# 04-05: Kaman Top 5 7 Foot center in the NBA?



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

What do you think? I think he will have a breakout season next year, barring injury. WHere does he rate? 

First of all, Dirk and duncan i consder forwards, not pure centers.

Here is who i think are the only ones BETTER than kaman:
Shaq
Ming
Ilgauskas
Miller (questionable if hes a PURE center)

THere are plenty of 6 10-11 centers out there who are good as well, but the 7 foot pure center, who can put up decent numbers seems to be an endagered species. Kaman has the chance to be one of the few decent ones out there.

Last year, there was Ely, drobs, and others sharing time with him at the Center position. As of now, hes the ONLY center on the entire lineup. Granted, the clipps will no doubt add someone or two to back him up, but unless they get williams in the kittles deal, i doubt its anyone they can rely on for more than a few minuts a game, meaning that kaman could average probably about 35 minutes a game, up from his 22 last year.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

It think he will definetly be a top 10 I dont know about a top 5 yeat because of his inconsistency. I think in the future he will be a multiple time all-star. Too many people hate on him because he is white and not foreign. But he has soo much skills for a guy that tall.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

I agree, I think he will have a break out year as well this season that is why I don't think the Clippers will need Dampier. Kaman last year did pretty well for being a rookie center in the west. He was surrounded with big men all around him but yet he showed that he belongs on the court. Last year he was learning, this could be seen since he was often hessitant and not persistant to go to the hole when he had the ball. But he began to fix his problems throughout last season and that could be seen. From what I have seen him in summer league he has become stronger and more confident. When he had the ball he would explode to the basket and would beat the defender by being able to use both of his hands very well. He posted up, he had some nice jumpers that were well away from the basket and heck I even saw him dribble the ball up the court a few times. I see your point on how he could be a top 5 center in the league next season. I see him climbing the charts and passing some of the older centers in the league. I am not sure if he is top 5 yet but he is sure working on becoming top 5 in his future.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Note i said top 5 SEVEN FOOTER. Definately not a top 5 center next year. Thing is though, there arent many centers who are 7 foot anymore.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

'Top 5 - 7 foot center'


Gee dude, what a worthless filter you used to try and make Kaman sound good.

I mean first of all.. theres so many exceptions

Duncan - not 7 foot
Miller - not 7 foot

Gasol - PF
Dirk - F
Garnett - F


Whats there to choose from?

Bradley, Yao, Shaq, Z, Ostertag...


If you were trying to make a point, you failed miserably.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jcs83md</b>!
> 'Top 5 - 7 foot center'
> 
> 
> ...




Duncan's not 7'0? I just thought I'd mention that since you seemed to go out the way to make the person who started the thread foolish. Plus, isn't the "point" that Kaman is a pretty decent center? I surely think he is.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Oh brother. Do you have a hereditary disorder that makes you set yourself up to be owned, or is it something that you have to take pills for? Dont come onto the clippers board thinking that you can talk smack. There are a few of us on here that just WAIT for someone like you to come along...

Anyways, here goes.



> Gee dude, what a worthless filter you used to try and make Kaman sound good. I mean first of all.. theres so many exceptions
> Duncan - not 7 foot
> Miller - not 7 foot
> Gasol - PF
> ...



First of all, i mentioned that already. That there are plenty of 6'10 guys and 6'11 guys who are good out there. Also that there are 7 footers like dirk and duncan who are good, but not pure centers. So why repeat what i said rookie? Look at the point of the post. Something thats not hard to see since i said it a couple of times. The 7 foot pure center who can put up decent numbers is a dying breed, and the fact that Kaman can be considered in the top 5 of that list, is an accomplishment. 

Did you know that currently listed on NBA rosters, there are 35 players who are pure centers, and over 7 feet. Being in the top 5 of that, if he does it, id say would definately make him a decent player and valuable one in manys book. It at least makes him better thatn 30 other of his peers. 

No, im sorry....if YOU were trying to make a point, you failed miserably. My point was just as the thread title says: kaman has a shot next year at being a top 5 7 foot center in the NBA. Unless you can say something that can refute that, go home.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

Duncan's not 7 foot. Garnett is taller than him. I can put 7'0 on my driver's license and it doesnt mean that I'm 7 feet tall. In reality, he's one of those 6'10-6'11 guys that was just being talked about.

And who cares how tall your center is?? Detroit won it all this year with a 6'8 Center (Yes I know he's listed at 6'9, I can read) but I accept fact over figures. If they get it done who cares?

Should I go on the Portland board now and say that Telfair will be a top 5 6'0 or under player? It's like one of those worthless statistical breakdowns you'll see on ESPN to TRY and make a player look good.

Like a pitcher's ERA in a day game, away, on artifical grass is the best in the league... but what does that matter if he blows any other time?

It is common sense though, and I should've known that you need to hold onto some glimmer of hope being LA Clippers fans. Remember when you all thought Olowokandi was good too? Kareem couldnt even help him. You might have to pull out all the stops, and dig Wilt up to help Kaman.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Yup, must be pills....

Whether duncan is 7 foot or not is besides the point. He doesnt fit the type of player still that we are talking about since hes not a pure center. Only reason we mentioned duncan as being 7 feet, is that that is what espn lists him at. 



> And who cares how tall your center is?? Detroit won it all this year with a 6'8 Center (Yes I know he's listed at 6'9, I can read) but I accept fact over figures. If they get it done who cares?


Once again, why do you just love bringing up things that have nothing to do with the point? Is the point, how many people care how tall the center is? The point of the post for the 10th time is just that: That kaman is one of the top 5 7 footers who are pure centers in the league. Maybe with your limited cognative abilities, you cant seem to appreciate that being better than 85% of the people who fall into your category is an accomplishment, but im sure others can. I never said that a team needs a 7 foot center to win a championship.



