Take a look at Tinsley's first year stats, then take a look at Jackson's first year stats. Keep in mind that each player was handed the starting PG job right away.
Tinsley
30.5 minutes/game
38.0 FG%
24.0 3Pt%
70.4 FT%
9.4 points/game
8.1 assists/game
3.4 turnovers/game
3.7 rebounds/game
1.73 steals/game
Jackson
39.6 minutes/game
43.2 FG%
25.4 3Pt%
77.4 FT%
13.6 points/game
10.6 assists/game
3.1 turnovers/game
4.9 rebounds/game
2.5 steals/game
As it turns out, Jackson was a MUCH better shooter (FG%, 3Pt% AND FT%) and had a MUCH better assist-to-turnover ratio. Everything else (points/game, assists/game, rebounds/game, steals/game) is about the same when you consider that Jackson played 9 more minutes/game than did Tinsley.
And did Mark Jackson ever IMPROVE on those numbers? Did he end up becoming a perennial First-Team All-NBA-type player? Did he "only improve," as so many of you seem to think young players always do? [Sample quote: "... and he's young, so he's only going to get better."] NOPE! Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more assists/game than his rookie season: TWO. Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more points/game than his rookie season: TWO. Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more rebounds/game than his rookie season: ONE. Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more steals/game than his rookie season: ZERO. And Mark Jackson had a nice NBA career! He was an above average starting NBA point guard--but he was NEVER a STAR. NEVER. Lots of assists--but NEVER a STAR. Seriously, could Mark Jackson hold Kevin Johnson's jock? NOPE! Could he hold John Stockton's jock? NOPE! How about Magic Johnson? Gary Payton? Isiah Thomas? Jason Kidd? Tim Hardaway? ANFERNEE Hardaway (before the injuries)? Stephon Marbury?
Jamaal Tinsley probably won't ever be a STAR, either. I think that it's safe to say that Mark Jackson had a CAREER YEAR during his ROOKIE SEASON. And I have this weird feeling that Jamaal Tinsley ALSO had a CAREER YEAR during his ROOKIE SEASON. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. This guy just doesn't have a lot of upside, people! AND he wasn't even one of the TEN BEST starting PGs in the league LAST season, all of these dudes were for SURE better than Tinsley:
Gary Payton
Jason Kidd
Mike Bibby
Andre Miller
Baron Davis
Steve Francis
Stephon Marbury
Steve Nash
John Stockton
I think that Tony Parker and Sam Cassell were better, too, but I suppose that's debatable. And I think it's pretty obvious that Jay Williams will be a better player from the get-go than Tinsley was last season. So how is Tinsley ever going to be any better than an ABOVE AVERAGE starting point guard? He's never going to be a STAR, he'll never be one of the TEN BEST PGs in the league! How can you be a STAR if you aren't one of the TEN BEST players in the league at your position? Here are the ages of the guys who were better than him last season, just so you can see that these guys aren't exactly on the verge of retirement (with the exception of Stockton, of course):
Gary Payton--34 (still has 3-4 All-Star-caliber seasons left in him)
Jason Kidd--29
Mike Bibby--24
Andre Miller--26
Baron Davis--23
Steve Francis--25
Stephon Marbury--25
Steve Nash--28
John Stockton--40
[NOTE: Tinsley isn't a little kid, he's 24--younger than Davis!]
Payton is an ageless wonder, there's no end in sight for that guy. [NOTE: I remember when Stockton was 34, people were speculating that it was all downhill for the guy--yet here he is, still playing at an All-Star level, six years later!] Those top eight PGs will remain the same--maybe Jay Williams bumps one or more of them down a notch within the next couple of years, maybe not. In any event, those top eight PGs on the list AND Jay Williams, well, that's NINE point guards there, people! So, three years from now, Jamaal Tinsley will be NO BETTER than the tenth-best starting PG in the league--and I don't think he's better than Tony Parker (Parker is a much better perimeter shooter and he's much quicker), so I don't think he'll ever crack the top ten! PLUS, within the next three years, you'll see at least a couple of rookies come in and quickly move past Tinsley.
Sorry, people--Jamaal Tinsley is ABOVE AVERAGE, like his predecessor, Mark Jackson. Jamaal Tinsley = The Next Mark Jackson. There's nothing wrong with being an above average starting NBA point guard!
The point here is that you CANNOT ASSUME that a guy is necessarily going to just keep on getting better and better and better simply because he is a first- or second-year NBA player. AND, when you factor in that Tinsley actually played four years of college ball, that he came in way more polished than the typical NBA rookie--WELL, I don't know, people, YOU TELL ME!
In other words, if the Pacers can package Tinsley with somebody like Jonathan Bender for ANDRE MILLER, you do it! GO GET ANDRE MILLER!
