Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:55 am Post subject:
KBH wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Question: Why do people always rank Garnett over Malone?
I think you're the first person I've ever seen say this.
Have you ever seen people rank the Stockton/Malone duo over Kobe/Shaq?
That one just makes no sense whatsoever considering the latter has three rings and the former has zero. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
I may be a godless heathen, but I tend to find Stockton a bit overrated. Great player no doubt, incredible longevity, but the numbers had a lot to do with their structure and him having the ball all the time.
It's weird getting to an age where I see the luster of time added to guys that I remember very clearly. Stockton was a stud, but he's absolutely overrated at this point. And to your point regarding numbers, Utah's score-keepers have always been notoriously generous in giving out assists. It's the only stat in the box score that's subjective, governed by the fuzzy standard of "pass that leads to a made basket."
I think Stockton's "best pure point" label overrated him then, in other words, as if Magic wasn't a pure point. He was "pure" in that respect, he was just 6'9". The term should've just been "best non-6'9" point". I never understood why commentators thought they could somehow differentiate their tendencies as pass 1st/pass 2nd ball dominant points. There was little different about them in that vain, so they held Earv's size and additional talents against him. Other than that, Johnny was a great player for sure. Incredible longevity. That's the apsect I respect more than anything beside his court vision and touch. He was about the best example of consistency in the league for a long time. Guy played for 19 yrs, looked the same from Game 1 to Game 1504 and never pushed the envelope beyond his capabilities. The Jazz played the same damn way whether they were up by 20 or down 20. Again, how much of that is due to system and how much of the system was influenced by Stock/Malone/Layden-Sloan? _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
I may be a godless heathen, but I tend to find Stockton a bit overrated. Great player no doubt, incredible longevity, but the numbers had a lot to do with their structure and him having the ball all the time.
It's weird getting to an age where I see the luster of time added to guys that I remember very clearly. Stockton was a stud, but he's absolutely overrated at this point. And to your point regarding numbers, Utah's score-keepers have always been notoriously generous in giving out assists. It's the only stat in the box score that's subjective, governed by the fuzzy standard of "pass that leads to a made basket."
I think Stockton's "best pure point" label overrated him then, in other words, as if Magic wasn't a pure point. He was "pure" in that respect, he was just 6'9". The term should've just been "best non-6'9" point". I never understood why commentators thought they could somehow differentiate their tendencies as pass 1st/pass 2nd ball dominant points. There was little different about them in that vain, so they held Earv's size and additional talents against him. Other than that, Johnny was a great player for sure. Incredible longevity. That's the apsect I respect more than anything beside his court vision and touch. He was about the best example of consistency in the league for a long time. Guy played for 19 yrs, looked the same from Game 1 to Game 1504 and never pushed the envelope beyond his capabilities. The Jazz played the same damn way whether they were up by 20 or down 20. Again, how much of that is due to system and how much of the system was influenced by Stock/Malone/Layden-Sloan?
yea, great point.
whenever i do my tim duncan is not really a PF thing...people like to bring up Magic, to point out someone playing a position that's not normal for his size. BUT...as you say, Magic held the point gaurd duties, he just happened to be 6'9". Duncan is the opposite. .. he is listed at PF, but actually plays center.
I may be a godless heathen, but I tend to find Stockton a bit overrated. Great player no doubt, incredible longevity, but the numbers had a lot to do with their structure and him having the ball all the time.
It's weird getting to an age where I see the luster of time added to guys that I remember very clearly. Stockton was a stud, but he's absolutely overrated at this point. And to your point regarding numbers, Utah's score-keepers have always been notoriously generous in giving out assists. It's the only stat in the box score that's subjective, governed by the fuzzy standard of "pass that leads to a made basket."
I think Stockton's "best pure point" label overrated him then, in other words, as if Magic wasn't a pure point. He was "pure" in that respect, he was just 6'9". The term should've just been "best non-6'9" point". I never understood why commentators thought they could somehow differentiate their tendencies as pass 1st/pass 2nd ball dominant points. There was little different about them in that vain, so they held Earv's size and additional talents against him. Other than that, Johnny was a great player for sure. Incredible longevity. That's the apsect I respect more than anything beside his court vision and touch. He was about the best example of consistency in the league for a long time. Guy played for 19 yrs, looked the same from Game 1 to Game 1504 and never pushed the envelope beyond his capabilities. The Jazz played the same damn way whether they were up by 20 or down 20. Again, how much of that is due to system and how much of the system was influenced by Stock/Malone/Layden-Sloan?
yea, great point.
whenever i do my tim duncan is not really a PF thing...people like to bring up Magic, to point out someone playing a position that's not normal for his size. BUT...as you say, Magic held the point gaurd duties, he just happened to be 6'9". Duncan is the opposite. .. he is listed at PF, but actually plays center.
