re: Rogers vs. Duncan

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: GuyClinch@xxxxxxx
> Hmm well the thing is this...
> Rogers FIT the Celtics.
> [...]
> With the right team I do agree that Baker is the better player.
> But on the Celtics Rogers is indeed better, IMHO.
But you haven't even seen how Baker fits in with the currents Celtics.  
How can you definitively say that Rogers fits in better than Baker?  
Look, I loved what Rogers brought to this team more than anybody, 
probably, but you can't always know what a player will bring to the 
table based on past experience.  I'm not saying it doesn't give you a 
good barometer, but looks like Vin Baker is quite possibly heading 
towards one of those all-too-common NBA turnaround years.  He can't be 
"indeed better" at all: there have been no "deeds" to see yet.  (OK, 
that was pretty bad.)

Too often here, we see a lot of prognostications without any real 
evidence other than pure speculation.  Neither you, nor anyone else, is 
going to know how Baker fits in without seeing at least a few games.


> Personally..and this is my bias..
>
> I like smaller players. They are more skilled for the most part. So 
> its said to see Rogers go. Guys like Potapenko and yes even Tim Duncan 
> are simply unskilled for the most part compared to a little guy like 
> Shammond Williams.
I actually think I know what you're trying to say here, but that's not 
the same as agreeing.  Saying Tim Duncan is "simply unskilled" compared 
to *any* current NBA player is ... well, let's just say, an untenable 
position.  The first step towards eliminating bias is knowing it's 
there, though.

Sounds more than a bit like a Wallacism: the "jump shot away", "would 
have gone x in this year's draft" sort of thing.

Bird