Name 10 players better than Dirk

[Findog]

From what I saw of those Finals (I more or less quit watching the playoffs after both of my teams were eliminated), Shaq still commands enough respect in the postseason to make it pretty easy for Wade. Also, the Finals left such a bad impression that it may subconsciously affect my appreciation of Wade's game. Talk about winning ugly.

Wade's size may make for a short career. How many injuries has he had already? (Real question. I can't remember.) I guess I dismiss him as another slashing guard. These guys usually aren't productive long term, unless they develop a reliable jumper and stay healthy. Wade is a decent shooter who may get better, but I really question his longevity.

Bottom line: I think I may be too biased to say that a short, often-injured guard is one of the five best players in the world, even if he was in fact one of the five best players in the world.

Do you feel he earned the calls he got in the Finals? I'm not questioning that Dallas didn't do enough to win the series, but you have 3 games won by Miami by a grand total of 6 points. For all the talk of choking, a lucky bounce here or there might've made for a much different outcome. Anybody who's ever played basketball knows that.

What will always stick out for me is that he averaged 8 FTAs per game in their opening series against the Bulls and it went up in each successive series, culminating with 17 FTAs per game against Dallas. Yes, he was driving to the basket repeatedly but a lot of the calls fell under the ticky-tack variety.

He's a guy who has had the next Jordan label thrown his way a lot, and in terms of his compe ive fire, playing with a chip on his shoulder and inventing slights, I agree the comparison works. But I don't think he'll ever be beloved as much as Jordan because of the way he blatantly sells calls by overflopping. Opposing fans never really got tired of the Bulls like they typically do other dynasties because of Jordan's popularity. I think Wade will always be a lightning rod for opposing fans.

[Reggie Miller]

Is it just me or has Shoals degenerated into a parody of himself at this point? Half the time I can't tell what the he's talking about. Still, great comments section. Most of the time I skip the article and head straight there.

I think he has. The notion that basketball has some great socio-political significance is ridiculous in the first place. "Analysis" of basketball through imaginary, subjective, and ever-changing criteria makes for some unbearable reading.

I guess I must be some sort of racist Neanderthal, becuase in my world view:

1. You play the game to win. Looking good and style are things that pimps should be worried about, not basketball players.

2. Writing is intended to be a form of communication, not some sort of self-congratulatory exercise. When you break down some of his pieces, they are nearly devoid of actual content. Using many polysyllabic words may make you seem clever, but they don't make you wise.

[Obstructed_View]

Wade is Manu with more athletic ability, and more opportunities to handle the ball. He earned as many, if not more, calls in the Finals than Dirk did against the Spurs. If you complain about one, you have to complain about both. The answer to both is the same: Should have played smarter defense.

[Reggie Miller]

Do you feel he earned the calls he got in the Finals?

Going by memory, no. However, I bet if we got all of the games on tape and watched them, we could find a few legitimate calls. (If nothing else, I seem to recall some deliberate frustration fouls in one game.)

Like anything else in life, you have to make your own luck. In other words, you have to be willing to penetrate the lane and take some hard hits in order to get the ticky-tack and flop-induced fouls. In a way, I have to give Wade credit for stepping up and doing what he needed to do.

On the other hand, it got pretty ridiculous. I don't like to see a guy being rewarded for plowing into a group of people and throwing up his arms at the end. One useful guideline for the refs could be, "if I swallowed this whistle, would he even have considered taking that so-called shot?" I appreciate a little gamesmanship every now and then, but I didn't like seeing a Finals decided on that margin.

[Obstructed_View]

Since the Heat won in six games, I'd say they had to do something other than get 20 free throws from a guard to win.

[Findog]

I think he has. The notion that basketball has some great socio-political significance is ridiculous in the first place. "Analysis" of basketball through imaginary, subjective, and ever-changing criteria makes for some unbearable reading.

I guess I must be some sort of racist Neanderthal, becuase in my world view:

1. You play the game to win. Looking good and style are things that pimps should be worried about, not basketball players.

2. Writing is intended to be a form of communication, not some sort of self-congratulatory exercise. When you break down some of his pieces, they are nearly devoid of actual content. Using many polysyllabic words may make you seem clever, but they don't make you wise.

