Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

NBA: Jordan Leading the Bobcats to the promised land.

16061636566101

Posts

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    He was too lazy to even blow his knee out properly

    Completely torn ACL, completely torn MCL, partially torn patella tendon, dislocated patella. Out 12 months.

    Basically the NBA's worst leg injury since Shaun Livingston. Plus it's not like that herniated disk in his back is suddenly healed either. Baron's career is likely over.

  • y2jake215y2jake215 The style is radiation leak at mile island Also known as Chernobyl talk, listen for the sirensRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    BubbaT wrote: »
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    The book came out in Oct. 2009, so Paul had only played 3 seasons. Since it's listing the top basketball players of all time, it's not too ridiculous

    e: link http://www.nbadraft.net/node/16527

    By 2009 Kemp and Sabas were both retired, and Simmons had Horry ahead of them too. 7 pts, 5 reb, 0x All-Star, 0x All-NBA, 0x All-Defense.

    Yeah, he's got a lot of rings. Great. So does whoever played next to Bill Russell (Satch Sanders, Locsy, Frank Ramsey).
    jackisreal wrote: »

    Yeah, and in the update he gave Horry an even better ranking. One which still puts him ahead of Paul, Kemp, and Sabas.

    I suppose if OKC wins this year, the next version will have Derek Fisher on it.

    I just looked in my copy to see why he lists him there, he basically just says, "We can't leave him out" and then reprints a column he wrote about him. Where he lists relevant stats, he has that he's the leader in playoff games career, played for 10 55-win teams and eight teams with a .700-plus winning percentage, and played for 1 team that won fewer than 47 games.

    A quote from that column:
    Simmons wrote:
    Horry's career has always been a nice litmus test for the question, "Do you understand the game of basketball or not?" Nearly all of his strengths aren't things that casual fans would notice, and he'd be useless on the "And 1" tour. He's a terrific help defender who constantly covers for his teammates. He's big enough to handle power forwards and quick enough to handle small forwards. He picks his spots and only asserts himself in big situations when his team truly needs him. He doesn't care about stats or touches - at all - which gives him something in common with maybe 2 percent of the league. And he gets better when it matters. What more do you want from a supporting player?

    Does this make him the 84th greatest player of all time? I don't know. But that's Simmons' opinion, at least

    y2jake215 on
    y7dKgGy.jpg
    maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    Let me tell you about Robert Horry from a Rockets fan's perspective:

    We thought his ceiling was going to be something like Scottie Pippen. No joke. This is the kind of thing we clucked about around water coolers after reading the Chronicle sports page and seeing a box score that showed him pitching in 11 points off of open looks from Dream double-teams.

    The length, the ranginess and level of activity on defense. I mean you can almost see it.

    Then when he left Houston, it became abundantly clear that Robert Horry's greatest skill as a pro was to shop around for competitive teams to play on. So maybe that's worth something, to have a good agent and to value "competitiveness" when franchise shopping.

    This was of course followed closely by his vaunted ability to take, but then make, contested, low percentage 3s in the playoffs.

    So that was how not-Pippen turned out. 8-)

    Yeah, he doesn't belong on the list.

  • y2jake215y2jake215 The style is radiation leak at mile island Also known as Chernobyl talk, listen for the sirensRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    He was too lazy to even blow his knee out properly

    Completely torn ACL, completely torn MCL, partially torn patella tendon, dislocated patella. Out 12 months.

    Basically the NBA's worst leg injury since Shaun Livingston. Plus it's not like that herniated disk in his back is suddenly healed either. Baron's career is likely over.

    Saw that, was going to say, nevermind! He went all out. That's what Livingston had right, torn ACL, MCL, PCL, and dislocated patella? PCL might have been patella tendon. I'd be surprised if Baron goes through the effort to come back from this

    y7dKgGy.jpg
    maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    "Getting better when it matters"

    ...is also a reaalllly interesting way of describing a player who often refused to exert himself during the regular season.

    Form of Monkey! on
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    "Getting better when it matters"

    ...is also a reaalllly interesting way of describing a player who often refused to exert himself during the regular season.

    Well, he managed to get 7 rings (if I remember correctly) and only played for 1 team with fewer than 47 wins - so I don't see much of a problem with this to be honest.

