text:
ProSportsDaily.com > Basketball > NBA > Anthony Davis: MVP?
View Full Version : Anthony Davis: MVP?
JasonJohnHorn
Most the of MVP talk is being thrown at obvious choices: Westy, Harden, KD, Curry and LBJ. The usual suspects.
But Anthony Davis has the highest PER right now, despite Westy averaging a triple-double. He also leads the league in blocks and points per game, and top-ten in rebounds. And 16th in steals!
The Pelicans had a round start, but after getting healthy, the team has been nearly .500 over the last 19 games (9-10), despite the worst start in the league.
If the Pelicans can get into the playoffs, is Davis a legit MVP candidate? Or does this team need to be in the 50-win range?
The criteria in over the last decade of so seems to require high standing (hence McGrady got overlooked for some of the most amazing personal seasons ever), but in the past, this has not always been the case.
When Moses won in 82, 8 teams had a record that was as good or better.
In 76, when Kareem won, the Lakers didn't even make the playoffs!
If the Pelicans show marked improvement and manage to snag a 5th or 4th seed? Would that be enough? Is it fair to always require a team to be an elite team for a player to win MVP? Especially with the 'super team' trend, doesn't having 2 or 3 franchise players negate the importance of each and in turn mean that the mid-level teams who only have one all-star/franchise player make those players inherently more valuable?
And what of personal performance? Can one be faulted their entire career, like Garnett seemed to be until Minny had a good team, for the fact that their GM is fawking awful at his job? Can a GM's poor performance negate the brilliant play of a player who dominates the league but just so happens to have limited support?
I voted No based on the title "aren't that good'. If as you say they "show marked improvement and manage to snag a 5th or 4th seed", then absolutely yes. MVPs almost never come from lower than a 4th seed and even from 4th seeds are rare.
If they are not in the playoffs, then I don't think anybody can win it, if they are 6,7, or 8 seed it's really unlikely.
When Hakeem won in 94, though his team went on to win it all, there were 9 teams with better records than the Rockets.
This is false. There was one team with a better record that season.
tredigs
If the Pelicans manage to snag a 4th or 5th seed? Lmfao. Sure, in that scenario he would be a solid MVP candidate. But back in reality where they have the 25th best record in the NBA, he is not remotely in the conversation. PER be damned, he is certainly not the best player in the NBA, and he would have to be that in order to even get a debate going.
For perspective, the lowest seed to win the award in the last 30 years was MJ in '88 as a 3 seed, and he was both the best offensive player in the world and the DPOY.
Heediot
Bigs need to be more than just elite scorers to have impact on W & L's. Kevin Love in Minny and Cousins are other examples. It's true that team-mates, coaching and system also help, but I feel you need to be very good at scoring and defending to be a highly impactful big man in this day and age. When you look at a guy likeMarc Gasol, he is a good enough scorer to be respected by defenses, but it's also his defense and play making that help make his team and others around him better. Just my take on it.
In Davis' defense he is still developing and may become an an elite defender. He hasn't even hit his prime yet and he still has a lot of un-tapped potential. He also hasn't had the healthiest team mates for a fairer assessment from me. However, I feel he is over-rated just a bit because he puts up crazy stats.
Edit: As an MVP candidate or border-line top 5 guy, I think one needs to show more with one's w's and L's ad how one helps make one's team better.
dhopisthename
He has played well, but its not like he is playing that much better then harden or westbrook are.
Chronz
Well said and agreed
Thanks PowerHouse. Got it mixed up with the following season when the repeated and D-Rob got MVP.
I've removed it from the list of examples.
Thumbs up for fact checking!
Davis is leading the league in scoring and blocks.
So, there's that.
How much better can you expect him to make Holiday or Evans?
The team is playing at .500 now, after an 0-8 start and rose four spots in the standings. They've been starting Tim Frazier at point guard, not Walt Frazier. You take Davis off this roster and they'd be competing for the worst record ever. This roster is gawd awful. Besides, people on PSD don't believe guys make players 'better', they just make it easier for them.
He's impacting wins. Trust me. He's just working with a lot less than Harden or Westy.
I'm not saying he is MVP, but he's playing at an insanely high level, and people aren't noticing because he isn't hitting an arbitrary number of points, assists, and rebounds like Westy is.
Better. Exactly. Whether it is a little better, or a lot better, it is better.
europagnpilgrim
What is Davis still developing as far as his on court game since he can basically do it all at 7ft tall? he wont get no better than what we see now, only thing he can do to reach his whatever un tapped potential is to get with a better support cast/team to make deep playoff runs and I guess get stronger and stay injury free to showcase it for 75-80 games per year, he has shown his potential and what he is made of more than enough when not injured, he has MVP game but winning the award comes from being on top level teams based on the new media formula
he is a candidate no doubt though regardless of the w-l record because like I said he has MVP game/ability and if he were in a NY/LA market doing this right now with then he would be right there and have a higher chance to win it, same with that Greek Freak in Milwaukee, they would get stronger consideration no doubt
that's one of the main reasons why Kareem won it because of the LA market he was in and not making the playoffs, wont happen in NewOrleans market
because he wont make them better because they are who they are when they signed/traded for them or however they obtained those two players
I schooled you on this already and you can keep asking this question until you get gray and old because he(or any other player) wont never make any player better, now put him on a better talented/contending roster and they become better as a whole because he will be playing with better players and could focus on the rebounding/defending side more and not have the pressure of dropping 30-50pts to win games for that joke of a team he is on since he got drafted
Yet he is not a top 5 offensive player and not a top 20 defensive player.
So, there's that. That's like saying "well Curry led the league in steals last year, so he must be the games best perimeter defender".
No, he is not dude. Harden is on a whole nother level from AD (clear as day watching the two play, specifically watching Harden dice the Pels up tonight as AD struggled on both ends), as are the other true elite superstars like Curry, Bron and KD. Westbrook is better as well but I'd at least hear out an argument for AD in that comparison.
Davis can get better in a lot of ways. Offensively, he is more akin to Melo but with better efficiency. This is where IQ plays a role. Take guys like Duncan, the Gasol bros and Dirk. These guys know how to read the defense and make the best play whether it's a pass or a shot. Davis has good massive skills but lacks the vision and awareness of the other guys I mentioned. Dirk was a guy that was purely offensive, yet he knew how to take advantage of the spacing he created on offense. If Davis can develop that he has the potential to be on a higher level than Dirk. Dirk is the only (top 25-30 GOAT Player) Big man who sucked at defense but he is a misnomer, as his potency on offense and ability to elevate his team on that side made him special.
Davis has some awareness, but even he himself says he needs to improve as a play-maker and defender.
Speaking of defense, he has a long ways to go mentally on that side as well. It's pretty normal for young big man to take some time to develop their iq and awareness on this side. In today's games it's all about iq and positioning, that's why Duncan was such a good to great defender for so long and that's why Marc Gasol is so good, even without crazy athleticism. But athleticism can also be used to one's advantage (in combo with awareness) so Davis has that in is arsenal for further growth. Guys like DJ took a long time to get to where he is as a defender. Ibaka took some time, so Davis has that to his defense. Calling out assignments, rotations and switches are how a defensive anchor can make his team better. Davis can have a block party on some nights and he'll have some nights where he is focused on defense but he still has a bit of ways to go on that end.
I do agree that having better team mates will help boost his wins and losses, but that doesn't take away from the fact that even big men can make their teammates better in other ways besides scoring and putting up sickly stats. Just look at Draymond as another example he is not the most athletic but he is one of the smartest and he knows how to use his skill set to make his team mates better. Some Warrior fans even argue he is the engine that makes it all go.
Davis right now is definitely top 5 as an individual talent but to me he is not top 5 or an MVP candidate (at this juncture in his development) in how he impacts the game on the actual floor. To add, I think he is impacting wins to some degree, but it could be quite bit better.
Saddletramp
Did you see that Euro step Harden put on Davis in the second quarter? Holy hot **** that was nice.
Draymond is passing to Curry and Klay for 3's and can do so because they are opening up the court and he was passing to Bogut for lob dunks and also to Iggy and now to KD, he is not making nobody better but he is playing like he did at Mich St but with better overall talent, if Draymond went to the Kings he wouldn't make nobody better on that team or Brooklyn, they would still lose like they are now
DJ got better on his own not because of CP3/Griffin and Ibaka improved on his shot on his own, not because KD/Westbrook made him a better shooter but how the game was transitioning to these so called stretch 4/5 positions but its been around since Sabonis/Bol but not in abundance now with the even heavier shift to wanting Euro players to enter the league and that's what they all do for the most part
Dirk/Duncan played with coaches/system who were about ball movement/sets so they had to talent to do that and showcase the vision/passing aspect, go back to when Duncan was dropping 40pts or close to it in those series against from like 00-02 Lakers and he had to shoot/score because he didn't have the help
Davis can do it all from what I have watched and he is only going to improve when he starts making deep playoff runs so the world can truly appreciate what he can do, he is not going to improve as far as his game he displays now which is top notch level, he has passing skills and handles since he was a guard originally before he grew to as tall as he is now, put him on the Warriors or Rockets or whatever and everybody would be like wow what a terrific passer he is, not so much on his current team because they are pretty much just average from the ownership to the last guy on the bench outside of AD and a healthy Holiday
Davis is a top 5 individual talent who plays like a top 5 player, when he is on the court no matter against what team he is either the best on the floor or 1a, and I don't care what team they play
The DJ Ibaka thing was about how long it took for them to become top defenders. Bigs tend to take time to develop defensive awareness and instincts was the point. He has the tools to be elite.
Just because he has the skill-set such as handling the ball or passing the ball doesn't equate necessarily to making the right play or read. People say Melo has the best offensive Arsenal, that doesn't make him the best offensive player. He is still young and can still improve on certain elements even he himself said it (play-making and defense). We will see if he can develop certain elements, as the mental/instinctive/awareness come more natural to some vs. others.
As For Draymond, as much as I don't like the guy he is one of the smartest players in the L, and he does the dirty work and small things that help teams win and his court vision does make things go smoother for GS, just my view on him.
mavwar53
If they end up with a top 10 record in the NBA then I could see it as a major possibility. But if they don't it will not happen.
