I predict Ice Cold Brewski will show up in this thread with a post jocking SAR...
And he'll have fantasy experts galore backing him up...because that's the only value he has.
I'd take him on my fantasy team...keep him the away from my real team though.
Are you ing stupid? Show me him making a team better...if these teams were so ty before he got there he ought to have made a positive impact on them...even without the playoffs.
Show it to me.
Stupid is thinking that just because averages 20 PPG he can help a team win.
so now you are changing your argument to say he does not make teams better. well his scoring alone makes these teams better whott. how's that for evidence? another example jason terry.. he was a loser and now he is a winner. he is scoring less with dallas so that ,acoording to you , makes him not contributing to the team.. now what whott? why don't you give us one example of 'positive impact'? at the gate? with the public? nice to see you backing away from your original statement but you cannot keep changing your argument..and for the record i have been called stupid a few times in my life..
Vancouver - 0
Atlanta - 0
Portland - 0
Like Glenn Robinson and Jason Terry, who are support players for Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki? So he would be a sucky support player because he played with other support players?
Kind of difficult to have a discussion if you ask for "proof" like you always do and then don't want to hear about statistics. Do you need a sworn statement from his mother?
Glenn Robinson
Nick Van Exel
Theo Ratliff
There are probably a couple of others I failed to mention....
If you are gonna talk then back it up.
Glenn Robinson was the key inside presence for a conference finalist that fell 1 game short of the NBA finals.Like Glenn Robinson and Jason Terry, who are support players for Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki? So he would be a sucky support player because he played with other support players?
Terry proved he doesn't suck when he got traded to the Mavs and helped them...
SAR got traded to the Blazers 50 win Blazers and they redefined suck and missed the playoffs for the first time in like 22 years...and they sucked exponentially worse when he was there for a full season.
I need you to show me a team performing better after the aquisition of SAR than they did before...Kind of difficult to have a discussion if you ask for "proof" like you always do and then don't want to hear about statistics. Do you need a sworn statement from his mother?
This mother er has played on team that won 8 freaking games for the entire season...
The Blazers were a 50 win team before he got there...they went to 500% last year and this year they are godawful.
There is exactly one time a team has traded for him and improved it's record. There is not a single time he has been traded and the team that traded him has had a worse record.
That's no evidence...how is that evidence.
He hasn't been a loser every where he has gone now has he?another example jason terry.. he was a loser and now he is a winner. he is scoring less with dallas so that ,acoording to you , makes him not contributing to the team.. now what whott?
W-Lwhy don't you give us one example of 'positive impact'? at the gate? with the public?
nice to see you backing away from your original statement but you cannot keep changing your argument..and for the record i have been called stupid a few times in my life..
My contention that he has a high suck factor is not provable, my contention that he doesn't help teams win is.
First of all, you. I'm not "talking " so stop being an immature little bag. We're discussing sports, don't take it personally and don't puff up your chest on a message board. If you'd like it to degenerate into name calling, I'll be happy to add you to my ignore list but frankly I enjoy doing this if you don't make it personal.
Now that we've got that out of the way, none of the guys you mentioned were all-stars when SAR played with them. I thought that was the question, so I looked it up. None of those guys are superstars, and they certainly aren't perennial all-stars.
With Gary Payton and Ray Allen. Not sure how this supports your argument.
With Dirk Nowitzki and a rather talented roster. Again, not sure that this lends any credibility to the argument.
Rasheed Wallace won a ring for the team he went to, and the Blazers were a train wreck. Rahim was part of the trade because he was overpaid and the salaries matched. That's his doing, but it doesn't support the argument.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so he might be bad for team chemistry, but the guy deserves benefit of the doubt. I'd be interested in seeing him go to a non dysfunctional organization.
I apologize...I got you and Razman confused.
I think you need to take a look at just which board you are on...this is the bas child of Spurs boards that can't even be mentioned on certain other boards...
It's membership consists of passionate and volatile fans who often got into arguments too heated for other boards...
I'd say a good 50% of the regular posters at this board are banned from othet boards...and that includes the two people that own it.
Do you what you want as far the ignore list goes, that's what it's there for.
Well I'd say the fact that SAR makes any team he goes to suck, pretty much gurantees no one is gonna make the AS game with him as a teamate.Now that we've got that out of the way, none of the guys you mentioned were all-stars when SAR played with them. I thought that was the question, so I looked it up. None of those guys are superstars, and they certainly aren't perennial all-stars.
