Zach Randolph?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

J-HoAgZ

Jay-Z + LBJ = NBA TAKEOVER
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
435
Likes
0
Points
16
I was just watchin ESPN and they said that after the game where Randolf only played 10 min Randolf went into the locker room and in front of everyone yelling at Isiah Thomas to trade him and Isiah just smiled n shook his head. They just tried to trade him to the Bucks but the Bucks denied it. Would he improve us or slow us down? Should we try for him?
 
nah...I'm not a fan of his. he hasn't been doing so great this season anyway.
 
1) It's RandolPH




Take a step back.

Ask yourself. Do the Nets want Zach Randolph? Would I want him on my favorite team? Would he help us?


If you answer yes to any of these questions, slit your wrists...vertically.
 
you're kidding, right? The Blazers dumped him for nothing and instantly became a zillion times better. Doesn't that count for something?
 
Aren't people clamoring for Boone and Sean to as much playing time as possible?
 
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no ....

I mean yes!

No not really. Do we really need a shooting big man who couldnt D'up my mother?

Yes he can score but he is like a frankenstein of Malik Allen, Glen Robinson and Vin Baker when it comes to defense... No thankyou.
 
wow i guess nobody wants him lol. He definately can still score tho and although we have so many potential scorers on our team we can't score for shit.. I say we wait till tonight's game n if Randolph is lightin us up then we make a trade for him at half time and throw him a Nets Jersey
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ToddMacCulloch11 @ Jan 16 2008, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>no no no, I want no part of him.

in addition to all of the stuff previously mentioned, I'd like to add this wonderful bit of statistics provided by ghoti:

http://sportstwo.com/forums/Amazing-Zach-R...ph-t107762.html</div>
lmao idk how i missed that thread thats good. But hes not as bad as he seems you have to remember that he plays for the good old New York Knickerbockers who love to pay a kabillion dollars for stars on other teams and turn them into trash immediately
 
You can spend all day polishing a turd, but at the end of the day all you have is a shinny turd.

Put down your buffing cloth and go clean the shit out of it.
 
I would even be reluctant to make this trade.

Trade

Leaves us pretty thin upfront.
 
It'd be nuts not to do Kidd's trade above.

You look at the guy's assists and turnovers as if those are important in a big man. I look at his points, FG%, and rebounds, which are more than just good. He's only 27 years old, too, so you will get a few seasons of decent performance out of him.

16.8/10 is fine for a big. His 1.8 APG is fine, too.

To put it in perspective... There are 6 guys with 10 RPG and more than 1.8 APG. There are 7 guys with 10 RPG and more PPG. Yao and Howard both average more TO/G, as does Kaman. Boozer's only a hair better, and Kidd's way up there at 3.7 TO/G.

As I see it, the Nets need a post scorer and an outside shooter, and Randolph gives you some of both (30% 3pt for a big is good).


You can get away with a weaker defensive player, as he is one, if you have strong wing defense.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It'd be nuts not to do Kidd's trade above.

You look at the guy's assists and turnovers as if those are important in a big man. I look at his points, FG%, and rebounds, which are more than just good. He's only 27 years old, too, so you will get a few seasons of decent performance out of him.

16.8/10 is fine for a big. His 1.8 APG is fine, too.

To put it in perspective... There are 6 guys with 10 RPG and more than 1.8 APG. There are 7 guys with 10 RPG and more PPG. Yao and Howard both average more TO/G, as does Kaman. Boozer's only a hair better, and Kidd's way up there at 3.7 TO/G.

As I see it, the Nets need a post scorer and an outside shooter, and Randolph gives you some of both (30% 3pt for a big is good).


You can get away with a weaker defensive player, as he is one, if you have strong wing defense.</div>

So you think it's a good idea for the Nets to be on the hook for $48M to Zach Randolph?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It'd be nuts not to do Kidd's trade above.

You look at the guy's assists and turnovers as if those are important in a big man. I look at his points, FG%, and rebounds, which are more than just good. He's only 27 years old, too, so you will get a few seasons of decent performance out of him.

