Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) You said Ben f***ing Wallace, not Hakeem. Now you see why you come off as a troll sometimes. My point eluded you. Hakeem Olajuwon was twice the player Bill Russell was. Yet Russell's viewed as a top 3 center ever while Hakeem is perpetually stuck in the second tier. And how am I a troll? Because I don't bow down when the masses have different opinions then myself? This is why I stay out of filmbuster. I'd get banned in 22 seconds if I were to share my opinions.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) Relative to the era, Russell wasn't that inefficient offensively. Shooting percentages league-wide were in the low-40's and Russell was a fair amount above that ever year. They still won EVERY year. Wilt Chamberlain was probably a better individual player than him, but the Sixers beat them once even though Wilt eventually had guys like Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker on his team. Plus the West/Baylor duo never beat them and the Celtics beat a Lakers team with West, Baylor AND Wilt in the 68-69 Finals. I don't quite know where I'd put Russell because of the huge difference in eras, but to compare him to Ben Wallace is just asanine. if nothing else, he was a way better passer and played at that level for 13 years, not 5-7 depending on when you think Big Ben started to fall off. He also scored 15 PPG at an above league average FG%, while Wallace was pretty much useless if it wasn't a dunk or putback. I totally disagree and I'm pissed that basketball reference doesn't have advanced stats for players from the 60's. I guarantee when you normalize for pace that they're indeed similar. Maybe there's another site out there. Yeah, Russell was better for a longer period of time. I'll give you that. But peak wise, there was no difference. Bill Russell's 11 rings has exaggerated his standing among the all-time greats.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) It doesn't matter. You make yourself come off completely silly and as if you are only here for arguments and to play devil's advocate when you reach to such insane ends that you say Bill Russell = Ben Wallace. Come on man, Wallace had no actual skills, just grab boards and block. Russell played in a much different era, of course, but he was the f***ing man of that f***ing era. Let's put it this way: Hakeem >> Russell Yet Hakeem is never mentioned as one of the all-time great centers. It's always Wilt, Kareem and Russell. Then there's the next tier. Hakeem and Shaq would make a dirty diaper outta Bill Russell. It wouldn't even be funny. It would be like when Jeff Hornacek would check Jordan.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) A black player won the MVP award every year from 1960-1972, a period which encompassed 4 of Russell's MVP awards. His championships are impressive, but there were only 8 or 9 teams in the entire league back then, so winning a title was much easier back then. He also played with Cousy, Havlicek, among others, those were some talented Celtics teams. Weren't there only 2 rounds of playoffs back then? lol. Get out of here (not you LH). I think Russell was great for his time. But he's most definitely overrated.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) Can you post those please. I would like to see what you are looking at to support that he is 1. Inefficient and 2. The same player as Ben Wallace http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html And it looks like I was wrong in that they don't have the advanced metrics for players in the 60's. Rebound rate is what I was looking for. But they don't have it listed for him. But look at those shooting percentages and try not to barf.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) You summed up what I was about to say in roughly 1/20th the words. Thank you. As for the second part, pretty sure he was saying that about Russell. I'm not exactly a Russell fan and JFL is right about that era being a completely different pace, but you don't end up as the best player on a championship team 11 times by accident. He also won 5 MVP's in an era where everyone still hated black people, so that says something about the respect he had around the league. And that to me is what makes him overrated. The 11 rings. How many hall of famers did he play with? I'm not trying to minimize his importance and impact (sounds like it, though). But there were like 10 teams in the league back then and the talent overall just wasn't that great to begin with.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) Lets see. We cant use stats? Then how would we compare? There has to be some correlation you can make to prove that a guy who's best year ever wasnt as good as the others guys worst season. Because Russell's worst rebounding year was 18.6, and Wallace's best was 15.4. Russell avg'ed 22.5 with 15 points. Wallace avg'ed 6 and 10. Guys like Elgin Baylor were pulling down 15+ rebounds per game back then. You can't use stats to compare modern players to players from the 60's. Otherwise Wilt > Jordan and it's not even close. Bill Russell was a terribly inefficient offensive player. Yes, he revolutionized the game defensively. But was he really better than Ben Wallce when he was racking up all those DPOYs and spearheading some of the great defenses of all-time? Basketball reference has pace adjusted metrics. And the difference between the two is negligible at best.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) Technically rebounding, scoring, passing, shooting accuracy, and steals. Oh and winning. Larry took 2 more shots per game from the field, and took 1 less from 3. So your possession argument isnt all that great. I was referring to Bill Russell.