There's a difference between being optimistic and realistic. I'm optimistic that we'll be in the playoffs, but realistic enough to realize that we need some improvement at the C and PF before we make a run at anything. A proven franchise player, eh? I guess that's why the Grizzlies have been serious contenders in the playoffs for the last 4 years, they've had him . . . oh . . . wait . . . what I meant to say was that's why they've always had at least a .500 record . . . no, that's not it . . . hmmm . . . well, at least he hasn't let the Grizzlies be one of the worst teams in the league for the last 4 years . . . wait . . . no . . . Perhaps you remember when Ron Harper was a 20/5 guy for so many years with the Clippers? I guess he's a "proven franchise player" too, right? "one great player you can get for sure"? I'm sorry, you seem to want the Lauch Pad with ESP? Sorry, maybe I'll call Dionne Warwick and her psychic friends later and see, if I can give you an answer. Now, obviously, I would like to pursue Webber, who would fill a weakness in this team (i.e. PF), but I would also consider engineering a trade with another team using the excess cap space. A *cough* "franchise player" that doesn't solve any of our real weaknesses and is packaged with a $10 mil/year cap space killer with a long term contract. No thanks! ------------------ [This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited April 28, 2000).]
I hope my post didn't confuse my stance. In no way shape or form would I ever imagine that Big Country would be worth it (the years w/o cap space and the luxury tax). SAR isn't worth $20M. He never will be, not with the current CBA. ------------------
Exactly, we can improve our C and PF through the draft and offseason and then perhaps make a run. To say we have no chance to compete for a title before we even have done our offseason is ludicrous. Who knows what will happen, maybe we might get Duncan. But to flat out say we will not contend for the championship next year without knowing what happens b/w is just wrong. Ya I guess. Your Logic is that his team sucks, so he must suck. Too bad you weren't a GM, I would love to trade with you. But you see this all hypothecal. I don't think we have a good chance signing a big free agent even with cap space with new CBA rules. However, another person like you would disagree. Arguing over who we can get with our money in the future will be pointless so I'll end this point. What does he not solve? He provides another scoring threat, creates matchup problems for opponents, makes teammates around him better, and is very versatile. I realize with new CBA rules taking on 20 mil is quite crazy, but I can't turn away from a future lineup of Francis, Mobley, Shandon, Rahim, and Cato. Conclusion: I'm still up for this Rahim deal as rarely do you get a chance to acquire a guy as good as he is before his prime. However, with Swift declaring, and drafting Moiso more realistic, I cooling off as that is a much better route to take as there will be no PR diaster when we trade Dream. ------------------ Now that the NBA season is over, check out the premiere source for draft info. Draftsource.net [This message has been edited by rocketsfan34 (edited April 28, 2000).]
Trading Hakeem is completely out of the question. I dont care if we could get Shaq, Garnett and Duncan for him. That is f!cked up. To trade a legend who has gotten Houston its only two championships. Maybe some people tend to forget, but I will never forget those two years. Those were some of the best years of my life. And to trade away Dream for a fat ass like Big Country is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Also I dont know why everyone is dying to have Othella back. I think Kenny is going to be much better. Yeah Othella is good, but like Cabbage pointed out he plays absolutely no defense. I live in Houston and if the Rockets ever trade Hakeem away I will vote no on the freakin ballot. I consider myself the biggest Rocket fan in here (and Im sure u all think that honor belongs to you all), but if Hakeem leaves, I say to hell with the Rockets. So NO!!!!!!! DO NOT EVER EVER TRADE HAKEEM!!!! I dont care who we get. I dont even care if Hakeem says its okay with him, if he gets traded. Hakeem is untouchable just like Francis if not more. If Hakeem is healthy I think he should definitely come back for another year. I for one believe a healthy Dream could still give us 16 and 9. And if not, I dont care if he gives us 8 and 4. Well if I still havent made myself clear. KEEP HAKEEM!!!!! And shame on all of you who want to trade away the biggest hero in Houston sports history. ------------------ Now introducing the starting lineup for your Houston Rockets: Starting at Center, from Wake Forets TIM DUNCAN...