Yet Ibaka was getting crazy blocks early on which made OKC dangerous in transition and put players on notice on coming down there soft, that's part of being a good interior defender just like getting steals from a G position, Jordan always had the ability he just came around but not because of some player making him better, he did it himself
but having the skill set means he can do more or having ability naturally and that's what Davis has going for him and being 7 ft tall, he can handle the ball way better than Dirk and can shoot the midrange and take it out to 3, he cant shoot like Dirk naturally but he has way more ability with a combined inside outside game because he can handle the rock like a guard, Melo is a top 3 offensive player of his era so it counts for something in having that arsenal of his, dude has been doing that since Syracuse before he stepped in the nba so 13-14 yrs later he should be on the decline, but still earned his respect from being one of the best offensive players of his time, fact
put it like this I bet every player wish they had the skill set and natural athletic ability(combined) to do it at a high level, that's best place to start, now add the competiveness/toughness/instinct-IQ and that creates a franchise super star right there
Draymond was a smart player at Mich St, ultimate team player from what I watched and knew he would fit well in the league because he was a jack of all trades player, but like I have said and will say it again and again he is not making Curry/Klay/KD/Iggy better nor are they making him better but as a collective group they are strong because they all bring something special to the table, all star/all nba caliber players tend to do that when they link up
making things go smoother does not equate to making teammates better, it means the offense is being ran as a unit cohesively, he is a link in the chain
Dray is the enforcer/top defender which makes the team better(stronger) because they need that, just like they need the shooting of Klay and the scoring/creating of KD/Curry
if you play the game you know it is easier with the best/better players as opposed to playing with average or middle of the pack players, its a real simple game
AD can improve his play making skills especially when he gets those all/super- star caliber teammates to feed the ball to so he can focus on defense even more so he wont have to carry the entire offensive load as I mentioned in my earlier posts, if he was playing with Lebron/Irving it would show or if he was on the Warriors it would show or Clippers/Rockets, but it wouldn't really be him improving more so his support cast would be on par with him, why is that so hard to over-inner-understand?
eDush
As For Draymond, as much as I don't like the guy he is one of the smartest players in the L, and he does the dirty work and small things that help teams win and his court vision does make things go smoother for GS, just my view on him.Excellent post - that's why he is my early entry for MVP this season but I wouldn't mind Davis winning it as he does it all. As long as it's not guys like the Beard who stands there on defense. I didn't vote for Rose either when he won MVP for that reason as well but that's just my bias opinion :(
I schooled you on this already
Just because we disagree on the semantics, doesn't mean I got schooled. I'm willing to concede to the semantic argument, but I also look at the practical result.
You refuse to do that, which doesn't mean that you 'schooled' me; it means that you are closed minded.
You refuse to see how a person can improve because of another person. That is your own blindness. You can argue semantics until you are blue in the face, and point to the innate potential, but potential isn't reality; it is a possible reality. If you are in one place, and somebody else helps you perform at a higher level, they are helping to make you better. You want to call it 'making it easier', go ahead, but that means you are ignoring everything outside of opening up the floor that a player can do to help a teammate improve as a player, and in some cases, as a person.
Some players, through their leadership, can motivate players to work harder, or challenge them to view and in turn approach the game in a different way that leads to improvement, or, 'makes them better'.
But hey... go ahead and repeat the same semantic argument over and over and say you schooled me. IDGAF.
That is subjective. I wouldn't disagree with the top five, though I think you'd be hard pressed to find 19 guys you could make a strong case for being a better defender than AD.
That's like saying "well Curry led the league in steals last year, so he must be the games best perimeter defender".
It would be like saying that, if that's what I said, but I didn't, so it isn't. I was just pointing to some things to consider. Never said leading the league in scoring or blocks makes you the best offensive or defensive player, but they certainly suggest and elite level of play in both (though there are other stats to consider).
Also... you point to Curry, who lead the league is scoring, and in a major defensive category. And what did that lead to? Oh... yes. And MVP award.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I was speaking to what the other poster said. Context my friend. Context. Though I will concede that it certainly sounded I was in agreement, because I kind of am. I will gladly concede that this is subjective though.
aman_13
You are too fixated on skill set and not placing enough value on production, which is far more important.
Gotta say, I agree with the spirit of this. There are nuances to it, but let's be real: Shaq had a limited skill set compared to, say, David Robinson, Hakeem, or Duncan (and certainly a more limited skill set than Jordan, Bird, Pippen, or Magic), but what he did, he did at a dominant level. You could argue that there were no less than 20 guys more skilled than Shaq every year he played, but there were few seasons in his career where he was't the most dominant and productive player on the court.
Who cares if you can hit a 15-footer at .500 when you can just dump it into the paint and maul your way to .600 with an extremely high usages while grabbing 13 boards.
Getting knowledge can help you tweak certain areas but what you can actually do will help you more so than the person giving you the knowledge or whatever
its like if Jordan told Kerr/Paxson to create for themselves and heap encouragement to do it but they would still be spot up snipers who can shoot, its not like they had Pippen like ability to do it, Jordan attacked him in practice which in turn helped him become a more confident defender since he was already capable of being a elite all nba defender and he helped Jordan shoulder the scoring load because he was capable of doing that but he wasn't a sniper like Kerr/Paxson/Armstrong or others they had on that roster, Jordan motivated Kukoc I would say but Kukoc was already the 'Jordan version' in Europe so I doubt Jordan helped him attain that level overseas because Kukoc had game already
Leadership would help others become a better leader and possibly person but that doesn't mean it will make them better basketball players unless they already had the game to showcase it on a high level
I did school you rather you give GAF or not because like I said Curry doesn't make no players better just like he isn't making Mcgee better but they are using him for what he does best and that is catch lob dunks and contest rim shots and grab a few boards, if Klay and Dray went to other teams they would play the same way, now depending on how the team is built would determine the w-l record but they don't need Curry to do what they do
the truth never changes, only lies do so I will repeat the same truth from experience and watching the game for as long as I have been, its abc not algebra
working harder means you suck at something at its on you to improve it but no matter how much harder work you put in you would probably still be just slightly better at it, just like Lebron I am sure worked on his free throws and still is pretty much the same free throw shooter as he was 5 years ago as is his 3pt shooting which is streaky at best, sure he is capable of hitting 3's but he is no Korver who has been the same sniper from his young days in Philly to his vet days with Atlanta, Korver could get motivated by The Answer/Jordan to attack and create for himself but it still wouldn't make him better because he just isn't capable of doing that
if somebody helps you perform at a high level that means you are a lesser role player and you are being spoon fed from being limited at what you can do, Bosh didn't need Wade/Lebron to perform at a high level unless you are talking about making deep playoff runs/titles as a unit, he was getting 24ppg and 12rpg prior to joining the Heat, as with the other two didn't need Bosh prior
being a professional doesn't make you better as what you can do on the court it just means you are acting a certain way to trick the public since we all know for the most part athletes are ego maniacs , ego=devil
being schooled is me showing leadership on here and teaching you, I am not trying to shame you or downplay your knowledge, but if you have played the game and was a factor then you would know your teammates didn't make you better, a one man show cant do it all and expect to win titles so you need multiple players who can perform, contenders vs non contenders pretty much comes down to who has the best players/team to who doesn't have enough to compete for titles, its abc not algebra
if I were to go to the court right now and play I would look for the best players to team up with so it would be easier to win, not for those players to make me better since I can hold my own at a high level, if I go and pick the weakest players then it would be harder for us to win, not because those players made me worse
I don't ride the coattails of no player because I bring my A game which means I perform at a high level off top
Romeo Naes
MVP is an individual award. I never understood how team success factors in so much the way it does. I mean, if your team only wins like 10-30 games then it says something for sure about your impact, but if you take a complete garbage squad to like 40 wins or something and you are absolutely amazing then I don't see why not especially if you are head and shoulders better than your peers and it's obvious.
no, just the combined skill set/natural ability/impact which equals production, I am fixated on true franchise game changing super stars, which is the most important in the building blocks of a title contender since the nba began in the 40's
I hear you saying you schooled me, but I don't see it. I see you turning this into a cyclical conversation where you undermine you own argument by arguing against the degree to which a player becomes better, and then ignoring other parts of the argument.
Do players improve? Yes. Do other players and coaches help them improve? Yes. Is improving the process of getting better? Yes. Just because a person has potential, does that mean they will reach it? No. So when somebody plays a role in helping another person reach their potential, they are helping to make them better. Whether that is through helping to build a certain culture, and encouraging a certain style of play, or teaching, or leading, or, yes, 'making things easier', then you are still helping that person play at a higher level.
But you want to keep spouting the same argument that a .333 shooter can shoot .400 if he's open but that doesn't make him better. Go ahead. The is a slice of the context that you want to focus on while ignoring everything else, and you want to hang onto a strictly semantic argument and act like you are a genius when you are really just refusing to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
And why do you keep talking you you are some elite NBA player? You sound like an idiot when you start talking about how awesome you are at basketball. I get it. You are arrogant. so arrogant that you can't be bothered to look at an argument or view outside of your own.
Now go bring your A game be school Curry and LBJ because you perform at such a high level. lol
Skill set and natural ability doesn't always equal production. You are not acknowledging that for some reason. The latter part of your post has nothing to do with what I was trying to point out.
I'm guessing that's why you keeping making this semantics argument about making players better.
but the combination of those two have always been the trademark of the best players to ever step on the hardwood/grid iron or baseball field
put your list of the best/most dominant nba players together and look at the skill set/natural physical athletic ability of those players and I bet they all carry one or both at high level, from college to the nba
you and others for some strange reason feel like the best players to ever play were helped by others to make them better players when that is far from the truth, Jordan didn't make no player better neither does Curry, Dipper didn't make his teammates better but he did have a better overall stronger cast of players when he went to Lakers but he had a good enough cast in Philly to get over the hump because he was that dominant because of his skiil set/natural ability
Magic didn't make the Lakers players better because Worthy/Jabbar were top flight with or without him, Cooper was a defensive player of year candidate without him, McAdoo won a nba mvp award without him and so on, you keep speaking on semantics of a argument when I am speaking facts
Russ/KD didn't make Harden a better player
Shaq didn't make Penny a better player nor did he make D Scott/Fisher/Rice/Horry better 3pt shooters but he did open the floor up so they can do what they do best and that's to hit wide open 3's
skill set and natural ability with a killer instinct will always pretty much equal top notch production, any player can produce on the court if given minutes rather it be a rebound or an assist or take a couple charges or dive for loose balls, I am speaking on the best players making others better and that is not true at all, they make it easier and sometimes to the detriment of that player depending on how average the others are surrounding him
skills pay the bills
its like if a player is average on defense but the team can mask his deficiency by having a good team of defenders around him, well it works the same way for dominant offensive players having average playmakers/scorers around him, the dominant offensive player can mask that as well, its a reason why Lebron went and teamed up with the Heat, its a reason why Magic wanted to be drafted by Lakers and so on, so they can play with players who are on a high level to make it easier for title runs
the game is about scoring(skill set/ability) and always will be about scoring, its a reason why they cater to offensive side of the ball for the majority of rules changes, its been going on since the beginning of the nba, not just now
Bill Russell/Magic is like the only players in most people top ten list who wasn't a dominant scoring type as far as avg per game but they could score big when needed
I did school you because you said 'does Curry make players better'' and he doesn't
You don't think Lebron hasn't worked on his free throws since entering the league? you don't think Lebron hasn't had people in his ear or encouraging him to improve on his free throws? what has he improved like 3-5 pct at that in 14yrs? is that a slight improvement? sure it is, did it make Lebron a better player, no since he was already so damn dominant at what he does since he first entered the league, he just had to get his feet wet and adjust to the 82 game schedule, did Lebron become a better 3pt shooter with the Heat because he shot a better pct or was it because he was getting easier looks at it? Lebron probably shot 40pct on 3's with the Heat but he wasn't a better overall shooter it was just he was getting easier looks to shoot a high percentage and just recently people were asking what in the hell happened to his 3pt shot, so I don't see how you feel going from 33pct to 40pct is making someone a better shooter until you look at the situation and how he had to take those 3 point attempts, Lebron had way easier attempts as compared in his first Cavs stint vs Miami, its a reason why he shot 20+ shots and then went down to 16 shots per game or around there in his 4 year stay in Miami
if Lebron shot lets say 68pct from free throws and goes up to 71pct how is that making him a better player when he was basically hitting(if you round it off) 70pct anyway? he was basically hitting 7/10 free throws anyway, and it would take him to do it since no other player can shoot it for him, Nash can encourage Lebron and that wont make Lebron a 90pct+ free throw shooter because its just not in him to be, just like Nash cant score 30 straight points and carry a team basically by himself to a Finals like Lebron, because its just not in him no matter the cheerleading/leadership and whatever cliché you choose to use
if you cant see that then you are as blind as Stevie Wonder
I am speaking on the confidence/ability of my game as what I bring to the table when I play, don't get it twisted at all I don't have elite nba game but have played with some nba players before and overseas players and got props from those players when the games were over, rather we won or lost because I did what I do on the court, fact
do you play ball at all and if so what are you capable of doing? are you a hustle/rebound/set screens type of guy? or do you have a offensive arsenal or are you defensive minded?
arrogance always gets confused with confidence, especially coming from the other side who cant play a lick
You are cherry picking names, throwing them together, making broad conclusions without supporting them with statistics, and the repeating the same semantic argument.
