SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 5, 2009 10:51:35 GMT -5
Shaq is a possible exception?
Shaq is one of the best centers of all time. If that's your hypothesis, there's no possible about it.
Don't lump in McGrady with Stoudamire. The latter was a Tony Campbell, Kelly Tripucks, big numbers on a crappy team type of player.
McGrady is much more like a Dominique Wilkins (and Marbury) type of guy. I don't really buy the "not a winner thing" as much as I buy "doesn't do the things that win" type of guy. Aside from the injury issue, he's a scorer primarily, doesn't play a lot of defense and simply isn't quite the elite Top 5 player you need to be to carry a team as a guard.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on May 5, 2009 13:02:34 GMT -5
Shaq is a possible exception? Shaq is one of the best centers of all time. If that's your hypothesis, there's no possible about it. Don't lump in McGrady with Stoudamire. The latter was a Tony Campbell, Kelly Tripucks, big numbers on a crappy team type of player. McGrady is much more like a Dominique Wilkins (and Marbury) type of guy. I don't really buy the "not a winner thing" as much as I buy "doesn't do the things that win" type of guy. Aside from the injury issue, he's a scorer primarily, doesn't play a lot of defense and simply isn't quite the elite Top 5 player you need to be to carry a team as a guard. McGrady couldn't carry Dominique Wilkins jock. Wilkins actually WON a few playoff series and was blocked by some of greatest teams of all time--while "T-Mac" was blocked by who in Eastern Conference?? In West--if he's as great as the hype--he'd have won at least A single series. Wilkins had Bird's Celtics, Isaiah's Pistons, and Jordan's Bulls in his path--and still won a few series.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 5, 2009 15:44:52 GMT -5
I'd put Dominique ahead as well. Just trying to make clear he wasn't a player that could really drive his team to greatness without significant support.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 5, 2009 16:13:44 GMT -5
Shaq is a possible exception? Shaq is one of the best centers of all time. If that's your hypothesis, there's no possible about it. Don't lump in McGrady with Stoudamire. The latter was a Tony Campbell, Kelly Tripucks, big numbers on a crappy team type of player. McGrady is much more like a Dominique Wilkins (and Marbury) type of guy. I don't really buy the "not a winner thing" as much as I buy "doesn't do the things that win" type of guy. Aside from the injury issue, he's a scorer primarily, doesn't play a lot of defense and simply isn't quite the elite Top 5 player you need to be to carry a team as a guard. Again, my wording probably confused things. I was paraphrasing Cowherd. He was pointing out to not call in or email in and say something like "what about Shaq?" His point was that while Shaq certainly bounced around in the middle of his career, he wasn't disproving his theory. His theory was of players who were essentially being traded multiple times in their prime. He pointed out when Shaq left Orlando, the Magic wanted to keep him. Shaq wanted out. The Magic wouldn't bite on any of the trades, so Shaq finished his obligation and went on his merry way. For a while I hated Shaq for this, and thought that he did the Magic wrong, but the more I learned, I blame the Magic front office. The fan in me, thought that the Magic should at least get something for Shaq, but instead got nothing. Then with regards to LA, it was really a money issue. Kobe and Shaq were essentially demanding top 2 money and they couldn't afford both, so they chose the younger player in Bryant. I hope that clarifies it. At no point was anyone criticizing Shaq or his abilities, just pointing out that his circumstances didn't refute the theory that premium players that are traded from team to team in their prime normally have some sort of underlying baggage reason why. As for T-Mac, like I said, Colin basically said that the Rockets were where they were "because of T-Mac" ... not "in spite" of him. Think about it. It sounds kind of backwards but it's not. They are where they are (winning a playoff series and stealing the homecourt advantage from the Lakers) because of T-Mac (NOT being on the court).
|
|
|
Post by HeartAttackHoya on May 6, 2009 14:13:35 GMT -5
T-Mac is NOT in same cateogry as Marbury or Stoudamire. He has never been disciplined for conduct detrimental to the team and despite his playoff shortcomings, has consistently, been a top 10 player in this league. Also, he is BY FAR a better teammate that Nique and a better all around player (better passer, higher percentages, better defense).
