Re: is there...

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/8/03 12:45:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:



> >In a message dated 11/8/03 10:54:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> >shizzjr@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >>As for Pierce and Walker being held to different standards, there''s a >
> reaso>>n for that. Pierce is 10 times the player Walker is. You don't hear 
> people >>comparing Walter McCarty to Tim Duncan and so we shouldn't hear anyone 
> >compare >>Walker to Pierce.
> >
> >Walker is gone. It's all on Paul these days, Shawn.
> >
> >Hey, Brenda/Egg:  The list is awaiting one of your classic, scripted macros
> >on "flawed logic"  re: Shawn's post. :-)
> 
> Oh come on Steve, have a heart. I'm still trying to choke down Walker is to 
> Pierce as McCarty is to Duncan.
> Why is it that they seem to be so damned polarizing - to 'fans' of either, 
> any criticism, no matter how valid, of their favorite is bashing and any 
> praise, no matter how valid, of the other is blind worship.
> 
> The funniest thing about the above comparison is that it's actually 
> backward. Walker as a player is the one who should be compared to Duncan, since the 
> biggest virtue of both is the range of things they do very well, vs being 
> superb at one or two things. Not a knock on Duncan's skill level, but it's the 
> package that makes him the player he is vs any one skill. 
> While Walker has more offsetting faults, so the comparison might look absurd 
> to someone concentrating on those, but they're still a lot more comparable 
> in role than Pierce and Duncan. I'm not saying Walker's as good, just that 
> they are more comparable. Pierce is obviously a much much much much better 
> player than Walter but is closer to him, in that their best value is in a more 
> limited role focusing on the few things they do best. Don't get me wrong, that's 
> not intended as a put down of Pierce. Especially in the light of anyone who 
> knows my opinion of Walter as a player <g> 
> Pierce is obviously a very good scorer, an extremely underrated rebounder, a 
> good defender when he concentrates on it, but a mediocre to OK ball handler 
> for his position/game (that's actually an improvement- I see signs of him 
> working on it this past summer and give him credit for doing it), and has also 
> clearly seen his court vision, distribution skills, and the 
> sort of personal leadership that I think comes MUCH more naturally to Walker 
> (for good or evil) as things to work on. And again to his credit clearly has 
> worked on them. But that's part of the problem. Walker is at his best the 
> more things he does, because that range is his best asset and it limits the 
> degree his individual faults stand out or he concentrates on the wrong thing. 
> Pierce I think is trying to do too much, which emphasizes some of the things he 
> doesn't do as well vs concentrating on the things he does better than almost 
> anyone and increases his overall frustration level, leading him to force 
> things even more. It's growing pains, and I think it will settle down as the 
> rest of the team settles into their roles and he feels more comfortable about 
> not trying to be everything to everyone. - Kim 



Kim,

Word! That is by far one of the finest and most thorough -- not to mention 
objective -- analysis I have read yet on the two players. 

Can I recommend that you be canonized immediately for Sainthood in the C's 
Fans' Hall of Fame? And if you haven't left yet for choir practice, can we get 
an "Amen" from you, Brenda/Egg?
                
    
CeltsSteve