    We can argue if he belongs on the list or not, but since he's not in the top 20 or something but on the lower end of the list, I don't mind that much. Simmons doesn't claim that this is the ultimate list - because there is no such thing. Plus, he only ranked Horry 1 place ahead of Sarbonis and 4 places ahead of Kemp - so that is not a big problem either. I am more bothered that Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady are still on the list at all, let alone that McGrady is 77 - also ahead of Kemp, Sarbonis and Paul, Howard.

    EDIT: Holy crap on the Baron Davis injury. I never quite liked the way he forced his way out of New Orleans - but nobody deserves to go down like this. And yeah, his career is likely over.

    TheBigEasy on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Then when he left Houston, it became abundantly clear that Robert Horry's greatest skill as a pro was to shop around for competitive teams to play on. So maybe that's worth something, to have a good agent and to value "competitiveness" when franchise shopping.

    this, again, is just really dumb. All these highly competitive teams didn't want to sign him just because they thought he was will smith or something. He was a competent forward who worked his ass off and who (in his prime) could defend three positions, in addition to being a good shooter. Robert Horry was not some replacement level player who just happened to be really good at picking winners.

    Where he properly fits on the 'greatest all time' list is up to you, but if you're going to say he shouldn't be in the top 100 you need to find 16 more dudes who are better (or "greater") than him. Was vince carter a better player than horry? I say no.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    also I am one of the biggest connoiseurs of grainy 'young sabonis' youtube videos you will ever find, but it's pretty tough to find an appropriate place for him on this list. If you imagine a "what if sabonis had come to the NBA at 20 rather than being stuck in the eastern bloc playing against inferior competition" career, he should almost certainly be much higher. If evaluate his career as it was, he mostly dominated lesser competition until coming to the west as an older and severely diminished player; I'm not sure that sabonis should be on the list at all.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    So what are the stats on a team coming back down 3-1 in a series? Im assuming its more common then a 1 seed getting bounced by an 8...right? So...technically the bulls still have math on their side? Maybe?

    But honestly, the sixers have looked so bad (except for spurts where the bulls anemic offense led to heat-esque transition baskets) that it wouldnt be shocking if the bulls could come back and win this.

    My logic is as follows. Bulls are in a must win, sixers are not remotely. Its very easy to say "eh we will just beat them back at home." Bulls will likely get to the line a lot more tonight as well.

    If the bulls DO win tonight, that puts a TON of pressure on the sixers for game 6, which sort of steals back some of the momentum and transfers some doom and gloom over. If the bulls win game 6, I think they will win 7.

    Thats how I see the Bulls climbing back into this. Its a lot of "what ifs", but I can see them climbing back. I think I say this about every home team down 3-1 though. So chances are, they are done-zo tonight.

    616610-1.png
  • SabreMauSabreMau Still featuring glasses. Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Disrupter wrote: »
    So what are the stats on a team coming back down 3-1 in a series? Im assuming its more common then a 1 seed getting bounced by an 8...right? So...technically the bulls still have math on their side? Maybe?

    Teams trailing a series 1-3 in the NBA playoffs: 8 wins, 194 losses. (.040)
    8 seeds taking on 1 seeds: 4 wins, 53 losses. (.070)

    SabreMau on
    1yrxP.jpgmXcqC.jpgtYRm1.jpg
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    He was a competent forward who worked his ass off

    Nope. In fact, the knock on Big Shot Bob was that he did no such thing until the playoffs. He wouldn't even bother to stay in shape in the off-season, either, which is really something that fans like to see in their professional athletes.

    Like Simmons--who was too busy watching Celtics games to know about Robert Horry and should really know better--you have this mythical, idealized version of him that isn't supported by the truth. I watched this man play as a Rocket and as Spur for years (season tickets). He was a consummate slacker. Even Lakers fans noticed this and would ride him for it.

    True story: I once sat in as Robert Horry spoke to a group of kids about the benefits of hard work and applying yourself in the gym. Then he looked down at the ground for a full beat. To this day, I think he may have been reflecting on what a hypocrite that just made him sound like.
    and who (in his prime) could defend three positions

    A true statement, but it reads like it was lifted from a website. It was one of the things that excited Houston and San Antonio fans, his supposed versatility. These days, we realize it isn't that special of a quality at all. There are a ton of long-armed players who can defend at the wings and step inside to rebound. We even have names for people who are built like that now, like "Stretch 4." It is one common-ass thing, forums poster Eat it You Nasty Pig.
    , in addition to being a good shooter.

    Either you're trolling, or you've seen nothing of this man's game besides YouTube highlight videos that show him making shots instead of what he did at a far more impressive clip, which was miss shots?

