Re: Walker

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

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, smishra wrote:

> Walker's shooting percentage is improving as he is maturing and given a
> consistent position I think that it will improve.

Unfortunately, it hasn't improved.  Two months ago he was shooting around
43.5%.

> Walker's free throw % at one time was close 50-53%, he has brought it up to
> 60.3 so I see an improvement there. I have been looking at some stats and
> his FT% for Jan & Feb is about 67%. Now he has to work on it a little bit
> to bring it above 70%.

His free throw % has improved somewhat.  I am willing to reserve judgement
until next year, but he has a ways to go.

> Walker is the first option for the C's on offence hence ends up handling
> the ball more plus he has bunch of CBAer's to the pass the ball to. Compare
> our cast of characters in front line to Vin Baker, Glen Robinson & Armond
> Gilliam. 

That doesn't excuse the turnovers, those are Walkers fault.  Maybe he
would get more assists with better players, but Williams, Fox, and Wesley
can score.  I am not as concerned about his assists per game as I am about
his turnovers per game.

> I am not saying that he will be as good an SG as Ray Allen or a great
> center. But Walker can play these positions says something about his all

He can't play those positions effectively in my opinion.

> round skills. Yes Walker can't guard physical opposing center's but they
> can't guard him either he averaged 20+ ppg and 11+ rebounds a game when
> starting at center <looks pretty good to me..not many centers can do that>.

He had a very nice West Coast trip playing center when Williams was out,
but he was playing teams with no center (Seattle, Portland when Sabonis
was injured, Golden State, etc.).  He is quicker than most centers and
thus can score off the break.  I don't question his ability to dunk
leading the break, but his half-court offense is shaky even when being
guarded by slower centers.


> Walker may not be a great shooter but I disagree that he is not a good
> passer.

He makes a decent amount of good passes, but he makes a lot of bad passes
and consequently has a lot of turnovers.  He is better than a black hole
who never passes or than a guy who can't hit the open man, but until he
cuts down on stuoid risky passes, I can't label him a good passer.


> > As for Baker, how many mins per game, fg%, ft% in his rookie year?  These
> > numbers are essential for making a comparison.
>  
> YEAR  TEAM        G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG STL BLK PPG
> 
> 93-94   Milwaukee 82 63 31.2. 501  .200. 569   7.6   2.0   60   114  13.5

Prorate over 35 mins and you get 15.1 pts, 8.5 rebs, 2.2 assts, 1.6 blks,
.82 stls.  He scored less, but shot over 50%.  His rebounding numbers are
somewhat less, but he had more rebounding help than Walker does.  We don't
know how many turnovers he had, so it is hard to compare his passing.  His
FT% was horrendous just like Walkers.  My main concern about Walker is his
poor fg% and his high turnovers per game.


> 
> Walker is a great rebounder and forget the average, he has had games with
> 21, 19, 17, 15+<multiple times>. When was the last time a celtic had that
> kind of rebounding numbers? <you probably have to go about 5 years>.

Walker is a very good rebounder who has had some great rebounding games
because he is the tallest guy on a team with no center and little height
at the guard position and he puts back a lot of his own missed shots.  Who
is second on the team in rebounding? Fox with around 4.5?  Bird, McHale,
and Parish would have had those kinds of numbers if the other two weren't
along side them.  But whatever, we are quibbling.  I am impressed by his
rebounding; I just don't think it makes him untradeable.

>  
> > 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).
> 
> I don't have year by year stats of Mchale or Louis, but I watched Louis in
> his rookie year. He was good defensively but didn't have an outside shot
> and nobody at that time could say that he would be a great player.

Lewis barely played his rookie year.  You have to look at his 2nd year,
many saw the greatness in him then. 

> Fox:
> YEAR TEAM   G  GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG STL BLK PPG
> 91-92  Boston 81 5    19.0  .459  .329 .755  2.7   1.6   78   30    8.0
> 
> Williams:
> YEAR TEAM   G  GS MPG  FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG STL BLK PPG
> 95-96  Boston 64 6    23.0  .441  .300  .671  3.4   1.1   56   11    10.7
> 
> Shaw:
> 88-89  Boston 82 54  28.1  .433  .000  .826 4.6    5.8   78    27     8.6
> 
> What good numbers and much better fg%?  

I said fairly good and I stand by that claim.  Prorate to 35 mins
(Walker's mins/game):

Fox:  14.7 pts, 5.0 rebs, 2.9 assists, 1.77 stls, .68 blks.
Williams:  16.3 pts, 5.2 rebs, 1.7 assists, 1.33 stls, .26 blks
Shaw:  10.7 pts, 5.7 rebs, 7.2 assists, 1.8 stls, .62 blks
Walker:  16.5 pts, 9.1 rebs, 2.8 assists, 1.26 stls, .64 blks

Walker was a 6th pick, Williams 13, Fox and Shaw were 20+ picks

Shaw was a jump shooter and still shot better than Walker.  Fox is more of
an outside player and shot much better.  Williams did not shoot much
better, but still better.  All were better FT shooters.  Fox was a better
3pt shooter and I think Shaw was too, but you have him down for 0% which
surprises me (Shaw didn't hit one three his rookie year?).  Even Williams
had an equivalent 3pt fg% although he didn't take nearly as many 3 ptrs.

I am not saying that any of these guys are better than Walker, only that
given the mins Walker is playing and the position he was picked in, he is
not doing surprisingly well.
 

> > 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.
> > 
> How do you know that? Looking at Karl Malone's rookie numbers  who could
> have said that he will be one of the 50 greatest players. By the way Malone
> FT% was 48.1 and he played 31 mins per game.  Let's see what Walker does
> next season when he has some good players around him and the C's lineup
> settles down.


I can't be 100% sure of course.  I am just saying he hasn't shown me
anything that would make me refuse to trade him for Baker.  If we keep
him, I will cheer him on and hope he improves.  But unless he changes
dramatically, he will never be the kind of player that can take-over a
game and lift his team to victory, the way MJ, Bird, Magic, Kareem,
Havlicek, Cowens, Wilt, etc. were.  Karl Malone is simply awesome, but
even Malone is not in that category.

I don't like playing Devil's advocate, because I really like Walker.  I am
happy with his play generally, but I see some flaws that he needs to work
on, and I certainly would be willing to trade him for the right players in
return.

CJM