BuzzerBeater Forums

George Hill greatest FO draft blunder of All Time.

No. That honor would go to Alfredrick "The Great" Hughes, Oliver Robinson or Chris Carawell.
--------
Never heard of him:D

I presume that they should have won that game with 15+ points easy if he would have shown up. Yes good scorers tend to keep shooting even when they have an off day. 1-20 shooting is extreamly horrible performance nomatter how you look at it. I don't know what his other stats were in that game but I would not let that guy take the last shot if he had gone 0-19 before that one. Yes there are guys who play crunch time better and are known of their big shots. If you have ever played basketball in your life there is nothing like "Sticking to the last shot" my god basketball player are known of their silly comments all around the world. We lost because we did not have enough poise or the other team wanted it more or we were not aggressive enough etc. That's just bull. If you go play basketball you go for the win nomatter what and you want to make every shot you take play defence as well as you can etc. Nobody thinks I'm going to miss my first 19 shots and will make my 20-th I hope we are still in the game until that happens:D If you take it by point or any other stat then the team would have not won if guynr1 did not make that one rebound in that game, guynr2 scored that one point from FT, it's sad that he got remembered by a lousy game winner as the team won that game and he almost lost it for em.
Ahh I must have too much time in my hands:D

is that a laughing reply to me? :D

all right you made it, i'm laughing!

anyway both of that match were very close, especially the second one, and Pekovic is one of the best SF in the world.

good BB ^_^

In todays game, my PF had this stat line:

PF A. Burcík 38 2 - 16 1 - 3 6 - 8 4 17 3 2 2 2 3 11 11.5

I know he is one steal and 1 block away from your requirement and his shooting today was awful, but he did achieve something different: Got injured in the 3rd quarter and was fixed up by the doctor during the break :).

(10316126)

This is from a Spanish friendly.. look at the PG : )

65 points, 12 rebounds, 10 assists and 11 steals..

Only a 11,0? He has 13,0 for less than that!!!

I think that he just played alone..

The point is, Kukoc, exactly the opposite of what you think. In the game of basketball, stats are not what win games. Anyone who has ever played the game knows that real basketball is a team game where talent, determination, and luck combine to create a winner and a loser,which is the only important stat in a competitive game. A player can have no points and be the most important player on the floor, or a player can score 58 and be useless.

So 1-20 is statistically miserable. But The Great's 1-20 gave his team a W, which if you have ever played the game you know is what matters. Every shot taken in a basketball game is an individual event, not the culmination of all events before, which is why statistics are trivial during a game. Which is why good shooters keep shooting. At least the ones who recognize that just because you miss 1 or 10 or 19 in a row doesn't mean you're not going to make the next one, and if you are the best player on the floor you should want the ball in the most important situation.

I don't know where you got your stat about AH being one of the worst FO picks (does FO stand for First Round?) but he isn't even in the top 50.

Also, and far more importantly, what does the level of competition have to do with good or bad performance? An elementary school kid can't have a good game?

Not being aggressive is a totally valid reason for losing a game. So is not having enough poise. Just ask Chris Webber. Explain why those reasons are just bull.

It is a mistake to explain wins and losses by stats in real basketball. Stats are the effect, not the cause.

Ok this got me exited:P The statment was from spurs old forums and the first one I found when putting in his name in google. It might be wrong but he did play only one season in nba not doing much in any category. He was drafted after Karl Malone with some better options coming after him but with drafts you never know... He got picked because of his stats not because he hit one of those last second shots. BTW the game you are refering to is the Loyola vs Iona 59:58??? If so then this game loyola should of won eyes closed being the 4-th seed in east, meaning "The Great" almost lost the game for them!!!
Yes stats are not everything in basketball but it gives you the overall picture of who won and why. Only thing not actually showing in stats is defence. Why did your opponent shoot 30% from the floor. Was it great defence with bad selection of shots to take and hand in your face in every shot or did they get open shots not able to hit anything. Luck is the only factor which determins the end result of similar teams and gives weaker teams chance to win.
Stats were exaltly why your "The Great" did not stay in the nba for more than one season. 5.2 ppg for 12.7 minutes seems pretty ok for a sub but he's shot procentages and lousy rebounding compared to his college season were prolly not what SAS was looking for. Now it's a little fuzzy to me what position he played as he was listed as SG in his college but forward in NBA. 6.5 height would put him at SF the most. Why did you bring him up anyway as Loyola got as far as statistics predicted in the start (lost to nr1 east georgetown P.Ewing). If they would have lost the first game to rank13 team it would have been "The Great" failure <- nicely put imo:D
My point is ... you do not want 5 starters in your team that shoot 5% from the floor. No matter how good they are at rebounding. Basically if you as a team leader decide that you will take a great RB+SB with no scoring abilitys on your team you must compensate the lack of scoring on some other position(s) (D.Rodman B.Wallace etc. come to mind).

Also, and far more importantly, what does the level of competition have to do with good or bad performance? An elementary school kid can't have a good game?

If professional basketball players play against amateurs is there a difference in their stats? Now if I play against some 13-14 yo schoolkids I get 10+ in every category if I play 40 mins.

Not being aggressive is a totally valid reason for losing a game. So is not having enough poise. Just ask Chris Webber. Explain why those reasons are just bull.

If you play basketball for a living and love the game then how can you go into a game not being agressive. I understand that with 82 games you tend to use the same dumb lines as an excuse for losing because you have actually no idea what lost you the game until you look at the stats chart... NBA mentality has always been if you have no chance to win it all, they just play hard on your contract year. Well actually it seems there is no point in argueing as NBA is an 1on1 game mostly with isolations and few pick and rolls and no traveling calls. Europe plays more team basketball where offence does not get an advantage on not bouncing the ball on first step or taking 3 steps when dunking the ball as long as it looks nice.

Only thing not actually showing in stats is defence.

Half the game.
If you honestly believe the above statement, then we are at an impasse.

positioning

outlet passing

boxing out

decision-making