    Robert Horry was a TERRIBLE shooter. He shot 42% for his career, and only 34% from 3 despite being a sort of 3 point "specialist" through most of it. Hell, he wasn't even a good free throw shooter, hovering at < 70% for much of his career. He never developed any sort of credible midrange shot, and would often try to finish at the rim in the worst ways possible, with a giant outstretched arm scoop shot instead of a strong two-handed dunk.

    In fact, his best ability is something you didn't even mention (because you don't know what you're talking about). Robert Horry was an excellent post passer. He could reliably feed players like Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq. Was that singular, statistically unquantifiable ability worth having to deal with Robert Horry's ongoing bullshit, like him being a limited wing player who can't knock down perimeter shots? Probably not.
    Robert Horry was not some replacement level player who just happened to be really good at picking winners.

    Yeah, I don't think you watched this dude. For the better part of a decade, he was literally as one-note as Matt Bonner is today, but even worse at shooting three pointers. He never put in the work.
    Was vince carter a better player than horry? I say no.

    Yes. Unequivocally, yes.

  • EddyEddy pale Gengars I loved beside Cerulean CaveRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Disrupter wrote: »
    So what are the stats on a team coming back down 3-1 in a series? Im assuming its more common then a 1 seed getting bounced by an 8...right? So...technically the bulls still have math on their side? Maybe?

    I would imagine the probability of coming back from a 1-3 deficit takes precedent over / is more relevant than the probability of a 1 seed losing to the 8 seed for conditional reasons.

    Anyway, there have been 8 times in the entire history of the playoffs that teams have come back from a 1-3 deficit over the past 52 years; assuming that there have been 780 total series played (not going to look up the playoff formatting of the formative years of the NBA...) ([8 first round + 4 semis + 2 conference finals + 1 final] * 52), then there is roughly a 1.025% chance that, based on past precedent, the Bulls will win the series.

    For completionist purposes: there have been 3 8-over-1 upsets over the same 52 years (and only once in a 7 game series), so the chances going in that they would have lost were 5.77%; again I believe this percentage is obsolete when presented with a 1-3 deficit.

    Eddy on
  • EddyEddy pale Gengars I loved beside Cerulean CaveRegistered User regular
    I guess that depends on what you mean by "better" and what you mean by "player" :P

  • SabreMauSabreMau Still featuring glasses. Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Eddy wrote: »
    assuming that there have been 780 total series played (not going to look up the playoff formatting of the formative years of the NBA...) ([8 first round + 4 semis + 2 conference finals + 1 final] * 52)

    The formative years of the NBA are rather complicated, but to make a long story short, as far as I can tell there have been only 425 best-of-7 matches completed so far. There were as few as six teams that made the playoffs in the olden days, and usually only the NBA Finals or occasionally the conference finals were best-of-7. The current 16-team bracket wasn't implemented until 1984, and the first round only moved to best-of-7 as of 2003.

    And oops, wrote down the wrong number back there. There have been four 8 seeds to beat 1 seeds, not three: Denver over Seattle 1994 (best-of-3), New York over Miami 1999 (best-of-3, lockout year), Golden State over Dallas 2007 (best-of-7), and Memphis over San Antonio 2011 (best-of-7).

    SabreMau on
    1yrxP.jpgmXcqC.jpgtYRm1.jpg
  • EddyEddy pale Gengars I loved beside Cerulean CaveRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Well I guess the odds just doubled... to 1.88%

    Eddy on
  • SabreMauSabreMau Still featuring glasses. Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Actually, the odds were 3.96%. There have been 425 best-of-7 matches, but only 202 of those had at one point a team up 3 games to 1. 61 matches were 4-0 sweeps and the other 162 reached 2-2 first without passing through 3-1.

    Still lower than the 7.02% odds of an 8 taking down a 1. Or the 10.53% chance of an 8 taking down a 1 in the modern best-of-7 first round.


    Actually, that's a bit of an oddity. One reason they went to a best-of-7 first round was to reduce the chance of fluke upsets, but there's already a higher occurrence of 8 seeds winning the first round in best-of-7 than there was in best-of-5. In the old system, they won 2 out of 38 times. In the current format, they've already won 4 out of 19 and Philadelphia could make that 5 out of 20.

