Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   Sports Bar & Grill (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Kidd to Mavs (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20133)

SniperSB23 02-14-2008 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Defining players in team sports by their "rings" has reached an epedemic level. It's simple-minded.
Basketball is the only sport where it is even remotely possible since one player can have a huge impact. It is amazing though that it is worst in the NFL where players only play on one side of the ball and even on that side of the ball are one of 11 players who must execute for a play to work.

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious

I absolutely think that rebounds are a defensive statistic. Any coach would agree. And I understand that the rebound numbers and blocked shots don't define how great a defender is. But you would think that if you are going to declare that a guy was the dominant defensive center of his era, there has to be something to back that up besides your opinion. All factual evidence (blocks, rebounds, times named all-defense, and winning defensive player of the year) put him below those three guys I named. I'd even place two-time defensive player of the year Alonzo Mourning over him.
I was hoping you would say that. Defensive rebounds are valid not total rebounds as you show. The fact is that Ewing was by far the best defensive rebounder of the era by evidenced of his defensive rebound %. DR% is the percentage of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor. During the 1990's Ewing was in the top 5 every year except the year he DNQ because he only played 26 games. Hakeem was in the top 5 one time when he was a rookie and as his offense developed his defensive rebounding numbers dropped dramatically. Robinson was never better than 9th and a few years didnt make the top 20. And keep in mind that Ewing played with Oakley for some of that period when Oakley was strictly a rebounder and surely took away opportunities from Ewing.

Defensive awards and teams are nothing but popularity contests much like the Gold Gloves in baseball.

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Well apparently a bunch of people are completely missing the boat on Olajuwon.

PPG - Olajuwon leads 21.8 to 21.0
RPG - Olajuwon leads 11.1 to 9.8
BPG - Olajuwon leads 3.1 to 2.4
SPG - Olajuwon leads 1.7 to 1.0
APG - Olajuwon leads 2.5 to 1.9
FG% - Olajuwon leads .512 to .504
Olajuwon was won the MVP, the best Ewing did is 4th
Olajuwon has twice been defensive player of the year, Ewing never was
Olajuwon won rings, Ewing didn't

In no way, shape, or form was Ewing better than or even as good as Olajuwon.
No one is saying that Hakeem wasnt great. But over his whole career he was not as good as Ewing was at the defensive end of the floor. If I had to choose which one was the better overall player I would probably say Hakeem. But the original statement was that Ewing wasnt in the same class as those other guys which is still laughable.

King Glorious 02-14-2008 10:37 AM
Offensively, I go with Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning.

Defensively, I go with Olajuwon, Mutombo, Robinson, Mourning.

Overall, I go with Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning.

I agree with Sniper in that the only way Ewing can be underrated is if you place him under #3. While Ewing may not have been overrated, I do think that if Olajuwon or Robinson had done the things they did in NY, they would have received far more accolades than they did. Look at how highly Ewing is regarded and he never won a title, never won a scoring title, never won an MVP. Imagine how Robinson would have been viewed in NY after he scored 71 and won a scoring title. Imagine how Olajuwon would have been viewed after he won a championship and the MVP.

Ewing was an all-time great player. He WAS the Knicks every bit as much as Jordan was the Bulls or Iverson was the Sixers. To suggest that they could have gotten anywhere near the levels that they go to without him is silly, IMO.

blackthroatedwind 02-14-2008 10:41 AM
The biggest compliment to Olijuwan ( who was absolutely one of the all-time greats ) is that nobody ever says Houston made a mistake when they drafted him ahead of Jordan.

SniperSB23 02-14-2008 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I was hoping you would say that. Defensive rebounds are valid not total rebounds as you show. The fact is that Ewing was by far the best defensive rebounder of the era by evidenced of his defensive rebound %. DR% is the percentage of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor. During the 1990's Ewing was in the top 5 every year except the year he DNQ because he only played 26 games. Hakeem was in the top 5 one time when he was a rookie and as his offense developed his defensive rebounding numbers dropped dramatically. Robinson was never better than 9th and a few years didnt make the top 20. And keep in mind that Ewing played with Oakley for some of that period when Oakley was strictly a rebounder and surely took away opportunities from Ewing.

