Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Minstrel said:
I don't agree with Ed, but the disbelief/mockery of what he's saying is silly. You can definitely make a case for ten players better than Roy. James, Paul, Howard, Kobe and Wade are pretty easy to make a case for. Duncan, Garnett, Yao, Parker and Nowitzki are all arguable.

I'd class Roy in with Duncan, Garnett and Yao and ahead of Parker and Nowitzki. But putting him behind two more excellent players is hardly crazy.
Click to expand...
it is absolutely crazy that ed o completely dismissing roy as a top 10 player with statements like "well it's unlikely that's he better than every other player in the league other than the top 6" or whatever he's been saying. if it's so unlikely, then why is he putting up better numbers for a better team while he is carrying the load for that better team?
 
PapaG said:
So is it crazy to calll Roy a top 7 player? Because Ed's intiial post didn't put him in that category.
Click to expand...

It's not crazy. Ed didn't say anyone was crazy. He simply disagreed that Roy is in that class. That's not crazy either.
 
Ed O said:
I think that any single season is likely to be a fluke. I think that top 5-10 production is not the same as being a top 5-10 player, and I think that a track record helps establish that production is a true indication of capabilities.

I agree it comes down to definitions, and I understand that we can agree to disagree as to how we define things.

Ed O.
Click to expand...
if top 5-10 production isn't that same as being a top 5-10 player, then what the fuck is it?

and any single season is likely to be a fluke? really?
 
Ed O said:
And Bosh is totally over the hill at age 25.
Click to expand...

Not over the hill, but he's stagnated and is no longer improving.

2005-06 PER = 23.2
2006-07 PER = 22.6
2007-08 PER = 23.8
2008-09 PER = 22.0

Roy's substantially ahead of Bosh in PER (7th vs. 14th), Win Shares (7th vs. 20th), Offensive Rating (4th vs. not in the top 20), etc. - and he's doing it on a team that's 21 games over 0.500, not one that's 16 games under.

I doubt Chris Bosh tallies a single point in the MVP voting this season. Roy, won't finish in the top 5, but he will receive some consideration/recognition from the voters.

BNM
 
rocketeer said:
it is absolutely crazy that ed o completely dismissing roy as a top 10 player with statements like "well it's unlikely that's he better than every other player in the league other than the top 6" or whatever he's been saying. if it's so unlikely, then why is he putting up better numbers for a better team while he is carrying the load for that better team?
Click to expand...

You can't even properly relate what my point is, and you think that my point is "absolutely crazy"?

OK...

Ed O.
 
rocketeer said:
if top 5-10 production isn't that same as being a top 5-10 player, then what the fuck is it?
Click to expand...

Try to read my posts. I know that you can't be bothered to pay attention to the crazy numbers I'm throwing around, but I'm not going to reiterate my point for someone who won't read it the first time. Sorry.

and any single season is likely to be a fluke? really?
Click to expand...

Sure. Any single season is likely to be a fluke.

If you're given a single die to cast, and you have no idea how many sides are on it, you can roll the die... and get a 7. What is the expected value of the next cast, and what is the number of sides on the die?

Without any additional information, you should probably answer "7" and "13", I would think... it's better than saying any other single number. With a few more data points, though, you can give answers that are more likely to be correct.

In the absence of alternatives, the previous season alone is the best thing to go by. When a track record exists, though, it's easier to argue that a player's production is more reflective of his capabilities and expected contribution to a team.

Ed O.
 
Last edited:
rocketeer said:
it is absolutely crazy that ed o completely dismissing roy as a top 10 player with statements like "well it's unlikely that's he better than every other player in the league other than the top 6" or whatever he's been saying. if it's so unlikely, then why is he putting up better numbers for a better team while he is carrying the load for that better team?
Click to expand...

Ed (and he can jump in if I'm mischaracterizing his argument) seems to be saying that one season of being top-ten statistically is not sufficient for being considered a "top ten player in the league" (which implies a steady-state status). Roy's been one of the ten best players this season...he needs to have more than one season to be counted a superstar. I think that's what he's saying.
 
Ed O said:
I then stated that, in order to be in the top 10, Brandon could only be inferior to TWO of the rest of the players in the NBA. I listed several players that most would consider to be at least Brandon's equal.

Ed O.
Click to expand...
should we really care what "most" think? most people just finally realized that lebron plays defense. most wouldn't admit that yao was a good player for years because espn always just talked about him being dunked on. most think lots of incredibly stupid things.
 
...the implication being that Ed doubts that Roy can improve or even keep this up next season.
 
Ed O said:
I'm not at all angry.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Neither am I. Just wondering why you can't admit that Hollinger was incorrect on his projection. Seems pretty factual to me at this point.
 
It's a bit sad seeing Minstrel having to try and clean up Ed's mess.

His heart doesn't seem to be in it.
 
The implication that being one of the "best players in the league" requires lag of past performance is silly.

Is Tracy McGrady still a top 10 player, then? Because including the last, say, seven years... he's been dominant. How about Shaq? Top 3?
 
I think I see where Ed's trying to come from, and based on what I see from his definition there's a bias towards veterans who have a track record of greatness. For instance, I personally think Roy's a) having a much better year than Garnett, b) is more valuable to his team right now, and c) has a much higher upside because d) Garnett's in an age- (and injury-) related decline. But if a person's definition of superstar hinges on track record, or how much they're talked about on SportsCenter, or the who's who of announcers on a player's jock, then players like Nowitski, Garnett, etc. will be consider bigger "stars" than Roy.

That's not my definition, but I can understand the logic.
 