It's easy to knock him while he's down and the Rockets are up but compare him to Marbury or Damon Stoudamire is beyond me.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on May 6, 2009 14:23:27 GMT -5
T-Mac is NOT in same cateogry as Marbury or Stoudamire. He has never been disciplined for conduct detrimental to the team and despite his playoff shortcomings, has consistently, been a top 10 player in this league. Also, he is BY FAR a better teammate that Nique and a better all around player (better passer, higher percentages, better defense). It's easy to knock him while he's down and the Rockets are up but compare him to Marbury or Damon Stoudamire is beyond me. When McGrady wins a Playoff Series and shows up in 4th quarter of one, then he can claim something. We're not talking about minimum chances here--he's had a lot of opportunities to show his "greatness" and I'm sorry but top 10 players in the NBA win at least ONE PLAYOFF SERIES in 10+ years in the league. With Mcgrady--no playoff series wins Without McGrady--Magic and Rockets are better.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 6, 2009 15:04:03 GMT -5
T-Mac is NOT in same cateogry as Marbury or Stoudamire. He has never been disciplined for conduct detrimental to the team and despite his playoff shortcomings, has consistently, been a top 10 player in this league. Also, he is BY FAR a better teammate that Nique and a better all around player (better passer, higher percentages, better defense). It's easy to knock him while he's down and the Rockets are up but compare him to Marbury or Damon Stoudamire is beyond me. I think McGrady is better than RDF thinks he is, but he's not a Top 10 player in my mind. How good you are, to me, is determined by how much you contribute to a team winning in a five on five environment. McGrady's obviously outside the upper echelons of guards (Wade, Bryan, James if you call him that, Paul, Williams, etc.) and despite his stats, I think its debatable whether you want him on your team or someone like Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton who does his role really, really well even though he isn't nearly as versatile. (And my answer there would be he'd probably be more valuable to a bad team, but how about a good team? Not so sure). Is he all that different than Andre Igoudala right now? Especially when you factor in health? It's not like Houston has been devoid of talent. At some point in his career, I might be with you on the argument (like #10). But we haven't even talked centers and forwards yet and he's already at best sixth or seventh on the list.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 6, 2009 16:34:13 GMT -5
I agree with the idea that McGrady isn't the disruptive force that some of these other guys are. But I still think he is overvalued in many people's eyes. Whether he brings that on himself, like Marbury or Staudamire is certainly debatable, but nonetheless, as RDF points out, the teams are better without him. You can feel free to explain why that might be the case. Just today on the local afternoon show, the WRUFAM sports director made the comment that the Rockets showing was all that more impressive because it was happening without their "best" player in McGrady. I called in right before the end of the show, and told him that I though they were doing so well because of McGrady not in spite of him. He said, but he's not playing. I said, "right." Then since it was the end of the show, he hung up on me and made one last comment, something to the effect of me not knowing nearly as much about basketball as I do about baseball. (I keep winning prizes for their Gator Baseball trivia contests). In any case, after his show (noon til 2pm) there is a show called the Cheap Seats, run by two of the students from the college of journalism. Steve Russell, the host of the earlier show, always sits in with the kids for the first segment to get them started. As I mentioned last week, one of that crew is an absolute NBA buff. As soon as they came back from break, he told Steve -- effectively his boss -- that he thought I had a point and that the Rockets were a much better team without T Mac. Russell, clearly disagreed, but he didn't want to make them look bad on the air, like he might a caller, so he said something like "you're being sarcastic right" ... The journalism student said that no, T-Mac was one of the most overrated players because overwhelmingly people think of him as being an elite player, basically because when he's healthy he'll score 25 points a game. But that that didn't matter. The team wasn't as good. He wasn't scoring "more points" he was just taking points away from teammates and that his defense was very suspect and his play on that end offset many of those points he was scoring as well. Steve said something like "he saw his point, but that he was still a great player, there's no denying that." And then Masri (UF Journalist Student) said almost the same thing that we have been discussing here, and that is that regardless of why, the teams are better without T-Mac. Explain it how you will, but that much isn't debatable. I thought it was kind of cool to hear a student go out on a limb and potentially make his boss look bad on the air. But it gives me something to talk about on the air tomorrow. I'm sure Steve Russell is looking forward to it.
Just in case anyone is interested, the show his show is available on AM850.com at noon.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 6, 2009 19:21:15 GMT -5
Who thought these Reggie Miller commercials were a good idea?
Oh wait, there for Blackberry so they are already catering to whiny d-bags with nasally voices.