Defensive awards and teams are nothing but popularity contests much like the Gold Gloves in baseball.
Still over their careers the difference is less than 1% which can easily be accounted for by having a good rebounding guard like Drexler as a teammate. Ewing had Oakley but Olajuwon also played part of his career with Barkley who stole tons of rebounds. Personally I think the best statistic would be percent of offensive rebounds that the person you are responsible for gets. If Ewing had a perfect boxout everytime and someone else on his team grabbed the rebound then that is far more valuable than what percentage he actually comes up with the rebound. Same with Olajuwon. Unfortunately no such statistic exists that I know of.

blackthroatedwind 02-14-2008 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Still over their careers the difference is less than 1% which can easily be accounted for by having a good rebounding guard like Drexler as a teammate. Ewing had Oakley but Olajuwon also played part of his career with Barkley who stole tons of rebounds. Personally I think the best statistic would be percent of offensive rebounds that the person you are responsible for gets. If Ewing had a perfect boxout everytime and someone else on his team grabbed the rebound then that is far more valuable than what percentage he actually comes up with the rebound. Same with Olajuwon. Unfortunately no such statistic exists that I know of.
Olajumon played with Barkley for like ten minutes. Please.

King Glorious 02-14-2008 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I was hoping you would say that. Defensive rebounds are valid not total rebounds as you show. The fact is that Ewing was by far the best defensive rebounder of the era by evidenced of his defensive rebound %. DR% is the percentage of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor. During the 1990's Ewing was in the top 5 every year except the year he DNQ because he only played 26 games. Hakeem was in the top 5 one time when he was a rookie and as his offense developed his defensive rebounding numbers dropped dramatically. Robinson was never better than 9th and a few years didnt make the top 20. And keep in mind that Ewing played with Oakley for some of that period when Oakley was strictly a rebounder and surely took away opportunities from Ewing.

Defensive awards and teams are nothing but popularity contests much like the Gold Gloves in baseball.
Good argument there. I knew that and figured you would be sharp enough to bring this point out. As far as defensive rebounding % goes:

Times in the top five (led league)
Ewing-9 (1)
Olajuwon-3 (2)
Robinson-1 (0)
Mutombo-8 (2)

Also a good point about Oakley being there. That hurt his rebounding numbers but it also helped him in some ways. Oakley being there freed up Ewing to put more focus on his offense. Perhaps if he had to concentrate a little more on defense, his offensive production suffers a little. Also, Oakley often defended the opponent's top post players. Sort of like how Oberto does in SA now and allows Duncan to be a little more free and not pick up fouls.

SniperSB23 02-14-2008 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Olajumon played with Barkley for like ten minutes. Please.
Actually four seasons and those four seasons are the ones that pull his DRB% down significantly.

The Bid 02-14-2008 11:02 AM
Where does Gheorghe Muresan fit into all of this?

SniperSB23 02-14-2008 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bid
Where does Gheorghe Muresan fit into all of this?
In 95-96 he had a defensive rebound percentage of 24.7%, the same as Ewing's career average.

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bid
Where does Gheorghe Muresan fit into all of this?
Much better actor than all mentioned

The Bid 02-14-2008 11:13 AM
Haha, yeah thats about what I figured. Must be the reason I still have his rookie card in plastic

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bid
Haha, yeah thats about what I figured. Must be the reason I still have his rookie card in plastic
Hey the guy had skills. Billy Crystal was upstaged by him

King Glorious 02-14-2008 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Actually four seasons and those four seasons are the ones that pull his DRB% down significantly.
This is not a really accurate post. True, Barkley did play with Olajuwon for four seasons. The last season though, Barkley only played 20 games so I wouldn't really count that season.

1997-53 games
1998-68 games (only started 41)
1999-42 games (50 game season because of strike)
2000-20 games

How much of an effect did Barkley have on Olajuwon's defense rebounding numbers? Obviously he had some but I don't think it's significant like you claim. Olajuwon ranked #1 in the league in DR% in 1989 and in 1990. He fell to #2 in 1991. He fell to #6 in 1992. Down to #8 in 1993. He was out of the top 10 in 1994 and was #10 in 1995. This goes along with what Cannon says. As Hakeem's offensive game grew, his defensive game slid. He was dropping further and further down the list in this stat category before Barkley even got there.

pgardn 02-14-2008 05:21 PM
Eastern regional bias raises its head.

Honestly, if Robinson, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Moses Malone, Walton (when healthy, not as a Celtic) played in NY... Gods. They would be considered Gods. Its regional prejudice which is understanable. Ewing was just flat out not at the level of these other players as a pro. No way. No how.

If Ewing had not played at Georgetown and done so well as a Collegian, he would not be thought of as highly. It is a given Ewing played hard every night, unlike Robinson. He should be admired for this. But talent wise... no way. No way. So I find it laughable.

This is coming from the same idiot that prounounced that Kevin Durant was not a great athlete. That he is/was a skinny kid who has a great fundamental offensive game.

tiggerv 02-14-2008 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bid
Where does Gheorghe Muresan fit into all of this?
Every time I go to a Wiz game Gheorge is there and is a super friendly guy. He has some PR job or something with the team. He often takes one of the floor seats behind the basket and I always wonder how anybody sitting behind him can see any of the game.

As far as the Ewing vs Olajuwon debate I really don't know what there is to argue about. Ewing was a better defensive center and anybody with eyes could tell you that. A shot blocker is not necessarily a great defensive player. Olajuwon was a better overall player because his offensive contributions were significantly better than Ewing. Hakeem could actually pass out of a double team every once in awhile. Ewing really was a black hole offensively. Hakeem dominated their head to head matchups but I am much too lazy to look up stats to support it.

Hopefully we can all agree that the 94 finals between those 2 teams was horrible. I don't care how close the series was the games themselves were worse than watching paint dry. Starks shooting like 2 for 50 in game 7 was brilliant especially since Riley refused to take him out.

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
Eastern regional bias raises its head.

Honestly, if Robinson, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Moses Malone, Walton (when healthy, not as a Celtic) played in NY... Gods. They would be considered Gods. Its regional prejudice which is understanable. Ewing was just flat out not at the level of these other players as a pro. No way. No how.

If Ewing had not played at Georgetown and done so well as a Collegian, he would not be thought of as highly. It is a given Ewing played hard every night, unlike Robinson. He should be admired for this. But talent wise... no way. No way. So I find it laughable.

This is coming from the same idiot that prounounced that Kevin Durant was not a great athlete. That he is/was a skinny kid who has a great fundamental offensive game.
The thought that Pat Ewing was not as good as these other guys because he played in NY is what is laughable. Ewing was a WAY better pro than he was in college. Kevin Durant is a tremendous athlete, just a bit slight. His fundementals are actually lacking. Do you ever watch the games?

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 05:59 PM
By the way where is that tremendous Eastern Bias that glorify's all Knick players because they play in NYC. Can you name 2 players?

pgardn 02-14-2008 08:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
The thought that Pat Ewing was not as good as these other guys because he played in NY is what is laughable. Ewing was a WAY better pro than he was in college. Kevin Durant is a tremendous athlete, just a bit slight. His fundementals are actually lacking. Do you ever watch the games?
So wrong.
He has the catch and shoot down as
well as any pro. He gets 2 or 3 flippin rebounds
a night. He has very little lateral movement,
he is not strong. His feet are not quick.
What about him makes him a great
athlete compared to other NBA players?

How do you determine Ewing was way better as
a pro? How? Where was he drafted? How many
NCAA championships did he play in? How many NBA
championships? We really cant deal with numbers
without the shot clock... How?

As a college center, who was better than Ewing besides
perhaps Jabbar and Walton? He had a huge impact on the college
game. Huge. As a pro?

Cannon Shell 02-14-2008 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
So wrong.
He has the catch and shoot down as
well as any pro. He gets 2 or 3 flippin rebounds
a night. He has very little lateral movement,
he is not strong. His feet are not quick.
What about him makes him a great
athlete compared to other NBA players?

How do you determine Ewing was way better as
a pro? How? Where was he drafted? How many
NCAA championships did he play in? How many NBA
championships? We really cant deal with numbers
without the shot clock... How?

As a college center, who was better than Ewing besides
perhaps Jabbar and Walton? He had a huge impact on the college
game. Huge. As a pro?
Have you been drinking?

pgardn 02-14-2008 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
By the way where is that tremendous Eastern Bias that glorify's all Knick players because they play in NYC. Can you name 2 players?
Oh come on.
Who came to the Knicks via
San Antonio. You dont think I watch them
play? Who won the slam dunk and should not
have? Who has his own line a cheap shoes so
kids wont kill each other over expensive brands?
Who did they get from Portland that I wanted
but plays no D? on and on...


The press about the Knicks is so big
its amazing. Why dont the Bucks get this
press. They are just as bad and have been
for a while?

pgardn 02-14-2008 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Have you been drinking?
no.
just laughing.

figured out how to yank my chain...

King Glorious 02-15-2008 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I like the trade. I think Dallas had to make the move in order to go after a title now. Kidd will help them more THIS SEASON than Harris will. Tomorrow is never guaranteed. This is the same thing I liked about Phoenix' trade for Shaq. If, as an owner or general manager, you look at your roster and know that you are good but not going to win a title, you make moves that you believe will make you better now. Simple. This is the problem the gm in Chicago didn't understand. They had chances last year and in the off-season to trade for Garnett or Gasol. They didn't make either move because they didn't want to get rid of Deng or Gordon. Those guys are fine players but as constructed, the Bulls were NOT going to win a title. So why hold on to them? Harris is a fine player and will be around for years after Kidd is gone but the chance to win a title is now so I applaud the move. The obvious area that it will hurt Dallas is in losing Diop. As unproductive as he is offensively, when combined with Dampier, they are at least a presence on defense and if nothing else, a big body and six more fouls to use against the dominant inside men of the West (Shaq, Bynum, Stoudamire, Duncan, Ming). It will not surprise me if after the Nets buyout Stackhouse, he resigns with the Mavs. One thing that I think the Mavs blew was the chance to sign Chris Webber. Webber is merely a shadow of his former self but I think he could have fit in well off of the bench for this team. If Dallas had pulled the trigger on this deal earlier, the addition of Kidd might have been enough to make Webber want to go there instead of to Golden State.

The playoffs in the West this year are probably going to be as strong as ever in the history of the game. It's going to be brutal. I think that it's going to be so brutal that it could actually end up helping the team that wins the East to the title. I think back to the first half of the 1980's when the East was so strong with Boston, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee and while they were killing each other, the Lakers were skating through the West.
Ok so now it looks like there is another problem with the deal. George's punk ass doesn't want to go so that was the first problem. Cuban didn't want to sign and trade Van Horn because of luxury tax issues. But he resigned himself into knowing that he'd have to in order to make the deal go through. Now the league is saying hold-up because of the fact that Stackhouse admitted publicly what should have been common knowledge. He said that he was going to re-sign with Dallas after the Nets bought out his contract and he waited the required 30 days. Big deal. That is not necessarily a side deal. Stackhouse would be free to sign wherever he wants to and if it's his choice to go back to Dallas, so be it. If I knew this was likely to happen, how come it's seemingly coming as a shock to everyone else now? People knew that Damon Stoudamire was looking for a buyout so he could sign with San Antonio. The Boston newspapers were reporting that Cassell was looking for a buyout so he could sign with the Celtics. Come on now. Guys know what they are planning on doing so Stackhouse is no different.

SniperSB23 02-15-2008 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
Ok so now it looks like there is another problem with the deal. George's punk ass doesn't want to go so that was the first problem. Cuban didn't want to sign and trade Van Horn because of luxury tax issues. But he resigned himself into knowing that he'd have to in order to make the deal go through. Now the league is saying hold-up because of the fact that Stackhouse admitted publicly what should have been common knowledge. He said that he was going to re-sign with Dallas after the Nets bought out his contract and he waited the required 30 days. Big deal. That is not necessarily a side deal. Stackhouse would be free to sign wherever he wants to and if it's his choice to go back to Dallas, so be it. If I knew this was likely to happen, how come it's seemingly coming as a shock to everyone else now? People knew that Damon Stoudamire was looking for a buyout so he could sign with San Antonio. The Boston newspapers were reporting that Cassell was looking for a buyout so he could sign with the Celtics. Come on now. Guys know what they are planning on doing so Stackhouse is no different.
Yeah, it would be like if everyone knew most of baseball was on steroids and the league did nothing but then a book came out publicizing it all and suddenly they jump to crack down on it cause of that when everyone knew what was going on all along.

King Glorious 02-15-2008 11:55 AM
Before Stoudamire got bought out by the Grizzlies, everyone pretty much knew he would sign with San Antonio when it did happen. Same thing with Cassell and the Celtics. Hell, the Boston papers were writing stories about it when the Clippers just went to Boston saying that he was in the process of negotiating his buyout so he could sign with Boston. I mean, come on. People know what's going on. As I said, if I can report that on here, there's no way to tell me that NBA people couldn't see that too. Personally, this is where I think the league does things to make themselves look awful shady. The Lakers deal was a complete steal. But it improved a team in the second biggest market in the league. Then things couldn't get any better for the league when the Suns traded for Shaq. Now they have the possibility of Shaq vs Kobe for the West title and if the Lakers win, the Lakers vs Celtics for the league title. Stern is probably wetting himself daily over the possibilities. Now, the Mavs pull this off and not only could it ruin Stern's plans but also maybe end up with him having to present the championship trophy to his arch enemy in Mark Cuban. Now way he wants this.