16.8/10 is fine for a big. His 1.8 APG is fine, too.

To put it in perspective... There are 6 guys with 10 RPG and more than 1.8 APG. There are 7 guys with 10 RPG and more PPG. Yao and Howard both average more TO/G, as does Kaman. Boozer's only a hair better, and Kidd's way up there at 3.7 TO/G.

As I see it, the Nets need a post scorer and an outside shooter, and Randolph gives you some of both (30% 3pt for a big is good).</div>

That is one way to look at the tangible stats. The other way is to look at how much better the Blazers are performing by not having such a player on their team. The Nets are not in a position to take on a problem child, especially not with Sean Williams on the roster.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You can get away with a weaker defensive player, as he is one, if you have strong wing defense.</div>

The Nets don't have a strong, nor even an average wing defense.
 
I'd rather be on the hook for a 20/10 kind of guy than for the three guys in Kidd's trade.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd rather be on the hook for a 20/10 kind of guy than for the three guys in Kidd's trade.</div>

They are not.
 
They will be for guys like them for the length of Randolph's contract.

I'm looking at the makeup of the team and what's out there. You really need a guy like Allen or Redd (not that they're available), but you don't have a place to play them big minutes. You can make up for it with a 4 or 5 who can shoot for a decent enough percentage. Like I said, you get a 46% shooter who hits 30% from 3pt in Randolph, plus you get a guy who's physical enough to get his share of boards for the position.

Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade.

Look at Kidd's link again.

Collins PER 2.11 (that has to be an all-time kind of record)
Allen PER 10.38
Magloire PER 2.12
Add it up: 14.61

Randolph has a PER of 17.07 (Kidd's is 16.90, FWIW), which is impressive enough.
 
Trading three players to whom you owe a combined $6.2M after this season for Zach Randolph is the kind of trade that sets an organization back 15 years.

Also, Jason Collins' expiring contract will be extremely valuable next season whether the Nets are rebuilding or not.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade.</div>

The problem is that the Nets get left with Boone, Williams and Krstic. Foul trouble would be a big problem.
 
So stand pat. You can have 6 turds to polish instead of 3.


There is a guy who's flown under everyone's radar who doesn't make a big salary. I dunno if he's available for trade, but it'd be worth looking into (and for the Lakers, too).

McRoberts. The guy has skills and size. He's buried behind the bigs in Portland, and it's only going to get worse when Oden returns. He was a great BPA pick for the Blazers, but maybe he could be had for small change and a draft pick or two.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So stand pat. You can have 6 turds to polish instead of 3.


There is a guy who's flown under everyone's radar who doesn't make a big salary. I dunno if he's available for trade, but it'd be worth looking into (and for the Lakers, too).

McRoberts. The guy has skills and size. He's buried behind the bigs in Portland, and it's only going to get worse when Oden returns. He was a great BPA pick for the Blazers, but maybe he could be had for small change and a draft pick or two.</div>

He may have looked decent in summer league, but he has a long way to go to be even a decent backup. He isn't buried at all, rather he is getting the playing time he deserves.

He is also very good friends with Oden and isn't going anywhere in a trade.
 
wow--there's so much in this thread now, someone pinch me.

oh, let's see, off the top of my head:

(1) total rebounds is a totally meaningless statistic.
(2) PER? I have a rule: If you don't know what a number represents, you can't use it. I DEFY you to describe how PER is calculated, as well as the correlation between a team's total PER and its record (as well as total league standings). I'll wait.
(3) Josh McRoberts was a mid-second round pick (nearly), has shown nothing, and you are advocating trading a "draft pick or two" for him? I assume you mean a single mid-second round pick.
(4) Let's assume for the moment that we all agree that Randolph would be a good acquisition. Acquiring Randolph without giving up Williams, Boone and/or Krstic has got to be the most counter-productive idea I've heard in a while.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 16 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>(2) PER? I have a rule: If you don't know what a number represents, you can't use it. I DEFY you to describe how PER is calculated, as well as the correlation between a team's total PER and its record (as well as total league standings). I'll wait.</div>

I'll second this rule as a long time opponent of this joke of a statistic. Hell, I'll post the formula and it still won't help.

