Rasheed Wallace has become a joke

[SnakeOiler]

Then you make this amazing leap to junk science - Shooter style. Bam - Rasheed becomes a "Cancer" and an "Underperformer" and (most especially) a "Loser".

Throw a towel into one of the best player ever's face on national tv = LOSER!!!

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm not whining nor getting testy. That you think I would indicates you have no idea with whom you're discussing this.

Imagine that. I don't personally know some random, meaningless guy on a forum.

I just can't believe anyone who watched those Blazers teams would think that Sabonis was better than Rasheed.

He was as good or better. The stats show it, and the offense was directed through and by Sabonis, not Rasheed.

Why normalize for 36mgp when Sabonis wasn't capable of playing more than he did?

Because it would be silly to compare stats from players playing completely different amounts. Usually, players accomplish more with more playing time. Just a thought.

Whether Sabonis was deteriorating or not is irrelevant. Rasheed was a better player and there's no way that Sabonis was "far better".

Interesting stance. Most people would compare players while both players were at least mobile. You don't use Jordan's stats from when he was on the Wizards to compare him to Kobe. I'd say whether or not a player is deteriorating DOES matter.

I don't know what you are talking about. Shaq's team was just as good with him the year after he left? And Jordan's?

Did you read my post? I said Jordan after the Wizards. I said Shaq IN THE FUTURE, as in, after he leaves the Suns. The point, which you missed, is that you can't measure a players value to a team when he leaves when he has deteriorated so far. Sabonis was at that point.

2000-01: 50-32 (with Sabonis)
2001-02: 49-33 (without Sabonis)
2002-03: 50-32 (with Sabonis)

If Sabonis was so superior to Rasheed, shouldn't the team have had more of a difference than a single game?

Ed O.

Not necessarily. See above. Also, we improved after Zach left, even though you continually argue about how good of a player he is.

 

[Ed O]

Imagine that. I don't personally know some random, meaningless guy on a forum.

Sorry if you don't pay attention and/or post here long enough to know me. If you don't know me, you probably should avoid attributing emotions that I don't have to me.

He was as good or better. The stats show it, and the offense was directed through and by Sabonis, not Rasheed.

Sabonis only played 24.2 mpg in his career. How was the offense being run through him when he was on the bench for such a long stretch of time?

And, even assuming that the offense was directed through and by Sabonis, that's only half of the equation. Rasheed was a very good defensive player... something that was rarely said about Arvydas.

Because it would be silly to compare stats from players playing completely different amounts. Usually, players accomplish more with more playing time. Just a thought.

Sabonis was not as good as Rasheed, in part, because he was unable to play much more than half of a game on a regular basis. You extrapolating by adding 50% more playing time to Sabonis's stats renders stats that aren't very meaningful.

Interesting stance. Most people would compare players while both players were at least mobile. You don't use Jordan's stats from when he was on the Wizards to compare him to Kobe. I'd say whether or not a player is deteriorating DOES matter.

All we're comparing is when Rasheed and Sabonis played on the Blazers. That Sabonis schooled DRob in the 1988 Olympics doesn't really matter here.

Did you read my post? I said Jordan after the Wizards. I said Shaq IN THE FUTURE, as in, after he leaves the Suns. The point, which you missed, is that you can't measure a players value to a team when he leaves when he has deteriorated so far. Sabonis was at that point.

I read your post. Who cares about those examples? We're not examining Shaq's or Jordan's sunset years. We are, though, looking at Sabonis's as a significant portion of the data we have to compare Sabonis and Rasheed.

Sabonis and Rasheed only played six seasons together as Blazers. You want to ignore two of them because Sabonis was "deteriorated".

So you want to stretch Sabonis's minutes 50% and only use 67% of the seasons they played together... that's some pretty fancy footwork in order to show that Sabonis was so much better than Rasheed when they were teammates.

Ed O.

 

[STOMP]

Exactly. The media, except for Jaynes, liked Clyde - so they looked at the big picture instead of putting the emphasis on every little quirk or flaw. Even more amazing was the way they covered up for Kersey's sexcapades.

with Quick and Canzano as the main locals relaying and reflecting Blazer news, I'm sure we'll be treated to more quality coverage of what really matters in the coming years. I'm already anxiously awaiting them turning on the club. It just doesn't get much better then those two insightful knowledgeable NBA aficionados! We are so lucky!

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

Sorry if you don't pay attention and/or post here long enough to know me. If you don't know me, you probably should avoid attributing emotions that I don't have to me.

I rest my case. Thank you.

