User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.3281 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I heard he elbowed the taste out of Shen-Jian Pedroia's mouth.
Jianlian is a 7 footer, BL. He can play center. He's got the long arms.
And if Hibbert loses 20 pounds, he might be better too.
He's the real deal. He's better than Yao. A lot better.
Wow. I'm trying to find out which statement ranks as the most ridiculous, even on the Kevin Scale.
1. Oden isn't the best available center in the 2007 draft
2. Jianlian is a Center.
3. If Hibbert loses 20 lbs, he might be better than Oden.
4. Jianlian is much better than Yao.
5. Pedroia will be much better than David Wright.
You amaze me with each new thread.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
i got orzilla and remy.
yeeah!
Eh, they are only slightly above average.
Which makes them, what, 176 times better than Berman?
Well, he may not be a great fit with the Celtics- not sure where they'd play him. But I believe Green could play PG in the NBA, and slots anywhere 1-4. He's a Beltran- he basically does everything well. He goes to the basket well. He hits the outside shot. His passing is superb. His defense is great. He rebounds well. He's a plus everything, and improved each season. I think he'll be a very good player on a championship team as his upside- the second or third guy.
If you think there's a good chance of a star in that spot, then you grab the star instead. He's as safe a pick as the Celtics could have in that spot, in my opinion. Maybe that team doesn't need safe- but trying their luck may not be wise, given their luck lately. Yet as a Knicks fan, my sympathy tank is pretty empty, I have to say.
As far as Jianlian is concerned, from what I've read most NBA GMs look at him more as a #4 than a center. Having many relatives in China who've watched him play and have related to me their views on him and Yao, the consensus is that they're totally different types of players. He's not the next Yao, he's the next Dirk.
ESPN also noted that "many scouts believe that he's actually born in 1984 making him 23 ... not 19." That might be a problem re: development.
I've always thought his claim that "recent studies" showed that adopted children weren't as loved as their biological counterparts was the gold standard for the Kevin Scale.
But if you go back 23 years, you add on Ewing, Olajuwon and Worthy, and if you go back 26 years, you get Mark Aguirre and Magic Johnson. (I don't consider Worthy a "franchise" player, but he was pretty damn good.) And if your organization's done their scouting for the year, having that #1 pick is going to give them a shot at the player with the most talent and/or best fit. Even if you don't think Odom is a legitimate star-possibility, you could get Durant, and nobody's arguing that Jianlian is better than Durant.
Everyone has their own favorite "crazy kevin" quote. That just happens to be mine.
I never thought I would.
2. Marcus Camby (C)
3. Shareef Abdur-Rahim (PF)
4. Stephon Marbury (PG)
5. Ray Allen (SG)
6. Antoine Walker (PF)
7. Lorenzen Wright (C)
8. Kerry Kittles (SG)
9. Samaki Walker (PF)
10. Erick Dampier (C)
11. Todd Fuller (C)
12. Vitaly Potapenko (C)
13. Kobe Bryant (SG)
14. Predrag Stojakovi? (SF)
15. Steve Nash (PG)
16. Tony Delk (SG)
17. Jermaine O'Neal (F/C)
18. John Wallace (PF)
19. Walter McCarty (PF)
20. Zydrunas Ilgauskas (C)
Bryant and O'Neal came out of high school, and given a choice between them and proven college player who averaged 25 ppg in D1 college ball, you'd probably take the college guy. Philly already had Stackhouse at the time, so no point getting Ray Allen or Bryant. I'd take Iverson over Nash, especially in 1996. I don't see "at least 8 players" I would rather have instead of AI in that draft.
Kevin: As usual, your basketball IQ is lower than your avg. points per game would be playing me one-on-one. Ralph Sampson was a GREAT NBA player whose career prematurely ended due to arthritic knees. He was rookie of the year, 3 time all star, all star MVP, and took the Rockets to the NBA finals (remember his tip in against the Lakers?).
Ralph was a star until injuries got him. I remember his swan song as a Warrior. He was basically done but he had a couple of excellent games that gave us hope. It's hard being a Warrior fan.