Personally I think it is a great deal for the Rockets. Unfortunately I don't think it would happen unless Dream requests it. With the #4 pick, we could package it with either Cato and/or our #9 pick and possibly move to the 1st slot. That would allow us to get Kenyon or Fizer. Although Reeves is overpaid, I would much rather pay him than Cato. Personally I don't think SAR is available for anything short of a good player (Mobley or Anderson or Stevie). I like the trade idea, but unless Dream requests it, it won't happen. ------------------
outlaw, That's exactly what I said, and no one seemed to listen. I think most people choose to forget about the arena referendum until it becomes a hot topic in the local media. Wake up people. No Hakeem ----- a good likelihood -----> No Rockets ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem.
As a Vancouver fan, this turned out to be a most interesting “fan psychology” experiment (although that was not my original intention). I had hoped you guys would come out with what seems to me to be the obvious – “no way would we trade our ‘hero’ for Country’s huge contract”. The discussions here seem to point out several things: Hope springs eternal in the true fan and I guess the tantalizing prospect of that #4 pick just proved too tempting for some people who think the Rockets just need that one piece to win it all. I applaud your optimism. For the guys who wouldn’t trade Dream for anything, I applaud your loyalty. I hope 12 years from today, I feel the same way about Rahim, Bibby and Dickerson. For the guys who think Reeves is washed up, overweight and will never be any good, you’re right but you’ve got the wrong reasons. If you look around the league closely, you’ll see what I call the “Big White Albatrosses (BWAs)” as a species are in major trouble. Here is an analysis of the following guys: Geiger, Montross, Bradley, Garrett, Dudley, Austin, Declerq, Divac (yes, Divac), Longley, Ostertag, Reeves, Willis, Polynice and Potapenko (yeah, I know some of them are BBAs). From 98-99 to this year, their combined averages for minutes went from 25.6 to 19.5, their rebounds from 6.4 to 5.0, their points from 8.4 to 6.3. For you Statistical Process Control freaks them data points will tell you that you’ve got a phenomenon that’s way outside standard deviation and needs to be studied. The average contract for these guys is 4.9 million per year! I could have a higher average salary if I included Dampier and McIlvaine, too, but they missed a large portion of games so comparisons aren’t fair for them. The reason for this across the board approximate 25% drop-off? More fouls due to the rule changes. The fouls per minute for the BWAs as a group went up from .122 to .147. Reeves is the only guy on the list whose rebounds actually went up and fouls per minute went down! Now, I’m not saying Big Country is a good player (guys like Sabonis and Smits are not BWA’s because they can pass and shoot outside). He is an albatross because of his huge contract (and so are 14 or 15 other guys – maybe even Cato) and because the game has changed significantly since they were signed. Country had an awful year, even though he was in way better shape than last year (from about 325 down to 280), because slow Centers (who are the primary help defenders in the paint) are in early foul trouble too much. All of these guys and their contracts should be avoided like the plague. The guy at bskbll.com that started this “hypothetical” trade, doesn’t do his homework before he throws something out there. The other reason Country is totally untradeable is really bad knees (it has been said that he will have to play his whole career in constant pain). I’m told he has cartilage damage that causes major bone on bone pain (youch!). Country is a big, slow dumb-looking individual but when you watch him close-up he actually tries as hard as anyone with his limited physical abilities. He isn’t at all mean enough but he doesn’t hesitate to take a hard knock and he sets fearless screens (not like Othella who is called for moving screens about twice a game). He is also actually pretty smart (he can tell you every statistic of virtually every player he plays against). He also is one of the few guys in the league who hasn’t b****ed and complained about his reduced role. I like the guy but if we could get rid of his huge contract, I repeat, I’d do it in a ‘ninnysecond’ ------------------
Rocketfan34 said=> Have I missed something over the last 4 years? How is Rahim suddenly a franchise player? Is it just me or has the value of that word really gone down the last few years? Sharif Abdur-Rahim couldnt even help the Grizzlies to a better record than the Steve Francis-Rockets, even with the help of Bibby and Dickerson. How is that a franchise player? Rahim is a nice complimentary star to have on your team, but he is in no way a franchise player. And that means that there is no way he is worth also taking on Big Country's contract. Oh yea, since when is Rahim in the class of Jordan, Duncan, and Garnett? --------------------------------- Launch Pad originally said=> To which Rocketfan34 responded=> I don't understand your logic here at all. I really doubt Launch Pad doesn't like Sharif Abdur Rahim. I'm sure he (as well as me) would have no trouble pulling the trigger on a deal for Rahim if it didn't include Big Country Reeves. Rahim's a nice player....neither of us are doubting that. However, he is in no way good enough to also take on Big Country. --------------------------------- 4chucke said=> Ummmm....ummmm, what?!!?. I would rather trade Cato myself, but there is no doubt in my mind he is atleast 20 times the superior of Big Country! Cato makes about $2million less, is athletic, and atleast thers is some minute hope for him. The chances are highly unlikely, but if he ever did get himself together he could be a potential All-Star with that athleticism of his. No matter how hard BC tries, he will always be too slow, too overweight. [This message has been edited by thacabbage (edited April 28, 2000).] [This message has been edited by thacabbage (edited April 28, 2000).]