Nother thing I forgot to mention is that the "pureness" stuff didn't seem to extend to Chas, who was somehow a pure PF in a 6'5" frame in most people's minds. Or think of Muggsey, he was not a standard sized PG by any means, yet no one tried to exclude him from the Stockton/Isiah class. Take a look back at Shaq. He's by no means the standard 300 lb, 7 footer. More often than not, they've been Donadlson, Oliver, Stanley Roberts types. Shaq was a true genetic freaq himself, he's just never pointed out as such. I think it gets easily forgotten what Shaquille O'Neal was as time goes by. The awesomeness of his physical abilities for his size, not to mention his overall health. He's somehow the posterboy for injury, but he was actually very physically solid. His most major injuries were actual injuries sustained on the court such a grotesquely hyperextended knee and a hacked thumb, not those congenital ghost conditions of the Sam Bowie, Andrew Bynum variety.
I brought up Utah playing the same way regardless of score. I forgot to use as an example that 96-54 loss against Chicago in the Finals. That group took that humiliation by continuing to do what was clearly not working that night instead of trying something/anything else. When you think of that franchise in the Stock/Malone, Layden/Sloan era, you could either perceive them as bizarre or honorable. There, Shirley, can't be another team in our collective memories that was so static in any particular way lest we're talking about the Clippers being feckless. Even the Kings and Nets had outlier good seasons during that Jazz era. They were just either intractably set in their ways or they had an ain't broke/don't fix mentality. Probably more of the former than the latter.
I consider Duncan a C who preferred to play 4, but had the skillset of either, frankly. AI could've been a pretty good PG, but similarly, he preferred to shoot. Forced his way into the position. Not to compare Elden to those names, but he preferred playing C with a PF's body. He was frankly a better C than PF. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
Last edited by non-player zealot on Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:36 pm Post subject:
The "pure" label is often an attempt to carve out a spot for a lesser guy apart from a superior one. To me, if you are talking "pure" PG's, you are really just excluding undersized guys playing more of a 2 guard game at the 1, be it as a ball dominant high scorer or a guy like Fisher.
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:14 pm Post subject:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Westbrook has the killer instinct that Durant doesn't. That's why I think you can make a legitimate case for keeping him and not Durant. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 Posts: 15403 Location: Oak Park
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject:
CandyCanes wrote:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Westbrook has the killer instinct that Durant doesn't. That's why I think you can make a legitimate case for keeping him and not Durant.
Crazy. Durant has more killer instinct by orders of magnitude. Crazy to even think Westbrook is on the same level.
Joined: 02 Jun 2009 Posts: 2415 Location: Far from home
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:45 am Post subject:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
wolfpaclaker wrote:
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Westbrook has the killer instinct that Durant doesn't. That's why I think you can make a legitimate case for keeping him and not Durant.
Crazy. Durant has more killer instinct by orders of magnitude. Crazy to even think Westbrook is on the same level.
Doubtful it's crazy to say they're rather close in terms of both hunger and ability to demonstrate killer instinct. Frankly, I think it's too close to call with these two. With regard to whom I'd place the greater chance of success to make a winning play, for all the marbles ? If no situational advantage existed for one over the other (match-ups, health and foul situ), I'd flip a coin. It feels like equal ability, equal desire, equal chance, for these equivalent physical freaks, Durant and Westbrook. _________________ “These GOAT discussions are fun distractions while sitting around waiting for the pizza to be served.”
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Westbrook has the killer instinct that Durant doesn't. That's why I think you can make a legitimate case for keeping him and not Durant.
Crazy. Durant has more killer instinct by orders of magnitude. Crazy to even think Westbrook is on the same level.
Doubtful it's crazy to say they're rather close in terms of both hunger and ability to demonstrate killer instinct. Frankly, I think it's too close to call with these two. With regard to whom I'd place the greater chance of success to make a winning play, for all the marbles ? If no situational advantage existed for one over the other (match-ups, health and foul situ), I'd flip a coin. It feels like equal ability, equal desire, equal chance, for these equivalent physical freaks, Durant and Westbrook.
I thought it's fairly obvious and well known that Westbrook has more of the killer instinct than Durant.
That being said, if I had to give one of them up it would be Westbrook. Durant is a better shooter, and that is a more valuable skill than just tenacity and athleticism.
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Westbrook has the killer instinct that Durant doesn't. That's why I think you can make a legitimate case for keeping him and not Durant.
Crazy. Durant has more killer instinct by orders of magnitude. Crazy to even think Westbrook is on the same level.
