McGee's "ceiling"

does marcus camby have some type of roger clemens “i dont travel to away games” type contract or why were all those clips from home??

by dt3 on Jul 28, 2009 12:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think McGee's ceiling is higher

After 13 years in the league, Marcus Camby is 6’11" 235 pounds –
RIGHT NOW… McGee is 7’2" (he may still be growing), and 250 pounds…. * note *

And I think McGee is probably longer than Camby. McGee has a 9’ 6.5" standing reach. That’s the tallest standing reach of anyone measured at the NBA Draft combines in the last 10 years. (except a player named Pavel Podkolzine. He was 7’5" with a standing reach of 9’8" – Drafted by Utah in 2003, but never played in the NBA)

I know McGee is more athletic than Camby – as a matter of fact, McGee shares the best Max Vertical Reach for all Centers measured at the NBA Draft combines at 12’ 3" – he shares that feat with Dwight Howard. If you believe the stories, McGee can dunk on a 12-foot rim (and he claims he can dunk on a 12-6 rim). Now THAT’S athleticism.

So, even though they may have started out with the same body type as Camby (last year, McGee was 7’0", 235 pounds) – McGee has been putting on weight and muscle… At 250 pounds, he should be better equipped to deal with some of the NBA’s bigger Centers… Haywood is 7’0" and 260 pounds, and he can pound with the big boys. But if McGee continues to hit the weight room, and adds 10-15 pounds of muscle next year, and the year after; without losing any of that incredible athleticism……. look out.

I really don’t think there’s any current players you can compare him to. He’s taller and longer than Dwight Howard. He’s more athletic than Camby. He’s faster and more coordinated than Thabeet. So, to say his “ceiling” is to be a Camby type player is probably lowering the bar. I think JaVale has the kind of physical gifts to be a “change the game” kind of player; but he’s got a lot of work to do…. By change the game, I mean like: Wilt changed the game. Doctor J changed the game. Magic changed the game. MJ changed the game.

So I was trying to remember a 7-footer with the kind of athleticism that Javale displays – and the only one I can come up with is Akeem Olajuwon. So there – That’s what I think McGee’s ceiling is = Akeem Olajuwon.

* note * Official NBA measurements are WITH shoes; so if JaVale is 7’1" with no shoes. So if you believe Pam McGee, Javale is 7’2" or 7’3" in shoes (depending on the type of shoe)…

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 28, 2009 12:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

WOW

I would kiss your dog on the mouth if McGee became a Dream.

But I was waiting for the “ceiling higher than Camby” comment. That may be true, but I think you’re devaluing Camby a little bit. I know he’s been around the block ALOT, but I would be happy if McGee reached Camby’s caliber. Keep in mind, I’m not saying he WON’T be better, I’m just saying I’d be satisfied with a Camby-esque player. Remember when JaVale 1st came in he was dubbed a “long term project.” Those fizz out more than they work out. As for Camby himself, being injury prone early put a damper on his career. But I remember him from UMass. He was a freak. He may not be a perennial all star, but he is a very good player who has been a big contributor to some very successful teams. He has also stuck around a long time. Like I said, I would be ecstatic with those type of results from Skinny Mac.

by CJHutch on Jul 28, 2009 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Physically maybe...

Physically speaking, McGee’s ceiling is Everest high but I don’t know if his ceiling as far as skills and game instincts are in the same category of Camby or the Dream. Just playing 3 seasons for Calipari before the NBA gives Camby quite a lead in those areas. McGee didn’t have to do anything for his “physical ceiling” and now he’s chirping quite a bit about how hard he is working, but we’ll see if he has the determination to reach his full potential. God isn’t handing him skill and game instincts like he handed him 7 foot 1.

by mogoman on Jul 28, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ceiling is just that... the MAXIMUM that player could become

I’m not saying that McGee will become the next “Dream”…. Nor am I saying he is likely to reach his “ceiling”….

Actually, If you asked me who I think McGee will end up being most like – it would be Camby…
Excellent help defender. Excellent shot blocker. OK jump shooter. Runs the floor well. Good handle.

But that’s a completely different question than “What is McGee’s ceiling” – Because of his physical tools, his ceiling is extremely high… The only way he reaches that ceiling is through hard work – - – - Is he willing to do the work to learn those “skills” and “game instincts”? – - – - – - – - – I don’t know.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 28, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Dream

I don’t think McGee’s ceiling is Dream. Not only is Hakeem one of the greatest to ever play the game, but he played the game in a totally different way.

People forget that Olajuwon was only 6’9". FYI you can check out this link for reference:

http://www.nba.com/media/1996_627_070822.jpg

Olajuwon was the best big man combination of quickness, footwork, strength, hands, vertical, length, desire, nastiness (on-court) and skill that has ever been in the NBA. Dream was just out of this world in the type of tools that he had to work and I would argue that Hakeem sits alone on the same level as Jordan in the type of tools available to them.

As many tools as McGee has, Dream puts him to shame in that regard.

I think it would be fair to say that McGee’s ceiling is definitely higher than Camby, and if he continues to be dedicated and has the mentality to develop himself into one of the best players in the league, then his ceiling is David Robinson.

McGee’s game is actually very similar to a young David Robinson, except McGee clearly lacks the on-court focus of a younger Robinson (focus as in “this is what I do best”). I’ve watched The Admiral since he was in Annapolis and when he got to the NBA he always knew he was a center and that his mission on defense was to protect the paint and rebound. Offensively he was a face-up guy. Conversely, McGee tries to do a bit too much at this point in this career, and a result, he sometimes walks away without making as much impact as Robinson on either end of the floor.

Also just to be clear, I’m not talking about statistical productivity….I’m talking about the way these players play the game.

by formula0 on Jul 28, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Discipline

Sorry, I couldn’t grasp the right word when I was typing my previous post.

Discipline: that’s the word I would use to describe the big difference between a young David Robinson and McGee right now.

Robinson had incredible natural gifts: Long, quick, agile, great leaper, excellent timing, good hands, nice touch. McGee has all of those and is arguably better at some of those.

But Robinson was an extremely disciplined player, even when he was very young, and that level of discipline had a lot to do with why he was so successful early on in his career.

by formula0 on Jul 28, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think you're giving D-Rob enough credit

He was one of the five best players in basketball as soon as he came out, and was arguably the second-best player in the league during Jordan’s retirement. The difference between Dream and D-Rob isn’t very big.

My guess is that JaVale’s ceiling is someone a little better than Camby. He’s never going to have the same refined post game that someone like Dream had.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No I think we're talking about the same thing

We’re talking about ceiling, but we may have different definitions of ceiling.

