Various stuff

[bird <bird@pixi.com>]

>From: "Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: VH for Walker
>
>   Not only is it false to say that he "can't dunk
>on a regular basis", but to me it is refreshing that he doesn't dunk all the
>time just for the sake of it.  If your point is that he doesn't finish
>strongly enough, I'll go along with that.

Yeah.  Walker doesn't dunk very much at all, but that's okay, as far 
as I'm concerned.  It's a high percentage shot, but it is also missed 
at an alarmingly high rate in recent years.  The last two phrases are 
diametrically opposed, as you can see.

On the other hand, Walker also suprised me last year as far as how 
_effective_ he shot in the post.  His shots looked like 
"proto-shooting", like he only shot about 75-90% of the form of the 
shot at times.  (He often "flipped" up balls, or released them early 
in his arm rotation -- at least it seemed that way to me.)  Like I 
said, though, they often went in, to my suprise.  This is the first 
year I saw "all" of the games -- is this true of previous years? 
Generally, I'd have to say that this is indicative, to me, of 
potential ""superstar"" (sic) performance in the NBA.

>Personally I think
>it's a far greater problem when you get a player like Tony Battie who seems
>to be trying to turn every play into a spectacular dunk.

This is true -- Battie seemed to miss a _lot_ of dunk attempts.  It's 
actually refreshing, in a way, to see a player who eschews the slam.

>  [Van Horn] seems like a
>little bit of a pansy to me.

Yeah, just a little.

>From: "Diane Balcar" <diane@1st.net>
>Subject: Re: Blazers/Finals
>
>I can't believe my eyes when I read this stuff. It makes me
>laugh actually. Anyone who puts down Pippen or doesn't think he is one the
>top 50 players of all time hasn't watched much basketball. He is one of the
>best 10 players if you ask me...which you won't.

Well, you can always volunteer information, too.  This makes me 
pause, though, because I don't think Pippen is a "50 Greatest" 
player, though I guess you could make a case for it.  But Top Ten? 
Geez, who do you have to leave out to include Pip?  Russell?  Bird? 
The Big "O"?  Magic?  West?  Chamberlain?  jordon (couldn't resist)? 
I mean, I'm seriously asking.  That you find the opposing view so 
incredible is, in turn, (dare I say it?), to me, very incredible.

>Scottie is the man...and he is not ugly! Don't take a girls word for it look
>for yourself!

I'm just a heterosexual man (not that there's anything _wrong_ with 
that!), but I do not find Pippen to be attractive in any way -- and 
wonder how could any person attracted to men -- but I'm willing to 
believe that's just me (and I'm ok with that).

>From: Amy Beauregard <amyeb88@yahoo.com>
>
>``I've always been down on the Lakers,'' Bird said
>Monday ...

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.  Amen, brother man.

>  Bird apparently would prefer he and Johnson
>were rival coaches in the Finals. ``Somebody told me
>Magic's been yapping again,'' Bird said. ``But what I
>say is, let him take Phil (Jackson)'s place for about
>two weeks and we'll see what happens.''

See, Joe H. is right about (at least!) one thing: Larry Bird is an 
ultra-competive freak of a human being.  (Witness: Sir Charles' taped 
farewell message.)  Don't get me wrong -- this could be what I like 
second-most about him.

>From: Jim Hill <jahill@leasingservice.com>
>Subject: Re: VH for Walker
>
>But I don't believe that he [Walker] can dunk on a
>regular basis and this leads to defenders being able to go to block his shot
>verses having to stay on the floor to take a charge or block him away from
>the hoop.  I did not see Walker dunk from a standing low post spot all year.
>I definitely believe it was because of his lack of conditioning that caused
>that.

You know, I too also suspect that it's mostly about Walker's 
conditioning, but I can't be quite as sure as you appear to be, Jim. 
I just don't necessarily buy the "dunk = good conditioning" argument, 
though.  I think you're right that Walker could definately benefit 
from having stronger, more aggressive moves down low, though.

>As far as Battie, I'd try to package him in a trade.  He appears to be all
>flash and no substance.  He's years away from contributing, if ever.  Jerry
>West knew what he was doing when he dumped him.

I don't know.  Maybe Battie can be our version of Marcus Camby or 
Ratliff or the like -- a thin, near seven-foot PF that can block 
shots, has good leaping ability, and can also play some center. 
Battie has the potential (sorry) to have a better offensive game than 
the guys I mentioned, too.  Isn't it possible that Battie will have a 
Camby-like breakout season?

>From: Jim Hill <jahill@leasingservice.com>
>Subject: Re: Fortson
>
>Croshere would be my 1st pick.  Then maybe Foyle or Patterson or
>Amaechi.  Camby doesn't have the integrity to be a leader.  I expect him to
>be the "00's version of Ellison.

Clearly, the argument above was not the one to use... .  Anyway, I 
think Croshere, for some reason, would also be an interesting and 
useful acquisition.  I wouldn't like Fortson to go, unless it's 
necessary, though.  The other three players you mention might also 
work out well.  Foyle and Amaechi offer height and, for the former, 
some shotblocking, and for the latter, some good offensive ability. 
Patterson is also a good scorer.

It'd be quite the "achievement" for Camby to be the modern-day Perv, 
though.  I wouldn't wish that on anybody.


Regards,

Bill