No, I think being turned off by some of Shoals' more mastubatory exercises doesn't make you a racist. If anything, I get turned off by white hipsters aping hip-hop culture in some sort of ill-considered attempt to cultivate "cool." Kind of like having a Miles Davis record on your shelf that you never listen to.

Don't get me wrong, style and personality is an important, albeit secondary part of basketball. Pistol Pete is one of my all-time favorite players, and Gilbert Arenas' personality is a big part of why I like him, in addition to what he does on the court. And it's true that while the Riley/Van Gundy Knicks and Mourning/Hardaway Heat won consistently, it's no surprise that their abortions rarely show up on ESPN Classic. It was just a beating to watch those teams. People call the Spurs boring...

But ultimately he's looking at the game through the wrong lens most of the time. I hate the Spurs, but that's mainly division rivalry, envy, sort of thing. It's just facile and stupid to dismiss them on aesthetic grounds. For somebody who fancies himself as "edgy" and "ahead of the curve," it's interesting that he clings to the "Spurs are boring" meme.

[Findog]

Since the Heat won in six games, I'd say they had to do something other than get 20 free throws from a guard to win.

Riley giving more minutes to Zo after G2 went a long way.

[Reggie Miller]

Since the Heat won in six games, I'd say they had to do something other than get 20 free throws from a guard to win.

And you would be right to say that.

I firmly belive there is no such thing as being "clutch," etc. The basket you missed in the first quarter was worth the same two or three points as the last shot of the game. A game that appears to be decided by a few FTAs was almost always really decided by turnovers, rebounding, or the types of defensive plays that aren't scored (altering shots, etc.).

However, it sure looks bad when you have a guard taking 20 FTs in close games. My real point is that getting 20 FTs in a game doesn't necessarily make you a good (or a bad) player. Therefore, Wade's performance in the 2006 Finals is not that impressive to me.

[Obstructed_View]

And you would be right to say that.

I firmly belive there is no such thing as being "clutch," etc. The basket you missed in the first quarter was worth the same two or three points as the last shot of the game. A game that appears to be decided by a few FTAs was almost always really decided by turnovers, rebounding, or the types of defensive plays that aren't scored (altering shots, etc.).

However, it sure looks bad when you have a guard taking 20 FTs in close games. My real point is that getting 20 FTs in a game doesn't necessarily make you a good (or a bad) player. Therefore, Wade's performance in the 2006 Finals is not that impressive to me.

I completely disagree. One's ability to step up and execute when the pressure is highest is the most valuable commodity in sports. The very same Maverick fans that cite Dirk's newly found aggression against the Spurs to produce trip after trip to the line can't seem to see the same situation with a player in Dwayne Wade who has been known for his entire career as someone who goes into the paint without regard for his health. Manu's free throws in the fourth quarter against Utah might "look" bad to someone not smart enough to know the difference, or to someone with a rooting interest in Utah, but it doesn't change what it was, and Wade's ability to do it against Dallas was only the difference in the series because the vastly superior team didn't step up when the pressure was highest.

[Reggie Miller]

No, I think being turned off by some of Shoals' more mastubatory exercises doesn't make you a racist. If anything, I get turned off by white hipsters aping hip-hop culture in some sort of ill-considered attempt to cultivate "cool." Kind of like having a Miles Davis record on your shelf that you never listen to.

Don't get me wrong, style and personality is an important, albeit secondary part of basketball. Pistol Pete is one of my all-time favorite players, and Gilbert Arenas' personality is a big part of why I like him, in addition to what he does on the court. And it's true that while the Riley/Van Gundy Knicks and Mourning/Hardaway Heat won consistently, it's no surprise that their abortions rarely show up on ESPN Classic. It was just a beating to watch those teams. People call the Spurs boring...

But ultimately he's looking at the game through the wrong lens most of the time. I hate the Spurs, but that's mainly division rivalry, envy, sort of thing. It's just facile and stupid to dismiss them on aesthetic grounds. For somebody who fancies himself as "edgy" and "ahead of the curve," it's interesting that he clings to the "Spurs are boring" meme.

Truthfully, I am not a "real" APBRmetrician. I enjoy statistical analysis, because I believe it to be useful. Baseball was my first love, and that probably has something to do with it.