You’re absolutely right, Robinson was one of the greatest and there’s not much to choose from when picking from Robinson and Olajuwon.

I don’t think JaVale will ever become David Robinson. I’m just saying they have similar physical tools so I consider Robinson as the ceiling.

So I think at the end of the day, David Robinson is his ceiling, but he will ultimately end up as a player who is lesser than Robinson and greater than Camby.

by formula0 on Jul 28, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, we just define JaVale's ceiling differently

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Camby-man

Completely agree with this. Camby was The Man in college. I hated UMass back then but he was really amazing.

That said, I could envision McGee doing everything on the defensive end of those clips. I have a harder time with the transition to offense. Camby looks so smooth with the ball. McGee can dribble up the court, yes, but he just isn’t as coordinated or under control. Sure, McGee might yet grow into his body better, but those projections so rarely come true. I still don’t have a better comp to offer though.

by bwoodsxyz on Jul 28, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope McGee is better than Camby defensively

Camby gets a lot of defensive numbers, but doesn’t really make a major impact because he’s never stepping out to guard screen/roll and is too weak to guard a lot of centers.

Offensively, as long as McGee doesn’t shoot as many jumpers as Camby, he can be more effective.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect analysis

Camby’s one of the top help defenders I’ve ever seen, but he’s only mediocre as a man defender. Where he really beats Javale is in rebounding and his ability to avoid making dumb decisions, but that’ll come if he can just focus a bit more. Javale’s already bigger and stronger than Camby, though, and his ability to catch any lob within five feet of the basket makes up for his inability to hit 15 footers like Camby.

by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 28, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again

we disagree. (Imagine that). I think Camby is, or was, a difference maker on defense. When he went to the Knicks and Ewing got hurt, they didn’t miss a beat. And Ewing was one of the premier post defenders of all time. Of course their styles were different, but Camby had a lot more range. Not too many centers step out to guard the pick and roll. Not successfully anyway. Dream and Robinson were the only ones I can think of that excelled at it. As far as just getting a hand up, Camby did that as well as anyone. But post defense is about controlling the paint, and he did that well too. By the time he got to the Knicks, he was able to spread out in the post a lot better than Ewing. And as far as actual strength, I’ll hold out until the season before admitting McGee is stronger. Camby may be wiry, but he’s wiry strong. Maybe not in college, but as his career has progressed, he’s gotten stronger. Naturally. Now college was a different story. I think he was one of the most dominant centers ever in college. He controlled games from the middle.

by CJHutch on Jul 28, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ewing wasn't a premier post defender when he was 37 and couldn't move anymore

As to more on Marcus’ defense, I encourage you to read this post from former SB Nation blogger Jeremy Wagner about Marcus. He correctly said the Camby trade wouldn’t hurt the Nuggets last year and he knows that stuff better than me.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

in '99

Ewing was blocking almost 3 shots a game and getting 8 defensive boards a game. As a matter of fact, his numbers, were almost exactly the same as Dwight Howards last year, the D.O.Y.

I’ve said plenty of times that the post play in the 80’s-90’s dwarfs that of today, and this supports that statement.

As for the Camby post, I believe I mentioned a couple of times that I was talking about a younger version of Camby when making the McGee comparison.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m in full agreement with the description of Camby for his play over the last couple of seasons in LA and in Denver … but the guy was a defensive monster when he was playing with the New York Knicks under Jeff Van Gundy.

Back then, Camby was an excellent pick and roll player and played superb team defense instead of just padding his blocked shots stat column. A game changer defensively and one of the finest interior defenders in the league at the time.

NBA Roundtable

by NBR on Aug 14, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh

how I enjoy being agreed with.

by CJHutch on Aug 15, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sui generis

I don’t disagree with your 1:1 to comparisons, but the flip sides of those are that he isn’t as strong and explosive as Howard, he isn’t quite as coordinated and fluid as Camby, and he’s easier to push around than Thabeet.

I would love it if he could develop some Dream tendencies on offense, but he has a looooong way to go there. He’d need vastly improved balance and footwork. The footwork I could maybe see, the balance is harder to imagine.

by bwoodsxyz on Jul 28, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Growing

Actually Pavel played around 6 games for the Mavericks, needless to say it didnt work out. But i know Mcgee’s doctors said he was possibly still growing but i hope not. 7’2/7’3 or even 7’4 as you said would be pushing it. I know most centers get injured but when you start going up past 7’2 the injuries start to get more severe see:
-Zydrunas Ilgauskas
-Yao Ming
-Ralph Sampson
-Rik Smits

by qthaballa on Jul 29, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must say I'm surprised

I just went fishing for comps and one of my attempts to just get a list of names to think about was to check for 7’+ centers who debuted since 1988. I ranked the list by PER. Among guys who played 600+ minutes, McGee had the 10th best PER as a rookie. The top seventeen:
Robinson (debuted at age 24—I forgot how good he was right out fo the gate though)
Sabonis (age 31, really doesn’t belong here. just wish he’d gotten to the nba earlier)
Shaq
Yao
Ilgauskas
Oden
Brook Lopez (other than Shaq, the only player younger than McGee)
Divac
Gheorghe!!!!
McGee
Marc Gasol (age 24)
Motumbo (age 25)
Stanley Roberts
Zeljko Rebraca (age 29)
Roy Hibbert
Rik Smits
Andrew Bogut

Of the guys on this list, none seem like very good comps from a physical/style standpoint. Except, does anyone here remember Stanley Roberts before the achilles injury and drug suspensions? Cause he looks pretty similar in the #s, and all I remember of him is the someone overweight but talented guy with the drug problem. I guess it doesn’t matter anyway, since his career doesn’t tell us much.

Back to the drawing board.

by bwoodsxyz on Jul 28, 2009 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More fodder for discussion

http://secretwizards.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/the-future-of-javale-mcgee-part-2/

From the standpoint of size/athleticism, I don’t like many of these as fits. Stro Swift seems a little similar, but Vale had a much more successful rookie year.

by bwoodsxyz on Jul 28, 2009 12:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If I had to pick a HOF-er

I’ll go with Robert Parish. Now, I certainly don’t remember him at all before age 30, but based on what I can remember of him before he got really old, the physical comparison doesn’t seem so far off. Could he jump when he was young?

His rookie season was one of the most closely comparable to Javale’s of anything I’ve seen. Parish rebounded better, but then he was two years older and that turned out to be one of the statistically best rebounding seasons of his entire career, so I’m not too hung up on that.

