Disgraceful

Chuck is destroying the league with rulings like this! I don't like this points system AT ALL!

I have been trying to justify Luke getting a points reduction to myself by saying if he did not make the Boomers then how can he be a 10. Hinder made it so Hinder must be better than him etc

The other way i looked at it was to compare his NBA stats to that of the great other white stiff Chris Anstey

Anstey Career went:

PPG 5.2
RPG 3.4
BPG .42
APG .8

Luke went

PPG 9.6
RPG 6.9
BPG 1.2
APG .7

So fair to say that Luke was twice the NBA player than Anstey was statistically (which is what the points system is based on)

I then went the next step and thought ok what was Anstey's numbers when he first came back to the NBL like?

He put up numbers of 16 and 9 which would place him today statistically along side guys like Rychart and Abney who are 10 points players, and i think we would all agree with that.

So begs the question if a player gives you 16 and 9 how can he be as good as a player who gives you 28 and 12 (Anstey)?

My solution is a simple one if you make an all star 5 team then you get a 10 rating for next season, everyone outside this can not be a 10 as they can not be the best in the league at their position.

The floor in the system to me is that there are too many players rated as 10's when logic says they all can not be as good as each other.

KENT - fair direction with your piece but you did have Luke's development stats up there not his true NBA stats which would probably look more like a row of donuts .

sorry you are correct ROT,

Lukes nba NOT d league lines where


PPG 1.8
RBG 1.7
APG .3
BPG .2

So with the correct stats in use you could argue that Luke will be 1/2 the NBL player Anstey was on his return.

So projected NBL stats for Luke would be

ppg 8 and rpg 4,5 hell lets round him up to 10 and 6 for fun and that would rank him around the same level as Casey Frank and Julian Kazzouh who are both 8 point players.

I think Luke would average around 10-12 pts ,7-8 reb and 2 blks per game . Decent numbers for a center but he would be far from a dominating force .
A player rating of 8 would be fair .

I don't see what the big deal is? He played NBA, he played over in Europe.... if that makes him a 10, he's a 10.

To say he should get some sort of 'local player' discount is just ridiculous, IMO. How can anyone actually justify that? He hasn't played for the 36ers yet, so he no more 'loyal' to us than he is anyone else.

I agree with the NBL on this one.

is he going to be playing in the nbl though?

Yep, well put twenty four, I've been thinking along the same lines as you on this one. Most good big men around the world have tried to crack the NBA at some stage and Luke was lucky/good enough to be given a crack at it, he's obviously got some qualities that most big men don't.

And the home town discount is a pretty spurious argument too IMO, how many players in the league are from Wollongong or Singapore compared to Sydney or Melbourne, if the Kings and Tigers are getting discounts on all local boys that's a massive advantage against teams whose towns haven't produced many (any) NBL players.

And Kent, come on, surely you don't think NBA to NBL stats can be extrapolated so easily! If you look at Hodge's NBA stats they were similar to those of Luke so who's to say Luke won't be a walking triple double if he suits up down here?

If the Bullets signed an NBA Aussie (not many to choose from) and the NBL went and changed the rules to make them an 8 there would be outcry here about how corrupt and unfair the league is. I think the Sixers should certainly apply formally to get Luke re-rated using the Tigers success as the precedent, but until that time it's unreasonable for us to expect Chuck to essentially change the rules on a whim. His whole "white stiff" comment is another matter however.