The Lakers might be good next season

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I know it is consensus opinion that the Lakers will be a team of mediocrity incarnate but upon reflecting, their lineup looks very impresive.

Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, Vlade Divac

I also firmly belive it is Karl Malone's intention to sign with the Lakers soon...

Plus the handful of scrappy yet good players they got from Boston, Chris Mihm most notably, and the collection of up-and-comming role players such as Karem(sp) Rush and Luke Walton, and I see a team that may end up like the Kings, or at the very least the Mavericks. They could be a fairly diffucult team to beat


I'm interested in your thoughts especially Kori becasuse you tend to be a voice of moderation. Anyway am I justified to feel a little nervous after glancing at this roster?

[KoriEllis]

I think the Lakers will be better than people think. I don't think they will contend for the title, but they aren't going to be horrible.

Their division isn't strong: Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings. If the Kings falter, the Lakers could easily win the division and end up with the third playoff seed.

They'll be a much different Lakers team than everyone is used to, obviously, but I don't think Kobe will let them become a "bad" team.

[MouseSmack]

It does not matter how good they are they need to get past the top 3 teams Mavs Kings and Wolves.

I don't see it happening.

[ducks]

I think they could beat the mavs

I think mavs lost alot in nash
point guards run the o

time will tell

[MouseOnSports]

You willing to bet cash on that?

[ducks]

what terms?

[MouseSmack]

Mavs go further than the spurs this season for $100.00 Bucks kori holds the cash,

[ducks]

that has nothing to do with the lakers beating the mavs

but I will make that bet
when does kori get the money?
all star break?
end of the week?
right before playoffs?


one sure way to make money in the world

nash is not there to help coach their point guards this year
nash gets alot more respect then aj
nash puts up big numbers and young guns respect him

by the way I want mailman even if he does sign with the spurs
I will go on record with that

[adidas11]

I agree, I think the Lakers will be OK next season. And I like what they're doing, as they prepare for the future (rebuilding) while not trying to slip into the lottery. A feat that is VERY difficult to do, but it can be done (see: Indiana Pacers).

Overall, the Lakers will have a complete lineup, with the Vlade Divac pickup being HUGE for the Lakers for next season. But I don't see them surpassing the Kings, Wolves, or Spurs. I see them as being on par with the Mavs and Denver, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the Suns will be good next year as well.

[SLOVENIAN 8]

I think the Lakers will be really good this season!!!
They got some new young players!!! Without Shaq they are totally different!!!!

[alamo50]

Why should the Fakers be any better than the Raptors?
Ok, Rudy T. has Sam Mitchell's edge.

[MickeyOnFox]

Ducks The bet has everything to do with the topic.

if your that stupid to think the Spurs will go further than the Mighty Mavericks it shows how far up your ass your head really is,...oh shit,,, Wait OMG....maybe we are posted in the wrong topic. What topic was the Bet topic? sorry to the rest of you.. my bad Dawgshttp://www.sahoops.net/smilies/lmao.gif

http://www.imgspot.com/u/04/153/08/duncan__4.gif

[Kevin Kaster]

A lot of people have the Lakers as low as 7th/8th with the possibility of missing the playoffs. I find that sort of ridiculous, not when you know Kobe is going to go 30-6-6 or even 30-7-7 season, and not when the Lakers have so many good role players that are versatile and can pass (Odom, Butler, Vlade, and Walton are all very good passers and role players). Mihm provides much needed depth at the 5, and if Malone comes back to battle with KG and Duncan, I really don't see any reason why the Lakers can't finish between 4th and 6th seed in the West, with the possibility of a 3rd seed if the Kings falter during the season again or if Peja is traded for less than an All Star.

Only the Twolves and Spurs are clearly better, with the Kings probably being better as well, but not as guaranteed. There's no reason to believe the Mavs or Nuggets are better than the Lakers when Kobe is better than any player on both those teams and when they have comparable role players, coaches, and 2nd option (Odom).

[ducks]

mouse this is the thread about the bet

are you trying to get out of it now?

the spurs will go further then the mavs
also I still think the lakers could beat the mavs

[LakerLanny1]

The Sterns and Twolves match up very favorably vs the Lakers now.

No worries, Snaq's act had tired in Los Angeles and the Lakers are probably one to two years away. But they could still be a factor.

[SequSpur]

BS. The Lakers are done.

[Mark in Austin]

I don't think they'll contend... but I think, depending on what type of offense RudyT installs, that they could give the Spurs a tough matchup. For instance, if they morph into a Cassell-Robinson-Allen era Milwaukee team (ie - mid range jump shooting as a primary offensive weapon). It is the most effective form of offense against the Spurs defensive system.

Too early to tell though. But if I were the Lakers, I would be building my team in a way to counter the Spurs.

[Supergirl]

Lakers will not be terrible next year, but they'll have a tought time even being tops in thieir division - both the Kings and the Suns are going to be good next year. Nash is better than Chucky Atkins, Amare is younger and quicker than Vlade. Brad Miller is younger and quicker than Vlade, and Bibby is better than Chucky Atkins. Really, what the Lakers have that no other team has is Kobe, but I think he'll put up monster numbers (30-7-7 average sounds about right) but it will be indicative of him trying to do it all, which is exactly what he wanted, but he'll wind up like Allen Iverson - all stats and nothing to show for it.

Mavs will not recover from the loss of Nash. Pavel will turn out to be a bust ala Wang Zhi Zhi -remember him? Dampier will not fit into the Mavs system as well as Nelly hoped.

Spurs and Timberwolves in the West finals next year. Spurs and either the Pistons or the Heat in the Finals. Spurs win it all.

[Tawnia79]

I think LA will be better than most people think, but they're definitely not contenders yet. Wolves and Spurs are both clearly ahead, but I don't even believe the Kings are that far ahead of LA at this point. If LA gets a legit PG before the start of the season than I'd even say they were equal to the Kings.

I don't honestly think they're anything to be scared about though. They'll give SA and Minny trouble for sure, but they're not ready to take back the title yet.

[adidas11]

Getting a legit poing guard is a big concern, but that can wait. This is a rebuilding season, so we'll see what happens.

And since we're on the subject of Kobe, I'd like to point out that I don't think he'll put up big scoring numbers. I actually see his scoring output DECREASING with Shaq gone, but Kobe's other numbers could increase. I see Kobe as being more of a better all around player statistically, sort of like Magic Johnson. Averaging around 25-7-7, or something similar. I don't see Kobe winning any scoring titles.

[LakerLanny1]

Chucky Atkins is going to surprise you. He is a much better player than most media know-nothings realize.
If the original deal with Boston including Marcus Banks had held up, the Lakers would have had an off-season for the ages.

As it went down, I can only grade it a B-. If we got Marcus Banks (NBA steals leader per minute last season as a rookie) to shore up our PG defense, it would have been one big man signing next summer and it is OVER for the rest of the league. Remember, we have Kobe (sans criminal charges) and he will be training, pumped and ready to kick ass and take names after having to defer to an out of shape and injury prone big man the last few years.

:kiss

[ChumpDumper]

If the original deal with Boston including Marcus Banks had held up, the Lakers would have had an off-season for the ages.It already is an offseason for the ages.

You traded Shaq, dumbasses.

Who the **** does that?

[Kevin Kaster]

It already is an offseason for the ages.

You traded Shaq, dumbasses.

Who the **** does that?

Anyone with half a brain trades a declining Shaq who demands $40M per until age 38, doesn't work out in the offseason, and doesn't rebound or play defense until the postseason, where he can only do those things with 2+ days of rest between games.

Not trading Shaq would have been stupider. But hey, I'm sure you'll find a way to say keeping a declining 33 year old Shaq at $40M per year would have been a smarter move. Especially when Shaq's toe disintegrates before his 35th birthday.

[SickDSM]

Damn, i'll take that Spurs/Mavs bet if everyone else on here is scared. You still game Mouse?

[ChumpDumper]

Shaq was unstoppable after the first round. Kobe wasn't. Here endeth the lesson.
Not trading Shaq would have been stupider. But hey, I'm sure you'll find a way to say keeping a declining 33 year old Shaq at $40M per year would have been a smarter move.You call his bluff on the extension -- you're a bigger idiot than I thought if you think anyone is going to pay that to Shaq. You keep him for one more year at any rate.

But please, tell me how Divac is so much better than Shaq and how this would've been the best offseason in the history of sport if only the ChuckyBanks point tandem had become a reality.

[Supergirl]

Shaq is the reason the Lakers won 3 out of the last 6 championships. In 2000 and 2001, he could have won it playing with the Keebler Elves.

Kobe will be lucky to make it into the playoffs - he will, numerous times, over the next 5 or 5 years - but he won't win a championship with Chucky Atkins at point and Vlade Divac (who, you might remember, is OLDER than Shaq) helping him. Sorry.

Chucky Atkins is a decent point guard. I watched him last season with the C's. With him, the C's record improved considerably, and they became a better team. But, this is going from a team that hasn't won a championship since the 80's and hadn't made the playoffs for a long time until 2 years ago.

Compared to the Lakers as a 3 time championship team, Chucky Atkins is a major downgrade, even from an old, slow, grumpy Gary Payton.

Shaq may be older and not as agile as he once was (and he was once phemonenally, unhumanly athletic) but he transforms the Heat to a playoff contending team, and his absence will hurt the Lakers. Even older and slower and less in shape, he's still the best C in the league, other than Tim Duncan, who prefers to play forward so he doesn't have to bang in the C position the whole game.

[ducks]

I take it mouse is afraid

[Kevin Kaster]

You call his bluff on the extension -- you're a bigger idiot than I thought if you think anyone is going to pay that to Shaq. You keep him for one more year at any rate.


LMAO! They did call his bluff Einstein, that's why Shaq demanded a trade. :lol

[TwoHandJam]

LMAO! They did call his bluff Einstein, that's why Shaq demanded a trade.You can demand a trade all you want but if you're still under contract, you can't do squat. That's what he meant by calling his bluff.

If Shaq tanked the season or had surgery during the year like he was threatening to do if he wasn't traded, he would have torpedoed his market value. Being a year older and pulling a stunt like that wouldn't have been a good career move for him financially and he knew it. He'd have had to play out the season, like it or not.

I have a feeling that Kobe was the real reason he wasn't forced to stay.

**** the Lakers anyhow. They made their bed now let them sleep in it. It's about time that band of man-children self destructed. Their egomaniacal attitudes and infighting as a high profile team was bad for the league and for promoting basketball as a team sport. I for one will be glad to see them wallow in mediocrity for a few years.

The Lakers are no longer contenders and as such are inconsequential for the elite like our Spurs. They're not much different from the Grizzlies or Suns right now.

Suck it Laker beetches. :fro

[Jimcs50]

The Clippers will finish ahead of them.

[Spurminator]

If Shaq tanked the season or had surgery during the year like he was threatening to do if he wasn't traded, he would have torpedoed his market value. Being a year older and pulling a stunt like that wouldn't have been a good career move for him financially and he knew it. He'd have had to play out the season, like it or not.