4706604464b973bebda830a8dd22fca8.png









where
fd17c8e20d91b21a28c4c65e6f14539c.png

a619d84292eca0a7d6e8f09921aa557a.png

eac31deb489bf1a986851b9217168f5d.png


Not done, yet!

8611601f29df12d15edd0284bedfcadd.png


I, too, will wait.
 
LOL

PER is based upon that complicated looking formula, but I do understand it well enough to use it (and then some).

And, no, I suggest the Nets stand pat. They're obviously better than their sub .500 record suggests and would fare better with 6 turds at the PF/C positions than just 3 (and Randolph). Why would you want to consider shaking things up?
 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52).

All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:
<pre>
uPER = (1 / MP) *
[ 3P
+ (2/3) * AST
+ (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG
+ (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG)))
- VOP * TOV
- VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG)
- VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT)
+ VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB)
+ VOP * DRB% * ORB
+ VOP * STL
+ VOP * DRB% * BLK
- PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]
</pre>
Most of the terms in the formula above should be clear, but let me define the less obvious ones:

factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT))
VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA)
DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB

I am not going to go into details about what each component of the PER is measuring; that's why John writes and sells books.

Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

* 1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA
* 1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA
* 1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA

The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statsitics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:

* Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
* Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
* Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
* Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.

Some of these solutions may not be elegant, but I think they are reasonable. After uPER is calculated, an adjustment must be made for the team's pace. The pace adjustment is:

pace adjustment = lg_Pace / team_Pace

League and team pace factors cannot be computed for seasons prior to 1973-74, so I estimate the above using:

estimated pace adjustment = 2 * lg_PPG / (team_PPG + opp_PPG)

To give you an idea of the accuracy of these estimates, here are the actual pace adjustments and the estimated pace adjustments for teams from the Eastern Conference in 2002-03:

<pre>
Tm Act Est

ATL 1.00 0.99
BOS 1.00 1.02
CHI 0.97 0.98
CLE 0.97 0.99
DET 1.05 1.06
IND 0.99 1.00
MIA 1.04 1.08
MIL 1.01 0.96
NJN 0.99 1.03
NOH 1.01 1.02
NYK 1.00 0.98
ORL 0.98 0.97
PHI 1.00 0.99
TOR 1.01 1.01
WAS 1.03 1.03
</pre>

For all seasons where actual pace adjustments can be computed, the root mean square error of the estimates is 0.01967.

Now the pace adjustment is made to uPER (I will call this aPER):

aPER = (pace adjustment) * uPER

The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following:

PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER)

The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons.

Those are the gory details. If you have any comments or questions, please send me some feedback</div>
 
In other words, everyone has to resort to the formula in order to describe it. it is just nonsense. I can come up with a formula, too.

By the way, there are roughly ten rating systems that apply a linear weight to up to ten events that could occur on a basketball court. I've never seen any proof that Hollinger's is better than the others, or that it correlates to overall team performance. Dave Berri's Individual Wins stats is probably best at that. FWIW, I prefer Dean Oliver's method, which is also summarized at basketball-reference, cpaw.
 
Kidd, Isiah would never accept that trade. Basically, we add salary and get nothing tangible in return. The Nets will have to throw in draft picks for the Knicks to even consider making that deal.

I don't know how well Zach will fit in with the Nets, especially with your PF's developing. Zach will definitely add a low post presence and can keep the opposing shot blocker out the paint with his jumper. But sometimes he can go a little nut and not pass the rock.

Kidd, VC, RJ, and Randolph is intimidating though. But I think Isiah would want something significant in return though. Rumor has it he's after Carter (as he has been for a couple of years now).
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Kidd, Isiah would never accept that trade. Basically, we add salary and get nothing tangible in return. The Nets will have to throw in draft picks for the Knicks to even consider making that deal.</div>

Yeah, I'm well aware. I wasn't being serious about it, either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top