I've given much more than just a counter argument that you can "see" that he is a good player. He has put together a very impressive resume. To average 25 ppg on +45% shooting for your career, that's damn good.
Is he flawless? Certainly not. But would I rather build a team around Serge Ibaka, Paul George, or Kenneth Faried, before building around Carmelo? You would be sick in the head to do such a thing.
Why does DSF do this? He is non-existent for months at a time, then suddenly decides to come here and spout off some stupid bull , get face-raped by everyone because he is too stupid to make any good points, then cry about it and leave. Rinse and repeat.
Who said shooting 45% was "good"? Thats actually really BAD for a forward. Youre just too ing clueless to realize.
Actually 45% is around the league average, and has been for well over a decade. And for a guy who is a perimeter oriented player, that's pretty solid.
Especially hilarious is how DSF picks and chooses from replies to debate with.
I'd love to hear how you would rather build a team around Serge Ibaka or Kenneth Faried before building around Carmelo, a guy who has never not led his team to the playoffs.
The league average for a PF (which Melo has played this year) is actually 47% but it doesnt matter. You just admitted that he shoots AVERAGE.
So if hes average at shooting and doesnt do anything else "well", then WHY should he be ALL-NBA? Because he shoots a lot?
Playing occasional minutes at PF when you go with a small lineup, makes you a traditional PF? News to me.
You still didn't respond to all of what I have said. Would you rather build a team around Serge Ibaka/Kenneth Faried, or Carmelo Anthony?
G - Chris Paul
G - Harden
F - LeBron
F - Durant
C - Tim mother ing Duncan
2nd team:
G - Kobe
G - Parker
F - Noah if we say pf/c spot
F - Melo
C - Gasol
3rd team
G - Wade
G - Irving
F - Blake Griffin
F - Ibaka
C - Howard
I understand what you are saying. You need a "scorer" to build around and those two arent "scorers". Yet as I've proven, Carmelo is an average scorer. Certainly not one to build around.
None are capable of being the "first option scorer" on a championship caliber team. But since Ibaka and Faried are definitely championship caliber role players, I would want them on the Suns on any day of the week, whereas theres no way in Id want Carmelo on my team.
But who's the franchise player to "build around"? The answer is none.
Now answer my question: If Carmelo is "average" at shooting (as you said) and does everything else either "average" or badly (assists/turnovers) then why should he be All-NBA?
@ a 25 ppg career scorer being an average scorer
If that is the case, then right now, the only player you would build around is Lebron James, because none of the other elite scorers seem to have the ability to lead their team to a championship. Kobe is hurt, Pierce/Dirk/Duncan are all too old, Durant is unproven, and no one else fits the bill. Dumbass reasoning.
Carmelo has been the clear-cut leader of his team for every season of his career, and has led his team to the playoffs every season of his career. I'll take that guy before Faried/Ibaka.
This is so re ed that it doesn't really deserve an answer.
Sad thing is, my lack of desire to give you an answer to a question that is so loaded with bull and bias, will make you actually think in your mind that you "won".
Then again, perhaps that is the best way to end this, with you giving yourself a public declaration of victory, only for everyone to laugh their asses off at your dumbassery, you cry and about it, then leave the forum for a few months.
If that is the case, then right now, the only player you would build around is Lebron James, because none of the other elite scorers seem to have the ability to lead their team to a championship. Kobe is hurt, Pierce/Dirk/Duncan are all too old, Durant is unproven, and no one else fits the bill. Dumbass reasoning.
Carmelo has been the clear-cut leader of his team for every season of his career, and has led his team to the playoffs every season of his career. I'll take that guy before Faried/Ibaka.
This is so re ed that it doesn't really deserve an answer.
Sad thing is, my lack of desire to give you an answer to a question that is so loaded with bull and bias, will make you actually think in your mind that you "won".
Then again, perhaps that is the best way to end this, with you giving yourself a public declaration of victory, only for everyone to laugh their asses off at your dumbassery, you cry and about it, then leave the forum for a few months.
All youve done is further proved the "YAY POINTS!" Thesis. It doesnt matter how badly you shoot or how badly you do everything else. If you score a lot of points, morons will think youre great.
As to your absurd "the only player to build around is Lebron", I already listed a plethera of first-option scorers who this season (old age or not) are shooting a better percentage and have a better point per shot rating than Carmelo. You just choose to ignore because your argument is irrational.
And yes, Im declaring victory since you obviously have nothing besides "25 points per game on 45% shooting" which is definitely nothing to brag about.
True. Too bad your eye tests suck though tbh.
Kawhi Leonard=Shane Battier
1st
Paul
Harden
Durant
LeBron
Duncan
2nd
Wade
Kobe
Melo
Griffin
Dwight
3rd
Parker
Curry
George?
Noah
Gasol
This dude just basically destroys monos/phillips argument that you have to "see carmelo" play. He even talks about Carmelo specifically:
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/22/yo...games-so-what/You watch every game. You know everything about basketball. That’s going to be your main argument against me quoting the stats. I’m here to tell you that your game watching isn’t anywhere near as helpful as you think.
You can’t see the “Invisible Gorilla”
It turns out our attention is actually limited. We can’t focus on many things at once. In a study that aptly had people count the number of times a basketball was passed, observers MISSED a person in a gorilla suit walking by. We have a limited attention we can use. When we focus on one thing we can miss others. When you watch a basketball game, you’d like to think you’re focusing on everything. News flash: you’re not! You’re focusing on the guy with the ball and while you’re doing that you’re missing tons of other things influencing the game — including potentially a gorilla attack.