And then he leaves in 2005 and the Lakers are left with Kobe and their thumbs up their asses.

That is, assuming Kobe still decided to stick around with Shaq.

[Kevin Kaster]

You can demand a trade all you want but if you're still under contract, you can't do squat. That's what he meant by calling his bluff.

If Shaq tanked the season or had surgery during the year like he was threatening to do if he wasn't traded, he would have torpedoed his market value. Being a year older and pulling a stunt like that wouldn't have been a good career move for him financially and he knew it. He'd have had to play out the season, like it or not.

No, you don't risk tanking a season and possibly losing Kobe Bryant just because you think Shaq is bluffing. Kobe might not have resigned if the Lakers didn't have a young, decently talented core in place. You don't risk that, especially since the last time Shaq didn't get his extension he had surgery before training camp and missed 6 weeks of the beginning of the regular season, not to mention exaggerating injuries during the year.


I have a feeling that Kobe was the real reason he wasn't forced to stay.

If Shaq had just shut his mouth about his contract, conditioned like he was supposed to, and played defense during the year, Kobe probably would have been more vocal about him staying. Otherwise, though, Kobe certainly didn't force Shaq out. Buss was most adamant about Shaq leaving; he had just let Phil Jackson go and denied Shaq his extension for the final time, pushing Shaq over the edge.


**** the Lakers anyhow. They made their bed now let them sleep in it. It's about time that band of man-children self destructed. Their egomaniacal attitudes and infighting as a high profile team was bad for the league and for promoting basketball as a team sport. I for one will be glad to see them wallow in mediocrity for a few years.

Well, they didn't wallow when they back door swept your Spurs this season, and they certainly won't wallow with a younger and more talented core this year. If "mediocrity" is consistently making the playoffs and contending in 2 years, then so be it.


The Lakers are no longer contenders and as such are inconsequential for the elite like our Spurs. They're not much different from the Grizzlies or Suns right now.

No, they're definitely better than either the Grizzlies or Suns, who have no superstar and can't play any defense.


Suck it Laker beetches.

Suck it Spurms, continue to taste the sweet defeat of 0.4 beetches!

[LakerLanny1]

The Clippers will finish ahead of them.

I don't think so my friend. Too many rounds of golf at the club in the hot sun might have warped your brain slightly on this one.

The Clippers are the Clippers. They do what they do better than any other team in the league. But that is not finishing head of the Lakers.

Let me know if you want to send me the money in advance that I would win betting you on that.

[Tawnia79]

No, you don't risk tanking a season and possibly losing Kobe Bryant just because you think Shaq is bluffing. Kobe might not have resigned if the Lakers didn't have a young, decently talented core in place. You don't risk that, especially since the last time Shaq didn't get his extension he had surgery before training camp and missed 6 weeks of the beginning of the regular season, not to mention exaggerating injuries during the year.

here here... I'll take Kobe and a young talented core with potential in two or so years over an aging, ailing, and overpaid Shaq surrounded by the likes of slava medvedenko, devean george, and various other geriatric players any day.

[TwoHandJam]

And then he leaves in 2005 and the Lakers are left with Kobe and their thumbs up their asses.

That is, assuming Kobe still decided to stick around with Shaq.I'm sure Kobe threatening to leave was the reason they didn't call Shaq's bluff. If he wasn't such a child, they could have contended for another season and then just let the retard walk. I hardly think Odom and Grant's anchor of a contract for the next 2 years are better than they might have done with the caproom Shaq leaving would have provided them.

Whatever. Laker fans can't accept it but they'll be looking at early exits in the playoffs for a few years. Tim was out for 9 games last year and we made the playoffs easily. This group certainly won't make the playoffs if Kobe (or that warrior Odom either for that matter) is out for a similar time. They'd better hope he stays healthy because without him, a college team could probably take them. :lol

[TwoHandJam]

If "mediocrity" is consistently making the playoffs and contending in 2 years, then so be it.Two years of first round exits (assuming Kobe, Odom don't miss more than 5 games a season) should be very satisfying. I know I'll enjoy watching it. :lol


No, they're definitely better than either the Grizzlies or Suns, who have no superstar and can't play any defense. Suuuure they are. The Lakers have been defensive powerhouses the last 2 years. They should be even better with Shaq gone. Vlade and Grant will strike fear into any who dare drive the lane on the mighty Lakers. :)

[2Cleva]

What happen to my post after Supergirl?

Shaq may be older and not as agile as he once was (and he was once phemonenally, unhumanly athletic) but he transforms the Heat to a playoff contending team, and his absence will hurt the Lakers.

Miami made it to deep in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year with the young guys Kobe now has. Are they going to get farther than that this year with Shaq? No. It was a great move for Miami business wise but they are no closer to a ring and hamstrung long term.


LA dealt Shaq for 2 reasons. The Kobe reason was one but the business aspect was another. They didn't win rings the past 2 years with Shaq, why keep paying him more than anyone else when rings are far from a guaranteed result the next couple of seasons. Now, LA is able to rebuild and get real younger while still maintaining a playoff team.

[Tawnia79]

Whatever. Laker fans can't accept it but they'll be looking at early exits in the playoffs for a few years.

is there really one laker fan on this site saying they'll be contenders next year? Because I certainly haven't read that...


Tim was out for 9 games last year and we made the playoffs easily. This group certainly won't make the playoffs if Kobe (or that warrior Odom either for that matter) is out for a similar time. They'd better hope he stays healthy because without him, a college team could probably take them.

Shaq missed 15 games the year they won their last championship... I'm not sure I get your point. Wouldn't most teams suffer if their superstar gets injured??? Do you really think that LA's Kobe-less roster is any worse than SA's roster minus Duncan???

Brent Barry
Bruce Bowen
Devin Brown
Manu Ginobili
Robert Horry
Linton Johnson
Sergei Karaulov
Sean Marks
Tony Massenburg
Rasho Nesterovic
Tony Parker
Malik Rose
Viktor Sanikidze
Romain Sato
Beno Udrih

Vs.

Chucky Atkins
Caron Butler
Brian Cook
Vlade Divac
Devean George
Brian Grant
Slava Medvedenko
Chris Mihm
Lamar Odom
Jumaine Jones
Kareem Rush
Sasha Vujacic
Luke Walton

[Kevin Kaster]

Suuuure they are. The Lakers have been defensive powerhouses the last 2 years. They should be even better with Shaq gone. Vlade and Grant will strike fear into any who dare drive the lane on the mighty Lakers.

Now that the Lakers actually have athletes that can play defense like Odom and Butler (instead of Jurassic Fox) and a legit 7 footer like Mihm (instead of Samsucki Walker or Jamal freaking Sampson), they will certainly be better defensively at those positions. Shaq didn’t play defense until the postseason anyway, so I don’t know what your point is really. Shaq’s defense hasn’t been consistently great since about 2001/2002.


I'm not sure I get your point. Wouldn't most teams suffer if their superstar gets injured???

Yeah, I'm not really sure what THJ is getting at here. Of course the Lakers will suffer if Odom and/or Kobe go down. Didn't the Spurs go something like 5-4 when Duncan was out last year? Hardly a stellar record there. ANY team will suffer if their superstar or 2nd options go down.

[SickDSM]

Spurs without duncan would still own the Lakers without Kobe. I don't think you remember how quick Parker is. Years of shaq doing what only shaq can do totally changed the NBA. He was on every contending teams GM's mind when making a roster. Guys weren't scratching their head saying, How the hell are we going to win a title trying to stop Kobe? Its no wonder that Kobe has been called the Best one on one player in the game because he doesn't get much double teams for a player his caliber. Guys weren't knocking down Miami's door trying to get Bowen, they weren't bombarding Portand trying to get the self-proclaimed Kobe stopper. They were trying to find the best way to minimize the damage that O'neal does. Throwing 3 7 footers at him, hackiing him or even double teaming his WITHOUT the ball. No one did any of that for Kobe. Kinda Ironic that the clippers for years have always been loaded with young, athletic talent but there trash. Miami basically got rid of there overload at the swing position for the best player in the game (sorry duncan fans but a motivated O'neal is downright scary) So what if you have O'neal and a bunch of scrubs in a few years. I'll take 2 rings now and crap later over a Jazz team that has been good for the last two decades but never great.

[ChumpDumper]

The words "legit" and "Mihm" can't be used in the same sentence.

If only Marcus Banks were here....

[SequSpur]

Kevin Kaster has down's syndrome.

[TwoHandJam]

Do you really think that LA's Kobe-less roster is any worse than SA's roster minus Duncan???

Brent Barry
Bruce Bowen
Devin Brown
Manu Ginobili
Robert Horry
Linton Johnson
Sergei Karaulov
Sean Marks
Tony Massenburg
Rasho Nesterovic
Tony Parker
Malik Rose
Viktor Sanikidze
Romain Sato
Beno Udrih

Vs.

Chucky Atkins
Caron Butler
Brian Cook
Vlade Divac
Devean George
Brian Grant
Slava Medvedenko
Chris Mihm
Lamar Odom
Jumaine Jones
Kareem Rush
Sasha Vujacic
Luke Walton

Please tell me you're joking. The entire Laker starting lineup would have never even played together not to mention the adjustment all players would have to make to a new coach.

Even brushing that huge negative under the rug, the Spur lineup still has more experience (both individually and as a team) and more talent.

Put down the pipe.

[Tawnia79]

Please tell me you're joking. The entire Laker starting lineup would have never even played together not to mention the adjustment all players would have to make to a new coach.

Even brushing that huge negative under the rug, the Spur lineup still has more experience (both individually and as a team) and more talent.

Of course the Spurs as a team have more experience, but that's something that will come for LA over the next year. And I thought the point was to get younger... because afterall, all I heard from everyone outside of LA is that the Lakers are far too old and far too slow. So now that they've gotten younger, you're saying that they're TOO young? The Spurs average career length is around 6 years with their current roster, minus the rookies. LA's is around 5 years. Not a huge difference.

As far as individual talent goes, well I think that's debateable. The second highest scorer on the Spurs roster is Parker, who last year averaged 15ppg and 5.5 assists. Brent Barry averaged 10ppg, Manu averaged 13ppg, and after that you've got a bunch of 4-7ppg guys.

The person who will likely be the second highest scorer on LA will be Odom, who averaged 17ppg, 4.4apg and 9.7rpg. Chucky Atkins averaged 12 ppg and 4apg, and Caron Butler has a lot of potential (whether or not he'll realize it remains to be seen) but averaged 10ppg last year. Brian Grant, if he can stay healthy can contribute nicely as well, as his career averages are 10ppg and 8rpg (although last year he only did 9 and 7).

Of course those are only offensive stats, defensively I agree that the Spurs will likely be better, although I'd like to see how well LA can get defensively with their new roster.

Setting aside the fact that LA will likely have an adjustment period, I don't see a huge difference at all in the rosters sans Duncan and Kobe. And let me be clear that I'm not saying that the Spurs roster is bad, I'm just saying that I think the Lakers roster could be just as good once a few more tweaks are made.

