I responded to this in a previous post.Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
I'd prefer to have any of these ten:
That's without including rookies from this season like LeBron James (up to now), Kirk Henrich or Dwayne Wade.
Of your ten I would not place Jason Williams ahead of Terry.
James is not a PG (as evidenced by the acquisition of McInnis) neither is Wade and Terry is far and away better then Hinrich.
Terry puts up statistics comparable to many of these players, only difference being that his teams lose. You seem to give Raheem the benefit of the doubt for this but not Terry.
If winning is a criteria one can compile a grocery list of individuals better then Raheem.
What you said was “having the league's top shot-blocker is like having the league's stop steal man...a nice trivia point, but not terribly impactful on actually winning games”.I didn't say shot-blocking doesn't make a difference. I said that a player who's only really value is that he leads the league in blocked shots is too one-dimensional to count as serious talent. Ratliff is hardly considered a major difference-maker...some posters here want him as a "throw-in." Nobody considers him a major piece.
You use the absence of my initial post as an opportunity to skew what is being debated. My point was never that Ratliff was “a major difference-maker” (even though I believe his shot blocking abilities to be), it was that Raheem is benefited by having one of the league top shot blocking presences to cover for him (this was part of a rundown of the talents on last seasons Hawks team).
Your response of individual shot blocking excellence being irrelevant in terms of wins and loses was (simply put) outlandish.
That is an easy assertion to make after the fact. Prior to those seasons it was widely believed that the Hawks were a playoff caliber team. First after the acquisition of Raheem then the following season with the acquisition of Robinson.The organization guaranteed the playoffs as a marketing gimmick in to try and drum up interest in a moribund franchise. Yes, the Hawks were considered a possible playoff team which, in the East, is not the same as being "quite talented." The Wizards have been considered playoff contenders...pretty much every Eastern team has. That doesn't make them all quite talented.
I do not have links or clippings to what was being said about the Hawks but if my memory serves me correctly many had them predicted as an eighth seed.
They underachieved both years (meanwhile dropping the perceived talent of the cast surrounding the top players).
In Philadelphia the perception of Ratliff was that he was a beast defensively (he was also being pushed as the defensive player of the year prior to his injury and trade from the sixers). Today he is not thought of as favorably.
How do you substantiate that Terry is overrated (certainly not from his production)?Possibly. Or perhaps Terry is overrated (as I definitely think he is).
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you reached that position without utilizing the subjective methods of perception.
With three players averaging around 20 ppg what exactly would you ask of Newbel. He was a role player who defended the opposing teams best perimeter player nightly and he did not require plays in order to contribute to the team. I have already covered the value of a Ratliff (who was second only to Glover on that team in terms of +/-).The bench is very weak, Newble was a pretty terrible shooting guard, in terms of actual production, and Ratliff is a poor scorer (and rebounder, for his size and position).
The Hawks finished last season relatively strong following an abysmal start that resulted in a coaching change and the insertion of Newbel into the starting lineup.
His production was rather respectable once he was inserted into the starting lineup (btw).
After debating Raheem earlier (as well as reading many calling for his acquisition by the Blazers) I decided to record a few Atlanta games in order to gauge him as a player. That s what I came up with from my observations coupled with the fact that he blocks fewer shots then any other starting PF logging significant playing time and has his shot blocked more then any other player in the league.Yes, which is something one can say, unprovably either way, about any player. Clearly some, like Duncan, are reputably good enough that it doesn't matter that you can't prove it one way or the other. But for the vast majority of players, you could claim that "he concedes as much as he contributes and that his contributions come more so at the expense of those around him (his teammates) then to the benefit of them."
I'm not too interested in claims that are totally subjective.
I stated my analysis quite clear in my initial post (which no longer exists). I have not the time to run down those points again.
Those are rather hollow words coming from one who utilized subjective terms such as “intangibles”, “leadership” and such as a foundation in their well-documented defense of Scottie Pippen.Fine, but that's totally subjective as well. The reason I'm not too big on subjective claims is that one can use totally subjective claims, like who has a "winning mentality" and who's "contributions come at the expense of the team rather than for the benefit," to tear down any player one wishes.
Except for the fact that Nowitski wins and that he annually ranks amongst the league leaders in terms of +/-. I have no doubt in my mind that Nowitzki makes those around him better with his versatility and shooting ability.Every single claim you make about SAR, I could make for Dirk Nowitski.
I do not believe that Raheem benefits those around him (and his career winning percentage indicates as much).
I agree with you in regards to the value of production.But the cold hard facts are what they actually produce, which make them talented assets in this league.
In regards to subjective subject matter... that is a staple of good analysis. Those who can evaluate talent and or predict a player’s ability to succeed in a particular system or player grouping do not have a statistic to substantiate what they observe. That is not saying that statistics cannot be utilized (because they can) however much of what’s perceived and covered in sports (as well as the real world) is subjective.
Much of what is debated on these boards are opinions derived form our perceptions of subjective subject matter. It is a crapshoot and things do not always add up but it is those who are good at gauging intangible qualities and subjective matters that ring prophetic when all is said and done. Typically you hope these individuals to be those in decision-making positions (in regards to your favorite team).
Perhaps my read on Raheem is absolutely wrong, perhaps not. My record in relation to subjective issues has held up rather well in the past.
To promote the subjectivity of a claim as a means of discrediting it is as asinine a practice in terms of sport analysis as measuring the length of nostril hair in correlation to field goal kicking/ free throw shooting accuracy.