And Kevin's comments re Nash over Iverson are of a piece with his comments about Alford or Stockton. Kevin "foresees" everything with the benefit of hindsight. Of course he would've taken Stockton! Of course he would've taken Nash! This is the guy, recall, who foresaw that Pedroia would hit .260 in his second season and become the league standard for second basemen.
looks like your guy is on a bit of a hot streak ... all the way up to an 81 ops+.
For those of you who can't recall or weren't around. Kevin once challenged me to a game and pulled out b/c he strained his left earlobe or something like that. Who's the ##### here, Kevin?
I LOVE WALTAH
I guess you wouldn't want Dirk Nowitzki, either. Or A-Rod, for that matter.
That's a fair point.
I have to disagree with this. G'town made the Final Four this year with guards who are talented, but flawed (for instance, arguably were both the slowest pair among the top 16 or so teams).
G'town managed to run its offense because everybody on the floor could handle the ball extremely well, including Green. Knocking him for his ball-handling is silly. So is talking about him at PG- my point wasn't that he SHOULD be, but that he could handle the position. Clearly, it wouldn't be optimizing his skills, however.
I am particularly excited to see the G'town group with two extremely skilled guards, as Freeman and Wright are reputed to be.
"But it doesn't help you when you're trying to figuyre out why Iverson's career winning percentage is below 50%."
No, that's an easy one- his best supporting player in Philly was Theo Ratliff.
All true.
What's BS about it? Didn't we agree that we would play? Didn't you say you were coming up anyway? Didn't you pull out claiming injury? Where's the BS? I'm just trying to gauge the toughness issue, Kevin, since you so easily refer to other people as \"#######."
And Jerry Sichting was a dirty SOB, and you know it. But all your comments about Sampson's performance have nothing to do with the silliness you posted above implying he was a bust. Again: RoY, 3 time all star, team in Finals. He was a GREAT player who got hurt.
That's a fair point.
Yep. It's just too hard to know how these guys will react to the tougher competition, the longer season, the distractions, etc. That Jerry West was so upset he didn't get into the top two makes me think Durant and Oden really are worth the hype, though. The Logo is one astute judge of talent. If he wanted to trade for one of my players, I would say no out of general principle.
That's because his game is next to impossible to mesh with the second great piece you need to be a great team. He's not really a 1, but he can't defend 2s, so right from the start he's limited. Now that he's getting older he'll probably start blending better, but the skills won't be what they were in his prime.
Being able to mesh with your teammates is a fundamental basketball skill, no less than being able to dribble behind your back or elevate ... regardless of how many times ESPN, Steven A. Smith, and the promoters of the And-1 mix tour tell you otherwise.
Game 1:
FG-FGA FT-FTA 0R DR RB AS PF ST TO BL PTS
Sampson 1-13 0-0 2 5 7 2 3 2 4 1 2
McHale 8-12 5-8 2 4 6 3 3 0 3 2 21
RDF.
I don't get what this is supposed to prove? McHale is an all time great, Sampson was just very very good. The point wasn't whether Sampson is a slam dunk inner circle HOFer, but whether he was better than guys like Olowakandi and Sam Bowie. He pretty clearly was. kevin, you make good points, but sometimes it's easier just to say, "yeah, I shouldn't have lumped Sampson in with those guys, but my larger point, that many centers coming out of school are over-hyped, still stands."
I'd be more apt to buy that if he'd had trouble meshing with all star players. But it appears to me you're saying that after seeing the best player he teamed up with was... Theo Ratliff.
I happen to think he'll be vindicated in Denver, though that's a car with some hard mileage on it at this point. But it is criminal the way he wasn't supported.
Good luck with that.
I think Howard has been the best player in that draft by far, and is still improving. Deng and Al Jefferson are still growing as well, and might eventually be as good or better. But Howard has been the most successful so far (2 rebounding titles in his first 3 seasons).
The main thing I see in kevin's list is the relative strength of different years. If Olowakandi or Kwane Brown is the #1 pick, that's some slim pickings. Other years, like '95 produce a lot of quality NBA-ers.
