Re: Walker

["Caleb J. McArthur" <cmcarthu@umich.edu>]

On 28 Mar 1997, SKMISHRA.US.ORACLE.COM wrote:

> > Based on thier rookie seasons, we have reason to believe that Allen is a 
> > better shooter and passer than Walker. 

> Allen is an SG, while Walker is a PF. If Allen doesn't handle and shoot
> the ball better than Walker then he won't be any good. By the way Allen
> is averaging 13 ppg and 2.5 assists shooting 41% doesn't sound earth
> shaking to me. Walker is averaging 16.3 ppg and 2.8 assists shooting at
> 43%.

First of all a PF should have a much higher FG% than a SG since a PF takes
much higher percentage shots (agreed that a SG is expected to have a
better 3pt fg% and be a better passer).  Look at the league leaders in FG%
most of them are big men who play down low (stockton is a notable
exception). 

Now let's look at the numbers:

Walker
min	2ptfg%	3ptfg%	ft%	asst	to	ratio
35.0	43.5	29.6	60.8	197	200	.99:1 (7:7)

Allen
min	2ptfg%	3ptfg%	ft%	asst	to	ratio
30.7	43.4	38.1	81.3	181	127	1.43:1 (10:7)

Walker's shooting percentage is abysmal for a big man.  Allen, a jump
shooter, has just about the same 2ptfg%.  Allen's overall fg% is lower
than Walker's primarily because Allen takes many more threes but he makes
38% of them so that is not hurting his game (33% threes = 50% twos).
Walker can't shoot free throws; I don't expect 80% from a big man but 60% 
is horrendous.

Walker has more assists per game only because he plays more mins per game.
Look at their assist to turnover ratios.  Allen is a better passer as he
should be.
 
> Walker is 20 years old and has shown enough versatility to play all 5
> positions. Vin Baker in his rookie year averaged 13 ppg and 7 rebounds.
> 

Well given the above numbers he wouldn't be a good pg or sg; at least not
as good as Allen.  I don't think he has the size to defend the decent to
good centers of the league.  Grant Hill can play the 1-4, Penny Hardaway
can play 1-3 and 4 in a pinch, Jordan can play 1-3, Pippen can play 2-4
and 1 in a pinch, Mason can play 1-4.  Granted these are some of the best
players in the league, but Walker is not even as close to being as
versatile.  He is simply not good enough of a shooter or a passer.

As for Baker, how many mins per game, fg%, ft% in his rookie year?  These
numbers are essential for making a comparison. 


> > Why do you say Walker is great? or will be great? 
>  
> Walker is versatile, quick, great rebounder, great passer and a team
> player. In my book these are attributes of a great player. By the way,

I resepctfully disagree.  As I have said, Walker is not really that
versatile -- he is best suited for the 3 or 4.  He is quick for a forward,
but not quick enough to guard the quick SGs and PGs of the league.  The
notion that Walker is a great passer is not supported by the numbers, less
than 50% of his passes hit their mark.

Walker is not as great a rebounder as the numbers suggest (though I would
still say he is a very good rebounder).  He is averaging 5.5 defensive
rebounds per game which is 26th in the league.  26th in the league for
offensive rebounds is 2.6 per game which would give him a total of 8.1
rebounds per game (very good, but not great).  His offensive rebounds are
inflated because he gets a lot of put backs of his own missed shots.  If
he really were getting off. rebs. because of his tenacity, then he would
have a comparable rank for def. rebs.

Go take a look at Larry Birds career average for defensive rebounds.  I
believe it is around 8.5 per game.  Bird was one of the greatest
rebounder's of all time, but he doesn't get credit because his outside
game lowered his offensive rebounds.


> how many celtic players do you know who had a comparable rookie year? <I
> know one and he turned out to be a very great player>

I don't know of many Celtic rookies that played 35 mins a game.  Look at
Lewis' 2nd year when he started playing thoes kind of mins in Birds
absence.  I believe he averaged close to 18 pts and close to 50% fg%.
What were McHale's numbers the first year he played those kind of minutes?
Anyways, Walker is the highest pick since Larry, he should be much better
than any previous rookies.  Fox, Williams and Shaw all had fairly good
numbers their rookie years (much better fg%) and their were all picked
later (much later except for Williams).


Don't get me wrong.  I am very pleased with Walker's year and think he
will turn into a fine forward, but he is not the next great Celtic and
never will be.  There is no reason why we shouldn't trade him if we can
get value in return, and I think Baker is equal or better value.



CJM