Ed O said:
I listed several players that most would consider to be at least Brandon's equal.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why that is relevant? Why would it matter what most considered? And in what capacity? Most people outside of here think Durant was the better pick, but you do not. Most people here believe Roy is a top 10 player, but you do not. There is no way to factually make your claim, it's an opinion. Either you think Roy is better than them, or you do not. If you were to consider what "most" thought, Durant was the better pick, no?

I did NOT say that Bosh was better than Roy.
Click to expand...

You either think he is, or he isn't. Why list him and not commit to stating your opinion? Or are you just going with the consensus? And if you were to say Zach Randolph was at least equal to Chris Bosh, I don't know why would list Bosh other than to appease the consensus.
 
Last edited:
Ed O said:
You can't even properly relate what my point is, and you think that my point is "absolutely crazy"?

OK...

Ed O.
Click to expand...
you named the 7 players you thought were definitely better than roy. then you said it was unlikely that roy was better than all but two of the rest of the players in the league. is that not properly relating your point?

i say that when you look at roy's numbers and what he's done for his team(and where that has gotten them) that it is very unlikely that there are more than 3 better players than him in the league(after the 6 i put ahead of him).
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
It's a bit sad seeing Minstrel having to try and clean up Ed's mess.

His heart doesn't seem to be in it.
Click to expand...


What a sore winner you are. It makes you seem small in the eyes of others. And don't tell me that others' opinions don't matter, because this display disproves that.
 
Ed O said:
I think that any single season is likely to be a fluke. I think that top 5-10 production is not the same as being a top 5-10 player, and I think that a track record helps establish that production is a true indication of capabilities.

I agree it comes down to definitions, and I understand that we can agree to disagree as to how we define things.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

The problem with that reasoning is that many of the players with a more established "track record" are declining. Roy has already passed several of them, and he's still on his way up, while they are on their way down.

Roy's production clearly places him in the top 10 players in the league statistically this season (7th best by most measures). He is also the best player and clear team leader on a top 10 team.

You can argue against that all you want, but doing so flies in the face of logic and sound reasoning.

BNM
 
BlazerCaravan said:
What a sore winner you are. It makes you seem small in the eyes of others. And don't tell me that others' opinions don't matter, because this display disproves that.
Click to expand...

A sore winner? What does that mean, Ed?
 
Minstrel said:
Ed (and he can jump in if I'm mischaracterizing his argument) seems to be saying that one season of being top-ten statistically is not sufficient for being considered a "top ten player in the league" (which implies a steady-state status). Roy's been one of the ten best players this season...he needs to have more than one season to be counted a superstar. I think that's what he's saying.
Click to expand...
roy has been one of the best ten players this season. that is what makes him a top ten player in the league. if we asked who the top ten players in the league over the last 5 seasons have been, we'd get a different answer.
 
BengalDuck said:
The implication that being one of the "best players in the league" requires lag of past performance is silly.

Is Tracy McGrady still a top 10 player, then? Because including the last, say, seven years... he's been dominant. How about Shaq? Top 3?
Click to expand...

There's always a lag of past performance necessary. If Rafer Alston scores 50 points in a game, is he now a top player in the league? Obviously not. So it takes more than the most current performance. How much lag is required is up for debate.
 
Ed O said:
Sure. Any single season is likely to be a fluke.

If you're given a single die to cast, and you have no idea how many sides are on it, you can roll the die... and get a 7. What is the expected value of the next cast, and what is the number of sides on the die?

Without any additional information, you should probably answer "7" and "13", I would think... it's better than saying any other single number. With a few more data points, though, you can give answers that are more likely to be correct.

In the absence of alternatives, the previous season alone is the best thing to go by. When a track record exists, though, it's easier to argue that a player's production is more reflective of his capabilities and expected contribution to a team.

Ed O.
Click to expand...
did you really waste your time defending that statement?
 
And who put a cap that only the top 10 NBA players are superstars? So the 11th best player in the NBA is not a superstar? Seems like an imaginary requirement for being a superstar don't you think?
 
rocketeer said:
roy has been one of the best ten players this season. that is what makes him a top ten player in the league.
Click to expand...

By your definition. A lot of people (not just Ed) don't think one season cements status like "superstar."

I think there's a balance. I think Roy has played like a superstar this year, but I'd also like to see more than one season of it before I label him a definitive superstar.
 
AmirIcon said:
I don't understand why that is relevant? Why would it matter what most considered? And in what capacity? Most people outside of here think Durant was the better pick, but you do not. Most people here believe Roy is a top 10 player, but you do not. There is no way to factually make your claim, it's an opinion. Either you think Roy is better than them, or you do not. If you were to consider what "most" thought, Durant was the better pick, no?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you want me to answer.

Are your questions rhetorical?

Ed O.
 
Minstrel said:
Ed (and he can jump in if I'm mischaracterizing his argument) seems to be saying that one season of being top-ten statistically is not sufficient for being considered a "top ten player in the league" (which implies a steady-state status). Roy's been one of the ten best players this season...he needs to have more than one season to be counted a superstar. I think that's what he's saying.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. In fact, I know it's not. Here's his exact words:

Ed O. said:
Durant is over four years younger than Roy, and I think he's got a much larger chance of becoming a top 5-10 NBA player than Roy, which is a pretty good definition of a superstar, I think.
Click to expand...

So, how many top 10 seasons has Durant had? ZERO. Roy's currently having ONE. If you buy his whole track record argument, Roy is clearly closer to being a superstar than Durant, yet he argues the opposite.

BNM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top