[Walton Buys Off Me]

As far as individual talent goes, well I think that's debateable. The second highest scorer on the Spurs roster is Parker, who last year averaged 15ppg and 5.5 assists. Brent Barry averaged 10ppg, Manu averaged 13ppg, and after that you've got a bunch of 4-7ppg guys.

The person who will likely be the second highest scorer on LA will be Odom, who averaged 17ppg, 4.4apg and 9.7rpg. Chucky Atkins averaged 12 ppg and 4apg, and Caron Butler has a lot of potential (whether or not he'll realize it remains to be seen) but averaged 10ppg last year. Brian Grant, if he can stay healthy can contribute nicely as well, as his career averages are 10ppg and 8rpg (although last year he only did 9 and 7). Come on Tawnia, I know you know better than that. The Spurs have been an elite team in the western conference for some time now. You can't compare offensive averages of players from non-contending, eastern conference teams to players on a western conference powerhouse like the Spurs who must defer to the likes of Tim Duncan. Please.

<< This was posted by TwoHandJam logged in under Walton's account>>

[SequSpur]

Tawnia,

You lost Fisher, Shaq, Kobe's ego, Phil's zen, and Rick Fox's wife. Then you picked up a bunch of Clippers.

Lakers ain't doin nuttin.

Bam.

How bout dat?

Face the fear. Lakers suck.

[ducks]

Tawnia79 I agree with alot of what you said

kobe is not going to let that team lose
yes they will need to make adjustments
it will be intersting how quick they can make them
and there is very few big men in the nba now
so it is not like the lakers now have a major hole in that area
they do need a guy to stop duncan and kg
mailman may be a guy to slow them done

[SequSpur]

Ducks, don't be a wuss. The Lakers suck. Period. The are a average team without Shaq. 41 and 41. Not good enough for the playoffs.

[ducks]

you laugh all you want
lakers will make the playoffs
they pull a mid season trade and get a big they could be scary

kobe is like duncan
with him you always have a chance

shaq won NOTHING without kobe

[SequSpur]

Shaq is probably the best player in the NBA. Kobe is a fucking sidekick.

The Lakers will not do shit without Shaq. Who is going to take the pressure off of kobe? Odom? Uh.. yeah right.

The Lakers have NO Big man that is worth a damn. Duncan, Nowitski, Garnett, Shaq, Wallace, Webber, Ming will SCORE AT WILL against the Lakers. The Lakers might lose against Phoenix. 8th Seed at best.

Also, who in the hell is going to be LAs pg? Huh. What? Payton? Great. 40 wins. Thats it. Thats all I see.

Kobe isn't shit without a big man. wake up ducks.

[ducks]

Kobe is a fucking sidekick

Ok so basically you are saying kobe is just a role player
right?

who is going to stop kobe?

if mailman goes there he can set kobe some NASTY picks to get open
bowen will not be able to run thru that screen

sure spurs will take that team
but it will not be easy
sure they have no answer

and dirk shoots threes it is not like he scores in the paint where most big men play




you know what duncan can not do anything without outside shooting. that is why spurs lost to the lakers
their shooters went COLD

[spursfaninla]

Shaq got to the finals without Kobe, how far did Kobe get without shaq again?

Ok, so thats not really fair.

The case will be that he is no more effective than Tmac by himself.

[ducks]

shaq was in the weast east to:eyebrow


lakers are one team I would not want to play

odom and kobe could be special together(if odom does not get caught but with him with lakers that will not happen)


kobe gets hot he is a winner

[SpursFanInAustin]

shaq was in the weast east to

What are you trying to say Ducks? the East was weak in 95? when you had Ewing's Knicks, Jordan-Pip's Bulls (I know MJ wasnt MJ that year, but still a respectable team), Miller's Pacers. The east was a lot stronger back then than it is now.

There's no doubt that Kobe will score 30 a game, but didn't T-Mac lead the league in scoring the last 2 years and what has he done?

[iminlakerland]

You lost Fisher

:cry Must u bring this up? :depressed

[ducks]

kobe is alot better then mcgrady


kobe,duncan,kg would not let their team lose 19 straight games in the weak east
that is almost 1/4 of the nba season games

mcgrady is overrated
kobe makes his teamates better

like duncan does

lakers have a better team then the magic did with mcgrady now also

[ducks]

lakers might have lost phil jackson
but that team stopped believing in the triagle
and a triangle needs a decent big man.
phil had a decent one with the bullls to

I do not see that as a major lost. Rudy is a proven good coach. It actually might be a welcome change to that team. Kobe is going to love it. And he is going to try to prove that the triangle was holding him back...............


I am not saying they are going to challenge from the title
but in the west I think it boils down to spurs and wolves
kings,mavs, nuggets are next. then suns,rockets,lakers and jazz are next. the clippers you are never sure what they will do. they look decent on paper.alot depends on livingston.

[SequSpur]

Ducks is a laker fan.

A homer one.

Odom fucking sucks ducks.

Are you that dumb?

[SpursFanInAustin]

kobe,duncan,kg would not let their team lose 19 straight games in the weak east

Well lets look at what Kobe did at the beginning of 02-03 when Shaq missed the first 12 games or so.


2002-03 Regular Season
Date Opponent Score W-L Location
10/29/2002 San Antonio Spurs 82 - 87 Box 0 - 1
10/30/2002 at Portland Trailblazers 90 - 102 Box 0 - 2
11/1/2002 at Los Angeles Clippers 108 - 93 Box 1 - 2
11/3/2002 Portland Trailblazers 98 - 95 Box 2 - 2
11/5/2002 at Cleveland Cavaliers 70 - 89 Box 2 - 3
11/7/2002 at Boston Celtics 95 - 98 Box 2 - 4
11/8/2002 at Washington Wizards 99 - 100 Box 2 - 5
11/12/2002 Atlanta Hawks 83 - 95 Box 2 - 6
11/15/2002 Golden State Warriors 96 - 89 Box 3 - 6
11/17/2002 Houston Rockets 89 - 93 Box 3 - 7
11/19/2002 at Dallas Mavericks 72 - 98 Box 3 - 8
11/20/2002 at San Antonio Spurs 88 - 95 Box 3 - 9

3-9 without Shaq, including a game where Kobe shot 17-47 vs Paul Pierce and the Celtics, and a 19-pt loss to the Ricky Davis led Cavaliers (pre Lebron). They also lost to the Hawks at home, and got blown out in Dallas. Kobe made who better? I'm not hating on kobe, but I won't kiss his ass until I see him lead the Lakers to the conference finals without Shaq.

[Kevin Kaster]

Kevin Kaster has down's syndrome.

Says the "Spurs" fan derided on his own board who couldn't argue a point if his illegitimate daughter tried.

[ChumpDumper]

Sequ has his moments.

As a native he is derided about as much as Chris Mihm.

Connect the dots, if you can.

[Kevin Kaster]

Mihm > Rasho. I can write that in crayon if you'd like.

[SpursFanInAustin]

Mihm = Travis Knight from 1999. The foul per minute guy.

[Kevin Kaster]

Travis Knight is Jason Hart-like scrub, Mihm is scrub levels above him. Maybe just above Rasho scrubness? Probably.

[ChumpDumper]

You know you fellated Knight as well in the day.

Kneepads ON!

[Kevin Kaster]

I fellated Knight about as much as you fellated Hedo after the WCSF.

[SpursFanInAustin]

Speaking of fellatio, Mihm was a guy who got posterized by Shandon Anderson a couple of years ago.

[E20]

KKK, is like Wolves009.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, 6 and 5 from a #7 pick is completely deserving of our love and respect.

Recognize.

[timvp]

Number one sign you are in denial after trading Shaq?

You convince yourself Chris Mihm can play basketball.

[ChumpDumper]

Has John Wallace ever stuffed another seven footer's shit this clean in his life?

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2001/02/26/spopistons.jpg

[Kevin Kaster]

Yep, 6 and 5 from a #7 pick is completely deserving of our love and respect.

Recognize.

I'd hope you recognize, since Mihm scores and rebounds better than Rasho per 48. :lol Man, it's almost sad how little you know about your players.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I am a little suprised this trhread is still here, i must have made quite an impression

[Tawnia79]

Shaq is probably the best player in the NBA. Kobe is a fucking sidekick.

funny how your memory works... I seem to remember that sidekick kicking your team's ass quite a few times over the last few years.

[Rick Von Braun]

The Lakers will be ok next season, in particular because the Kings have lost a step or two. They might even win their division and finish 3rd in the conference.

Having said that, if you think that trading Shaq would actually help the team, you are in complete denial. :shootme

[E20]

Kobe can be shut down. See Pistons, Finals.
Shaq cannot.
Double team Kobe.
Vlade, Odom, Grant, Mihm are NO match for
Tim, Rasho, Malik, Robert, Sean, Massenburg.

Let's see how Grant, Mihm, and Odom do in the West. Let's see how well they can do well against the likes of. Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Yao Ming and the more fierce western conferecne.

Tony > Chucky
Kobe > Ginobili
Bowen > Butler
Tim > Odom
Rasho = Vlade

Our bench >>>>> Your bench
Rudy = Popovich

[ChumpDumper]

I'd hope you recognize, since Mihm scores and rebounds better than Rasho per 48.So did all our backups. Rasho wasn't a #7 -- please keep trying to spin that. You'd think Mihm would be able to play more then.

Why not?

Oh yeah, the sucking.

I'll concede this -- his .318 FG in playoff garbage time is almost as good as Rasho in full meltdown mode.

[SequSpur]

Tawnia,

Eat shit. Lakers suck and you know it.

[ChumpDumper]

The Lakers will be alright, but they may have to win their division to actually make the playoffs. One thing is for sure, if they stand pat, Mitch is even stupider than I thought. Five swingmen to split time behind Odom and Kobe won't cut it.

I don't think Sacramento is going to fall as much as people think -- they had a quietly good offseason; their pickups at guard were excellent given what they had to work with. And Ostertag could have a Mihm-like impact as well....

[Tawnia79]

Tawnia,

Eat shit.

frankly that's what I feel like I'm doing every time I read one of your posts.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how LA performs. I'm not predicting that they'll win their division, I'm just saying I think they'll be better than people assume they'll be. And I still don't agree that LA's bench is bad, I think it's a VAST improvement over what it has been in the past.

And losing Shaq was not beneficial to the Lakers in the short term. I'm not going to re-hash why its better for them in the long term, because those of you that don't understand it haven't paid any attention to the situation that LA was in, or you probably just don't want to understand. In either case, I'm through discussing that.


Let's see how Grant, Mihm, and Odom do in the West. Let's see how well they can do well against the likes of. Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Yao Ming and the more fierce western conferecne.

Hate to break it to you, but Odom and Grant have both spent significant time in the western conference. Odom averaged 15 points and 7 rebounds over 4 years with the Clippers, and Grant averaged 11.5 points and 7.5 rebounds over six years with Sacramento and Portland. And I'm pretty sure they played against Duncan and Garnett while on those teams.