> Should I go on the Portland board now and say that Telfair will be a top 5 6'0 or under player? It's like one of those worthless statistical breakdowns you'll see on ESPN to TRY and make a player look good.


No, you shouldnt do that. First of all, there are probably only 12-15 people who fit into that category in all of the nba. Also, i doubt telfair will put up numbers that would beat out 10 of them. I see him as possibly being the 9th-12th best from that list next year. Lets see. Being the 4th best out of a list of 35. Or the 9th best out of 12. Which is worth mentioning?



> Like a pitcher's ERA in a day game, away, on artifical grass is the best in the league... but what does that matter if he blows any other time?


Nope. Cant compare that. Were not talking about a PART or a FACET of a players stats. WEre talking about his ENTIRE package as a player compared to the entire league of players who are his positional and size peers. 



> Remember when you all thought Olowokandi was good too? Kareem couldnt even help him. You might have to pull out all the stops, and dig Wilt up to help Kaman.


He was a good player, what are you talking about. Actually, people OUTSIDE of the clippers and clippers fan base thought a lot higher of him always than we the clippers did. There was a time he was considered by some in the nba to be the second best pure center (before ming came to the leauge) next to shaq. Also the reason the clipps got him with the first pick in the draft, is because his stock skyrocketed, and he was the highest rated player at the time. Kareem? Ever thought of why he cant pay someone to hire him as a coach? Hes one of the greatest players of al time, but hes just not a decent coach. And Kaman doesnt need help. Hes one of the top 4-5 7 foot pure centers in the game, which is pretty good....isnt it funny how throughout the banter you give in your posts, you never talk about the point of the thread, nor have you tried to even refute the claim made. 

You ARE the weekest link....goodbye!


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

I think you're taking this one a little too seriously. This is not a presidential debate, I'm not 'on pills' and I really don't care about the Clippers or Chris Kaman.

I'm not trying to support or argue the fact that Kaman will be a top 5 - 7 foot center. 

I'm simply stating the fact of whether he is or not is pointless... Who really cares if he's a Top 5 - 7 foot center, He's not a Top 5 Center, and probably never will be. People are not placed at a position, on a team or in a particular league because they are in a given height range. He can be 8 feet tall, but he's still a center and not a very good one, just mediocre. 


Oh, and at least I can spell 'cognitive'.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

This just in...

Boykins is a top five PG under 6 ft.

and

Sean Bradley is a top five center over 7 1/2 ft.

Yippee!!!

I would have thought this was another Ballscientist thread if I hadn't already looked. Thread = point?


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

> I would have thought this was another Ballscientist thread if I hadn't already looked. Thread = point?


My thoughts exactly


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> I think you're taking this one a little too seriously. This is not a presidential debate, I'm not 'on pills' and I really don't care about the Clippers or Chris Kaman.


Seemed like that was the only logical explanation of why you would keep setting yourself up to be owned. Also you said it there. If you dont care about the clippers or kaman, then you have no business to be posting in this thread.



> I'm not trying to support or argue the fact that Kaman will be a top 5 - 7 foot center.


Finally you admit that you are the one deviating from the point of this thread.



> I'm simply stating the fact of whether he is or not is pointless... Who really cares if he's a Top 5 - 7 foot center, He's not a Top 5 Center, and probably never will be.


There is a point. Its that hes a rare breed. All GM's spend and waste lots of draft picks on euros and college guys who are supposed 7 foot centers, but dont pan out. There are 35 over 7 foot centers in the league, and kaman is better than probably 31 of them. If it was pointless to look for 7 foot centers, GMs wouldnt keep taking chances on them in the draft.



> Oh, and at least I can spell 'cognitive'.


Hmm...what do i want more...being able to spell, or being able to rip someone to shreads in a thread....hard decision.



> This just in...Boykins is a top five PG under 6 ft.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


Dang, apart from the screenames being almost the same, looks like your attention span and knowledge is about the same as the other guy as well. Boykins is a top 5 PG under 6 Feet. But theres also only about 5-7 players under 6 feet in the NBA, so thats not saying much. He could be in the top 5, and still be one of the worst rated ones of his kind. Same with bradley. There are only less than 5 players over 7'5, if that. However, with my point, there are THIRTY FIVE players in the class that im putting kaman, yet hes better than more than 85% of them. THATS something.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

If I only type one sentence, will you quote each word and comment on it?


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

I love it when people get torn a new one, that instead of walking away, they comment on peoples spelling, and others comment on posting styles....completely off topic. Classic.


----------



## sweendog93 (Jul 15, 2004)

*Best blond center?*

Kaman may or may not be one of the top five centers over 7 feet in the league but he is certainly one of the best blond centers. Height is important, but more important is what you do with it. Same with hair color, as Dennis Rodman can attest. 6-10 6-11 7-0 so what? And if 7 foot centers are a rare breed, why is there an average of over one per team? This thread sucks, Kaman will too and if he doesn't, he's gone when his contract is up.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> I love it when people get torn a new one, that instead of walking away, they comment on peoples spelling, and others comment on posting styles....completely off topic. Classic.


Bro, you're talking like a 12 year old. Every other sentence is "I ripped you a new one" or "you got owned." That doesn't contribute anything to the topic.