They way you speak, every player has the same level of play the day the enter and never change; only their situations do. That is simply not the case. Players play better in certain situations, and with certain other players. that is a fact.
Let's say, for example, Bob McAdoo. You are all like "He won MVP without Magic." No $#!t. And he was also much younger at the time. In the NBA at the time, guys over 30 saw a steep decline. The year prior to coming to LA and Magic, McAdoo shot .430 from the floor, and the year before that, .480. Yes his first season with Magic, he was shooting .520, which he'd only topped twice before in his career, when he was 27, and 22. In a time when players see a decline in efficiency, and McAdoo was seeing a decline, he had an upswing in his efficiency. He got fewer minutes because he was an aging vet on a stacked team, but he improved, and then again, when he was 33, he shot .520 AGAIN. The next season, without Magic, on a 54-win 76ers roster, that featured Moses, Barkely, Dr. J and Cheeks (a stacked roster), he shot .460: a steep decline.
This is what you are failing to address.
Now, you've gone ahead and cherry picked other names like that as well, taking them out of context to suit your argument without looking at the full context. I don't feel like going through all of them, because you are just going to ignore the facts and spout your same semantic view.
Magic made people better. Kurt Rambis was never as efficient as he was with Magic anywhere else. Byron Scott never shot over .500 without Magic, though he did several times with Magic. Cooper played one season without Magic: his rookie season, and he was a bench warmer. Even mentioning him is moot because there is no controlled variable where he played without Magic. As for Kareem... his first nine seasons with Magic, despite being the tail end of his career, he shot a higher percentage than he did his nine seasons leading up to that. He only shot over .580 twice: both time with Magic, and both times on the wrong side of 30. His 4 highest FG%'s were posted with Magic, and this at at time when he's supposed to be getting worse, and in a league where he was competing with dominant big men like Hakeem and Ewing. Hell... he had to go against Hakeem and Sampson at the same time!
But... you just say "Kareem was an MVP without Magic" and fail to consider the context. Kareem played with The Big O in his prime, in his 20's, when he was tearing it up and never shot .600 in that situation.
But hey... you think everybody is just as good as they are and that who they play with only impacts how easy things are, and fail to see the influence that another player can have on the way somebody approaches the game, and prepares for the game, and how efficiently they can do what they do best.
So go ahead and name drop and repeat the same tired argument. But at the end of the day, the stats have a different story.
Why don't you just go on about how awesome you are at basketball now, as if that has anything to do with the conversation.
of course he was older(McAdoo), didn't think I would have to mention that but he won nba mvp earlier proved how capable he was, he was like a top tier player for a decade so Magic didn't get chopped liver at all in a aging McAdoo, same with Jabbar who was older but still a mvp type candidate, Cooper was a defensive stalwart rather on the bench or not, Magic didn't help him do that, and Rambis was a average bench player so bringing him up and his 4ppg efficiency is comical at best, plus big men are supposed to shoot a high pct when playing in the paint so whatever pct Jabbar shot doesn't impress me or sway me to think he was better with Magic because we all know his best days were UCLA/Bucks as far as peak top notch Kareem, Magic helped him to further his career but it didn't make him better because he was at his best with Big O and when he went up against the aging Dipper
same with Dipper in LA, he wasn't a better player because he shot 70pct from the field, it was because he didn't have to do as much as he had a stronger support cast
I am not cherry picking at all, just bringing up strong facts and it is easier to do that with the best teams because they are usually the most stacked with star players so its easier to decipher
the best players from college usually translate over well, the eye test ones for me not the most accomplished like a Laettner or Hurley, but a G. Hill/Shaq/Dipper/Magic/The Answer/Jordan/B Russell/Big O/Barkley and many others
now tell me what in the hell can you do on the hardwood? you sound like a spectactor who watches from the sidelines and thinks that makes you know about playing the game, because you were in attendance
The idea that players don't make others better is not synonymous with every athlete. Of course you can mention players that had no effect on others but it's not an absolute theory.
You say Curry made no one better and use Green as an example. Yes Green already had the skill set/natural ability and awareness to be a very good NBA player. Curry didnt give him those skills but what he did do is help create space that allows him to use his ability to produce at the most optimal level. Be as effecient as possible. That in turn, makes him a better player; higher production.
If he was on the Kings, the talent is still there but he's not producing at the same level so he's not as good.
Why do you think we always hear athletes say "i owe a big thanks to my teammates for putting me in a position to succeed"?
Green or Klay in Sacramento would put up numbers but not be as successful as far as making deep postseason runs
Green wouldn't get the assists but he would still be the stat fill that he is, Klay would score more points for sure per game
athletes say that because I overstand the brother hood they have, its plenty of verbal cliché that goes around in sports
why do some players turned announcers say ''such and such makes these players better' while the ones who know say ''such and such makes it easier'', its media 101 to cause confusion but the ones who were a factor know playing with better players makes it easier
just look at Lebron going to Heat and now most recent with KD going to Warriors, you think they went to make themselves better players or to make it easier to get to the Finals and challenge for titles? I would say the latter 1000 out of 1000 times, easily
I said Curry gives them the space in my other posts in another thread but Green has the ability to do what he does as with Klay as with KD and with Iggy, he is not making them better at all because they can go to other teams and do what they do, as it has already been proven with Iggy/KD, its well documented
It's not a given that Klay produces more on another team. He's fgs are heavily assisted. He will still be a great shooter but that doesn't mean he's going to produce at the same level. You may see an increase in ppg, but his effeciency could easily decease.
He's just another example.
I see that you are not budging at all on your argument. Let's just agree to disagree.
He would be featured more to do more driving/having the ball in his hands, in the Warriors attack they have Green/Curry/KD/Iggy/Livingston who can handle and pass the ball well to assist him but on the Kings he would be way more featured so by default his usage/ppg would go up and with the current talent there his efficiency would go down by having to do more and carry the load, that's basketball 101
his efficiency decreasing wouldn't make him a worse player than he is because his 20ppg would probably go up around the 25-27ppg range, and that wouldn't make him a better player because it would be based on his situation of that type of spike
that's the thing with me, I don't want you to agree or disagree just here to have a good form of dialogue about how the game is truly viewed
its like how a nba player told me if they had the green light to shoot like a certain player they would score more, then I replied well are you that good and capable and are your teammates incapable of doing much scoring to trust you to shoot that much along with the coaching staff planning it that way, he said that has a lot to do with it and liked being in the situation he was in so he wouldn't have to carry that type of load
Sure that's basketball 101 but more ppg doesn't mean he is a better player. You are also over rating Klay if you think he would be averaging 25-27 ppg. There is a reason why he's primarily a spot up shooter and why he doesn't create as much for others. He's not very good at creating for himself.
He would be very likely producing less per possession.
Just because YOU say Curry doesn't make players better, doesn't make it so. This is, I am willing to agree, a subjective matter, but when you look at a player like Bogut, and his efficiency, and play making prior to playing with Curry to after, he improved. You look at Barnes, and he isn't playing nearly as well without Curry. And pretty much every player Curry has played along as improve while playing alongside Curry.
And even an elite player like KD has said he's learned a lot playing with this squad and with Curry, and even HIS stats have improved. I'll take KD's word over yours if you are going to be bringing in your 'cred' as a player.
Does the players own development have a role? Sure. Coaching? Absolutely. But so does having a guy who has enthusiasm for sharing the ball and who encourages players to take their shots.
All I have to say to this is, and I don't typically do this, but: you are an idiot. You are trying to turn a debate about whether or not a player can help another player improve into "who is better on the court: you or me?" The answer to that? IDGAF. Neither does anybody else in here. If you have to respond with "Yeah... well I'm better on the court than you are." then you have no argument. One has nothing to do with the other. You don't see anybody else doing that on here. Why? Because it is ridiculous. That is a 4th grader's response.
Can you beat me on the court? Oh... probably... I'm a 40-year-old man who only gets to play ball with friends a couple of times a year. Did I play in high school? Yes. I was on the team. Want to know how many minutes I got? Not many. I came of the bench. Does that mean I'm wrong about this and you are right because you were good enough to play in Europe but not the NBA? No. It doesn't.
And yes, you are arrogant, and apparently for not good reason, because you have zero reasoning skills and you are more interested in YOUR OWN individual performance than your team's because you don't seem to care about the 'win or lose' part; just the you getting credit for playing well after the game. You must have been a horrible team mate.
So maybe in future, you just STFU about your "I played in Europe" and focus on the conversation.
And no... I'm not confusing arrogance with confidence; you are rationalizing your arrogance because you refuse to see your own character flaws. Perhaps there is a reason why you topped out in Europe. That's an impressive level of play, I'll gladly concede, but not so impressive. I've met a few guys who have played in college and in Europe, and NONE of them seemed as arrogant about it as you. Despite the immense level of play I saw in them, and how easily they dominated the guys they played around, they were humble about their careers. Sure... they jawed with guys on the court, but when they spoke about their careers, they were more interested in talking about how much work they had to do to improve, and not whether not they got compliments on their individual play after a loss.