[Tommy Duncan]

Look, I think Radosoft is better than Chris Mihm.

Trading franchise/great players for a smorgasboard of good players in the NBA has always been a Rather bad proposition.

[smeagol]

Kevin Kaster has down's syndrome.

WOW!

The day has come where I have to say: I agree with Sequ

[Kevin Kaster]

Rasho wasn't a #7 -- please keep trying to spin that. You'd think Mihm would be able to play more then.

Who gives a crap. Kandi was drafted #1. Kobe was drafted #13 the same year Samaki Walker was drafted higher. Sometimes picks aren't accurate, I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out.


Why not?

Oh yeah, the sucking.

Mihm > Rasho.

[TwoHandJam]

Hate to break it to you, but Odom and Grant have both spent significant time in the western conference. Odom averaged 15 points and 7 rebounds over 4 years with the Clippers, and Grant averaged 11.5 points and 7.5 rebounds over six years with Sacramento and Portland. And I'm pretty sure they played against Duncan and Garnett while on those teams.
Grant averaged those number in the west 4 years ago. For reference, Steve Smith was averging 15 ppg back then. Do you want him on your team now? Last year Grant averaged a pretty underwhelming 8.7ppg 6.9rpg .46bpg in the east on a bad team. As already mentioned even Rasho fared better, and in the west no yet. Grant's contract is among the worst in all the NBA. No GM will touch it.

Odom is virtually the only solid help Kobe might have and he's known to be fragile. He played a healthy season for the first time in three years and he's had trouble with drugs in LA to the extent that he will be expelled from the league on the next infraction. He's played well but whether it will continue in LA, under Rudy T is not a given.

Again, LA sans Kobe does not impress me.

[Tawnia79]

I wasn't using those numbers to give the impression that I believed that Grant would be putting up similar numbers this year. Of course I am fully aware of his previous season numbers and the fact that he's been out of the west for awhile now. What I was disputing was the fact that it was assumed that he wouldn't be able to do well against the WC because it was implied that he's never had the opportunity to, which is false. Both he and Odom played in the West and they both did well. If Grant contributed numbers somewhere near (even slightly lower than) his career stats I'd be more than satisified. And I'm a Lakers fan, there's no point in talking to me about the horror of a bad contract. We had Shaq's, remember???


Again, LA sans Kobe does not impress me.

It's not supposed to impress you. Kobe's on the team for a reason, he's needed. But if you're going to sit there and tell me that this year's bench isn't a vast improvement over what they've had in the last few years then I'd have to strongly disagree. And if the arguement is really over who's roster is better minus their star, well you're going to have to wait for a few months to really see the definitive answer to that. Frankly, the Spurs' roster with the exception of Parker and Ginobilli doesn't do a whole lot for me, but I know that you could say the same about LA, so we'll just have to wait and see how both teams play next year.

[TwoHandJam]

What I was disputing was the fact that it was assumed that he wouldn't be able to do well against the WC because it was implied that he's never had the opportunity to, which is false.That wasn't what was implied. It was 4 years ago and isn't relevant at all now. The point is still that players like Briant Grant who are already in decline don't generally improve their stats over time. Even less so when moved to a new team and a stronger conference.

Both he and Odom played in the West and they both did well. If Grant contributed numbers somewhere near (even slightly lower than) his career stats I'd be more than satisified.If Grant played at his career stats, it would be the best season he's had in 4 years.

[2Cleva]

Someone mentioned that Kobe could be shut down and Shaq couldn't - ie the Det series. Shaq was shut down as well. He never faced a double team yet he only had one big game scoring. Tex Winters was on LA radio a couple of weeks back calling out Shaq's lack of D, rebounding and effort.

Det had a brilliant plan. For once, a team focused on shutting down Kobe and dared Shaq to beat them - he obviously couldn't. Prince had the main assignment but every defender kept their eye on Kobe to help out against any penetration or trap him off the pick and roll. And because of the Lakers offense - that was the only opportunities he had since LA didn't run, nor post up Kobe.

Det's D concepts were great that series but of course you'd have to really understand basketball to get it.

[Useruser666]

Tawnia79,

Your saying the Spurs minus their best 3 players doesn't impress you much? Well duh! Take the best three players away from any team see what you have left. Oh wait, doesn't that describe the Lakers?

Useruser666 :eyebrow

[Tawnia79]

Your saying the Spurs minus their best 3 players doesn't impress you much? Well duh! Take the best three players away from any team see what you have left. Oh wait, doesn't that describe the Lakers?

that was kind of the point...

[Tawnia79]

Let's see how Grant, Mihm, and Odom do in the West. Let's see how well they can do well against the likes of. Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Yao Ming and the more fierce western conferecne.


This doesn't imply the idea that they've never played against these people consistently before? Odom was just in the WC a year ago, and you must have known that because you didn't take issue with any of my Odom comments.

For the record, I'm not expecting Grant to do anything huge. 9 points and 7 boards is not an impossibility. He's a hard worker, so as long as he contributes as much as he possibly can then I'll be ok with that.

[ChumpDumper]

Shaq was shut down as well. He never faced a double team yet he only had one big game scoring.Perhaps that is because Shaq was taking three shots for every four Kobe was taking.

When you see that Shaq was shooting .631 and Kobe .381, and that Shaq got to the line more than twice as much as Kobe while shooting less, how do you come to the conclusion that Shaq was shut down and that the Lakers did everything right?

Detroit's strategy was brilliant alright -- when you shut down Kobe, he still shoots the ball at the same clip. It hardly matters what Shaq does because he'll never see the ball enough to make up the difference.

[Useruser666]

that was kind of the point...

I don't understand then. You say the Spurs wouldn't be good without their three best players, yet infer the Lakers will be better than everyone thinks without their three best players? It's so funny how the Big Diesel goes to the little weed eater when you're looking down the other end of the barrel.

Useruser666 :eyebrow

[SickDSM]

Hahah, the difference between Shaq's contract and Grant is as enormous as the contract itself. The worst contracts aren't the biggest ones, there the ones that are overpaid. Shaq was still kicking ass and taking names. Grant was getting his ass kicked. Shaq every year is a MVP option. Meanwwhile Grant has hobbled knees that are getting worse. I'd rather have declining feet getting 20/10/2.5 than bad knees getting, what?, 8 and 6 if your lucky?

[Tawnia79]

yet infer the Lakers will be better than everyone thinks without their three best players?

no, I was suggesting that the Lakers as a whole would be better than everyone expected. Someone then suggested that the Lakers sans Kobe wasn't that impressive, and that's where that argument came in. I'm not at ALL saying that LA could be good without its top three players.

[Man in Black1]

:brotha


I was suggesting that the Lakers as a whole would be better than everyone expected. Someone then suggested that the Lakers sans Kobe wasn't that impressive, and that's where that argument came in

See that is what you fail to realize, Tawnia, the Spurs players have already proven that while individually, they may not look as impressive, collectively they have shown that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Lakers may, in time, show that they can too, but they have yet to do it.

I'm of the opinion that if Kobe doesn't up his game immensely on both sides of the court, he will be just like TMac in Orlando. That dominant big is a huge, huge factor in a team's success. You can cite Jordan but I'll one up you with names like Oakley, Grant, & Rodman as big 4's who got double figures in points and rebounds plus held their positions defensively.
Who do the Lakers have that can do that...right now?

Anyways...I look forward to watching the season. Since I'm in SO CAL, I can't wait to hear how Jack Haley and the rest of the media spin mediocrity.
It can very well happen, unless Mitch figures out how to effectively deal his glut of swingmen and expiring K's.

[Kevin Kaster]

Hahah, the difference between Shaq's contract and Grant is as enormous as the contract itself. The worst contracts aren't the biggest ones, there the ones that are overpaid. Shaq was still kicking ass and taking names. Grant was getting his ass kicked. Shaq every year is a MVP option. Meanwwhile Grant has hobbled knees that are getting worse. I'd rather have declining feet getting 20/10/2.5 than bad knees getting, what?, 8 and 6 if your lucky?

What? First off, Grant's contract is about half Shaq's, so any thing he produces as a player needs to be halved anyway. Secondly, Shaq said he wouldn't play if he wasn't paid close to or at the max he can get through a contract extension. Buss initially offered him an extension until 2010 at $25M per, which would have made him the highest paid player in the league. Shaq rejected it, and asked instead for bigger annual increases that would have paid him between $35M-$40M at age 37. Shaq's worth $35M-$40M about as much as my left nut is. His toe will be long gone by the time he's 35, so there would be no point in paying him ungodly sums when he's worthless at ages 36 and 37 (and perhaps sooner than that). Thirdly, Shaq at that price would have put Buss in luxury tax hell if he had any desire to keep Kobe Bryant. By the time Shaq would leave at 37 (assuming Kobe stays), only THEN would the Lakers be able to build a core around him, and he'd be 32. Better to build a young core around a young 26 year old Kobe than a 32 year old Kobe.

[Kevin Kaster]

See that is what you fail to realize, Tawnia, the Spurs players have already proven that while individually, they may not look as impressive, collectively they have shown that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Lakers may, in time, show that they can too, but they have yet to do it.

Isn't that what you said last year? I don't think you understand that in the playoffs, anything goes.

[Man in Black1]

Isn't that what you said last year? I don't think you understand that in the playoffs, anything goes.

I've heard that, then all the calls supposedly go against the Lakers and then the whining starts.

We'll see how Boy Wonder does without Batman, this year.

[Kevin Kaster]

I've heard that, then all the calls supposedly go against the Lakers and then the whining starts.

Don't confuse Laker Lanny with most Laker fans. Lanny is an idiot, pure and simple. Sort of a local village idiot.

Anyway, this talk of "they're a team" more than the Lakers can't be proven until we actually see how the new squad does.


We'll see how Boy Wonder does without Batman, this year.

We'll also see how Robot Duncan does during his 2nd year without Sarge Robinson.

[Medvedenko]

I guess I'll chime in and give you my 2 cents.....
The Lakers will be good, 50+ wins.
That's the bottom line....
We will sign Malone in the next few weeks, we have a good bench and the best 2 guard in the L.
Nuff said.
Oh and we have Slava...the equalizer

[Useruser666]

Slava will have to use a gun like the 80's TV series Equalizer did to bring the Lakers any hope.

Useruser666 :eyebrow

[Medvedenko]

Nice...that's a good reference...glad to see you picked up on that.....
The Lakers will be OK...I predict NBA Champions 2006

[SickDSM]

You can pay a guy 25 mill or pay 15 guys 2 mill apiece but it won't add up. Let me know when Grant gets to play in 96 minute games and shaq only 48, K? You ever play one of the older NBA videogames and trade a bunch of mediorce guys for a Duncan, Shaq, KG?? thats what that is. There is only 5 guys playing at a time. Shaq should get paid whatever the hell he wants since even if there is a few guys that may be able to produce nearly what he can do, TD, Yao, ummmm that's it, none are nor likely will EVER be available to the Lakers. Everyone else has bitched about KG's contract but you know what, take away his contract and fill the roster and you just have another Clippers. Talented team but will never go anywhere.

