# better without livingston: agree or disagree...



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

here are some thoughts from another clipper related site regarding livingston...more specifically, that we have been better without him, and that his injury and absence has actually helped the team...do you guy agree or disagree???



> Has anyone noticed how the improvement in the Clippers' play has coincided withe Shaun Livingston going down. I know there are a lot of Livingston lovers out there but I think the situation with him had turned into a soap opera. "He is improving", "he's not improving enough", "he should be better", "he isn't doing as well as other point guards who have been in the league as long or for less time". It seemed that the Clippers were going to force feed him even if it wasn't working. I'm sure some of the other players didn't take too kindly to the Clippers making him an untouchable in spite of his lack of scheduled improvement. How long do you go with a player until you say maybe we should rethink our situation. Now we have two PG's who may not be great but we know what to expect. They are not afraid to shoot even though they may not be the greatest shooters. At least they keep the opposition honest. At least we don't have we don't have Ralph and Mike saying how good Shaun is and then having him miss shots, not finish and then walk up the court looking like a deer caught in headlights. I may be wrong but just look at the results.





> It's not so much getting to the promised land with Ewing and Hart, it's not having the distraction of a Shaun/Sam soap opera, creating less of a mental distraction and therefore better chemistry. Sure, having Maggette in the line up and him playing better has made a lot of difference but getting rid of these side issues has done a lot also. I am not happy to see a good guy like Shaun go down, but through no fault of his own the way management was force feeding him was a distraction, like it or not.


----------



## Free Arsenal (Nov 8, 2004)

Name of the site please? :biggrin: 

I agree though, Livingston should have went to college.


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

Lets not kick a man in the balls when he is down and out. Come on now.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

DaFranchise said:


> Lets not kick a man in the balls when he is down and out. Come on now.


That $10 million by age 21 will most likely soften the blow. Especially while only playing slightly over 50% of each season... get real, the kid wasn't going to become anything "special". There was always reports about him not working hard on his conditioning and the clippers fans/team/organization were the ones to pay for it. 

And if you think i'm mean for saying that, too bad, it was the dollar signs that tempted him to declare, he got paid, therefore it's a happy ending for Livvy.

But it's laughable to consider Shaun a "franchise" player, like the clippers coaches were treating him. He was nowhere near the level he needed to be to get have focus equal to (or maybe even greater than) Brand. And now that's he's gone, Maggette & others, who got largely ignored are magically playing the best basketball of their careers.

I'm damn glad the clippers don't have the opprotunity to max him out this summer. Because if the injury didn't happen, 6 years from now all you Livvy-lovers would be pissed at how an average PG is sucking up 18 mil a year.


----------



## Free Arsenal (Nov 8, 2004)

DaFranchise said:


> Lets not kick a man in the balls when he is down and out. Come on now.


I'm serious, he should have went to college, refined his game there, before even thinking of playing in the NBA.

10 million by age 21 is more than any of us has... probably.


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

leidout said:


> That $10 million by age 21 will most likely soften the blow. Especially while only playing slightly over 50% of each season... get real, the kid wasn't going to become anything "special". There was always reports about him not working hard on his conditioning and the clippers fans/team/organization were the ones to pay for it.
> 
> And if you think i'm mean for saying that, too bad, it was the dollar signs that tempted him to declare, he got paid, therefore it's a happy ending for Livvy.
> 
> ...


I guess it was all LIvingston's fault according to your assessment.


----------



## cadarn (Feb 1, 2006)

DaFranchise said:


> I guess it was all LIvingston's fault according to your assessment.


If anything it was his injury that galvanized the team, and pushed them to work harder, not necessarily a lack of skill that was really holding them back.


----------



## sipclip (Jan 21, 2005)

What has made us a better team is that Maggs is now starting.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

sipclip said:


> What has made us a better team is that Maggs is now starting.


He's also not sucking, like he certainly was at the start of the season.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

Free Arsenal said:


> I'm serious, he should have went to college, refined his game there, before even thinking of playing in the NBA.
> 
> 10 million by age 21 is more than any of us has... probably.