Here are Vale’s, Camby’s, and Parish’s rookie seasons:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=bumI4

by bwoodsxyz on Jul 28, 2009 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I believe Parrish was never young

He was born a grizzled old man

by MR on Jul 28, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just like Oden

by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 28, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OMG

you are exactly right!

by MR on Jul 28, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about his hands?

Mcgee has fantastic off the chart measurements everywhere you look. One measurement that isn’t taken is hand size. Phil Jackson once said the only difference between Kobe and Jordan is Jordan had some wonderful mits. A big guy as long as he is who can palm the ball with either hand would be unguardable. I know he has pretty good hands because he isn’t dropping passes left and right like Kwame. Where do you think his hands stack up with the Wilt, Kareem, Olajuwon, and Robinson in terms of size and quality?

by forthepeople on Jul 28, 2009 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately

There’s no public database of hand sizes, so we can’t measure that statistically. We just have to go on subjective comparisons with that.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 28, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Subjectively...

where do you think he stacks up?

by forthepeople on Jul 28, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

JaVale has really large hands...

Long, long fingers… just like the rest of him. No problem palming the ball with either hand… However, a big hand can negatively affect the jump shot…

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 28, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you look at that picture long enough

His hand starts to look freakish

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 28, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To me the hand looks normal.

But the ball keeps getting smaller and smaller…

by MR on Jul 28, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was that a Sunset Boulevard reference?

by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 28, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha ha

Not consciously, although I’ve seen that film enough times for it to seep into my subconscious.

by MR on Jul 28, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

freakish

were Dr. J’s hands. I remember the SI issue that had his hand spread on both pages. BARELY fit.

by CJHutch on Jul 28, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The ball

That ball does look tiny and his hands look bigger than Sheeds. In terms of his jump shot, he should only be using it sparingly anyways. I want to see way more jump hooks than jump shots. Hopefully, his set shot free throw percentage can go up. He has sound fundamentals when he shoots.

by forthepeople on Jul 28, 2009 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He will NEVER be the Dream (No Offense)

Dont get me wrong, im a die hard Wiz fan and i ride for everyone on the team. Im also a huge Mcgee fan and think he has a tremendous amount of potential. But you cant throw out the dream’s name casually like that. He’s a guy you can make the argument of best big man all time. The way the game is today, if someone is going to be that kind of special (HOF caliber) you’ll know almost immediately, especially a big man, whose situation is more black and white than every other. Mcgee has a chance to be very good but unless he has a all star caliber year next year, i dont envision him HOF good.

by qthaballa on Jul 29, 2009 12:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the Dream stuff is a bit over the top

Interesting you mention Ralph Sampson … there’s a guy who’s career was screwed up because his coach took him away from the basket. That and injuries, but I think that was the first shoe dropping.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

?

I didnt mention Ralph Sampson for anything except comparisons of injuries for big men around his height. Had nothing to do with their style of play.

by qthaballa on Jul 29, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was referring to the comment below this where you dropped his name

I guess I misunderstood the purpose.

Nevertheless, Sampson is a pretty good comp to me.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

But what do you think JaVale’s “ceiling” is…?

Perhaps I misunderstand what everyone thinks “ceiling” means…
In this case, I thought ceiling meant the upper limit of his potential. The player he could become if he maximized every ounce of his upside and potential. Ceiling meaning the player JaVale could be compared to (body type, athleticism, etc…) IF he put forth ultimate effort to achieve maximum results.

As I said before, I looked for guys over 7ft – that were long, fluid, athletic, could run the floor like a guard (that rules out Shaq), and had tremendous vertical ascendancy. There’s not many of those kind of players

I ruled out David Robinson, because he started his career late… (and the fact he grew 7 inches in the Naval Academy) – and I’m not sure how that affected his career. I ruled out Bill Russell mainly because Bill was never a very polished Offensive player. Patrick Ewing has a different (stronger) body type. Same with Wilt. Robert Parish was too mechanical (no one could call him “fluid”). I thought about Kareem, but I don’t think he had the vertical or can run like JaVale does. Tim Duncan? Can anyone honestly say that Tim Duncan is a PF? But still, I wouldn’t consider Duncan “athletic”, nor does he have a 33" vertical…

I ended up with Dwight Howard, Camby and Akeem Olajuwon. I ruled out Howard, since he’s still improving.. How can JaVale reach a ceiling of Dwight Howard when that ceiling is still being raised. I think that JaVale can be better than Camby ever was. (emphasis on CAN BE – as in, has the chance to be better ). So JaVale’s “ceiling” in my opinion is higher than Camby.

That left me with Akeem Olajuwon. A true 7ft Center with athleticism, foot speed, and leaping ability. (sorry formula0, but I have go go with the official NBA Bio page on this one – Olajuwon was 7-feet tall. Besides, standing next to 7’1" Shaq, and 7’1" David Robinson in that picture, Olajuwon looks every bit of 7-ft…. ).

Will JaVale McGee ever be as good as Olajuwon was? Probably not.
Can he ever be as good? Is there a remote possibility? Only if the stars align, he works his tail off, has the right teachers and Coaches, makes ALL the right decisions, and gets extremely lucky with the teams he plays for – then perhaps.

So that’s how I came up with my opinion on JaVale’s ceiling.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 29, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A ceiling doesn't have to be a comp to a specific player

This is what gets silly about making comparisons between players. We either have to go way over the top (Olajuwon) or shoot way under (Camby).

I think the pre-injury Sampson when he played with Hakeem (84-87) is a good ceiling for JaVale, actually. Admittedly, I haven’t given that much though.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

Hey Mike, i guess i see what you were saying now

by qthaballa on Jul 29, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Dream is not an out of the question ceiling

To be honest, I think McGee has no ceiling. His likelihood of matching these Hall of Famers is low. Not a knock on him, but they are the greatest players ever. I just think he has the talent and physical ability to be the best. He just needs the skill, intelligence, discipline, consistency, and determination to match.

May sound outrageous, but he has the tools to be the best big ever. But just because you have the tools, doesn’t mean you’re gonna build the Sphinx.

by gorebd on Jul 29, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

precisely

Exactly my point above….

His ceiling is HoF….
His eventual “Comparable” player may be Camby or Sampson
Or he could be out of the League in a few years like Mike Sweetney

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 29, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

McGees's measurables

Did he really get up to 250? If so thats great, i dont think he needs to go over 255, that way he can manage most centers and still always have the atheleticism adavantage. Olajuwon was 255 and the GOAT Kareem was only 225. Also a guy he’s been compared to Tyson Chandler is only 235 and he’s pretty good against centers when healthy.