    SabreMau on
    1yrxP.jpgmXcqC.jpgtYRm1.jpg
  • y2jake215y2jake215 The style is radiation leak at mile island Also known as Chernobyl talk, listen for the sirensRegistered User regular
    He was a competent forward who worked his ass off

    Nope. In fact, the knock on Big Shot Bob was that he did no such thing until the playoffs. He wouldn't even bother to stay in shape in the off-season, either, which is really something that fans like to see in their professional athletes.

    Like Simmons--who was too busy watching Celtics games to know about Robert Horry and should really know better--you have this mythical, idealized version of him that isn't supported by the truth. I watched this man play as a Rocket and as Spur for years (season tickets). He was a consummate slacker. Even Lakers fans noticed this and would ride him for it.

    True story: I once sat in as Robert Horry spoke to a group of kids about the benefits of hard work and applying yourself in the gym. Then he looked down at the ground for a full beat. To this day, I think he may have been reflecting on what a hypocrite that just made him sound like.
    and who (in his prime) could defend three positions

    A true statement, but it reads like it was lifted from a website. It was one of the things that excited Houston and San Antonio fans, his supposed versatility. These days, we realize it isn't that special of a quality at all. There are a ton of long-armed players who can defend at the wings and step inside to rebound. We even have names for people who are built like that now, like "Stretch 4." It is one common-ass thing, forums poster Eat it You Nasty Pig.
    , in addition to being a good shooter.

    Either you're trolling, or you've seen nothing of this man's game besides YouTube highlight videos that show him making shots instead of what he did at a far more impressive clip, which was miss shots?

    Robert Horry was a TERRIBLE shooter. He shot 42% for his career, and only 34% from 3 despite being a sort of 3 point "specialist" through most of it. Hell, he wasn't even a good free throw shooter, hovering at < 70% for much of his career. He never developed any sort of credible midrange shot, and would often try to finish at the rim in the worst ways possible, with a giant outstretched arm scoop shot instead of a strong two-handed dunk.

    In fact, his best ability is something you didn't even mention (because you don't know what you're talking about). Robert Horry was an excellent post passer. He could reliably feed players like Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq. Was that singular, statistically unquantifiable ability worth having to deal with Robert Horry's ongoing bullshit, like him being a limited wing player who can't knock down perimeter shots? Probably not.
    Robert Horry was not some replacement level player who just happened to be really good at picking winners.

    Yeah, I don't think you watched this dude. For the better part of a decade, he was literally as one-note as Matt Bonner is today, but even worse at shooting three pointers. He never put in the work.
    Was vince carter a better player than horry? I say no.

    Yes. Unequivocally, yes.

    Well according to Simmons, you just don't "understand the game of basketball". :p

    In my opinion, he's basing the ranking mostly on his legacy. Since he's listing them in order of "greatness", he's giving weight to things such as memorable shots in the playoffs, and titles, since those contribute a lot to this unmeasurable quality of "greatness". I'm sure if you asked him to make a list of the players he'd choose in order if he was captain and picking a team for a game of 5 on 5 Robert Horry would be a lot farther down the list. At least, I hope so, you never know with Simmons

    y7dKgGy.jpg
    maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
  • EddyEddy pale Gengars I loved beside Cerulean CaveRegistered User regular
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    He was a competent forward who worked his ass off

    Nope. In fact, the knock on Big Shot Bob was that he did no such thing until the playoffs. He wouldn't even bother to stay in shape in the off-season, either, which is really something that fans like to see in their professional athletes.

    Like Simmons--who was too busy watching Celtics games to know about Robert Horry and should really know better--you have this mythical, idealized version of him that isn't supported by the truth. I watched this man play as a Rocket and as Spur for years (season tickets). He was a consummate slacker. Even Lakers fans noticed this and would ride him for it.

    True story: I once sat in as Robert Horry spoke to a group of kids about the benefits of hard work and applying yourself in the gym. Then he looked down at the ground for a full beat. To this day, I think he may have been reflecting on what a hypocrite that just made him sound like.
    and who (in his prime) could defend three positions

    A true statement, but it reads like it was lifted from a website. It was one of the things that excited Houston and San Antonio fans, his supposed versatility. These days, we realize it isn't that special of a quality at all. There are a ton of long-armed players who can defend at the wings and step inside to rebound. We even have names for people who are built like that now, like "Stretch 4." It is one common-ass thing, forums poster Eat it You Nasty Pig.
    , in addition to being a good shooter.

    Either you're trolling, or you've seen nothing of this man's game besides YouTube highlight videos that show him making shots instead of what he did at a far more impressive clip, which was miss shots?

