Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Martin and Redd, both the leaders of their teams. Martin surrounded by less talent than Redd. Martin playing in a tougher conference. 12 games difference, which would likely have been 6-7 games higher if you extrapolate their individual records during the games they missed with injuries. Kings played better with Martin in the team. Bucks played better without Redd in the team. You don’t have to be a freaking genious to come to the conclusion that even if there was better coaching involved, better team chemistry on a team with less individual talent (which Martin should receive some credit for anyway as the leader of the team), Martin has done a BETTER job leading his team than Redd has. You’re saying “it could be due to this, it could be due to that”, you’ve got nothing to point at to indicate that Redd’s a better leader, and your criticisms of everything that’s in Martin’s favour can be applied to any player in the NBA. Can’t prove that Kobe’s a better leader than Redd, because the difference in their records “could be due to team chemistry or better coaching”. Same with Redd vs Garnett. Same with Redd vs Duncan. So in your books, even though there is nothing to indicate that Redd is a good leader, as long as it can’t conclusively be proven that any other player is the sole reason for their team’s better record well then you feel justified to claim that they haven’t been a better leader than Redd.
Comparison of Carmello vs Bron isn’t relevant here because Lebron is clearly more productive on the court, whereas Martin has trumped Redd in both wins and production. We can say that Bosh’s team won more games than Jefferson, and his production was greater on the court so he was a better leader.
I’m taking their most recent performances. Martin’s been on the up the past 4 years, Redd’s started to decline. Why choose 5 year numbers? Shaq’s 5 year averages are 19.4pt 9.7reb 2.0blck, guess you would take him over a player like Dwight Howard who’s only had the one most recent season with better stats than Shaq. Great reasoning!
How has Redd set himself apart in this league? He’s led his team to one (maybe two) playoff series, and that was a first round exit lol
Quote:
|
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..
|
Same stuff which are all facts in Martin’s favour. PER is an objective statistic, but even if you don’t go by that look at every single stat, they’re all in Martin’s favour except for assists. So don’t even know why you’re arguing the validity of PER when no matter which way you slice it, Martin had the more productive season than Redd. Either agree with this statement, or please present your argument of why Redd had the more productive season.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Wtf are you talking about, on one hand you say playing with less talent has inflated martin’s numbers, but on the other hand you give him no credit for leading that less talented team to more wins?? LOL
Martin’s played better than Redd over an entire season. We’re not talking a span of 5 games that Kobe’s missed. And you could at least argue that Washington is a better team without Gilbert… he’s not exactly the most efficient pg in the league.
What about Milwaukee year after year basing their offense around their guards rather than their interior players, which has inflated Redd’s numbers, and led the team to nowhere? Redd could only be successful as a third fiddle, possible 2nd fiddle on a team with a good leader, and in that situation he would not be averaging over 20ppg.
Quote:
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.
|
He doesn’t have to be leaps and bounds over Redd. What’s important, and what you’ve just admitted yourself, is that he is ahead of Redd on the stat sheet. On a team which wins more games. That should be the end of the argument there. That 5 year argument is bull****, unless you also agree that Shaq is a better player than Dwight Howard.
Quote:
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.
|
Backtracking once again lol You yourself defined “markedly improved” as someone who’s improved steadily over 4 or 5 years. Well Martin has improved the 4 years he’s been in the league. Caught out again as Martin even meets YOUR definition of markedly improved. Dictionary definition or marked and improvement:
Marked:
1. strikingly noticeable; conspicuous
Improvement:
1. an act of improving or the state of being improved.
Nowhere in there is there a time period stated. But once again, definitions are irrelevant. Because half people don’t use words according to their definitions, right? LOL And that dictionary was written by some person, who knows how many inaccuracies there may be in it. You are a joke
Quote:
|
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.
|
That Wikipedia entry made particular reference to people like you, who mistakenly define the word. Its an objective site, which backs mine and another poster’s opinion in this thread on what a franchise player is. You’ve been proven wrong yet again.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Fact is, Martin was more productive on a team that won more games. There are no opinions in that statement. That’s all we need to know. This debate should have ended there. Btw since 3ptrs seem to be so important to you, did you know Martin’s matched Redd in 3ptm/g on less shots?
Thing is Martin’s already surpassed Redd this past season. Your argument is based on Redd from now on reverting to his form from a few years ago (during which he was still a perennial loser anyway). If during the more recent season Martin already played at a higher level than Redd, and Martin’s been improving every season, and Redd’s declined, why would you think that next season the opposite of that would happen? That’s not logical.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I actually went to the trouble of analyzing player’s ppg averages over the past 3 years (3yrs are all the stats I could get), identified those who’s average dipped from 05/06-06/07, and then calculated what percentage of those players average ppg increased the following 07/08 season. Starting sample was the top 150 players in 05/06 by points total on the entire season. Of the players who’s scoring averages dipped in 06/07, only 31% of them saw an increase in their scoring 07/08. So statistically, we can say that its more likely that Redd’s scoring will not increase next season that it is to increase. I can pm you the entire list of players if you’d like to check the analysis yourself.
Once again… facts backing my argument. Something which you’ve lacked through this entire debate.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I do disagree. Why on earth would you not give a player credit for playing well over 2 years? Lol
And again, I don’t believe that Martin is some great player. Just showing that Redd isn’t even better than him, let alone in the top 3 sg in the world lol
Quote:
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.
|
You are wrong. The wiki definition didn’t overlook and actually made reference to the way that people like you define franchise player, and it’s a misnomer, and an error to define it that way.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Martin had better stats. They weren’t equal.
How many times do I have to shoot down your comparisons by explaining that whats important are individual stats, AND wins. Brand had good stats, but didn’t lead his team to many wins. Martin had better stats than Redd, AND led his team to more wins. That’s the difference
Quote:
|
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.?"
|
Again, your argument is that if I can’t conclusively prove something that’s obvious anyway, you can continue to believe whatever you want. When there is no evidence whatsoever for your argument.
Garnett has been surrounded by less talent than Rasheed. And anyway he had better individual stats. So again your comparison is irrelevant here.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Because you’re the one who defined it to SHOOTING guards. If you’re comparing players by simply their shooting ability, I’m sure there are several players in the nba who are more accurate shooters than Redd.
Quote:
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.
|
Kapono was brought into the conversation as someone who meets the criteria that the professional opinion you brought up said was so special about Redd. If its so special about Redd, then why is it you can say those exact same things about a scrub like Kapono? Lol I can’t believe you’re still not getting this point.
Anyways this is my final post here… As much fun as it is proving you wrong over and over again and watching other posters do it, its too frustrating arguing with someone who keeps making up his own definitions, and doest apply common logic to his arguments.