.I know his doctors said he may still be growing but Ralph sampson

by qthaballa on Jul 29, 2009 12:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Camby's a poor role model...

Statistically he looks good, and he’s smooth with the ball in those highlights, but in his long career has Camby started on (or even been on) a single 50-win team? I can’t remember any. Not something I would expect to see from a quality center (which Javale has the potential to become).
Consider this…Camby and Duncan appeared similarly talented when Camby was in college, but I think San Antonio’s worst year with Duncan may have been better than the best team Camby’s played on. Any chance McGee can learn to play more like Tim?

by steadyhand on Jul 29, 2009 1:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

An aside

Camby was never considered in Duncan territory. When Duncan was in the draft teams were falling all over each other to try to get him. It was the Tim Duncan sweepstakes. Boston reportedly tanked games to improve their lottery chances to get him.

Camby was highly regarded, but not like Duncan. Camby was picked #2, passed over for the first ever #1 pick under 6’.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 7:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

you can hold this against him.

Camby was highly regarded, but not like Duncan. Camby was picked #2, passed over for the first ever #1 pick under 6’.

Iverson is a Hall of Famer. And was a dynamic college player. I wouldn’t have been surprised if Iverson had been picked over Duncan had he waited a year. My opinion.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not holding it against Duncan, just responding to steadyhand’s Camby/Duncan comparison.

I strongly disagree that Iverson would have been picked over Duncan. No way, no how.

AI in the hall of fame? Interesting question. Could take him a little while, I think there are some knocks against him that voters might consider. If he wins a championship it would help. Duncan is a first ballot HoFer. I rank him in the top tier of players all time. But yknow now I’m just chatting.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i meant

hold it against Camby.

I strongly disagree that Iverson would have been picked over Duncan. No way, no how.

I won’t say you’re wrong here. But you have to look go back. You can’t use what you know now. Iverson was a star coming out of college, AND a big draw. He was a supremely exciting player who was sure to sell plenty of tickets. Duncan (and I’m not knocking him here) was “the Big Fundamental.” But not necessarily exciting. Again, this is nothing but speculation. But think about it. The Spurs already had David Robinson. Duncan was projected at center. They had Avery Johnson at PG. Not a bad player, but not a difference maker. Hell, with the Admiral back, running the break with AI, the Spurs might still have won the championship. Again – all speculation.

Now, to support your argument. The Spurs are known for focusing on the team concept moreso than the “big draw.” So it is perfectly justified to assume they would have chosen Duncan anyway. But can you IMAGINE what AI would have done for small market San Antonio? I was a fan of David Robinson, but Iverson would have been the toast of that town. Much like he was in Philly.

I guess what I’m saying is

I strongly disagree that Iverson would have been picked over Duncan. No way, no how.

It’s at least a possibility.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan was the best college player to come out of school in the decade

He was rumored to be the #1 pick in 95 and 96 had he come out. There’s no way Iverson would have gone ahead of him.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

once again

we’ll agree to disagree. I’m not saying either one is a lock. I’m saying Iverson was a bigger draw because of the excitement factor than Duncan. Philly took him #1 when everyone thought he should stay in school longer. Who knows what another year would have done. Of course Duncan was the better pick (and I say that as an AI fan). But you have to factor in everything. San Antonio is not a big market team Iverson would have provided the NATIONAL star power that Duncan didn’t.

And, before you go around saying “there’s no way”, keep in mind that Sam Bowie was drafted ahead of Michael Jordan. The draft is a big unknown.

Oh, and I’ll say now that Iverson is a definite HOFer. Probably 1st ballet.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you put WAY too much weight in “star power” and “draw” in the draft. The number one pick is not a place that GMs are thinking about that stuff. Winning sells tickets. Drafting a local down the draft or in the second round may be possible. Not at #1.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying

a top tier talent AND star power. In propping up Duncan, you don’t have to disregard Iverson’s accomplishments. Philly didn’t pick him because they thought he would sell tickets. It was a bonus. They picked him because he was a huge talent.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, meant to type “hold it against Camby”, but Duncan came out.

When Iverson was picked I recall consoling my despondent Philly fan friend. He was outraged. When Duncan was in the draft he was a unanimous #1 and every GM in the league was salivating over him. I’m not practicing hindsight. There is no way any team would have stretched for a short scoring guard over one of the top big men prospects in a decade. Iverson came out too early there were plenty of questions about him.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I s'pose

I’m getting carried away with this. Actually, I have a friend who grew up in Philly and loved everything Philly. He was ecstatic. Obviously we’re not the only fanbase with differences. (sarcasm). Iverson was more than a scoring guard. Sure, that’s what he was known for. And rightfully so. He’s one of the best scorers ever at any size. But he was also one of the best players in college basketball. He won DPOY in the Big East 2 years in a row. That’s a pretty big accomplishment in what’s historically been the top defensive league in the country.

I promise, I’ll only say this one more time. All I’m saying is it’s not a lock that Duncan would have been taken over AI. Not when the Trailblazers passed over one of the best players of all time. And I’m not talking about MJ. They also picked Mychal Thompson over Larry Bird. There are NO guarantees in the draft.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mistakes are made in the draft

Pretty much exclusively by overvaluing size.

I still maintain that none of the GMs in the league would have taken Iverson over Duncan.

There, we disagree. Thanks for playing, let’s move on.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was being a little sneaky...

I said when Camby was in college they were similarly talented — he left the year before Duncan — , and I’m specifically thinking of Duncan’s sophomore year when Camby arguably got the better of him in a head-to-head matchup. But Duncan improved tremendously from that point forward whereas Camby basically plateaued.
On the Iverson/Duncan speculation, I specifically remember that Duncan was rumored to have a chance at the #1 pick after his sophomore year, but was widely considered the obvious #1 prospect after his junior year, so Duncan over Iverson is accurate I think, in terms of perceived draft value.

by steadyhand on Jul 29, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

again

I’m not saying they definitely would have taken Iverson. What I’m saying is you could make an argument either way.

but was widely considered the obvious #1 prospect after his junior year,

Yes, when Philly had the pick. 9 times out of ten you’re gonna take the big guy. But San Antonio already had a dominant big man. You can’t convince me that they wouldn’t have entertained the thought of taking an uber-talented point guard to go along with him.

And don’t worry, I didn’t think you were paralleling Duncan and Camby. I think Camby has etched out a pretty good career. But he’s not close to Duncans league.

by CJHutch on Jul 30, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2000 Knicks and 2008 Nuggets each won 50

The 2001 Knicks won 48 games, the 2005 Nuggets won 49.