    Robert Horry was a TERRIBLE shooter. He shot 42% for his career, and only 34% from 3 despite being a sort of 3 point "specialist" through most of it. Hell, he wasn't even a good free throw shooter, hovering at < 70% for much of his career. He never developed any sort of credible midrange shot, and would often try to finish at the rim in the worst ways possible, with a giant outstretched arm scoop shot instead of a strong two-handed dunk.

    In fact, his best ability is something you didn't even mention (because you don't know what you're talking about). Robert Horry was an excellent post passer. He could reliably feed players like Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq. Was that singular, statistically unquantifiable ability worth having to deal with Robert Horry's ongoing bullshit, like him being a limited wing player who can't knock down perimeter shots? Probably not.
    Robert Horry was not some replacement level player who just happened to be really good at picking winners.

    Yeah, I don't think you watched this dude. For the better part of a decade, he was literally as one-note as Matt Bonner is today, but even worse at shooting three pointers. He never put in the work.
    Was vince carter a better player than horry? I say no.

    Yes. Unequivocally, yes.

    Well according to Simmons, you just don't "understand the game of basketball". :p

    In my opinion, he's basing the ranking mostly on his legacy. Since he's listing them in order of "greatness", he's giving weight to things such as memorable shots in the playoffs, and titles, since those contribute a lot to this unmeasurable quality of "greatness". I'm sure if you asked him to make a list of the players he'd choose in order if he was captain and picking a team for a game of 5 on 5 Robert Horry would be a lot farther down the list. At least, I hope so, you never know with Simmons

    Arguing that he was a good player or hard worker is ludicrous, because he simply wasn't, but if we're going by things like "legacy" and "that time he hit a shot in the playoffs" then okay. It's not a great way to rank these guys, but his inclusion would at least make more sense. I don't agree with it, but I at least now understand it a little better.

    Form of Monkey! on
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    And now something completely different. Steve Kerr penned an article over at Grantland about the age limit and how it should be raised to 20:

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba

    One particular item caught my eye.
    Why should NBA franchises assume the responsibility and financial burden of player development when, once upon a time, colleges happily assumed that role for them?

    Maybe I am biased, because I am European and over here we don't have that Highschool/College/Pro system. But - what? Why should the NBA assume responsibility and the finances of player development? Because you want to reap the fucking rewards of the developed player maybe?

    Take european soccer for instance - some players started playing for their clubs when they were kids. Lionel Messi came to Barcelona when he was 13 years old. Manuel Neuer, currently the best German goal keeper, started playing for his old club at the age of 5 - so he had played for Schalke for 20 years before he switched clubs to Bayern Munich last year. Bayern has a few starters in their ranks that were developed in the own youth programs.

    I know it is a fundamentally different culture in the US - but doing their own youth programs seems like a really good idea, even for US pro teams.

    Then again, you don't have that whole relegation thing going on either - which is another thing I think US pro sports should adopt.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    That seems like 6 reasons why it's better to have someone else do your work for you for free.

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    He was a competent forward who worked his ass off

    Nope. In fact, the knock on Big Shot Bob was that he did no such thing until the playoffs. He wouldn't even bother to stay in shape in the off-season, either, which is really something that fans like to see in their professional athletes.

    Like Simmons--who was too busy watching Celtics games to know about Robert Horry and should really know better--you have this mythical, idealized version of him that isn't supported by the truth. I watched this man play as a Rocket and as Spur for years (season tickets). He was a consummate slacker. Even Lakers fans noticed this and would ride him for it.

    True story: I once sat in as Robert Horry spoke to a group of kids about the benefits of hard work and applying yourself in the gym. Then he looked down at the ground for a full beat. To this day, I think he may have been reflecting on what a hypocrite that just made him sound like.
    and who (in his prime) could defend three positions

    A true statement, but it reads like it was lifted from a website. It was one of the things that excited Houston and San Antonio fans, his supposed versatility. These days, we realize it isn't that special of a quality at all. There are a ton of long-armed players who can defend at the wings and step inside to rebound. We even have names for people who are built like that now, like "Stretch 4." It is one common-ass thing, forums poster Eat it You Nasty Pig.
    , in addition to being a good shooter.

    Either you're trolling, or you've seen nothing of this man's game besides YouTube highlight videos that show him making shots instead of what he did at a far more impressive clip, which was miss shots?