Cassell and Allen...and Robinson was the guy that got them open...and he's also the guy that owned us for about 7 years.With Gary Payton and Ray Allen. Not sure how this supports your argument.
Portland had a talented roster...with or without Sheed. And like every other team...they are gonna get better after they dump him this summer...With Dirk Nowitzki and a rather talented roster. Again, not sure that this lends any credibility to the argument.
Rasheed Wallace won a ring for the team he went to, and the Blazers were a train wreck. Rahim was part of the trade because he was overpaid and the salaries matched. That's his doing, but it doesn't support the argument.
Whatever...the team declined with him there...it declined even more when he was there for a full season.
Decline, decline, decline. That's what teams that aquire him do. And there is no shortage of evidence to prove that.
Absence of winning is evidence...on the one hand you say these organizations sucked before he got there...but then you give him a free pass on them sucking worse after he gets there...If this guy could have any positive impact you would have seen it on those bottom feeders...but you see just the opposite and you see those teams actually improving or maintaining after he leavesAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so he might be bad for team chemistry, but the guy deserves benefit of the doubt. I'd be interested in seeing him go to a non dysfunctional organization.
The guy doesn't stem the tide of losing, he doesn't do anything..he just puts up meaningless numbers.
Anyone can put up numbers on a bad team. Someone has to do it...I've never heard of a team going scoreless for a season, have you?
Last edited by whottt; 04-21-2005 at 01:54 PM.
all of you are full of
Welcome to the Whottt against the world thread of the day.
This is ridiculous, whottt -- when stats back up your argument, they prove everything. When stats go against your position, they are completely meaningless.
You seem to be the only person who would argue that the Grizzlies of the late 90's, the Hawks of the early 00's, and even the recent vintage Blazers had "some pretty good talent," and that the failure of those teams to reach the NBA playoffs can be thrown almost exclusively at the feet of one Shareef Abdur-Rahim. I'm amazed.
Since your selective use of statistics allows you to drown out those who disagree with you, here's this: the facts don't support your premise.
Remarkably, in light of your contentions, the 2000-01 Hawks (the year before they acquired Rahim) won 25 games. The 2001-02 Hawks (the first year Rahim was in Atlanta -- and with Rahim as the only significant addition) won 33 games. And the 2002-03 Hawks actually won 35 games. I may be short-sighted, but that would seem to be an improvement.
In fact, the same could be said, in a general sense, of the Grizzlies, who improved their record almost every year that Rahim was there. Rahim was selected in the 1996 Draft. In 1995-96, the Grizzlies went 15-67. They lost one more game in Rahim's rookie year, 1996-97, going 14-68. But in 1997-98, they improved to 19-63. After a horrendous 1999 season (8-42), they improved to 22-60 in 1999-2000, and improved again to 23-59 in 2000-01. I realize that the records rolled up by those Grizzlies teams aren't stellar, but they certainly got better while Rahim was there.
Those teams, despite their stellar talent, didn't make the playoffs, but they did, contrary to your suggestion, improve in the W column.
I'm also aghast that to "prove" your position, you argue that those teams had all-star players, but neglect to mention that those guys were all-stars long before they crossed paths with Rahim. Van Exel played in one all-star game in 1998, in a year where every Laker but Rick Fox made the freakin' all-star team. He didn't play with Rahim until this season, some 7 seasons since his lone all-star appearance, and at that, Van Exel played in only 53 games while teamed with Rahim.
Glenn Robinson wasn't ever an "inside presence" in Milwaukee, even when he played with Cassell and Allen -- that team eerily resembled this year's Sonics, stocked with great shooters, but lacking any real inside presence. At that Glenn Robinson, who I certainly hope proves to be a solid role player for the Spurs, played one season with Rahim in Atlanta (and only 69 games of that season) -- that team actually showed improvement. Ratliff is like Van Exel, a one-time All-Star who had a great first half for a Philadelphia team that scorched the East in early 2000-01. After he got hurt, Ratliff was such a force that the Sixers traded him to Atlanta to get Dikembe Mutombo, which to me clearly suggests that the Sixers felt that Ratliff wasn't good enough to make them a strong le contender.
And you cannot be serious about Jason Terry being a vital cog to the successes of the Dallas Mavericks. Jason Terry has had a nice year, but he's a reduced form of Derek Fisher on that team. I can't imagine that anyone would think that Derek Fisher would be expected to the be the kind of talent that would put a team over the top, so I don't understand why Jason Terry could be thrown into such a category.
not to get off topic but why did Kori and Timvp get banned from the boards?
