yamaneko

Here you go again with your "led his team to wins" as if he is the sole reason that the kings won games. As if coaching has nothing to do with it. As if team chemistry has nothing to do with it. Sacramento hands down played better than the bucks. You cant say that martin led his team to more wins than redd, as if hes the driving force. Heck, he missed 20 games even. You can say the kings had a better standing than the bucks, thats a fact. can we say that carmello "led" his team to more wins than lebron did, so carmello must be better? You going to say bosh "led" his team to twice as many victories as jefferson did with minnesota? And again, youre comparing a guy who for the first time scored 23 points a game this year, in 60 games, as having surpassed a guy who has averaged 24 over the last five years. Like i said, lets wait until we hear the same superlatives about martin before giving him accolades. Lets wait until he truly sets himself apart like redd has done in this league. Like i said many times, he could become a great player. But thats what everyone said about maggette too when he was improving, and was putting up similar numbers.

Here you go talking about the same stuff again when it proves almost nothing yet. Now you bring up Per which is highly subjective. Chris paul had a per about 50% higher than deron williams. Is he that much better than deron? Amare had a PER 25% better than Dwight howard. Would many people here take amare over dwight? Al jefferson had almost identical per to yao and dwight howard..

Yes, with less talent around him, martin was able to do more IMO. Same as with less talent around him, maggette's numbers got inflated, as did kaman. And again with the losses w/wo which have been proven time and again to be highly subjective, and not an accurate guage of player talent. Lakers did better with kobe out with injury, washington did great without arenas. One of the few absolute clear cut examples of how a team suffers when someone goes is nash and phoenix, where their offense is so reliant on him, its like they dont know what to do when he doesnt play.

Ive been giving nothing but facts, facts over the course of 5 years, not over 60 games. And even if we were comparing apples with apples, were talking martin outscoring redd by 0.8. Out rebonding him by 0.2. getting less rebounds by 1.3, same steals, same blocks, 0.4 less turnovers, and all this in 10 less games than redd played. Even going by your logic of one year of a guy with decent stats can tell us that hes better than a guy who has been averaging better for the last FIVE years, its not as if martin was leaps and bounds over redd on the stats sheet as you make it seem.

Im not the one reaching here.

Like i said, i use the maggette example as one example. Heck, even redd is a guy who we can say had improved each season, and it wouldnt just be a case of going from bench warmer to rotation player and then a couple good years as a starter. If anything redd seems to have had what you are calling marked improvement using martin as an example. went from 2 points to 11 points to 15 points to 22 points to 23 poitns to 25 points to 27 points. Although thats technically improvement over 7 years, id mainly highlight the last 5 to call that improvement "each season" since it would mean so much more than scoring 22 points over a season and a half as big time improvement.

Once again am i saying that its out of the question for martin? he very well could end up with a career statline like redd has had over the next 3 years.

thats pointless, id have to talk to them about the millions of other things that are not entirely accurate there on that website. Its not "wrong" per ce, just one definition of the word that people, by no means just me, define differently. Thats one of the thoughts behind that site, different people can add different ideas and thoughts as to topics and words on there.

Your assertions are flawed and so is your logic. You say things like, Martin has led his team to more victories. You make it seem like martin has crushed redd in stats this year. You make it seem like one year of equal stats wipes out the fact that redd has been doing this for years, and that its premature to annoint someone as better than another guy after 60 games. We dont have to wait to see who is right, were not talking about right and wrong, were talking about fact and opinion. Fact is someone with martin's resume cannot be considered to be better than anothe rplayer after doing nothing that spectacular, and having basically equal stats to the other guy in only 60 games. Thats just a fact. Now, if he did something really amazing, like average 30 points a game or hit 150 out of 300 three pointers on the year, then yes, its a fact that you can go ahead and call that player better than almost anyone else who is averaging 24 poitns a game and shooting 40% from three point land. But youre stretching it to annoint martin as better so soon, thats just the plain and simple of it. Its not a matter of lets see in 3 years who is right. I myself have said about 8 times now that martin very well could become a star, and surpass redd, hes certainly young enough. But its too early to call him that when he has a 23 point season in 60 games on his resume.