    Robert Horry was a TERRIBLE shooter. He shot 42% for his career, and only 34% from 3 despite being a sort of 3 point "specialist" through most of it. Hell, he wasn't even a good free throw shooter, hovering at < 70% for much of his career. He never developed any sort of credible midrange shot, and would often try to finish at the rim in the worst ways possible, with a giant outstretched arm scoop shot instead of a strong two-handed dunk.

    In fact, his best ability is something you didn't even mention (because you don't know what you're talking about). Robert Horry was an excellent post passer. He could reliably feed players like Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq. Was that singular, statistically unquantifiable ability worth having to deal with Robert Horry's ongoing bullshit, like him being a limited wing player who can't knock down perimeter shots? Probably not.
    Robert Horry was not some replacement level player who just happened to be really good at picking winners.

    Yeah, I don't think you watched this dude. For the better part of a decade, he was literally as one-note as Matt Bonner is today, but even worse at shooting three pointers. He never put in the work.
    Was vince carter a better player than horry? I say no.

    Yes. Unequivocally, yes.

    As much as Form and I disagreed like a page ago, I'm almost-totally in agreement with him. I don't hate him being on the top 100 list, but T-Mac was a much better player than Horry, and so was Vince. Both are great examples of depressingly squandered talent, but both were such amazing talents that they still were top 100 players. Vince PLAYED ON AN OLYMPIC TEAM! Do you know how hard that is to do? TMac was a seven-time all-star, first-team all NBA twice (and seven times total), and had a (probably) HOF career. Vince was a 9time allstar (yes, some of those were on reputation/fun factor, I know), a third-team all-nba, second-team all-nba, and still averages over 20PPG for his career with a lifetime 44% shooting.

    Robert Horry just won, which is ALL he did really; 7PPG on 43% career shooting, 5 rebounds, a block, a steal, and 2-3 assists per game. In fact, this killer from three-point range has one season over 40%, which is where you start to really fear a player. I hoped to find maybe some all-nba 2nd team defensive player awards or something, but seriously, the dude was just a solid role player who could step up now and again. Do you really think that TMac and Vince wouldn't have performed as-well or better in similar situations? Yes, maybe they mess up chemistry or something, but they were not inferior players to Robert Freaking Horry, and it would be a joke if he makes it into the HoF and they don't, a joke perpetuated by writers who love the idea of average joes somehow being more important or valuable to their team by being "good teammates" than a player scoring 30 points is while not cheering from the bench at every shot he makes.

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    And now something completely different. Steve Kerr penned an article over at Grantland about the age limit and how it should be raised to 20:

    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba

    One particular item caught my eye.
    Why should NBA franchises assume the responsibility and financial burden of player development when, once upon a time, colleges happily assumed that role for them?

    Maybe I am biased, because I am European and over here we don't have that Highschool/College/Pro system. But - what? Why should the NBA assume responsibility and the finances of player development? Because you want to reap the fucking rewards of the developed player maybe?

    Take european soccer for instance - some players started playing for their clubs when they were kids. Lionel Messi came to Barcelona when he was 13 years old. Manuel Neuer, currently the best German goal keeper, started playing for his old club at the age of 5 - so he had played for Schalke for 20 years before he switched clubs to Bayern Munich last year. Bayern has a few starters in their ranks that were developed in the own youth programs.

    I know it is a fundamentally different culture in the US - but doing their own youth programs seems like a really good idea, even for US pro teams.

    Then again, you don't have that whole relegation thing going on either - which is another thing I think US pro sports should adopt.

    I kind of "got" his points (it was written FROM the NBA/GM point of view), but I basically felt like you, screw you Steve Kerr if you don't want to pay to develop talent. Why the HELL would colleges want to do that for free? Obviously, college ball is a little healthier when there are 2-3year players, but his article was basically "For the NBA's sake, we should do these things, and screw players who made a few million before they washed out of the league. They shouldn't have gotten that money that we wanted to risk on them being super-stars!"

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    y2jake215 wrote: »
    The book came out in Oct. 2009, so Paul had only played 3 seasons. Since it's listing the top basketball players of all time, it's not too ridiculous

    e: link http://www.nbadraft.net/node/16527

    By 2009 Kemp and Sabas were both retired, and Simmons had Horry ahead of them too. 7 pts, 5 reb, 0x All-Star, 0x All-NBA, 0x All-Defense.

    Yeah, he's got a lot of rings. Great. So does whoever played next to Bill Russell (Satch Sanders, Locsy, Frank Ramsey).
    jackisreal wrote: »

    Yeah, and in the update he gave Horry an even better ranking. One which still puts him ahead of Paul, Kemp, and Sabas.

