Quote:
|
When you say "which have been better" you make it sound like hes been better than redd for a while. This year was the first year that he even scored more points than redd, and were talking fractions here.
|
The fact is Martin's stats have been better than Redd's over the course of the entire 07/08 season which is the most recent one. An entire season isn't something you can just discount as not being long enough
Quote:
|
I do not agree with your illustration, neither of them. Some parts you can use, but you cannot use it in the is the team is better with/without a guy, because theres always cases of arenas, kobe, etc. where sometimes when the team actually does better when they are injured. That doesnt mean they are better/worse players, it just means the team steps it up at times with them out.
|
You don't have to agree or disagree with anything. Those were just facts that I presented. The Bucks have played better this year without their "franchise" player.
Quote:
|
Redd's averaging going down by 2 points, at his age, we can hardly say yet hes on "the decline." Martin jumped up like crazy the year after his rookie year, and this year scored 2. something more points a game, but in only 60 games. I hardly call that " improved markedly each of his seasons". Nor is he playing at a higher level than redd.
|
Didn't Martin win or come second for most improved last season? And he was in discussions for that award again for the first couple months of this season when he was averaging 27ppg before going down with the injury. Improving scoring averages by 9.2ppg one year, and 3.5ppg the next, I think most people would call that marked improvements [29 players have averaged over 20.2ppg this season (martin's scoring average a year ago), compared to 6 players averaging over 23.7ppg this season (martin's scoring average)]. But then again as we've seen many times in this thread you prefer to use your own definitions for some words or expressions rather than those widely accepted by everyone else
And yes, he is playing at a higher level than Redd. He was more productive, and led his team to more wins. I can't see what other ways that you can objectively measure you can use to say that redd played at a higher level.
Quote:
|
Same to you. Out of context, because you are bringing in someone like kapono into the equation, when you know good and well, that were talking about star quality here, which kapono does not have. Its one thing to be able to shoot, but were talking to be able to shoot, and then apply it to superstar status. Not be a good shooter and score 7 points a game.
|
You were the one citing the reasons that some website gave as to why Redd's a superstar. bootstrenf just provided an example of another player who satisfies all those criteria, and who wouldn't be considered a superstar by anyone who knows anything about the game. Also, what's so special about being such a great pure shooter as Redd is, if you still shoot at such poor percentages during games?
Quote:
|
Martin is not a better pure shooter than redd at this point. And i cant believe people are giving martin so much credit this early when hes had 1.5 good years only. He could turn into a great player, but he has not been mentioned at all as being a star that i have seen, at least in comparison to some of the others, including redd that we have mentioned.
|
Yet another Yamaneko rule that a player shouldnt receive credit for playing at a high level unless they've played at that level for over 2 seasons? So Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant... none of these players would likely qualify as stars due this rule
Quote:
|
LOL. game winning shots matter no matter what. It means you have that ability. Its not redds fault that the bucks have built a terrible team. You are either a clutch performer or youre not. Hes proven himself to be able to take the game winning shot, and on occasion make it.
|
Give me a player who can lead a team to 15 more wins in a season and not hit a single game winning shot, over a player who's hit 10 game winners but led his team to 15 less wins anytime.
Quote:
|
Hes a franchise player because hes the franchise player, plain and simple. the bucks have called him that, they have given him a contract because he fits that role, so he is the franchise player. Kaman is not the best player in the clippers organization, what are you talking about? Brand is our franchise player, he is our best player, he is paid as such as well.
|
There are only a select few players in the NBA at any one time who can be called "franchise players". Tim Duncan is a franchise player. Kobe Bryant is a franchise player. Lebron James is a franchise player. Michael Redd, is not in that category. The fact that Bucks have built their team around him, put guys in there who are talented individuals, had a coach who's structured an offense around the guards (thereby inflating redd's stats over the years) rather than the bigs which would likely have been more effective, and to win only 28 games means that redd is not a franchise player.
FYI according to wikipedia:
Franchise Player is a modern term used in sports to describe an athlete who is not simply the best player on their team, but a player that the team can build their franchise around for the foreseeable future. The misnomer that a franchise player is only "the best player on a team" disregards the fact that an inordinately bad team will undoubtedly still employ a player with superior skills, relative to his team. However, such a player could be so bad in comparison to players at-large that labeling such a player as a franchise player would be inappropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_player
Quote:
|
Out of the 1000 points here, i have not been proven wrong even once. People have posted their own opinions, but there is nothing that proves anything i have said as wrong.
|
You must be joking.... you've been one contradiction after another with each post in this thread
Quote:
|
So derek fisher must have the quickest release in the game and thus be the best pure shooter? No. Thats a bogus argument there. you or i could catch and toss a ball up there in .4 seconds if we had to. Technically point two seconds if we just volley ball tap it. What the article was talking about, what i have been talking about, what analyssts has been talking about for years, is that redd and allen have the most pure shots, quickest releases, etc. in the game, and that brings them to a superstar level because they translate those skills to the tune of 25 points a game.
|
In what have been largely losing efforts over their careers. Ray Allen is the more talented of those two players, and even he has to play as 3rd fiddle on a team to be considered a contender.
Quote:
|
I havent back tracked at all. I have to go back and explain myself it seems to people like you who keep twisting my words, but thats certainly not backtracking. Not one of my points has been "proven" wrong, because nothing im saying has not been said before by people way smarter than you and I, nor is it based off of faulty information. Its not like im saying spud webb is the greatest player of the 80's. Im maintaing an opinion shared by many analysts, that not all agree with, but is by no means as off base as some here seem to think
|
This is hilarious! Especially coming from someone who said this about Kapono:
Quote:
|
Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot.
|
LOL!!!!