This one isn't a whottt VS the World...there are other people that realize that an impentrable cloud of losing follows this mofo around...and even if you can't blame him for his teams sucking you can certainly see that he has never improved any of them. He doesn't improve teams.
Vancouver
1995-96: an expansion team. 15 wins.
1996-97: Draft SAR. 14 wins! A decline of 1 win from their expansion year.
Impact of adding SAR: -1 win
1997-98: 19 wins. I guess if you are desparate you could claim he helped. But the addition of former ALL Star Otis Thorpe probably had more to do with it.
1998-99: 8 wins. Yes it was a shortened season, but in a full season that equals 13 wins.
1999-00: 22 Wins! Ole SAR must have really stepped up his game that season.
2000-01: 23 Wins! SAR was pushing himself to new heights of winning!
2001-02: The Grizz take a huge gamble on their playoff hopes and trade SAR. 23 wins.
Impact of SAR leaving: 0
Atlanta
2000-01:NO SAR. 25 wins.
2001-02: Add SAR. 33 wins. This is the one bit of evidence SAR has that he might have improved a team. But there are plenty of other reasons you could argue spawned that incredible turnaround.
Impact of adding SAR: 8 wins
2002-03: 35 wins Add an All Star in Glenn Robinson and another from bad health in Ratliff.
2003-2004:28 wins. The Hawks manage to part with the heart and soul of their best seasons...SAR traded at midseason. But they also lost Robinson, Kukoc, Ratliff etc.
(arguable)Impact of SAR leaving: -7 wins.
Portland
2002-03: 50 wins.
2003-04: Add "burns to win" SAR at midseason. 41 wins.
Impact of adding SAR: -9 wins
2004-05:27-55.
Add it all up and you see that SAR's teams have averaged about 25 wins per season, and the impact of adding him to teams, regardless of talent level or finish the previous season, has been 2 additional losses.
I want Rahim on this team about as much as I want to see Cheryl Miller naked. Not At All.
You're kidding me with that Otis Thorpe thing, right?
That's like saying that the big reason the Spurs finished with 60 wins in 2002-03 was the addition of former All-Star Kevin Willis. It's like saying that the Heat's record is better this year because of the addition of former All-Star Christian Laettner. That a guy is a former All-Star at some point in his distant past is not indicative of his role in a team's improvement. Come on.
And you do realize that between 2002-03 and 2003-04, the Blazers added Rahim, but also subtracted guys like Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells, and dealt with the immaturish behavior and injury-magnet tendencies of guys like Damon Stoudemire and Derek Anderson. Put any pretty good player on a team with another pretty good player/borderline all-star who happens to play the same position and replace their wings and guards with CBA types and I doubt that team will find much success. That team would look a whole lot like the Hawks did early this season, even with former All-Star Antoine Walker.
(by the way, I'm not advocating for the Spurs to bring in Rahim. I don't really see that as a favorable move -- I just don't really understand the hate for the guy. It's like saying Ernie Banks wasn't a very good baseball player because the Cubs never reached the postseason during his career.)
Depends on the stats...but I always place regular season W-L high on my priorities when combining them with statistical data. I always look at the impact a player has on a team's W-L record and it will trump the stats depending on that players role on the team. I never go entirely by stats. I never go entirely by anything. You think of every argument you have ever had with me and it's always been backed up by overall team performance.
When talking role players I defintely don't go by stats that much...
And it just depends on the stats...it really does...you'll never see me basing something on PPG and rebounds alone. Ever.
You know why I don't ever go by any one rule entirely?
Because it can do things like lead you thinking SAR helps teams win...or that he doesn't suck.
It can lead you to thinking Chris Webber can help you win a le.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics...you know? W-L over 82 games is a pretty good lie detector.
They did have good talent, have you looked at it? Especially when it's combined with a guy with his numbers. And on every team he has been on he's had at least one teamate that was an All Star at some point(usually in the seasons his teams made improvement). I am certain I didn't name every AS he has played with.You seem to be the only person who would argue that the Grizzlies of the late 90's, the Hawks of the early 00's, and even the recent vintage Blazers had "some pretty good talent," and that the failure of those teams to reach the NBA playoffs can be thrown almost exclusively at the feet of one Shareef Abdur-Rahim. I'm amazed.