    I suppose if OKC wins this year, the next version will have Derek Fisher on it.

    I just looked in my copy to see why he lists him there, he basically just says, "We can't leave him out" and then reprints a column he wrote about him. Where he lists relevant stats, he has that he's the leader in playoff games career, played for 10 55-win teams and eight teams with a .700-plus winning percentage, and played for 1 team that won fewer than 47 games.

    A quote from that column:
    Simmons wrote:
    Horry's career has always been a nice litmus test for the question, "Do you understand the game of basketball or not?" Nearly all of his strengths aren't things that casual fans would notice, and he'd be useless on the "And 1" tour. He's a terrific help defender who constantly covers for his teammates. He's big enough to handle power forwards and quick enough to handle small forwards. He picks his spots and only asserts himself in big situations when his team truly needs him. He doesn't care about stats or touches - at all - which gives him something in common with maybe 2 percent of the league. And he gets better when it matters. What more do you want from a supporting player?

    Does this make him the 84th greatest player of all time? I don't know. But that's Simmons' opinion, at least

    But don't all of the Horry arguments apply to Derek Fisher as well?

    He guards multiple positions - when the Lakers played Boston in the Finals, it was Fisher chasing Ray Allen through a jillion screens while Kobe sagged 20 feet off Rondo. He hits clutch shots. His main contributions are in areas casual fans don't notice, like leadership. He doesn't care about stats or touches. He's on winning teams, and has a lot of rings.

    I guess what he doesn't have is some catchy nickname. And he never got kicked out of a franchise for throwing a towel in his coach's face. And he tried hard in the regular season too, not just in the playoffs.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    There's a simple solution for GMs who think like Kerr, and want "developed" players. They can just draft college seniors. No one's forcing them to draft 18 year olds.

    And the teams that want to take the risk of drafting an 18 year old can choose to do that, too.

    And Kerr will miss out on the next Kobe, Lebron, and Dwight, in favor of the next Battier or Hansbrough.

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    There's a simple solution for GMs who think like Kerr, and want "developed" players. They can just draft college seniors. No one's forcing them to draft 18 year olds.

    And the teams that want to take the risk of drafting an 18 year old can choose to do that, too.

    And Kerr will miss out on the next Kobe, Lebron, and Dwight, in favor of the next Battier or Hansbrough.

    He wants the best of both worlds. Which as we all know, is pretty greedy.

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    BubbaT wrote: »
    There's a simple solution for GMs who think like Kerr, and want "developed" players. They can just draft college seniors. No one's forcing them to draft 18 year olds.

    And the teams that want to take the risk of drafting an 18 year old can choose to do that, too.

    And Kerr will miss out on the next Kobe, Lebron, and Dwight, in favor of the next Battier or Hansbrough.

    Well, that philosophy could also get him the next Duncan, Jordan, or Abdul-Jabbar. I'm not sure you're being fair to the group of college-bred athletes. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    There's a simple solution for GMs who think like Kerr, and want "developed" players. They can just draft college seniors. No one's forcing them to draft 18 year olds.

    And the teams that want to take the risk of drafting an 18 year old can choose to do that, too.

    And Kerr will miss out on the next Kobe, Lebron, and Dwight, in favor of the next Battier or Hansbrough.

    Well, that philosophy could also get him the next Duncan, Jordan, or Abdul-Jabbar. I'm not sure you're being fair to the group of college-bred athletes. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    Duncan yes, not necessarily with KAJ/Jordan... you didn't really just come out of high school back then very often. You COULD, but it wasn't really done much.

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Moses Malone was one of the first notables to skip playing college ball, in 1974. He didn't really open the floodgates or something, either. Increasingly lucrative pro ball salaries was all it took for that.

    If Moses held a degree, it would be a triple doctorate in rebounding with a minor on boxing out. It's clear he didn't really need the added structure and coaching that college would have provided.

    But for every one Moses Malone, there are 10 Tyson Chandlers--raw, freakishly athletic players who eventually figure out the game as pros, but could have been so much better than they were if they were developed in the right program early on.

    And for every one Tyson Chandler, there are 10 (insert name heres). These are unknown players who gamble their eligibility on the draft, and who we never hear from again. It's a dream deferred.

    It can be a vicious system to navigate for the supremely talented and bubble talents alike.