Tinsley
30.5 minutes/game
38.0 FG%
24.0 3Pt%
70.4 FT%
9.4 points/game
8.1 assists/game
3.4 turnovers/game
3.7 rebounds/game
1.73 steals/game
Jackson
39.6 minutes/game
43.2 FG%
25.4 3Pt%
77.4 FT%
13.6 points/game
10.6 assists/game
3.1 turnovers/game
4.9 rebounds/game
2.5 steals/game
As it turns out, Jackson was a MUCH better shooter (FG%, 3Pt% AND FT%) and had a MUCH better assist-to-turnover ratio. Everything else (points/game, assists/game, rebounds/game, steals/game) is about the same when you consider that Jackson played 9 more minutes/game than did Tinsley.
And did Mark Jackson ever IMPROVE on those numbers? Did he end up becoming a perennial First-Team All-NBA-type player? Did he "only improve," as so many of you seem to think young players always do? [Sample quote: "... and he's young, so he's only going to get better."] NOPE! Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more assists/game than his rookie season: TWO. Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more points/game than his rookie season: TWO. Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more rebounds/game than his rookie season: ONE. Total number of seasons Jackson averaged more steals/game than his rookie season: ZERO. And Mark Jackson had a nice NBA career! He was an above average starting NBA point guard--but he was NEVER a STAR. NEVER. Lots of assists--but NEVER a STAR. Seriously, could Mark Jackson hold Kevin Johnson's jock? NOPE! Could he hold John Stockton's jock? NOPE! How about Magic Johnson? Gary Payton? Isiah Thomas? Jason Kidd? Tim Hardaway? ANFERNEE Hardaway (before the injuries)? Stephon Marbury?
Jamaal Tinsley probably won't ever be a STAR, either. I think that it's safe to say that Mark Jackson had a CAREER YEAR during his ROOKIE SEASON. And I have this weird feeling that Jamaal Tinsley ALSO had a CAREER YEAR during his ROOKIE SEASON. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. This guy just doesn't have a lot of upside, people! AND he wasn't even one of the TEN BEST starting PGs in the league LAST season, all of these dudes were for SURE better than Tinsley:
Gary Payton
Jason Kidd
Mike Bibby
Andre Miller
Baron Davis
Steve Francis
Stephon Marbury
Steve Nash
John Stockton
I think that Tony Parker and Sam Cassell were better, too, but I suppose that's debatable. And I think it's pretty obvious that Jay Williams will be a better player from the get-go than Tinsley was last season. So how is Tinsley ever going to be any better than an ABOVE AVERAGE starting point guard? He's never going to be a STAR, he'll never be one of the TEN BEST PGs in the league! How can you be a STAR if you aren't one of the TEN BEST players in the league at your position? Here are the ages of the guys who were better than him last season, just so you can see that these guys aren't exactly on the verge of retirement (with the exception of Stockton, of course):
Gary Payton--34 (still has 3-4 All-Star-caliber seasons left in him)
Jason Kidd--29
Mike Bibby--24
Andre Miller--26
Baron Davis--23
Steve Francis--25
Stephon Marbury--25
Steve Nash--28
John Stockton--40
[NOTE: Tinsley isn't a little kid, he's 24--younger than Davis!]
Payton is an ageless wonder, there's no end in sight for that guy. [NOTE: I remember when Stockton was 34, people were speculating that it was all downhill for the guy--yet here he is, still playing at an All-Star level, six years later!] Those top eight PGs will remain the same--maybe Jay Williams bumps one or more of them down a notch within the next couple of years, maybe not. In any event, those top eight PGs on the list AND Jay Williams, well, that's NINE point guards there, people! So, three years from now, Jamaal Tinsley will be NO BETTER than the tenth-best starting PG in the league--and I don't think he's better than Tony Parker (Parker is a much better perimeter shooter and he's much quicker), so I don't think he'll ever crack the top ten! PLUS, within the next three years, you'll see at least a couple of rookies come in and quickly move past Tinsley.
Sorry, people--Jamaal Tinsley is ABOVE AVERAGE, like his predecessor, Mark Jackson. Jamaal Tinsley = The Next Mark Jackson. There's nothing wrong with being an above average starting NBA point guard!
The point here is that you CANNOT ASSUME that a guy is necessarily going to just keep on getting better and better and better simply because he is a first- or second-year NBA player. AND, when you factor in that Tinsley actually played four years of college ball, that he came in way more polished than the typical NBA rookie--WELL, I don't know, people, YOU TELL ME!
In other words, if the Pacers can package Tinsley with somebody like Jonathan Bender for ANDRE MILLER, you do it! GO GET ANDRE MILLER!