I sorta see your point that he doesn’t really make teams better though.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree completely

I don’t think you win DPOY or lead the league in blocks several times without making your team better. And did any of you watch the ’99 Knicks? They were one of the ultimate underdog teams of all time. The only true star on the team goes down, and they still make it to the finals. And who stepped in for that star without the team missing a beat? Camby.

As for the Duncan comparison, I don’t think I ever made that. Camby never approached Duncan’s offensive production. But defensively, Camby was one of the best ever in college. And that has carried over to the pros. If, at the end of the day (or career), McGee ends up with Camby’s accomplishments, I will be more than happy.

1 time DPOY
3 time blocks leader
2 time 1st team defense
2 time 2nd team defense
1 time all rookie first team – well, I guess that’s out of the question
8 playoff appearances in 13 years

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Camby was huge for the Knicks

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was a NYK season ticket holder at the time

I remember that run well.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I KNEW

you were the enemy. JK

Actually, I’m almost ashamed to say this as a Wizfan, but I was a bit of a Knicks sympathizer in the 90’s. The were one of the hardest-nosed teams of all time during that decade. They just kept running into the Jordan buzzsaw. I thought it was a shame they couldn’t get it done without Jordan around. Patrick Ewing is just another resident in the graveyard of HOFers that Jordan stepped on while making his way to the “Greatest Ever” throne.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm Bullets/Wizards to the bone

I just got season tickets so I could make sure to have seats when the Wizards were up here in NYC.

I never had any feelings for the Knicks, although you are right, they were sometimes hard not to like.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't quite old enough to hate a team when they were in their heyday

But looking back, I probably would have hated them because I liked high-scoring teams over rugged defensive ones.

For example, I was really pulling for Orlando from 94-96.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Same here

I was actually the only kid in my neighborhood who had both Shaq’s and Penny’s shoes back then.

I usually hate NY and LA teams, but I’ve got a soft spot for the Knicks now. They’re fans are pretty die hard, but they’ve spent a decade supporting a team that doesn’t even come close to being good. I’m really hoping D’Antoni turns them around, even though the only players on their current roster I can actually stand are Gallinari, Chandler, Lee, and to some extent Larry Hughes.

by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 29, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't give them too much credit

NY sports fans are horrible.

They are front runners, fair weather fans, and can be pretty mean to boot. Generalizations of course. But I’ve never worn my O’s hat to Yankee stadium without being assaulted.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nah

I liked the mix. MJ’s Bulls were the whole package. They just didn’t get the recognition for it because they had the GOAT. But, other than Scottie, that team would mix it up. That’s how they survived the Pistons and Knicks. But I liked the physical play. Everyone talks about how “physical” Lebron is – he gets a clear path to the lane all the time. Back then that wouldn’t happen. Jordan had guys leaning on him as soon as he got the ball. Sure, Lebron is a physical freak, but he whines when an eyelash falls on him. He wouldn’t have known what to do with Charles Oakley.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But he didn't do it on his own

Chris Dudley was big, and Kurt Thomas stepped up. Plus, the injury to Ewing gave Van Gundy an excuse to go small, which was their strength.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are

always backups. But Camby’s the guy who stepped in for Ewing. I don’t even know what we’re arguing about anymore. Camby has been a defensive force his entire career. I’m not sure how you can dispute that.

by CJHutch on Jul 29, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, in 99, Dudley was the one that started

And I’m basically arguing that, no, Camby hasn’t been the vaunted defensive force people make him out to be. That he won the 06/07 DPOY is a joke.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, in 99, Dudley was the one that started

No he wasn’t. Maybe a game here or there. And he was barely a factor on the team. Thomas was ok. LJ was who stepped up. Spree, Houston and LJ along with Camby were really the core.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boxscore don't lie about Dudley

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199906050NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199906070NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199906090IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199906110NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199906160SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199906180SAS.html

Camby started the last three games of the San Antonio series.

Regardless, all I’m saying is that Camby didn’t alone fill in for Ewing … it was a team effort, as cliche as that sounds.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, ya got me

Dudley “started”. Then he got yanked and played very little. I guess JVG felt he matched up well against Smits for a few minutes. I don’t think Camby alone filled in for Ewing. LJ stepped up his game hugely, as did Spree and Camby. Dudley was a sack of potatoes. And yes, it was a huge team effort. I mean, down 3 vs Indiana LJ hits a 4 pt play with like 5 seconds left. The whole playoff run was like a perfect storm.

by MR on Jul 29, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ugh

1 time DPOY
3 time blocks leader
2 time 1st team defense
2 time 2nd team defense
1 time all rookie first team

That’s not a joke. Real life stats. Real life accomplishments.

What’s a joke is using the box scores you posted for your argument. Maybe Camby didn’t START. But did you look at the minutes played? Dudley averaged around 20, Camby around 35. And the stats? Camby was around a double double every game. Plus 2 or 3 blocks.

I watched those games. I remember the impact Camby had. (And I also remember him getting worked by Tim Duncan.)
Look at the accomplishments above. Add College Player of the Year to them. You think the DPOY was a joke? He beat out the next player (Bruce Bowen) by 225 points. How are these stats a joke?

The 6-11 forward/center averaged a league-high 3.30 blocks to go along with 11.7 rpg (tied for fourth in the NBA), 11.2 ppg and a career-high 3.2 apg. Camby also led all centers in steals (1.24 spg), while his assists were second among centers.

Anyway, this started with McGee. Me? I’d be happy as hell if in 12-13 years I could reel off these type of stats/accomplishments from McGee. I guess you’re a little harder to please.

by CJHutch on Jul 30, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dang

I shoulda said 51 wins…
My point was that relative to his rep, he’s been part of scant team success. How many guys known for their defense can you say that about? I think that’s largely a product of his style of play. Blocks and rebounds don’t equal a good defender, and he hasn’t been an efficient scorer. I’d rather McGee be fundamentally sound and efficient than be visually and statisitcally impressive.

I’m not knocking the comparison — I’m just making a general point about the type of player McGee should try to become.

by steadyhand on Jul 29, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's fair

I think teams bring him in because they expect him to be a defensive presence and he isn’t, actually. He’s just a decent player with certain strengths and certain weaknesses.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 29, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

man you're

a tough nut to crack. I don’t see how you can laugh at Camby’s MANY accomplishments, yet constantly tout how much of an impact player Haywood is.

and..

Blocks and rebounds don’t equal a good defender,

Sure, maybe they don’t EQUAL a good defender, but those are things you want out of a center. And, I’m sorry, you can call it a “joke” all you want, but in my book a guy being named the “Best Defensive Player in the League” does equal good defender. Tell me which one of these guys wasn’t a good defender?

