Who in your opinion puts up the most empty stats...

Moderators: bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake

User avatar
MrDollarBills
RealGM
Posts: 76,238
And1: 52,926
Joined: Feb 15, 2008
       

 

Post#61 » by MrDollarBills » Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:46 pm

Lamar Odom and Zach Randolph
Please consider donating blood: https://www.nybc.org/

2025-2026 Indiana Pacers

C: J. Valanciunas/
PF: K. Kuzma/J. Robinson-Earl
SF: C. Williams/J. Howard
SG: G. Allen/
PG: B. Simmons/C. Payne
ice9
Veteran
Posts: 2,983
And1: 140
Joined: Feb 22, 2006

 

Post#62 » by ice9 » Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:49 pm

Bgil wrote:
Jordan is overrated because his 57 win team won 55 games by starting Pete Meyers in his place. No one here likes to talk about that at all


Cause its a stupid argument, and I know I've refuted you on this before.

1) The 93 team had an expected win total of 58 (based on point differential), the 94 team had an expected win total of 50.

2) When you when back to back titles, every team gets up for playing against you, they had to face everyone's best effort night after night.

3)The roster was different. Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, Longley, and Wennington were all added. 4 of these guys would be big role players for the 2nd 3 peat.

4) Pip, BJ, and Grant all had career years, not equaled before or after that season, with or without MJ.

5) The 93 Bulls won the championship, the 94 Bulls (PHANTOM FOUL!) got bounced in the 2nd round.

You are trying to compare 2 different situations and rosters. If you want an apples to apples comparison, check out the 94-95 season, where the Bulls were 13-4 with MJ (.765, or 63 wins over a season) and 34-31 without him (.523, or 43 wins over a season). And that was a rusty, out of shape MJ who had no chemistry with his new teammates. Don't forget the Bulls had win totals of 72, 69, 67, 62, and 61 with him in the 90s.

But you never want to talk about this....
CBS7
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,572
And1: 4,202
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Location: Dallas

 

Post#63 » by CBS7 » Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:54 pm

Duiz wrote:Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul (considering his stats the hornets should end the season with 75 wins), and the winner IMO LeBron James.


That doesn't even make sense.
User avatar
BrooklynBulls
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 32,734
And1: 2,655
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Avidly reading WillPenney.com
Contact:

 

Post#64 » by BrooklynBulls » Tue Apr 8, 2008 2:47 pm

CBS7 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



That doesn't even make sense.


He's just baiting. Ignore it.

But imo it's got to be Corey Maggette. I watch Clippers games, he has a few nice drives, a few good jumpers, and no defensive impact whatsoever, and i look at his line and it tells me he has 24 points on 7-11 with a three and 9-11 FT. He has phantom stats. I can't really even explain it.

When Maggette has a good game, he just seems to be in the flow, and aggressive. The Clippers as a team don't seem to fare at all better, though. When Maggette has a bad game, he sticks out like a sore thumb.
magicfan4life05
RealGM
Posts: 23,617
And1: 198
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Location: Welcome back the Comeback King !

 

Post#65 » by magicfan4life05 » Tue Apr 8, 2008 2:55 pm

charlie villanueva
Dwight Howard on his FT struggles:

"I just think everybody needs to stop talking about it," Howard said. "There's more to life than free throws."
CBS7
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 26,572
And1: 4,202
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Location: Dallas

 

Post#66 » by CBS7 » Tue Apr 8, 2008 4:38 pm

BrooklynBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



He's just baiting. Ignore it.


I'd like to see someone justify that.
User avatar
ak06ma
Veteran
Posts: 2,648
And1: 47
Joined: Dec 10, 2006

 

Post#67 » by ak06ma » Tue Apr 8, 2008 4:55 pm

It has to be KEVIN MARTIN.
Blackfyre
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,106
And1: 1,498
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Location: Estonia
     

 

Post#68 » by Blackfyre » Tue Apr 8, 2008 5:01 pm

MrDollarBills wrote:Lamar Odom and Zach Randolph
Wtf Lamar ? He is playing one of his best basketball in entire career right now and you say him ? He is one of the most important pieces in Los Angeles. I agree with Zach Randolph.
Bgil
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,812
And1: 1
Joined: Dec 16, 2005

 

Post#69 » by Bgil » Tue Apr 8, 2008 5:37 pm

1) The 93 team had an expected win total of 58 (based on point differential), the 94 team had an expected win total of 50.


Garbage point. The Bulls won 55 games, period. Everyone thought the Bulls would be much worse because "Jordan made them all better" and they clearly weren't. Not as good as the previous season, of course, but still an borderline contender.
What Jordan actually brought to the team was greatly overstated.

*now focus on that word "overstated" because I know someone is going to claim I implied that he was trash or some other nonsense*

2) When you when back to back titles, every team gets up for playing against you, they had to face everyone's best effort night after night.


