RealGM

Saw the below tweet that inspired me to look at the stats:

George Karl
@CoachKarl22
Hey
@carmeloanthony
let’s not do this. You’re telling stories that are 20 years old. Let’s move fwd

And u were overrated and u wish your game was as efficient as Detlef’s.

Carmelo
Pts/100: 32.8
TS: .543 .
OBPM: 2.5
DBPM: -1.2
ORTG: 108
DRTG: 109

Detlef
Pts/100: 23.6
TS: .586 .
OBPM: 1.9
DBPM: -0.1
ORTG: 117
DRTG: 107

If the question is which guy is better to carry a low talent team to 40-50 wins the answer is Melo. If the goal is to win a title and Melo probably has to be a 1a or 1b to Detlef being a #2 or 3 I'd probably choose Detlef.

hmm Shrimp was a very good 2nd/3rd option player tho

The poll results are confusing, is the question "Who was Better?" or "Who would I prefer to have?" If it's the former then Detlef Schrempf should have ZERO votes.

I read this as "Carmelo vs Belief".

I thought it was gonna be a thread about Carmelo being delusional lol.

I'm pretty low on 'melo compared to the mainstream, but I don't understand this thread. They're different kinds of player. It's almost like comparing Carmelo to Derek Fisher.

onedayattatime wrote:I'm pretty low on 'melo compared to the mainstream, but I don't understand this thread. They're different kinds of player. It's almost like comparing Carmelo to Derek Fisher.

I think Detlef could have scored the same as Carmelo with slightly better efficiency while playing better defense.
Carmelo
Pts/100: 32.8
TS: .543 .

Detlef
Pts/100: 23.6
TS: .586 .

TheShow2021 wrote:

onedayattatime wrote:I'm pretty low on 'melo compared to the mainstream, but I don't understand this thread. They're different kinds of player. It's almost like comparing Carmelo to Derek Fisher.

I think Detlef could have scored the same as Carmelo with slightly better efficiency while playing better defense.
Carmelo
Pts/100: 32.8
TS: .543 .

Detlef
Pts/100: 23.6
TS: .586 .

More than likely not true.

Schrempf was better in his role than Melo was in his, and he was a better overall shooter, for sure. More willing team player, better defender, etc. Different mindset/mentality. Different responsibilities. Hard to envision Schrempf anchoring a team's scoring attack, though.

Like, Karl was definitely being a dong when he made that comparison. It's like comparing... Hedo Turkoglu's best season to Dominique Wilkins. Melo gets a lot of flak, but it's mostly because his fan base wants to reach him into a tier in which he doesn't belong, not because he wasn't a pretty good player.

What's the full context of this tweet?

Karl always comes off as more pathetic than Melo even though I think he has the better objective case. Coaches are supposed to be mature not issuing petty tweets about people you haven't worked with an almost a decade and a half

For context.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2358781

Don't know about the comments or the Karl aspect.

I don't think it's an unreasonable comp. They are different types of player (and I don't think either could do the other's job). But you can compare different archetypes. GMs have to.

I guess the "rather have" version (versus "better") as others have offered would be with regard to accounting for salary. I would tend to include intangibles in with the player stuff. And if you have to pay Melo big money [and he still might campaign his way out] I think the rather have question ... at first glance at least seems fairly clear (haven't checked Detlef's salaries versus league norms). But even for better player I'm not sure this is open and shut. Schrempf didn't getting going great out of the gates in Dallas, which hurts him. Carmelo stayed too long which helps his cumulative stats and hurts his averages. (All RS) WS/48 is strongly pro Detlef. BPM and total WS more narrowly so (especially the latter). VORP tilts for Carmelo. PER (and EWA) fairly clearly prefer Carmelo (to be expected given the usage gap). Otoh, off limited databall era stuff, iirc Schrempf looks very good, Carmelo ... isn't so strong net.


Since I see there's something about overrated...
I will say ...
when Karl arrived (that year), Carmelo and Denver were pretty poor - Hollinger had his splits using the All-Star break as the dividing line - as follows
fga/40: 18.8; 18.9
pts/40: 21.9; 27.6
fta/40: 7.5; 11.1
3pt att/40: 2,8; 1.6
fg%: 40.6; 47.5 (he is taking fewer threes per above so this slightly overstates the field efficiency gap)
There were people in both his first two years saying how he should have been an all-star, he was snubbed etc against a Western Conference forward field of not just the guys that made it (Garnett, Duncan, Nowitzki et al) but those who didn't (Marion, Brand, Gasol et al). He was a high pick with big hype ... given those stats and that status he probably was pretty wildly overrated, at least by some.

