Andris Biedrins or Andrew Bynum?

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32


Rookie
Posts: 6
» Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:20 pm
I was inspired by the great discussion that took place here this week on my column, All-Youngin’ Team: NBA’s Best, 21 And Under (http://www.emptythebench.com/2007/02/25 ... and-under/).

I decided to do a whole follow-up article on the topic: The Battle for California: Bynum vs. Biedrins (http://www.emptythebench.com/2007/02/28 ... -biedrins/).

Please check it out and let me know what you think.

Also, check out the rest of the site, emptythebench.com, for a ton of content on the NBA as well as MLB and NFL.

I encourage everybody to post their comments under the articles as well, we'd love to hear your toughts on anything we put up.

Cheers
Andrew
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3074
» Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:25 pm
I liked the article, I think if Biedrins can put on some more muscle he will clearly be better. He'd be a better rebounder and shot-blocker, and his presence will also command respect from the referees, something that he has lacked. W/o fouls, Biedrins is a lot better player.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21969
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:21 am
Biedrins looks to be capable of improving more, is more mobile and niftier. Biedrins could, if allowed to, pan out into a very good allround player (Kirilenko like) with allround skills. Right now, I'd rather have Biedrins totally
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:58 am
Cool article, Empty. I agree about Bynum having more potential offensively (I do believe Biedrins will develop a bit more, but he's going to make himself a name getting boards and on the defensive side, not scoring). I doubt Biedrins is ever going to score more than 14-15 ppg... but I'll take that over most centers production nowadays.

On the other side, I can't see Bynum developing as much on defense. He has a better body to bang inside, sure... but I've got the feeling that he ain't going to try as hard, as he'll have a lot more responsibilities on offense (Haven't seen more than 5 or 6 Lakers games this year, so I may be way off...).

I think both are going to be good players... but they'll probably take different routes to stardom. Biedrins will probably be a similar player to Tyson Chandler (the current Tyson Chandler), while Bynum... well, he'll be more of a classical center.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 1266
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:06 am
Mentioning Chandler, I equate this to question to another, more 2001ish draft question:

Who is better - Tyson Chandler or Eddy Curry?

Obviously both have been a huge letdown, although both are earning their stripes this year. When comparing Biedrins to Bynum you can't only think of the roof of these kids - that would be overly optimistic. You must include thoughts about the basement as well. If nothing turns out the way you thought it would (as in Curry and Chandler) who would be the better player. At this point I would say Biedrins has the higher basement than Bynum do to what he has done so far.

Of course there is no doubt in my mind that both of these kids will be exponentially better than Chandler and Curry (they already are actually) but the situation is comprable. A traditional big bodied center is potentially more dangerous if everything works out but a thinner, shot blocking player is much more easy to develop into a player that contributes on a nightly basis.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 2557
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:43 am
Lakers fans are so arrogant. They wouldn't trade bynum for Jason Kidd for chrissakes. Bynum has proven NOTHING thus far in his career, and the only reason anybody knows his name is because he's a lakers lotto pick.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:52 am
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Lakers fans are so arrogant. They wouldn't trade bynum for Jason Kidd for chrissakes. Bynum has proven NOTHING thus far in his career, and the only reason anybody knows his name is because he's a lakers lotto pick.


And you're surprised by that?. Kidd is... what? 34?. Of course they won't trade a 20-year-old center that looks like a future starter (what kind of starter yet to be determined) for the next 10 years for Jason Kidd.

I'd be surprised if they did...

(btw, I agree about him not having proved anything yet... but you don't trade a kid like that for a 34 years old PG, no matter how good he is).

Thunder wrote:Who is better - Tyson Chandler or Eddy Curry?


Chandler. It's not even close. Tyson is not as flahsy as Curry (well, flashy on the boxscores, at least), but he's averaging solid numbers at 8.6 ppg, 12.4 rpg and 1.8 bpg (almost 15 and 15 with 2.2 blocks the last 5 games).

I'd say that's more vital to any team than a center who's just a factor scoring...

I'd be ecstatic if Biedrins can develop into something like that (he's pretty close already).
Last edited by TMC on Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

Role Player
Posts: 230
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:58 am
Nice, Thunder. That's a great analysis of the changing scene in centers.

The traditional, big-man center is generally not seen very often any more. I see two reasons for this:

1. the size needed. As players have grown in size, and larger players have developed movement and ballhandling skills, it has become harder to find 'pure,' large centers that can dominate through size alone. Shaq, Curry, Bynum are some of this type.

2. movement offense. About half the NBA teams have taking the trend toward non-static, constantly moving offenses. Thus, more mobile centers are seen than in previous years, with guys like Amare, Chandler, Biedrins becoming a viable option.

Either type of center can be effective in the league, if they are put into the right offensive system. Both Biedrins and Bynum are in systems that favor their talents, and hopfully, for their own development, will continue to do so for the next few years.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3074
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:42 pm
TMC wrote:
Thunder wrote:Who is better - Tyson Chandler or Eddy Curry?


Chandler. It's not even close. Tyson is not as flahsy as Curry (well, flashy on the boxscores, at least), but he's averaging solid numbers at 8.6 ppg, 2.4 rpg and 1.8 bpg I'd be ecstatic if Biedrins can develop into something like that (he's pretty close already).


2.4 RPG? :shock:
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 pm
JayPat wrote:
TMC wrote:
Thunder wrote:Who is better - Tyson Chandler or Eddy Curry?


Chandler. It's not even close. Tyson is not as flahsy as Curry (well, flashy on the boxscores, at least), but he's averaging solid numbers at 8.6 ppg, 2.4 rpg and 1.8 bpg I'd be ecstatic if Biedrins can develop into something like that (he's pretty close already).


2.4 RPG? :shock:


:banghead:

Fixed
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21969
» Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:35 am
TMC wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Lakers fans are so arrogant. They wouldn't trade bynum for Jason Kidd for chrissakes. Bynum has proven NOTHING thus far in his career, and the only reason anybody knows his name is because he's a lakers lotto pick.


And you're surprised by that?. Kidd is... what? 34?. Of course they won't trade a 20-year-old center that looks like a future starter (what kind of starter yet to be determined) for the next 10 years for Jason Kidd.

I'd be surprised if they did...

(btw, I agree about him not having proved anything yet... but you don't trade a kid like that for a 34 years old PG, no matter how good he is).



That's right, not so surprising but it is of Phil is there for the short term and they wanted to win now badly, which obviously is not the case or they would have done the trade

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests