Chandler vs. Pryzbilla (which one)

[SenorSpur]

Now that both these options are being debated, which one of these centers would be the beter option for the Spurs pursue?

Here are the stats for both:

Chandler
Height: 7-1
Weight: 235 lbs
Age: 24

2005-06 Statistics
PPG 5.3
RPG 9.00
APG 1.0
BPG 0.33
FT% 50.0

Pryzbilla
Height: 7-1
Weight: 255 lbs
Age: 27

2005-06 Statistics
PPG 6.1
RPG 7.00
BPG 2.32
FT% 53.2%

[exstatic]

Pryz, by a mile. That's why CHI is trying to move Chandler. I didn't realize he was such a ty shotblocker. Pryz is cheaper, too.

[JGrice02]

Chandler has not averaged below 1.20 bpg in his entire career. He averaged 1.30 bpg last season in 27 mpg. Not great but better than 0.30 bpg. Two years ago when Chandler was healthy he averaged:

8.0 ppg
9.7 rpg
1.8 bpg
27.5 mpg

Health is his biggest issue. When healthy he is the better prospect.

[MI21]

Chandler is actually very good when healthy.

10rpg off of the bench is ridiculous.

[ChumpDumper]

That is some expensive china.

[Bruno]

I take Chandler over Pryzbilla without considering salary.
If we take salary into consideration, I take Pryzbilla for the MLE over Chandler and his contract.

Buth I don't want them : Chandler contract is too big and Pryzbilla is a bad fit for Spurs.

[CaptainLate]

Pryz, by a mile. That's why CHI is trying to move Chandler. I didn't realize he was such a ty shotblocker. Pryz is cheaper, too.

I'll go with the white guy.

[Bob Lanier]

Chandler is a far better player than Przybilla, but Przybilla is a better option for the Spurs to pursue. Chandler isn't a realistic hope for San Antonio with what the Spurs have to trade.

[timvp]

If Chandler is still playing in the NBA at age 30 I'd be shocked.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Why is Chandler even in this discussion? The guy is a walking china doll.

[Quadzilla99]

What's behind door #3?

[Obstructed_View]

2.32 BPG. I'll take that.

[Bob Lanier]

Why is Chandler even in this discussion? The guy is a walking china doll.

Compared to Joel Przybilla he's an ironman. Chandler's problems aren't chronic but specific injuries, and even so he's missed more than 11 games only once in his 5-year career, and has played seasons of 75, 79, and 80 games. Przybilla has avoided missing more than 11 games only once in his 6-year career, and has played seasons of 17, 32, 33, and 56 games.

If you ignore their respective worst seasons, Chandler played an average of 76.25 games per season over his career; Przybilla played only 53.6. And Chandler's the china doll?

[exstatic]

Chandler has not averaged below 1.20 bpg in his entire career. He averaged 1.30 bpg last season in 27 mpg. Not great but better than 0.30 bpg. Two years ago when Chandler was healthy he averaged:

8.0 ppg
9.7 rpg
1.8 bpg
27.5 mpg

Health is his biggest issue. When healthy he is the better prospect.

That's what I get for taking the thread originator's stats as true.

Doesn't change my pick, which is basically bang for the buck. You'll get more dollar value for Pryz.

[Kori Ellis]

Chandler's problems aren't chronic but specific injuries

I thought he had chronic back issues.

[exstatic]

I thought he had chronic back issues.

That was my impression, too.

[Kori Ellis]

That was my impression, too.

Yeah I know he does. He has a problem with chronic back spasms which sometimes don't get him all the way out of the lineup, but effect his performance.

Chronic back spasms make him an injury risk for the rest of his career, but he can be counted on for solid averages when healthy.

Then again, he's started experiencing back spasms recently and back issues ruined his season in 2003-04.

... etc.

But to Bob Lanier's credit, Przybilla has been often injured.

[ChumpDumper]

Those put me out of commission for weeks at a time. If I sleep in the wrong position, I'm ed.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Przybilla has avoided missing more than 11 games only once in his 6-year career, and has played seasons of 17, 32, 33, and 56 games.

If you ignore their respective worst seasons, Chandler played an average of 76.25 games per season over his career; Przybilla played only 53.6. And Chandler's the china doll?

So if a coach doesn't play a young player and sits him on the end of the bench, he's a china doll?

[timvp]

So if a coach doesn't play a young player and sits him on the end of the bench, he's a china doll?

Exactly. Most of Przybilla's missed games in his career were DNP-CDs.

[Bob Lanier]

I thought he had chronic back issues.

The only back problems I remember him having were related to a collision during the year he played 35 games; I don't believe I've heard about chronic spasms, but it's certainly possible. Either way, Chandler is hardly a "china doll" - he's played on average 3 fewer games per year than Tim Duncan has.

So if a coach doesn't play a young player and sits him on the end of the bench, he's a china doll?

Przybilla has had a couple of problems with his knee that I remember, but "china doll" was your phrase, not mine.

[Kori Ellis]

The only back problems I remember him having were related to a collision during the year he played 35 games; I don't believe I've heard about chronic spasms, but it's certainly possible. Either way, Chandler is hardly a "china doll" - he's played on average 3 fewer games per year than Tim Duncan has.

Przybilla has had a couple of problems with his knee that I remember, but "china doll" was your phrase, not mine.

Actually it wasn't my phrase in this thread Yes, he's had reoccuring back spasms over the past couple years but hasn't missed much time for it (since the initial time he hurt his back).

And yes, Przybilla had problems with tendinitis and swelling/fluid retention on his knees off and on.

[Bruno]

I'm with Bob Lanier on this one.
Chandler has had a big injury in 03-04 but he has played 80 games in 04-05 and 79 games in 05-06.
He isn't injury prone while Pryzbilla has had a lot of troubles with his knees.
If somebody should be called a china doll, it's pryzbilla, not Chandler.

[ChumpDumper]

So now Chandler is just criminally overpaid.

[Bruno]

So now Chandler is just criminally overpaid.

I can't disagree with that.