Proof? One could just as easily claim that teams were intimidated by the back-to-back titles and played worse.
Phil Jackson had an interesting view on the last 3-peat season and it doesn't vibe with what you've claimed.

3)The roster was different. Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, Longley, and Wennington were all added. 4 of these guys would be big role players for the 2nd 3 peat.


Valid point although Longley and Wennington were only "big role players" because they were present not because they were good. There's a reason why they had to use multiple centers in place of one good one and it wasn't by choice.

Either way it doesn't negate my point. You couldn't trade those players (as a group) for Jordan so they clearly weren't anywhere near talented enough to match what most people imagined could replace Jordan.
They still replaced him with scrubs and rooks (Kerr notwithstanding) and won 55.

4) Pip, BJ, and Grant all had career years, not equaled before or after that season, with or without MJ.


Imagine that. Jordan leaves and players spread their wings. Basically supports my case that he didn't make the team better to the extent that his stats would suggest.

Phil's take on that was that MJ was somewhat constricting to them individually. For instance, he claimed BJ Armstrong thought of himself as nearly as good as Isaiah Thomas but never got the chance to showcase it on the Bulls. Numerous players on the Bulls weren't used to their full potential while Jordan was around that can't be denied (however ridiculous BJ's self-image was). Some of the players, like BJ, simply didn't like Jordan personally. I'm sure that probably factored into things a bit.

5) The 93 Bulls won the championship, the 94 Bulls (PHANTOM FOUL!) got bounced in the 2nd round.


So? They weren't as good. No one denies this. What's in question is how much Jordan actually added to the team and does it match the opinion of most RealGMers' (I think it doesn't) and does it match what he statistically produced (it obviously doesn't).

Like I said, Jordan may or may not be the GOAT but he's overrated by the average RealGMer either way.

You are trying to compare 2 different situations and rosters. .

The roster changes were all minimal (excluding Jordan himself) and the situation was exactly the same. Same league, same competition, same coach, same core players, same offense, same defense etc.

If you want an apples to apples comparison, check out the 94-95 season, where the Bulls were 13-4 with MJ (.765, or 63 wins over a season) and 34-31 without him (.523, or 43 wins over a season)


Interesting point. Lots of it was due to Jordan taking the place of the 6.3ppg Harper. Lots of it was due playing some extremely weak teams. Lots of it was due to the team going through the natural gelling process that Phil's team's go through as the get more familiar with the offense.
MJ, IMO, certainly saved Phil's job there.

Don't forget the Bulls had win totals of 72, 69, 67, 62, and 61 with him in the 90s.

What does that have to do with singling out Jordan's impact from the rest of his team?
The 90's were a pretty weak era of basketball in terms of the teams it produced (outside of the Bulls). The league was over-expanded and the Bulls were probably the only legendary team to play in that era. Besides, Jordan after baseball was a superior player in many respects to who he was previously IMO. That and the team was ridiculously loaded.
"I'm sure they'll jump off the bandwagon. Then when we do get back on top, they're going to want to jump back on, and we're going to tell them there's no more room." - Kobe in March of 2005
Village Idiot
General Manager
Posts: 9,502
And1: 2,213
Joined: Jan 23, 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
   

 

Post#70 » by Village Idiot » Tue Apr 8, 2008 6:21 pm

Josh Smith gets my vote.

He puts up amazing stats but doesn't seem like a guy who makes an impact on the W-L column.
"There are no right answers to wrong questions." - Ursula K. Le Guin
Malinhion
Banned User
Posts: 10,071
And1: 3
Joined: Oct 03, 2006
Location: Holding a Players-Only Meeting

 

Post#71 » by Malinhion » Tue Apr 8, 2008 6:36 pm

Kevin Durant. The fact that 20 PPG will win you a RoY regardless of the fact that you're shooting 42% on the league's worst team is atrocious.
east/beastD-12
Banned User
Posts: 627
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 22, 2008

 

Post#72 » by east/beastD-12 » Tue Apr 8, 2008 6:40 pm

Its not even a contest the overwhelming vote should go to the self proclaimed best point guard in the game Stephon marbury. :nod:
Blame Rasho
On Leave
Posts: 42,148
And1: 9,858
Joined: Apr 25, 2002

 

Post#73 » by Blame Rasho » Tue Apr 8, 2008 6:46 pm

Malinhion wrote:Kevin Durant. The fact that 20 PPG will win you a RoY regardless of the fact that you're shooting 42% on the league's worst team is atrocious.


They aren't the worst team.... :rofl:
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,234
And1: 31,824
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

 

Post#74 » by tsherkin » Tue Apr 8, 2008 7:02 pm

I think the clear value Jordan added to the team was that he was the most dominant scorer in basketball during the majority of his career and he drew a stunning amount of defensive coverage. He was also a brilliant defender and an outstanding clutch performer.

He added big-time to the Bulls' roster, which is why they won the titles with him, not without him and why they were fairly poor without him before his return in 94-95.

In 93-94, Pippen was playing very well but no differently than he had with Jordan on at least one other occasion (91-92) and then during the 94-95 season (but of course Jordan barely played that year).

One thing to consider is that Pippen pretty much hit his prime when Jordan left, he was 28 that year and everything had come together. But he still didn't score appreciably more than he had with Jordan.

The biggest difference was the reliance on the other players. Ho Grant took a career-high in FGA/g and delivered only the second (and last) 14+ ppg performance of his career at 15.1 ppg (he had previously scored 14.2 ppg WITH Jordan in the 91-92 season).

So again, it really wasn't something that was a huge deal for these guys to do, they'd done it before WITH Jordan.

Of some note is that they were the slowest Chicago team to that point, I guess, which makes the scoring values a little more impressive when you pause to consider them.

BJ Armstrong had a career year and nearly matched it the year after, but he was bombing away more than usual from downtown. He'd had 10+ FGA/g with Jordan on the squad in 92-93 but his efficiency dropped a little when Jordan left (though that's almost assuredly to do with the increase in 3PA rather than MJ's departure).

But maybe MJ's departure did free him up a little, I mean he and Ho Grant were more involved in the offense. The FGA/g might have been the same but they were definitely getting more possessions each game than they were with Jordan.

Armstrong was getting like 2 or 3 extra possessions per 40 minutes without MJ. Grant got about 2 extra possessions per 40 without MJ in 93-94 as well.

So a few extra touches, a little bit more responsibility, probably a little but more freedom (Grant got noticeably more FGA/g, so his touches translated directly into extra shots).

Kukoc was a rookie that year, but he came in and provided some pretty significant assistance. He was a double-digit scorer, a pretty reasonable rebounder for a swing and an excellent passer. He was also a pretty dangerous 3pt shooter in the playoffs.

They got Kerr for the first time in 93-94 and he was the most accurate 3pt shooter in NBA history until Kapono came along (and of course, he's got the limited sample size deal). That was another pretty big thing for the Bulls offensively because of floor spacing.

Also, just to make a note:

The 92-93 Bulls were 2nd in the league in offensive efficiency; the 93-94 Bulls were 14th. You want a measurable impact from Jordan's absence, there it is. They were, however, marginally better on D (6th as opposed to 7th, so basically no change).

Anyway, while it's true that the 93-94 Bulls won 55 games, they definitely overachieved. I'm sure they took advantage of the psychological factor from Jordan's absence, teams took their foot off the gas pedal a little against them.

They were still a good team; they had a great nucleus, a great coach, an outstanding instillation of defensive principles, good ball movement, great floor spacing...

At any rate, they took care of business at home and didn't suck on the road. They were, however, considerably better at home... and they scored a LOT more at home than they did on the road (a little over an extra 5 ppg). And they let off the gas in the second half; their winning percentage dropped about 12% after the All-Star break, although that's not very unusual. That said, the reverse was true in their previous season, with Jordan. He helped keep them more focused.

Also, of some consideration is how they got their wins; they were mostly a team slightly better than .500 except for two months (December and January) where they went 23-5; you'll notice they were otherwise 32-22, though they closed the season 9-3.

They also beat up pretty badly on their division, they were 21-7 against the Central division (17-11 against the Atlantic). Their division included two of the three worst teams in basketball (20-win squads), a .500 squad.

The point? The Bulls without Jordan were considerably different and while they did well in the regular season in his absence, they were exposed in the playoffs, mainly because they were a lot worse offensively without him, regardless of their record.
User avatar
celticfan42487
RealGM
Posts: 27,526
And1: 15,365
Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Location: Billerica, MA
       

 

Post#75 » by celticfan42487 » Wed Apr 9, 2008 8:39 pm

Village Idiot wrote:Josh Smith gets my vote.

He puts up amazing stats but doesn't seem like a guy who makes an impact on the W-L column.


In all honestly I get the same impression. He does a lot of good stuff.. but it's the fluff stuf so to speak. Intimidation, Amazing really makes a player take one or two shots and the small guys are going to be adjusting their shot to make sure he isn't going to block it.. but how many times have you seen him block the shot on his man two times in a row only for the player to gather the ball and score on him?

Where is taken up space on the post for rebounds? Where is the threat from mid-range or the keeping defense uptight with his back to the basket play? Where are the steals that come from playing postional defense and poking the ball away rather then gambling on passes? He puts up AMAZING stats... but none of it seems to be got in a consistent way to really help his team out.
Image

Return to The General Board