hammerhead johnson

AND THAT'S A WHITE SOX WINNER, STFU PEOPLE!

QUOTE(Jimenez4MVP @ May 30, 2005 -> 04:31 PM) I dont think roids has as big an effect on production drop off as people make it seem.. There are steroids you can take, that when you stop taking them and remain on a steady workout routine you keep most of what you gained.. I see a lot of people saying "steroids" to someone who isnt producing like they use to and thats not exactly the case I hear you, but I need someone to explain why so many guys are looking a hell of a lot thinner nowadays. Is everybody on the Atkins diet?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 30, 2005 -> 04:33 AM) Please don't mention Ratliff and Mutumbo in the same sentance again. There is a MAJOR difference. Mutumbo absolutely shut down the other team's inside game and dominated the glass, and he was definitely a bigger impact on the offensive end too. Ratliff has been pretty good, but he's not on the same level. The difference between Wallace and Ratliff being on so many different teams is Ratliff was starting and in his prime when he was moved, Wallace wasn't. If he was such a defensive stud and a centerpiece of a team, Philly would have kept him and won something with him and Iverson. I won't argue that he wouldn't be valuable piece on a good team when he was in his prime, but there is no way you start your team with him. You need some other really good players around him to do something. With Brand, you have more flexibility inside and you could afford to use someone like Chandler for defensive purposes. Well, I couldn't agree less. Ratliff was a defensive monster, and I saw it coming waaay beforehand too, just like Chandler and a bunch of other guys. I have Dikembe down for Top 10 in defense since the mid-60s, so of course he's much better than Ratliff. That's why I said Theo is a poor man's Dikembe, kinda like STP is a poor man's version of Pearl Jam, you know what I'm saying? You're obviously a smart guy. It's just a matter of actually watching guys play, and evaluating them on that basis. Defense doesn't really show up in box scores. Nobody could ever tell me that Ratlliff wasn't a defensive superstar, the kind of guy that you build around. That's why I was surprised by your previous post, Zoom. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 30, 2005 -> 04:33 AM) As for Chandler, I've watched enough Bulls' games to know that he is not that kind of player in any stretch of the imagination as of yet. He isn't the kind of guy that can absolutely shut down the paint like Wallace or Mutumbo or Hakeem in his prime. I've watched a good number of middling post players put up close to 20 against us, and it isn't all Eddy's fault. He has "shown flashes" of excellent defense and rebounding, but that's quite different than doing it in the long run. I've seen flashes of talent from a lot of players that never amounted to anything, so I'd like to see more from him before I even consider taking him over one of the top 10 (I'd argue top 5) PF's in the league. I wouldn't complain about his offensive abilities if he were on the same level as those previous players I mentioned, but he isn't. Given the choice between a pretty good defender with no offense and a decent defender that puts up 20 a game, I'd go with the latter. You really need to be proficient on both sides of the floor. You can say all you want about how good the defense is on pretty much every team that won the championship, but pretty much every title team I can think of other than the current day Pistons could score too. The Bulls could put up 110 on any given night, and the Badboys, any of the Celtics teams, and the Lakers' dynasties were quite proficient on the offensive end too. That was the difference between the Bulls and the teams the ran over like the Knicks and the Heat: they could beat you at both ends of the floor. Realistically I'd hypothetically replace Curry with Brand before Tyson becuase Eddy is so one-demensional, but I'd still take Brand over any of our post players because he can help on both sides of the floor. This is why I keep telling people over and over to have some foresight, try to spot devastating defense before it peaks. I say these things to the point where it's gotta be nauseating for a lot of people who read my posts, but repetition is like the only way to hammer my point down. He has "shown flashes", and then some. Of course, your second point in this paragraph is pretty obvious...you supplement defense with offense. No doubt about it. But what have I been saying over and over again? EVERYTHING STARTS WITH DEFENSE. You don't start with Elton Brand and go from there. You don't start with offense in baseball...you start with pitching. You don't start with Sakic, you start with Patrick Roy. You don't start with John Stallworth...you start with Mean Joe Greene. How do you build? That s*** ain't rocket science. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 30, 2005 -> 04:33 AM) Also, I won't argue that Childress doesn't have the potential to score 18 points per game, I just don't see him doing it next season. 12-14, maybe 15 but not much more than that, for the season seems to make more sense for the current state of his career, and the same for Smith. I was talking about his scoring in the context of a discussion about how having a PG like Paul would fit into their offense as opposed to a guy like Deron. Obviously there are other important facets to a player's game. As for claiming that the final four teams left in the playoffs is irrelevant, I don't really see how. These have been the best four teams all season, with none of them really doing any better than the other. You can argue that Ducan being hurt and Wallace's suspension were a factor in their win totals (which they were), but you could also argue that Shaq being out was a major factor. There are plenty of other teams that were decent-good on defense that got knocked out before these teams. This isn't exactly new to the playoffs either, at least one of the last few teams is less than stellar on defense every year. Yes, I know the Mavs get knocked out every year, but they have to go through the west, and they take weak defense to an extreme. Childress already is, as the kids would say, "da bomb". You kinda mentioned him as a sidenote, and I know you were only talking scoring options, and that's cool. If this guy gets 30+ minutes a night, which he will, 18+ points should be money in the bank. And about offensive powerhouses making the finals? I'm just saying, f*** a team that is founded on offense first and foremost. There ain't no longevity there. You might put asses in the seats and appease the endless supply of casual fans out there who don't know jack s*** about anything, but in the vast, vast majority of cases, you can forget about a ring.

