Hakim Warrick By the Numbers

Still gonna get benched for Taj

one thing not mentioned – that can’t be explained in stats – tyrus very well had to go with his issue with VDN this year.

Good stuff. For what it’s worth – tyrus PER for year 16.75….warrick’s is 15.75.

Warrick blocking Michael Lee’s shot in the 2003 NCAA championship game to keep Kirk from winning the title that year? No, Just me?

I actually thought Warrick would’ve been a good cheap risk to take in the offseason when he signed for so little. I’m not sure that is still not a valid opinion, but he certainly hasn’t blossomed this year.

…regardless of what the numbers may say. I more or less agree with the post.

Well, I guess it depends on how much ones value Thomas. Here’s how I see him:

http://www.brewhoop.com/2010/2/15/1311781/2010/2/15/1311781/ford-bucks-looking-to-be-buyers-at#30882254

Warrick is a solid scorer, but offers very little in terms of non-scoring contributions.

Bellow par rebounder for his size/athleticism. Doesn’t read the flight of the ball. Mostly rebounds his area but his hands aren’t strong and sometimes forgets to put a body on his man.

Defensively, he’s dangerously close to being a sieve. Very poor post defender, lacks strength and technique even when he puts the effort. Sub-par ballscreen defender as well, considering his physical traits. Sometimes completely misreads the play. Can be very slow reacting to the screener move. When hedging has a tendency to recover before forcing the ball-handler to retreat. Lack of awareness is a problem when guarding perimeter bigs off-the-ball. Often allows his man to drift to the outside and only closes out when the shot is coming. Gets caught staring at the ball too much. Inconsistent effort, but had been improving under Skiles, who would yank him for continued displays of lack of intensity. He’s at his best when guarding on-the-ball. Good combination of length, quickness and long arms. Lacks the aggressiveness and the consistency that could make him a good 1×1 wing defender. Takes possessions off here and there.

Offensively, he’s a poor passer. Not selfish, but suffers a bit from tunnel vision. Relatively mistaken-free. Good ball-handler for his size, controlled and low bouncing, but lacks the advanced dribble moves to drive in traffic. Doesn’t see the floor well when driving, rarely passes. Much better going left, if forced to go right will eventually pull-up. Does most of his damage attacking from the pinch-post and the elbows. Solid finisher with both hands + possesses an effective short-range running hook. Change ends very fast, good fastbreak player. Good cutter. Doesn’t need the ball to be effective but likes to get his touches anyway.

So, basically a face-up 4 and scoring role-player who needs to improve his jump-shot and non-scoring contributions to be more than a solid 8th man. That said, he’s exponentially better than Joe Alexander.

Why didn’t you include Tyrus’s Per 36 stats, as you did Warrick’s on the following?
per 36 minutes Warrick 0.8 steals 0.6 blocks, 4.8 drebs
per 36 minutes Thomas 2.1 steals 2.6 blocks 7.5 drebs

Individual Player Floor Time statistics
Player Min +/- Off Def Net48 Win%
Warrick 41% -90 1.02 1.07 -4.2 42.2
Thomas 15% -3 1.01 0.95 +7.0 63.6

Offensive production -Thomas Own 18.1 Opponent 12.8 +5.3
On/ Off the court – Thomas -0.3 -3.4 Net +3.1 Simple rating +4.4 Bulls 2nd highest
                                   
Offensive production -Warrick Own 17.1 Opponent 14.4 +2.7
On/ Off the court – Warrick -4.2 +3.4 Net -7.6 Simple rating -1.5

Efficiency rating Thomas 12.76 Warrick 9.67 32% higher than Warrick’s

Overall I think their differences aren’t insignificant.

but than left out the comparisons on blocked shots, assists, rebounds, steals comparitive defense, etc. He never mentioned Tyrus was a superior defender compared to Warrick. Many who have responded to this blog have already made the point that losing Tyrus was nothing since Warrick will replace him easily as someone mentioned.

As my statisics show, Tyrus is a much better defensive player while offensively it’s almost a wash.

7’3" wingspan…I meant.