And? What does it matter if he hits his only shot at a more effective clip than Grant hits his wide variety of shots? I don't think Shaq has a full aresnal of shots, but their is no way I take Ewing or Robinson (and their jumpers) over him.
OT dunks, and Shaq dunks. Yet you still don't see the difference in their games. A true homer speaks. Ok, thanks for playing...heh heh...
And the point was that OT was a better individual player than Grant. This is not true. OT was a specialist. Grant was a "basketball player" that did more than just dunk.
David, how many times do you have to read the basketball rulebook to figure out that every single shot inside the three point line counts for two points? Apparently you haven't figured that out yet.
LMAO, that is your strongest argument, Grant was a "basketball player" and had "between the lines" skills, despite Thorpe's higher production on the court. Pure desperation. That's real convenient, and dovetails nicely with your previous arguments about how when the Bulls score 78 points its done with "artistry" and "skill", but when the Rockets score 96 points it's "uglyball". DavidS, we all already know you have some wierd agenda, the question I am trying to get at is why?
OT did more than just dunk. He was a good rebounder, decent passer and played good D. He was a banger....the exact type of PF we wish we had now. None of Grant's numbers clearly outshine Thorpe's. Actually, Otis has an edge in scoring and rebounding....what else do you want from a PF?
It's the AI effect.... If AI shots 30-40 times a game, why are people surprised that he scored 40 points?
What are you talking about? Here's you.... Player A = Dunks all the time, shots 50%, scores 20ppg because all the shots go to him ONE YEAR = better player Player B = Dunks, shoots from the outside, also 50% FG, passes, runs the floor, scores 14ppg because he's the 3rd option = worse player. Get it? Did you even watch HOW OT got his points? You're acting like the guy was the best one-on-one post player that ever was! Open you eyes man! The deal is that you are biased. I am not. I have nothing to gain, nothing to lose by being on OT's side. You do. You're a homer.
Hmm, so you actually have a problem with someone shooting a lot when they are converting 50% of their shots (especially when that 50% is a career low)?
Depends. Are we talking about AI? He shoots 42%. If you are talking about OT. You're changing the subject. OT did his job. But saying that OT did his job does not equate that OT is a better player than Grant, just because OT is a Rocket and Grant was not. That's being biased. Get back on subject here...
DavidS, you started this whole thing when you claimed it was laughable to even try to compare the two. You persist in it despite having rambled for 2 pages now with no real evidence other than you personally find the way in which Horace Grant scored to be more aesthetically pleasing in spite of his inferior statistical output, not just over ONE year, but over the course of their entire careers. As I have said a hundred times over, "How" one scores points is meaningless as far as the rules of the game of basketball go, and those are the parameters of the comparison. Again, I ask what is your agenda on this? Did you live in Chicago? I lived in Chicago in 98, but the Bulls didn't have the mesmerizing effect on me that they had on you.
I recall Thorpe doing everything in the Player B category in 93/94. Actually, his numbers are almost identical to Grant's best season during the Bulls first 3-peat.
The "agenda" is open your eyes and stop being blinded by every thing critical that someone says about a player that is from Houston. I was raised and born in Houston. Living in Chicago? No. I will defend any player for any team that I feel that is getting a bad rap. It's just so easy for people to say, "So-and-so Rocket was better than some other player from another city when there's no fans from that city to defend that player. What's why I laugh when someone says that Maxwell could "stop" MJ just because he played him tough during the regular season. It's pure homerism and preaching to the choir.
I never left the subject. I don't believe I was the first to mention another player and their shot attempts. But since we are staying on subject, Thorpe had a great fg%, so why would there be a problem with him taking a lot of shots? I never said Thorpe was better. However, as Sam points out, his numbers are just as well, some even better, than Grants. His offensive numbers (which you based your entire argument on) are definately better than Grant's from a statistical standpoint. Sure, Horace had a jumper, but you still have yet to show how his expanded offensive arsenal made him a more effective offensive player. Please enlighten us. He had a chance to rise above the "third option" when Mike retired in 94, and he was only able to up his average by 4 ppg.
But david, I never even said he was that much better, though a case can be made that he is indeed slightly better. All I said was that it was ridiculous to write him off as if he couldn't even compare, as you did. That is ludicrous.
No it's not. How you score can determine a players ability to create his own shot or make a shot for someone else. If all you do is get open shots due to put backs, well, that's not talent. It's not the same as a player that can actually play the post one-on-one and crtea his own shot. So "how" you score can determine a players level of skill. You just say, "Oh, look he scores" that must mean that he's a prolific scorer. It's not the same.
I don't think anyone thinks Max could "stop" MJ. They just realize that he had a better chance of containing Jordan than the 3 Chicago stiffs had of containing Dream. At least with Max, Drexler and Elie, you had someone to throw at Mike. The Bulls had NO ONE for Dream.
But OT did not just score on put-backs. He did have a post game. he just didn;t have a jumper. The average PF dosen't.
David, having the most skill does not equal more effective. You know this. I know this. Icehouse knows this. I choose results over form. You choose the latter. You keep making this argument about more skill, but nobody is arguing you about it. The point of this thread, in the beginning, was not over who had more skill, but over what team would reach the better ultimate result. Now how is that being a homer?