More than that, one game proves nothing. Sampson's Rockets were playing one of the all-time great teams. Let's not forget the roster differences. The Celtics were bringing Walton off the bench. The Rockets had Robert Reid and Lewis Lloyd in their lineup. Sampson was a GREAT player, and gave every indication of being so up until his injuries.
You're an idiot. 3 time player of the year? Total dog.
Hey, can you answer my questions about where I was BSing? I don't like to be accused of lying, and I'd like to know what part of your ##### story I got wrong. Thanks!
You and I will have to agree to disagree about whether Eric Snow, Theo Ratliff, Tyrone Hill or Aaron McKie constitute a championship-level second option. Can you find me a title-winner with a worse second option than these guys?
"He usually averaged 30 points a game for a really crappy team."
Absolutely. The question is why- was it Iverson, or the team put around him?
He wanted nothing to do with Jerry Stackhouse when Stack was a big scorer and star. Part of the reason Brown and the front office filled in the roster with role players was precisely BECAUSE AI had trouble mixing with a second star piece.
Ratliff wasn't the second best player on the team that went to the NBAF anyway.
I'm going to say, yes, it is.
LOL. He averaged 24 ppg, over 7 assists, and shot 44% from the floor this year. He's history, all right.
The fact is, Jerry Stackhouse has a lower FG percentage and three-point percentage without bringing any of the playmaking skills to the table that Iverson has. His performance simply didn't match his rep, particularly early on. Here's a guy who has been surrounded by good/great players, and his teams haven't done much of anything in the playoffs. I'd LOVE to see what Iverson could do surrounded by Nowitzski, or Arenas, or even end-of-career MJ.
"The question is why- was it Iverson, or the team put around him?"
"It was Iverson."
Ah. I see. Glad that's settled.
Maybe they would have a few banners if they utilized the Rule 5 Draft more efficiently?
Oh, and for the record, the "finished" Iverson's FG% was better this year than Paul Pierce's.
Player A 13 seasons, 26 minutes, 11.6 points, 4.2 rebounds 3.7 assists.
Player B 15 season, 33.2 minutes, 16.5 points, 9.3 rebounds, 2.5 assists.
-------
Player A's best year 37 minutes, 18.8 points, 7 rebounds, 5.3 assists.
Player B's best year 36 minutes, 20.2 points, 11.3 rebounds, 3.4 assists.
-----------
This is a comparison Kevin made earlier in the thread. Knowing my history, you can probably guess which one.
Hyperbole isn't an argument. The Nuggets lsot to a better team. The Mavericks and Heat, now there was some humiliation. But larger than that, it's silly to judge a player on one series and then pick out the worst series to make your point. I could just as easily say Sleepy Floyd is an all time great because he showd up big against the Lakers that one game. (And you all know the game I'm talking about!)
You're insane. "Thin as a rail" isn't a medical predisposition towards injury, and Oden tore a ligament in HS. Were it a foot problem, I'd agree there was reason to be concerned, but now you're just rationalizing the odd position that it's better to be were the Celtics ended up.
Kevin: Let's try to argue honestly, ok? I didn't say that at all. I do understand, however, that Iverson played against the best defensive team in the playoffs and they held him down. Now, can you answer my question about why it's unfair - if not dishonest - to compare Steve Blake's performance to Iverson's?
Which in your addled mind is the same thing as implying he's injury prone? He needs to put on weight to be stronger. Oden missed a month this year POST SURGERY on the HS injury. Do you follow basketball?
Derrick Coleman had a much better career, and was much better at his peak, than Toni Kukoc.
No it wasn't. Your assertions were (1) that Oden wasn't the best center; (2) Jianlian was better and (3) way better than Yao; (4) Hibbert, should he lose weight, is better; (5)then this lovely stuff:
Really, Raskolnikov, what the #### do you know about basketball? You wouldn't even know the ball was round unless somebody told you. If someone kicked you in the balls, they would have to tell you your nuts hurt.
