2009-10 NBA Basketball

[Neroon]

Shaq is still monstrously strong. He may be less of an offensive threat, but his ability to lean on and make other big centers work much harder for their rebounds and such is a great asset. For example, he got Howard into serious foul trouble in that Cavs/Magic game the other night. Then again, Rashard Lewis was out of the lineup.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Brandon Jennings' 55 points for the Bucks last night. He has 29 in the 3rd quarter alone.

 

[gblews]

Shaq is still capable of scoring on single coverage. I'd argue it's his floor-running abilities and defensive liabilities that are at issue, not his low post play.

Every center in the league is "capable of scoring on single coverage".

Shaq was never able to run the floor. That's why his best years were with the Lakers in their 'walk it up the floor and set up' style.

But I will agree with you that Shaq's defensive abilities are far, far, behind him and defense is the reason the myopic Cavs acquired him.

 

[Neroon]

I wouldn't call them "myopic", but I would say their expectations are too high. Shaq beings a good lockerroom presence, but he also brings some relief in the low post. His defensive skills are definitely lesser than they were, but they haven't disappeared. Where his greatest value lies is in combining with Ilgauskas for more continued strength down low. Neither one will have to do it all. It's going to be interesting to see how things go against Dwight Howard the next time. Shaq got him into some foul trouble this game, but then Howard had to do more because of missing personnel ===> more fouls are more likely.

ETA: Shaq is there for games against Orlando, but I do agree that the Cavs are still expecting too much from this signing.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Shaq is still capable of scoring on single coverage. I'd argue it's his floor-running abilities and defensive liabilities that are at issue, not his low post play.

Every center in the league is "capable of scoring on single coverage".

Tell that to Sammy Dalembert.

Shaq was never able to run the floor. That's why his best years were with the Lakers in their 'walk it up the floor and set up' style.

I disagree with that. I remember him taking the charge on fastbreaks back in 2001. He would on rare occasions dribble the ball up court himself and still beat the defense to the basket. He may be a big guy, but he used to be able to run.

But I will agree with you that Shaq's defensive abilities are far, far, behind him and defense is the reason the myopic Cavs acquired him.

With the NBA's regulations of defenses, a slow center who is merely big should've gone out ages ago, but, surprisingly, they're still able to play (probably because there aren't that many good centers in the league).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Sorry about a double post bump, but this amused me

Memphis Grizzlies Continue To Insist They Have 5 Players Better Than Allen Iverson

 

[SmoothieX]

Possible Eastern Conference Finals preview later today as Knicks battle the Nets.

I saw an amusing stat in SI this week. Prior to the Knicks beating Indy the other night, the Yankees had more wins in NOvember than the NYC area football and basketball teams combined.

 

[Xevious]

Well I'm disappointed so far. Hopes were high down here in SA with the Richard Jefferson trade, Dice signing, and Dejuan Blair drafting. But aside from rare moments, the Spurs have sucked hard so far. One can blame the fact that so many new faces are trying to learn a new system, or that Tim, Tony, and Manu have already missed time due to minor injuries, or that nearly every game has featured a different starting lineup. But whatever the reason, they're struggling.

And how about them Hawks?

 

[Galactus]

While I don't watch sports anymore, I will second the Steve Nash is overrated. He is beyond overrated. I can't think of a more overrated player ever. The fact that he ever won an MVP let alone two just shows why I gave up sports.

When MVP went from being the best player in the league to some arbitrary what "valuable" means, I gave up on it.

 

[Neroon]

But it would help if you explained WHY you feel he's overrated. I.m not saying you're right or wrong, just that "overrated" is such a subjective term that it would help to know by which criteria you're evaluating him.

 

[Galactus]

As someone said, he is often mentioned as one of the best point guards in history, but he hasn't done anything except win 2 undeserved MVP awards. He has never been one of the Top 10 players in the league, yet he won MVP, please.

 

[Neroon]

As someone said, he is often mentioned as one of the best point guards in history, but he hasn't done anything except win 2 undeserved MVP awards. He has never been one of the Top 10 players in the league, yet he won MVP, please.

By whose system are those Top 10 players named? The MVP awards undeserved? That's quite possible, because I don't recall who else would have been closely considered those years.