Finally, I don't think you understand what the guy is trying to say. Is there a difference between a 6'11" center and a 7' one? Not really, so why make a whole thread on it? It's useless. Chris Kaman is one of the top 5 7' centers who went to Central Michigan and has a cat named Mitten. Might as well make a thread about that. There's no point in making a thread like this. You want to do top 5 young center? Sure, that's plausible. Even a thread on top 10 overall centers would be acceptable, but using such criteria is pointless.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Kaman may or may not be one of the top five centers over 7 feet in the league but he is certainly one of the best blond centers. Height is important, but more important is what you do with it. Same with hair color, as Dennis Rodman can attest. 6-10 6-11 7-0 so what? And if 7 foot centers are a rare breed, why is there an average of over one per team? This thread sucks, Kaman will too and if he doesn't, he's gone when his contract is up.


Youre trying to be funny, yet it just doesnt work at all. First of all, because you dont know the material. The 7 foot true center who can put up decent numbers is what is a rare breed, that kaman is part of. There arent an average of one per team who is putting up numbers. The thread sucks because people like you and the others are diluting it with off topic banter. Kaman will suck? What are you basing that off of? His performance last year? His performance in the summer league? The psychic network? Also, he is the center of the future for the Clippers. I dont see them letting him go unless they have another option at center in 3 years. 



> Bro, you're talking like a 12 year old. Every other sentence is "I ripped you a new one" or "you got owned." That doesn't contribute anything to the topic.



And youre pointing this out does? Has nothing to do with age. It has to do with people who have no business posting on here doing so. Every other sentence? Count how many setences ive posted, then count how many times i said the above, and see what you come up with. The fact that the others post nonsense on here, they are opening themselves up to be owned...sometimes that is part of the fun of message boards. From your post, it seems as if you would like to stoop to their level.



> Is there a difference between a 6'11" center and a 7' one? Not really, so why make a whole thread on it? It's useless.


Yes, to GM's there is a difference, when comparing apples to apples. If you have two identical players, they go for the 7 footer. Am i saying there is a tangible difference between a 6'11 guy and 7 foot guy? Not much. But you always here about GMS looking for the next big "7 footer." Also, many of the centers who are under 7 foot, also double as power forwards...something that the people on my list dont. Whatever the case of differences between the sizes, the point is, there are 35 centers 7 foot or above out there, and kaman is better than most of them. 



> Chris Kaman is one of the top 5 7' centers who went to Central Michigan and has a cat named Mitten. Might as well make a thread about that. There's no point in making a thread like this.


Once again, terrible logic. Are there 35 other people who fall into that category in the NBA? are there even 20? No, theres none, so THAT thread would be useless.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> Dang, apart from the screenames being almost the same, looks like your attention span and knowledge is about the same as the other guy as well.


Maybe your other screenname is Ballscientist? What does this have to do with knowledge and attention span? The fact is you are making a pointless thread. Who cares if Kaman is a top 5 7 ft center? Isnt he 7 ft 3/4 inches? Does that mean he could be a top 4 center over 7 ft 1/2 inches? Who cares about that category!!!??? And yes, you have expressed much knowledge here, the height of an NBA player that is posted for all to see on NBA.com...man you are so much smarter than me. As for attention span, you obviously dont understand the concept because it has no relevance.



> Boykins is a top 5 PG under 6 Feet. But theres also only about 5-7 players under 6 feet in the NBA, so thats not saying much.
> 
> 
> > So now lets see you get owned...
> ...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Best blond center?*



> Originally posted by <b>sweendog93</b>!
> Kaman may or may not be one of the top five centers over 7 feet in the league but he is certainly one of the best blond centers. Height is important, but more important is what you do with it. Same with hair color, as Dennis Rodman can attest. 6-10 6-11 7-0 so what? And if 7 foot centers are a rare breed, why is there an average of over one per team? This thread sucks, Kaman will too and if he doesn't, he's gone when his contract is up.


Best blond center.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Hilarious...yet just as relevant.

Consider yourself owned yamaneko.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> 
> The thread sucks because people like you and the others are diluting it with off topic banter.


No, without us nobody would have posted in here.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

I'm glad we got some decent opinion in here... This guy thinks he physically injures people with his pointless posts.


Is Kaman blonde or strawberry-blonde?? That might be more criteria... He might be the best 7' 3/4" (w/ shoes) white center with strawberry-blonde hair in NBA History.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jcs83md</b>!
> Duncan's not 7 foot. Garnett is taller than him. I can put 7'0 on my driver's license and it doesnt mean that I'm 7 feet tall. In reality, he's one of those 6'10-6'11 guys that was just being talked about.
> 
> And who cares how tall your center is?? Detroit won it all this year with a 6'8 Center (Yes I know he's listed at 6'9, I can read) but I accept fact over figures. If they get it done who cares?
> ...





Let's see, should I believe that some random poster on an internet chat site knows the real height of tim Duncan? Nope. Since you sit here and try to give us an opinion as facts, anything else you say is irrelevant. 



Oh, by the way, Sebastian Telfair is over 6'0, not because of any factual evidence however, but because I say so. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

Pre-draft measurements... The guy was listed at 6'10 through his college career and hes shorter than KG.... Why does it matter? Unless you're talking about centers 7'0 3/4" and over, dont post here.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Hilarious...you could have quit while you were..er...behind, but no? Ok. We continue....



> What does this have to do with knowledge and attention span?


Beacuse 1. You thought my point was that 7 foot centers in general were a dying breed, when i posted that it was 7 foot centers who put up decent numbers, ergo your attention span was too limited to even look at what was being said in the thread. You knowledge has to be brought into question as well, as you compare completely different situations with boykins and bradley...scenarios where there are only 5 or less players in that peer group, as opposed to the one we are talking about here, which has 35.