Do you have any idea what the percentage of highly touted centers who don't amount to much is? You know who LaRue Martin or Sam Bowie or Ralph Sampson or Michael Olowakandi are? Don't answer because I already know. You don't have a ####### clue. Not a clue. You have no idea what the #### is going on. you have not a clue why some make it and some don't. Do you even know who Jianlian is? Have you ever seen him play? Do you understand what is required to play center in the NBA? No. Of course not. Your knowledge is limited to the the 10 minutes of highlights you saw on ESPN the few times you happened to channel surf through while they were on.
You do realize that that post of your was totally devoid of any rebuttal information don't you? Why? Because you wouldn't know a power forward from a ####### hole in the wall, that's why.
On top of that, the only reason you posted it was to be an ignorant a$$hole. How old are you? 15? 16? Grow the #### up. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. If not, STFU.
Somewhere in there I'm sure you think you embedded your "thesis" that we never know, when most people would probably conclude you were making the point that YOU KNOW better than Raskolnikov that Oden sucks in comparison to Jianlian and Hibbert.
This contains two lies.
This is question-avoiding, much as you avoided my questions in 158 and 170, much as you avoided responding to my post about Iverson's FG% being better than Pierce's. You assert something "Iverson's done!", are proven wrong, move the target to a non sequitor "He got his ass kicked by the Spurs!" and don't even explain what that shows.
See, Kevin, Allen Iverson is a great, great player, and unlike you, Greg Pop knows this, so, instead of focusing his defensive attention on Steve Blake, he focuses it on Iverson, making sure Iverson gets hit constantly, making sure he's got his best defenders on him, sending different people at him, and so on. OTOH, Steve Blake will typically be defended by an inferior defender, they'll leave him open, they won't waste fouls on him. Blake will get clean, open looks, Iverson won't. Follow?
Also, and this is an admittedly minor point, but you ahve to take into account AI's amde 3-point shots when looking at his raw FG%. By definition, all shots in basketball are not created equal. If Andris Biedrins shoots 44% from the field, that's a problem. AI at 44%, not so much.
Kevin's not really interested in a discussion of this stuff; he just likes to spout off about how terrible Iverson is b/c he doesn't wear green. As I said, Iverson would be the best Celtic since Bird retired.
I'm way more of a college fan (I'm a fairweather Celts fan), but I wish that Courtside Times hadn't gone into hibernation. Cagermetrics seems less popular than sabermetrics or even that Football Outsiders type stuff.
you really think Iverson is better than Pierce? Pierce's game works much better with quality teammates, he is a more efficient scorer and a terrific rebounder for a 3 or especially a 2 guard.
It would be interesting to see the kind of defensive analysis that Don nelson and his coaches have created. They actually use game film to create a kind of +,- system. I'm guessing it didn't take long for this analysis to confirm that Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy were awful players.
Want to explain how Toni Kukoc had a better career than Derrick Coleman, Mr. Statsheet?
I do, but I've had that non-argument with Kevin before.
Kevin: Whenever you can, please answer my questions, now that I've answered yours. Thanks!
Kevin's idea of good argument. Kevin, in case you forgot, we were comparing Iverson's and Blake's performances. As I said in my post, Blake was guarded by inferior players, compared to AI, Iverson was covered by their best defenders. Now, I just took it for granted you would understand that while Duncan is the Spurs "best defender" that's not of "all players." Surely you don't think it would be adviseable to have your 7 footer guard Iverson? And, as I said, they ran multiple players at AI, and closed off on him all the time. Anthony got cleaner looks than AI b/c of AI's penetration.
I happen to agree that Iverson is overrated. Kevin may be overstating the case, but he is, in fact, an inefficient player. Basketball statistics are very tricky, because of the interdependent nature of the game, but all efficiency measures I've seen back up that claim.
Efficiency is not everything, of course-- Iverson can create his own shot better than all but a handful of other players. The trouble is, it seems to me, that he doesn't bring enough other skills to the table. And shots you create on your own tend to be more difficult shots than, say, those that come off a pick-and-roll (creating an open look), or-- especially-- plays that get the ball to a good one-on-one scorer in the post. So Iverson can score on almost anyone, but he's going to miss more than half the shots he takes.
Is Iverson better than Pierce? That's a good question. I lean toward no, but I'm not sure.
I'm fairly certain he's better than anyone else the Celtics have had since Bird retired. I mean, Reggie Lewis was good, but the C's haven't exactly had a wealth of talent since Bird left. Maybe Al Jefferson gets to that level, but he's not there yet.
Spurs are a tough matchup for them, they played much better than I expected.
I mean, Reggie Lewis was good, but the C's haven't exactly had a wealth of talent since Bird left.
Chauncey Billups was pretty good.
I'm actually in agreement with you. Iverson is a great player, but he has deficiencies along the lines you've mentioned. Kevin's trashing of him is nonsense; his comparisons often disingenuous; and his logic impenetrable.
Boston plans to tank the season again so they get the 5th pick and avoid any of the so-called "obvious" choices who may get injured because they're "rail-thin" or "big in the hips" or have a history of "heavy breathing after vigorous exercise."
There are lots of rooks on here.
AI's a 2 in a 1's body. That fact alone puts him at a distinct disadvantage for a team, especially when the thing that helps him compensate the most -- his champ's heart and guts and pride -- is the very same thing that makes him want to be the man.
That is the fundamental reason the whole package AI brings hasn't been enough to get him to the championship team leader class.
Again: name one. When I get accused of lying or making mistakes, I like proof. You have accused me of both throughout, and I've requested proof each time, and you've provided none. Below I'll post an instance of you lying, and where I call you on it [from post 200]:
Now you're demanding of me to predict not only whether Durant will wash out or not, but exactly how it will happen.
This contains two lies.
I never said anything like that, nor did I imply it. But please, again, answer my questions about when I BSed, and when I said anything like you've attributed to me.
After Drazen died, they busted up those Nets.
They never won a playoff series, but that wasn't Coleman's fault.
From 1992-1994, The best teams Coleman played on, the Nets made the playoffs. in those series (I believe two series were losses to Jordan's bulls) he went for 22/11, 26/13 and 24/14.
You do not know much about Coleman, he is a competitor. Real coaches loved him, he still talks to Boeheim, Chuck Daly speaks very highly of him, and Larry Brown thought so much of him that he wanted to hire him as an assistant coach after he retired. Brown loves the way he mentored younger players. He routinely takes younger black players under his wings and gives them books by black authors.
"He's talked to me for two years about coming back here and it's no secret how much I like him, what a terrific player I thought he was."-- Larry Brown.
No one ever questioned Derrick Coleman's toughness or desire to win when he was in college. He played and beat the Georgetown front line(Mourning/Mutombo) in the dome with a back pain so severe he had to sleep on the floor the night before the game.
As for Iverson vs. Pierce, SugarBear an PJ Martinez have summed up nicely Pierce's advantages.
That's what I thought (not that I know squat about the NBA, I just hear things).
Living in LA, I got to watch all sorts of Danny Manning growing up. In his prime, Manning was a terrific player. Averaged over 22 and 7 -- that's damn good for a doughy player who lost a significant amount of his speed when he blew out his knee early on and had to adjust his game to become more of a traditional 4 instead of the face-up player he was in college. He had all sorts of chronic knee problems after that, but was still a very good player -- from age 29 (when he was "done") to age 31, he averaged over 13 ppg and 5 boards, and won 6th Man in 1998.
Durant would have Manning's body if he gained like ... 40 pounds. Manning was never a perimeter slasher like Durant is, and their games are totally, totally different. I don't know where this comparison came from.
I'm fairly certain he's better than anyone else the Celtics have had since Bird retired. I mean, Reggie Lewis was good, but the C's haven't exactly had a wealth of talent since Bird left. Maybe Al Jefferson gets to that level, but he's not there yet.
If Iverson isn't better than Pierce, then how could Iverson be better than every Celtic since Bird retired? Perhaps you're making a distinction between career value and current value.
Also, should we even talk about Sampson as a center? Didn't he play the 4 in the NBA? Or are we attributing that solely to the presence of Olajuwon? I was in my age 9 to 12 seasons during Sampson's college career (maybe I'm off by a year or two on when his college career was, but I'm thinking '80-'83), so take this with a grain of salt, but I never remember thinking of Sampson as a center. It's one of the reasons that I didn't like him. I thought, "Man, I wish I was tall like that. Why doesn't he just stand near the basket and slam-dunk everything?" The fact that he wasn't strong enough to focus his game inside was lost on me at that age, I guess.
I remember the big Ewing-Sampson matchup when Ewing was a freshman. I was definitely rooting for Ewing, because he fit my perceptions of what a big man should look like and how he should play. That year's NCAA Final is the first one that I can clearly remember watching. (Although I do recall some discussion of whether the 1981 Final should go ahead after the Reagan assassination attempt earlier that afternoon.)
The 1984 and 1985 NBA drafts changed everything around with regard to how I felt about the two famous freshmen in that 1982 Final, that's for sure.
One was not popular with the New York media, one was as beloved as any athlete from the Jersey teams.
Only one turned out to be a murderer.
Yet another hole in Coleman's game.
In all seriousness, Sam, what is your reasoning behind why Derrick never became a premier player? I thought a dominant performance on an NBA title contender was a when, not if proposition when he came out of college.
That's only true if you don't wish to argue in context -- if that were the case, the SAs best defenders don't guard Wade or Nash or Paul or Baron Davis, either.
SA's a great team -- this run they're on is one of the best in NBA history. Of course they're going to beat a team that starts Blake at point -- guy broke double figures just once in the series, and got pounded by Ginobili -- and had no bench to speak of. Criticize Iverson all you want for his poor offensive showing, but SA doubled Iverson all the time -- Denver never had to double Parker. Iverson almost single-handedly held Tony Parker to under 41% shooting, more than 10% off his season average.
That is almost wholly on Wallace/Sapp/Rivers. And Thompson III for not making the proper adjustment- though he certainly did in the game at the Wachovia Center (where Green had nearly a triple-double, if I recall correctly) and in the BE tourney, when G'town started out up 26-2.
PJ, I missed the key word. Thanks.
LOL! He does have a reasonable point--that Celtics fans shouldn't panic because historically some great players have gone farther down in the draft. This is very true. The rest of it is a lot of strange noise. Durant and Oden are the consenus studs in this draft, but there could be a sleeper that could surprise like Stockton or Barkely did in '84. A discussion of who that might be in this draft could be interesting. My money is on Corey Brewer.
You and me both. I honeslty believe if Drazen hadn't died, they would have been a serious contender with the Nets to be "2nd best to the Bulls" in the East. He was very, very good with the Nets, then Drazen died, Anderson and Coleman had one more great year together without him, but
the Nets never tried to replace Petro's production, and Daly quit, they hired a coach everyone hated, and the rest is history.
Back and leg injuries caught up to Coleman after his first 5-6 years in the league.
I think that kevin said, "all coleman cared about was getting paid." Coleman stayed in school for his senior season, despite being a lock for at top top 5 selection.
It is reasonable, but the delivery of it is really amusing.
He'll spend a couple hundred words discussing how often #1 picks flop, and then confidently declare that the Celtics will get "a very good player" at #5. He'll speak to the vagueries of scouting, how you can never really predict anything ... and then confidently declare that Jianlian is "much better" than Yao.
And it's all just a way of assuring himself that the lottery results were not a complete disaster for his team. I would LOVE to see this thread had the Celtics landed the top pick.
The Celtics will get someone at 5 who will help them. On a side note, I think it might be kind of bad for the NBA that two western teasm got the top 2 picks. I think Portland should pass on Oden and go for Durant; Oden is a also a great fit for Seattle.
This sounds reasonable. Man, can you imagine the heat those Knicks/Nets battles would have generated?
I can also trace my love of college basketball to battles between G'town with Mourning/Mutumbo and Syracuse with Seikaly/Coleman/Owens. Hard to believe Seikaly is even in the discussion for best NBA career of the three, with Owens a distant third.
Billy Owens broke my heart. Talk about wasted talent.
Agreed. 82games.com is good.
You know who had a damn fine career? Sherman Douglas. 58th on the NBA all time assist list or some such number.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main