Can you read? I clearly stated it wouldn't make him a better player because he is who is but when Curry was out last year he had the ball more and drove more to the basket, now put him on the Kings and he would be more than a spot up shooter, I am not overrating Klay at all because I have watched him plenty of times by now to know what he can do
but since he opens up the floor by being a long range sniper that indirectly opens it up for others so that is some form of creating, same thing with Curry even though we know Curry can create better being a more natural PG
He would produce 25-27ppg in that Kings lineup, just like KMart use to do it for them and he is better to me than KMart and would have the same opportunities to shoot and drive/handle the ball way more than with the Warriors, just by default he would avg that but it wouldn't amount to the team success he is enjoying now, same as if Curry went to Charlotte right now they wouldn't be favorites to come out the East let alone win a title
Bogut could play the game as he showed when healthy in Milwaukee but he wasn't fit to be a franchise go to guy but with the Warriors he was a near perfect match for catching the lob and blocking shots and being a big mobile active body down low, hell with Curry and others Barnes was a 4th option and looked average and he wasn't worth a max deal and it is showing in Dallas even though he is scoring at a higher rate and being used more, he is who he is, a good 3-4th option on a contender, not a franchise cornerstone
KD hasn't learned nothing playing with the Warriors and his stats are right on cue from what he has always been, he always flirted the past few years being a 50-40-90 guy and just because he is shooting 44pct from 3pt range now doesn't make him better because he shot 40pct last year, same with Klay not shooting as well pct wise, he is still the same damn sniper from deep, just because Curry isn't averaging 30ppg doesn't make him worse its just he had to adjust with having another capable 30ppg scorer on the roster now which makes it easier for him
a players own development is the most key as what they can do, the coaching/ownership is the next step to provide you with the best situation to succeed and maximize the potential(impact) that is already there
just because YOU say Curry makes players better doesn't mean it is true, matter of fact it is so FAR from the truth its comical
i asked what you can do on the court since you were calling me arrogant about what i can do on the court and now a idiot, damn dust that dirt off your shoulders
where did i say i played in Europe? you are so flustered right now its comical, i said i have played with overseas and nba players at the gym, you are truly a work of art
i mentioned me playing from being in situations with avg to scrub players to playing with a stacked team and adjusted accordingly, that makes perfect sense to use those situations to show you that it makes it easier and we didn't make each other better nor worse, just the dynamic of the team as a whole catered to our success
you sound just like i envisioned, a spectator who attended games and think they know because they have been watching from the sidelines
you got me by a few yrs but i still go out and play with the college boys here and there and they think i am their age, so its probably safe to say i would mop you one on one 10 out of 10 times
I can read, I'm on the app and on the go so i misread that part. As long as you agree that he wouldn't be a better player then I'm done here. He's one of many examples to disprove your very narrow minded theory.
He is who he is, he would probably by the masses to be a better player if he goes to the Kings because he would increase his avg but i am smart enough to know it would come from his usage rate and greener light
narrow minded because i don't think players make other players better? he isn't an example at all to disprove me because Curry doesn't make him better nor does he make Curry better
Klay would be the same player with more opportunities to shine individually, akin to Harden going to Rockets after sharing the load with KD/Russ prior in OKC
this is checkers not chess, abc not algebra
i like to call it advanced common sense
Bogut could play the game as he showed when healthy in Milwaukee but he wasn't fit to be a franchise go to guy
So he is a better fit with Curry, with whom his passing game improved.
but with the Warriors he was a near perfect match for catching the lob and blocking shots and being a big mobile active body down low
I guess we don't watch the same Warriors team. Bogut was more a post and mid-range guy with the odd dunk. Yeah... he can catch a lob, but that was not his forte like it is with DaJ. He helped to space things out because he could hit a 15-footer and could pass effectively out of the post, where he was great at getting position.
This lob thing makes it sound like you are talking about CP3 and DaJ; not Curry and Bogut.
hell with Curry and others Barnes was a 4th option and looked average and he wasn't worth a max deal and it is showing in Dallas even though he is scoring at a higher rate and being used more, he is who he is, a good 3-4th option on a contender, not a franchise cornerstone
So Curry helped him reach a level of play that he can't get to on his own. Right.
KD hasn't learned nothing playing with the Warriors
I suppose you know whether KD has learned anything better than he does: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/kevin-durant-says-being-with-the-warriors-is-teaching-him-about-the-game/
I'll go with KD on this one, and for the record, that is what getting schooled looks like.
and his stats are right on cue from what he has always been, he always flirted the past few years being a 50-40-90 guy and just because he is shooting 44pct from 3pt range now doesn't make him better because he shot 40pct last year
He's shooting his highest 3pt% in five season, and the highest FG% of his career. Better is better. If you want to 'move the goal post' and start negating the degree of improvement, then you are moving away from your argument.
, same with Klay not shooting as well pct wise, he is still the same damn sniper from deep, just because Curry isn't averaging 30ppg doesn't make him worse its just he had to adjust with having another capable 30ppg scorer on the roster now which makes it easier for him
The fact that Curry shares the ball, when he could demand more shots, and makes sure Klay gets him, allows Klay to develop his game and help him improve.
I've already concede that this is a subjective matter. You have not. Why? Because I am open minded and you are closed minded. Fact. However, the fact that you suggest that such an argument is 'comical' betrays your uttr bias. You can't concede that there is evidence to support this, though the evidence is not entirely quantifiable.
You are also misdirecting the argument. Curry is an example. The argument is whether players can make other players better: you say they don't. You are misdirecting the argument that somebody can make somebody else better by suggesting that Curry doesn't make people better; therefore, your argument is right. I was speaking to Magic as an example because you brought him up. I tore that apart pretty easily, but you haven't spoken to that.
You brought up your on-court performance. not me.
My apologies if I equated playing 'overseas' with playing in Europe. China? Europe? Does it matter? No. You are focusing on a trivial detail to draw attention away from the argument, which again, has nothing to do with your on-court abilities. And perhaps should make your comments clear. The context seem to suggest that you played against NBA talent overseas.
Are we still talking about your on-court game? Boy... you can't get enough of that, can you?
Ad hominem. And inaccurate. Next.
Are you STILL talking about your on-court game? Still? Jeezus. You sound like the kind of guy who takes a girl out on a date and spends the entire time showing her videos of you playing basketball.
its funny when people start reaching for straws and not realizing what players are capable of doing on the court
1. Bogut could always pass the ball coming out of college, he was a versatile somewhat athletic big man, his passing game didn't improve since he could already do it coming out of college as I mentioned, he had better teammates to pass it to and the system they ran involved heavy passing, similar to Webber who could pass and he showcased it playing in the Kings system, why is that so hard to figure out? Curry didn't have jack ish to do with that but let you tell it he did
2. Bogut was a athletic big who is a Footer so him catch alley oop dunks is nothing of a big deal, can he jump like DJ? probably not but its easy for him to do just like Capela with the Rockets or how Jimmy Butler or any other who can catch a lob and dunk it and he caught plenty of them when he was on the Warriors just like he would go off for a 5 block quarters on occasion and change the entire makeup of a game
3. Can you read and comprehend? I said Barnes was average with Warriors as the 3rd or 4th option as he is now over there with a 96mill deal with Mavs, only he is forced to be the go to guy or 1a option with Mathews, so no Curry didn't do jack ish for him because he is the same average player forced to taking more shots as the fake franchise max player, this is starting to get ridiculous at all time high levels, you need to quit while you are behind and fast, Barnes played on a way better team with the Warriors and that is all, Curry didn't help him do jack to become a better player but Barnes did get easier shots from playing with that squad, fact
4. That doesn't mean KD is a better player because he is shooting 4pct points or so higher it just means his pct is higher because he was always capable of shooting 50pct from the field and now gets easier looks to knock down vs. going one on one(or doubled) for his looks over there in OKC, I think he has a 50-40-90 season under his belt pre Warriors so you cant be that ignorant to thinking a higher pct by a few points makes a all nba player/mvp candidate better, Lebron shot a higher percentage with Heat and he was still the same freight train prior to joining Heat, he just had to shoot more difficult shots because of how the team was built in Cleveland, Lebron didn't make Chalmers/Battier/Allen/Miller better 3pt shooters because they could hit spot up 3's before playing with him, they just got more open looks since Lebron garnered attention, Miller was hitting the same shots over there with TMac in Orlando but whatever makes you sleep better at night stick to it
KD is capable of shooting the way he does since coming out of Texas, now playing with the right system and multiple all nba caliber players is just coming to fruition, he has been a flame thrower his entire career just off the eye test, percentages don't justify that his on court game/abilities do and if you cant or don't see that you need to pick a new sport to study
Dipper wasn't a better player because he shot 70pct as I mentioned in a earlier post, Shaq wasn't better/dominant player because he shot 58pct one season and 60pct the next, they were always dominant day 1 until age kicked in, even in college they were supremely dominant
KD had mvp game/talent his rookie year and by the year 2010-11 he was legit mvp worthy and up until now, he even has a MVP award under his belt so how in the world is the Warriors making him better when they went and signed a already mvp caliber player? most had him top 3 in the entire league behind Lebron/Curry and he is in the mvp conversation as we speak right now, you are a comical character
5. who in they right mind wouldn't pass to a open sniper, did Jordan help develop Kerr because he passed to him wide open against the Jazz to hit the game winner or was Jordan smart enough to know Kerr is basically automatic when set and wide open? did Jordan help develop Paxson in that 91' Finals when Paxson hit basically every mid range shot and Jordan avg 11apg in that series? hell no he didn't because they were already developed lethal snipers from 3pt/mid range when wide open, so that's basic common bball sense for Curry to find his fellow splash brother who shoots as good as anybody to ever step foot on the hardwood, I cant believe how naïve you are about the simple game of basketball, you sound worse than people talking about the ''pace'' of the game back in the older days
6. you made a ignorant topic about does Curry make players better so I stick to that script that you already laid out and I am convinced that him nor any other does, players bring what they bring on a individual scale and mesh it with the team, had you mentioned any other player then I would be using that name but you chose Curry
7. I know I mentioned what I can do and did on the court and you got into your feelings and start talking sideways so I asked what can you do on the court and you explained just like I had visioned you would, a spectator who watched from the sidelines
8. I have played with nba and overseas players not in the nba or over in Europe, those type of players play at gyms all the time if you play where I have played, its not a big deal and they play hard contrary to what others say
9. I was once again explaining playing with really good players or playing with avg to scrub players and having to adjust accordingly to the team talent, they didn't make me better or worse players like you seem to think players do for each other, you are who you are, just like I knew you were not much of a factor so you had to lean on others to carry your team and ride coattails of the better/dominant players on your team, I bet you could set a mean screen though to get your teammates open to score/shoot, good job
10. very accurate, you explained it yourself about your career
11. are we not talking about basketball? then why not use a simple scenario to show you that since you couldn't see it from a nba point of view, it happens on the college to HS to pee wee league, you think Kentucky/Duke and a few other colleges get the best recruit talent and they don't maintain a top 5 college ranking for most or the entire season? its because they get the best players which makes the team strong to make Final four/title game pushes, AD/Anthony Towns played with a stacked Kentucky squad but that team didn't make them better nor did they make other players there better they were just loaded and they were the best players on that team pretty much, its the same on all levels
my girl(lady) is on the verge of starting her own sports agency so I guess its in her veins to talk and study basketball, she also is my biggest cheerleader on the sidelines when I do go play, nothing like the love and support of a focused beautiful lady who also loves to talk about and watch sports, euphoric feeling indeed
lets talk about your on court game and abilities, never mind you already explained what you didn't do
This is a thread about Anthony Davis, and YOU think you are 'sticking to the script' by talking about Curry? That is moronic.
As to the Curry thread, you say it was ignorant, but the only person being ignorant here is you. I've conceded that the Curry debate is subjective, because I'm open minded like that. But you are going around talking in circles, with ZERO statistical evidence to support you, acting like this is objective and that anybody who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. You know who thinks like that? Idiots.
Are you STILL going on about your on-court game? STILL? I wasn't talking sideways: you were by even bringing it up. Your on-court ability has nothing to do with this conversation, and even if you think it offers some kind of anecdotal evidence, IT IS ANECDOTAL.
LMAO. You are STILL going on about this, like you are some kind of basketball god. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION!!!
