« Reply #709 on: May 20, 2010, 11:41:07 AM »
Don't get me wrong Redz, I think it's a good pick. I loved Michael Adams. Actually I don't think I have seen what I would label as a bad pick since the 5th round. I just think when determining which year you are going to use for him, that that year is in fact not his best year, despite what the numbers might say.
I've been taking guys of late whose numbers are less, but fit much more into a role on my team. And of the guys I've drafted I'm taking some lesser statistical years for better efficiency years on a number of players.
Also I'd much rather have Brandon who in the year I'm taking went for 17 points, 9 assists, 2 steals, 3.5 boards, all while hitting over 40% from three (and 90% from the line), then an inefficient chucker like Adams. Just my personal preference of course, but that is how I see it.
The thing about Brandon's efficiency is that he took very few three pointers and very few free throws. The overwhelming majority of his shot attempts were two point field goals.
Take the year you are talking about for example, Brandon took 14.7 FGA per game and had a FG% of 46.6%. 1.9 of those 14.7 attempts came from downtown and he hit 40%. And, Brandon got another three free throws a game at 90%. The result was an eFG% of 49.2% and a TS% of 53.5% which is a mediocre figure. So, Brandon's overall scoring efficiency isn't that impressive.
Michael Adams posted a TS% of 53% during his 26.5/10.5 season despite his lousy shooting numbers because he took a large number of three point attempts (8.5 per game out of 21.5 FGAs) and free throw attempts (8 per game).
I hear you, but how many PG's actually hit 47.6% of their two point attempts.
Logged
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick
Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip
Topic: CB Historical Draft - 1990's 2000's version: Draft Thread (Read 130334 times)