yamaneko

But does it translate to his overall game? Were talking about in referece to being a tar, and being elite at your position. Hes a decent shooter in that, if you give him an open shot, hes great at making it, as can be seen from his percentages. But i dont think hes as pure a shooter as redd, nor can he get off shots with the ease or regularity of redd. Otherwise hed be more than a single digit scorer in the league.

I bet there are 45 year old gym rats who could probably do that...that doesnt mean much. What this whole discussion is about is being a star, and during games being considered one of the best shooters in the world from your position. There are plenty of shooters out there that can do great in 3 point contests, but if they are single digit scorers in the league, we cant really call them elite.

What are we talking about this entire thread? Were talking about where redd ranks among the top SG's of the world, what makes/doesnt make one a star, and which components of redd's game make/dont make him a star. One thing people are not agreeing with me on is how good of a shooter redd is, which is one of my main criteria in calling him a star.

So, instead of posting crazy opinions from the general board here, i wanted to post what just this week, a respected media outlet had to say on the matter. Low and behold its some of the things that ive been saying for the last week. Still not to be taken as gosphel, but goes to show that my point is, my opinion is also shared by many in the media world as well.

__________________
Clippers Basketball - Jump on the braNd-wagon!

leidout

Why aren't you calling him a superstar anymore?

bootstrenf

i'm not trying to really compare kapono to redd....we all know redd is a better overall player than kapono....


what you did was list 4 things that were factors in making redd a star:

i'm just countering that those 4 things do not make a star, as players like kapono fullfills the same criteria....

that's all....

of course redd >>>>>> kapono......

__________________

yamaneko

What are you talking about? almost every other post im calling him a star or superstar or elite player.

Then why bring up kapono when its totally out of context as to what we are talking about? Like i said, someone in a gym who shoots all day long and can make half court shots with his eyes closed fits the criteria of an amazing shooter. But not in the context of being a star in this league, which is what youre talking about. And the article quoted either did not have the context of redd just being a guy who can shoot like your regular gym guy, or like kapono, etc. It was in the context of his stardom, they were bringing out things that made him a star...the same things that i brought out. What made it stand out more was his defficiences, about not being an explosive athletic guy like the stereotypical star, yet still his shooting puts him at a high level.

__________________
Clippers Basketball - Jump on the braNd-wagon!

bootstrenf

nice try, but wrong again....how is it "out of context"??? you specifically listed 4 traits that were factors in making redd a star...

a scrub like jason kapono had those same traits....the difference between the two players was scoring....

and does scoring alone make redd a "star"??? i don't think so.....

redd might be the best player in the milwaukee franchise, but that does not make him a franchise player....he's more akin to being the smartest kid in a special ed class....


you seem to have your own criteria for what constitues a star or franchise player in the nba....

like i said before, kapono has all these traits also....

and you counter that redd scores more...well, like Bon]{eRz said, kevin martin does everything better than redd, in a tougher conference, but you somehow claim redd is better...

then you constantly talk about "game winning shots".....well, game winning shots don't really matter when you lead your team to the third worst record in the weak eastern conference....


and finally, you claim redd is a star/franchise player because he is the best player in the bucks organization....well, chris kaman was undoubtedly the best player in the clippers organization.....does that make him a franchise player???? not so much.....


point by point, you have been proven wrong by numerous people, but you never concede....

and some of your arguements are outright funny....you speak on subjects you have no knowledge of....

here's what you said about a back to back 3 point shootout champion that led the league in 3pt% last year at 51.4%
and shot 48% this year:

not to mention that kapono completed a catch and shoot under .3 seconds.....


you were so completely wrong, it was hilarious....but you glossed over that by claiming any gym rat could do the same and that it has nothing to do with being a star....but you were the one who brought up shooting ability as a factor in the first place!!!!

you try to backtrack, and circumvent all the stupiid claims you have made, but it's impossiible because you have made so many.....


your claims have been refuted successfully point by point....and quite simply put, redd is not a franchise player, a star, nor a top 3-4 sg in the nba....

__________________

yamaneko

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Once again grasping at straws here, taking things out of context, trying to twist my words, because you must be getting desperate to try to prove your unprovable point.