QUOTE(chi-guy2 @ May 30, 2005 -> 04:14 AM) no he isnt, if he was good hed have a halfway decent pitching staff by now, they keep getting relievers when they need starting pitchers, all they have is schmidt The Giants front office is highly respected, but I hear you. Their lineup is ancient, their starting rotation is poor, and their bullpen is beyond terrible. They haven't developed very many good players in recent years. Their pipeline is s***, maybe even worse than the White Sox. Just like everybody else, they always have some guys in the minors who look like potential studs, but then they crap out. Everybody of value on that team came from elsewhere. I'm thinking of guys that they've developed over the past 10 years, and names like Aurilla and Foulke are all tht come to mind. I'm sure that I'm forgetting someone of importance. These ain't your pappy's Giants (Will Clark, Matt Williams, etc).

QUOTE(soxhawks @ May 29, 2005 -> 10:28 PM) its not the guy has been hitting 40 every year, he'll get his 15 homers you can count on that Well, he had 1 HR in 143 ABs, so he was on pace for 3 or 4 on the season (I'm thinking 475 to 500 ABs with the injury issues). But now he has 2 HR in his last 23 ABs. He had 70 extra-base hits when he was healthy in 2003. That's why I had roids on my mind.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 29, 2005 -> 07:16 PM) Yeah, Jordan sucks on the offensive end of the floor. :headshake And it was called the triangle, not isolation... The Bulls offense throughout the 90's was one of the most impressive I've seen. Sit down and watch a a '98 game. I don't see how you could not love their offense or defense. I was actually watching Game 6 '98 at Utah last night, and I was loving every minute of it. I don't see how you, as a supposed Bulls fan, is now going say they are unimpressed by the Bulls of the 90's. :headshake Sleepy, the half-court offense is not what got it done for the 90s Bulls. This is something that I won't even elaborate on. You were 10 years old when we won our first championship. You should have vivid memories of everything that went down. We killed teams with defense and points off of turnovers. Jordan wrecked shop in the half court, and that's it.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 29, 2005 -> 07:03 PM) Too deep... I don't speak bulls***. So where are the Bulls, Blazers, and Nugs? Deep in the playoffs, right? Chandler shined in the playoffs, didn't he? I get it. You love role players. I understand their importance, but you're glorifying them way to f***in' much... Oops, you're using the Wizards series as a crutch once again. If this were 1998, you'd be talking about how s***ty Ben Wallace is. Have some forsight. Recognize the importance of time and place, a supporting cast, etc. I'm saying that these goaltenders represent a starting point. How you build after that is important, but not necessarily relevant in this particular discussion. You have to start somewhere. In baseball, you start with pitching. In football, you start with a D-Line and and O-Line. In basketball and hockey, you start with a goaltender. There are exceptions, of course, just like those 90s Bulls. But how many teams have (arguably) the best defensive SG and SF of all time?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 29, 2005 -> 06:59 PM) Scottie Pippen. Michael Jorden. Why were they so great? They were as good, or in the case of Pip, better, on the defensive end as they were on the offensive end. Don't give me that bulls*** that I'm all about offense. The only dillusional person preaching one single aspect of the game is hammer. My Top 10 Defenders since the mid-to-late 60s, in no particular order: Bill Russell Nate Thurmond Hakeem Olajuwon David Robinson Dennis Rodman Michael Jordan Scottie Pippen Dikembe Mutombo Ben Wallace Alonzo Mourning My Ist Team since the mid-to-late 60s: PG: Gary Payton SG: Michael Jordan SF: Scottie Pippen PF: Dennis Rodamn C: Bill Russell You can begin to see why we won 6 championships in the 90s, no? Like I said, a good defense is a good offense, and not vice versa. The 90s Bulls in a half court offense? Not the most impressive thing I've ever seen, by any means. Jordan in isolation, oh yippee.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 29, 2005 -> 06:48 PM) Your posts no longer merit valid responses... The very teams they are on or have been on have not nor will ever build around chandler, ratliff, or camby. That's just plain stupid. It just got worse when you went into the American dream, capitalism, and the bomb... :headshake Word of advice: Don't post while drunk or high. Sorry if I'm getting a little too deep for you, Sleepy. Chandler, Ratliff, Camby, etc are the types of players that you build around if you expect to field a team that can do deeeep into he playoffs. Why is this such a foreign concept? Is a goalie not of the utmost importance in the vast majority of cases? I wouldn't expect you to understand, though.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 29, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) Sorry guys, I meant setup man. That's what happens when you wake up and go straight to soxtalk.com to post. But yeah, I think he'll be a great SETUP man. You would think so, but if his performance so far this year is any indication, I'm not ready to just blindly predict that he'll return to superb set-up form. History is very important, and it will tell us a s***load, but you know how it is with relievers...they drop off the map with the quickness.