This posting is expressly for the people that think Rahim would be a possible in such a trade. I say -- dream on. The guys who pick him as a “franchise” player have got it right. The same rules that have doomed the BWA to extinction (see above post) have made front-line men who are mobile even more valuable. IBM does this computer ranking of the most valuable players every year(they even count team wins in their formula, so there goes the Rahim sucks because his team sucks argument). Have a look: http://www.nba.com/news/shaq_IBMaward_000427.html Formula is: Player Pts.-FGA+REB+AST+STL+BL-PF-TO+(team wins x 10)x250 Team Pts.-FGA+REB+AST+STL+BL-PF-TO 1999-2000 results Shaquille O'Neal (L.A. Lakers), 117.46 points Dikembe Mutombo, (Atlanta), 107.04 Karl Malone (Utah), 101.59 Kevin Garnett (Minnesota),100.56 Gary Payton (Seattle), 96.43 Alonzo Mourning (Miami), 92.97 Tim Duncan (San Antonio), 92.56 Elton Brand (Chicago), 87.46 Shareef Abdur-Rahim (Vancouver), 86.95 David Robinson (San Antonio), 83.33 The rankings are heavily weighted to big men and before all you guys who want to argue that it’s nonsense because of this (“Where’s Stevie! He does everything for the Rocks except sell popcorn, fer chrissakes!”), think about this: Why did all those BWAs get the big contracts? It’s called the law of supply and demand. Good big men are rare and the reason they are more valuable is that they contribute to team success more than good little men (except for rare exceptions like Jordan and Payton). Sometimes they are needed simply to keep the other big men from rampaging through your team or be a counter-offensive to get them in foul trouble. Brand went #1 because of that, even though Francis has way more talent pound for pound and inch for inch. Every team can get six guys 6' 3" or under that can clutch and grab at Stevie as he blows past but few teams have more than one mobile 6' 9" guys that can make Brand sweat it out on the defensive side. Rahim in a deal will bring way more than any of you have offered because he is getting to be a rarer species and GMs know it. Is there a guaranteed 20 and 10 man in this year’s draft who is an honest 6’ 9 with exceptionally long arms like Rahim? Rahim is only 23, effective on a lousy team and a character guy to boot – sure, we’ll just give him and the #4 pick up just to get cap room. Give Your Head A Shake ------------------ [This message has been edited by Give Your Head A Shake (edited April 28, 2000).]
Hmmm, interesting factoid GYHAS. That is some lofty company Rahim is in there. Honestly, I would say Abdur-Rahim is a franchise player in the making. I am not sure he has evolved the leadership skills yet to reach the plateau....but he definitely has the game and the skills. But if you look at the franchise type players today, most of them took a few years to garner the fearless attitude to take the reigns of the franchise. There feasibly could be some things that Rahim must take on that he is not yet ready for. Does he want to b**** and compalin at his players when they make a boneheaded play? Does he have the gall to work the refs over on every play, every call, every game in order to try to earn his respect as a veteran and earn "veteran" calls? There is so much more, but maybe Rahim is just a nice guy! ------------------ HOOP-T Hey Shaq, Acme called, and they want their bricks back!