> Isnt he 7 ft 3/4 inches? Does that mean he could be a top 4 center over 7 ft 1/2 inches? Who cares about that category!!!???


Yes. As i said, this is about those centers 7 feet and taller. He could be a top 4 center over such a minute fraction, but were talking the NBA. Like it or not, for GM's, theres a big difference between 6'10, and 6'11, with 7 feet, as oppossed to 7 feet and 7 feet 1/2 inches. Think the clippers would have given josh moore a guaranteed contract last year if he was 6'10, instead of 7 foot? Id venture to say no. Am i justifying such a rating system that has developed over the past few years? No, but its just a fact of the game today.




> No, its nothing, the rest of those 35 are mostly stiffs that get no PT. Dont get me wrong, you are prolly right about him being better...I'm just saying nobody cares if you disclude all the other centers. Let me give you an example...if I said Randy Johnson was a top 3 pitcher over 6ft 8in...who cares!!!


Um, are you trying to make my point or yours? That IS my point. That GM's keep signing 7 footers hoping that they will turn out to be great players, but most of them dont do spit. Thats what makes kaman unique. Once again, you use terrible logic with randy johnson. First of all, how many pictures of 6'8" are there to compare him to? 3? 4? Thus who WOULD care if hes better than 3-4 of them? Also, in baseball, is the difference between 6'6/6'7" and 6'8" hyped up as much as the difference between 610/11 and 7 foot? No, its not even considered in baseball. 

Therefore, your posts = (continue to be) pointless.



> Best blond center. Hilarious...yet just as relevant. Consider yourself owned yamaneko.


How so? Because someone made them selves look even more ridiculous with a comment like that? Do GM's have in their mind hair color at all when thinking of who they are going to go after? No, but they certainly get their interest peaked WHENEVER they hear about some unknown 7 foot Xr from Uzbekistan who lights it up. Granted, a whole thread could be probably made about where kaman stacks up to the white centers in the league the last few years, but thats a seperate topic, one that doesnt interest me as much.



> No, without us nobody would have posted in here.


Check again sherlock. The first two posts on this thread before the nonsense diluted it were objective posts in regards to the point and topic of this thread.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jcs83md</b>!
> Pre-draft measurements... The guy was listed at 6'10 through his college career and hes shorter than KG.... Why does it matter? Unless you're talking about centers 7'0 3/4" and over, dont post here.



Since when are you the enforcer on the boards? 



None of this would matter if you didn't blast the starter of the thread, then blast me for no reason. If you have nothing positive to contribute to the thread, then why and the hell are you posting here? If I went into every single thread that I didn't like and started insulting other posters for it, I would have been dismissed a long time ago. 



Bottom line: if all you are going to contribute to a thread is insults, don't post in the thread at all. It was a simple question, and you go and needlessly insult the poster.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

I blasted you? Whatever... Everyone is so sensitive


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> What do you think? I think he will have a breakout season next year, barring injury. WHere does he rate?
> 
> First of all, Dirk and duncan i consder forwards, not pure centers.
> ...


you cant compare centers just for the height compare all centers in the league no matter the height


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> Beacuse 1. You thought my point was that 7 foot centers in general were a dying breed, when i posted that it was 7 foot centers who put up decent numbers, ergo your attention span was too limited to even look at what was being said in the thread.


No, that is not what I thought. You need to learn how to read.



> You knowledge has to be brought into question as well, as you compare completely different situations with boykins and bradley...scenarios where there are only 5 or less players in that peer group, as opposed to the one we are talking about here, which has 35.


Just because I bring up similar but not perfect comparisons does not mean I lack knowledge...the fact is that your analogy is useless and irrelevant...an that everybody but your KNOWS. And because you dont understand this YOUR KNOWLEDGE is what is in question, not anyone else's.



> Yes. As i said, this is about those centers 7 feet and taller. He could be a top 4 center over such a minute fraction, but were talking the NBA. Like it or not, for GM's, theres a big difference between 6'10, and 6'11, with 7 feet, as oppossed to 7 feet and 7 feet 1/2 inches.
> 
> 
> > Like I said, nobody cares!!! And you are wrong about the difference between a 6'10'' guy and a 7' guy...there may not be a big difference. Who would you rather have, a big 7ft stiff like yur buddy or a 6'10'' guy with a 7'3'' wingspan and strength and plays tough like Ben Wallace? Why cant you see that your praising this guy for being over 7ft is dumb.
> ...


----------



## takeanumber3333 (Apr 18, 2004)

Ya he might be ine of the best over 7foot, but how many of those 35 others are being held onto just because of their height? How many teams keep them just because you can't teach height?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

> You ARE the weekest link....goodbye!


 Jesus atleast spell weakest right. Good god kid, get real. Kaman will put up 10/5 as carreer stats. He's never gonna be great.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

the truth is when Kaman was drafted i always think he will be another Jason Collier or another Prizbilla or Chris Mihm. But after watch this kid play i think this kid has some future maybe not a super star but a good center.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

I love it. Another person who cant seem to tackle my stance, thus brings up my poor spelling, which i have already admitted to even in this thread.

Also, funny thing is, no one is trying to say he is going to be a "great." Just a top 5 guy in his height/peer group, which I think he already is. 

Yeah, many thought he was going to be the next 7 foot white guy bust, but he held his own last year in limited minutes, and is due for an even better year now that hes the man in the middle for the clipps.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> Also, funny thing is, no one is trying to say he is going to be a "great." Just a top 5 guy in his height/peer group, which I think he already is.


I actually think he'll be a decent center, just think the "peer group" you are using is not only laughable but irrelevant.