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) Well it's pretty easy to admit that our draft philosophy was horrible from about the time Kenny took over as GM until about 2006. At least in terms of the top end of the draft. But I liked the Beckham pick, the Mitchell pick, the Sale pick. Not so sure about the pick this year, but I haven't seen this guy at all yet. Clearly we need to draft better. And I'd like to go over slot because we do compete on an annual basis and that means we're drafting lower in every round, so we should take advantage of talent falling due to financial reasons. I'd like to improve scouting in LA, but I think that will take time after the whole fiasco that occurred there. So I am trying to be patient. I am certainly NOT SATISFIED with our drafting and international scouting. I DO NOT think it is ok to draft and scout as poorly as we have. However, I do love the philosophy of player acquisition that we do have, and that may be driven entirely by budget. And perhaps it is time to shift how the budget is allocated. What I was saying in my previous post is that I'm not sure that our current method of player acquisition is not as good as the traditional methods utilized by the rest of baseball. Obviously there are some teams, such as the Red Sox, Phillies and Braves that I admire. But I think we are very competitive with the model we use. This is hilarious. Russ said basically what I've been saying. I say it and you act like Hitler on acid.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 09:59 AM) Holy cow, you are clueless. At least offer a legitimate rebuttal. What does Bird do better than Dirk other than pass? Seriously. And Bill Russell is overrated, IMO. He was basically a slightly better version of prime Ben Wallace. Don't look at the stats. There were something like 35 more possessions per game back then. Skillset wise they were pretty similar.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) Yes, you are failing to see the point here. If the draft and international scouting are such guessing games, why not try building through methods which are characterized by less risk? Aren't you the one that likes to bet on games? Could've fooled me. So let's ignore the draft and LA because it's too risky? No. That's no good.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) You did. You brought up Jon Jay! Yup. He's holding it down until their superstar LF comes back from injury. They're not relying on him long-term.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) You yourself just drew the distinction when you were trying to find a way to give the Cardinals credit for moves they made in the early 2000's without having to do the icky thing of giving KW credit for more recent moves. It's a what have you done for me lately sport. Man the Cardinals cleaned up when they traded for Scott Rolen and Larry Walker. But KW was lucky when he found Danks and Quentin. What has KW done for me lately? lol. I ran off like 6 guys from their farm that are producing like crazy for them THIS year. If you want to pimp Lillibridge and Humber, I can do the same for their no-name guys that have them in first place (or I guess a game behind the red-hot Brewers right now).

Anyway, you can accuse me of what you want to accuse me of. I'm a baseball fan first. White Sox fan second. I follow other organizations and how they operate. If I was White Sox 24/7 and nothing else, I would have nothing to gauge them against. There's absolutely no excuse that the best position player a big market franchise like the White Sox can produce in 10 years is Joe f***ing Crede, or the best pitcher, is, um, s***, I can't even think of one. You keep talking about how risky it is to invest in the draft and LA? It's a risk for EVERY team. I fail to see your point there. Now if 83-85 wins tickles your fancy because, well, it's better than it was in the 50's, good for you. I'm not accepting that s***. And will always be a one postseason appearance every 3-4 years in a s***ty division until we address these glaring weaknesses.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) Why do you have to go back 4, 5, or 6 years? I thought you were talking about RIGHT NOW! This is such tired bulls***. Our farm net us Gavin Floyd, John Danks, Alexei Ramirez, Carlos Quentin, Matt Thornton, Sergio Santos, Brent Lillibridge...I mean we can go on and on and on and on. You love strong farm systems and young kids. That's impossible to miss. But it's not the only way to build a good baseball team. Except I was comparing the Cardinals run to the Sox run under KW. I never gave a criteria to how far we could go back. You're the one that shrank it down to since 2006 to make a point. Ramirez was a FA signing. Santos was a product of the farm? If you say so. Look, I never said the ONLY wait to gather cheap talent was through draft/la. But a truly elite organization can do a little bit of everything. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) I love how you call Danks a great "Find", when he was exactly the kind of acquisition you're giving the Cardinals credit for but the Sox no credit for. He was traded for a nearly ready White Sox MLB prospect developed pitcher. Same thing with Quentin. Traded for a minor leaguer. You give the Cardinals credit for those moves, but when the Sox do them it's luck. Great finds? Trades? What's the difference? I've always given KW credit for those moves. But the fact we have to keep going back to those moves proves my point. It's a what have you done for me lately sport. And KW hasn't done much lately.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) Ok, so the Cardinals farm system gets credit for the guys they've netted...but the White Sox's farm system gets no credit at all for the dozens of guys KW has traded for over the last decade. This is exactly why you piss people off so much with this. The standards you use to praise other people's farm systems are so much more loose than what you use to attack the Sox's system it's not even funny. Unless you're the Yankees, it's pretty much a given that the best way to find young, and more importantly cheap talent, is through the draft and latin america. We've failed miserably at both. NOW, that said, we have been good (or had been good) at plucking talent from other team's systems and remaking them or reshaping them or whatever you want to call it. But that's a dangerous way to function long-term. You don't want to rely on reclamation projects year after year. 