LMAO. You are STILL going on about your own individual play and trying to bring up my on-court performance? Look @$$hole.... I played in high school. On the team. With a group of friends. We weren't 'riding each others' coattails'. We were playing a game we loved and having fun. We worked hard and weren't terrible good, though we won as many as we lost. And you can bring this up over and over, but the fact is THIS HAS NOTHING TO TO WITH THE CONVERSATION AT HAND!!! You are using an ad hominem attack.
No... you said I watched from the sidelines. That is a spectator. I played in game. That is inaccurate. And it is an ad hominem attack. You really need to look that word up, because your 4th-grade responses are making you look like a moron.
What does college recruitment have to do with whether or not a player can make another player better? You get dimmer with every word. Just because somebody is 'the best', doesn't mean they can't get better. But whatever.
Congratulations on your girlfriend's aspirations, which have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. You keep bringing up $#!t that has nothing to do with what we are talking about because your argument has no legs and you are reaching.
Really? Again? Still? This logic implies that everybody who can beat somebody else one-on-one know more about basketball than the person they beat. Is that true? Obviously not, because there are other factors at play. Age. Athletic ability. Size. But if you think being able to beat a 40-year-old who only plays a few times a year make you a basketball god and give you authority, fine... go ahead. You should put that in your tag and see how many people compliment you and call you 'confident' instead of arrogant.
This is like the appeal to an authority if the authority had an IQ of 60.
You argument is based on your thoughts: players are as good as they are and never improve; they just get into different situations. You can't substantiate that because there is no controlled variable.
I use stats, which though not a precise controlled variable, offers some degree of quantifiable evidence. Even still, I am willing to admit that this is largely subjective. You, on the other hand, will not. Instead, you dismiss the stats outright, then go on about how you got to play with NBA players and how your girlfriend cheers you on and wants to starts a sports agency, then trying to use the fact that I came off the bench in high school as some kind of argument? Why... because instead of taking a reasoning skills class so you could have intelligent conversations based on logic with other adults, you practice really hard on the court so you can tell 40-year-old men who seldom play any more that you can beat them. WOW!!!
Congratulations. I'd say your a troll, but you have to have a certain degree of intelligence to know how to upset people, whereas it just seems like you legitimately think that ad hominems, moving the goal post, and the appeal to an authority (the authority apparently being yourself) are sound logical arguments. That that is just the work of a moron.
I apologies. I don't usually rely on personal insults, because they are a form of an ad hominem, but in this case, I feel like it's been quantified and refers specifically to underscore your use of flawed logic. Which is, in my mind, quantifiably moronic. You might not be a moron yourself, but you are certainly using the reasoning skills of one.
1. I know this is a AD thread but you said how much better can he make Holiday/Pelicans or whatever you said and I replied back and stated that I already schooled you on that so I don't see whats so moronic about that, and all the time on these damn threads people flip the script and go elsewhere in the discussion not pertaining to the title topic created, go cry a river
why would I need statistical evidence when watching/playing the game makes it way easier to tell it like it is then some damn stats can ever do, you do know experience/being in the foxhole holds way more weight than a stat? my eye test carries way more value than a stat can ever do, fact
2. Me playing has a lot to do with it when saying who made some other player better when it has never happened with no player because you bring what you bring to the table, you said you didn't play at all or not much so you didn't bring much to the table to make your team better, you keep saying I mention me so I keep on re hashing it, but if you would have never mentioned it back and got all salty and butt hurt then this wouldn't even be a problem for you, I gave you proof from the nba to non nba level proof of players not making others better, I used me for the non nba player, why are you so salty about that?
3. you said you barely played or something to that effect which equates to being a spectator watching from the sidelines aka bench(hope that makes you feel better)
4. it was to show you at every level how players don't make others better, the truly best college players just usually carry over and need to adjust to the speed of the nba game and longer grueling schedule, Shaq didn't really improve nothing from LSU to Lakers, but let you tell it he did drastically, let you tell it he got so much better but from a true ballers perspective not at all really much since he was so dominant coming into the nba, J Kidd didn't get better when he entered the nba, he just played the same style and dominated, he improved his 3pt shot later on but that didn't make him better because by the time he did that he had aged and didn't rely so much on his pure speed and natural ability like earlier so he's being savvy which comes with years of playing
How on earth if the best most dominant players don't make players better that middle of the pack/fringe all stars players are going to make other players better? its a reason why I mention some of the best players of all time to make it easier to decipher and swallow, it don't get no more basic than that
abc not algebra
5. Once again you mentioned the girl analogy and I rode with it and you say it doesn't have nothing to do with the conversation, like duh I know that, but you mentioned the ignorant girl talk so I rode your coattails on it and you still get all salty and flustered ,just like when I mentioned my on court game you get all bitter beer faced
6. we would both be in the same age ball league if we entered it right now so I am not a spring chicken and how is my argument based on thoughts when its clear as day to watching/playing the game, that is what I call experience and speaking on what I have experienced from watching and playing
you speak just like the average spectator who brings up stats to try and make you look good but have no idea because you weren't a factor playing
I don't need an apology because you can talk all the ish you want because that shows how weak your ''such and such makes others better''
and it don't matter if its AD or Curry thread because neither player makes others better, but they will do damage if they teamed up with 2 other all stars as Curry has shown and the jury is still out on AD
A troll wouldn't know this much about a simple game of hoops, a troll would resort to name calling like saying 'idiot' and screaming with caps as in ''IDGAF'' and other troll like jibberish, a troll would think that players make other players better, that's a troll in my book
Reason you keep thinking that I am talking in circles is because the circle of truth is just that, a lie has to cut corners and re route, but the truth comes in circles
You said talking about Curry was staying on script. It's not. This is an AD thread. I'm not crying about it, just pointing out how moronic your comment it.
Because the eye-test is entirely subjective. You comment here is essentially "Why do I need evidence to support my opinions: people should accept them as fact."
If you can't see the flaw behind that, then aren't acting stupid.
Are you STILL going on about your play? Seriously. Get over yourself.
1. Barely playing is not the same as being a spectator. Not that it matter to this conversation, but I pushed my teammate hard in practice, and when I spotted them on the floor, I didn't let up anything. Who ever was getting a rest while I was on the court was assured that I wasn't going to give up any easy baskets, and that I'd rebound and box out as well as they did. So, no, not getting a lot of minutes does not equate being a spector.
2. Your argument again infers that that just because somebody might out perform somebody on the court means they know more about that game. I already addresses this, but for the record, the greatest coaches in the history of the game: Pop, Riley, Red, and PJax, were either bench warmers or never played in the NBA. Does that mean they don't know their $#!T. Of course not. Does the fact that you might be able to beat an over age dude that does play regularly mean that you have a better understanding of the game? No.
4. it was to show you at every level how players don't make others better, the truly best college players just usually carry over and need to adjust to the speed of the nba game and longer grueling schedule, Shaq didn't really improve nothing from LSU to Lakers
If you think that is the truth, you have no clue about basketball. None. Shaq was an infinitely better player in LAL than at LSU. His passing game most notably. Anybody who would argue that Shaq was no better as a Laker than he was as LSU clearly demonstrates and utter and overwhelming lack of understanding of the game of basketball.
J Kidd didn't get better when he entered the nba, he just played the same style and dominated, he improved his 3pt shot later on but that didn't make him better because by the time he did that he had aged and didn't rely so much on his pure speed and natural ability like earlier so he's being savvy which comes with years of playing
Part of his game did get better. That's what the word 'improved' means. Other parts deteriorated, but he improved other parts that helped keep him in the league. Even your semantic argument is falling apart here. That aside, this is one example. There are guys who improve their 3pt shot before age gets to them. Do they not 'get better' either?
Subjective.
5. Once again you mentioned the girl analogy
I feel like you are just making $#!T up now. Where did I mention a 'girl analogy'? I said you're the type to take a girl out and show her videos of you. That is t highlight your arrogance. Supported by the fact that you felt you had to note your girl enjoys watching you. You brought up your gf as a point to support your knowledge. As if that gave you some cred because she's your cheer leader and wants to start a sports agency. But whatever.
"I'm so awesome at basketball my gf loves watching me play." So I was spot on with my comment (which wasn't an analogy btw-- you really need to look that word up).
and I rode with it and you say it doesn't have nothing to do with the conversation, like duh I know that, but you mentioned the ignorant girl talk so I rode your coattails on it and you still get all salty and flustered ,just like when I mentioned my on court game you get all bitter beer faced
When did I mention an 'ignorant girl'?
Also... don't drink beer, and not bitter.
Are you STILL going on about your game?
You speak like the average fan who doesn't understand mathematical concepts, and so, in order to compensate for the fact that you can't understand stats, rely on the 'eye test' and spout anti-intellectual bull$#!T and treat your opinions like fact.
You might think your opinions don't need anything to support them other than "I'm awesome at basketball, and that's how I interpreted what I saw, but I won't back it up with statistical support, but I'm right."
Right? Well guess what... if stats didn't matter, people wouldn't keep track of them.
A subjective opinion, which you refuse to concede to. Why? Close Minded and arrogant.
A troll wouldn't know this much about a simple game of hoops
You've demonstrated how little you know when you said Shaq never improved from LSU to LA.
troll would resort to name calling like saying 'idiot' and screaming with caps as in ''IDGAF'' and other troll like jibberish, a troll would think that players make other players better, that's a troll in my book
I supported my observations. You haven't. You expect everybody to take your boasting and 'eye test' as facts: they aren't.
As for caps, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but using caps for acronyms is not shouting: it's standard. I don't expect somebody like you, who can't even string together an argument while using evidence, to know that, but I'll let it slide.
All you keep doing is talking about your game and refuse to offer statistical analysis, and restate the same opinions you've already expressed.
So if you understand that, then how does Curry not make him better?
Curry initiates so much of the space that the Warriors create. That spacing allows for better looks, which means more field goals, which means higher effeciency, which means Klay is producing more per possession.
My goodness, you make no sense.
Don't waste your time. This guy isn't even willing to concede that these are subjective matters, doesn't provide any statistical support, and insults you if you use stats instead of trusting his eye test.
The logical fallacies in his arguments and his anti-intellectualism is a clear indication that he has not interest in and likely lacks the ability to have a reasoned debate.
The bolded is the part that I don't get the most. Every time I reply, I know he will come up with some rubuttal for a topic that as you said, is clearly subjective. He only sees it one way and will blow wind, only to then bloviate about his false sense of superior basketball knowledge.
