I happen to think he was a very good athlete - there's more to athleticism than just vertical leap. Again, you're wrong to state that they're physically limited. Stockton could turn the corner on a lot of players, Bird could run and was strong, etc. Let's take another physically (pigmentally) limited player like Danny Ainge. Would you qualify him as physically limited? By your definition (whiteness?) he probably is physically limmited. Of course for a bad athlete he managed to be a top prospect in MLB as well as an NBA player - so what does that tell us?
Neither of them should be called upon to play major minutes on a good team... ...but they are not polar opposites. While novak is a fantastic shooter, hayes is a fantastic hustle guy, defender and rebounder. In addition to that you have the option of simply not using him on offense. You don't have that option with defense. I think Novak could contribute in the future if he works hard at his game but as it stands now he is amongst the most one dimensional players in the league.
You are free to define athleticism as you want. I don't want to argue semantics. I could argue that being able to catch the ball, jump, and shoot in one motion with accuracy is pretty athletic to me. ... with the help of some bear-hug picks... Stockton is a small PG. He probably has quicker feet than Carl Landry. That doesn't mean he's a better athlete. Novak is what, 6'9 or 6'10? Compare him with someone like Bird. Yes, Bird is much stronger. But is he quicker? Does his shot has a faster release? It tells us that you don't have to be very athletic (by NBA standard) to be a good baseball player.
I see your points and appreciate the input. The problem is Novak has had access to NBA level strength and conditioning coaches now for nearly two years. So either the Rockets training staff is incompetent or the guy is pretty much already maxed out athletically. The comparison to Bynum is no good because the guy came in as a teen. Of course, he is going to become more athletic as he reaches his early 20s. He wasn't even done growing yet and appeared to still be in his awkward phase. I believe Shaq couldn't even dunk until he was 15-16 but by 22 he was the NBA's most powerful dunker of all time simply because he body stopped growing and his strength could develop on that frame. Also, I never said cutting your 40 time down didn't reflect increased speed. I said cutting it down by 1/10 of second isn't a big enough decrease to have much impact on the court. Novak is not a teen who is still growing nor is he a rookie who has never strength trained before. The guy is in his mid 20s now and has had plenty of time with the best trainers in the world. He is what he is. Also, for the guy who said Landry's vertical increased by 4 inches, two things: 1. He was coming off knee surgery. Of course he is going to jump higher. 2. He had his first taste of NBA strength and conditioning. If he adds another 4 inches this summer then we'll talk. The same goes for Bynum. If Bynum gets more explosive/quicker after the age of 24 then you guys have a point. I don't see it happening.
I'M NOT GAY BUT SNOVAK IS HOT! PLAY EM 40MINS A GAME AND WATCH EM AVG 50PTS A GAME! (that was my lil girl type rendition but u know its true)
He probably had quicker feet than most of the guys he played against - I'm talking point guards. Yes No, let me rephrase HELLS HELLS HELLS YES! Honestly? Are you too young to remember Bird or are you just kidding? Because this isn't even an open question. HE could run and jump and do everything, post up, spin move, he could flick the ball behind his back in the blink of an eye...youtube is thataway if you don't remember..... It tells me that your definition of athletic by NBA standards is black guy with a vertical leap. Reaction time, speed, coordination/hands are all parts of athleticism that you are ignoring. But take any of those categories and I'm pretty sure Battier is much better than Novak in all of them.
I am not too young. Bird might be quicker than Novak (I'm not as sure as you are). But I definitely doubt that he had a faster release than Novak. I challenge you to go back and watch. Your definition is too broad. You seems to say that ANY kind of physical ability is part of athleticism. Again, by that definition, being able to shoot the ball in split second and make shots from 25 ft away with precision is a freakish athletic ability. Even Hakeem couldn't do it. Heck, I'd say Steve Nash is one of the most athletic players of all time by that definition. My definition of athleticism by NBA standard, which I think is the general consensus by most people, is the combination of speed, strength, and body control.
I honestly have no real high hopes for Novak. Yes he can a good, spark plug shooter off the bench, but his defense more than detracts from his effectiveness. His defense is not going to get that much better because he is severly limited by his physical limitations. However, I still feel that he should've played more minutes against Utah, because he had a decent matchup against Okur.
I'll add this to Novak. He has bad defensive instincts that hasn't improved since he's been drafted. He still is unsure of himself and where he needs to be on D, looks like he really has to think about it. The way he shuffles his feet and laterally moves on D and on offense tells me he's tentative of where he needs to be. Honestly, other then shooting the rock, I think he'd have a tough time chewing gum and doing basic things on the court. He stills seems overwhelmed when on the court. Unlike Landry who took his opportunity and ran with it, Novak hasn't gained any confidence from his time on the court which includes the game winner on the Kings. I really thought that game would be a turning point for him. His putrid D is all on him to improve to a reasonable level. He also need to be more confident when stepping on the court, even develop a little nasty streak in him, all good players have or get a nasty streak, Yao included. Novak is simply too Whitebread, and that is his Achilles. Even Korver and Kapono can get chippy if need be. SN should hang around the Fonde Center and run with the locals there.
Larry Bird was my favorite player growing up as a kid. I watched him every chance I got. Phenomenal player. Top 3 of all time in my book. And maybe the most all around skilled player to ever play the game. But, anybody that wants to say Larry Bird was athletic.........just to try to win an argument .................... well, ............ they're just plain ignorant ...... to put it nicely. Larry Bird had one of the most athletic basketball MINDS of all time, but he did not have an athletic body, only a tall one. But he did have super fast brain to muscle time, which is the reason for his quick first step. And Bird, like I stated above, was one of the most skilled players of all time. Anybody that thinks that Bird was athletic and Novak is not athletic, that's just laughable. Larry Bird would tell you himself, he was one of the worst athletes in the NBA. And he used it to tease and tantalize players to death that were much more athletic than he was. He trash talked them into trying to outperform him while their team suffered and his team got the W. Bird......maybe the smartest player of all time......and quite possibly one of the 10 worst athletes to play in the NBA ever.
There is pretty much nothing that Steve Novak could do quicker or better than Larry Bird except for drive around the Marquette campus. Not even shooting. This whole conversation stems from somebody taking a benchriding apple, comparing it to a starting orange - saying that they're not REALLY that different, then using it to make the argument that the apple is REALLY a pear because whether its an apple or an orange doesn't matter. "well, look Shane Battier and Steve Novak - I think Novak could BEAT him in a footrace, just because I kind of say so and have no evidence to back it up. SO THEREFORE, I think that since Battier is a world class defender who can match up with anybody at his position and not be physically overwhelmed and do a bunch of different things, and since Novak can do one thing and can't really match up with anybody without being physically overwhelmed THEREFORE one day Novak is not going to be physically overwhelmed and the two are about equal physically " that's a mess. The difference between the two is obvious on the court. In the hypothetical scouting combine between the two I guess we'll just have to wonder. So you're saying that pound for pound, Bird, Stockton, and Novak were all similarly situated vs. their peers in those regards? That's just insane if that's what you're implying.
Words can't describe how silly this is. Just say that athletic = black guy who can jump high. "brain to muscle time" = athleticism by any normal definition
Athletic is Chase Budinger and J.R. Smith and Karl Malone and Andrei Kirilenko and Kobe and Lebron and Kevin Garnett and Tom Chambers and David Lee and Chris Kamen and a young Rick Barry and a young Brent Barry and Andres Biedrins and Kirk Snyder. Considerably less athletic or not athletic is Larry Bird and Joe Barry Carroll and Rasho Nesterovic and Jerome James and Scooter Barry and an old Dennis Johnson and Mark Eaton and Juwan Howard and Dikembe Mutombo and Greg Ostertag and Steve Nash and Mark Jackson and J.J. Redick and Kevin Ollie and Loren Woods and Lorenzon Wright and Jake Tsakalidis and a whole host of other multimillionaire current and former NBA ballers. Stop the stupid black/white crap.
Lorenzen Wright had a 37.5 inch vertical at 6-11, according to the interweb - now he is less athletic than Chris Kaman, according to you. This crystallizes what you are saying here. Athletic is whatever arbitrary label you decide to give it. You decided to arbitrarily label Battier and Novak as the same so therefore they are the same. Spare us next time and make this more clear initially!
Larry Bird played against arguably less athletic and slower guys than today. But I'm not saying anything against him, its just that you're making an underlying comparison between Bird and Novak. Novak would definitely be a lot better off if he was playing in Bird's time. Vice versa
No, I have clearly not labeled them the same. Quit your twisting or better yet I'll quit my replying. And if you are going to read something off the net and automatically assume it is true, it shows how ignorant you are. DO YOU REALLY THINK LO WRIGHT HAS A 37.5 INCH VERTICAL JUST CUZ YOU FOUND IT ON THE NET FROM 1996? That may have been his vertical about 12 years ago at Memphis State. But age has robbed him of that. GET REAL! Watch him play! Last reply, Sam. You're not worth my energy.
Bird's back is bad and he is like 50+ years old, I doubt he could play today, and Novak would have been a baby during Bird's era.... SHEESH ! DD
Dude whatever - now you're twisting it worse by altering it by age. You're the one who came up with the incredibly arbitrary definition of athleticism and you're the one who keeps having to change it. I mean how was I supposed to know which age you are referring to the guys as? I suppose your next tactic is to say that you were referring to the 1992 Larry Bird after multiple back surgeries and not the 1981 Larry Bird? ehh save it....