[owns a Blackberry]
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,992
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on May 7, 2009 5:44:35 GMT -5
ko-me acting tough is comical. artest is very close to snapping, and ko-me will be the target of his rage if the laker girls take control of the series.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 7, 2009 8:15:31 GMT -5
T-Mac is NOT in same cateogry as Marbury or Stoudamire. He has never been disciplined for conduct detrimental to the team and despite his playoff shortcomings, has consistently, been a top 10 player in this league. Also, he is BY FAR a better teammate that Nique and a better all around player (better passer, higher percentages, better defense). It's easy to knock him while he's down and the Rockets are up but compare him to Marbury or Damon Stoudamire is beyond me. I think McGrady is better than RDF thinks he is, but he's not a Top 10 player in my mind. How good you are, to me, is determined by how much you contribute to a team winning in a five on five environment. McGrady's obviously outside the upper echelons of guards (Wade, Bryan, James if you call him that, Paul, Williams, etc.) and despite his stats, I think its debatable whether you want him on your team or someone like Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton who does his role really, really well even though he isn't nearly as versatile. (And my answer there would be he'd probably be more valuable to a bad team, but how about a good team? Not so sure). Is he all that different than Andre Igoudala right now? Especially when you factor in health? It's not like Houston has been devoid of talent. At some point in his career, I might be with you on the argument (like #10). But we haven't even talked centers and forwards yet and he's already at best sixth or seventh on the list. There was a similar discussion a little earlier on a different level with Allen Iverson. I think that the points applied against AI are better here - T-Mac is talented, but everything kind of has to flow through him. He would seem much happier on a lower-level team, where the lack of talent around him forces him to be the first option. Going back to Miracle - when you're looking to win in the NBA, you're not looking for the best players, you're looking for the right ones.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on May 7, 2009 10:05:37 GMT -5
That's not true. When you're looking to win in the NBA, you're looking for the best players. Go look at NBA Champions in the last 15 years. Excluding the Pistons, who's the worst "best guy on a championship team"? It's debatable, but it's probably Kevin Garnett. In no other team sport is having one or two dominant players so important.
As for suggesting that the Orlando Magic were better off without McGrady, that's ridiculous. The teams before and after McGrady left were completely different. Hill came back, Turkoglu signed, and they drafted Dwight Howard. If you take McGrady off that Magic team, they probably win like five games in that year. I'm serious, the 03-04 Magic is a 5-77 team without Tracy McGrady. And I don't think that's an exaggeration at all.
McGrady is not a top 10 talent and while he's capable of being the best player on a team that wins a playoff series, he isn't capable of carrying a team to win a playoff series. While he's 0 for 7 in the first round, I'm not sure how many of those you can really call "disappointments" or place on him; it's not like he's ever really been much of a favorite in a series. The Rockets are doing better without him this season, but they were horrid without him in 05-06.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 7, 2009 12:17:12 GMT -5
shifting gears, what is everyone's opinion on the Artest-Kobe-Derek Fisher incidents? I fell asleep and didn't see them live and everytime I try to cath the highlights on Sportscenter, I am in another room or on the other side of the store. I still haven't seen a good look at it. For what it's worth, Colin Cowherd thinks that Kobe will not get suspended and shouldn't be but that Fisher should be and will be suspended.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on May 7, 2009 14:33:27 GMT -5
Fisher deserves to get suspended--that was a cheapshot and intentional.
Kobe should've been called for a foul--and if you wanted to eject him based on tone in game--that would've been warranted--but he shouldn't be suspended for it.
Artest was calmest guy on court--and did what he should've done--it was just that Joey Crawford doing smart thing and tossing him--based on tone of game at the time. Lakers were going to win--and only things happening were chippy play by Lakers and some from Rockets--I just think Rockets are a physical team--so it wasn't dirty--just tough basketball.
Kobe is picking on the wrong man if he thinks he can mess with Artest.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 7, 2009 15:02:01 GMT -5
RDF wrote:
Artest was calmest guy on court ...
That, in and of itself, is somewhat of an oddity, and further leads creedence to maybe the Lakers were in fact at fault.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 7, 2009 15:25:31 GMT -5
Kobe messing with Artest is hysterical. It's like the school jock messing with the actual badass at school. He's bringing a fist to a gunfight there.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,245
|
Post by hoyarooter on May 7, 2009 20:00:58 GMT -5
Except that Artest can't guard Kobe, and he knows it. In any event, Artest/Kobe is all heat of the moment stuff, as I understand they are friends. Kobe wanted the Lakers to go after Artest last year.
Fisher absolutely deserved to be suspended. That was both the funniest and dumbest play Fisher has made in his many years as a Laker. It looked like a hockey check. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on game 3.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on May 7, 2009 22:32:55 GMT -5
Except that Artest can't guard Kobe, and he knows it. In any event, Artest/Kobe is all heat of the moment stuff, as I understand they are friends. Kobe wanted the Lakers to go after Artest last year. Fisher absolutely deserved to be suspended. That was both the funniest and dumbest play Fisher has made in his many years as a Laker. It looked like a hockey check. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on game 3. It could actually have a good effect for the Lakeshow in the long run-maybe it snaps them out of their slumber. Remember last year the Lakers got punked by Boston so maybe a little hockey check was what the lakers needed. It definitely seemed to spark them a little last night. Scola was picking on the Lakers in a cheap and nagging way and maybe Fisher just put him in his place.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on May 10, 2009 21:56:04 GMT -5
When Big Baby starts nailing 18 footers to win playoff games, it's a weird year. The Celtics have no chance to beat Cleveland if they even get there, but they lead the league in entertainment.
|
|
kghoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,998
|
Post by kghoya on May 10, 2009 22:03:01 GMT -5
any chance the celts are just saving garnett for the conf finals, should they get there?
|
|