As much as I like Livingston, I must agree that going to college probably would have been best for him. 

The Clippers aren't better because Livingston got hurt. It's taken over a month for them to start winning...didn't they have a six game losing streak going on before or during the road trip?

There are plenty of factors. Maggette isn't playing like a selfish baby anymore, and he isn't acting like one off the court either. Plus he can actually hit a jump shot now, unlike during the first half of the season. Kaman has shown some improvement, especially on the defensive end. Mobley and Tim Thomas have been shooting much better from three point land. MUCH better. Defense is just all around better. Ewing is playing better than anyone could have expected, and Jason Hart is doing well too. These are all factors, and I'm sure there's more. I love how everybody on this board loves to point the finger at just one player or one situation.


----------



## Free Arsenal (Nov 8, 2004)

Well if Livingston's career is over, which I don't think it is since the surgery was successful, he should take the money he got from playing and go to college. Maybe he can be an engineer or a athletic clinician. Maybe even a doctor.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

i agree....
but i dont think Livingston might be able to call it a career yet, yea he made whatever million dollars, but if he wants to live the lavish lifestyle he is probably living then is gonna have to keep on getting millions....and the only way he can do that is playing in the NBA...not cuz he is any good but i am sure another team will want to take a chance on him.....
although i didnt want to see him go down like he did, it was messed up, but i think in the long run it may have saved the Clippers.....
Jason Hart is not a great PG, but he is a huge upgrade compared to Livingston....and i think once Sam retires, a Jason, Daniel and maybe a 3rd pg would be good enough to get by...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i didn't make this thread to kick him while he was down...i am one of the biggest supporters of him on these boards...i just wanted to see how the rest of you felt about it, and wanted to see some objective analysis of the current situation...

personally, i am left thinking about how good this team could be if everyone was playing at their current levels, and we had a healthy livingston...we would be that much better...he'll be back though, hopefully, brand and maggette will still be around when he returns...


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> had a healthy livingston...we would be that much better...he'll be back though, hopefully, brand and maggette will still be around when he returns...


i mean Livingston was good last year in the playoffs against the Suns but the only reason was becuz he was able to post up steve nash and take advantage of that ....but even a healthy Livingston is not that good....i cant see anything besides you being a big fan a reason as to why you would want him back on this team.....


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)

Disagree. A healthy Livingston is that good.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Disagree. Cassell has been out most of the time as well. Is it safe to say that the Clippers are better without Cassell??? Hahah, hell NO. Seems like a Livingston hater, no mention that Cassell has missed most of the games since Shaun has been out and when he has played it has been very limited. I think the argument is flawed since I doubt anyone would argue the Clippers are better without Cassell.

The reason the Clippers are playing well is because other players are stepping up big time. Just look at how well Mobley has been shooting, Brand has been putting up good numbers, Maggette is playing well, and TT has been hitting his 3's and contributing off of the bench. Not to mention key contributions from role players like Ewing. Others have been playing well due by stepping up not because Livingston is not on the court.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

lets see...i guess a better way to put it, in my opinion, the Clippers are not better WITH Livingston 

i personally think they are better with Jason Hart as a pg.....even Daniel Ewing but eh i guess this shouldnt really 
be discussed until it is sure Livingston is not coming back to the CLippers
imagine him rehabilitating somewhere then picks up a paper and some newspaper columnist suggests the same thing?
that would suck......


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

This is a VERY subjective question. Are the clippers better without livingston? Well the answer is easy depending on the parameters. 

Yes is the easiest answer if you look at the games. The Clippers have won more games they "shouldnt" have won (against better teams) without him, that with him. So just statistically its a no brainer, the clippers are better without livvy.

However, do you mean is the reason that livingston is gone the reason for the clippers improved play? I dont think so. I mean, hart is pretty much the same as livingston except for the added three point dimension. Brands improved play i dont really think has much to do with the PG, hes just hitting the shots he wasnt hitting earlier. And remember, mobley and thomas lately have been shooting lights out...again, i dont think that has anything to do with livingston. 