    Form of Monkey! on
  • Pirate ViperPirate Viper Registered User regular
    Why the hate for the Kerr article? It raises valid points and would benefit both the NCAA and the NBA.

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    B/C it's written with complete ignorance of player's rights and right to work... Imagine doing that to the WHOLE NATION. No jobs before 20 b/c y'all are too freaking immature and not ready for life.

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • EddyEddy pale Gengars I loved beside Cerulean CaveRegistered User regular
    But for every one Moses Malone, there are 10 Tyson Chandlers--raw, freakishly athletic players who eventually figure out the game as pros, but could have been so much better than they were if they were developed in the right program early on.

    The "right program" not necessarily meaning a particular college/semi-pro/overseas structure, of course. If 18 year-old Chandler were drafted to a strong franchise with a purposive coaching staff...

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    Eddy wrote: »
    But for every one Moses Malone, there are 10 Tyson Chandlers--raw, freakishly athletic players who eventually figure out the game as pros, but could have been so much better than they were if they were developed in the right program early on.

    The "right program" not necessarily meaning a particular college/semi-pro/overseas structure, of course. If 18 year-old Chandler were drafted to a strong franchise with a purposive coaching staff...

    Wait you mean that drafting him into a program that has another young dude, and then assigning a member of the staff to be their mentor/babysitter for the first year or two, and having a crappy head coach who blamed them for losses was not a wise situation? But Jerry Krause never made dumb decisions!

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    Why the hate for the Kerr article? It raises valid points and would benefit both the NCAA and the NBA.

    Because it benefits the NCAA and NBA by taking money away from the players, and taking risk away from the teams. They should really just make a minor league if they're all that concerned about development, but then they would actually have to pay their employees, and put the slightest effort into actually working for their own best interests.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    They did make a minor league. The NBDL (NBA Development League) is a real thing already, and the minimum age to play is 18, not 19 as it is in the NBA. The NBA pays everyone in the league.

  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    Are college coaches somehow better at fundamental development than pro coaches? Some people just take a long time to learn how to play the game, regardless of whether or not some of that time is spent in college.

    Picture1-4.png
  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    Are college coaches somehow better at fundamental development than pro coaches? Some people just take a long time to learn how to play the game, regardless of whether or not some of that time is spent in college.

    Kind of, yes. There are some really, really good college coaches out there who are used to teaching the fundamentals to talented prospects.

    NBA coaching tends to be more high level.

    NBA: "I need you to set this back screen"
    College: "This is how you set a good back screen."

  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I dunno, you can hire some pretty good assistant coaches in the NBA, for virtually anything. Bynum has developed some solid fundamentals, it just took him until 24 to figure it out. Even LeBron has started posting people up with a vengeance this season, while Kobe has added something to his game virtually every season he's been in the league. If you go by age rather than games played*, they're relatively consistent.

    If they don't develop the NBA skills under an NBA program, they probably wouldn't have done it in a college program either. I would rather learn fundamentals under Popovich or Doc Rivers than John Calipari.

    *It's misleading to go strictly by games played in a Jordan-LeBron comparison. Young bodies recuperate more quickly, so 28 LeBron is closer to 28 Jordan than you think, while college ball still involves a large amount of training, practicing, and off-campus kegstanding that can be quite grueling.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • SyphyreSyphyre A Dangerous Pastime Registered User regular
    Kerr makes a lot of good points in that article. Some of the rebuttals have been mentioned already.

    One good thing that comes out of looking at it this way is that this helps keep the playing field level; always good for the sport in the long run.

    What do I mean? Say 10 unmolded/untried freshmen are drafted and given large salaries. One of these ten actually ends up being worth the money he's paid. The rest are overpaid bench players in the end. Ah, you say, but that's the team's decision to draft these players and take the chance. Yes it is, but it's an arms race that doesn't always pay off, and when smaller markets that don't have the resources of the Lakers or Knicks make that plunge, you've screwed the team for the next few years.

    Yes, you can still draft well played players who turn out to be busts (poor Odom) but keeping the field level IS in the best interests of the NBA. Sure they'd love every finals to be Lakers vs Celtics, but it's not near as interesting if they don't go through the little guys first.

    Steam ID - Syphyreal --- 3DS Friend Code: 2723-9387-1002
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    They did make a minor league. The NBDL (NBA Development League) is a real thing already, and the minimum age to play is 18, not 19 as it is in the NBA. The NBA pays everyone in the league.

    So the solution to Kerr's problem already exists? What is he even going on about then?

This discussion has been closed.