Again, you are using this whole one season thing so dramatically. Redd last year averaged what hes been averaging the last 5 years. Points, FG%, 3P %, in almost ever major statistical category. The only one was under by a bit on his career average was free throws and were still talking the difference between 82 and 84%. Kobe bryant has had about FOUR different seasons where his numbers dipped from one year to the next, on how many of those times can we say that he was on the decline? Give me a break with the rapid aging theory you have. Once agian, lets wait to see like 2 years or 3 years of decline to call a guy on the decline. Someone like shaq, closer to home: mobley, etc. To say that redd must be on the dcline because of one year in which is still averaged what he has been the last 5 years, is yet again flawed logic.

Youre saying you disagree? Please. youre not going to sit there and tell me that kevin martin has shown the same brilliance that superstars like lebron, etc. showed right off the bat. You cannot say that martin's stats showed something absolutely spectacular that allows us to annoint him a star after 60 games of 23 point ball. Now youre just trying to call me out on things that you HAVE to agree with, just for spite. Are you saying that deron williams and chris paul havent accomplished anything special? Nothing to set them apart from kevin martin? That perhaps tim duncan and 21 poitns and 12 rebounds 3 blocks playing next to david robinson wasnt enough to call him a guaranteed star?

No, i would not be wrong, because i am not using someone else's definition of the word. That is not a word that is set in stone in a dictionary like "misnomer" which cannot have varying definitions. Franchise player is a subjective phrase that can be used in many different ways, even can be used for a guy like david beckham in the galaxy last year, not the best guy on the team, played in almost no games, yet probably made more money for the club in one year than their entire 10 years combined. People called him the franchise player for the galaxy, and it had nothing to do with on the pitch action.

I cannot be "wrong" at using a word that has a subjective meaning. Just like the word "fanatic." Some might call a fanatic anyone who reads the sports page just to see scores of a game. Others might draw the line at fanaticsim of waiting in line for 5 days just to buy playoff tickets. Neither would be "wrong," as that word is not a word that is set in stone. Quit trying to play word games just for the sake of trying to prove me wrong at something.

Id say thats a pretty decent statement. Its not AS set in stone perhaps as one might think due to the enigmatic artest who when he is on, is one of the better all around players in the game, but with artest having been in la la land much of the past 3 years, id have to say that with equal salaries, about 90% of teams would choose martin to be on their team than artest (clippers probably being in the 10% who would not).

its pretty much the opposite. You keep bringing up equal stats in less games this year as your main tpic, as well as intangibles such as him having "led" the team to this and that victory. Look at the clippers in 05/06. Brand by far had the best stats onthe team, and better than most in the league. Did brand "lead" us to all those victories? Most will say cassell "led" us to those victories since he made everyone better around him, and was able to take over games down the stretch. Others might argue that someone who averaged 17 points and 7 assists cannot be considered as the leader over someone who averaged 25 and 11. Its a subjective argument.

Again, martin isnt "getting" more wins. Is robert horry a guy who "gets" wins, even with his clutch play? or is he perhaps a recipient of being in the right team at the right time. Again, a subjective argument. Garnett could be considered a perennial loser. Yet others consider him to be probably top 2 most talented players in the league of the last 10 years. Do you pick a guy like rasheed wallace over him because he "gets more wins.?"

Her eyou go yet again with this nonsense of bringing up 7 point a game scrubs into a conversation about stars and potential stars. A rec guy can be a great shooter, but if he doesnt have the skills to translate that into a 25 point a game scorer, then of what good is that, and how could he be considered something like that?

Nope, you insisting on bringing up kapono into this conversation is hilarious. Kapono is consistent. A consistent single digit scorer in the league. A guy who is so good at catching and shooting, that hes been able to average a whopping quarter and a half of playing time each game for his 5 year career. ANYONE can get a shot off with .3 seconds. Even kaman can. (of course shooting guards would be much more accurate in a testing situation), but yet again were not talking rec league, were not talking all star weekend, or scientific youtube experiments. Were talking who is the best pure shooter, and proves it during the games. Kapono is what he is. a nice spark plug off of the bench to draw out the defense, and is good for 1-2 three pointers a game, but literally thats about it (7 points a game average). Should never be brought up in a topic that has to do with guys like michael redd, ray allen, and reggie miller.

Kaponos name should be talked about when were discussing the best shooting specialists off of the bench in the league. Korver, daman jones, etc. etc.

__________________
Clippers Basketball - Jump on the braNd-wagon!