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

__________________
Clippers Basketball - Jump on the braNd-wagon!

Bon]{eRz

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

You must be joking.... you've been one contradiction after another with each post in this thread

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.

This is hilarious! Especially coming from someone who said this about Kapono:

LOL!!!!

sertorius

Bon]{eRz, that is an absolutely brilliant post. Great work.

__________________
"A man who can't hold to his beliefs is never more than pathetic, whether dead or alive."

Saito

leidout

Game, Set, Match to Bon]{eRz!

yamaneko

It most certainly is. after last year how many players did ruben patterson do better than statistically? yes did that make ruben patterson a better player than those guys? brand in 05/06 did better than almost any other PF/C in the league that year. Should we right after that year have said that brand was better than those guys? Your logic is not sound in this argument.

Wrong again. If you try to misapply an illustration is most certainly can be disagreed with. Your thesis was wrong, and has been proven many times to not be something that is sound. How a team does while a player is injured does not always mean much about that player. Just like i said, arenas and kobe's teams have done well with them out, that does not take anything away from their individual talent. To use facts in a wrong way is misleading. I could use facts such as "in the summer league paul davis this year put up consistently better stats than kaman, and the clippers did better as a unit when davis was in there." that would be a fact. But then if i tried to say, "thus kaman really isnt that good, he isnt the best player on the team, wed be better off with davis starting, etc. etc.", then id be misleading like you are doing. Bucks won/loss record without redd has little to no bearing on how redd's abilities should be viewed. Same as when the lakers did better with kobe out last year, did that mean kobe sucked? When the wizards did well without arenas, does that mean arenas isnt a star? Please.

Like i said, he improved a great deal from his rookie year. I certainly dont recall any discussions for most improved award for martin over the first two months of this season when the first month he averaged, what? 24 poitns a game? Then the second month of the season he was injured pretty much the whole month. WHen you use phrases like, " improved markedly each of his seasons", again its misleading. For someone not in the know, they might assume you are referring t oa guy who has improved over the course of 4, possibly 5 years, year to year. We heard that term a lot with maggette who did it over 6 years.

Again, me calling redd a star, superstar, elite player, super shooter, whatever, are all terms used by analysts for the last few years, all reasons why teams were ready t opay him whatever they could when he was a free agent, and the reason the bucks made sure to keep him. Just because some people on a message board might not agree with them and myself does that mean that we can put the "everyone else" moniker on it. lol

again, flawed logic. Lets see what happens over 2 yers, 3 years, 4 years, when were talking about someone with the history of redd, and an up and comer like martin. Couple years ago mike james averaged 20 points and 6 assists. That was better than most PG's in the league. Did that make him better than those guys? No, what he did over the course of 3/4 years could determine that. And there have been guys who prove themselves better. Rey allens in the beginning of his career put up some nice numbers, but like kevin martin was not yet referred to as a star SG. He did better than one of the current star guards of the time, reggie miller. But most analysts used caution in calling him great, or a star yet until about his 4th season when it was obvious, yes, this guy had something special. Same with redd, you didnt hear him called a star, even after his 8 three pointers in the 4th, until around 05, when it was obvious...this wasnt just a fluke, this guy has incredible game, yes we think hes a star. I never said martin will never reach that level. on the contrary i have stated he very well could get there due to his age. But its premature to say hes at that level yet, or even surpassed someone like redd. I dont buy it, and you dont hear any analysts saying that neither. Next year, if martin averages say 25 points, plays most of the year, i guarantee you will start hearing him in that kind of context. Sorry if i offend you by taking the stance that one and a half years of nice 20+ point ball does not put someone on the level of a michael redd with his resume the last 5+ years.

The guy is a 39% career 3 poitn shooter. Kobe is 34%. Ray ALlen 39.7%. Reggie miller 39%. Tmac 33.7%. All guys who have been doing it a long time, and i would not call redd's percentages poor. I was the one citing noted experts on the game, saying the same things I wa ssaying. I wasnt posting the raving madness of people on other message boards, i am posting professional opinions which happened to be similar to mine. I thought it quite interested that it was just posted a few days ago. if you cannot see how bringing jason kapono into the argument when it is totally off topic as to the context