Re: Rahim..

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

At 10:10 AM 11/22/2001, Kestas wrote:
>At 07:07 11/22/2001 EST, you wrote:
> >Even though his game is less versatile, i.e. he isn't a three point shooter
> >perhaps
> >we have to admit he is better then Walker.
>
>For me, it's a  no-brainer. In the NBA, it's always better to do one thing
>extremely well, than to do a lot of them OK. Before someone accuses me of
>valuing a Steve Kerr over Antoine Walker, by "do one thing extremely well"
>I don't mean "to the exclusion of other NBA skills" (again, like Steve
>Kerr).  Rather, it's being extremely good at one thing, decent at a few
>others, with not too many glaring weaknesses.  For example, on the scale of
>1-10 rating various NBA skills (scoring, rebounding, passing, D etc.), it's
>better to have a 10, some 7s, and a couple of 4s, than 7s and 8s across the
>board. The latter case makes one a nice complementary player - if the
>player has a realistic view of his skills. Shareed is a stud scorer out to
>20 feet, and an excellent rebounder. Antoine is a complementary player who
>thinks he is a stud scorer, and that's basically the problem. (An
>alternative viewpoint offered on this list was that he is "forced" to take
>bad shots by the lack of talent on the Celtics' roster.)

I agree to a point here. Some skills are particularly valuable, like being 
able to score at a high volume with high efficiency (or being able to break 
down the defense and pass off) or being a dominant shot-blocker. That's why 
Iverson, whose main skill is being able to put it in the basket, is an MVP 
candidate despite being a defensive liability. I think that every 
Finals-quality team needs at least one guy that can flat-out score as the 
focal point of their offense. Antoine is not that kind of player. Is 
Shareef? Well, I only see him in games against the Celtics, where he's 
generally looked awesome. But based on his stats, his team's winning 
percentages, and articles on the web, I don't think he's a truly big-time 
scorer. He's a complementary player himself, I think, because he's not a 10 
scorer, he's an 8. Better than Antoine, but a step below Pierce and other 
true big-time scorers. I don't think that Shareef's ever shown the ability 
to score 25-28 ppg at the efficiency that these guys put up.

The argument about Antoine that I've put up before is that this team needs 
him to put up a lot of shots, not that it needs him to put up bad shots. I 
do think that it's easier to pass up bad shot when you can trust your 
teammates more, and that tends to happen with more talent. Now Antoine does 
think he's a big-time scorer so it could be that with even more talent, 
he'd still take just as many bad shots. I'm just not willing to assume this 
yet. I've seen some signs when Joe Johnson's hot that Antoine can forgo his 
offense.

Back to Antoine's versatility. I think that on bad teams, the versatile guy 
can be more valuable, because he plugs in more holes in a sense. That isn't 
too reassuring for our championship aspirations, but I think it might 
explain why Antoine's teams have won a lot more than Shareef's teams. 
Compare Antoine + Mercer + Billups/Anderson in 97-98 to Shareef + Dickerson 
+ Bibby. On paper, I think you'd probably say that Shareef > Antoine, 
Bibby >> Billups/Anderson, and Dickerson > rookie Mercer, but that 
Vancouver team only won 23 games.

I think that Antoine has a good model for being a versatile complementary 
player on a championship team in Scottie Pippen (as opposed to Magic 
Johnson or Larry Bird). A big difference is that Pippen was one of the best 
defenders in the game of course, but ignore that and look at the other 
aspects. Pippen wasn't an incredible scorer - his outside shooting was very 
inconsistent - but his versatility was a big asset, because Jordan filled 
the most important role - driving the offense. His combination of scoring, 
passing, and rebounding complemented Jordan by allowing the Bulls to play a 
variety of specialists to fill potential holes - Ron Harper as a 
non-passing point guard defender, Rodman as a non-scoring rebounder, 
Longley as a generally limited center whose main asset was taking up space.

Pierce and Walker are not Jordan and Pippen, so they're going to need 
significantly more help - a good center in particular. I think to get one 
down the road is going to involve some luck (probably a disgruntled center 
or a bad luxury tax situation) and giving up serious talent - like Joe 
Johnson. If Kedrick Brown develops, this may not be as painful as it 
sounds, especially since this team really does need more athleticism on the 
floor. Maybe you even give up Antoine. Kestas' original point about doing 
one thing extremely well reminded me of the supposed offer that Pitino made 
of Walker for Ratliff. Ratliff's exactly what Kestas described - someone 
who is one of the very best at a very important skill (shotblocking) with 
few other weaknesses. He rebounds pretty well, is competent if not 
outstanding at the offensive end.

Anyway, happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Alex