ALL-TIME NBA DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR WINNERS

1982-83: Sidney Moncrief, Milwaukee
1983-84: Sidney Moncrief, Milwaukee
1984-85: Mark Eaton, Utah
1985-86: Alvin Robertson, San Antonio
1986-87: Michael Cooper, L.A. Lakers
1987-88: Michael Jordan, Chicago
1988-89: Mark Eaton, Utah
1989-90: Dennis Rodman, Detroit
1990-91: Dennis Rodman, Detroit
1991-92: David Robinson, San Antonio
1992-93: Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston
1993-94: Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston
1994-95: Dikembe Mutombo, Denver
1995-96: Gary Payton, Seattle
1996-97: Dikembe Mutombo, Atlanta
1997-98: Dikembe Mutombo, Atlanta
1998-99: Alonzo Mourning, Miami
1999-2000: Alonzo Mourning, Miami
2000-01: Dikembe Mutombo, Philadelphia
2001-02: Ben Wallace, Detroit
2002-03: Ben Wallace, Detroit
2003-04: Ron Artest, Indiana
2004-05: Ben Wallace, Detroit
2005-06: Ben Wallace, Detroit
2006-07: Marcus Camby, Denver
2007-08: Kevin Garnett, Boston
2008-09: Dwight Howard, Orlando

by CJHutch on Jul 30, 2009 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just Camby

I wouldn’t put the type of stock you do in postseason awards. There have been some awful defenders that have received all defensive-team votes. Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler have received them.

Does it not seem odd to you that the Nuggets had a better defensive rating with Camby off the floor in 06/07? That they got better on defense between 07/08 and 08/09 by replacing Camby’s minutes with Nene’s? That they allowed teams to shoot a higher percentage in 06/07 with Camby on the floor? That they grabbed a much smaller percentage of rebounds (48.7% to 51.7%) with him on the floor, even though he grabbed a ton of rebounds himself?

How can all this be possible with a true top defender? Camby’s the anti-Haywood. Haywood doesn’t put up counting numbers (rebounds per game, blocks per game), but he does all the untrackable things on defense to make his team better. Camby’s the opposite; he gets all the counting numbers, but doesn’t do the untrackable things. There’s no stat available for not stepping up to contest a screen and roll and allowing a wide open jumper. There’s no stat available for slow help-side defense because he wants to block the shot rather than alter it. Those things make a difference on team defense and just because a bunch of writers who rarely see Camby play don’t have the energy, time or inclination to grasp that doesn’t mean he’s suddenly one of the best defenders in basketball.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 30, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

You’re still off. You would have an argument if Camby had ONE year of stellar defensive numbers, but he’s made a career of getting those numbers since college. There was a reason he was the #2 pick, and I think his numbers have justified it. You can throw the numbers away if you want to. But you can’t have it both ways.

Does it not seem odd to you that the Nuggets had a better defensive rating with Camby off the floor in 06/07

Aren’t those numbers? The difference, the ones I’m talking about are tangible. You bring up numbers that have many factors. WHO ELSE was on/off the floor when Camby left? Have you ever seen a team take out their top big when the other teams top big goes out? I have. Do you have numbers showing the production of the team minus Camby with all the rest of the players remaining the same? And do you have numbers showing Camby-years other than the last two? Before he turned 33? Do you have numbers showing why, just because he’s only one of 5 guys to lead the league in blocks 3 times, doesn’t mean he’s been an impact player?

I guess, at the end of the day, I’m just more watching basketball than keeping up with all the number. And the basketball I’ve watched tells me Camby has been a pretty good player since college. And if you don’t believe me, I’ll show you some numbers that you like:

For kicks, let’s see how many centers fit the same requirements for the last 10 NBA seasons, including the ‘08-09 that Haywood missed (source: Basketball-Reference.com)

   1. Shaquille O’Neal (8 seasons, high PER: 30.6)
   2. Alonzo Mourning (2 seasons, high PER: 25.8)
   3. Yao Ming (6 seasons, high PER: 25.6)
   4. Dwight Howard (4 seasons, high PER: 25.4)
   5. David Robinson (3 seasons, high PER: 24.6)
   6. Zydrunas Ilgauskas (7 seasons, high PER: 21.9)
   7. Marcus Camby (5 seasons, high PER: 20.9)
   8. Brad Miller (4 seasons, high PER: 20.7)
   9. Emeka Okafor (2 seasons, high PER: 20.1)
  10. Erick Dampier (1 season, PER: 20.1)
  11. Elden Campbell (1 season, PER: 19.5)
  12. Dikembe Mutombo (1 season, PER: 19.4)
  13. Andris Biedrins (2 seasons, high PER: 19.2)
  14. Brendan Haywood (1 season, PER: 18.3)
  15. Vlade Divac (1 season, PER: 18.0)

by CJHutch on Jul 30, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To answer your questions

Why don’t you look for yourself:

Camby on/off in 2003/04
04/05
05/06
07/08

There hasn’t been one year where he’s made a significant impact in team stats, except for last year with a dreadful Clippers team that had no NBA-quality backup. You have to use the argument both ways here; sure, Nene was a great backup for Camby, but so to were all the Clippers’ backup centers terrible defenders. (Not to mention that Nene was hurt a lot).

This whole “numbers vs. watching games” dynamic is really silly. There are some stats that are better for this parameters of this discussion (Camby on defense) than others. How his teams fare when he’s on the court matters. PER, an entirely offensive stat, doesn’t. I honestly have no idea what you were trying to prove by citing it. All it tells me is that Camby gets a lot of rebounds and blocks a lot of shots. I knew that already. In addition, watching games matters. Denver was not a very disciplined defensive team until this year, when they replaced Camby with Nene. They went from being a lazy defensive team that stopped trying when they couldn’t get steals to a disciplined team that put tons of pressure on people. The only real major losses were Camby and Iverson. How could you trade away a DPOY guy and get better defensively? Maybe he isn’t really a DPOY-quality guy.

The scope of this discussion has widened way too considerably. All I’m saying is that Camby is not a DPOY-quality defender. He’s a decent defender with some strengths that help teams (rebounding, weakside shot blocking), but other weaknesses that really hurt teams (screen-and-roll defense, man-to-man post defense). The strengths show up in traditional stats, the weaknesses don’t. That explains how he got defensive player of the year even though Brendan Haywood overall is a better defensive player.

(And yes, Camby was a big help to the Knicks and a great return for an aging Charles Oakley, but he didn’t replace Ewing alone).

