|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Mar 29, 2009 17:02:17 GMT
Is currently rated a 71 and should be higher, he's averaging 18.8PPG, 4.30RPG, and 3.2APG. (his scoring has slightly increased to 20.3PPG since joining the Bulls) Players that are comparable are Kevin Martin (83), Ben Gordon(81), Rudy Gay(81), and Loul Deng(81).
John Salmons - 20.3PPG, 4.30RPG, and 3.2APG
Kevin Martin - 24.3PPG, 3.60RPG, 2.7APG Ben Gordon - 20.4PPG, 3.40RPG, 3.6APG Rudy Gay - 18.6PPG, 5.70RPG, 1.7APG Luol Deng - 14.1PPG, 6.00RPG, 1.9APG
Now with pointing out those stats I think Salmons should be around an 80-82.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Mar 29, 2009 17:52:25 GMT
Woah yeah definitely. I'd say something like 76/77?
|
|
|
Post by pistons521 - MIA on Mar 29, 2009 17:59:05 GMT
75-76 would be okay.
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Mar 29, 2009 18:08:51 GMT
He's averaging more points then Gay while only getting around one rebound less and he's an 81. Also he's only getting .1 points less then Gordon while getting similar rebounds and assist and he's an 81 so Salmons deserves more then a 75-77, I'd say 79 at the lowest. (or Gordon deserves a decrease)
|
|
|
Post by redstorm177 on Mar 29, 2009 19:38:52 GMT
Not really a big deal but the second time you posted his stats, you gave him a slight boost in points. He's averaging 18.8 ppg and I think a Jamal Crawford-esque rating is in order. Too bad I don't know which team he is on right now to be able to check his rating (I checked like half the league and fail).
|
|
|
Post by Miami Heat on Mar 29, 2009 19:51:16 GMT
Not to mention he's shooting with great percentage, especially since he joined the Bulls, I think 78-79 should be fine
|
|
|
Post by pistons521 - MIA on Mar 29, 2009 20:35:00 GMT
He's on Indiana...thats why he started the thread lol
|
|
|
Post by redstorm177 on Mar 29, 2009 20:44:17 GMT
He's on Indiana...thats why he started the thread lol haha I'm not THAT stupid! I was talking about Crawford.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Mar 29, 2009 22:54:09 GMT
lol
Amazingly Crawford also plays for Indy, here at D5, and has a 76 rating, which is still what I think Salmons should be.
Salmons is very good, and is putting up brilliant numbers, but he doesn't make teams vastly better. In the same way Kevin Martin or Zach Randolph (sorry NOH, lol) are great individual players but will never carry their teams anywhere further than the 1st round.
For that reason I still think a 76-77 is in order here.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Mar 29, 2009 23:31:30 GMT
Shouldn't players be rated based on their ability and performance and not their roles? I mean no one ever said Salmons was a superstar but he puts up amazing numbers and he plays on a decent team (his numbers have increased from SAC to CHI which is impressive considering how much SAC sucks). Gordon and Deng have proven they can't carry a team on their own but their ratings haven't fallen.
You don't have to be the best player on your team to be rated 81ish, you don't even have to make them vastly better...give the man the rating he deserves.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Mar 29, 2009 23:56:21 GMT
I agree with Memphis' logic.^
And the Crawford comparisons are a joke. I'm sorry. Crawford is a chucker. Salmons is efficient as hell. Shoots 47% from the field and 40% from 3 point range. Salmons has been Chicago's BEST player since the trade. Not Rose, not Gordon, not Deng. Its been Salmons. Just thought id drop my insider perspective since im a Bulls fan and watch all of his games.
Salmons leading the way to a possible 6 seed. Bulls were in 11th before the trade.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Mar 30, 2009 0:00:13 GMT
Nevertheless, I still dont think he is an 80. Id say 78 for now. He still needs to prove a little more to me.
|
|
|
Post by jlawdrummer - GSW on Mar 30, 2009 18:48:10 GMT
I agree with memphis and LAC right above me here. The problem I have mostly is, if Salmons still isn't an 80, there is no way in hell Deng and Gordon should be rated clearly ahead of him. 1 or 2 points max. But if you're talking 3-6 points depending on the player he's compared against from that group, it makes no sense.