To say that we'll be right back in the championship run after our worst season in over a decade, isn't ridiculous? We are a young and inexperienced team that will probably change again before next year. We have talent, but so do all of the other 28 teams in the league. And what C or PF do you propose that we could get with the #4 pick that would instantly solve our big man woes? Oh, and I won't hold my breath for Duncan. The odds of San Antonio letting him go, because he is too expensive is ridiculous. There will be plenty of teams around the league putting some serious offers on the table that will make Cato+Drew+$4.5 mil exception look like a joke. But who knows? Maybe he'll come here for our $2 mil trade exception and give up on his Bird rights that would probably put his salary over $10 mil (what's a measly $8 or 9 mil when you're just so happy to be playing basketball ) You're using the "this is all hypothetical" defense to argue that we can't get any free agents in the future. That's somewhat ironic, since you're using that "hypothetical" defense to defend jumping on a hypothetical trade. When you have $9 or 10 mil to play with, and you are an up and coming team, I think that you'll catch the interest of free agents. What are you basing your opinion that we won't do well in next years free agent hunt on? I decided to throw in your definition of a "franchise player". According to you, a "franchise player" "makes players around him better". How can you argue that Rahim is doing this, when his team has been near the bottom of the league, through his entire NBA career. I never said he "sucked"; I said he was not a franchise player. Also, he's is not likely to draw too many double-teams, if he is a Rocket. Who do you leave? Francis? Nope, that's 2 points. Mobley? Nope, another 2 points. Cato? Oh look, another Rockets alley-oop! Ladies and gentlemen, the smallest line-up in the NBA! Personally, I do believe Rahim would be a good pick-up for the Rockets (a 2cd option on offense), but not if it requires taking on Reeves' contract. In other words, I really like filet mignon, but I'm not eating it if you serve it on a plate with a side of $#!+! thacabbage seems to have covered everything else fine. GYHAS, Always good to hear from you. The IBM rankings are cute, but really kind of trivial. According to your list, Dikembe Mutumbo is the second best player in the NBA. Hmmm, why am I questioning the accuracy of such an obvious conclusion ------------------ [This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited April 28, 2000).]
Rahim isn't yet in the category of the other guys who are on this top ten list (neither is Brand). But what this list tells you is the irreplaceable potential they have to make their team successful. Quite rightly put, Rahim is a potential "franchise" player (whatever that term means) but so is Francis. My point is that because of the rule changes, mobile big men like Rahim and Brand are becoming even more valuable -- the age of the big slow center just being able to clog up the lane is kaput. Mutumbo doesn't get his 14 million by accident. He gets it because he makes the most difference to the other team coming into the lane (even more so than Shaq) -- he doesn't just block shots but changes the FG% radically. If Mutumbo was 22 and in the draft today, GMs would be selling their first-born sons to get him. I was really surprised to see him in this list, too, but when I thought about it, it emphasizes what real basketball experts are always telling us -- defence in the paint is critically important. It's real easy to crap on statistics with the old Mark Twain line but when I see a statistic that uses some common sense (like factoring in the team's wins), I'm not willing to just call them "cute" or "trivial" but to look for the reasons why they might help me understand the game of basketball better. Stats don't tell you everything but they sure help. As far as Rahim not drawing double teams, let me give you an eye-witness account from watching every minute of every game he's played in four years. Rahim probably gets more double teams than anyone in the league and often he gets triple teams. There are two reasons for this -- if he gets the ball low on the block there is virtually no-one who can stop him consistently one on one because of his variety of spin moves and length. The second reason is (and this is why he is still only a "potential" franchise player) he bounces the ball high and is prone to turn it over. This past year, he still has drawn all the double teams even though Dickerson, Dennis Scott and Bibby make teams pay from the 3 point line (.409, .376 & .363). Those three guys have a higher 3pt % than your most frequent 3 point shooters, Williams, Mobley and Francis (.391, .356 & .345) but other teams realize that Rahim is the one guy on the Grizzlies that can run rampant on you if you don't defence him with doubles. The Rockets would be awesome with him in the line-up but it ain't going to happen unless you guys gave up something awfully sweet. ------------------