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here these last 20 posts, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
1. ''How much better can you expect him to make Holiday or Evans?'' (this was your quote in this thread that you earlier wrote), so I took this quote from you and combined it with the ignorant thread you made about 'Does Curry make players better'
So like I said I schooled you on this already, fact, because AD wont and didn't make those players better, just like Curry wont, you keep saying the same thing then blaming me for saying the same thing, stop being a hypocrite
then you went on the call me a idiot and now a moron, so you are 40yrs of age acting like a 4 yr old
2. You do know people don't accept facts right? you do know a dead clock is right 2x a day and nobody has to accept that as fact, you do know that if you actually do research on true history and debunk what is being taught in schools people will still believe what they are taught right? what I am saying is fact based on actually doing it and watching what is being done on the court, what are you basing AD making Holiday/Evans better and it being factual? they are the same players they were coming from Kings/Sixers but they cant stay healthy enough to stay on the floor for extended amount of time to see if they can even gel with Davis, but for damn sure he wont make them better, better at what? it seems he is making them worse or vice versa since all 3 have trouble staying healthy enough to play a full season together as a trio, its like they pass the injury bug back and forth to each other
3. The teammate that you pushed in practice was on your level so I am for sure you didn't make him better, practicing hard is just that, especially if you knew you wouldn't play much or at all, the best players on your team probably looked at you as if you were a patsy, a practice player, good job
and yes barely playing or not playing is being a bench rider/spectator, setting a screen and hustling for a rebound and barely playing is equal to being a weak version of a Jerry Sloan style type player, your views are not factual
4. Larry Brown is a better(the best) coach than those you mentioned to me, they are more accomplished(greater) but then again you have to factor the talent those coaches had as opposed to Brown and he got more out of less, those coaches you name all had some of the best players to ever play for long stretches, Brown had The Answer and that Detroit team and Detroit was his only true contending title caliber squad and that 95' Pacers squad, after that loss to the Bulls Pop told his players they need to be ready to play but I thought the coach is supposed to make sure the players are ready and focused? no Pop said they need to find it within themselves to be ready, just like I said all along
and those coaches you mentioned have all had real good assistant coaches and usually the head coaches who were average nba players make the best coaches , the best players usually don't and most don't even try to be coaches, and its well documented
5. You sound like the kind of guy who takes a girl out on a date and spends the entire time showing her videos of you playing basketball( your initial quote again)
that's the ignorant girl comment you replied with, so I replied back with what I did, guess that makes us even
6. Actually I am speaking on behalf of both of our game, by saying we would be in the same bball league, 35 and up league, you make it seem like I am bragging about my game when I was only making a point to show how easy it is to break it down with the talent you play with and the situations that I went through, you sound so threatened about a bunch of nothing, I don't feel threatened at all about you telling me about your bball game, I am actually proud of you since you did try your best since you were so limited, good job and kudos to you
7. I did break it down, I said what I would do with stacked talent and I said I wasn't as efficient with the lesser talent, didn't make me a better or worse player, and why would I need to bring up or mention stats about dominant players when you know what they did? Shaq was dominant in his 3peat and Shaq was dominant in Orlando, what stats do I need to show you since we all know that is fact? you are a comical character
I used Lebron and KD as examples to show you how it was also, more so for Lebron since he left a worse support cast to Heat than KD did to Warriors but neither player made the others better, they sure did make the team stronger with the other pieces of the team though, Lebron reached 1 finals in 7yrs with Cavs first time and then 4 straight in Miami and then went back to better talent with Cavs and is 2 for 2 since going back, is that enough factual information(stats/data) for you?
if the games didn't matter they wouldn't be televised or attended live, stats are kept track for that same reason so why would I need to look at stats when I have watched/studied/followed players for years on the hardwood? I am the average fan because I don't root for teams just the players since I played the sports
8. you are speaking from opinion, I just tell it like it is and if that don't make it factual it means I am right in the ballpark, front row bleachers
you said Kareem shot 60pct with Magic but acting like he didn't shoot 55-58pct with out him years prior and like 56pct for his entire 20yr career, how in the hell did Magic make Kareem better by shooting 2pct points higher? you cant be this silly, you are comical, and since you talk about bringing stat facts he only shot 60pct two times with Magic, and 1 time you had to round off 59pct to get 60, but hey you are the stats guru who cant get it right
9. Shaq was a dominant force coming out of LSU, Shaq was a dominant force his 4 years in Orlando, Shaq when healthy with the Lakers for 8yrs was a dominant force and went to 4 finals in 8 years, if I don't know what I am talking about then you sure as hell don't, why would I need to post stats to back this fact up? ok, I got one for you in the 95' Finals Shaq avg 6apg so him going to the triangle was easy for him since he was a willing passer, is that good enough stats proof for you?
if I were to watch 10 game of Westbrook do you think I would need statistical analysis to prove he has a high usage rate? hell no I wouldn't just from watching the games
do you think I need to see Big Dipper PER when he avg 50ppg and like 26rpg that season? hell no I would just use my common bball sense to know his PER was off the charts
10. Boasting? you need to shake your inferior ways and get some confidence, its like me saying you are boasting because you posted Kareem had his highest FG pct playing with Magic, you are boasting because you said you practiced hard and would push your teammate in practice and set screens and grab a rebound in limited minutes, stop boasting about your game Jerry Sloan
11. I guess 'YOU' is a acronym also, you are truly a character, just priceless
most people know when using CAPS, you are yelling/screaming on the keyboard, internet madness at its finest
12. I keep having to use my experience as an example and you didn't bring any stats to prove your point other than saying Kareem had a higher FG pct with Magic and that Bogut somehow magically became a better passer playing with Curry, poppycock
all you keep doing is rehashing the same jibberish but your boasting and insults are better than mine in your world, two thumbs up
communication is not the problem at all, its the seeing eye to eye part
every person on here posting wants it their way, nothing new under the sun
Because Klay is doing what he do, as he would if he went to any other team, why don't you overstand that?
its pick your poison when dealing with those two shooters because Klay is a dangerous shooter as well(he just dropped 60 not too long ago), Curry of course initiates more since he is the PG and Klay is the SG, once again efficiency doesn't make you a better player, if Klay went 5-10 each game that is not making him a better player but shooting 50pct looks a lot nicer than shooting 3-10
If Klay went to the Kings or Minny team he would still be the same sniper but would probably get to put the ball on the floor more and get to the line more just from a higher spike of usage
so if I make no sense but you keep replying what does that make you?
my goodness you guys can turn a mole hill into a mountain with your superior basketball knowledge
LMAO!!! Brilliant!
Anything new here? Nope. Same rubbish you keep $#!tting out of your mouth.
The only one who got schooled here was you Euro. This isn't a thread about AD making players better; it's about whether he would warrant MVP consideration if his team reacher
Hey... if the shoe fits... I quantified these comments based on your lack of reasoning. I can't help that you are using moronic ad homenems, flawed appeal to authorities, and anecdotal evidence. And yes, the fact that you are using these arguments and don't understand the flaws inherent in them means you are using moronic arguments.
2. You do know people don't accept facts right? you do know a dead clock is right 2x a day and nobody has to accept that as fact, you do know that if you actually do research on true history and debunk what is being taught in schools people will still believe what they are taught right?
This sounds like somebody who didn't go to school, or who didn't do well trying to justify their intellectual deficiencies.
what I am saying is fact based on actually doing it and watching what is being done on the court
You said this before. The fact that you think the opinion you formed based on an interpretation of anecdotal evidence doesn't make it a fact: it makes it an opinion. And this is why you are putting forward an idiotic argument, because you refuse to concede to the difference between an opinion and fact.
Stats are facts. Get over it.
what are you basing AD making Holiday/Evans better and it being factual? they are the same players they were coming from Kings/Sixers but they cant stay healthy enough to stay on the floor for extended amount of time to see if they can even gel with Davis, but for damn sure he wont make them better, better at what? it seems he is making them worse or vice versa since all 3 have trouble staying healthy enough to play a full season together as a trio, its like they pass the injury bug back and forth to each other
Are you STILL going on about our individual on-court performance?
If you think a the 7th or 8th guy in the rotation on a team is the same as a spectator because he isn't getting starting minutes, you are an idiot.
What are you even talking about? You realize that Larry Brown can be thrown in with those names and still support MY argument, right? Actually, you don't. That's why you just shot yourself in the foot by noting how a guy who wasn't that great a player was able to be one of the best coaches ever. Hence cutting down your 'I'm better than you on the court therefore I know more about the game' argument.
Thanks for helping me out. You just schooled yourself and didn't even realize it.
So the average players have better basketball minds than the better players and make better coaches? Thanks again for supporting my argument.
And lots of great players try to get coaching jobs and don't. Ewing Pippen. Other try to get front office jobs and don't. Kareem. Dr. J.
But keep on spouting things you made up and acting like they are facts. This is Trump's post-truth era after all.
Apparently it was spot on, since you bring your gf to watch you play and act as your cheer leader. lol
Are you STILL talking about your own on-court performance?
Did you add anything new here? Nope.
I have an opinion. I use facts (stats) and observation. I concede that it is subjective (I get the feeling like you don't know what that word means).
You have an opinion based on observation. You say that is a fact.
The difference between me and you is that I used stats and observation and can still concede that my position is ultimately an opinion, while you use less evidence and insist your opinion are facts.
That is quantifiably moronic. That is not name calling. That is you talking like an idiot who has no grasp of the language or the subjective nature of a conversation like this.
He shot a higher FG% with Magic. That is a fact. An actual fact.
Deal with it.
You've already said this.
Point? None. Right.
Still anti-fact I see. Said this already.
I'm boasting because I'm referring to stats? I don't even know how your mind works. Do you know the meaning of the words you are using? You boast, brag, whatever about your oncourt performance, and then equate that to me boasting because I'm using stats to support an argument?
It adds emphasis.
[QOUTE]12. I keep having to use my experience as an example and you didn't bring any stats to prove your point other than saying Kareem had a higher FG pct with Magic and that Bogut somehow magically became a better passer playing with Curry, poppycock[/QUOTE]
Your 'experience' is anecdotal and flawed because of your overt bias.
I would tell you how ironic this quote is, but I get the feeling like I'd then also have to explain what the word irony means.
You say I repeat myself, but you've added nothing new here.
You have demonstrated that you have not interest in having a conversation in good faith. I'm not wasting anymore time by replying to you. You are either an idiot, or you are acting like one, and I have no time for either.
FlashBolt
Putting up huge numbers when your team is crap and losing doesn't make you an MVP.