SniperSB23 02-15-2008 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
Before Stoudamire got bought out by the Grizzlies, everyone pretty much knew he would sign with San Antonio when it did happen. Same thing with Cassell and the Celtics. Hell, the Boston papers were writing stories about it when the Clippers just went to Boston saying that he was in the process of negotiating his buyout so he could sign with Boston. I mean, come on. People know what's going on. As I said, if I can report that on here, there's no way to tell me that NBA people couldn't see that too. Personally, this is where I think the league does things to make themselves look awful shady. The Lakers deal was a complete steal. But it improved a team in the second biggest market in the league. Then things couldn't get any better for the league when the Suns traded for Shaq. Now they have the possibility of Shaq vs Kobe for the West title and if the Lakers win, the Lakers vs Celtics for the league title. Stern is probably wetting himself daily over the possibilities. Now, the Mavs pull this off and not only could it ruin Stern's plans but also maybe end up with him having to present the championship trophy to his arch enemy in Mark Cuban. Now way he wants this.
It isn't that the NBA didn't know exactly what was going on. It is that Stackhouse publicly said what was going on so the NBA could no longer try and claim ignorance.

King Glorious 02-15-2008 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
It isn't that the NBA didn't know exactly what was going on. It is that Stackhouse publicly said what was going on so the NBA could no longer try and claim ignorance.
I'd rather people be honest instead of keeping quiet and trying to be sneaky and trying to act like everyone's stupid.

Stack said he was only part of the deal to make the numbers work. Nothing wrong with that. It's done in every trade. He said he'd have 30 days off to rest and then he'd be back. This was in Adrian Wojnarowski's column on Yahoo on Wednesday:

For New Jersey, president Rod Thorn would get back the three elements he most wanted for Kidd: a good young player (Harris), expiring contracts (Diop and George) and draft picks. What’s more, the Nets plan to buyout the rest of Stackhouse’s contract. Stackhouse can become an immediate free agent, but must wait 30 days to re-sign with Dallas.

One league source expected Stackhouse to return to the Mavericks if the trade had been completed.

Stackhouse said "Getting bought out, if that happens, my first choice would be to come back to Dallas. I'm settled in, just bought a house," he said.

So now a guy doesn't have the right to say what his choices would be?

SniperSB23 02-15-2008 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I'd rather people be honest instead of keeping quiet and trying to be sneaky and trying to act like everyone's stupid.

Stack said he was only part of the deal to make the numbers work. Nothing wrong with that. It's done in every trade. He said he'd have 30 days off to rest and then he'd be back. This was in Adrian Wojnarowski's column on Yahoo on Wednesday:

For New Jersey, president Rod Thorn would get back the three elements he most wanted for Kidd: a good young player (Harris), expiring contracts (Diop and George) and draft picks. What’s more, the Nets plan to buyout the rest of Stackhouse’s contract. Stackhouse can become an immediate free agent, but must wait 30 days to re-sign with Dallas.

One league source expected Stackhouse to return to the Mavericks if the trade had been completed.

Stackhouse said "Getting bought out, if that happens, my first choice would be to come back to Dallas. I'm settled in, just bought a house," he said.

So now a guy doesn't have the right to say what his choices would be?
I think it was this quote that caused the problems:

"I get 30 days to rest, then I'll be right back,'' Stackhouse told The Associated Press on Wednesday in response to the proposed trade. "I ain't going nowhere."


My favorite thing about the NBA right now is that they refer to players as expiring contracts.

King Glorious 02-15-2008 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
I think it was this quote that caused the problems:

"I get 30 days to rest, then I'll be right back,'' Stackhouse told The Associated Press on Wednesday in response to the proposed trade. "I ain't going nowhere."


My favorite thing about the NBA right now is that they refer to players as expiring contracts.
That shouldn't be a problem. It's a problem because he knows as a free agent where he's going to sign and says it?

SniperSB23 02-15-2008 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
That shouldn't be a problem. It's a problem because he knows as a free agent where he's going to sign and says it?
I guess the issue is that it implies that he has already re-negotiated that he will come back to Dallas before he has been bought out by NJ which is against league policy.

whodey17 02-15-2008 02:07 PM
Having Kidd is not going to put the Mavs over the top. It will make them much better, but they will be no better than 4th in the west.

King Glorious 02-15-2008 04:46 PM
I remember back in 1996 when Shaq was a free agent and made it very clear that he wanted to sign with the Lakers. In order to make the room, the Lakers sent a few players to Charlotte, most notably Vlade Divac, and renounced a few more. Now, everyone and their momma knew that the Lakers were about to sign O'Neal and that's why they traded away their starting center but the NBA didn't say anything about pre-arranged deals then. Why? Because it put Shaq into the second biggest market in the league.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.