> Yeah, many thought he was going to be the next 7 foot white guy bust, but he held his own last year in limited minutes, and is due for an even better year now that hes the man in the middle for the clipps.


I look forward to watching the Clips too. I think people are under-rating them because if Kittles and Kaman play their roles and some defense, the pg's dish the stupid ball and dont try to shoot too much, and they run things through Brand more (look at his freakin shoothing %), the Clips will be a decent team and could overachieve and make the playoffs.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> I love it. Another person who cant seem to tackle my stance, thus brings up my poor spelling, which i have already admitted to even in this thread.


My poor Spelling is because i just move to LA (I'm from Mexico)And my english is not perfect yet


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

The peer group is neither laughable nor irrelevant. How can you laugh at one of the largest and most sought after peer groups in the nba? I cant think of a "body" that is more sought after in the league other than "the 7 foot pure center." Sure, people would rather have the "6'6 pure point guard", but that peer group is VERY small. Also, the "6'8" physical specimin" (let me beat you to it: i didnt spell that word correctly) for a SG is also sought after, but there arent that many in the leauge who fit that bill. The 7 foot center is arguably one of the things that GM's take the biggest gamble on...what they scout for the most.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Kaman just keeps getting hit up with Labels, it's pathetic. Take all his 30+ numbers from last season and they are a double double, yet somehow the kid is not gonna improve, and is going to average low numbers.


News flash Kaman is the real deal, get past the white skin already you racist ****s. He scorese with either hand, he's got the foot work the soft touch and the boxing out skills.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

> I love it. Another person who cant seem to tackle my stance, thus brings up my poor spelling, which i have already admitted to even in this thread.



Dude... get over yourself


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

They say Eddy Curry is a 7'0" now so I'd rank him above Kaman as well. Kaman should have a nice season though. I've always liked him since his days at CMU.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>CiMa</b>!
> They say Eddy Curry is a 7'0" now so I'd rank him above Kaman as well. Kaman should have a nice season though. I've always liked him since his days at CMU.


Kaman isn't 35 lbs overweight right now...

It's pretty clear Curry doesn't want to be a Bull and is trying to get himself shipped out of there now...

The Clips announcers don't think he's anymore than Benoit Benjamin or Stanley Roberts, meanwhile most Bulls fans think he's baby Shaq.

Amazing offensive ability, but until he's out of Chicago, he's never going to be the player he can be.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> The peer group is neither laughable nor irrelevant.


Yes it is.



> How can you laugh at one of the largest and most sought after peer groups in the nba? I cant think of a "body" that is more sought after in the league other than "the 7 foot pure center."


Just because they are sought after does not negate the fact that there are plenty of 6'10'' or 6'11'' guys that are better C's than the vast majority of those 7 footers...including your boyfriend Kaman. That makes your whole premise immaterial. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong...I'm just saying nobody cares how Kaman ranks among the 7 footers when you disclude some of the best centers out there.



> The 7 foot center is arguably one of the things that GM's take the biggest gamble on...what they scout for the most.


True, but thats a whole other topic.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Kaman isn't 35 lbs overweight right now...
> ...


Yup.

But he's still better than Kaman.


----------



## Milk (Jun 16, 2004)

Chris Kaman will be a 18 and 10 if not 20 and 10 guy in 3 years
give him the minutes, touches, and a little more confidence and you will all see. As coach dunleavy(?) said kaman is our own Tim Duncan and just needs some time to develope. As i have said before he is one of the fastest centers in the league if not the fastest. he is a better defender than e. curry is now.
Also one aspect that everyone forgets about kaman is his heart and work ethic which is unmatched in his class. The kids a killer on the court.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Dude... get over yourself


Dude...try to comeback with something like solid factual information for once..Instead of that all we see is references to my spelling, unfound claims, and now this.




> They say Eddy Curry is a 7'0" now so I'd rank him above Kaman as well.


Ill have to research that. But remember...i based this of off ESPN's list of heights. They have him at 6'11. Also he has never been labeled "a 7 footer." 



> Yes it is.


Then prove it with facts...you cant, thats why you make statements like this.



> Just because they are sought after does not negate the fact that there are plenty of 6'10'' or 6'11'' guys that are better C's than the vast majority of those 7 footers


Um, hello? Thats something thats irrelevant to this discussion. There are also many 6'6 players who are better overall players. However, this discussion has never changed..it has always been about one thing. It has been about the most sought after peer group in the NBA. It has been about the "7 foot pure center." Quit trying to make it about something else. I guess thats the only thing you have left since you probably realized since reply 1 that you have no legitimate argument against this thread. 



> I'm just saying nobody cares how Kaman ranks among the 7 footers when you disclude some of the best centers out there.


There are people who care about this...it started to be a thread with those people until you came in an diluted it. Am i trying to say there are 6'10 centers out there not better than kaman? No. There are infact more under 7 foot centers who contribute than over 7 foot centers. However, that is a whole different discussion. One could tie these two in by saying that: "look how GM's always look for the 7 foot guy, when many still do not pan out....but look at the 6'8" guy wallace who has proven to be a decent center......." But again, this is all besides the point. No matter how you beat around the bush, the fact always remains, until the philosophy of the NBA changes, that right now, the most sought after commodity is the 7 foot center. So much so, that there are 35 of them in the nba. Kaman, has beaten the odds, and has proven himself to be in the top 5 of this group. Its a group of players that hes better than 30 of. A very noteworthy accomplishment. A very noteworthy topic.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> Then prove it with facts...you cant, thats why you make statements like this.


I already did genious...as I have said, being a top 5 7footer is irrelevant when there are shorter guys better than him. That is the facts I presented and you came back with your childish statement, paraphrasing, "not it's not." You provided your "fact" and I rebutted with facts and that was your comback..."no its not." That is why I made my statement to point out how poor of a debater you are.