Over all they do. Yes they do.Since your selective use of statistics allows you to drown out those who disagree with you, here's this: the facts don't support your premise.
That's not enrtirely true...Kukoc was added late in the season the previous year.Remarkably, in light of your contentions, the 2000-01 Hawks (the year before they acquired Rahim) won 25 games. The 2001-02 Hawks (the first year Rahim was in Atlanta -- and with Rahim as the only significant addition) won 33 games.
But I acknowledged that season earlier on my own.
You are short sighted if you think SAR had more to do with that than the arrival of Glenn Robinson and the return to health of Ratliff....See Portland and the Grizz.And the 2002-03 Hawks actually won 35 games. I may be short-sighted, but that would seem to be an improvement.
Yeah? And how is that fact not supporting my argument?In fact, the same could be said, in a general sense, of the Grizzlies, who improved their record almost every year that Rahim was there. Rahim was selected in the 1996 Draft. In 1995-96, the Grizzlies went 15-67. They lost one more game in Rahim's rookie year, 1996-97, going 14-68.
A horrendous season that backs up my point. Nice of you to just minimize that one...when it's a seminal point.But in 1997-98, they improved to 19-63. After a horrendous 1999 season (8-42),
[quote]
they improved to 22-60 in 1999-2000, and improved again to 23-59 in 2000-01. I realize that the records rolled up by those Grizzlies teams aren't stellar, but they certainly got better while Rahim was there. [/quote[
Wrong...what happened when they lost him? Nothing, they won the exact same amount of games...and this guy was akin to their franchise player.
Not really. In some cases there was drop off and I think the fact that the Gizz won as many games the year they lost him proves how little impact he had.Those teams, despite their stellar talent, didn't make the playoffs, but they did, contrary to your suggestion, improve in the W column.
That's classic FWDT...Robinson and Ratliff were All Stars like a year before they played with him....and you mention the one guy that was one quite a few years before and act like that is the rule....'m also aghast that to "prove" your position, you argue that those teams had all-star players, but neglect to mention that those guys were all-stars long before they crossed paths with Rahim.
Van Exel played in one all-star game in 1998, in a year where every Laker but Rick Fox made the freakin' all-star team. He didn't play with Rahim until this season, some 7 seasons since his lone all-star appearance, and at that, Van Exel played in only 53 games while teamed with Rahim.
And NVE still had the ability to make an impact...ask the Mavs.
Well you are wrong about that...Robinson was most certainly an inside scoring presence, with the ability to get his own shot off in the paint, post up, or do a variety of things, and he still is, and who drew double teams...he's not a defensive presence...and I never claimed he was. Robinson was a PowerForward in college by the way.Glenn Robinson wasn't ever an "inside presence" in Milwaukee, even when he played with Cassell and Allen -- that team eerily resembled this year's Sonics, stocked with great shooters, but lacking any real inside presence.
Actually...IIRC Ratliff was voted the starting C in the All Star game, had made all defensive teams previously, and he lead the NBA in blocked shots last season.At that Glenn Robinson, who I certainly hope proves to be a solid role player for the Spurs, played one season with Rahim in Atlanta (and only 69 games of that season) -- that team actually showed improvement. Ratliff is like Van Exel, a one-time All-Star who had a great first half for a Philadelphia team that scorched the East in early 2000-01. After he got hurt, Ratliff was such a force that the Sixers traded him to Atlanta to get Dikembe Mutombo, which to me clearly suggests that the Sixers felt that Ratliff wasn't good enough to make them a strong le contender.
They had a choice of him or Mutombo at a time they had the best record in the East and were on a collision course with Shaq...and I think Ratliff was already battling some kind of injury when they made the trade, that got worse after they made it...
They had the runaway best record in the East at that point(with Ratliff I might add) and had a choice to upgade their gimpy young C with a 4 time defensive POY...who doesn't do that trade?
I am not gonna argue real hard that Jason Terry is a great player, or Fish, only that they have had more success as role players than SAR has had doing anything.And you cannot be serious about Jason Terry being a vital cog to the successes of the Dallas Mavericks. Jason Terry has had a nice year, but he's a reduced form of Derek Fisher on that team. I can't imagine that anyone would think that Derek Fisher would be expected to the be the kind of talent that would put a team over the top, so I don't understand why Jason Terry could be thrown into such a category.
Last edited by whottt; 04-21-2005 at 03:39 PM.