Put it this way, would you consider JaVale McGee even a below-average defender at this stage of his career? Because McGee is essentially the extreme version of Camby — good at counting numbers, bad at team defense.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 30, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

again

whole picture.

The only real major losses were Camby and Iverson. How could you trade away a DPOY guy and get better defensively?

But a major GAIN was Billups. He turned that team around just like he turned the Pistons around.

And if Camby is good at help defense (weakside shot blocking), how is he bad at team defense? Comparing him to Haywood doesn’t make much sense really. Two very different styles. Not many players have put both together successfully. But you’ll never convince me that “getting a whole lot of rebounds and blocking a whole lot of shots” is not good for a team.

Also saying Camby’s teams were poor defensively, then touting Haywood is not being fair either. Haywood has NEVER been on a good defensive team. And he’s as much a part of the problem as anyone. You can tell me how much “better” they are with him on the court than off, and I’d tell you how much “better” they would be with a center who could consistently alter or affect shots at the rim, a center who could consistently control the boards, and a center who could win a jumpball every once in awhile. Sure, the Wizards are better with Haywood on the court than off, but that doesn’t make him a good defender. Just makes him the best they have. And I guess I’m alone on this, but I’ll take the great shot-blocking, and the affect it has on the minds of the other team, any day of the week. It does make a difference.

by CJHutch on Jul 30, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

talk about overrated

The one stat that is WAY overrated is blocked shots.

There IS a difference in the way Haywood plays defense and the way Camby does. Haywood is more effective in the number of shots he alters, and the number of drives to the basket he deters, than Camby is with the number of blocks he gets.

I’d rather see our defenders get a hand in the shooter’s face every time, than go after blocked shots. Watch Shane Battier when he plays against Kobe Bryant. Kobe may score , but he works his tail off to get his points – and Shane’s hand is in his face EVERY shot. Brendan is similar (although he does block the occasional shot or two – 1.66 per game in 2007-08). But Brendan also gets his hand in the shooter’s face. One reason he plays jump shooting Centers so well (like Ilgauskas ).

Brendan forces opponents away from their “sweet” spots… making them shoot out of their comfort zone. That just doesn’t show up in any statistics. There is no stat for “Forced Away from Favorite Spot on the Floor”.. The FAFSF stat isn’t available.

He plays solid one-on-one defense. He plays good “team defense” (talking, hedging screens, slowing up penetrating guards, taking away the baseline, showing on picks, and yes, even occasionally blocking a shot or two).

Watch when Haywood rebounds…. he blocks out his man so effectively that most of the time it’s Jamison or Butler that actually gets the rebound (because Haywood has blocked his man too far away from the rim). He actually makes it easier for his teammates to get the rebounds. Jamison actually had a higher per-game rebound total (10.2) in 2007-08 playing WITH Haywood than in 2008-09 (8.9) playing without him.. as did Caron Butler (6.7 vs 6.2). The Wizards as a team rebounded better in 2007-08 (41.6) than in 2008-09 (40.1) – - – And none of that really shows up as a statistic for Haywood that someone can point to and say “look there, Haywood is good at Helping Teammates Rebound” – - – the HTR stat…. just not at any stat site I’ve ever seen….

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Jul 30, 2009 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

So you're joining the "stats are overrated" crowd?

by MR on Jul 30, 2009 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guess so.

I think it’s funny how you say “blocks are over-rated”, then tout how Haywood “blocks the occasional shot or two.” I guess rebounding is over-rated as well. I just don’t know why Haywood isn’t DPOY every year. Apparently every one else has it wrong. Personally, I’ll take LOTS of rebounds, blocks, and WINS over 7.5 points, 5.9 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks a game. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge the stats. The personal ones. 5 guys on the floor, 5 guys get stats. If Haywood is spending all his time helping everyone else prop up their stats, I hope to hell they all pitch in when his contract comes up. Frankly, I don’t know what we’ll do without him.

by CJHutch on Jul 31, 2009 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was asking rook

by MR on Jul 31, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I know. I was saying that I guess he is in the “stats are overrated crowd.” Then responding to him. Sorry, I’m kinda tired, so I jumbled them together.

by CJHutch on Jul 31, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blocks in and of themselves are overrated

That’s what Rook’s saying and I agree. It’s not how many shots you block, but how many you force to miss. There’s often overlap, but not always (explains the “blocks a couple of shots in the process too” type of comments). The best way to get an idea of the latter at this juncture is in the on/off stats. Haywood crushes Camby here.

Defense is so much more difficult to evaluate individually than offense. In general, we have very incomplete defensive stats. Blocks per game don’t come close to measuring so many other important characteristics of defense: the intimidation factor, the number of shots altered, the number of paint shots that aren’t taken, the number of times a guard’s penetration is cut off because of help defense, screen and roll defense, etc. I could go on. Steals, similarly, don’t take into account how many times a player gambles and misses, the ability of a player to stay in front of his man, the amount of picks a player fight through, etc. It’s very hard to evaluate defense with what we have, so we have to look deeper than the mainstream numbers (which, unfortunately, still hold way too much sway among mainstream guys, at least in 2006/07). That’s why on/off data is so helpful. This isn’t about “stats vs. no stats.” It’s about combining what you see with deeper statistical analysis to get a more complete picture.

CJ, you continue to widen the scope of the argument needlessly. It’s frustrating, to be honest. I feel like we’re talking past each other, so if we still are still doing that after this comment, then I think we should both move on.

But a major GAIN was Billups. He turned that team around just like he turned the Pistons around.

I mean, sure, he did, but that doesn’t answer how Billups helped. Billups helped Denver more on offense than defense. He calmed them down, got guys the right shots, allowed them to play fast but not out of control, etc. He helped on defense a bit, because he didn’t gamble for steals like Iverson, but his profound impact was on offense and on the intangible side of stuff. One big difference on defense was replacing Camby, who blocks and rebounds but doesn’t play solid fundamental post defense, with Nene, who does (or at least did in 08/09).

And if Camby is good at help defense (weakside shot blocking), how is he bad at team defense?

Because he goes for so many blocks and misses, which don’t get counted. He’s good at weakside shot blocking, not help defense. They are very, very different. Help defense is cutting off the lane, then retreating back to your man in time to prevent him from also scoring (for example). Help defense is contesting a shot and forcing a miss without necessarily blocking it. Help defense is sliding over to break up a pick and roll instead of staying in the lane and allowing your teammates’ man a wide open look. Help defense is communicating responsibility to your teammates. Weakside shot blocking is … blocking a shot. It’s like stolen bases in baseball — if a guy steals 40 bases, but gets caught 40 times, do you still consider him a great basestealer?