Did you ever think that one could also say about Kaman that he is the worst 7 footer that actually starts? That is why your criteria is so irrelevant. There's your facts Ms. Kaman.



> Um, hello? Thats something thats irrelevant to this discussion.


Thats the point, the discussion of C's only over 7ft is lame. 



> There are also many 6'6 players who are better overall players.


That is a poor example. At least I am talking about C's, regardless of height. Whats so wrong with a 6'11'' pure center? The fact is that you know I am right, and that is why you wont address the shorter C's issue I am bringing up and you keep saying (paraphrasing), "but I only wanna talk about the ones over 7ft so I can over-rate and hype my boyfriend Kaman."



> However, this discussion has never changed..it has always been about one thing. It has been about the most sought after peer group in the NBA. It has been about the "7 foot pure center." Quit trying to make it about something else. I guess thats the only thing you have left since you probably realized since reply 1 that you have no legitimate argument against this thread.


Well since nobody wanted to discuss your topic, it has been changed. Quit crying about it. If you havent noticed, nobody is discussing your topic because it is dumb. The only people coming in here are people saying how dumb it is to exclude all the other C's and people who just wanna talk about Kaman. So nobody wants to discuss your "topic."

And duh! As I have said several times, you are likely right about Kaman...do you know how to read? 



> There are people who care about this...it started to be a thread with those people until you came in an diluted it.


Not... there is not a single post in this thread specifically addressing your "topic." They are all talking about him in comparison with all C's.



> Am i trying to say there are 6'10 centers out there not better than kaman? No. There are infact more under 7 foot centers who contribute than over 7 foot centers. However, that is a whole different discussion.


Yes, and thats a worthwhile discussion...not what you are trying to discuss.



> the most sought after commodity is the 7 foot center. So much so, that there are 35 of them in the nba. Kaman, has beaten the odds, and has proven himself to be in the top 5 of this group. Its a group of players that hes better than 30 of. A very noteworthy accomplishment. A very noteworthy topic.


Yippee!! And no, not noteworthy considering there are plenty of shorter C's better than him. The fact is that the results of your thread is what you are gonna get, people saying who cares when there are better C's less than 7ft...dont pretend we steered your thread off course...it was the course it was destined to take and the fact that nobody discussed your topic shows its not a noteworthy topic.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> I already did genious...as I have said, being a top 5 7footer is irrelevant when there are shorter guys better than him.


No, you stated it with OPINION. NOT FACT. Big difference. In your OPINION, your reasoning line makes this thread irrelevant. Its not a fact though. The fact is, that strictly with this threads main points in consideration, its a valid thread due to the facts presented about: 1. The amount of people in this group, 2. The FACT that this group is something especially sought after, perhaps even more so than any other group in the NBA. Bottom line is: your only comeback so far is based on something thats not even a part of this topic. You havent been able to refute 1. The main topic that kaman is top 5 in that category, 2. That this is one of the most sought after peer groups in the nba, and 3. that its one of the largest such peer groups int he nba. Those are the only issues of the thread, and you either have agreed with some of them, or not been able to refute the others. If you arent going to challenge either of those 3 topics, then you have no business posting in this thread. I could say there are 24 shooting guards who overall, id like on a team instead of kaman. However, unforutnately, that has nothing to do with this thread. I could say that there are 15 foreign centers, not in the nba who i think are better than kaman. Once again, not relevent. The above 3 issues are the only issues here, and if you dont want to tackle them, go home. 



> Did you ever think that one could also say about Kaman that he is the worst 7 footer that actually starts? That is why your criteria is so irrelevant.


Even if that were true, it would not take anything away from the relevancy of the issue. Doesnt matter if he was (which he isnt), fact still remains that there are 30+ others out there who are IN THE NBA who he is better than. You cant call him a big time starter last year anyway: he averaged 20 minutes a game. But yet again, you are bringing up an issue unrelated to the topic and issues of this thread. The reason why you will never win even a post in this thread is that the main issues you cannot, by definition contest, since they are solid fact. 



> Thats the point, the discussion of C's only over 7ft is lame.


Once again, its not because of issues 2 and 3 as stated above. Theres no getting around that, and you know that. Thats why you cant tackle them.




> Whats so wrong with a 6'11'' pure center? The fact is that you know I am right, and that is why you wont address the shorter C's issue


Please, show me one place in this thread where i have said there is something wrong with a 6'11 pure center. I want address the shorter C issue? I have addressed it many times. If you look at MY VERY FIRST POST in this thread, i acknowledge them, as well as the ones who play both positions. However, no matter how you cut the cake, you are still left with issue #2,3, which you continue to be unable to contest. 



> Well since nobody wanted to discuss your topic, it has been changed. Quit crying about it. If you havent noticed, nobody is discussing your topic because it is dumb. The only people coming in here are people saying how dumb it is to exclude all the other C's and people who just wanna talk about Kaman. So nobody wants to discuss your "topic."


Not crying about it. You ruined the thread...its a matter of fact, of documented history. Thread started out fine, and was going to be a very logical discussion about the topic. Once you contaminated it, it has just become a debate on other issues. Get real, no one is going to go back to the original issues of this thread after it has digressed so much. But if saying that makes you feel better, knock yourself out.



> And duh! As I have said several times, you are likely right about Kaman...do you know how to read?


Yes, perhaps you might have problems reading where i have acknowledged that as well...WHICH IS MY POINT. If you agree with the main topic of the thread, there is NO REASON to continue to debate other, irrelevent things.