I am starting to think nobody on this site has ever had a significant impact on a game
if Klay/any player hit 5 out of 10 shots each game how is Curry making him a better player? Klay has struggled in games this year and in past so did Curry make him worse because he shot 1-9 from 3pt range? hitting 2 more shots per game doesn't make you a better player it just means you had a more efficient shooting game so you went from 30pct to 50pct, you guys are truly basketball challenged. from the laptop to the hardwood
I borrowed your superior basketball knowledge comment and had a great laugh with it as well, kudos to your vast superior knowledge of bball(comical)
[QOUTE]12. I keep having to use my experience as an example and you didn't bring any stats to prove your point other than saying Kareem had a higher FG pct with Magic and that Bogut somehow magically became a better passer playing with Curry, poppycock
You have demonstrated that you have not interest in having a conversation in good faith. I'm not wasting anymore time by replying to you. You are either an idiot, or you are acting like one, and I have no time for either.[/QUOTE]
1. This thread wasn't about AD making players better but you made the dumbass comment about it, I copied and pasted it for the world to see, I am sure you can read since you did go to school
2. you are really challenged I see, go do some actual studying and see what you come up with, go back to your school history books and then compare it to outside the school teachings and you might be able to grasp what I am speaking about, I am still in the school as we speak, the school of life
3. playing in a situations makes it fact, if stats are facts how in the hell is the game being played not facts? where do the stats come from? playing the game right? you cant accumulate stats without playing the damn game, wow you are a comedian of the highest order
4. you were more like the 10th man from the way you spoke, don't boost yourself up a couple spots to look good
5. we weren't talking about coaches who didn't play vs those who did play and were more successful, I was talking about a player making those better, and those coaches you named who were average players didn't make teammates better either and since they were spectators for the most part they had a lot of time to soak the game up and be decent head coaches since they were basically good for nothing else, it was more the talent they had to coach rather then them being actually top notch coaches, besides Brown/Sloan
you probably would make a good coach since you had a lot of spectator time, until you start telling your players to make each other better players then you would lose them
6. you mis read what I wrote, the best players usually don't make 'great' head coaches in terms of winning big/titles, and most don't even try after retiring from the game, they all could do some form of coaching since the respect/command factor would be there but it seems to be the average to good player who makes the head coach transition because they were more player friendly/spectators, a superstar has ego problems which wouldn't translate well over to coaching, good try though
7. once again you are using what I use and calling it opinion, I call it fact since it happened, if I think it is going to happen then that's my opinion but when it happens or is being showed on the court it actually happens
8. Kareem also shot 55-58pct in seasons without Magic, fact, swallow it but don't choke
9. I know I already said it, and it was facts what I spoke on about Shaq, lies change the truth don't
10. it is a point since you said back it up with stats and I was using the eye test factor showing you that you don't need a damn stat to figure out something so basic you see just from watching games, once again you know its true but are in denial because you feel an opinion trumps a fact, every one has an opinion until they got to deal with the facts
11. see number 10
12. you did talk about your career and about practice and what you did regardless if it was very minimal, just like I spoke of situations of playing, how am I boasting about speaking about what happened? and I used other examples and you still say they aren't facts, like the Lebron/KD situations, your reply is short because you know they are facts
13. emphasis of you screaming like a 4yr old, I know it does, you don't need to add emphasis unless you feel schooled
14. Bias of what? you know what I didn't play ball at all, I have never watched a game in my nba life, now does that make you feel better? or will you call me something else next?
15. you are a what we call a fake it just to make it type character, keep faking it with your opinion and beliefs that other players make others better, just ignorance at its finest
Regurgitating the same points and over simplifying. You think what you are saying is going over our heads but it's not. You are not making any complex points. You are making a semantics argument and It's been acknowledged but the fact that you only see it one way is baffling.
when something is basic and clear as day why would I need to say anything else
you keep replying back the same way just with a slight remix as well, you are not saying nothing to prove me wrong
making 5 out of 10 total attempts each game would not make be credited to another player making you better, just like making 3 out of 10 wouldn't equate to that player making you worse, it would be on your ability to get it done or not
like I said it can either be easier or harder for you, go ask Lebron or matter of fact go read his quote he made public when he took his talents to South Beach to have it easier
its baffling that you think its 10 diff. ways to view something so basic like this, that's baffling right there
Don't waste you time bro. He thinks his eye test is a fact and that stats are opinions.
The guy thinks LSU Shaq is the same player as Lakers Shaq.
Is there any reasoning with that?
We have both wasted considerable time trying to reason with somebody who can't even concede that this is ultimately a subjective matter and insists that his opinions are facts because he's such an awesome player himself who has played with NBA talent overseas.
Liggins is the nba version of you and even he knows the big 3 on his team doesn't make him better, but he has it easier:
"I'm playing with three great players, so they don't need my offense," Liggins said.
"But if I'm open, I'm going to take the wide-open shot. What I bring is the defensive edge. I try to help Kyrie out so he doesn't have to pick up guards full court. I try to save Kyrie some energy, and that's what I've been doing. ... [Playing with those guys is] great. It just makes the game so much easier for me, just being wide open. Those guys get so much attention, and I'm honored to be able to play with them."
And if you don't think Shaq was the same dominant force at LSU as he was for the Magic/Lakers then you truly are delusional, his draft scouting report said he was a dominant inside force(pts/rebs/blocks) and as a rookie he avg like 23ppg and 14rpg, basically his career averages minus a couple or so rebounds, you are a funny spectator, I am starting to think you couldn't have played ball on any level if you are this blinded to what actually happens on the court that a player showcases
Shaq avg 29ppg his 3rd season and and 29.7ppg his 8th season doing the same thing he was always known for, being a force of nature but he was just fatter/heavier in his later/Lakers tenure and should have stayed more so lean like he was during his Orlando era
last two years at LSU he put up 28ppg and 15rpg with 5bpg and 24ppg and 14rpg with 5bpg
class is out of session and you have been suspended, your bball pass is revoked
NBA players do improve beyond adjusting to the pace of the game Euro, tremendously so on many occasions. But this thread jumped the shark 5 pages ago. Let it die.
I said in a earlier post the only thing those type of really good superstar type players need to do is adjust to the speed/grueling schedule coming out of college, same thing as pace right? they do what they do if they are that good regardless because its in those players DNA, its not really improving just really a carry over
Debates/dialogue never die, they just change topics
Oh... look who is using stats instead of an eye test? lol
Let's put those raw stats into a full context now.
First, at LSU, his first season, Shaq was so 'dominant' that Stanley Roberts, also in his first year, was getting more shots than Shaq. In the NBA, Stanley Roberts never sniffed where Shaq was, though Roberts did improve in the NBA (something you apparently think players don't do).
So yeah... Shaq got better.
Statistically? You are treating college stats as though they are equal to NBA stats. That is moronic. Anybody knows that 20 points-per-game in college does not equal 20ppg in the NBA. Any number of guys do that in college who never get to the NBA, so don't waste our time by comparing college stats to NBA stats.
As for Shaq's stats as a rookie, and his NBA stats, you are using strictly raw stats, and only the stats that you think support your argument, and you fail to put the in context.
As a rookin in Orlando, who was a lottery team that year, Shaq led a team, yes, but it was a .500 club. Averaging 23 points on a lottery team, or a .500 team, is not nearly as impressive as leading the league in scoring on a championship team, which he did in LA, to the tune of 29.7 points: more than 6 points more than he posted as a rookie. So yeah. HUGE (emphasis, not yelling, for those too fawking dim to know the difference) improvement.
He was also more foul prone as a rookie, and though he played more minutes later, he reduce his fouls, so... improvement!
Assists? Oh... you left that out, didn't you. 1.9 as a rookie. 3.7, 3.8, and 3.0 as an NBA champion with the Lakers. And all while competing for shots with the likes of Kobe Bryant and Glenn Rice, among others. Who was he competing with for shots in Orlando? Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott?
You talk about class being out of session, but it looks like you are the one who just got schooled. You utter failure to look at anything but raw stats, consider context, use control measure to mark improvement, and inclination to see college stats and NBA stats on parity terms demonstrates your utter and complete understanding of the game.
Ièm seriously done now. Your posts just get more and more ridiculous, and, somehow, less intelligent, which is dumbfounding.
Shaq was playing with more talent his first season at LSU, and if I am not mistaken C Jackson was there also who could light it up so he had it easier with more total talent
and since Roberts improved so much according to you where does he rank all time amongst nba centers? C Jackson was the same player from college to pros as well, a lethal undersized scorer who could shoot with the best of them, its a reason Phil compared Curry to him a couple years ago but I bet you would think Jackson improved also, at what?
I am using stats to show you that he was the same dominant force after I first and foremost applied my eye test which trumps stats if you truly follow/study the games(players), stats are secondary but since you were so infatuated with stats I posted them to really make you look silly, me watching him made me know what he was doing not stats but since you cried a river about stats I posted stats to show you and you still are crying a river
assists? from a center position he was always a capable passer but he wasn't overly passing like a Divac/Noah since he would impact the game from a scoring/rebound/blocks perspective way way stronger, fact
the system from the coaches had a lot to do with passing more in the triange but he still was a capable passer as he avg 6apg in 95' Finals with Orlando, fact
no I am not treating college stats as equal to nba I am showing you Shaq was the same force playing the same way/style from college to pros, go look up highlights/game film for further proof, this is not something hard to figure out, maybe for you it is
I don't care about if it was a lottery team I am speaking on Shaq from a solo level, not the Orlando team as a whole, he was capable of putting up 29ppg in college as he was in the pros so he didn't improve he just didn't have to worry about getting quintupled team as he did in college as going more iso and facing double teams in the pros, he was plenty capable and didn't improve because he didn't average 29ppg ever year with LA so did he get worse year by year? he average 29ppg for both Magic/Lakers years apart and was still the same force
I use context as you clearly don't because you bring up S Roberts but don't mention C Jackson who was a flame thrower/assassin/scorer on that LSU team so Shaq didn't need to drop his last two year stats as he did at LSU during his freshman year because he had it easier with more talent, you are truly a clown and you have been done ever since you felt that AD couldn't make Holiday/Evans no better than they are
I never was here to debate on which was more impressive, I stated he was the same player playing the same style since LSU to Lakers, of course winning a title is more impressive since that's what they all play for at the end of the day, where did I say ever mention that it wasn't? you are quite a character
you sit up here and later say you use the eye test but at first it was all about stats as your be all, you are a literal walking talking piece of artwork
stop trespassing on school property since you are expelled indefinitely
Did I say Roberts improve? Or improve 'so much'? Being able to average what you averaged in college in the NBA is an improvement, because the competition is higher.
His per36 numbers were close to 20/10. But I never said he improved 'so much', just that he improved. You have projected an argument onto me that I did not make and failed to see the fact that while he and Shaq played side-by-side, they scored about the same and got close to the same amount of rebounds, yet when Shaq go into the league, he easily out played Roberts because.... dum dum dum.... HE IMPROVED!! (emphasis, not screaming, for those of you who don't know the difference).
You 'used' stats in that you referenced them, but you didn't use stats in terms of analysing them.
And I don't see anybody crying here, but you seem to play up these hyperboles to make yourself feel better. Oh. In case you needed to know, a hyperbole is an exaggeration. Since you don't know what an analogy is, I assume you might not understand other literary terms as well, so I'll try to make them accessible to a laymen.
Always 'capable'?
1.9 assists with 3.5 turnovers is < 3.8 assists with 2.8 turnovers. Just because somebody is 'capable' of passing doesn't mean they are good at it.
If you look at those raw stats, and failed to see a significant improvement, you are willfully blind.
And comparing him to better passing centers isn't helping your argument because it is unrelated. We are comparing LSU Shaq to Lakers Shaq, and the Lakers Shaq is a much better passer. That also happens to be when he started winning championships. Coincidence? Nope. He was an unstoppable force in the post who finally developed a strong passing game and was able to help his teammates take advantage of the open space the double-teaming required to guard him caused.
If your eye test doesn't tell you that, then you must have a lot in common with Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.
Yeah.. he improved during his time in Orlando too. His rookie year he was a garbage passer. He even wrote a song where he boasted about not passing or shooting and just dunking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXvNGdjM8E
After he woeful passing in his rookie year, he brought his assist-to-turnover ration to about 1. In LAL, it got even better. Fact.
Then why bring it up? You didn't bring up his 10ppg average as a freshman. I wonder why? Oh, because it tanks your argument.
