When he's healthy he puts up fantastic all-around rotisserie numbers.
|
| 131 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 13:22
|
I just loaded RotoWire's raw stats projections into my ranking model. I also ran their projected rankings for my league's scoring framework.
When I use their stats, I get rankings that are reasonably similar to their rankings. So our methods are similar.
What is more interesting is to look at the players that they rank significantly differently than the other rankings I've been looking at.
Let's start with the players they rank much better.
1. Antoine Walker - RotoWire is really projecting a banner season for him. They project 6.2 assists/game (vs 5 last year), 1.8 steals (vs. 1.5), 3.0 3-pointers (2.7), and consistent scoring at 22ppg. That raises him to #8 overall using my method, and they have him ranked #4 overall. Last year, he ended up in the mid-to-upper teens. Quite an improvement! (By the way, they rank Paul Pierce #1 overall, so Antoine's improvements are not at Pierce's expense.)
2. Looking at top-50 players, RotoWire seems to be notably more favorable than others on the following players (their ranking is in []): Iverson[6], Baron Davis[13], Van Exel[15-gotta be a mistake there!], Kirilenko[23], Szczerbiak[29], Mutombo[33], Gooden[41], and DaJuan Wagner[48].
Looking at the next tier, the following players stand out surprisingly well: Charlie Ward[52], Jordan [55], Vin Baker[67].
3. Again, looking at better players, they are notably more pessimistic on the following: Jason Terry[59- uh-oh], Grant Hill[62], Marbury[66], Shaq[69! -probably factoring in downtime].
I really haven't had much opportunity to look at the sources of the major differences, but it looks like they are not afraid to make some bold assumptions.
|
| 132 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 13:48
|
Yeah - I was thinking that my method was off because I was getting Walker #2 (behind Garnett) for my 10 category league (we have turnovers and assist/turnover ratio, in addition to your 8 categories). It turns out that it was just the high assist projections from rotowire that are putting him that high. Do they think he will be feeding Baker more? I don't really understand their optimism, but I took him 7th anyway.
|
| 133 | joe suspect
Donor
ID: 298531714
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 14:38
|
I also saw the optimistic #'s for Charlie Ward. I think they translate to about 28/tsnp. Definately reducing that for my analysis.
Also I was surprised at the pessimistic stats for Gilbert Arenas. Did anyone there look at his last 30 days from last year?
|
| 134 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 15:23
|
I'm curious as to where Kenyon Martin falls in the rankings. I'm really optimisitic about this guys potential this year, especially with KVH and Todd MacCollough being replaced with a defensive stud. KMart should really improve his scoring numbers and continue to perform well in the defense side of the stat sheet. It is definatley time for Kenyon to step up and have a break through season as the main scoring threat on the Nets squad.
Any thoughts on him Guru. Could be a nice pickup at the bottom of the 4th round especially with Jamison being scooped and the drop off at PF after him.
|
| 135 | Aris3
ID: 399161218
Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 18:39
|
Joe: don't uncover the best kept secrets. He should/could be a real impact player for roto.
I think Antoine's increase in assists is because they think he'll play the point after the departure of Kenny Anderson. When I see him play the point regularly, I'll believe it.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|