Zach Randolph or Antoine Walker?

[shawngoat23]

Which beastly 20/10 stud ( ) would you rather have on your team, playing for significant minutes?

God forbid, which player which you rather build around? You can't cut or trade this guy and you must give him significant minutes.

[Concept Coop]

Randolph.

[NetsForce]

Walker. At least he was funny.

[TMACFORMVP]

Assuming it's prime Antoine Walker, I'd take him, he's at least a decent play-maker and put his stats on playoff teams.

[ronnymac2]

I predict that in a few years, the rules will change, and 4-pointers will exist. If that happens, I want Toine on my team...carrying my team to the title.........

[BrooklynBulls]

I would not at all mind Randolph playing significant minutes on the Bulls (say 20) at the minimum salary. He's a really skilled offensive player and rebounder, and if his contract wasn't an albatross, he wouldn't be a punchline. His efficiencies are often mediocre, but that's still fine coming from a bench player.

[TheSheriff]

Walker had some solid seasons. And he filled up the stat sheet, while not play atrocious defense, I wouldn't want him jacking up threes the way he was prone to, but he a fixture on the Celtics that went deep into the playoffs and the third option on a World Championship team.

[RutgersBJJ]

No, Walker never had a solid season. He never shot the ball well. Randolph at least plays in the post and when he does he is very successful. It isn't his fault people pass him the ball when he is out in the mid-range area. The team's point guard should be smart enough to know he is going to jack that shot if you give it to him.

Walker was never a good player, he rode the coat-tails of a prime Paul Pierce to the ECF. Randolph is the better rebounder, scorer, and has better shot selection. A miss, is a miss. I would rather have the player who has the occasional airball, than the player with the consistent bricks.

[richboy]

Yeah Walker played with Pierce. Zach never played truly as a number 2.

[TMACFORMVP]

I disagree he rode the "coat-tails" of Pierce to the ECF. In the playoffs that season, Walker averaged, 22.1 points per game, 8.6 rebounds per game, 3.3 assists per game on over 41% from the field, and 38% from distance (making 42 threes the whole postseason, which led the NBA). Now you'll point to the atrocious 41% shooting, but Pierce in that playoff run as a whole shot WORSE from the field and from distance.

Pierce averaged 24/8/4 throughout the playoffs, but 40% from the field and 28% from distance.

I agree he's a no defense chucker that put up hollow stats at times, but he led their team in rebounding, and essentially assists (5.0 per game, Anderson led the team at 5.3) all while averaging over 22 points per game. Pierce was their best player, unquestionably, and did lead that team, but Walker was an essential piece to that team and their success, certainly not riding the cottails of Pierce.

Can't believe I'm defending Antoine Walker...

[nba_addict]

Walker. Championship ring speaks for itself.

[Point forward]

LOL at this hilarious comparison. I would take Z-Bo, at least he is a "consistent" in his empty 20/10 stats, and do not forget: "THEY SCARED NOW!!"

[Lakers05]

No such things as empty stats. EFF-wise, he's really a #3(starter) guy, as opposed to #1. I mean just imagine a team where Odom, Manu, etc is your best player, all of their stats are going to look empty, because such a team will lose consistently.

Now as a #3, I'll take Randolph because it appears his defense is slightly better than Walker's. In addition, he has enough bulk that you can hide him at the center spot, whereas you can't do the same with Walker(well, you can try, but he'll probably do even worse there than at PF.)

While Walker can play the 3, his stats there are equal to a #4, i.e a bench player, at best.