The Lakers might be good next season

[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 le 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.

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

When the 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 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 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 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 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 compe ion 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 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 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 compe ion 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

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 le 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.

[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 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 compe ion 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 le 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

[Brodels]

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