I don't care about if it was a lottery team I am speaking on Shaq from a solo level
I know... that's is why you are so horrible at putting things in context. Not all 20ppg averages are equals.
he was capable of putting up 29ppg in college as he was in the pros
So why didn't he do it as a freshman? Oh... right... because he wasn't that good then and improve later.
so he didn't improve he just didn't have to worry about getting quintupled team as he did in college as going more iso and facing double teams in the pros, he was plenty capable and didn't improve because he didn't average 29ppg ever year with LA so did he get worse year by year? he average 29ppg for both Magic/Lakers years apart and was still the same force
Didn't improve? Pretty sure I've already outlined stats that show he did improve, but you can just go on an ignore them and cherry pick stats that suit your purpose.
I use context as you clearly
You essentially just got through saying you don't care about context and who was on a team, and what their record was. So let's not start pretending you care about context now.
You don't because you bring up S Roberts but don't mention C Jackson
Oh.. so because I bring up some context, where you brought up none, I'm not providing enough? Right.
I brought up Roberts because they played the same position. So they were directly competing for touches in the paint.
who was a flame thrower/assassin/scorer on that LSU team so Shaq didn't need to drop his last two year stats as he did at LSU during his freshman year because he had it easier with more talent
But he was just a dominant? So then why was Jackson getting the shots? Wait... that is a giant hole in your argument. I guess the coach was just really stupid, right? Or are you suggesting Jackson was more efficient that Shaq?
you are truly a clown and you have been done ever since you felt that AD couldn't make Holiday/Evans no better than they are
You literally said Shaq's rookie year was on par with his career average, meaning that it was an 'average' year, and hence implying that other seasons were better, and then said he didn't improve, where the logic of the sentence you wrote clearly implies that he did improve. And I'm the clown? Your arguments have more holes than an afghan. You keep under cutting your own argument and not even realizing it.
The problem is that he wasn't the same player.
Do you mean to say that is Lakers Shaq played LSU Shaq, they would come out to a draw? lol
Of course I use the eye test. Everybody does. But most people know that there are a lot of things that are easy to miss, and that stats help to support a claim and flesh out an argument. And by most I mean everybody but you.
Yeah... I graduated from school. Don't need to go there. You are still in grade four though, so you'll still be there for a few years. Good luck with that. Don't worry, we won't be running into each other there.
Be sure to take that reasoning skills class. It will help you understand why your arguments are so easy to tear apart.
#Strawman #AdHominem #MovingTheGoalPost
I'll take my own advice now and stop responding to you, because it is an utter waster of my time.
1. though Roberts did improve in the NBA (something you apparently think players don't do).<<<< Your quote once again that you deny you said
so what did he improve at just on his ability/game alone? what did he do? educate me with the hyperbole
I bet he was the same style player who had the game to do what he did but he was probably a headcase and flamed out that way, not because he wasn't capable
First you say I only post raw stats which I guess don't mean jack but then you talk about a players stats per 36 minutes so does that mean something?, you are a comedian
if Shaq and Roberts were playing side by side then why would Shaq need to grab 15rpg when he has another guy who can get rebounds and a Footer and demanded touches from the same position? why would Shaq need to avg. 28ppg in freshman college season when he has a guard who came off a 30ppg campaign and dropped 28ppg the year with Shaq? I am starting to think you never played HS ball, let alone any other level, I cant believe you even follow bball to be honest, I am starting to think you cant be 40yrs old more like 20yrs of age
having that type of team support Shaq probably focused on the defense side heavy if I had to guess since he was a team player
some experts cant believe they didn't win the title that year with C Jackson/Roberts, once that help left Shaq didn't improve at all his usage went up and he did what he was always capable of doing,fact
2. once again I used stats because you were acting like it was the highest form of proof(which is laughable) but I already stated that watching/studying is the highest form to know what a player is capable of doing, then when I posted stats you tried to act like I am taking your highest form of proof and tried to down play that like it was useless, you said why didn't I post Shaq 1st year LSU stats but why should I when I told you he had a guy capable of dropping 40-50pts every game(30ppg avg) , that relieves Shaq big time but when C Jackson left Shaq took over his usage, that is so basic to see
3. 1.9 assists more to .7 less turnovers, wow, that is not a significant improvement when you know clear as day the triangle consist of constant cutting and ball movement and he was capable and willing of making that easy pass to the cutter or wide open 3 pt guy since he did it at Orlando with those shooters he had, he average 6apg in the Finals, damn you are a stubborn old head to a fault, highly capable is a lot better than not being able to do it, Noah/Divac weren't capable of dropping 40pts on a nightly basis to go along with 15-20boards and 5-10blocks like a LSU/Orlando and Lakers version Shaq was capable of but Shaq was capable of getting assists numbers, if you cant see the offense ran in Orlando to the Lakers was vastly different and easier to pass out of then you are about as blind as a bat flying around at night
if he wasn't capable and willing how can he avg 6apg on the biggest stage in the nba? his talent improved around him since after rookie season so his assists should go up with the shooters he had and Penny who could finish at the rim, it didn't make him a better player because he went from 2.4 assists to 2.9 assists
4. if you were any good at the sport you would know that he wanted to make his mark as a enforcer his rookie year to put people on notice but like I said he was always had the skill to pass but he wanted to show the Centers of the league up by putting on a force of nature show, and that has to do with dunking/breaking rims and blocking shots and so on, not passing, he didn't improve on it he just showcased it more especially once Penny got there who was a all around stat filler like he was at Memphis and once he got to Orlando, same player also, and then when he got over there with Phil his assists went up slightly because of the switch to the triangle pass offense ran thru Shaq for most part and relied on passing to the open 3pt shot and cutters to the basket
5. I didn't mention his freshman ppg because I am wise enough to know he had a guy who had just came off a 30ppg campaign and was doing the heavy scoring even with Shaq, so Shaq had it easier, I didn't even need to mention his final 2 seasons either but since you were so sure the stats were the highest form of facts I did it for the comical purpose
So on top of competing for touches with a guy who played same position he was also competing with a PG/dynamic scorer who had the ball in his hands all the time and could light it up for 40-50pts on any given college night, disadvantage Shaq so what he did as a freshman is even more phenomenal according to your story and he proved the following season what he was easily capable of and it had to do with his usage rate/touches, fact
6. if you are getting 20ppg on 25 shots and the other player is getting his 20ppg on 15 shots then of course its not equal since one player is getting 10 more attempts at it, other than that its 20ppg, Shaq was drafted by a expansion team so what is wrong with his dominant rookie stat line? nothing, it was a carry over from LSU days
7. why didn't he do it as a freshman, once again you want me to repeat the same thing over and over, this is why C Jackson, see my first(1) reply for proof, and others on here since you asked the same thing over and over
8. The stats I showed were essentially the same stats because he put up those stats, you used a assist/turnover stat which was nothing drastic in change as I showed earlier it wasn't, now go watch some LSU/Orlando/LA game film and tell me what did he do different from a pure playing standpoint, nothing, it was like watching him in just a different jersey, same **** diff. toilet
9. I said Shaq was playing with more talent his freshman year so he didn't need to produce at the crazy rate he did the following two years, he didn't improve 14ppg to 28ppg because of what he worked on in the offseason or whatever you want to trick yourself into thinking he did, he just didn't have that 30ppg game scorer or compete with Roberts for touches on his team so he took over the reigns , why are you that befuddled to understand that? that 12th man syndrome has really got you puzzled, I wish you were 4a all state 1st team player so this would not be so difficult to comprehend, had they not been there his freshman yr he would have done his 20+ppg 14+rpg with the blocks with ease
10. Not a giant hole at all if you were a actual threat on the court and not the 12th man coming off the bench, Jackson was the stud who had seniority/higher pecking order when Shaq got there, why didn't Jackson fall back and let the big man dominate? guess he was ego tripping, I already schooled you on the ego part also, the ego starts from college, not when they enter the nba since they are getting paid under the table in college, but I guess you wouldn't believe that either since there isn't a stat out about that but plenty of stories put out by the media(see C Webber for proof), did I put that in proper context for you to grasp since you love throwing that word around, context = the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed
is that enough context for you or is it more phantom hyperbole?
is that enough or do you need the per36 minutes stats? what was Shaq per 36 his freshman season?
11. both Roberts/Jackson were there and had seniority/pecking order so why didn't they defer is more like it since Shaq was more dominant on interior but Jackson had the ball at his disposal, why did Shaq do what he was truly capable of when they left? it wasn't because he improved, it was his usage/being 1st option but I knew that would fly over your head
12. Shaq nba career stats - 23.7ppg 10.9rpg 2.5apg 2.3bpg 58%fg 53%ft/ Shaq rookie stats - 23.4ppg 13.9rpg 1.9apg 3.5bpg 56%fg 59%ft, and I said minus a rebound or two they were pretty much the same which I guess I am correct again, is that enough context for you or more phantom hyberbole or did I under cut myself with a phantom Ali punch? his career numbers are not average just like he wasn't average his rookie season, he had similar numbers from LSU to Orlando to Lakers, look them up for yourself, just Google it and use your bat vision
13.no I mean you if google Shaq game film/highlights from LSU to Orlando to Lakers(fat/heavier version) you would see the same damn dominant force that he was, doing the same thing showcasing his talent/skill/force, same moves and all with the same results, that's what I mean
14. the eye test is the strongest form of knowing who is who and what is what, its hard not to see what a 7'2'' 300lb guy could or couldn't go on the court when he stuck out like a sore thumb, he jumped off the screen always, only way you miss that is if you are not watching the actual games he played in and just relying on stats, fact
15. I know you graduated from the public school system but I am speaking on the bball school which you don't need to attend anymore since you feel like he got better because his assists went up by 1.9 and his turnovers went down by .7, what weak context, then again you think a aging Kareem got better because he shot 60pct with Magic which was 2pct better than what he had done without Magic, wow
now I know why I keep saying the same thing over and over, because you keep asking the same thing over and over even when I give you the fact/eye test answer, you keep saying its my opinion when it actually happened
I even posted stats to show it
now watch you try and act like C Jackson wasn't capable of dropping 40-50pts each game, pre Shaq and with Shaq at LSU and he went to the nba and did it also but I guess you think C Jackson improved also, you need to sharpen up your bball eye test, he played the same style/way also that carried over
Personally I'm just curious to see if this makes it's way through Christmas or not.
You make it sound like adjusting to the speed of the game is a simple process. There are guys 8 years in who are finally feeling things develop instinctively. Players improve every year on that front (some more than others) it's just a matter of retaining enough athletic talent to take advantage.
Shaq in LA was much better than any other Shaq and the stats prove it.
Ariza's Better
I agree, Shaq should be MVP this season.
I stated that is was the speed of the game/longer schedule that the best players had to adjust to the most when entering the league, if it takes a guy 8 yrs then obviously he is not one of the best/most dominant players all time to do it so you are talking about fringe all star players at best, not Shaq level types
Shaq won titles in LA but his stats were always dominant even as a freshman at LSU playing and deferring to Jackson/Roberts(especially the defense side), going up against Hakeem in Finals and getting almost 30ppg is amazing, going up against Davis/Smits/Mutombo/Nets centers and it goes up to 36-38ppg, he did what he was always capable of doing, Shaq in LA had much better coaching/2nd option(some say 1a) in Kobe so that plays a hand in the full scheme of it also
you guys are on here trying to prove something while I am stating what actually happened on the court, the eyes don't lie