Raise him more than what you're saying, or drop some other guys.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Mar 30, 2009 19:06:02 GMT
Ben Gordon is still averaging 20/3/3, but Deng is down on all his career averages this season and, I wonder if LAC agrees with me here, his role on the Bulls has been diminished for quite some time.
I think Deng should decrease and Salmons should meet him.
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Mar 30, 2009 19:48:08 GMT
Not really a big deal but the second time you posted his stats, you gave him a slight boost in points. He's averaging 18.8 ppg and I think a Jamal Crawford-esque rating is in order. Too bad I don't know which team he is on right now to be able to check his rating (I checked like half the league and fail). He averaged 18.8PPG for the Kings and has averaged 20.3PPG since he was traded to the Bulls.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Mar 30, 2009 22:37:08 GMT
80 isn't that great of a rating guys...i think anyone averaging 20 ppg efficiently on a playoff team should be at least an 80. Its not like hes playing for the grizzlies lol
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Mar 31, 2009 23:05:40 GMT
Ben Gordon is still averaging 20/3/3, but Deng is down on all his career averages this season and, I wonder if LAC agrees with me here, his role on the Bulls has been diminished for quite some time. I think Deng should decrease and Salmons should meet him. I agree mostly because of his injuries. He hasnt been healthy the last 2 seasons. I know its a lame excuse, but its the truth. I think Deng comes down to 78ish because he still does have great upside and Salmons goes up to a 78-79. Gordon remains an 80+ as he is a proven scorer in the league.
|
|
|
Post by jlawdrummer - GSW on Apr 1, 2009 1:56:47 GMT
80 isn't that great of a rating guys...i think anyone averaging 20 ppg efficiently on a playoff team should be at least an 80. Its not like hes playing for the grizzlies lol I do think this is the most conservative league I've seen with ratings on players...it's kind of a mental thing that 78 or 79 is just fine with people, but an 80 is like "what are you talking about, he's not Dwayne Wade here!" Ratings go all the way up to 99...80 is good but it's not like it means the guy is a superstar.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Apr 1, 2009 3:11:37 GMT
Peja is an 81 and he averages 14/4.4/1.3 on 40% shooting...salmons is much better stat-wise. And i know he is on a good team, but he has the benefit of an almost perfect point guard in Chris Paul to get him the ball yet Salmons shooting percentage is almost 6 points higher. Rose is good, but Salmons job is alot harder.
Oh and Peja has the added benefit of being almost four inches taller than anyone that covers him, yet another disadvantage that Salmons has but still has better stats.
Most teams in the league have at least three players on their team that either have or deserve to have an 80+ rating in the game when you think about it. You can't tell me that Salmons isn't the third best player on the Bulls (behind Rose and Gordon, Dengs havin a bad year).
Looking at this from the standpoint of what is best for the league, Indiana NEEDS SALMONS TO BE AT LEAST AN 80. This is a team that isn't very good and is struggling. For better league parity and in case we ever need to find a replacement at GM for the Pacers, the roster would need to be better than this. Give Salmons an 80 or 81 so that the Pacers have something to build on/with, the guy deserves the rating anyways...
|
|
|
Post by pistons521 - MIA on Apr 1, 2009 3:41:55 GMT
Peja needs to drop, IMO. His numbers are closer to the Wilson Chandler type players (I know there are others out there since Chandler is often compared to other players, but he's the only one I know off the top of my head). Chandler is a 74. Granted, Peja is a really good player having an off year, but if Deng declines, 76-77 IMO, so should Peja to 76-77 as well. Salmons at a 79 is respectable.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Apr 1, 2009 4:51:56 GMT
The thing most of you seem to be forgetting is, ratings aren't based off one year or the most recent year. Its the entire body of work. Yes, the most recent year is the one everyone will remember, but you cant discount players pasts. Peja has been doing it for years. Yes, he is having a down year, but to compare Peja's 2009 stats to Salmons' 2009 stats is a bit off, IMO.