> Not... there is not a single post in this thread specifically addressing your "topic." They are all talking about him in comparison with all C's.


Many have acknowledged the validity of the top 5, but even want to say that he is or could be a top 5 center over all. Now, that too is not on topic of my thread, but hey, there are kaman fans out there, and if they want to hype up their guy, i dont have any issues about that. This is the clippers message board. The problem comes in when outsiders who just want to cause trouble come on here with negative posts completely digressing the thread. 

If you want to continue to fool yourself thinking you have made any points pertinent to this discussion, continue to do so. Its been a while since ive been able to post with someone who just sets himself up in an impossible to win situation, allowing me to tear down everything stated time after time. 

However, i dont see how i could have explained the irrelevancy of your points better than this last post. Thus, im not going to beat that dead horse any longer. Until you can debate the 3 issues mentioned above, dont bother posting.


----------



## RhettO (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> I already did genious...


It's genius, genius.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RhettO</b>!
> 
> 
> It's genius, genius.


Sorry 'bout the typo. Now get a life.


----------



## RD (Jun 10, 2002)

I tend to side with stempi's argument.

Why exclude guys just because they are an inch or two shorter?

Being 7' isnt required to be a good C, and it isn't required to be a winner. 

By limiting it to 7' you are taking out a big portion of C's. The argument about C's should be about C's period, not just one's over 7'.

It's like saying Michael Redd is one of the Top true SG's 6'6 or taller.

That takes out players like Ray Allen, Allen Houston(not that he's great anyway), Allen Iverson, etc. 

I think Chris Kaman is going to develop into a Top 5 C in the league. I think he may be the 2nd best C in the league regardless of height, in 3 years(Shaq will be gone, or downhill). But limiting the available talent pool for comparison isn't the right way to make the case, IMO.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Well, since youre new to this thread, and probably havent read all the posts ill go ahead and reexplain it to you. The reason im taking out the other centers for this post is because of the HUGE emphasis that GM's place on finding the next 7 foot center. Its even become a cliche of sorts. My main points are as follows:

1. Kaman is one of the top 5 pure 7 foot centers in the league.
2. The "7 foot center" is one of the most sought after bodies in the nba, yet few people in this category end up putting up big numbers.
3. There are 35 such players in the nba last year, making it one of the biggest "small" peer groups in the game.

I do believe that a thread could be started too on the "pure" SG (not SG/SF hybrid), that is over 6'6. IMO, that is probably the second or third most sought after commodity that GM's search for. However, unlike the "7 foot center," there arent 35 of them out there, thus making it a lot less impressive if a person is of the top 5 in that group.


----------



## RD (Jun 10, 2002)

I still think you are being too selective.

Teams arent necessarily targeting pure 7' C's. They are pursuing C's PERIOD.

Teams always want big men. Whether they are 6'10 or 7' isn't a big deal.

6'11 Mehmet Okur, just signed a huge deal. He is not 7', and definitely is not a "pure" C. The guy is a shooter, and not much else. Yet, he signed a huge deal.

Adonal Foyle is 6'10 and just signed a pretty good deal, one that far exceeds his actual talent.

Eddy Curry will demand a huge contract next year, even though he is sub 7'.

6'11 Marcus Camby, just signed a ridiculous extension with Denver. He's not 7' tall, doesn't bring a whole lot of bulk, and is unbelievably injury prone. Yet, he got a deal for 10mill per.

Teams also won't pass on a player that is definitely better, just because he is 6'10, and the lesser player is 7'. I would take the 6'9 Alonzo Mourning, in his prime, over any 7' in the league not named Shaquille O'Neal.

Actually, Mourning is more proof that teams are just looking for big men. The Nets gave him a 4 year deal for 20mill, despite him having a career threatening health issue. 

Teams covet C's period. They dont exclude it to 7'. If the guy happens to be 7', that's awesome. But teams are not just looking at 7', they are looking for talent at C period. Thats why I dont think its good to limit the selection pool.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> The peer group is neither laughable nor irrelevant. How can you laugh at one of the largest and most sought after peer groups in the nba? I cant think of a "body" that is more sought after in the league other than "the 7 foot pure center." Sure, people would rather have the "6'6 pure point guard", but that peer group is VERY small. Also, the "6'8" physical specimin" (let me beat you to it: i didnt spell that word correctly) for a SG is also sought after, but there arent that many in the leauge who fit that bill. The 7 foot center is arguably one of the things that GM's take the biggest gamble on...what they scout for the most.


thats a little hypocritical to use a different comparison when bashing others for trying to as well. just because they're 7 feet doesn't necessarilly mean gm's will try to get them. and thats not opinion, thats fact. the two iranian guys over 7'6 weren't picked, and who were top 2? dwight howard and emeka, and if that's irrelevant, lets look at the guys picked top 10 for the last 5 years, shall we:
PF/C's under 7 ft. 
Chris Bosh
Drew Gooden*
Skita*
Kwame Brown
Eddy Curry
K-Mart*
Stro
Elton Brand
Odom*
Sweetney*
Nene
Wilcox
Stoudemire*

PF/C's over 7 ft.
Sagana Diop
Chris Mihm
Chris Kaman
Yao
Tyson Chandler.

its clear gm's are valuing the under 7 ft big man more. these 7 footers that are picked are ususally second round projects, ie Loren Woods. and for arguments sake lets filter out the guys who dont play C (they'll have a '*'). gm's spending a top 10 pick on these guys does show value.



