Article on Andrew Bynum

we don't need any statistical sheets for any basketball issues..well, the presence of bynum there is the most significant contribution he can give to the lakers..intangibles cannot be recorded..so graphs and any numbers are irrelevant..these great basketball players don't mind any stats..stats are just for television airtime only..

So all stats are irrelevant? I agree that there are aspects of the game that can't really be measured by statistics but they are a measure of a player's production and that does give us some idea of a player's abilities and impact on the game. You don't measure a player's contributions on intangibles alone.

So all stats are irrelevant? I agree that there are aspects of the game that can't really be measured by statistics but they are a measure of a player's production and that does give us some idea of a player's abilities and impact on the game. You don't measure a player's contributions on intangibles alone.

Teams use stats to get better.. I agree!

Well, that's not what I was saying. I'm just saying that when we're talking about how good a player is and what kind of impact he has for his team, we can talk about the intangibles because they are important but at some point stats come into the equation because they are a measure of a player's production.

I just predict him to be a "better David Harrison" for now, but maybe he'll prove me wrong.

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Andrew Bynum will be 18/10 next year, I can't believe there are people who doubt his talent and the fact that he's already grown in to it. I would have been completely ecstatic to trade Jermaine for Bynum straight up last year, that would have been a major, major steal for the Pacers but there is no way LA would have ever agreed to it.

we don't need any statistical sheets for any basketball issues..well, the presence of bynum there is the most significant contribution he can give to the lakers..intangibles cannot be recorded..so graphs and any numbers are irrelevant..these great basketball players don't mind any stats..stats are just for television airtime only..

So, you don't care who wins the game? I mean, that's a statistic. You don't want to know how many of a players shots he's made? How many rebounds he got? How many turnovers? How often he got to the line?

Who won the NBA Finals? You aren't allowed to use any statistics. So don't use points scored, games won, etc. You can't use players celebrating at the end of a game (indicating zero time remaining...a statistic!) either as that is a binary node.

intangibles cannot be recorded..so graphs and any numbers are irrelevant

This implies the intangibles outweigh the tangibles. So things that nobody can assess or determine exist outweigh points scored and allowed.

This sounds like a religion vs. science argument now. Experiments on tangible things with results that can be replicated vs. "belief in intangibles"?

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Andrew Bynum will be 18/10 next year, I can't believe there are people who doubt his talent and the fact that he's already grown in to it. I would have been completely ecstatic to trade Jermaine for Bynum straight up last year, that would have been a major, major steal for the Pacers but there is no way LA would have ever agreed to it.

I'm glad I amused you, but considering the seriousness of his injury and how many players were never able to come back to their level of performance or improve it, I really don't see why everyone's expecting him to be so dominating next year. He's still really young and I think he's gonna be quite injury prone from now on.

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Andrew Bynum will be 18/10 next year, I can't believe there are people who doubt his talent and the fact that he's already grown in to it. I would have been completely ecstatic to trade Jermaine for Bynum straight up last year, that would have been a major, major steal for the Pacers but there is no way LA would have ever agreed to it.

I'm glad I amused you, but considering the seriousness of his injury and how many players were never able to come back to their level of performance or improve it, I really don't see why everyone's expecting him to be so dominating next year. He's still really young and I think he's gonna be quite injury prone from now on.

I really don't think he's going to be injury prone from now on, simply because he took SO MUCH time to recover this injury it can't really get re-injured...

yes, because the key to never getting re-injured again is to take as much time off as possible. Watch time totally break his leg off this time.

Exactly. It only means he should be completely healed when he finally returns to action, assuming there isn't a lasting weakness or other complications. Bill Walton is a fine example of someone who missed plenty of time and went through a lot of rehabilitation for his injuries but was never able to shake off the injury bug.

The Lakers should hijack the Phoenix Suns medical staff... Just out of precaution

So all stats are irrelevant? I agree that there are aspects of the game that can't really be measured by statistics but they are a measure of a player's production and that does give us some idea of a player's abilities and impact on the game. You don't measure a player's contributions on intangibles alone.

Sorry.

But when players are on the court, I don't actually think that they do care much about it. I don't think they will go "I don't want to shoot, my FG% is below 500". Did I say that it can be measured by intangibles alone? Maybe I sounded like that I'm pointing to that idea, but I don't think scouts and teams pays too much attention to it. But for benji, he always do a lot of graphings and bars about stats, I think it's alright if that's what he like to do. Again, sorry. Peace. Stats are for basketball viewers only.

What you said:

we don't need any statistical sheets for any basketball issues.. ... ..intangibles cannot be recorded..so graphs and any numbers are irrelevant

Why do people keep confusing tables with graphs? I make tables because it is easier for people to read the data that supports my arguments.

I still can't get used to this new movement of not wanting support to arguments.

I don't think they will go "I don't want to shoot, my FG% is below 500".

They may not know the exact percentage, but I'm pretty sure a player is aware of if he is taking and missing lots of bad shots or turning it over a lot.