On this fantasy trade possiblity: NO <OL>[*] Rahim wouldn't be a part of the trade, and I haven't heard of any evidence to support it, so I don't know why we are even speculating on this. I also don't believe he is a franchise player. [*] Dream wants to stay in Houston and end his career here. He deserves to do so. This speculator at Bskball.com is drawing from information from back before Dream won the 2 championships here in Houston and comments due to him having a home there. If we weren't going to do the trade to Toronto, why would we send him to a worse team in Vancouver? This would tarnish his career. I believe he'll solve the breathing problems and finally have a good health year next year anyway. If he does have a healthy year, we could actually contend. [*] I want us to trade Drew to LAC for Kandi and some of the exception, so Dream can train him before he goes, and CD develops him into the player he is capable of being. Of course if the deal that Popeye talked about regarding Odom came about, I'd trade anyone but Francis or Dream to pull that off. [*] I believe we'll trade KT, Cato or Rogers and a couple picks to move up in the draft to get Swift at #5. He would be an incredible addition to the team. I believe Miller will slip to us at #9. Getting stuck with Reeves would be too high a price to move up in the draft. It's just not necessary. If we ended up with Swift and Miller (or Miles) out of this draft, we'll be set. [*] If we want Othella, just wait until he becomes a free agent. [*] Reeves. yuuch. not athletic. too expensive. too long a contract for too little potential. Francis would croak. The only way the Rockets would consider this is if they had somewhere else they could trade him for someone young and athletic. The Rockets understand the new CBA. The best way to end up at the top is to draft top talent while they are cheap, and then hang onto them for the long haul, and that's if you have an owner who can pay over the cap. Now HS players are actually attractive. [*] This year has some interesting guys in the second round we might pick up too, like Najera. [/list=a] As much as I'd love us getting Lewis this off-season, I don't see how we can sign him since we're over the cap. I do believe we'll sign Mobely. And Swift coming out changes everything for this draft for the Rockets. So here's how I think it might actually shake out next year: Dream/Kandi/Cato Swift/Rogers/TMass/Najera Williams/Miller/Bullard Anderson/Mobely Francis/Norris The following year, we sign a major player, like Webber, Duncan, or Wallace at Center, and after a year of gelling together, we're set to go for the championships for years to come. ... just an opinion ------------------
Don't get me wrong, Rahim is a damn fine player. Perhaps, he even has the potential to one day be a franchise player. If the Grizzlies were actually stupid enough to agree to a trade to give us Rahim without packaging Big Waste of Country, I would do it in an instant. Heck, I'd even use some Vaseline to make the transaction go smoother Fortunately for you, the Grizzly management are not that stupid, and Rahim (and unfortunately for you, Reeves) will likely remain in a Vancouver uniform next year. As for Mutumbo, he is not now, or has he ever been worth $14 mil/year. And your ranking has him listed better than Mourning, who IMHO is at least as good a defender as Mutumbo, and is worlds better on offense. As for the statistic, you said it yourself: "The rankings are heavily weighted to big men ". This is what makes the rankings "trivial". Just off the top of my head, here are a few real franchise players that didn't seem to make the cut: Allen Iverson Grant Hill Vince Carter Chris Webber Michael Finley (yes, Pippen, Finley really is an all-star) Glen Robinson Eddie Jones Latrell Sprewell (and yes, I am biting my tongue for admitting that). Now, Rahim does draw double teams, when he is in the low post leaving your 3-point shooters open. IMHO it is always better to give up the long jumper than the point blank post up moves. However, in the Rockets new offense, he would more likely get his points off of medium range to long jumpers, offensive putbacks, and off-the-ball movement that would leave him open for dunks, lay-ups, and alley-oops. He would likely play out on the wings in the Rockets offense, and you would be a fool to double him there. That would mean one less man in the middle, leaving the lane open for guard penetration. I respect that you're humble enough to admit that Rahim "is prone to turn it over". I'd guess that would be the perfect excuse to double Francis too, but he actually draws surprisingly fewer double teams than you might think ------------------ [This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited April 28, 2000).]
You can't afford to piss off the average voter in case there is a referendum this year. Trading Hakeem would virtually guarantee another defeat at the ballot box. Just let him retire in 2001 and hope Finley or Webber want his salary slot.