You can compare breakout players with other breakout players. You can compare young players with other young players. But, you cant really compare players that have been all-stars to a breakout player. Again, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Apr 1, 2009 10:34:37 GMT
80 isn't that great of a rating guys...i think anyone averaging 20 ppg efficiently on a playoff team should be at least an 80. Its not like hes playing for the grizzlies lol I do think this is the most conservative league I've seen with ratings on players...it's kind of a mental thing that 78 or 79 is just fine with people, but an 80 is like "what are you talking about, he's not Dwayne Wade here!" Ratings go all the way up to 99...80 is good but it's not like it means the guy is a superstar. I think it's wiser to be conservative. If a player truly deserves an increase, they'll keep playing at a certain level, and eventually the rating change will meet their playing level.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Apr 1, 2009 11:20:36 GMT
if wilson chandler is a 74 then john salmons is atleast an 80
this is a guy who shoots over 50% from the field... AS A WING MAN
he has been doing this for 2 seasons... it just takes him to be on a good team for everyone to see that
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Apr 1, 2009 22:37:40 GMT
The thing most of you seem to be forgetting is, ratings aren't based off one year or the most recent year. Its the entire body of work. Yes, the most recent year is the one everyone will remember, but you cant discount players pasts. Peja has been doing it for years. Yes, he is having a down year, but to compare Peja's 2009 stats to Salmons' 2009 stats is a bit off, IMO. You can compare breakout players with other breakout players. You can compare young players with other young players. But, you cant really compare players that have been all-stars to a breakout player. Again, just my opinion. What? That makes no sense... Ratings should definately be based off THIS YEAR, no matter what...look at Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Bobby Simmons, Jerry Stackhouse, etc...they had great careers (well simmons not as much but he was real good at one point) but they aren't that good any more and their ratings should reflect it. Likewise, a breakout player should increase accordingly. Players should be rated based on their play this year because if this league were life like that is how they would play. This also promotes building your team based on more than just their game rating and emphasizes real life performance, potential, and ability. And Boston, Salmons deserves an 80 right now because its not like hes only been playing like this for ten games or so...its been almost two years! I think its past being conservative and reaching stingy and unfair. And if his performance goes down, then you can decrease his rating just as easily as you increased it. Be fair guys, I don't see why 1) Salmons doesn't deserve an 80 or 2) why it is so important for y'all to not let indiani have this, his team desperately needs it.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Apr 1, 2009 22:40:06 GMT
Oh and Jamaal Magloire was an all-star once and look where he is...just further proof that the body of work isn't as important as recent performance
|
|
|
Post by pistons521 - MIA on Apr 1, 2009 22:41:21 GMT
You can't base ratings off of a team's lack of talent. Making him an 80 because he needs it? Not the right reason for an increase, bottom line.
So if he trades Salmons, does he decrease? Should we overrate other players (not saying an 80 is overrating for Salmons, just using this logic) for bad teams because they "need" it?
You base ratings solely off talent and RL production, not whether or not a team needs it.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Apr 1, 2009 23:00:52 GMT
The thing most of you seem to be forgetting is, ratings aren't based off one year or the most recent year. Its the entire body of work. Yes, the most recent year is the one everyone will remember, but you cant discount players pasts. Peja has been doing it for years. Yes, he is having a down year, but to compare Peja's 2009 stats to Salmons' 2009 stats is a bit off, IMO. You can compare breakout players with other breakout players. You can compare young players with other young players. But, you cant really compare players that have been all-stars to a breakout player. Again, just my opinion. What? That makes no sense... Ratings should definately be based off THIS YEAR, no matter what...look at Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Bobby Simmons, Jerry Stackhouse, etc...they had great careers (well simmons not as much but he was real good at one point) but they aren't that good any more and their ratings should reflect it. Likewise, a breakout player should increase accordingly. Players should be rated based on their play this year because if this league were life like that is how they would play. This also promotes building your team based on more than just their game rating and emphasizes real life performance, potential, and ability. And Boston, Salmons deserves an 80 right now because its not like hes only been playing like this for ten games or so...its been almost two years! I think its past being conservative and reaching stingy and unfair. And if his performance goes down, then you can decrease his rating just as easily as you increased it. Be fair guys, I don't see why 1) Salmons doesn't deserve an 80 or 2) why it is so important for y'all to not let indiani have this, his team desperately needs it. LOL. Please don't insult by intelligence. You are making yourself look very stupid. My post makes perfect sense. So according to you, Rasheed Wallace should be a 75, Shawn Marion should be a 75, Jermaine O'Neal should be a 75, Jason Kidd should be a 75, Elton Brand should be a 80, Arenas should be a 80, & Tracy McGrady should be a 65. That's essentially what you are saying. Based off this year, the ratings would look like that. Thank god you aren't making the rating decisions. And i'm not even going to comment on your Magloire comment. That's as ignorant as you can get. To take that "all-star" comment I made and use it that loosely. Please.