Sabonis only played 24.2 mpg in his career. How was the offense being run through him when he was on the bench for such a long stretch of time?

And, even assuming that the offense was directed through and by Sabonis, that's only half of the equation. Rasheed was a very good defensive player... something that was rarely said about Arvydas.

That may be the case. However, one measure of defense is blocks. Sabonis was better than Sheed there. If you have some other quantitative measurement of a player's defensive ability, I would love to see it, and then compare Wallace and Sabonis using it.

Sabonis was not as good as Rasheed, in part, because he was unable to play much more than half of a game on a regular basis. You extrapolating by adding 50% more playing time to Sabonis's stats renders stats that aren't very meaningful.

Would you prefer using a stat/minute instead? Same exact numbers stated a different way. Only then I can't be accused of adding 50% more playing time.

YOU are stating that normalizing to minutes played is not meaningful. That is a far cry from it being true.

All we're comparing is when Rasheed and Sabonis played on the Blazers. That Sabonis schooled DRob in the 1988 Olympics doesn't really matter here.

He didn't actually school him, but whatever. Clearly facts and stats are not important in this conversation.

I read your post. Who cares about those examples? We're not examining Shaq's or Jordan's sunset years.

But we are examining Sabaonis' sunset years. You're the one who tried using the argument that you can determine a player's value to their team by how far their team falls when they leave. Those examples show that you are clearly, and absoutely wrong. Now you are trying to pass it off as "who cares".

We are, though, looking at Sabonis's as a significant portion of the data we have to compare Sabonis and Rasheed.

Sabonis and Rasheed only played six seasons together as Blazers. You want to ignore two of them because Sabonis was "deteriorated".

Yes. For the same reason I wouldn't compare Sabonis' prime years to Rasheed's rookie year.

So you want to stretch Sabonis's minutes 50% and only use 67% of the seasons they played together... that's some pretty fancy footwork in order to show that Sabonis was so much better than Rasheed when they were teammates.

Ed O.

Not fancy footwork. Just using what is available. If you have better, objective ways to compare their real NBA carreers, I'd be happy to take a look.

 

[Shooter]

Your posts are full of lazy logic and deceptive leaps of faith.

No, my posts are full of facts that you just don't want to face. I'm sure I'll never convince you, but please don't throw around this idea of "lazy logic" when it doesn't apply. I've not only provided numerous examples to back up my points about Wallace, but I've provided links to NBA reporters and analysts who are saying the same thing I am. Your accusation against me is what's "lazy."

 

[Shooter]

You do know who he "attacked", right?

Of course, that it was a referee who was purposefully influencing games probably doesn't matter to you.

Good grief, that's weak. Do you have any proof at all that Donaghy was making unusual calls against Wallace in order to influence the outcome of games? If you do, please submit it. Otherwise, can it. And even if the calls were biased, it doesn't begin to excuse what Wallace did.

 

[DaRizzle]

Rasheed Wallace is a visionary! Look what I found....

The NBA has its version of what happened, and Rasheed Wallace has his, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But something happened between Wallace and referee Tim Donaghy at the loading dock at the Rose Garden on Jan. 15 after the Portland Trail Blazers played the Memphis Grizzlies, and it led to Wallace being suspended by the NBA for seven games, his past most certainly part of his present.

According to a source, Wallace shouted at Donaghy, "That was a bull---- call and technical, and I'm gonna get my money back," referring to the fine players receive for getting T'd up.

Donaghy then, according to the source, shouted back, "Watch the tape."

At this point, things get a little murky. Wallace then apparently took some steps toward Donaghy, and, a source says, said, "No, you watch the tape," and cursed at Donaghy. What is also unclear -- and very important, obviously -- is whether Donaghy cursed back at Wallace, or merely repeated what he'd already said, or didn't say anything. No one I spoke with disputes, though, that Wallace reacted by raising his arms -- as if to throw a punch, the league believes; with no malice toward Donaghy intended or planned, Wallace's people believe -- and moving toward Donaghy, who moved toward Wallace. Another source contends that Wallace then yelled at Donaghy, "I'm gonna kick your ass, punk-ass mother-----," and that the league viewed this as prima facie evidence of a threat against the official -- the major reason for the seven-game suspension.

link

 

[oldmangrouch]

Good grief, that's weak. Do you have any proof at all that Donaghy was making unusual calls against Wallace in order to influence the outcome of games? If you do, please submit it. Otherwise, can it. And even if the calls were biased, it doesn't begin to excuse what Wallace did.

Proof? Donaghy pled guilty!