[smeagol]

Don't confuse Laker Lanny with most Laker fans. Lanny is an idiot, pure and simple. Sort of a local village idiot.

Kaster, I could not agree with you more.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Shaq is beggining to brake down even if he is in shape, no center can play much longer than he has

[Tawnia79]

Shaq should get paid whatever the hell he wants since even if there is a few guys that may be able to produce nearly what he can do, TD, Yao, ummmm that's it, none are nor likely will EVER be available to the Lakers.

you wouldn't even come close to saying that if you fully understood the financial situation it would have put LA in, and just how detrimental it would have been to the future of the franchise


Everyone else has bitched about KG's contract but you know what, take away his contract and fill the roster and you just have another Clippers. Talented team but will never go anywhere.

KG took a paycut to help his team get players he needed, Shaq was unwilling to do that. See any difference?

[SickDSM]

The lakers had the players needed. That's the difference. As much as 3 rings are impressive that's underachieving. Bryant is a bitch, plain and simple. Shaq is physically unstoppable. The best center in the game by FAR teamed up with the best guard in the last 20 years not named jordan? Kobe showed how much of a bitch he was in that game where he refused to shoot. You cannot dispute that while with the lakers when shaq was out, kobe didn't carry near as well as shaq when kobe was out. And how the hell you don't give the guy who's right at the top of the FG % leaders 30 plus shots is beyond me.

[Tawnia79]

You cannot dispute that while with the lakers when shaq was out, kobe didn't carry near as well as shaq when kobe was out. And how the hell you don't give the guy who's right at the top of the FG % leaders 30 plus shots is beyond me.

This is the oldest argument in the book... That team did well with Shaq because they were put there BECAUSE of Shaq. Spot up shooters, and players that worked well with dominant big man. Had Kobe had a teammates that complimented HIS game and not Shaq's, you might have seen a totally different story.

Every year except for last year and his rookie year Shaq averaged 18 or more shot attempts per game, and 10 ft's per game. He likely had 30+ shots per game, or have you forgotten how terrible a free throw shooter he is???

[SickDSM]

Every year except for last year and his rookie year Shaq averaged 18 or more shot attempts per game, and 10 ft's per game. He likely had 30+ shots per game, or have you forgotten how terrible a free throw shooter he is???

Duncan's a terrible FT shooter too but if you don't give him the ball down low your just stupid. Its not like even if he misses all of them the other team is homefree. Guys foul out and put the team over the limit to allow others to shoot FT when a non-shooting foul is called

BUT, you still want to play the FT card? Ok, i'll play with you. Shaq shot 49% FT last year, below his average and below his last few years. He had 10.1 attempts/game and made 4.9. Now if he shot at Kobe's percantage he would have made 8.6 fts per game. A difference of 3.7 pts per game. But now we'll take Kobe's 18.1 FGA per game and apply shaq's FG %. 10.6 FG's/game versus 7.9 FG's/game A difference of 2.7. Even if they were all 2pters with no FT's thats a bare minimum of 5.4 ppg. But Kobe should get more shots because he's a better FT shooter right? How riduculous is that? There's lots of great HOF players with a horrible FT shooting but you have to be effiecent to be great and even with your skewed logic you can go back and look at the stats and admit that shaq is more effiecent than kobe.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll go back to this as I had no initial response
Quote: Shaq was shut down as well. He never faced a double team yet he only had one big game scoring.

Perhaps that is because Shaq was taking three shots for every four Kobe was taking.

When you see that Shaq was shooting .631 and Kobe .381, and that Shaq got to the line more than twice as much as Kobe while shooting less, how do you come to the conclusion that Shaq was shut down and that the Lakers did everything right?

Detroit's strategy was brilliant alright -- when you shut down Kobe, he still shoots the ball at the same clip. It hardly matters what Shaq does because he'll never see the ball enough to make up the difference.Comments?

[SequSpur]

Play this card.

Spurs 2 rings.

Wolves 0.

Blow me.

[SickDSM]

I should have figured that numbers with decimal points would have made your mind boggle Sequ. But on the bright side i saw some flash cards than can make you familiar with our decimal friend.

:lol

[SequSpur]

SickDSM,

Only one stat counts................

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/PHO/AAFR032.jpg

Eat shit beyitch.

[Useruser666]

Shaq>Kobe! Begin!

Useruser666 :eyebrow

[Brodels]

Mihm > Rasho. I can write that in crayon if you'd like.

:rollin

Sorry, I couldn't help but chime in on this one. It's funny how you can be blinded by the severely limited talent that is Mihm.

Fact: Mihm is a career backup big man in the NBA. He couldn't hold down a starting job with any of the crappy teams he's been on. On a team featuring Mark Blount as a number one post option, Mihm couldn't even get regular minutes and he couldn't even play well enough to start. He sucks, plain and simple. He has done nothing on the court to show that he's anything more than a bench player.

Rasho has disappointed, but there is a reason he's making pretty good $$$. Even with his penchant for disappearing, he's still in the top half of the league at his position. He's held down starting jobs for two contending teams in the tougher conference, and he was a coveted free agent. He's a better defender than Mihm, he's got more offensive tools, and he might even be a better rebounder.

Mihm is one of the stiffest seven footers in the game. When he can even hold down a starting job, get back to me.

[Kevin Kaster]

Sorry, I couldn't help but chime in on this one. It's funny how you can be blinded by the severely limited talent that is Mihm.

Fact: Mihm is a career backup big man in the NBA. He couldn't hold down a starting job with any of the crappy teams he's been on. On a team featuring Mark Blount as a number one post option, Mihm couldn't even get regular minutes and he couldn't even play well enough to start. He sucks, plain and simple. He has done nothing on the court to show that he's anything more than a bench player.

Rasho has disappointed, but there is a reason he's making pretty good $$$. Even with his penchant for disappearing, he's still in the top half of the league at his position. He's held down starting jobs for two contending teams in the tougher conference, and he was a coveted free agent. He's a better defender than Mihm, he's got more offensive tools, and he might even be a better rebounder.

Mihm is one of the stiffest seven footers in the game. When he can even hold down a starting job, get back to me.

What's this BS about "starting positions"? Rasho didn't start in the NBA until 2002, and was so impressive after two seasons that he got traded from the Twolves, who were LOOKING to make a title run. Instead, Rasho is picked up by Spurs and has been nothing more than an adequate part time center. Who cares if the guy starts, he has averaged 24.9 mpg in his career.

Mihm has averaged 19.0 mpg in his career. His starts aren’t relevant in this discussion when he was at least playing behind a real center in Blout, while Rasho had who as the 2nd option at center in Minny? And besides, Rasho is 3 years younger and has played five seasons in the NBA to Mihm's four seasons. Through Rasho's first 4 years, his stats and mpg were identical to Mihm's first 4 seasons.

And Mihm still had better per 48 stats last season, which should never happen if Rasho were actually that much better than Mihm.

[Man in Black1]

:brotha

UMMM...kEVIN, Are you trying to emulate Laker Lanny by not knowing WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

What's this BS about "starting positions"? Rasho didn't start in the NBA until 2002, and was so impressive after two seasons that he got traded from the Twolves, who were LOOKING to make a title run.

First let me say this...WHAT THE **** HAS CHRIS MIHM EVER ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NBA? Answer JACK SHIT- Try as anyone might to put down the Slovene, the team D was #1 with him in the paint
:A

As for you Kevin- It worked out like so:
espn.go.com/nba/news/2003...80271.html (http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0713/1580271.html)

Nesterovic already has a seven-year offer on the table worth more than $50 million from the Wolves, who desperately want to keep Nesterovic alongside Kevin Garnett on their front line.
He signed for 6 years 42 Million. In short, Rasho took less to play with a better TEAM.

[Kevin Kaster]

First let me say this...WHAT THE **** HAS CHRIS MIHM EVER ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NBA? Answer JACK SHIT- Try as anyone might to put down the Slovene, the team D was #1 with him in the paint.

No, the team D was #1 with Duncan in the paint. I could play center and the Spurs would still be #1 in FG% against. Talk about not knowing what the hell you're talking about. :lol


He signed for 6 years 42 Million. In short, Rasho took less to play with a better TEAM.

And yet the Twolves got deeper into the playoffs than the Spurs did last season. Looks like Rasho was on the wrong team. That said, I believe the Spurs are better, but you don't really know if Rasho went to the Spurs because he thought they were the better team. And he still ended up getting a worse contract with the Spurs compared to what he could have gotten with the Twolves.

That said, I'll admit I was mistaken about the Twolves not wanting him, I don't remember Minny being that desperate.

[Tawnia79]

Duncan's a terrible FT shooter too but if you don't give him the ball down low your just stupid. Its not like even if he misses all of them the other team is homefree. Guys foul out and put the team over the limit to allow others to shoot FT when a non-shooting foul is called

I wasn't saying that because Shaq had a poor ft % that he shouldn't get the ball, I was saying that he DID get the ball, and took well over 18 shots per game most of the time. Shot attempts that result in a foul don't count in your totals. Therefore, if he's averaging 18 shot attempts per game with 10 ft attempts, you COULD say that he's averaging 23 shots per game if each of those ft's were the result of a foul on a shot and not an "and 1" foul or a hack a shaq foul. Since they don't keep stats on that we'll never know for sure.

[SickDSM]

Well Tawnia i pointed out that even if shaq was shooting 85 % it still results in less points for the lakers than if shaq was getting the amount of touches that Kobe has been. And i tell you what, the only thing stopping that from happaning is kobe's ego. FTA were figured in.

More touches for Shaq = more points for the lakers than if kobe was shooting them.

You can't deny this.

[SickDSM]

For the record you guys aren't forgetting the tax issue in Texas are you? A comparable contract in MN really results in more money in texas although i'm unsure how much.

[Tawnia79]

Kobe shoots a lot, I'm not denying that... but the difference in your scenario is small, within 1 or 2 points. So if you want to argue that they'd get less points and base it on a 1-2 point difference, go for it. But let's not ever kid ourselves into believing that Shaq could ever shoot 85% ft's.

[Man in Black1]

No, the team D was #1 with Duncan in the paint. I could play center and the Spurs would still be #1 in FG% against. Talk about not knowing what the hell you're talking about

Explain why there wasn't a dropoff considering that Duncan only played in 69 games?
Rasho followed the D sets the way Pop outlined and that is why plus Tim, that opponents shot like shit against San Antonio.

[DHONEY]

i think the lakers will be better with the roster they have now then last (considering malone resigns)

[Kevin Kaster]

Explain why there wasn't a dropoff considering that Duncan only played in 69 games?

Um, there WAS a dropoff. Do you know what the Spurs' record was when Duncan didn't play? Do you know what their FG% against went up considerably when he wasn't in the lineup, on order of about 3%? The Spurs don't suck defensively when Duncan's gone, but they are certainly no where near elite. They're closer to good, or solid maybe.


Rasho followed the D sets the way Pop outlined and that is why plus Tim, that opponents shot like shit against San Antonio.

