oaktownwarriors87 wrote:What the hell? Since when did the argument become are they great players?
Since both players showed signs of greatness, but welcome to the picture. We've been dealing with some poor fool who thinks Yakouhba Diawara is better than Michael Beasley because Spolestra started Diawara over him.
The thread is Randolph vs Beasley, not Beasley or Randolph is a great player. Yeah, they are both great players, we all know that. Anyone who says other wise should check out you tube. But it's not about if they are great, it's about who is better.
These threads always take on a more roundabout argument like this, especially when one player looks as if they're starting to pull away from the topic, as Beasley appears to be doing now.
This reminds me of Thank You For Smoking. In the movie they say you just have to make the other sides point look wrong, you don't even have to prove your own point. As long as the other side is wrong, you are right. Here people are also just making true statements, and as long as they post true positive statements about one player than they are right. Yeah, we all know that player is great but who is better?
Can you honestly say you're not guilty of the same thing? When you were whining about Beasley getting to play alongside Wade, were you mentioning the Ricky Davis effect for Randolph (player putting up good stats on a lousy team)? Or how about this doozy of a line from you? "it looks like on your stats you forgot the defensive numbers... just like your boy forgot how to play defense, so I guess I should have expected it." Now, anyone who's watched Beasley this season knows his defense has improved greatly since the allstar break, yet here you are trying to make the other side's point look wrong.
Who cares about one game, who care about 5 games, what about the overall picture? I think that argument ended about 10-15 pages ago.
When one player looks to have clearly turned a corner, while the other has not (ie, still inconsistent), you most certainly can bring up 5 games. Are they a deciding factor? When things are close, perhaps so.
For example, Player A averages 15 points a game, while Player B averages 15 points a game. Player A, however, is averaging 23 points a game over his last 5, his numbers never dipping below 20 in a game, while Player B is chugging along at 15, with some big games and some below average games getting him to that number. Clearly, people can look at Player A and say it looks like he's figured it out, I'll take him. That is a truly valid POV.
Beasly is going to be rich mans combo of Harrington/Boozer, which is a great player and Randolph is going to be a rich mans version of Smith/Odom, also a great player. What would you rather have? Beasley is smother, more refined, thicker... Randolphs longer, more athletic, more active. Randolphs is going to be a great point forward, Beasley is going to be a great power forward. Will Beasley ever step it up defensively? Will Randolph have the work ethic to refine his game? Is Beasley tough enough? Is Randolph big thick enough? Is Beasley long enough? Are they mature enough?
What kind of player do you like? What kind of risk are you willing to take? That's what it comes down to.
And Golden State fans clearly prefer Randolph while Miami fans clearly prefer Beasley. Right now, Beasley's numbers and impact are such that I would imagine most non Miami / non Golden State fans would prefer Beasley...
Beasley lead the Heat in +/-, and in the two quarters he played (1st and 3rd), the Heat outscored the Hawks 49-44. They did not play him at all in the 4th, because he is no scrub, and was too good to be put out there against the Hawks scrubs. His numbers came against the Hawks starters, who also played in the 1st and 3rd quarters.