Sorry, that is funny.former ALL Star Otis Thorpe
You may continue.
I agree that the guy has a high probablity of suck factor due to his track record, but that's about it. Time and his decisions will determine whether or not it's true.
No I'm not...True, Otis lone All Star appearance was about 5 years prior, but he had a pretty good season and made them much more tougher inside...notice what happened when they subtracted him...the Grizz win total sharply declined(even projecting it to 82 games)...and it didn't have much room to get lower.
I think Willis was a reason we won 60 wins that year...I think he was big reason we beat that Lakers that year.That's like saying that the big reason the Spurs finished with 60 wins in 2002-03 was the addition of former All-Star Kevin Willis.
I don't think he deserves most of the credit, but he definitely deserves some...but you have forgotten a lot from that season...specifically game 6 agains the Lakers.
Laettner does help.It's like saying that the Heat's record is better this year because of the addition of former All-Star Christian Laettner. That a guy is a former All-Star at some point in his distant past is not indicative of his role in a team's improvement. Come on.
NVE was still an impact player...do you not remember what he did for the Mavs?
And Robinson and Ratliff were like All Stars the year before he played with them.
Yeah..and from the looks of things that was a stupid thing for the Blazers to do wasn't it? What does that tell you about how bad this guy sucks?And you do realize that between 2002-03 and 2003-04, the Blazers added Rahim, but also subtracted guys like Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells, and dealt with the immaturish behavior and injury-magnet tendencies of guys like Damon Stoudemire and Derek Anderson.
SAR was Sheeds replacement...and he puts up better numbers...and the Blazers were loaded with guard talent. Still are.Put any pretty good player on a team with another pretty good player/borderline all-star who happens to play the same position and replace their wings and guards with CBA types and I doubt that team will find much success.
Yeah...look real closely where you are headed...you are about to start defending Antoine Walker..the only player(along with Olo) close to SAR in suck factor.That team would look a whole lot like the Hawks did early this season, even with former All-Star Antoine Walker.
I am glad you aren't, but I am concerned you are on the verge of defending Antione Walker.(by the way, I'm not advocating for the Spurs to bring in Rahim. I don't really see that as a favorable move -- I just don't really understand the hate for the guy. It's like saying Ernie Banks wasn't a very good baseball player because the Cubs never reached the postseason during his career.)
53% of the teams weren't guranteed to make the playoffs every year of Banks career. Look it up...if they could have, he would have.
whott i do not need to call you names to make you look like an idiot. come to think of it you do a fine job all by yourself when it comes to that. i will start calling you whott "the caveat" poster. where one day 50% shows you are a great shooter and the next day you can make only 1/2 of your shots so you suck.. I will be here for while whott woman..
Idiot...50% means something sometimes and others it doesn't. It doesn't mean everything....especially when it's never been to the playoffs.i will start calling you whott "the caveat" poster. where one day 50% shows you are a great shooter and the next day you can make only 1/2 of your shots so you suck
It having never been to the playoffs in it's entire career, including when it got traded to a team with a 20 year playoff streak, and in fact has usually lead to a decline in wins, means more than any other stat you can give me at this juncture...
What makes you an idiot is that you think I just have general hate on for guys that can, at times, score 20ppg, shoot 50%, and pull down 8 boards a game, while making 6 passes per game on top of it...
Those are pretty numbers...the fact that they have never lead to post season on teams with surrounding talent in guys like Ratliff, Robinson, Van Exel, Stoudamire, Bibby...etc...should tell you that something is ed up with this guy. Seriously ed up. Those numbers lie through their ing teeth.
Last edited by whottt; 04-21-2005 at 03:57 PM.
This is all I can gather from this thread.
Shareef has been on ty teams his entire career.
Shareef has put up better than average numbers during his career.
Shareef's teams have had their records improve, overall, after him joining the team.
Shareef has never played in a playoff game.
I think those are pretty factual statements. If anyone would like to infer that Shareef causes bad luck for the team he plays for then go ahead.
Wrong...you gathered incorrectly...be glad we are no longer cavemen or SW would starve.
The truth is there for those that want to see it...he hasn't improved his teams. He didn't even improve a team from it's W-L that it had in it's expansion year.I think those are pretty factual statements. If anyone would like to infer that Shareef causes bad luck for the team he plays for then go ahead.
in any case, he's not going to be a Spur, so what's all the fuss about?
File it under "Moot"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
