EPTNBA Offseason 2012 - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
VENDIZ
1575 Posts
| ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:38 city42 wrote: I already said that LBJ is #1, but the difference isn't as big as you think. Looking at athleticism relative to height, LeBron still comes out on top, but young Shaq was not terribly far behind. The biggest difference is that LeBron takes great care of his body, while Shaq realized in about 1994 that he could dominate the league without really trying, so he put on weight and started getting hurt. The NBA only really saw one season of Shaq at his athletic peak. As funny as it might sound, Shaq actually underachieved in his NBA career because he got fat and lazy. Unfortunately people will only remember the L.A. years when he was well over 300 lbs and only tried hard for one season (99-00). young shaq touched 12'5 at the combine 12'5!!!! that's just about the highest ever recorded i think. it was a couple inches or 1 inch more than dwight.shaq was a lazier lbj at 7 feet. not as explosive but even stronger | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
VENDIZ
1575 Posts
| ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
Why are you guys arguing semantics? In this case star power clearly means "best individual players". Otherwise we might as well say players nearly on their way out counts as star power. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 12 2012 05:24 Holcan wrote: okc does not have more 'star power' than the spurs and celtics, my mom knows who tony parker is, she has no clue who durant is. the entire south american continent knows who ginobili is, and duncan has more rings than the entire okc organization, we are arguing semantics, as we both differ on what the article is saying, but okc certainly does not have more star power than the spurs or boston, and like I said, nyk with lin, melo, amare and chandler are more popular than the heat, so if they weren't mentioned, how can they be talking about star power. You have to take what the article says within context. It is talking about star-laden teams, so it lists the teams that have the most "stars" or arguably the most "stars". I think we differ in what we think defines a "star". To me a star is not only just a good player, but someone who can be called at least an all-star and then you have to take into account other things such as popularity (how many internet hits or searches), what team do they play for (markets matter yes, but how good is their team -have they been to the finals recently or are they in a team built for contention for the next few years-),how good they are compared to the other stars (are they in the discussion of the best player in the league, or even best player at his position, or in the hunt for best scorer title, etc), and what stage of their career are they in (rookie, upcoming, in-prime, veteran/old). With that said...Kobe, Lebron, and Durant are the top 3 stars right now. Who cares where they play at. Stars in the NBA have a huge range of abilities and talents, so the difference between certain stars inceases exponentially. Horford is an All-Star but he ain't in the same tier as Durant. Durant just went to the championship series, along with Westbrook who everyone was talking about. Their popularity and ascent has just begun and look at how much coverage they got the last 4 months of last season. Durant and westbrook are arguably in the top 3 at their position. Spurs and Celtics can't claim to have two players like that anymore who are still on their way up or in their prime. And if you think Spurs or BOS got more media coverage and internet buzz than OKC and MIA did last season then you are mistaken. The NBA is big on promoting young, fast and athletic teams right now and OKC has just started their franchise run. I know you feel it is unfair (or maybe slighted is a better word?) that BOS and SAS was left out but they aren't the future of the NBA like MIA or OKC which counts for a lot more when saying "star" in the NBA. You might say "Well then why are the Lakers in there?" Because they are always the future. They have been in 50% of championship series since Jerry Buss bought the team and they ain't going nowhere, with or without Howard. They have a young center (although imo Bynum is not great) to build around just in case who can be called the 2nd best center in the game and 1st in pure offense. Then they have Gasol who all of Spain, parts of Europe, and a lot of the South American continent knows bc he is a spanish speaker(since you went there lol). They have Kobe who is HUGE in China, Phillipines, and other Asian countries and at the age of 34 is still in the debate of the best player. And now they have the whole fucking country of Canada with Nash. /laker rant on: Plus, Lakers is just a popular name period. When you play for the Lakers you become a star. Go to any country and they will know who the Lakers are as they are the best modern NBA franchise. The popularity that comes with being a bench player for San Antonio compared to a bench player for the Lakers is uncontested. And don't get into jerseys sold b/c then Lin takes the cake, and I lose this debate lol /laker rant off edit: I really tried to keep this short so if there is a weak point somewhere I could probably expand more so don't take it as I think this is strictly correct. I could go on and on with more of my philosophy of what makes an NBA star and into more detail on the reasons but don't wanna bore the thread-readers just wanted to explain a little better. edit2: I also think you can have a great case for BOS or SAS instead of OKC, don't get me wrong. But I can also see why OKC can be put on the list. | ||
|
darkmetal505
United States639 Posts