Like I said, it's easy to play defense when you have Tim Duncan helping you out. No one talks about the greatness of the centers that were starting with KG last season when the Twolves finished 4th in FG% against. Unless Ervin Johnson, Oliver Miller, Michael Olowokandi or Mark Madsen suddenly became above average centers? No, those are pretty much some of the worst centers in the league. And yet, Twolves finish 4th in FG% against. Amazing!!!!

[Kevin Kaster]

Look MIB, I'm not saying Rasho sucks, I'm saying he just isn't anything special. Plays poor man D unless Duncan is helping, is an average rebounder, and disappears offensively far too much. He's a very good help defender and has become a great weak side shot blocker. Otherwise he pretty much stinks like most of the centers in this league.

[Brodels]

Look MIB, I'm not saying Rasho sucks, I'm saying he just isn't anything special.

That's true. But if Rasho isn't anything special, Mihm simply sucks.


What's this BS about "starting positions"? Rasho didn't start in the NBA until 2002, and was so impressive after two seasons that he got traded from the Twolves, who were LOOKING to make a title run. Instead, Rasho is picked up by Spurs and has been nothing more than an adequate part time center. Who cares if the guy starts, he has averaged 24.9 mpg in his career.

The fact is, Rasho has been a starting center on contending teams for the past few years. Minny and SA have been among the best teams in the league, and he's been the anchor in the middle.


Mihm has averaged 19.0 mpg in his career. His starts aren’t relevant in this discussion when he was at least playing behind a real center in Blout, while Rasho had who as the 2nd option at center in Minny? And besides, Rasho is 3 years younger and has played five seasons in the NBA to Mihm's four seasons. Through Rasho's first 4 years, his stats and mpg were identical to Mihm's first 4 seasons.

It doesn't matter that Rasho is older or has been playing more minutes. The facts remain the same. He's been better than Mihm. Will Mihm be as good as Rasho in two more years? It's possible. But what Rasho did or didn't do during his first few years in the league is not relevant. Right now, Rasho is better. Mihm may not ever be as good as Rasho. We don't know. As of right now, Mihm isn't worth a crap. Could that change? Yes. Will it? I certainly wouldn't count on it.


And Mihm still had better per 48 stats last season, which should never happen if Rasho were actually that much better than Mihm.

Mihm has had trouble getting minutes on the crappiest teams in the league. The Celtics had hardly any frontcourt depth. Rasho has gotten more minutes on the league's top teams. That's the difference. If "per 48" stats really mattered, you could argue that several garbage time players are better than, say, Kobe.

If you want to continue to argue that Mihm is worth a crap, I encourage you to continue making yourself look foolish. You're making Laker Lanny look smart.

[Kevin Kaster]

v
That's true. But if Rasho isn't anything special, Mihm simply sucks.

Stats and common sense argue otherwise. Neither are within your intellectual reach.


The fact is, Rasho has been a starting center on contending teams for the past few years.

Already addressed, but apparently you have trouble reading. As I said before, KG had dominant centers like Ervin Johnson, Oliver Miller, Mark Madsen, and the Kandi-man this past season, and the Twolves were still able to finish 4th in FG% against. Man, talk about centers that can anchor a defense!!!

In other words, you just lost that argument. :lol


Minny and SA have been among the best teams in the league, and he's been the anchor in the middle.

When the hell was Minny considered "among the best" teams in the league in any year Rasho played for them, including his last season there in 2002-2003? Are consistent first round exit teams "among the best"? Can you say hell no?


It doesn't matter that Rasho is older or has been playing more minutes.

Yes, it does. Any logical, sane person takes into account how many years a player has been in the league and how old they are when making a comparison between players. You're an idiot if they think age and experience mean nothing, otherwise Tony Parker doesn't stand a chance of ever getting better.


The facts remain the same. He's been better than Mihm.

No. Statistically identical. Only difference is that Rasho has played on better teams. But if that makes someone better, than Jermaine ONeal must be 10 times better than Elton Brand because he's on the 60 win+ Pacers. Anyone worth a damn will tell you Brand and ONeal are pretty close to being as good as the other.


Will Mihm be as good as Rasho in two more years? It's possible. But what Rasho did or didn't do during his first few years in the league is not relevant. Right now, Rasho is better.

Why are his first years not relevant? Why throw out seasons, because it's convenient to your argument? How do you know Mihm didn't get better over the summer? How do you know Rasho didn't get better? You don't, so you see how they've progressed over their careers, and statistically they are almost identical.


Mihm has had trouble getting minutes on the crappiest teams in the league. The Celtics had hardly any frontcourt depth.

You can't even name the Celtic centers the past couple seasons, how the hell would you know?


Rasho has gotten more minutes on the league's top teams.

No, Rasho got more minutes on one good team, last year, who ended up getting bounced in the 2nd round.


That's the difference. If "per 48" stats really mattered, you could argue that several garbage time players are better than, say, Kobe.

Really? Name ONE player who plays Kobe's position that has better per 48 efficiency than Kobe Bryant? You can't, because Kobe is actually a very good player, something Rasho clearly is not. Like I said, if he was good enough he'd have clearly better stats across the board compared to Mihm. That's not even close to the case. Mihm grabs more offensive and defensive rebounds per 48 and scores better per 48 than Rasho.

Yeah, Rasho is great, because he plays for great teams! Just like Bill Russell was better than Kareem because he had 11 rings!!!


If you want to continue to argue that Mihm is worth a crap, I encourage you to continue making yourself look foolish. You're making Laker Lanny look smart.

If anything, Laker Lanny looks like Einstein compared to your "I said so, so it must be" arguments.

[Brodels]

Pure insanity.


Stats and common sense argue otherwise. Neither are within your intellectual reach.

Show me the stats. It looks to me like Rasho shoots a higher percentage from the field over the course of his career, scores more points, gets more rebounds, blocks more shots, and plays more minutes. He does these things in the shadow of Tim Duncan. Mihm, playing behind players that comprise one of the worst frontcourts in the league, cannot even command twenty minutes per game.


Already addressed, but apparently you have trouble reading. As I said before, KG had dominant centers like Ervin Johnson, Oliver Miller, Mark Madsen, and the Kandi-man this past season, and the Twolves were still able to finish 4th in FG% against. Man, talk about centers that can anchor a defense!!!

Ervin is a better defender than any Celtic center and Kandi is better than any of the Celtic centers of the past couple of seasons. Ervin is a very fine defensive center. Rasho and Ervin are both quality defensive centers. Rasho is a little bit better offensively. That's why Minny tried to keep him.


When the hell was Minny considered "among the best" teams in the league in any year Rasho played for them, including his last season there in 2002-2003? Are consistent first round exit teams "among the best"? Can you say hell no?

Minny had the fourth-best record in the NBA Rasho's last year there. The season before, they had the sixth-best records. I consider top-six teams to be among the best in the N.B.A.


Yes, it does. Any logical, sane person takes into account how many years a player has been in the league and how old they are when making a comparison between players. You're an idiot if they think age and experience mean nothing, otherwise Tony Parker doesn't stand a chance of ever getting better.

We're not talking about comparing a rookie with a veteran. Mihm is a fourth year player. It's not like a Jermaine O'Neal situation. Mihm has actually had an opportunity to show what he can do because he's played on such crappy teams. And, furthermore, he has regressed statistically. He was better statistically his first two years in the league. Parker has actually shown improvement. Each year he adds something new to his game. His second year in the league his stats tell the story. Last season he improved his assists, played more minutes, and turned the ball over less. Those are pretty good indications that your point guard is improving.


No. Statistically identical. Only difference is that Rasho has played on better teams. But if that makes someone better, than Jermaine ONeal must be 10 times better than Elton Brand because he's on the 60 win+ Pacers. Anyone worth a damn will tell you Brand and ONeal are pretty close to being as good as the other.

As I showed above, the aren't statistically identical. Mihm hasn't put up the same numbers. Mihm HAS played less minutes, but you can't be certain that he would put up better numbers even if he got to play more. O'Neal and Brand don't tell us much here. Both play big minutes and are centerpieces of their respective teams. Rasho is starting on a quality team while Mihm can't even become the regular starter on a team without any kind of quality center. One would expect Mihm to play more minutes and put up bigger numbers. Rasho's touches are limited by Duncan. Mihm has hardly any post competition in Boston.


Why are his first years not relevant? Why throw out seasons, because it's convenient to your argument? How do you know Mihm didn't get better over the summer? How do you know Rasho didn't get better? You don't, so you see how they've progressed over their careers, and statistically they are almost identical.

I already conceded that Mihm could get better, but I haven't seen him improve. His stats show regression. Mihm could very well become as good as Rasho, but it's simply not known if that will happen. Rasho is the better player because he can do more things right now. Mihm may or may not be able to do those things. So on a team hoping to make noise in the playoffs, a sure things pays off more than potential.

Rasho took that next step after his fourth season. He convinced his coaches that he deserved more minutes. Mihm may do the same. He very well may not. Many player never do, especially big men with Mihm's skill set.


You can't even name the Celtic centers the past couple seasons, how the hell would you know?

Wrong. I lived in Boston last year and attended some games. I watched many others on television. I watched the Celtics more than any other team, Spurs included.

The best Celtic center over the past couple of years has been Tony Battie. He left at the same time that Mihm arrived, so he certainly didn't stand in his way.

Other centers include Mark Blount, Stewart, Hunter (mostly a PF), Baker (again, mostly a PF when he was there), and an injured LaFrentz. Those are some of the weaker big men in the league receiving limited minutes. Mihm couldn't stand out even among those players.


No, Rasho got more minutes on one good team, last year, who ended up getting bounced in the 2nd round.

So now you don't consider the team finishing with the fourth best record in the NBA a "good team?"

Rasho has played on better teams than Mihm has for years.


Really? Name ONE player who plays Kobe's position that has better per 48 efficiency than Kobe Bryant? You can't, because Kobe is actually a very good player, something Rasho clearly is not. Like I said, if he was good enough he'd have clearly better stats across the board compared to Mihm. That's not even close to the case. Mihm grabs more offensive and defensive rebounds per 48 and scores better per 48 than Rasho.

Well, McGrady finished ahead of Kobe in overall efficiency. He finished fifth to Kobe's ninth. As far as shooting efficiency goes, I count 15 shooting guards above Kobe. But you're confusing the issue anyway. The efficiency formula is as follows:

((Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - ((Field Goals Att. - Field Goals Made) + (Free Throws Att. - Free Throws Made) + Turnovers))

As far as I can tell, there isn't a "per 48 efficiency" stat kept by anyone. Efficiency ratings don't tell us what we need to know because they don't take into consideration minutes played.

The fact remains that even though Rasho plays with Tim Duncan, he still manages to get a good number of rebounds. Mihm plays with no great rebounders. And the original point is still relevant: Mihm is bad enough that he can't earn big minutes on poor teams with weak frontcourts. Rasho holds down a starting job on a good frontcourt on a great team.