So statistically, yes were better without livingston. But even if livingston were still here, i think wed be exactly where we are.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> This is a VERY subjective question. Are the clippers better without livingston? Well the answer is easy depending on the parameters.
> 
> Yes is the easiest answer if you look at the games. The Clippers have won more games they "shouldnt" have won (against better teams) without him, that with him. So just statistically its a no brainer, the clippers are better without livvy.
> 
> ...



you don't think that we would be better if livingston was running the point? he had his best game as pro right before the injury, and i saw that game as a potential turing point in his career...


----------



## matador1238 (May 3, 2006)

We are better because there is no more trade rumor distraction. Maggette is starting so he is not being a cry baby. Sam has been hurt so everyone else know they need to score instead of waiting for someone else to step up. 
As for defense, they have improved so much. I guess Dunleavy has found a way to motivate them. They want to make the playoffs again. 
I am so glad we are playing like this. We can make some noise in the playoffs.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Weasel said:


> Disagree. *Cassell has been out most of the time as well. Is it safe to say that the Clippers are better without Cassell???* Hahah, hell NO. Seems like a Livingston hater, no mention that Cassell has missed most of the games since Shaun has been out and when he has played it has been very limited. I think the argument is flawed since I doubt anyone would argue the Clippers are better without Cassell.
> 
> The reason the Clippers are playing well is because other players are stepping up big time. Just look at how well Mobley has been shooting, Brand has been putting up good numbers, Maggette is playing well, and TT has been hitting his 3's and contributing off of the bench. Not to mention key contributions from role players like Ewing. Others have been playing well due by stepping up not because Livingston is not on the court.



i think this is a great point...


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

DaFranchise said:


> I guess it was all LIvingston's fault according to your assessment.


All Livingston's fault? No, other than his lack of conditioning and not strengthing his body (which many young players are guilty of), most of the problems with the clippers were out of his control.

So i don't place all that much blame on him individually. I place 90% of the fault on the clipper's management and coaching staff for having so much faith on a kid that is flashy & entertaining, but exceptionally fragile & simply isn't that good.

Without Livingston, the coaches are forced to stop living in their dream world and focus on the talented players who are ready to contribute right now. 

If Livingston was treated like a regular high schooler who wasn't ready: sent to the D-League, punished for not proper conditioning, not handed a starting job on a silver platter (at the expense of superior players). I'm not saying he'd become an all-star player, but his career probably wouldn't be over and the clippers would've had a much better season from the start.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> you don't think that we would be better if livingston was running the point? he had his best game as pro right before the injury, and i saw that game as a potential turing point in his career...


No... because last year we had Sam running the point, we were WAAAYYY better. This year, Livingston ran the point and we only won like 1 or 2 games against elite teams (with huge asterisks) and many of our wins seemed "undeserved". Now the PG spot seems to be run by committee and the team is playing the best basketball of the season.

Who cares about his best game before the injury? He's always been incredibly injury-prone, after his third career-threatening injury, I'm surprised you or anyone else still had faith in the guy. It seems like you think after a career ender like he had, he's still got a chance to come back and be "the next magic".


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> you don't think that we would be better if livingston was running the point? he had his best game as pro right before the injury, and i saw that game as a potential turing point in his career...


If i had a dollar for every time ive heard that. How many times do we hear that livingston finally has turned the corner, and this and that. Then a few games of badness. 

No, i dont think wed be better with livingston. Hart is pretty much doing what livingston has done. But dont take my word for it, just look at the stats. Livingston scored about 15% more points than hart, Livingston about 25% more turnovers than hart, Livingston blocked half a shot a game (hart zero blocks), but hart is stealing 2 a game to livingston's 1. Livingston 5 assists to hart's 3, almost 1 rebound more than hart. same free throw percentage, hart shoots more threes. 

Now, if you ask me which is better...hart and ewing, or livingston and hart, its a no brainer. 