Your memory is limited
Seven plus or minus two, that’s magic range for short term memory. When people are asked to remember a list of things they will progressively get worse as you up the number. If I asked you to remember a list of 20 items you probably wouldn’t even bother as you’d realize the futility of it. There are ten active players on a basketball court. Even attempting to pretend your short term memory could contain all of the needed information long enough to hold it in long term memory is a joke. What’s more, your memory can be fooled.
Your memory is ruled by emotion
The availability heuristic is a problem we have that means things that stand out in your memory will seem more important or more likely than they are. See that thunderous dunk by your favorite player? It will probably stick with you easier than that routine layup or simple tip in or even worse a boring rebound. What’s more, the fact that instant replay and Sports Center will play that again and again will help engrain it. And that prays on something else: we’re more likely to trust a memory if it is tied to strong emotion. Exciting plays, or plays that decide the game (clutch plays) will seem more relevant to us. And while all of this is happening we’re fooled into thinking they’re more common than they are. Of course, all of these points don’t even beat the kicker of it all.
Your memory sucks
At Sloan Bill James talked about basketball (see here around the 26:45 mark). While he admitted he would not be entering basketball stats, he did recount a memory of an interesting game (paraphrased below):
In 2003 the Kansas City Jayhawks lost a le game to Maryland. In this game Juan Dixon scored 23 points. He was guarded primarily by future Chicago Bulls guard Kirk Hinrich. In the thirty-seven minutes Kirk Hinrich guarded Juan Dixon he only scored four points. For the six (or seven) possesions that Keith Langford guarded Juan Dixon he scored 19 points.
There are a few problems with the story (boxscore here):
Maryland didn’t play Kansas City in 2003, they played them in 2002.
They did not play them in the le game (it was in the Elite 8 Final Four).
Juan Dixon scored 33 points not 23
Hinrich only played 29 minutes (making guarding a player for 37 minutes difficult)
Dixon was already up to 10 points by the 11:40 mark of the first half.
What makes this tale interesting is that Bill James prefaced it by saying he watched it multiple times. He also tells the shocked listeners to find the video, implying he had confidence in his memory. This is not actually meant to be dig on Bill James. I consider Bill James to be one of the best people in sports statistics. But even he is not capable of properly remembering one basketball game (and that is with multiple viewings.) This is a simple point. We do not remember things as well as we’d like to think. In fact, we can point out that one of Bill James’ biggest contributions was to help make sure many people were keeping track of stats and using the right stats. He did not advocate all of us finding the several people that watch all of the games for each team and getting an assessment from them. As I mentioned above, while you are watching your attention is divided. There is too much information for you to possibly hold and your emotions (and instant replay) are making the decision of what to highlight for you. And even after all that, your brain isn’t going to be able to store all of that information perfectly.
Summing up
I used to watch every Nuggets game. In Colorado we have a station called Al ude that plays every game. Years back I lost my job and cut my cable to save money. I stopped watching the games and started following the box scores; a decision that may have worked out for the better or worse, depending on your perspective.
But I’ve been there. I’ve been where I think I’m the expert because I see every game. I could explain why we lost despite Carmelo Anthony scoring 25 points. I could even explain that while the stats showed his shooting was poor that he actually played well. But it was all a lie, a beautiful lie crafted by my flawed brain. It’s OK to accept that we’re not perfect. It’s OK to accept that small things will influence our perception. In sports though, we luckily have tools that let us make sure we can actually see what’s going on. Of course, what I tend to see is many people ignoring these tools. It’s very much like saying you don’t need glasses because your eyes are fine. The truth is most of us have terrible vision when it comes to sports, but many of us won’t admit it. And all I’m saying is that it’s hard to convince me you’re watching the game when I know your vision is flawed.
I've never heard of a team that wins a game based on how many rebounds they got, or how good their defense was. I'm pretty sure, in the end, while those things certainly are a major help and part of the game, the only way you can win basketball games is to score more points than your opponent does.
Some people overvalue scoring, but you are severely undervaluing it here, especially to make a re ed claim like Faried/Ibaka > Carmelo.
In the end, to have a scorer with the talent and ability that Carmelo has, is not a common thing. But you can find plenty of players who rebound, defend, block shots, and hit wide open 15 footers.
lol obsessedTrue. Too bad your eye tests suck though tbh.
lol king of stupid takes
Except you are wrong on both counts.
Its quite simple to find players who are able to DUPLICATE Carmelo's shooting percentage and point per shot rating. Take for instance Vince Carter:
http://www.thenbageek.com/players/co..._ids%5B%5D=261
Likewise its easy find players who are able to score as much as Carmelo per 48 yet shoot a better percentage: lebron, wade, durant, dirk, griffin, aldridge, pierce, kobe, duncan
And all those player do something else "well" besides "score" too.
However, find me a player who is able to duplicate Kenneth Faried's rebounds, shooting percentage, blocks and steals. Who else grabs 14+ rebounds per 48, shoots over 50% from the floor and averages over 1.5 steals and 1.5 blocks per 48?
Answer: NO ONE.
Yet you think it should be "easy" to find "plenty of players who rebound, defend, block shots, and hit wide open 15 footers".
Anybody with a wild guess on what the "DA" stands for above^ ?
elite scores are rare talents in the league too, but it's not like a streaky shooting guard (like friend killer) would always help your team more than a prime bruce bowen possible would imho. the ibaka/melo comparison doesn't hold much more value than a comparison between TC and friend killer
rebounding and scoring are equally as important for you to win a game imho. the different of FG% between a elite score and an average rotational player ain't that big as you think, and if you give a role player as many shots as kobe takes in a game, he'll also average 20+ points imho. while if you outrebound the opposing team by 15-20 every game, it legitimately gives you 15-20 extra shots which will pretty well make up for the FG% gap imho
Wow, DSF just taking any tiny amount of credibility he had as a hoops fan and ting on it.
I hope for his sake he's just playing a stupid, stupid form of the Devil's Advocate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote