Re: Antoine vs. Shareef

[Cecil <cecil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I suppose if you want to talk from a statistical point, SAR's stats would
look good.  But in many games I saw, he disappeared in the end.  One would
suspect, if he were as good as you claim, that with the game on the line, he
would be the first option for the shot.  That was not the case.  I saw Jason
Terry and Glen Robinson used as the first two options.  You point to a
better 3 pt percentage.  Statistically you're right.  But, as you know, that
does not mean SAR is a better 3 pt shooter.  Do you think he is?

As for versatility, it is not a weakness but a strength that many other
coaches relish in their players.  Toine passes the ball well and rebounds
well when he is in position to do so.  If you want to question the multitude
of times that he may not be in good rebounding position as a result of the 3
point shot, I would not even question it.  But to downplay the importance of
versatility, especially when our inside players were not a real strength, is
downright crazy.  Walker played all the front court positions at one time or
another.  That is an asset which few NBAers possess.

By the way, is there a reason you didn't cite steals and assists?  How does
a shotblocker help a PFs rebounding stats?  Because the ability to alter the
shot allows for more rebounds period.  It is to someone's benefit, most
normally the PF since he would be closer to the basket to reap the rewards.

You have no evidence that the Celts would win as many games with SAR.  Just
you opinion.  You would trade Walker for SAR and have who bring the ball up
against pressure?  J.R.?  Delk? PP?  Walker helps out in that regard, ALOT.
Sure he turns it over from time to time, but so does Paul.

A motivated SAR, you say?  Why must he have additional motivation?

Cecil


----- Original Message -----
From: <GuyClinch@AOL.com>
To: <Celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:00 PM
Subject: Antoine vs. Shareef


> >  I don't believe Shareef brings as much to the table as Walker.  Has
never
> > won anything.  Has never helped his team to the playoffs.
>
>
> I don't put much stock in the "What has he won" argument to judge a
player.
> By that token Brian Shaw is a much better player then Shareef and Antoine.
> It's this argument that seems destined to get a mediocre shortstop (Derek
> Jeter)
> into the hall of fame. It's very easy to be a good player on a team of
> a-holes and still lose a great deal. See the Clips for a case in point.
>
> Besides,
> Antoine didn't win jack until PP arrived. Its PP that has won with the
Celts
> not Walker.
>
> (Shareef)
>  Isn't as versatile.  Had a shotblocker to help him out in the middle.  Do
> you
> > seriously think that if we had Ratliff in our frontcourt, it would have
no
> > impact on the stats of some of our guys?
> >
>
> See now ..I think this just speaks to a hometown bias. Twan had a shot
> blocker..Tony Battie. Tony might not be such a great shot blocker, but he
is
> a better help defender. Moreover how does a shot blocker help Shareef's
> shooting percentages and rebounding? Seems to me its most useful on the
> defensive end.
>
> I like Twan too but I think your just looking for a way to subjectively
> downgrade Shareef even if there is no real evidence by which to do so.
>
>
> Wasn't it Ray who said that Atlanta was a team to watch this year and that
> they
> > were going to the playoffs mainly thanks to Shareef?  I've yet to see
it.
>
>
> Stick Shareef on the Celtics and we would win as many if not more games
IMHO.
>
> So Shareef isn't a number one guy..either is Walker.
>
> Lets talk stats:
>
> We will ignore that Shareef shot a team leading .478 (much higher then
Twan)
> from the field. Pulled down 8.4 rebounds (more then Twan). Blocked more
shots
> then Twan. And get this...shot higher percentage from the three point line
> and from the free throw line! (I guess it was Ratliff's moral support that
> made him shoot better from the line then Twan.)
>
> But ignoring stats (and you had better if your a Twan supporter) I want to
> know what you see in him that makes him so much less valuable then Twan?
You
> claimed he is more versatile...
>
> This is Twan's selling point...with regards to the media. But I for one am
> not so convinced.
>
> 1) I don't think he is unusually versatile. He is undersized (in height
and
> muscle power) for a PF so he should be more versatile. He is a smaller
> player. Other PF are also versatile as well..see Dirk Nitowitki and
C-Webb.
>
> 2) Unlike those versatile guys who use their versatility to their teams
> advantage I am of the opinion that Walker's versatility hurts the team.
> Instead of getting offensive rebounding he takes threes. Instead of
letting
> Bremer bring the ball up or letting a point run the offense he has to do
it.
>
> 3) A bit too much is made of "versatility". It's more important that your
> good at what your supposed to be on the NBA level. Shaq might be
"versatile"
> for a 400 pound guy.. but its the fact that he can push himself into
> position, catch the ball, and turn around and dunk that makes him great.
Sure
> he can dribble..but that doesn't make him a great center. Who cares? Teams
> have point guards...and off guards..those guys can do most of the
dribbling.
>
> In short even Shareef is a better PF then Walker. Walker might be a better
> point guard or a better off guard..but Shareef is better at the position
he
> plays. He scores more efficently and rebounds better.
>
>  I think the X factor though is defense. A motivated Shareef would be a
far
> better defender then Twan. Shareef is actually quick enough to play SF and
a
> much better athlete then Twan. He would fit in fine and do better against
> O'neal and K-mart.
>
> Pete