Sorry.

But when players are on the court, I don't actually think that they do care much about it. I don't think they will go "I don't want to shoot, my FG% is below 500". Did I say that it can be measured by intangibles alone? Maybe I sounded like that I'm pointing to that idea, but I don't think scouts and teams pays too much attention to it. But for benji, he always do a lot of graphings and bars about stats, I think it's alright if that's what he like to do. Again, sorry. Peace. Stats are for basketball viewers only.

Scouts and teams not paying much attention to stats? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. If a team shoots 30% and gives up 120 points, I'm sure the coach doesn't say "Our intangibles were awful last night" when the team is assembled at practice. Are players tracking stats in their heads as they play? Probably not for the most part, at least nothing in-depth but that's not what we're talking about.

When comparing players and looking at their production, you need something tangible so that you've actually got some evidence. Otherwise, you're just saying "This player is good" or "This player is bad" without any rhyme or reason.

Well, I started saying these things when I read the thread and found out that people are basing Bynum's stats to what he actually did before he got injured. That he's not really a help and all that stuffs. Before AB was sidelined because of the injury, he's probably the third best center in the league next to Howard and Yao. And I don't even think that these guys are aware of these early Lakers games.

Honestly, if the Lakers would have had Bynum in the NBA finals I still don't think they would have been able to win it all. Yes, one of their main problems was rebounding and interior play, but what do we really know about Bynum?

Games Played/Games Started- 35/35

PPG- 13.1
RPG- 10.1

Well, personally, as a plain basketball fan, every time I watch any basketball games and compare players, i look at their moves and not on stats

That's why Kobe is more comaparable to MJ rather than Lebron..hehe..at least for me.

Let's end this. I admit I'm wrong. But that's my opinion and i will stick on it forever and ever. Amen.

Well, I started saying these things when I read the thread and found out that people are basing Bynum's stats to what he actually did before he got injured. That he's not really a help and all that stuffs. Before AB was sidelined because of the injury, he's probably the third best center in the league next to Howard and Yao. And I don't even think that these guys are aware of these early Lakers games.

Honestly, if the Lakers would have had Bynum in the NBA finals I still don't think they would have been able to win it all. Yes, one of their main problems was rebounding and interior play, but what do we really know about Bynum?

Games Played/Games Started- 35/35

PPG- 13.1
RPG- 10.1

Well, personally, as a plain basketball fan, every time I watch any basketball games and compare players, i look at their moves and not on stats

That's why Kobe is more comaparable to MJ rather than Lebron..hehe..at least for me.

Let's end this. I admit I'm wrong. But that's my opinion and i will stick on it forever and ever. Amen.

can i say that bynum is officially overrated now?

it's up to you..just don't do it if you're not watching much lakers games..

Last edited by Billie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fuck stats. Darko was the real MVP this year. You just didn't know because nobody watches Grizzlies games, and couldn't see his intangible moves. Seriously guys, watch the games.

I've already said Amen.

it's up to you..just don't do it if you're not watching much lakers games..

everybody knows that bynum has good potential but u saying that he's already one of the best big man in the league, just don't sound right at the moment. he sure has shown signs of greatness but hasn't accomplished nothing yet so u should have expected making such big statement might end up in controversy. and imo, stats is not everything but sure does display most of what a player capable of and what not.

Once Bynum plays a full season at the level he had for a short time last season i'll believe he is the player everyone seems to think he is.

right now he's a guy who was having a very productive start to the season, 30-somthing games is completely different then 82 games, or even 100+ if the Lakers are playing deep into the post-season.

If Bynum can stay healthy and post 20-10 night in, night out for at least 4 or 5 years, then he can be considered. Right now, he's got all the potential in the world...

But where does potential get you? There are two sides to it. Kobe Bryant, a number 13th pick:

over 20,000 points, 3 titles, 81 points in a game, etc. In short, a lock to be in the Hall of Fame

vs. Kwame Brown, a number 1 pick. I think his track record will haunt him forever.

So where does potential get you? In the case of KB, everywhere. In the case of Brown, nowhere but traded.

On topic: Bynum is not even in the same class as Amare Stoudamire or Dwight Howard or Chris Bosh as among the game's elite big men. Can he get there someday? Sure, with time, consistently great play, and if he avoids major injury.

Rip32, I agree that there is a difference between 30-something games and a full season.

Only time will tell. Bynum is young, talented and has a lot to learn and room to grow. We'll see. I have a feeling he's determined not to make a mess of his career like Kwame Brown has so far.

He's a legit big men, capable of being a good centre when he's healthy. But if we're talking about the elite big men in the league, he's definitely not at their level just yet.

He's a legit big men, capable of being a good centre when he's healthy. But if we're talking about the elite big men in the league, he's definitely not at their level just yet.

Exactly. He is a player on the rise and can play basketball at the NBA level. No, he is not worth 16 mil a year, but he's the 3rd best center in teh Pacific Division, and will get better.