But you’ll never convince me that "getting a whole lot of rebounds and blocking a whole lot of shots" is not good for a team.

I never said that. I said they don’t make a dominant defender on their own. You place Camby with an outstanding fundamental post defender at power forward (like a healthy Kenyon Martin), then his strengths are maximized. In fact, if you placed Camby with Haywood, you’d have the best defensive frontcourt in basketball.

Also saying Camby’s teams were poor defensively, then touting Haywood is not being fair either. Haywood has NEVER been on a good defensive team. And he’s as much a part of the problem as anyone.

You’ve used this line of thinking before, and frankly, it makes no sense. There’s a big difference between Camby and Haywood in that Camby doesn’t actually improve his own teams’ (bad) defense when he’s on the court, while Haywood makes a tremendous impact. If Haywood is improving his team’s defense singlehandily by 5-10 points/100 possessions when he’s in the game, you’re going to blame him for that? Talk about unfair.

You can tell me how much "better" they are with him on the court than off, and I’d tell you how much "better" they would be with a center who could consistently alter or affect shots at the rim, a center who could consistently control the boards, and a center who could win a jumpball every once in awhile.

These things should show up in on/off numbers if they matter so much. SI ran an article three years ago (can’t find a link b/c it was a table in print) where they tracked which players surrendered the fewest number of shots in the paint when they were on the floor. Haywood was second behind Dikembe Mutumbo. And that’s three years ago! That’s altering or affecting shots at the rim. And as far as rebounding, I don’t see how you can argue with the team grabbing way more rebounds with Haywood out there than with him on the bench. That hasn’t been the case with Camby’s teams, and Denver had some pretty crappy backups when Nene was injured (which was often).

Sure, the Wizards are better with Haywood on the court than off, but that doesn’t make him a good defender. Just makes him the best they have.

But the difference is enormous. It’s not negligible. You can’t tell me that bad teammates alone account for a consistent 5-10 points/100 possessions and 10-15 spots in defensive rating increase with Haywood on the floor. And to argue this another way: it’s harder for good defensive players to play well surrounded by bad defenders than by good defenders. Haywood has had to pick up for a terrible perimeter-defending crew, yet he still manages to singlehandily make a huge impact on the team. To be able to do that, you have to be really on the ball defensively.

And I guess I’m alone on this, but I’ll take the great shot-blocking, and the affect it has on the minds of the other team, any day of the week. It does make a difference.

You’re right. Shot blocking as an intimidation factor is huge. But that doesn’t describe Marcus Camby’s shot blocking. Marcus Camby may blocks a lot of shots, but he doesn’t mean he stops teams from driving down the lane because he only alters the shots he swats. Compared to someone like a prime Dikembe Mutumbo (who altered way more shots than he blocked), and it’s no contest. The 2006/07 Nuggets actually allowed a higher percentage of “close” shots than the 2006/07 Wizards. If Camby was such a defensive “presence,” that wouldn’t happen. Teams know that Camby may swat a couple, but he’ll also not even be in position to contest shots just as often.

Personally, I’ll take LOTS of rebounds, blocks, and WINS over 7.5 points, 5.9 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks a game. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge the stats.

This is odd for a number of reasons:
1. Camby’s teams don’t really win.
2. Camby plays way more minutes than Haywood
3. Camby on Denver played at a much faster pace than Haywood
4. As indicated above, current per-game defensive stats suck. Doesn’t mean all defensive stats suck.

If Haywood is spending all his time helping everyone else prop up their stats, I hope to hell they all pitch in when his contract comes up.

They should.

Frankly, I don’t know what we’ll do without him.

Me neither.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Jul 31, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You keep

bringing up Camby in Denver. He’s 33 years old. This post started as a measuring stick for McGee. Like I said at the beginning – I watched Camby at McGee’s age. He was a good player. Very good. His teams don’t win? Is that in general, or compared to Haywood? Camby has been to the playoffs 8 times. That’s double Haywood. One finals trip for Camby, none for Haywood.

2. Camby plays way more minutes than Haywood

And there’s a reason for that. I agree that Haywood and Eddie Jordan had a “thing.” But Haywood was here before Jordan. AND rift or no rift, good players, players that are difference makers, play. Period. This wasn’t a Stephon Marbury situation. Haywood, while maybe better than Etan, never separated himself enough to FORCE the coach’s hand.

You’re right. Shot blocking as an intimidation factor is huge. But that doesn’t describe Marcus Camby’s shot blocking. Marcus Camby may blocks a lot of shots, but he doesn’t mean he stops teams from driving down the lane because he only alters the shots he swats.

First off, if Camby’s leading the league in blocks, he’s altering a LOT of shots. Who cares if he’s chasing them when he’s actually getting them. Not everyone is Dikembe Mutombo. (and Haywood definitely isn’t) Personally, I don’t see players worried about driving the lane against Haywood. Because they’re not worried about getting their shot blocked. He doesn’t have that rep. Camby does.

I don’t need you to analyze the ins and outs of how basketball “works” for me. I’ve been playing, coaching, and watching basketball for 28 years. I’ve played with and against college and professional players- NBA and other leagues. I know the game. I’m not saying you don’t, just saying you don’t need to “explain” it to me. And you don’t need to explain the effect a shot blocker has on players. I know it. I’ve seen it. I play once or twice a week against guys half my age. They hate getting their shot blocked. It’s like that on all levels. Guys with a “rep” as a shot blocker are avoided. At the core of it, players are still ruled by their egos. The ones who can tune that out are the good ones. But EVERYONE has it on their mind.

As for your on/off comparison, like I said before – that only goes so far. Until you can make the comparison equally, it doesn’t mean much. I remember on here someone mentioned Orlando having pretty much the same production with Gortat on the floor as with Howard. I don’t know if it’s true or not, and I don’t care. It doesn’t matter because they were playing against different players. That’s why I asked you last time to find for me how Camby’s teams fared with him off the court against the same players. Here’s an example: back in the (hey)day, Shaq and Zo would always guard each other. Shaq sits, Zo sits. Now Shaq’s team isn’t scoring as much because he’s not on the floor. But your can bend it to look like Zo’s team plays defense better without him. THAT’S why those stats hold little water with me. And THAT’S why I say you have to watch the game. The stats that matter are the ones the player can control. Again – 5 players, 5 sets of stats. If all those stats are good, it’s a good team. If all those stats are bad – bad team. Then there are varying degrees in the middle. That’s basketball. That’s the way it’s been for over 100 years, well before the internet arrived.

by CJHutch on Jul 31, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs