Reply to the defense of Walker vs. Shareef.

[GuyClinch@xxxxxxx]

Hello,

> 
> 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. 

Robert Horry has been known to take the last shot with the game on the line..
Does that make him better then Shaq? Perhaps if Twan was a more efficent 
scorer the game wouldn't be on the line..now would it?

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?

Hmm he very well might be as good a three point shooter. I saw Twan in the 
contest there..and he wasn't very good. I really don't know...but point is HE 
KNOWS that he isn't a great three point shooter so he doesn't take them. He 
knows his role is to get rebounds and block shots.  It's called being a team 
player. Like I said before Battie might shoot threes as well as Twan.. but he 
doesnt!

> 
> 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.

I recognize how versatility can be a strength...It doesn't outweigh the 
importance of things like efficent scoring, rebounding and shot blocking for 
a PF. Tim Duncan isn't half the dribbler Twan is. Who cares though? 

You champion versatility and talent over real world on the court performance.
I do not. What is more important in your evaluation of a player? At some 
point a HUGE difference in scoring efficency outweigh versatility..especially 
when you factor in that Twan's versatility does not always benefit a team. 
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you should....

> 
> 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.


I get your point now - a shot blocker spikes the front lines rebounding 
stats. I don't buy it though.. 

The shot blocker often gathers many rebounds on his own.  See Ben Wallace for 
example... So in my view that might actually deflate a guys rebounding 
numbers. If you want to get into speculative statistics I could claim that 
Walker's poor shooting percentage spikes his own rebound numbers. Or that 
having Glen Robinson on your front line would deflate SAR's because Glen is 
such a lousy defender it more then negates Ratliff's contributions. Dubious? 
Maybe..but so is the claim that SAR rebounds better then Walker only because 
of Ratliff, IMHO.

MANY PF are better rebounders then Twan. Even SAR who is merely a top ten PF 
is better then Twan. I do agree that Twan is a good rebounder when he is in 
the area though. So is SAR though. Walker has good hands and positons 
well..but SAR can out jump him.

> 
> 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.

Most teams can survive without a ball handling PF.
Kenny with his slick dribbling used to defy pressure all by himself last 
year. 
Certainly Twan is a plus in that situation..but again does it really outwiegh 
the fact that he is lousy at the big three features of a PF. He doesn't score 
efficently, he doesnt rebound that well and he can't block shots. You saw the 
Nets series...didn't you? K-Mart is like the Anti-Twan.

And umm of course I have no "evidence" that SAR would help us win more games 
then Twan. I also have no evidence that Tim Duncan would win more games for 
us then Mark Blount. But if SAR is better then Twan it stands to reason that 
we would.

Keep in mind...Twan is a staggeringly inefficent scorer. Many times he shoots 
instead of PP or TB or T. Buckets and it hurts the team. Another PF would 
provide us efficent scoring, and IMHO help the cause tremendously. Efficent 
scoring and defense wins championships. Look at the Laker..and look at the 
spurs.. I rest my case. Twan provides neither efficent scoring or defense out 
of position you should get it from. That hurts this team.

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

OB/Harter are good motivators. In evaluating a player who is coming to the 
Celtics I do think we should look at what the COULD contribute on 
defense..now what they do. Defense is kinda a team thing. Your not going to 
hustle to cover someone if your teammate is not. It ticks guys off who have 
to work hard "all by themselves".

Anyway I think we can agree to disagree..
You favour versatility (even if used to the detriment of the team) and 
untapped talent over efficent scoring, athleticism, defense and rebounding. I 
would take the Brand's and SAR of the world in a heartbeat. Twan is a great 
guy IMHO and can be great fun to watch but winning is where it's at. I hate 
Shaq's game, but I would gladly have him on my team. Efficent scoring + 
defense = championship. Nuff said.

Besides I am with you about Twan in a way. I like the guy..I would be sad to 
see him go. I would love for the Celts to win with people they drafted. 
.

Pete