|
|
|
Post by ryanhall1991 - MEM on Apr 1, 2009 23:36:29 GMT
Heat-Thank for basically saying exactly what I said, Salmons should be rated 80 because ratings should be based on rl performance and ability which Salmons has proven. And i was saying that its not like the Pacers would be given an unfair advantage if Salmons was an 80 because not only does he deserve it, but we wouldn't be ruining league parity at all and giving teams an unfair advantage.
LAC-If the guys you mentioned played like that for two years and showed signs of consistant deterioration than yes they should have those ratings. Salmons is the exact opposite-for two years his rl performance has been increasing consistantly and he shows proof that he is always improving, not regressing. I agree with some off those actually.
Oh and the Magloire thing was me showing you that you can't punish a guy for not being an all-star. Guys like Magloire or Bobby Simmons have one great year and then suffer through mediocrity. Thats how the NBA works. Salmons could get an all-star fluke appearance one day too.
Don't talk to me like i'm a dumb ass. I've been in this league longer than you have and just cause you refuse to look at something in a different way doesn't mean I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Apr 2, 2009 9:12:51 GMT
Heat-Thank for basically saying exactly what I said, Salmons should be rated 80 because ratings should be based on rl performance and ability which Salmons has proven. And i was saying that its not like the Pacers would be given an unfair advantage if Salmons was an 80 because not only does he deserve it, but we wouldn't be ruining league parity at all and giving teams an unfair advantage. LAC-If the guys you mentioned played like that for two years and showed signs of consistant deterioration than yes they should have those ratings. Salmons is the exact opposite-for two years his rl performance has been increasing consistantly and he shows proof that he is always improving, not regressing. I agree with some off those actually. Oh and the Magloire thing was me showing you that you can't punish a guy for not being an all-star. Guys like Magloire or Bobby Simmons have one great year and then suffer through mediocrity. Thats how the NBA works. Salmons could get an all-star fluke appearance one day too. Don't talk to me like i'm a dumb ass. I've been in this league longer than you have and just cause you refuse to look at something in a different way doesn't mean I'm wrong. Regressing from stardom is much much more different than regressing from having a few good years. Thats all im going to say on the topic. And what does being in the league longer have to do with anything? I could run off my credentials, but i'm better than that.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Apr 2, 2009 11:22:05 GMT
What? That makes no sense... Ratings should definately be based off THIS YEAR, no matter what...look at Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Bobby Simmons, Jerry Stackhouse, etc...they had great careers (well simmons not as much but he was real good at one point) but they aren't that good any more and their ratings should reflect it. Likewise, a breakout player should increase accordingly. Players should be rated based on their play this year because if this league were life like that is how they would play. This also promotes building your team based on more than just their game rating and emphasizes real life performance, potential, and ability. And Boston, Salmons deserves an 80 right now because its not like hes only been playing like this for ten games or so...its been almost two years! I think its past being conservative and reaching stingy and unfair. And if his performance goes down, then you can decrease his rating just as easily as you increased it. Be fair guys, I don't see why 1) Salmons doesn't deserve an 80 or 2) why it is so important for y'all to not let indiani have this, his team desperately needs it. LOL. Please don't insult by intelligence. You are making yourself look very stupid. My post makes perfect sense. So according to you, Rasheed Wallace should be a 75, Shawn Marion should be a 75, Jermaine O'Neal should be a 75, Jason Kidd should be a 75, Elton Brand should be a 80, Arenas should be a 80, & Tracy McGrady should be a 65. That's essentially what you are saying. Based off this year, the ratings would look like that. Thank god you aren't making the rating decisions. And i'm not even going to comment on your Magloire comment. That's as ignorant as you can get. To take that "all-star" comment I made and use it that loosely. Please. jason kidd is having a great season... why do you think he is a 75?
|
|