The Great IGTC List Annual Antoine Walker Debate...

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

...is in full effect.  Yippee.  Here are some thoughts:

There's at least four different factions on the list (this is important 
because in the "debate" there's often a conflation of these factions into 
only two: "Walker apologists" and "Walker haters".  In order of the 
severity of Walker criticism they go something like this: "Walker 
apologists" -- "Walker fan" -- "Undecided" -- "Walker critic" -- 
"Irrational Walker Hater". (hastily thrown together labels, I admit.)

The two extremes are unhelpful.  Walker is not the greatest basketball 
player ever, nor should he be traded for a loaf of bread, three Snickers 
bars, and cash.  There aren't too many "Walker apologists" (those that 
think Walker can do no wrong) on the list anymore, though there are plenty 
who think Walker can do no right.  Most of us are in the other camps: 
"Walker fan" (terrible label, but I couldn't think of a better one): I put 
myself in this category; I like Walker's game, but see the need for him to 
improve his shot selection and his decision-making on the court.  This is 
mitigated by the fact that he and Pierce are the only real, viable 
offensive options the team has (though JJ could certainly emerge into that 
role by the end of the season -- I think he can, let's hope he does).  
Perhaps the majority of people are in the "Undecided" category, though it 
often seems that you either like the guy or really don't like him, so 
maybe not.  "Walker critics" are guys like Mark Berry, and many others, 
who point out the deficiencies in Walker's game and who may or may not 
think that Walker can improve or "get it" or what have you.  Then there 
are the Irrational Walker Haters: those that will post such things as "he'
s a f***ing stiff" or "Walker is just plain stupid" or other personal 
insults.  I won't say anymore about them.

A few issues I'd like to address, though.  As is often the case, 
mis-characterizations are rampant on both sides.  One that particularly 
irks me is the idea the people who "like" Walker do not watch the games 
(the inference is that if one did the obvious and glaring examples of 
Walker-as-Anti-Christ would be evident to even the lowest forms of life).  
This is patently ridiculous.  I watch almost each and every game, tape 
most so I can go back and view parts again, and miss only about 2-4 games 
a season.  This is partly why I am not surprised at what Antoine Walker 
does on the court.  He's like this.  For every 6-20 night, though, there's 
a night where he goes 7-10 on three-pointers.  So let's try to halt the 
idea that those that like Walker are only the ones who don't see the games.
   It is incorrect.

Then there's the idea that statistics don't matter.  Indeed, they do not 
tell the whole story, but, shockingly enough, everybody uses them.  Why?  
Because they are useful.  However, it isn't very useful to to discount 
stats that don't support what you're saying, while bringing up stats that 
do.  Of course, a certain amount of this is necessary, as you can't 
discuss all the stats at once.  I, for one, don't mind at all when a 
poster uses stats as evidence in his or her post.

And lastly, though it be futile, might we refrain from those personal 
insults -- whether it be directed toward a player on the team, or a fellow 
lister?  I mean, I don't see a difference.  It's certainly fine to 
criticize Walker, the team, or whatever in passionate, even vehement terms,
  but if you can't find something better than labeling somebody something 
derogatory, then you're not a very good critic.  At all.  Plus, if insults 
are going to be acceptable, then I've got a whole stockpile of them 
waiting.

(The Celtic "Tird")