Are you so blinded by your hatred that you can't grasp the fact that in the context of the game, there is NOTHING worse than a crooked official?

As far as I am concerned, every NBA player has an "excuse" to sodomize that piece of garbage with a baseball bat.

 

[Freshtown]

I just wanted to come in here and say that I love 'Sheed. Rep me if you agree.

 

[crandc]

Duh, it was McCain vs. Obama! They said he's lazy, not stupid.

In 2004 Wallace said he did not vote for Bush, who was running back then. Seems like an eternity, doesn't it?

 

[Masbee]

No, my posts are full of facts that you just don't want to face. I'm sure I'll never convince you, but please don't throw around this idea of "lazy logic" when it doesn't apply. I've not only provided numerous examples to back up my points about Wallace, but I've provided links to NBA reporters and analysts who are saying the same thing I am. Your accusation against me is what's "lazy."

You have provided quotes from a bunch of other Rasheed haters. People just like you. Echo chamber bullshit.

If you had bothered, you could have trolled the internet and pulled up dozens of complimentary quotes that are also opinions about Rasheed. You purposefully, disengenously, and deceptively ignored those quotes, as they don't support your tightly held opinion.

So, how does quoting a handful of OPINIONS, while ignoring the many contradicting opinions (many of which come from sources far closer, far better placed, with far more authority, experience and higher positions) amount to fact? (Hint: it is a rhetorical question)

Tell me, why haven't you made dozens of threads discussing the career of Antwan Jamison (the guy that we play tonight)? I want you to explain to me why on gods green earth Jamison is NOT a loser, cancer and underachiever and by contrast Rasheed is all those things? I think Jamison and his career is an interesting contrast and comparison to Rasheed. Both forwards drafted very high from the same school. One has excellent PR reputation, but mostly is a non-entity on the national sports stage. Doesn't make waves good or bad. The other is a polarizing and controversial figure who has played in many big games. Since I have not seen you similarly bash Jamison multiple times (or even once) for being those things, explain to us all, why not?

Also, very specifically - recite these "facts" you claim you have provided that prove Rasheed is a "Loser".

Thank you for you time and attention.

Masbee

 

[Masbee]

Good grief, that's weak. Do you have any proof at all that Donaghy was making unusual calls against Wallace in order to influence the outcome of games? If you do, please submit it. Otherwise, can it. And even if the calls were biased, it doesn't begin to excuse what Wallace did.

No one excused Wallace for threatening Donaghy.

As for the proof of bad reffing, the proof is in my eyes.

You will NEVER get the NBA to admit anything. Which is part of the problem. So your request for "proof" is disengenious. You know that.

I attended that game, sitting about 6 rows back from the sideline.

As I posted that night (before the news broke about the confrontation on the dock) at the old site, that was the worst officiated game I had personally witnessed. I specially called out Donaghy as the bad ref, and said I was horse from screaming at that douche. I was so mad at his awful calls and despicable attitude I came very close to throwing my drink at him.

Yes, Shooter - it was that bad.

Yes, Shooter - Donaghy was a douche, was corrupt, did FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more to attack the "integrety" of the game than Rasheed.

Why the hell don't you rail regularly about that dirtbag and the nutso and corrupt NBA system that protected him and other incompetent/corrupt officials for so long - and still does to this day?

Is it because he doesn't have any tatoos and is white? No? What is it then? Towels, tantrums and techs? Are you really so easily distracted by what is essentially trivia while the real crimes go on uncommented right under your nose?

 

[oldmangrouch]

No one excused Wallace for threatening Donaghy.

As for the proof of bad reffing, the proof is in my eyes.

You will NEVER get the NBA to admit anything. Which is part of the problem. So your request for "proof" is disengenious. You know that.

I attended that game, sitting about 6 rows back from the sideline.

As I posted that night (before the news broke about the confrontation on the dock) at the old site, that was the worst officiated game I had personally witnessed. I specially called out Donaghy as the bad ref, and said I was horse from screaming at that douche. I was so mad at his awful calls and despicable attitude I came very close to throwing my drink at him.

Yes, Shooter - it was that bad.

Yes, Shooter - Donaghy was a douche, was corrupt, did FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more to attack the "integrety" of the game than Rasheed.

Why the hell don't you rail regularly about that dirtbag and the nutso and corrupt NBA system that protected him and other incompetent/corrupt officials for so long - and still does to this day?

Is it because he doesn't have any tatoos and is white? No? What is it then? Towels, tantrums and techs? Are you really so easily distracted by what is essentially trivia while the real crimes go on uncommented right under your nose?

Post of the season to date!