I don't think, without knowing the details, bickering about whatever happened after the fact will make either man look good.

If you need a volume scorer then Melo. He was a completely different animal in that sense. But I reckon most playoff teams would rather add Detlef to their existing cores, so....

GeorgeMarcus wrote:If you need a volume scorer then Melo. He was a completely different animal in that sense. But I reckon most playoff teams would rather add Detlef to their existing cores, so....

Role matters, absolutely.

sp6r=underrated wrote:Karl always comes off as more pathetic than Melo even though I think he has the better objective case. Coaches are supposed to be mature not issuing petty tweets about people you haven't worked with an almost a decade and a half

?s=20

Special_Puppy wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:Karl always comes off as more pathetic than Melo even though I think he has the better objective case. Coaches are supposed to be mature not issuing petty tweets about people you haven't worked with an almost a decade and a half

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Yeah that's weird. I mean technically it's not really in question, so not really - on the facts of it - a shot ("You aren't as good as Nikola Jokic"), but just going out of your way to say it in that way seems vindictive.

tsherkin wrote:Schrempf was better in his role than Melo was in his, and he was a better overall shooter, for sure. More willing team player, better defender, etc. Different mindset/mentality. Different responsibilities. Hard to envision Schrempf anchoring a team's scoring attack, though.

When needed, he did that quite a bit with the German national team, for example scoring only slightly less than Petrovic at the Eurobasket 1985 for example, finishing third at 24.38 ppg over 8 games.
https://www.proballers.com/basketball/league/143/eurobasket/leaders/1985

As he had two seasons in the NBA scoring about 19 ppg on rather low volume while dishing out 6 and 3.8 apg respectively, one could envision him as a 22-25 ppg scorer quite easily at least for a couple of seasons. I guess that his mindset and circumstances (playing on teams that had more clear-cut scorers in Reggie Miller and Chuck Person or those balanced Sonics) made him adapt more to the role that he eventually played, but I think he could have been more of a scorer. Good enough to anchor a team's scoring attack? Probably not for a championship team, but Carmelo wasn't that exactly either.

Masigond wrote:When needed, he did that quite a bit with the German national team, for example scoring only slightly less than Petrovic at the Eurobasket 1985 for example, finishing third at 24.38 ppg over 8 games.

Maybe. I tend not to care about 80s Euroleague as a measure of NBA scoring ability, though, so that one lands only so hard.

He WAS a quality high-teens scorer. He definitely benefited from the pulled-in line in 95, but he'd done it in 93 before that.

It behooves one to remember how much he worked off others, though, so it's hard to really envision him in that focal scorer role. You could build an offense which featured him scoring more, but I don't know that it's quite the same as evaluating him as a player filling the same role as Melo, you know what I mean?

tsherkin wrote:It behooves one to remember how much he worked off others, though, so it's hard to really envision him in that focal scorer role. You could build an offense which featured him scoring more, but I don't know that it's quite the same as evaluating him as a player filling the same role as Melo, you know what I mean?

I guess so but I don't see this ability to be so necessary to anchor a team's offense. When a player is so versatile, a good shooter and intelligent to play up to his strengths, he can be the focal point of a team's offense even when working off others most of the time. I mean, isn't that what Reggie Miller did for most of his career (even though he could create for himself, too, but by no means was he that iso scorer that is often seen as a focal scorer when everyone tried to emulate Jordan without recognizing that his teams were best when he was working off others more), anchoring some really good offenses?

Masigond wrote:I guess so but I don't see this ability to be so necessary to anchor a team's offense.

I suppose that depends on your definition of the word "anchor" in context.

I don't think someone who primarily functions off-ball and isn't an elite creator is truly an anchor at Schrempf's skill level. At some point, he isn't creating enough offense for others to truly be the basis for how the team plays and how it leverages strength on O. Now, in comparison to Melo who was only so good at doing so himself, that does get interesting. But stepping away from the comparison, I think he'd look worse as his volume rose and I don't think the team impact would scale up.

I mean, isn't that what Reggie Miller did for most of his career (even though he could create for himself, too, but by no means was he that iso scorer that is often seen as a focal scorer when everyone tried to emulate Jordan without recognizing that his teams were best when he was working off others more), anchoring some really good offenses?

Yeah but I don't really think Reggie anchored most of their best offenses so much as was a significant participant therein inside of an ensemble cast, tbh.