The key of "if we would be doing better than we are now" is cassell. If we had 2006's cassell, yes i think wed be doing better. You insert almost anyone at PG here, and theyll probably give you similar to livingston/hart numbers. But cassell's contribution is harder to duplicate


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

leidout said:


> No... because last year we had Sam running the point, we were WAAAYYY better. This year, Livingston ran the point and we only won like 1 or 2 games against elite teams (with huge asterisks) and many of our wins seemed "undeserved". Now the PG spot seems to be run by committee and the team is playing the best basketball of the season.
> 
> Who cares about his best game before the injury? He's always been incredibly injury-prone, after his third career-threatening injury, I'm surprised you or anyone else still had faith in the guy. It seems like you think after a career ender like he had, *he's still got a chance to come back and be "the next magic".*



don't be putting words in my mouth...find me a post where i state that i think livingston will be the "next magic"...


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

Weasel said:


> Disagree. Cassell has been out most of the time as well. Is it safe to say that the Clippers are better without Cassell??? Hahah, hell NO. Seems like a Livingston hater, no mention that Cassell has missed most of the games since Shaun has been out and when he has played it has been very limited. I think the argument is flawed since I doubt anyone would argue the Clippers are better without Cassell.
> 
> The reason the Clippers are playing well is because other players are stepping up big time. Just look at how well Mobley has been shooting, Brand has been putting up good numbers, Maggette is playing well, and TT has been hitting his 3's and contributing off of the bench. Not to mention key contributions from role players like Ewing. Others have been playing well due by stepping up not because Livingston is not on the court.


Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!! Well said


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i don't know if anyone cares, but i checked sam cassell and shaun livingston's respective gamelogs where i discovered something quite interesting...

clippers' record with cassell as starter *15-16*
clippers' record with livingston starter *15-16*

i guess sam wasn't *that* much better...in fact, they seemed to have led the team to identical records...with the way people talk about livingston, one would think that cassell was light years ahead of him, but alas, that doesn't seem to be the case...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

here are the links to cassell and livingston's gamelogs:

sam cassell
shaun livingston


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

lol, now you're trying to say Livingston is equal to Cassell? c'mon dude... Cassell is old as hell and been playing thru injury all season long. 

Although you might be technically right, Livingston playing best basketball of his career = Old & busted & tired Cassell.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

leidout said:


> lol, now you're trying to say Livingston is equal to Cassell? c'mon dude... Cassell is old as hell and been playing thru injury all season long.
> 
> Although you might be technically right, Livingston playing best basketball of his career = Old & busted & tired Cassell.



i never said cassell is equal to livingston...just trying to show that even with cassell running the point, the team wasn't much better...if at all...

also, i love how you throw out excuses for cassell about how he is old and busted, but how about livingston??? youth and inexperience...livingston is still getting better...or at least was, until the injury...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

also leidout, i love how you always point out livy's injuries... but for cassell, injuries were acceptable as he is old, and injuries served as his excuse for poor play...now that is something to "lol" over...

"we need to get rid of livy, he is injury-prone"
"cassell is playing poorly, but it's only because he's injured, but it's okay he'll be back for playoffs"


nice...what do you call that again??? a double standard???


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

bootstrenf said:


> i never said cassell is equal to livingston...just trying to show that even with cassell running the point, the team wasn't much better...if at all...
> 
> also, i love how you throw out excuses for cassell about how he is old and busted, but how about livingston??? youth and inexperience...livingston is still getting better...or at least was, until the injury...


When Cassell gets hurt, it needs excuses, but when Livingston gets hurt, it's a blessing in diguise.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

Cassell has already done more for the team in one season than Livingston has done in his career. So yes, he gets a bit of a pass from me. Just the same, if Brand got injured and it was limiting his game, he would get a pass from me and probably almost all other fans considering what he's done for the clips.

Livingston has been getting injured since day one, and the coaches still gave him the reigns to the team knowing that he wasn't the best player and he was a huge liability. Also, Sam's injuries are nagging kind that just need rest, but if we were in the playoffs i know he'd be on the court. Livingston had already dislocated his kneecap once before (the other side), had a terrible shoulder & back injury, and finally almost completely tore his leg in half.

When an old player gets nagging injuries, it sucks, but chances are they'll be ready to play in big games.

When a college-age player gets career-changing injuries, it's a BIG RED FLAG.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

leidout said:


> Cassell has already done more for the team in one season than Livingston has done in his career.



i agree with that, but i doubt you can win any argument involving Livingston on here now since you made a thread about being happy he got injured that was a low blow and i think that made alot of people lose some "e-respecT" for you 

:lol: 

for Livingston's sake i hope he gets a chance somewhere else......


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

there is a clear split between the supporters and the nonsupporters...i see that either side will not be able to sway the other side...let's just leave it at that...i just find it funny that livingston and cassell led the team to *identical* records, and that seems to be strange as according to some people, livingston sucks...and if livingston sucks for leading the team to a 15-16 record, what does that make cassell??? and no one has adressed that point yet...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

qross1fan said:


> When Cassell gets hurt, it needs excuses, but when Livingston gets hurt, it's a blessing in diguise.



what the hell is your point again???


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

bootstrenf said:


> what the hell is your point again???


Nothing, I was just pointing out to the previously made thread by leidout and sumarizing. what his opinion on this is.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

Hah, love how you guys asked for a clear point from me, which i gave, and it seems you both ignored it and put words in my mouth. Anyways, whatever i'm done.... just like Livingston's career. :lol:


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

leidout said:


> Hah, love how you guys asked for a clear point from me, which i gave, and it seems you both ignored it and put words in my mouth. Anyways, whatever i'm done.... just like Livingston's career. :lol:


so restate your rebuttal...it sure as hell wasn't clearly stated...all you gave out was a double standard concerning cassell and livy...i provided empirical data to back my opinions up, and you couldn't argue so you "lol"ed it off...not a very strong arguement...at least others post reasons...



so you obviously find joy in livingston's injury...all i needed to know...


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> so restate your rebuttal...it sure as hell wasn't clearly stated...all you gave out was a double standard concerning cassell and livy...i provided empirical data to back my opinions up, and you couldn't argue so you "lol"ed it off...not a very strong arguement...at least others post reasons...
> 
> so you obviously find joy in livingston's injury...all i needed to know...


Fer ****'s sake.... Read post #33.

And i don't find joy in his injury, but to me he was valued far beyond his skill-level. So it's one less thing to hinder the development of the clipper's goal of a championship. Unlike you, I could really care less about Livingston now that's he's history, to me he's was just another athlete that got hurt a lot and was never that good in the first place. 

That's why i'm done with this thread... so was clear enough for you? Or do i need to put it in bright & colorful letters as well?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

leidout said:


> Cassell has already done more for the team in one season than Livingston has done in his career. So yes, he gets a bit of a pass from me. Just the same, if Brand got injured and it was limiting his game, he would get a pass from me and probably almost all other fans considering what he's done for the clips.


so what does past success have to do with this season??? 



> Livingston has been getting injured since day one, and the coaches still gave him the reigns to the team knowing that he wasn't the best player and he was a huge liability. Also, Sam's injuries are nagging kind that just need rest, but if we were in the playoffs i know he'd be on the court. Livingston had already dislocated his kneecap once before (the other side), had a terrible shoulder & back injury, and finally almost completely tore his leg in half.
> 
> When an old player gets nagging injuries, it sucks, but chances are they'll be ready to play in big games.
> 
> When a college-age player gets career-changing injuries, it's a BIG RED FLAG.


cassell has missed a lot of time this season due to injuries...and you claim he would play if it were the playoffs...just how effective would he be with these "nagging" injuries? and you claim he would play if it were the playoffs, but you have to agree that with the way our season has been going, every game has been a big game in terms of trying to make the playoffs, yet he still doesn't play...


you can go ahead and be dismissive of my post questioning your reasoning, but the only reason i do it is because your arguements are very weak and hypocritical...

feel free to not respond this time...you obviously have nothing useful to say...


----------