Marcus is coming around. Update: .291 AVG 2 HR 17 2B 12 RBI 30 R 6 SB And he hit a solo shot just now against the Phillies. All of a sudden, he has 20 extra-base hits through 50 games, putting him on pace for damn near 70. Of course, he always has nagging injuries, so he probably won't get to 70 like he did in 2003. Roids talk = unfounded, presumptuous

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 28, 2005 -> 08:57 PM) Hawkins has left Cubdom, that means he'll automatically become the sickest setup man in the league again. I have confidence that he'll go back to being a great closer. True to form.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ May 28, 2005 -> 07:09 PM) I agree with alot of your argument hammer, but do you really mean you would take Theo Ratliff over Elton Brand? Thats almost insane to me, maybe you meant something different and I'm reading it wrong. I meant Ratliff in his prime. He was something else, man. Best kept secret in the NBA, perhaps. Brand is a fantasy monster, and like I said before, he's a legitimate starting PF on a championship squad. However, he is by no means a guy you build around. You build around guys like Chandler, Ratliff, Wallace, Camby, Duncan, Garnett, etc. If they can score, it's only a bonus. A good defense is a good offense, and not vice versa. I know I ain't the only guy in here who ain't caught up in Western thought, the American dream. The bomb, the long ball, etc. People need to kick that capitalistic bulls*** to the curb. Guard your motherf***ing fort, you don't want to have a Pheonix Suns or Dallas Mavericks game plan. That's when your entire s*** gets wiped out.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 29, 2005 -> 04:07 AM) Just some comments. For one, Smith and Childress definitely only qualify as decent options in my book in terms of SCORING OPTIONS, which is what I was talking about. I highly doubt either of them will average 15 points on the year, which would lead me to consider them solid scoring options. If you think Childress doesn't have the potential to score 18+ per contest, it's time to turn on the television. And besides, you gotta speak on the court vision and the rebounding when talking about Childress. Who gives a s*** about just scoring? There are so many different aspects to analyze, and you broke it down like a casual fan. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 29, 2005 -> 04:07 AM) Ratliff has never been an elite rebounder (the guy has never hit double figures despite playing 30+ minutes virtually his whole career) and is about Ben Wallace's equal on offense. Basically he blocks a few shots and takes up space. If he really had that much of an impact on his team he wouldn't be on team #4. I like you Zoom, I really do. But this is just...terrible. Basically he just blocks shots and takes up space? And he hasn't had an impact because he's been on 4 different teams? Ben Wallace has been on 4 different teams, and so was Bill Russell (IIRC). Wow, unbelievable. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 29, 2005 -> 04:07 AM) As for Tyson, he might eventually be an elite option, but he's not even close yet. He's a solid defender and rebounder when he's healthy and on his game. Unfortunately we never know when that is. He doesn't always play the way he should and gets beat by guys he shouldn't on the defensive end way too often. Also, his offensive game, or lack thereof, is absolutely depressing. He has no shooting ability and no post moves. Basically the only way he scores is off a rebound or on a dunk from a nice pass. He drastically needs to improve in that area. Given the choice between an inconsistent 22 year old get that has had some injury problems and a 26 year old All-star that has put up around 20 points and 10 rebounds his whole career and more than 2 blocks per game the last four years, it's a no brainer. Haha, you're hung up on Tyson't offense too? He is a goalie who will be altering shots and grabbing boards with the best of 'em in no time. Have some foresight, seriously. Has he not shown enough flashes? Don't even answer that...I can tell that you don't really watch him just by your mental copy and paste job of "He's a solid rebounder and defender when he's healthy and on his game". I've heard that s*** like a million times from half-assed columnists all over the country. And if you are watching Tyson, wow... Solid? Umm, he is a superior defender/rebounder in the making. I ain't saying this just because he's a Bull...I hate Eddy Curry and Ben Gordon. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 29, 2005 -> 04:07 AM) Take a look at all of the teams left in the playoffs. I'd say only two of them play well above average defense, while all of them have at least one player averaging close to 20 points per game and at least two other players that can get there on an above average but not stellar night. I can't say that about the Bulls. Even assuming Curry is gone/done, replace Tyson with Brand and the Bulls would still have above average defense and at least 3 consistent scoring options in Brand, Hinrich, and Gordon, with Deng doing fairly well also. Irrelevant. Defense is what it's all about. Before this year and throughout the regular season, I have always preached Pistons/Spurs/Pre-Brawl Pacers. That's your first tier, Miami and Phoenix are your 2nd tier, etc. I'm not boasting, the other intelligent basketball heads on here would have told you the same. Umm, well above average defense? Detroit and San Antonio are absolutely superior defensive squads. Come on, man.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 07:36 PM) I told you that Brand's numbers are just as good as Tyson's on defense and EXTREMELY BETTER on offense. But you know what? I'll admit it, I was wrong. Brand actually averages MORE BLOCKS than tyson. Tyson was only one spot ahead of Brand in rebounds. How the hell are you gonna argue against pure numbers??? Stop with the bulls*** that I only focus on offense because blocks and rebounds are more related to defense. You act as if tyson is this defensive force, but he really isn't. You're going by what he's CAPABLE of, but he sure as hell hasn't performed at an elite level. Brand has. He's played at an All-star level. CHECK THE NUMBERS. And please, don't give me the per 48 min. argument. Anybody in their right mind knows that players don't get their minutes for a reason. If you're not good enough, you don't get the minutes. It's just that easy. Brand would be averaging about the same minutes if he was still in Chicago. He's a complete player, and he and Kirk would be the closest to complete players averaging starter minutes on this team... Just answer this question for me. Who is more consistent, Brand or Chandler? You say that teams don't worry about Brand when they come up with an offensive plan as if they do with tyson. He isn't even on the court much, and he has a tendency of disappearing. He takes himself out of games by getting in foul trouble. PLEASE WATCH TAPES OF THE WIZARDS SERIES. Tell me that tyson showed up. I sure as hell didn't see the Wizards too worried about him. He got MANHANDLED by below-average post-men. I stand by my word that you're nuts to say you would want tyson over Brand, and you're idiotic if you would take theo f***in' ratliff over Brand. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and not just basketball-related... Brand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tyson Theo Ratliff in his prime is more valuable to a championship squad than Elton Brand. It's hard to argue with people who only look at numbers and don't watch the games. Ratliff has obviously been a superb defender, easily one of the best in the NBA for a number of years and damn near legendary despite the fact that he's never had a proper supporting cast. He's been a poor man's Dikembe Mutombo. As of now, he is past his prime, but that's besides the point. Anybody who doesn't recognize how valuable he was is either a new jack, or a straight up basketball dumbass. Chandler is so much better on D than Elton Brand that it's hard to put into words. I can't even begin to comprehend your level of confusion when it comes to evaluating guys. How the hell are you gonna argue against pure numbers, you ask? That's why you lose every time you type anything on here. Remember when you said that Rod Strickland was a winner? Or how Larry Hughes should win Defensive Player of the year? Holy Christ. Don't use the Wizards series as a crutch. It only makes you even more annoying than usual. I could envision the wackness now...here comes a post with like 10 smilies lined up one after the other. You pioneered that, though. I gotta give credit where it's due.