However, I would be the first to admit that my reasons for liking or admiring a particular player are almost entirely subjective and personal. For example, Reggie is probably my favorite player of all time, but never in my life did I really believe that he was even the best 2 guard in the league. Miller certainly is not the humble role model that Duncan or Bowen are.

I'm not as objective as I try to be, but I know I do much better than most sports fans. For example, I hate Kobe. (This is not an exaggeration; I really hate the guy and never get tired of pointing that out to people.) Objectively, I don't think he is the best player in the league, and there are statistics that do show that. However, I am honest enough with myself to realize that my real motivation is my hatred of all things Bryant.

[Reggie Miller]

I completely disagree. One's ability to step up and execute when the pressure is highest is the most valuable commodity in sports.

I think I must have been unclear. The ability to handle pressure is the most critical ability in professional sports. The idea that missing the last shot of the game meant more than all of the other missed shots is empirically wrong.

Here's an example of what I mean. Whether or not Bowen fouled LeBron James at the end of Game 3 did not determine the outcome of that game, nor did the fact that James missed the subsequent three-point shot mean that James is not "clutch." What is much more important is all of the other threes the Cavs missed in that game. Theoretically, the game wouldn't have even been close if the Cavs had shot 33% from behind the arc. (I understand that if you change a possession in a game that it can radically alter what "would have happened next.")

[Obstructed_View]

I think I must have been unclear. The ability to handle pressure is the most critical ability in professional sports. The idea that missing the last shot of the game meant more than all of the other missed shots is empirically wrong.

Here's an example of what I mean. Whether or not Bowen fouled LeBron James at the end of Game 3 did not determine the outcome of that game, nor did the fact that James missed the subsequent three-point shot mean that James is not "clutch." What is much more important is all of the other threes the Cavs missed in that game. Theoretically, the game wouldn't have even been close if the Cavs had shot 33% from behind the arc. (I understand that if you change a possession in a game that it can radically alter what "would have happened next.")

When you know that you have to make a play or your team loses you have a choice. Some guys consistently do one thing and others do something else in those specific instances. That's the discussion of clutch. What they did in the first half, while equally important statistically, doesn't enter into the conversation because of the lack of the associated pressure that comes with a do-or-die situation. Cluchness is, as Shaq said, making them "when it matters".

[~~Ice Man 2000~~]

What will always stick out for me is that he averaged 8 FTAs per game in their opening series against the Bulls and it went up in each successive series, culminating with 17 FTAs per game against Dallas. Yes, he was driving to the basket repeatedly but a lot of the calls fell under the ticky-tack variety.

Kirk owns him for some unexplainable reason.

[Reggie Miller]

Cluchness is, as Shaq said, making them "when it matters".

I can't figure out if I am miscommunicating, or if we just disagree. All of the points matter. A 14' jumper at the 1:58 minute mark in the fourth quarter is still worth just two points. The difference is entirely subjective. Some players handle pressure better, but people assume that they are able to correctly identify the "critical moment" in a game. That's largely a process of mythology, not emprical analysis. (I admit that the last shot of a one-possession game is pretty easy to identify.)

[CharlieMac]

Did someone say Scola? Come on now...

I can't put Lebron ahead of Dirk.

[Findog]

Kirk owns him for some unexplainable reason.

A female friend of mine that doesn't like or follow basketball at all caught a glimpse of him once and said he looks like Harry Potter on steroids. I don't know what that has to do with the topic at hand, but I felt like sharing.

[dallaskd]

I would give my opinion but im a sixers bandwagoner

[monosylab1k]

I would give my opinion but im a sixers bandwagoner

good, nobody wants to hear your bull anyways

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

[dallaskd]

Word.

[Obstructed_View]

I can't figure out if I am miscommunicating, or if we just disagree. All of the points matter. A 14' jumper at the 1:58 minute mark in the fourth quarter is still worth just two points. The difference is entirely subjective. Some players handle pressure better, but people assume that they are able to correctly identify the "critical moment" in a game. That's largely a process of mythology, not emprical analysis. (I admit that the last shot of a one-possession game is pretty easy to identify.)

All the points are worth the same, but when you score in the first half, you have the luxury of not knowing the future, so you have no pressure other than the immediate score. When time is running out, and the need to make a play becomes critical to the outcome of the game, and your number of opportunities are limited, that changes the way players react. It's the most natural thing in the world, and I'm having trouble believing you don't understand it perfectly. What Manu did in the fourth quarter of game 4 against Cleveland is clutch. It's the ability to step up by sheer force of will and competetive drive. A guy who shoots 90 percent from the free throw line might drop to 60 percent with less than a minute on the clock, and another guy might do exactly the opposite. The fact that you can sink two free throws in your driveway doesn't mean you can go into MSG when it's packed full of people and do the same thing.

[mavs>spurs2]

All the points are worth the same, but when you score in the first half, you have the luxury of not knowing the future, so you have no pressure other than the immediate score. When time is running out, and the need to make a play becomes critical to the outcome of the game, and your number of opportunities are limited, that changes the way players react. It's the most natural thing in the world, and I'm having trouble believing you don't understand it perfectly. What Manu did in the fourth quarter of game 4 against Cleveland is clutch. It's the ability to step up by sheer force of will and competetive drive. A guy who shoots 90 percent from the free throw line might drop to 60 percent with less than a minute on the clock, and another guy might do exactly the opposite. The fact that you can sink two free throws in your driveway doesn't mean you can go into MSG when it's packed full of people and do the same thing.

Well said

It's that thing that players either have, or they don't. There's no in between.

[Magic_Johnson]

Duncan
Garnett
Kobe
that's all

[Reggie Miller]

All the points are worth the same, but when you score in the first half, you have the luxury of not knowing the future, so you have no pressure other than the immediate score. When time is running out, and the need to make a play becomes critical to the outcome of the game, and your number of opportunities are limited, that changes the way players react. It's the most natural thing in the world, and I'm having trouble believing you don't understand it perfectly. What Manu did in the fourth quarter of game 4 against Cleveland is clutch. It's the ability to step up by sheer force of will and competetive drive. A guy who shoots 90 percent from the free throw line might drop to 60 percent with less than a minute on the clock, and another guy might do exactly the opposite. The fact that you can sink two free throws in your driveway doesn't mean you can go into MSG when it's packed full of people and do the same thing.

I see we are miscommunicating then. I don't disagree with you.

From a mathematical standpoint, all points are equal. Subjectively, they are not, especially when teams usually play differently in the fourth quarter (particularly the last two minutes). However, adapting to pressure is also a subjective matter. In other words, we assume that we can know the heart of a player, but we only empirically "see" the actual outcome, or the points on the scoreboard.

HYPOTHETICAL: The Spurs are scheduled to play in Charlotte, but the Spurs do not show up ready to play. At the end of the first quarter, Spurs trail by 10. In the second quarter, Ginobili takes over the game, including going 4/4 from 3 point range in the final minutes of the half. At halftime, the score is tied 45-45; Manu has 20 points in 16 minutes. In the second half, the Spurs come out re-energized, but they still do not match the Bobcats, who continue to play over their heads. In the final seconds, Manu misses a three-pointer for the win. Final Score = Charlotte 90, San Antonio 88. Manu's final line is 40/5/2 in 35 minutes with 72% shooting, incl. 88% from 3 pt. range.

In this example, was Manu "clutch" or not? Obviously, if he does not have a near career game that night, the Spurs are never in a position to win in the final seconds. On the other hand, he missed a wide-open three-pointer that would have won the game. In my opinion, the critical period in that game was not the final seconds of the fourth quarter, but the opening minute or two of the third quarter. Manu puts the team in a position to win, they pretend to listen to Pop at halftime, then the rest of the team proceeds to lay an egg in the second half.

My point is that when something like this happens, there is always a certain percentage of people who attack the player who misses that last shot. Sometimes this may be justified, but I think most people would agree that the above hypothetical tends to show just how reliable Ginobili can be under extreme pressure. In the example, the rest of the team's play put Ginobili in a situation where he had to be perfect for the team to win. Missing that last shot says nothing about how "clutch" Ginobili may or may not be.

Okay, an extreme example, I know. However, it was just this sort of thing that got me started down this path. Fans assume that we can appreciate and interpret just how "clutch" a particular player is based on their play. I am saying that you still have to look at the big picture. Since the scoreboard doesn't care when the points were scored, the "true" critical moment of a particular game may not be in the final seconds.

[Findog]

Final Score = Charlotte 90, San Antonio 88.

That would just be the Bobcats beating a team they're supposed to beat. No surprises there.