If Mihm was really a good rebounder, scorer, and defender, he would get more minutes. The fact that he's only averaged over twenty minutes per game once in his career (and it wasn't even last year) should make you nervous.


Yeah, Rasho is great, because he plays for great teams! Just like Bill Russell was better than Kareem because he had 11 rings!!!

At least come up with comparisons that make sense. Russell and Kareem were both great enough that they could have earned big minutes on any team. They both dominated the center position.

But you do have a point. When two players put up similar numbers, the player on the better team is often considered to be the better player.


If anything, Laker Lanny looks like Einstein compared to your "I said so, so it must be" arguments.

The fact remains that despite playing with some quality frontcourt players, Rasho's coaches thought enough of him to play him starter's minutes. Even when the other options were pretty crappy, Mihm's coaches have chosen to play crap over Mihm. As a result, Rasho has scored more points, shot better from the field, rebounded better, and blocked more shots.

But don't let facts confuse you.

[Kevin Kaster]

Show me the stats. It looks to me like Rasho shoots a higher percentage from the field over the course of his career, scores more points, gets more rebounds, blocks more shots, and plays more minutes. He does these things in the shadow of Tim Duncan. Mihm, playing behind players that comprise one of the worst frontcourts in the league, cannot even command twenty minutes per game.

You're confusing a coach's decision to give minutes to a player with how good that player actually is. If that were the case, Jermaine ONeal should have started in Portland. But he didn't because, surprise surprise, sometimes coaches don't always know what the hell they're doing.

So again, per 48, Mihm has the slightly superior statistics. Look it up on nba.com.


Ervin is a better defender than any Celtic center and Kandi is better than any of the Celtic centers of the past couple of seasons.

Absolutely ludicrous. This perfectly exemplies how little basketball you must watch. Ervin Johnson and Kandi are two of the worst centers in the league, as are Miller and Madsen. Blount is better than all four of those centers have been for Minny over the years. Argue that all you want, but you’ll be arguing with yourself.


Ervin is a very fine defensive center.

Jesus, no.


Rasho and Ervin are both quality defensive centers. Rasho is a little bit better offensively. That's why Minny tried to keep him.

The only thing Ervin can do is play pretty good on the ball defense in spot minutes. He’s a poor rebounder, poor weakside shot blocker, poor pick and roll big, and a terrible scorer, averaging 1.9 ppg last season. He sucks, plain and simple. Rasho is much, much better than this stiff. But surprise surprise, the Twolves still finished 4th in FG% against without Rasho last season. Wow!!!


Minny had the fourth-best record in the NBA Rasho's last year there. The season before, they had the sixth-best records. I consider top-six teams to be among the best in the N.B.A.

Purely arbitrary. The Celtics made the playoffs with Mihm last year, so I guess that means he’s a good player? No, even if Mihm were getting regular minutes on last year's Pistons, it wouldn't say much about him as a player unless he were actually producing statistically. Rasho's production wasn't really all that impressive with the Spurs last year.


We're not talking about comparing a rookie with a veteran. Mihm is a fourth year player. It's not like a Jermaine O'Neal situation. Mihm has actually had an opportunity to show what he can do because he's played on such crappy teams. And, furthermore, he has regressed statistically. He was better statistically his first two years in the league. Parker has actually shown improvement. Each year he adds something new to his game. His second year in the league his stats tell the story. Last season he improved his assists, played more minutes, and turned the ball over less. Those are pretty good indications that your point guard is improving.

No, we’re talking about judging a player’s ability. You claimed that Rasho is better now, when their relevant career statistics are identical. You ignore their career and simply referred to the most recent season. Again, just arbitrary, you gave no reasoning.

And the fact that you continue to associate player ability with team ability is where your argument falls apart, completely. Teams do not make a player. This is a very simple concept.


As I showed above, the aren't statistically identical. Mihm hasn't put up the same numbers. Mihm HAS played less minutes, but you can't be certain that he would put up better numbers even if he got to play more.

Sure you can. Simply take a look at Mihm’s production when he got comparable minutes to Rasho last season, and the seasons before. They’re identical. This is very, very easy to do.


O'Neal and Brand don't tell us much here. Both play big minutes and are centerpieces of their respective teams.

The comparison was relevant. Until you admit that team success does not make a player, you will continue to lose this argument.


Rasho is starting on a quality team while Mihm can't even become the regular starter on a team without any kind of quality center. One would expect Mihm to play more minutes and put up bigger numbers. Rasho's touches are limited by Duncan. Mihm has hardly any post competition in Boston.

Rasho gets minutes taken away from him by stalwarts like Malik Rose, Robert Horry, and Kevin Willis. All Celtic centers are quite comparable to these players.

And Pierce takes away lots of possessions from Mihm, more so than Duncan. So your point continues to be moot.


I already conceded that Mihm could get better, but I haven't seen him improve. His stats show regression. Mihm could very well become as good as Rasho, but it's simply not known if that will happen. Rasho is the better player because he can do more things right now. Mihm may or may not be able to do those things. So on a team hoping to make noise in the playoffs, a sure things pays off more than potential.

It’s all about minutes. Mihm didn’t fit in the coach’s rotations, for whatever reason. Neither did lots of players that ended up being good. Neither did Darko with the Pistons last year, or LeBron or Melo in the Olympics this year. Blount is better than any big the Spurs had last year, besides Duncan. That includes Rasho.


Other centers include Mark Blount, Stewart, Hunter (mostly a PF), Baker (again, mostly a PF when he was there), and an injured LaFrentz. Those are some of the weaker big men in the league receiving limited minutes. Mihm couldn't stand out even among those players.

Rasho couldn’t stand out with Horry, Rose, and Willis. The guy’s middle name is mediocre, as is Mihm’s. The only way he’s more “proven” was when he blocked a good deal of shots last season. Otherwise, statistically identical.


Rasho has played on better teams than Mihm has for years.

Separate team success from player ability. Not a hard concept.


Well, McGrady finished ahead of Kobe in overall efficiency. He finished fifth to Kobe's ninth.
You were talking about per 48 being misleading, so this comment is completely irrelevant.


As far as shooting efficiency goes, I count 15 shooting guards above Kobe. But you're confusing the issue anyway. The efficiency formula is as follows:

((Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - ((Field Goals Att. - Field Goals Made) + (Free Throws Att. - Free Throws Made) + Turnovers))

As far as I can tell, there isn't a "per 48 efficiency" stat kept by anyone.

Yes, there is, right here: www.nba.com/statistics/de...Query.html (http://www.nba.com/statistics/default_48_minute_leaders/LeagueLeadersEFF8Query.html)


Efficiency ratings don't tell us what we need to know because they don't take into consideration minutes played.

Efficiency ratings don’t, but PER FOURTY EIGHT efficiency ratings takes do, obviously. That’s the whole point of per 48 (minutes). Per 48, Mihm > Rasho. Or more or less equal to, it’s close.


The fact remains that even though Rasho plays with Tim Duncan, he still manages to get a good number of rebounds. Mihm plays with no great rebounders. And the original point is still relevant: Mihm is bad enough that he can't earn big minutes on poor teams with weak frontcourts. Rasho holds down a starting job on a good frontcourt on a great team.

The point is not relevant in the least. The coach’s decision is not always the most logical decision that takes advantage of all his player’s abilities. Take Phil Jackson; during the title run, he let scrubs get minutes during the regular season they wouldn’t sniff on other NBA. The opposite is true as well; Dunleavy in Portland let Sabonis and others get minutes over Jermaine ONeal, who at the time was indeed good enough to start, as Pippen frustratingly alluded to several times during the regular/post seasons in 2000. Sometimes coaches make the wrong decisions, and sometimes they don’t take full advantage of a player’s ability. Your argument boils down to this; since the coach doesn’t give Mihm minutes, that must means he sucks. And that has been proven wrong on so many different teams that it would be illogical to argue otherwise. Unless you actually believe coaches are always right. Then again, in your world, Ervin Johnson is worth a damn.


If Mihm was really a good rebounder, scorer, and defender, he would get more minutes. The fact that he's only averaged over twenty minutes per game once in his career (and it wasn't even last year) should make you nervous.

It’s not in the least unnerving. The guy isn’t meant to be more than a part time center, playing mostly backup. He’s meant for 20-30 mpg, all depending on what Rudy wants to do with him. He may see very few minutes if Malone is back. He may see very few minutes if Divac is fit enough to player 30 a game this year. Who knows. But as I said, coaches don’t always know how best to use players, it’s a proven fact.


At least come up with comparisons that make sense. Russell and Kareem were both great enough that they could have earned big minutes on any team. They both dominated the center position.

It’s a perfectly legit comparison. To you, team accomplishments determine which player is probably better. You can’t argue stats (well, hopefully, by now you realize you can’t), so you argue team accomplishment and the 5 more mpg Rasho has gotten in his career, which has lasted one more season anyway.


But don't let facts confuse you.

The only fact here is that you’re naïve to think NBA coaches always know how to use each of their player’s abilities to the maximum. A truly, truly sad contention.

[SequSpur]

Lakers will not make the playoffs.

Rasho < Granny

Mihm sucks.

Start a new topic.

:sleep

[Kevin Kaster]

Start a new topic.


No. Go cancel your Spurs season tickets.

[Brodels]

You're confusing a coach's decision to give minutes to a player with how good that player actually is. If that were the case, Jermaine ONeal should have started in Portland. But he didn't because, surprise surprise, sometimes coaches don't always know what the hell they're doing.

So again, per 48, Mihm has the slightly superior statistics. Look it up on nba.com.

When multiple coaches decide that a player isn't worthy of playing time, you can usually assume that those coaches are correct. He didn't get the minutes in Boston, just like he didn't get the minutes in Cleveland. He had to beat out Mark Blount and a bunch of scrubs in Boston. Jermaine O'Neal was playing behind very productive players on a good team.

Unfortunately for Mihm, he doesn't play 48 minutes. Playing lots of reserve and garbage time minutes against inferior opponents for a limited number of minutes is different than starting against the best players at your position. Mihm's numbers are similar per 48 and he's played against crappier big men both because he plays in the east and because he didn't start. It's impossible to know if he could actually put up those kinds of numbers as a starter. What do we know for sure? That multiple coaches decided that he wasn't good enough to get the opportunity.

As far as I can tell, Rasho scores more, gets more rebounds, blocks more shots, and has traditionally shot a higher percentage from the field.


Absolutely ludicrous. This perfectly exemplies how little basketball you must watch. Ervin Johnson and Kandi are two of the worst centers in the league, as are Miller and Madsen. Blount is better than all four of those centers have been for Minny over the years. Argue that all you want, but you'll be arguing with yourself.

Ervin is a decent defensive center. He holds his position well in the post and doesn't get abused by other big men. He can't score, but that isn't what he plays for. He's a widebody with decent defensive skills. Kandi, when he's healthy and brings his brain with him, has a quality go-to move in the post and is decent defensively.