Dear Paunch Lad: (Hey, it's as funny as Big Waste of Country) Essentially we agree on these things: 1) Rahim is potentially a franchise player. 2) The Griz would be stupid to give him away. 3) Country is untradeable and we're stuck with him. 4) Rahim gets a lot of double teams now but he wouldn't if he played on the wing (Lionel Hollins went to the formation you described much more in the second half of the year, too, and the double teams dropped but so did Rahim's effectiveness until he moved him back to his natural position which is really a 3 playing the 4 a lot -- a kind of 3.5) We obviously differ in what we consider a franchise player. My definition of a "franchise player" would be the guy that you definitely want to build your team around. There are virtually no deals that you are willing to consider for this guy (unless it involves another franchise player at a position where you have a glaring weakness and you can get by with your backup to the guy you're trading). Rahim barely fits this bill(and only on potential), Glenn Robinson and Latrell Sprewell definitely don't (they have both been openly 'shopped' their whole careers) and even Eddie Jones and Michael Finley are borderline guys to build a franchise around IMIO (In My Infuriating Opinion). My major contention is that the further you get away from the center position, the harder it is to be considered a "franchise" player. Size does count. On the IBM rankings you insist on referring to as "my" list (like I made it up or something) you haven't done any meaningful analysis of why you think it may be "trivial" other than you don't happen to agree with the inclusion of one player on it (as if he were selected like an all-star vote whereas it is a blind listing -- his numbers put him on there, not me or a sportswriter). I think you may be missing that it is not measuring how good someone is relative to others at their position --- because it is extremely difficult to compare point guards to centers, for instance. The point of this IBM list is to attempt to measure how much impact a particular player has on the success of their team while factoring in the number of wins. In other words, guys like Mutombo, Rahim and Brand that play on bad teams are at a big disadvantage to make it onto this IBM list. They get docked significantly for their team's poor performance. Every other supposed objective ranking of players that I've seen just adds up positive stats and subtracts negative stats, so that the guys on the poor teams who pore in lots of points or get lots of rebounds because they play a lot of minutes can score quite high. I agree that Mourning is a far better all around player than Mutombo but I'm willing to at least examine that Dikembe's effect on the final outcome of a game may be just slightly more important (there really isn't a lot of point spread among the top guys on "my" list). The IBM list points out how important big guys are which is a common sense thing I've always felt but have trouble proving. The guys you "choose" as top players are all wonderful to watch offensively but I'm not all that convinced that all of them make the same kind of impact to their team's success as these big men. The only back court guy who makes it on the IBM list is Payton and, much as dislike him personally, I have to admit my common sense and eyeballs tell me he has an enormous impact on a game. Iverson, Carter, Sprewell, etc. have so much flash that we sometimes forget what the game is all about -- winning -- and it's a lot easier to do that if you have the big horses. Guys like Shaq, Dream, Duncan, Russell, Jabbar and Chamberlain dominating the league are the norm, Jordan is the aberration. During and even before Dream's championship period, I always insisted he was the best player in the league regardless of whether Jordan was playing or not -- Jordan and Hakeem were very close in pure talent but Hakeem made more difference to the Rockets simply because he was bigger and played the more important position. ------------------
Woah, first off, I just realized that "Big Waste of Country" sounded like a shot at Canada. I apologize; that wasn't my intention. It was meant merely as a shot a Reeves ("Big Waste" just seemed to describe him well), not as a shot a Canada. Sorry I'll let the "Paunch Lad" thing go, since you probably thought you were just retaliating. Yes, we do seem to agree on everything, but the definition of a "franchise player". I also agree with this assessment, but I would also add that the presence of a franchise player will make his team vastly superior than it would be without him. One example is the championship Bulls. Take away MJ, and nobody fears them; take away Scottie, and they may lose a few more games, but they're still very dangerous. Rahim has not shown that his presence makes Vancouver a better team (let's be honest, the Grizzlies record has been abysmal throughout his tenure), but he does have potential (the Grizz are beginning to improve). Okay, Latrell has been shopped, because of his "attitude" (read: killer chokehold) problems, but take him off of the Knicks and their chances of making it to the Finals slip drastically. Glenn Robinson? Okay, he's borderline, so we'll knock him off the list. Eddie Jones and Michael Finley? Remove them from their respective teams and watch the loss columns swell. Jones in an awesome defender and really good on offense and his presence makes the Hornets a dangerous team. Remove Finley from Dallas, and there are CBA teams that can beat them. The old "you can't teach height" argument does have its merits, but guys like Isiah Thomas, Iverson, Barkely, Kidd, etc. prove that height isn't everything. When I call it your list, that is merely a figure of speech. You seem like an intelligent guy, so I'm sure you could have figured that out. You say that my only criticism of the list is the inclusion of one player; maybe you haven't read all of my posts. So let me review: -Yes, Dikembe does not need to be on there. -The ranking of the list doesn't make sense (Duncan and Mourning are proven franchise players and are way too low). -Several players that are arguably better than the listees aren't on there. -It is obviously biased against guards. And here are a few new ones: -It doesn't take into account FT%, FG%, or 3PT%. -The factoring in of team wins only draws a correlation, but doesn't prove causation (in other words, is the team winning, because the player's stats are so good, or are the player's stats so good, because the team is so good). -It cannot accurately gauge defensive ability (e.g. Rodman was not an awesome shotblocker, but was one of the best defenders in the league). I could go on, but this post is already getting long. You could look at it as an estimate of the value of big men in the league, or you could just view it as proof that big men are better rebounders and shotblockers than the little guys, and hence, their point totals are skewed upward. ------------------
Amazing how much Dream's value has dropped in a year. From a deal for Christie, Willis, and 2 lottery picks (5 and 9?), to Big Country (who the Grizz would literally give away, just to get cap relief) and moving up 5 spots in the draft. Many of us were upset over that prior deal, even though it seemed certain then (and undeniable now) that we would have definitely gotten the better of that deal, value-wise. Now we should give up Dream for a fat, lazy center? Oliver Miller would come cheaper. We are positioned perfectly for a big free agent pickup in 2001. Don't screw that up! ------------------
Launch Pad: Actually, I didn't take your Big Waste comment as a knock on Canada, I rather liked it (thinking of the pun with "waist") and thought that Paunch Lad was equally clever since it has a "waist" connotation, too. Your analysis of the IBM list is helpful to me and makes me understand why guards aren't likely to get on there (although Payton gets up pretty damn high, doesn't he?). You seem like an intelligent guy, too, and when you constantly refer to it as "my" list it seems like a good way to put it in the "trivial" category whether intentional or not. I still think this list of "mine" has some usefulness. If you look at the past winners, you'll see that David Robinson has won it often. The Spurs plummet to the basement the year the Admiral was gone was phenomenal. Also, Shaq has never won this ranking until this year and my common sense tells me this is the first year that he has made himself a total impact player. As for your Dennis Rodman comment -- surprise, the Worm actually won this thing one year! That alone makes the list highly suspect but when you think about it, the Bulls without Rodman were extremely weak up front -- the usefulness of this list is probably rooted in who is the guy you can't replace. It should probably be entitled "They're Hooped If This Guy Gets Injured" and that usually means a big man because they are less equivalent replacements for them. I started out saying this list is biased to the big men but it's also biased to players that make their team's win or keep their teams close. It's scary to me if that is true how much uglier the Grizzlies record would be without Rahim. This is a subtlety the guys who say Rahim is not an impact player miss totally -- sure he doesn't win us a lot of games but he probably is the difference in just getting us close many times (opposing coaches are always saying how scary it is to play the Grizzlies because they often give very good teams a run for their money). Michael Jordan might not make the Grizzlies win much more frequently. ------------------
The IBM award is nice, but can be trivial in the way they calculate points. For example, they equate a FGA to a REB to an AST to a STL to a Block to a personal foul?! The end results are nice and I agree with much of their list, but when you start equating a personal foul to an assist or a steal, it gets to be an arbitrary calc. Regarding Shareef. He's an all-star-caliber player and he's a near-franchise player (may very well be one already). I'd love to have the guy on the Rockets. However, if the IBM award is for "the player who contributes most to his team's overall success", then it's saying he contributed the most to a 22-win team. Hmmm. Not sure how to take that. It's also an award that tries to define the the most MVP of MVP's, not necessarily the "best player" in the league. Also, can someone translate that formula at the URL that GYHAS posted? I can follow it up to the "x250" part. What's the 2nd line about? The part they start talking about "team pts."? Seems as if there's something missing or that 2nd line isn't needed. Anyway, GYHAS, great insight and analysis as always. ------------------ ? [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited April 29, 2000).]