Doubtful it's crazy to say they're rather close in terms of both hunger and ability to demonstrate killer instinct. Frankly, I think it's too close to call with these two. With regard to whom I'd place the greater chance of success to make a winning play, for all the marbles ? If no situational advantage existed for one over the other (match-ups, health and foul situ), I'd flip a coin. It feels like equal ability, equal desire, equal chance, for these equivalent physical freaks, Durant and Westbrook.
I thought it's fairly obvious and well known that Westbrook has more of the killer instinct than Durant.
That being said, if I had to give one of them up it would be Westbrook. Durant is a better shooter, and that is a more valuable skill than just tenacity and athleticism.
Westbrook's killer instinct includes a lot of friendly fire, he costs his team countless games because of it. There was half a dozen games where he did it last season (if you want an example watch the last 10 seconds of their loss to Chicago) _________________ I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong
Gotta go with stock & mailman. Russ & Durant are studs but they don't mesh as well as Stockton & Malone.
Also, Russ and Durant are somewhat similar players and sometimes it seems they compete for shot attempts.
Stockton and Malone P&R was just ridiculously fluid. Hated it as a laker fan because you knew it was coming, yet we couldn't stop it. Just gotta respect em.
The "pure" label is often an attempt to carve out a spot for a lesser guy apart from a superior one. To me, if you are talking "pure" PG's, you are really just excluding undersized guys playing more of a 2 guard game at the 1, be it as a ball dominant high scorer or a guy like Fisher.
Pure point guard seems to mean facilitator, and it's true really, magic was a far better offensive force because he was also such a great scoring threat. And really in that comparison if that's your goal, there's always old trusty "2-way", the ultimate cop out. _________________ I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong
Westbrook n' KD are just two individual players that happen to be on the same team; Stockton n' Malone were a "team" core...I'd vote the later every day, and twice on weekends... _________________ Lakers need to build a freaking team !
I find that Westbrook and Durant are good together, but they are even better without one another. It may change, as at some point Shaq and Kobe weren't great together, and this new OKC coach could change that. However over their careers, I've found Westbrook to not always know how to play 2nd fiddle to Durant, and Durant has often been too willing to be the Robin at times. While Westbrook is an elite player, he shouldn't be the go to guy. It's Durant. Durant isn't Shaq, he can actually be the Jordan/Kobe of the team. Instead, he allows Westbrook to be.
There's more potential in the Westbrook/Durant duo, but I have my doubts they'll ever reach it. Malone/Stockton also didn't win a ring, and while they had great longevity together, in the end all truly great duos win rings. The answer is Malone/Stockton, but Westbrook/Durant aren't maximizing their talents together.
Westbrook has the killer instinct that Durant doesn't. That's why I think you can make a legitimate case for keeping him and not Durant.
Crazy. Durant has more killer instinct by orders of magnitude. Crazy to even think Westbrook is on the same level.
Doubtful it's crazy to say they're rather close in terms of both hunger and ability to demonstrate killer instinct. Frankly, I think it's too close to call with these two. With regard to whom I'd place the greater chance of success to make a winning play, for all the marbles ? If no situational advantage existed for one over the other (match-ups, health and foul situ), I'd flip a coin. It feels like equal ability, equal desire, equal chance, for these equivalent physical freaks, Durant and Westbrook.
I thought it's fairly obvious and well known that Westbrook has more of the killer instinct than Durant.
That being said, if I had to give one of them up it would be Westbrook. Durant is a better shooter, and that is a more valuable skill than just tenacity and athleticism.
Westbrook's killer instinct includes a lot of friendly fire, he costs his team countless games because of it. There was half a dozen games where he did it last season (if you want an example watch the last 10 seconds of their loss to Chicago)
very true.
it's the same reason why i don't like to characterize greatness in players using terms like killer instinct or will to win, etc. killer instinct is just an attitude, a switch you can turn on and off in your brain. it doesn't make you a better shooter or passer or something. a guy who is not a great shooter can shoot with a killer instinct and still miss. it's because he's not a great shooter with or without the killer instinct.
you can sort of say westbrook developed a stronger killer instinct than durant because, well, he'll never be as good a player/shooter. so durant can be mellow and still be good. westbrook, early on, was criticized for his lack of skills especially the shot, so this kind of attitude can sort of cover it up (the definiciency), if you want to paint it that way.
in the end it's the skill. durant is better because he's just better. you can talk about westbrook wanting it more or something, but unless durant develops some kind of crazy psychological condition which ruins plays then he's better because he's a better basketball player. kobe is better than lebron, not because he has a killer instinct and lebron doesn't, but because he's just better. if killer instinct was really all that valuable, why not just hire a bunch of psychologists and have them try to out-manipulate the other side or something.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