Happy Birthday, Jim.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 06:45 AM) You seriously made me laugh out loud when you said he "manhandles dudes down low." He's too skinny to do so. Are we watching the same games??? Watch the Wizards series. You'll see him getting "manhandled" by below average players. What I'm saying is that he's a beast when it comes to altering and blocking shots. He could lead the league in rebounding. If you think that teams are scared of Brand when they're putting together their offensive game plans, then you're just not cut out to contribute to a basketball discussion. QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 06:45 AM) I like Tyson and want him to succeed because he's on the Bulls. I'm not as negative about Tyson as you are about Eddy. Take your own advice because you never recognized what he's capable of, and he's also "on your team." Curry is a stroke. Don't make me bust out the list of over a dozen SGs who grab more rebounds per minute. I see what he's capable of. I can look at him. QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 06:45 AM) Rebounds per minute and blocks per minute. I dunno why that's funny. Those are telling statistics. QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 06:45 AM) Once again, Brand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tyson. That's not a knock on tyson, even though you're taking it that way. Brand is just that good. If you can't appreciate that, whether he's on your team or not, then I don't know what to tell you. Ask any knowledgeable person. I can't imagine very many people, outside of his immediate family members along with yourself, choosing tyson over Brand. We've established time and time again that you're blinded by scoring numbers. Maybe I could break it down for you in baseball terms, where pitching is the primary aspect of defense. How are you gonna build your team? I suppose that Hank Blalock is more valuable than Jake Peavy or Jason Schmidt, correct? I know that you're gonna tell me it ain't the same thing, but think about it for a minute. How do you build in any sport? QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 06:45 AM) I believe that a combination of offense and defense is much more important... It's just a shame that it doesn't really work out that way in the vast majority of cases. Theo Ratliff and Ben Wallace will never score, so the f*** what? Anybody who knows their s*** takes them over Elton Brand every single time. Unless, of course, your philosophy is stooopid.

19 pages? 19 f***ing pages?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 28, 2005 -> 06:28 AM) Isaiah If you like Tyson over Brand, I don't even know what to tell you...I mean, they're rebounding and blocks are even and Brand is VASTLY superior on offense... Tyson doesn't even start. Tyson didn't show up for the playoffs. Brand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tyson Wasn't Isiah on the Pistons for close to 10 years before they won a championship? He had a huge impact, of course, but who was the most important player for Detroit? I don't care about the vastly superior offense. Like I said, give me a 7 footer who's gonna manhandle dudes down low. Check this guy out, he's only 22 years old. Take a look at his rebounds and blocks per minute when you get a chance. Recognize what you have on your own f***ing team, dude.

Oh man, Paul Edinger is f***ing terrible. You don't want this guy kicking for you in clutch situations. s***, you don't want this guy kicking for you period. What's the deal with kickers nowadays? There have got to be 32 men on this planet who can make 40 yard field goals at a rate of 90%. A guy like Edinger should be in NFL Europe or the CFL, if he's lucky.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 27, 2005 -> 06:27 PM) I was actually satisfied with Eddy as the 4th pick in 2001, but I absolutely HATED the Brand trade. People can argue all they want that Tyson is better than Eddy, but I will NEVER feel that he was worth trading Brand for. I like Brand a hell of a lot. He could be a legitimate starting PF on a championship squad. He's an all star, there's no question about it. However, it has been proven that superior defense out of the 4/5 is what puts rings on fingers in this league more often than not. Brand could never be the primary force on a championship squad, but Tyson can by just straight up manhandling motherf***ers down low. Let me ask you this. Who was the most important player on the late 80s/early 90s Detroit Pistons? I often wonder how the San Antonio Spurs didn't just kill everyone with Robinson and Rodman in 1994 and 1995. If they had a coach like Daly or Jackson, would they have mopped everyone in the playoffs? Dennis should have been the championship link from 89-90 and 94-98.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ May 28, 2005 -> 03:44 AM) Walker is already gone, and it sounds like Harrington is on his way out. Their next top two scorers were PG's (Lue and Delk). Childress and Smith will be okay options but not stellar. Zoom, have you seen any Childress action? Have you looked at his game log since he got a starting gig in early February? Josh Childress The rebounding prowess from the SG slot, the excellent court vision, scoring potential, etc. Motherf***ing stud. And I like Smith even more. I see a freak defender in the making. The Hawks are a futures team in need of a PG and a 4/5 combo. I thought that they'd get Bogut for sure, and then hit the FA market for a PG and a PF. God damn, do they have some cap room. PGs take waaay too long to develop in the vast majority of cases...I'll hit the FA market for one every time.

QUOTE(YahtzeeSox @ May 22, 2005 -> 05:55 PM) The Cardinals are like that boy in high school that's always talking to your girlfriend.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ May 21, 2005 -> 06:52 PM) I have Loretta(.300, 0HR, 13RBI, 24Runs, 6SB), Barmes(.371, 7HR, 26RBI, 32Runs 3SB) and C. Guillien(.375, 2HR, 11RBI, 23Runs 1SB). I love Clint Barmes but I'm not sold on him yet. Loretta isn't doing me any good on the bench. I'm thinking about trading Loretta what do you guys think? What is your utility situation looking like? Because you can get Barmes in at 2B, Guillen at SS, and Loretta in at UT. You should dominate in batting average and runs.

Hell yeah, Jermaine!