The only thing Ervin can do is play pretty good on the ball defense in spot minutes. He's a poor rebounder, poor weakside shot blocker, poor pick and roll big, and a terrible scorer, averaging 1.9 ppg last season. He sucks, plain and simple. Rasho is much, much better than this stiff. But surprise surprise, the Twolves still finished 4th in FG% against without Rasho last season. Wow!!!


And Ervin was a part of that. You don't finish so highly in that category without a center capable of plugging up the middle and playing some defense. Rasho is better than Ervin. But Ervin managed to do his job. And Minny had defensive help in other areas. Spree is a better defender than Wally, and Trenton Hassell made a huge difference. There are many reasons why Minny was a good defensive team.


Purely arbitrary. The Celtics made the playoffs with Mihm last year, so I guess that means he's a good player? No, even if Mihm were getting regular minutes on last year's Pistons, it wouldn't say much about him as a player unless he were actually producing statistically. Rasho's production wasn't really all that impressive with the Spurs last year.


The Celtics has a crappy record and made the playoffs in the inferior east, and Mihm didn't play much of a role anyway. Rasho held down a starting role over other talented frontcourt players.


No, we're talking about judging a player's ability. You claimed that Rasho is better now, when their relevant career statistics are identical. You ignore their career and simply referred to the most recent season. Again, just arbitrary, you gave no reasoning.

And the fact that you continue to associate player ability with team ability is where your argument falls apart, completely. Teams do not make a player. This is a very simple concept.


Career stats don't matter. Right now Rasho is better because he has put up better numbers over the past couple of years. Who cares what Rasho did five years ago? He can do more now. He's proven he can perform as a starter with those particular numbers. Mihm, at this point right now, isn't as good statistically. His numbers have regressed since his rookie year. Statistically, he's declined.

I'm not ignoring their career stats, but by looking at what a player has done recently, we can have a better idea about what he's going to do in the near future.

And a player's ability isn't necessarily associated with a team's success. If you don't understand, I'll try to put it in simpler terms: good teams usually have good frontcourts. If those teams have good frontcourts, it's more difficult for average players to get minutes because the talent level is generally higher. Crappy teams generally have less talented players. On those teams, it's usually easier to get playing time because you have to beat out crappier players.

Rasho played ahead one of the most clutch players in NBA playoff history and a former sixth man of the year candidate still in his prime. He beat out decent players. Mihm played behind an average Mark Blount and a bunch of other really crappy big men. If he was worth anything, he should have been able to get minutes over those stiffs. Is that so difficult to understand?


Sure you can. Simply take a look at Mihm's production when he got comparable minutes to Rasho last season, and the seasons before. They're identical. This is very, very easy to do.


I can't. Mihm has never gotten comparable minutes over the course of a season.


The comparison was relevant. Until you admit that team success does not make a player, you will continue to lose this argument.

Those players are among the best in the game. They are going to receive big minutes on any team. They are simply great players. Jermaine O'Neal plays with a good frontcourt, but since he's the best PF in the east, he doesn't have to beat out other players. He miles above the others. Brand plays on a crappy team. His frontcourt is crappier. He's a great player and he plays big minutes because he's a great player, not because the Clips have a crappy frountcourt. We're not talking about a backup big man or even an average power forward. These players will never have to fight for minutes, so your comparison is irrelevant.

You can look above to see why better teams usually have greater talent and why it's harder for average talent to get minutes.


Rasho gets minutes taken away from him by stalwarts like Malik Rose, Robert Horry, and Kevin Willis. All Celtic centers are quite comparable to these players.

And Pierce takes away lots of possessions from Mihm, more so than Duncan. So your point continues to be moot.


Rose is a former sixth man of the year candidate and Horry was a coveted clutch player capable of starting on many teams. Mark Blount is comparable, but the other Celtic bigs are not.

Pierce shoots the ball a lot, but because there isn't a single quality post presence on the team, Mihm could certainly get lots of touches if he proved to be effective in the post. Mihm has no competition for post touches. All he needs to do is produce a little bit and he becomes the number one post option on that team.

Rasho can never be the number one post option because he plays with Tim Duncan. Tim is going to get the touches in the post practically every time Pop or Tony decide that the ball needs to go down low. Rasho's touches will always be limited by Tim's presence. Mihm's post touches will only be limited by his inability to deliver.


It's all about minutes. Mihm didn't fit in the coach's rotations, for whatever reason. Neither did lots of players that ended up being good. Neither did Darko with the Pistons last year, or LeBron or Melo in the Olympics this year. Blount is better than any big the Spurs had last year, besides Duncan. That includes Rasho.

It is about minutes. And multiple coaches decided that Mihm wasn't worthy of getting playing time. I'll trust the judgement of multiple coaches before I trust yours. What makes you think you know more about basketball than these coaches?

Darko played behind Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, and a very capable backup in Okur. Mehmet was good enough to get a huge contract, and he came off the bench. Darko had to beat out some very talented players to get playing time. Lebron and Melo played on an Olympics all-star team. They played behind former MVP Iverson and a potential franchise player in Jefferson.

Blount is simply not better than Rasho.


Rasho couldn't stand out with Horry, Rose, and Willis. The guy's middle name is mediocre, as is Mihm's. The only way he's more "proven" was when he blocked a good deal of shots last season. Otherwise, statistically identical.

He stood out by being the starter. He played more minutes, started games, and did what he was supposed to do. And as stated above, Rasho played more minutes, had more blocks, got more rebounds, and scored more points. Explain to me how they were statistically identical.


Yes, there is, right here: www.nba.com/statistics/de...Query.html



I concede that I missed that. But I still maintain that it doesn't matter anyway. You can't just extrapolate statistics like that. Mihm got minutes against crappier players.


Efficiency ratings don't, but PER FOURTY EIGHT efficiency ratings takes do, obviously. That's the whole point of per 48 (minutes). Per 48, Mihm > Rasho. Or more or less equal to, it's close.

Per 48 efficiency stats can be misleading. Unless you believe that Damier, Camby, and Boozer are better than Kobe, they really don't matter. Even if you compare positions, it still doesn't tell you much unless you truly believe that Marcus Camby and Carlos Boozer are better than Jermaine O'Neal and David West is better than Paul Pierce. Of course, you would also need to believe that Dan Gadzuric is better than Ben Wallace.

If you believe at West is better than Pierce and Gadzuric is better than Wallace, continue to have trust in this stat.


The point is not relevant in the least. The coach's decision is not always the most logical decision that takes advantage of all his player's abilities. Take Phil Jackson; during the title run, he let scrubs get minutes during the regular season they wouldn't sniff on other NBA. The opposite is true as well; Dunleavy in Portland let Sabonis and others get minutes over Jermaine ONeal, who at the time was indeed good enough to start, as Pippen frustratingly alluded to several times during the regular/post seasons in 2000. Sometimes coaches make the wrong decisions, and sometimes they don't take full advantage of a player's ability. Your argument boils down to this; since the coach doesn't give Mihm minutes, that must means he sucks. And that has been proven wrong on so many different teams that it would be illogical to argue otherwise. Unless you actually believe coaches are always right. Then again, in your world, Ervin Johnson is worth a damn.

But you can trust the judgement of multiple coaches over time. Phil Jackson played scrubs when he was still winning 60 games and had the greatest job security in the sport. Sabes was arguably better than O'Neal at the time, and if nothing else, he certainly had better basketball instincts. I believe that the basketball assessments of multiple coaches are superior to yours. For your argument to work, you have to think the opposite.

If Mihm was worth a damn, he would be getting minutes over the scrubs he's always played behind.


It's not in the least unnerving. The guy isn't meant to be more than a part time center, playing mostly backup. He's meant for 20-30 mpg, all depending on what Rudy wants to do with him. He may see very few minutes if Malone is back. He may see very few minutes if Divac is fit enough to player 30 a game this year. Who knows. But as I said, coaches don't always know how best to use players, it's a proven fact.

If he's meant to be a career backup, then you have to concede that Rasho is better. Rasho has been a starter on two very good teams. Minny offered him a lot of money to stay. The defending champions (at the time) offered him a bunch as well. Rasho is a starter in the NBA. That's the way it is. If Mihm is meant to be a backup, then he's certainly inferior.

And don't pretend that the Lakers have any significant frontcourt depth. Vlade is at the very end of his career, Grant's health and effectivenss is a concern, and Malone may or may not return. The Lakers don't have a great frontcourt. If Mihm is capable of delivering, he'll certainly get the opportunity.


It's a perfectly legit comparison. To you, team accomplishments determine which player is probably better. You can't argue stats (well, hopefully, by now you realize you can't), so you argue team accomplishment and the 5 more mpg Rasho has gotten in his career, which has lasted one more season anyway.

The fact remains that Rasho has gotten more minutes playing ahead of better players. Mihm has had to beat out crappier players and he's received less minutes. And that's true for multiple coaches. You can't deny that good teams generally have more talent than crappier teams. Mihm has had it easy and he still hasn't been able to deliver.


The only fact here is that you're naïve to think NBA coaches always know how to use each of their player's abilities to the maximum. A truly, truly sad contention.

If you want to continue to believe that multiple coaches couldn't figure out how to use Mihm, please do so. But in the NBA, if you're good enough to produce, you'll generally play minutes if you play with crappy frontcourt players on your team.

Continue to believe that you know something about Mihm that multiple coaches don't. After all, they see him in practice every day, watch every one of his games, and thoroughly know his strengths and weaknesses. And you? Well, you're a basketball fan. Of course you would know more...

[Medvedenko]

Rasho and Mihm both suck....let's all debate on who sucks less...please it's over. We'll all soon find out this coming season, now won't we.
Slava>Mihm and Rasho, nuff said.

[SpursFanInAustin]

Let's put this argument to rest about Rasho vs. Mihm. Kevin kaster, do you still believe that Mihm is on the same level as Rasho after reading this boxscore? Look at who the two starting centers were this game.

basketballreference.com/t...118&tm=Bos (http://basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=2003&b=20040118&tm=Bos)

[Brodels]

:lol I was at that game. The Celtics (and Mihm's) defense was so bad that Rasho and Tony could do whatever they wanted to. The lane was absolutely wide open.

I felt ripped off. It's always good to see the Spurs, but I expected to see a decent game.

[Man in Black1]

Per 48 ratings are a fallacy in the following sense:


A note on Per-48 Stats:

Per-48 Minute stats are figured for individuals only by diving the season total by the number of minutes a player played and multiplying by 48. Per-48 Minute stats are basically per-minute stats. They are expressed as per-48 so that the resulting averages are easier to deal with - "16 points per 48 minutes" is easier to read and understand than ".333 points per minute".

When using per-48 stats, keep in mind that it is not meant to be a projection of what a player would average if he played 48 minutes per game, it is simply an expression of per-minute stats.When comparing players using per-48 stats, remember that the larger the disparity in minutes played, the less reliable the comparison will be. And also keep in mind that the fewer minutes a player has played, the less likely his per-48 stats are to reflect what he'd accomplish in extended time.

The bolded part applies to Mihm.

Using the NBA's own Efficiency ratings:
Nesterovic=13.83
Mihm=8.88