'Lexi was a great find. No problem. Floyd and Danks (though it looks like we're going to lose the latter to FA with nothing close to a legitimate replacement in-house) were also great finds. CQ, after two s***ty years, has rebounded to have a great season so far. Humber? I don't think it will last. But he's gotten it done to this point. And it appears Santos, though I have doubts, can be a fixture at closer for a while. Again, none of that has come from the system. That's the best way to survive long-term when you don't have an unlimited payroll.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) I hope you get the idea though. Manning and Brady aren't complimentary players any more than Wade and James are. Miami was the only place where Lebron could have gone, maybe in the whole NBA other than the Lakers, where he wouldn't have been the guy. He went there so that he didn't have to be the guy all the time. No, you're making no sense. Two QBs can't play at the same time. What, Manning has to sit on the bench and wait for Brady to get hurt?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:39 AM) Hmph, I didn't realize they hadn't drafted him. In that case, my argument gets even stronger, the only 2 players that St. Louis has genuinely developed for their own organization, under the same stringent standards constantly used here to criticize the Sox's system, since Pujols are Molina and Rasmus. That's over a full decade. You could also say their farm net them Scott Rolen, Larry Walker and Matt Holliday. And why are you forgetting about Jaime Garcia? He's now proven he was no flash in the pan. I'm not saying the Cards are the Red Sox. But they dwarf the White Sox.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) Coop turns around underacheivers with talent. Duncan takes garbage pitchers and somehow teaches them how to get people out, he's definitely the best out there. Kyle Lohse, yes, that Kyle Lohse , is 4th in the NL in ERA. /the end

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) If he went anywhere else on the list...Chicago, NYC, The Clippers, wherever...he wouldn't have had that venom nearly as much. The fact that he went to the one place where it was clear he wanted to make things easy on himself and wanted to get on with the party was the biggest indictment of all. The NBA is the one sport in which it's viewed as a negative thing to have "too" much help. If Pujols signs with the Yankees, nobody is going to say he's taking the easy way out. They're just going to be in awe of a lineup that features Cano, Tex, Granderson, Pay-Rod and Pujols. If Adrian Peterson is a FA and signs with the Colts, people are going to say "Wow, Manning handing it off to Peterson?" That's going to be amazing. In the NBA, this could be because of Jordan, a superstar is allowed to have a sidekick and some quality roleplayers. Other than that, they're coasting or taking the easy way out. LeBron had a choice to go wherever the hell he wanted to go. He chose the Heat. I thought it was a b**** move. But the guy thought that was the best chance for him to win. He obviously wasn't worried about his legacy. So why the hell should I worry about it?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 08:07 AM) I doubt that second sentence. Was shaq's legacy reshaped? KGs? If Barkley won it all in PHX, would people have hated on him? PLenty of players move, it was the "let's just ALL team up!" aspect that pissed everyone off. That and the celebration. And that he plays like a tool. Shaq was only in Orlando for, what, 3 years? Or was it 4? I can't remember. And the media scrutiny was nothing comparable in 1996 that it is today. There was no facebook and Twitter and Skype and all the social crap we have today. Otherwise he probably would've been just as vilified. KG won his title. And he's looked at as an all-time great. But his overall legend would've been magnified had he won in Minnesota. Barkley? Yes. If he had won it in Houston it only would've been because he teamed up with Hakeem and Drexler.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 07:57 AM) Lebron could have done anything other than going to the Heat to avoid that venom. Hell, if he'd gone to the Heat and done it without the Decision and the Party, that'd have helped too. I don't buy that. He would be viewed as a coward either way for bolting Cleveland. If MJ or Kobe leave Chicago or LA because they couldn't get it done, their legacies are totally reshaped. The Decision was an all-time epic fail. But c'mon now. This isn't the worst thing that's ever happened in sports. It was a year ago. How much longer are you (not you) going to use that as diesel fuel to supplement your hatred for LeBron? If you want to critique LeBron for his sub par performance in the finals, have at it. I'm doing the same thing. But the whole Decision thing is tired now.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 07:28 AM) Does this come with the same certainty that Humber doesn't have a chance in hell to be even adequate this season? Yes, it does. Teams looking for pitching to get over that proverbial hump aren't looking at Phil Humber as that difference maker.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 07:26 AM) Nice to see Cooper receiving national recognition for what all of us have known about him for a while now. Dave Duncan is better. But Coop is probably the only member of the coaching staff earning their paycheck.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 07:05 AM) There's a whole lot of emotional issues for Lebron packed into that one statement. Let's face it: LeBron is a f***ing idiot. No denying that. But the entire planet has been trashing, insulting, etc, him all season long. LeBron was not going to win either way. Had the Heat won, it would've only been because he teamed up with Wade and Bosh. Had they lost? Well, we've already seen the aftermath of that. The only thing LeBron could've done last summer that wouldn't have the entire world hating him was to stay with the Cavs. I don't condone what LeBron said. But I can understand it. If I've got the entire world hating on me, I probably say a lot worse than that. That said, Dirk > LeBron.