Whom is better? Mikki Moore or Shelden Williams?

JHTruth · Post #1 » by **JHTruth** » Mon Aug 3, 2009 9:34 pm

And please a little more than, they both suck hard.

LOL. Thanks!

dozencousins · Post #2 » by **dozencousins** » Mon Aug 3, 2009 9:52 pm

How does this apply to our board neither are KINGS players anymore & neither did to much as a KING they are not 1 of the great KINGS like C-WEBB,DIVAC,BIBBY etc. so their is no point to this topic !

Go back to CELTIC LAND ! :lol:

sd_kingsfan · Post #3 » by **sd_kingsfan** » Mon Aug 3, 2009 9:58 pm

Sheldon was toughness with no finesse, and Moore was finesse with no toughness. Both very 1 dimensional players that add little to the win column. If I had to have one on my team I would take Sheldon over the Mikki "the ghost" Moore. But I guess that depends on if your team needs toughness or Finesse.

Website · Post #4 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Mon Aug 3, 2009 10:30 pm

I guess it has a lot to do with fit.

Personally I think Moore is more valuable then people give him credit for and his work doesn't show up on the stat sheet. Shelden puts up poor numbers AND doesn't have the intangible factor. Although he DOES add a lot of physicality to a team.

KM44 · Post #5 » by **KM44** » Mon Aug 3, 2009 10:39 pm

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:I guess it has a lot to do with fit.

Personally I think Moore is more valuable then people give him credit for and his work doesn't show up on the stat sheet. Shelden puts up poor numbers AND doesn't have the intangible factor. Although he DOES add a lot of physicality to a team.

Well put sir.
Basically:
Moore- energy
Williams- strength

SacKingZZZ · Post #6 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 12:37 am

Mikki's tall, pretty athletic, more of a hustle guy. Shelden's a brute. Both can hit the jumper pretty well. Mikki can dunk with ease, Shelden isn't really all that great near the basket. I like Shelden more myself but Mikki can do more.

SacKingZZZ · Post #7 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 12:40 am

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:I guess it has a lot to do with fit.

Personally I think Moore is more valuable then people give him credit for and his work doesn't show up on the stat sheet. Shelden puts up poor numbers AND doesn't have the intangible factor. Although he DOES add a lot of physicality to a team.

Shelden rebounds at a very effective rate at least, Mikki Moore is a statistical blackhole. He'll take a charge or two a game, hit a few jumpers, but as for "big man" stats, look elsewhere.

diogo_pt · Post #8 » by **diogo_pt** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 2:40 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:Mikki's tall, pretty athletic, more of a hustle guy. Shelden's a brute. Both can hit the jumper pretty well. Mikki can dunk with ease, Shelden isn't really all that great near the basket. I like Shelden more myself but Mikki can do more.

True.

i'll choose maybe Shelden because he's younger

Smills91 · Post #9 » by **Smills91** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 3:17 am

Moore is better. Shelden's just younger and gets 'potential' bandied about him. He has none.

Dustin5566 · Post #10 » by **Dustin5566** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 3:21 am

Moore is easily the better player. Moore gives you energy and Sheldon just looks uninterested..

Post #11 » by **Wolfay** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 5:00 am

WHOM? I haven't heard anyone say that in awhile

Anyway, your question is like asking which is better, diarrhea or constipation? Personally, I'd take diarrhea (Moore). At least with Moore, the job gets done even though it doesn't feel right, but with Sheldon, you can push all you want, but it won't accomplish much and you're going to end up needing something else to help.

sacking123 · Post #12 » by **sacking123** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 6:00 am

Wolfay wrote:WHOM? I haven't heard anyone say that in awhile

Anyway, your question is like asking which is better, diarrhea or constipation? Personally, I'd take diarrhea (Moore). At least with Moore, the job gets done even though it doesn't feel right, but with Sheldon, you can push all you want, but it won't accomplish much and you're going to end up needing something else to help.

I was LOL for a couple of minutes after that. Absolute classic. Well done

SacKingZZZ · Post #13 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 6:36 am

Smills91 wrote:Moore is better. Shelden's just younger and gets 'potential' bandied about him. He has none.

Rather have Shelden as my backup C with all the beef in the east. Shelden is unusually strong. You can put him on Shaq and Dwight, Mikki would get eaten alive.

darkadun · Post #14 » by **darkadun** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 3:37 pm

Yeah, I'd go with Moore as well. Last year he played like crap, but the year before he had some good games for us. Sheldon is a enigma. His post defense is better, but other than that Moore is better.

Inc · Post #15 » by **Inc** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:23 pm

If they played a longer amount of minutes, I think Shelden will put up better stats and have more effect on the game, but if it's for a short minute of time, Mikki will be the better player.

Post #16 » by **pillwenney** » Tue Aug 4, 2009 10:06 pm

I'll take Shelden simply because I think Mikki is done at this point.

Cruel_Ruin · Post #17 » by **Cruel_Ruin** » Wed Aug 5, 2009 12:23 am

Both are fundamentally flawed players. It's speaks volumes about the Kings that both of them had a shot to be our starter last year.

Shelden is a center in an undersized PF's body. He has unreal strength, was decent rotating defensively, and rebounded at a solid rate. Unfortunately, he had no offensive abilities to speak of; he couldn't finish around the basket because of his lack of arm length, lack of size, and lack of athleticism, he had an inconsistent jumpshot, and he didn't have a good understanding of the pick and roll. Heaven forbid you ever let him post up, he was like a headless chicken on the block with no go-to move and robotic footwork.

Mikki on the other hand was a scrawny PF in a 7 footers body. A good athlete, played the pick and roll well, had a decent jumpshot and could hit a jump hook every now and then. Played with good activity and attitude, and would sacrifice his body to take a charge. Unfortunately everything else from there is a negative. Terrible, terrible hands; he fumbled anything that wasn't a bounce pass. Rail thin frame meant he couldn't absorb contact at all. And don't be fooled by his athleticism and activity, he was a terrible defender who was frequently caught out of position, not giving effort (the reason why he relatively stayed out of foul trouble. He was a shotblocker in his younger days, but stopped trying in his recent years, see his rebounding rate), and could be backed down in the post by many of the SFs in the NBA.

If I had to choose a young Mikki or current Shelden, it would probably be Mikki because he at least wouldn't hurt your offensive fluidity and doesn't have Shelden's positional concerns. But current Mikki is probably got zero left in the tank as far as his career is concerned, so it would have to be Shelden.

Draino · Post #18 » by **Draino** » Wed Aug 5, 2009 6:02 am

funny how two scrubs who didn't do anything for the kings, get signed by the CELTICS hahahha

NBA... it's amazing

SacKingZZZ · Post #19 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Wed Aug 5, 2009 7:57 am

Actually, Mikki is the kind of scrub that can help a team like the C's. My only question is why did our GM think he'd be worth 12 million + to us? Hahaha.

deNIEd · Post #20 » by **deNIEd** » Wed Aug 5, 2009 6:38 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:Actually, Mikki is the kind of scrub that can help a team like the C's. My only question is why did our GM think he'd be worth 12 million + to us? Hahaha.

Same reason we thought Beno is worth 33 million