On July 12 2012 05:24 Holcan wrote: okc does not have more 'star power' than the spurs and celtics, my mom knows who tony parker is, she has no clue who durant is. the entire south american continent knows who ginobili is, and duncan has more rings than the entire okc organization, we are arguing semantics, as we both differ on what the article is saying, but okc certainly does not have more star power than the spurs or boston, and like I said, nyk with lin, melo, amare and chandler are more popular than the heat, so if they weren't mentioned, how can they be talking about star power. My mom knows who Durant and Westbrook are but not Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili. See what I did there? They're obviously talking about current start power as in potential not start power as in popularity. SA and Boston are both in a downward trend for star potential. | ||
|
VENDIZ
1575 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 12 2012 06:30 darkmetal505 wrote: My mom knows who Durant and Westbrook are but not Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili. See what I did there? They're obviously talking about current start power as in potential not start power as in popularity. SA and Boston are both in a downward trend for star potential. well, your mom must be a basketball fan and/or live in okc. and sure, parker and rondo are on the down for star power....lol.... | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 12 2012 06:55 Ace wrote: 4 years, 61M. Billy King is so fucking terrible. agreed, he really needs those 6 boards a game. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 12 2012 06:56 Holcan wrote: well, your mom must be a basketball fan and/or live in okc. and sure, parker and rondo are on the down for star power....lol.... That is why I said 2 players though. They are the only ones on their teams, which is why their teams don't beat the other 3 teams listed. edit: and that is ridiculous for Lopez. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
And it seems Lopez had two offers in his hands already so maybe Nets just matched them but dam it is still a questionable move. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
To be fair, Brook has never had quality teammates around him during his career and has had to carry a heavy offensive load every year. His best teammates were Vince Carter in his rookie year, and Devin Harris in his 2nd and 3rd. It's possible that having to score so much has affected his production in other areas like rebounding. I'm not saying the guy was ever a good rebounder, but I don't think he's necessarily 6 reb/g bad either. At least not yet. It should also be noted that he was doing alright prior to Humphries becoming a rebounding monster at around 8 reb/g. Still not what you'd want from a Center, but it could be argued that his 19-20 ppg offsets it a bit. It's not unreasonable for BK to have hope that playing with Deron and JJ may bring out a more complete player in Brook by lessening his offensive burden. The guy is still very young after all and certainly quite talented. Also, and I've harped on it way too much in this thread already, talented PF/Cs are just expensive in the NBA these days. Look at what specialists like DeAndre and Asik are getting, and they're completely one dimensional. Arguably, Brook is more talented all-around and is capable of being a much better all-around player than either of those guys. $15M/yr is a lot in general, but not as unreasonable as it would be for a non-PF/C. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
and national pride is the first step to racism, I don't care where steve nash plays, or where he is from, aside from being a fantastic shooter and decision maker, I don't think he is particularly good anymore. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 12 2012 07:42 XaI)CyRiC wrote: Probably banking on Brook being more the 18/8 guy in his 2nd season, rather than the 20/3-6 guy these past couple of seasons. To be fair, Brook has never had quality teammates around him during his career and has had to carry a heavy offensive load every year. His best teammates were Vince Carter in his rookie year, and Devin Harris in his 2nd and 3rd. It's possible that having to score so much has affected his production in other areas like rebounding. I'm not saying the guy was ever a good rebounder, but I don't think he's necessarily 6 reb/g bad either. At least not yet. It should also be noted that he was doing alright prior to Humphries becoming a rebounding monster at around 8 reb/g. Still not what you'd want from a Center, but it could be argued that his 19-20 ppg offsets it a bit. It's not unreasonable for BK to have hope that playing with Deron and JJ may bring out a more complete player in Brook by lessening his offensive burden. The guy is still very young after all and certainly quite talented. Also, and I've harped on it way too much in this thread already, talented PF/Cs are just expensive in the NBA these days. Look at what specialists like DeAndre and Asik are getting, and they're completely one dimensional. Arguably, Brook is more talented all-around and is capable of being a much better all-around player than either of those guys. $15M/yr is a lot in general, but not as unreasonable as it would be for a non-PF/C. its more about the nets tying their hands with three people who aren't even top 5 in their position, arguements could be made for deron, but lopez is lucky if he breaks top 10 current centers. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 12 2012 07:42 Holcan wrote: LOLL okay. I knew as soon as i answered your post that didn't address anything i wrote I was setting up a stupid retort like that. Believe what you want.well, at least you admit they were talking about contenders, and not star power, that's all I set out to prove. | ||
| ||