Nash is not one of my favorite players, but I am still aware of his performance. Frankly... I tend to think he compares favorably with the rest of the league. Historically? Well it's harder to tell. You can knock every PG down a peg for one thing or another. John Stockton for example made much of his success with Karl Malone as a scoring mate. Nash at least has had ply his trade with a couple of teams, and he's still putting up good numbers and providing the leadership that usually brings an MVP award.

 

[Galactus]

he's still putting up good numbers and providing the leadership that usually brings an MVP award.

Tell me who has gotten an MVP award for this. I just look over the last winners for the past 10 years. Everyone else was the best player in the league hands down. Here is that 10 year list, tell me who does not belong.

LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki
Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Shaquille O'Neal
Karl Malone

 

[gblews]

But it would help if you explained WHY you feel he's overrated. I.m not saying you're right or wrong, just that "overrated" is such a subjective term that it would help to know by which criteria you're evaluating him.

I'll tell you why I think he's overrated -- he has won two MVP awards.

There is not a single multiple MVP winner who has not won at least one championship and played in the Finals more than once. Nash is strictly a stat guy. He has yet to show that he can lift a team to the next level -- you know, that old bugaboo about making your teammates better. He gets them scoring opportunities but makes none of them better. Nash has proven that he is an adept passer and pretty good shooter, but when it comes to lifting a team to play beyond itself, he has always fallen short and no one ever calls him on this. The guy is a two time MVP and no one ever asks why his teams have always ultimately failed.

He apparently is not held to the same standards as other NBA players, thus the two MVP awards.

 

[gblews]

he's still putting up good numbers and providing the leadership that usually brings an MVP award.

Tell me who has gotten an MVP award for this. I just look over the last winners for the past 10 years. Everyone else was the best player in the league hands down. Here is that 10 year list, tell me who does not belong.

LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki
Steve Nash
Steve Nash
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Shaquille O'Neal
Karl Malone

Nash, Nowitzki, and Iverson.

 

[Galactus]

I will give you Dirk and Steve, but I think the year AI won the MVP they went to the finals with Philadelphia and lost to Shaq and Kobe, but won Game 1 in LA. So I would say he earned that one.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Iverson certainly earned that one if you go either by best player or most valuable player to a team. After all, the Sixers that year had very little else (Dikembe Mutumbo doesn't count). He also led the league in scoring and steals.

I used to think Nash was an extremely underrated player. He would always play well in games and make people around him play better. Then he won his first MVP award, so I obviously couldn't find him underrated. The second one is pushing it a bit. I think they gave him the award because he was on a team without any real superstars that continued to have great numbers. But they happened to have lots of very good players instead.

 

[Xevious]

I will give you Dirk and Steve, but I think the year AI won the MVP they went to the finals with Philadelphia and lost to Shaq and Kobe, but won Game 1 in LA. So I would say he earned that one.

That game is up for vote on nba.com as one of the best post-season performances in the past decade.

It's easy to forget what an amazing scorer AI was. All anybody thinks about are his recent troubles.

 

[Galactus]

Yeah back in those days, AI did everything and played hard every game. Nash is just all hype, and will probably end up in the Hall of Fame. He might be more overrated than Charles Barkley.

 

[gblews]

Iverson certainly earned that one if you go either by best player or most valuable player to a team.

That year, Shaq was once again the most "valuable" player in the league even if AI had the more flashy year. That being the case, the sportswriters voted for AI as MVP. These same writers also voted Larry Brown Coach of the year, Mutumbo Def Player of the year, and that other 6er guard 6th Man of the Year. This apparently "super-talented" team led by a wunderkind coach, managed only one fluke win in the Finals against the real MVP that year.

After the law of averages and a long layoff helped the 6ers luck out in game 1 in the Finals, Shaq led the Lakers on a four game rampage through the 6ers that eventually led to the league changing one of it's oldest and most hallowed rules; the one against zone defenses.

AI was horribly overrated. I don't know it for a fact, but I'de be willing to bet that he is is a career under 45% shooter. Its just that he took so many shots, that's why he won all those scoring titles. He was a defensive sieve, and how many assists can you hand out if you're constantly jacking 'em up from all over the court?

 

[Neroon]

Then precisely why would such concessions be made to someone like Steve Nash? Why such bias if he is so overrated, then? Be specific and try to cite evidence other than who is your own personal favorite. Comments like "he's won two MVP's but not won a championship" are a good start, even if that same phenomenon (MVP award but no championship) has been shown to happen in other sports as well. However, then you also need to explain how LeBron, Kobe and others can win MVP in the year when they didn't win a championship.