> *Also, the "6'8" physical specimin" (let me beat you to it: i didnt spell that word correctly) for a SG is also sought after, but there arent that many in the leauge who fit that bill.*


now thats just wrong. i could easily name like 50 '6'8 specimen' types.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RD</b>!
> I still think you are being too selective.
> 
> Teams arent necessarily targeting pure 7' C's. They are pursuing C's PERIOD.
> ...


exactly, my post has the same point, its just less in depth and too over the top.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> No, you stated it with OPINION. NOT FACT. Big difference. In your OPINION, your reasoning line makes this thread irrelevant. Its not a fact though.


You clearly are lost. I provided a fact that there are better <7ft centers than Kaman to support my argument...if you think that is merely opinion, then you really are Kaman's boyfriend because anyone knows Big Ben and others are better than Kaman. Hence, the irrelevance...nobody cares if Kaman is a top five seven foot nose picker much less a center since there are better C's <7ft. 



> The fact is, that strictly with this threads main points in consideration, its a valid thread due to the facts presented about: 1. The amount of people in this group, 2. The FACT that this group is something especially sought after, perhaps even more so than any other group in the NBA.


I never said it wasnt a valid thread. I just said its not noteworthy, worthwhile or relevant.



> Bottom line is: your only comeback so far is based on something thats not even a part of this topic.


Well if I didnt post, you'd be talking to yourself. And it may not be part of the topic, but it is directly related. So do you think if the topic was "are Kobe's skills worth the max contract" it would be wrong to bring up the issue of him possibly going to jail...its not part of the topic, but certainly related. Topics evolve and discussions can move in any direction...just because it doesnt move in the direction you want doesnt mean you have to cry about it. You made the post to get peoples thoughts on the subject. My thoughts are that the subject is irrelevant and stupid. If you dont want peoples thoughts that may disagree with you, dont post and just talk to yourself.



> You havent been able to refute 1. The main topic that kaman is top 5 in that category


Duh, I've admitted it...learn how to read.



> 2. That this is one of the most sought after peer groups in the nba, and


Yeah, okay...



> 3. that its one of the largest such peer groups int he nba.


Huh? There are larger peer groups than 7 footers...like swingmen.



> Those are the only issues of the thread, and you either have agreed with some of them, or not been able to refute the others.


I'm not trying to refute them...if you havent noticed. Do you enjoy repeating things over and over again to yourself?



> If you arent going to challenge either of those 3 topics, then you have no business posting in this thread.


Yes I do. Show me a rule that says I cant. Besides, I may not be challenging the "topics" as you call them, but I am challenging the relevance of the subject. 



> I could say there are 24 shooting guards who overall, id like on a team instead of kaman. However, unforutnately, that has nothing to do with this thread. I could say that there are 15 foreign centers, not in the nba who i think are better than kaman. Once again, not relevent. The above 3 issues are the only issues here, and if you dont want to tackle them, go home.


Ummm, how do you know I am not home? I could be typing this at home right now and then I wouldnt have to go home. What you dont seem to understand is that the subject (Kaman being a top 5 7footer) and the premises (your 3 topics) are free for discussion. If I think the subject is stupid, I can say it. Quit crying about it.



> Even if that were true, it would not take anything away from the relevancy of the issue.


Yes it does. You could say the Nets are top five in the east, but the fact that the east sucks and is really only 3 deep and the dropoff is so far from 3 to 4...that makes it take away from the relevance. If you take all those 7 footer and give them a score on a scale of 1 to 100 where 100 = shaq...then Kaman is a 20 and stiffs like Shawn Bradley are a 15 or 10. The fact that he is closer in skill to those crappy 30 than the other top 5 shows the irrelevance of your topic.



> The reason why you will never win even a post in this thread is that the main issues you cannot, by definition contest, since they are solid fact.


Are you giving away posts? How can you win a post? The main issues need not be discusses when the subject is irrelevant. Its like saying my poop is more sanitary than other people like me. Well, poop is not sanitary in the first place so who cares what the issues and facts are supporting the subject of my poop. So you are wrong....YEAH I WIN!!!!! 



> Once again, its not because of issues 2 and 3 as stated above. Theres no getting around that, and you know that. Thats why you cant tackle them.


Learn to read, I am not trying to "tackle" them...I am tackling the main subject and the fact that other in this thread agree and nobody has supported you indicates it has been tackled.



> Please, show me one place in this thread where i have said there is something wrong with a 6'11 pure center.



The fact that you ignore them in your topic.



> I want address the shorter C issue? I have addressed it many times. If you look at MY VERY FIRST POST in this thread, i acknowledge them, as well as the ones who play both positions.


Yes, but you disclude them to make your buddy Kaman sound better than he is.



> However, no matter how you cut the cake, you are still left with issue #2,3, which you continue to be unable to contest.


Lol, you are so lost.



> Not crying about it. You ruined the thread...its a matter of fact, of documented history. Thread started out fine, and was going to be a very logical discussion about the topic.


Hey, Ms. Cleo...can you really see into the future? Well if so, then you need to look at the past because I'm not the first on who ripped your subject...so it was "ruined" when I got here. Plus, it didnt start out fine...even you mentioned the people weren't on topic in the 4th post.



> Once you contaminated it, it has just become a debate on other issues. Get real, no one is going to go back to the original issues of this thread after it has digressed so much. But if saying that makes you feel better, knock yourself out.


Contaminated it? :laugh: Start a new one in the main board then and see what response you get.



> Yes, perhaps you might have problems reading where i have acknowledged that as well...WHICH IS MY POINT. If you agree with the main topic of the thread, there is NO REASON to continue to debate other, irrelevent things.


Like my poop example, there are some topics that may be true but are irrelevant. So responding to the thread by saying you are right but who cares is an appropriate response.



> Many have acknowledged the validity of the top 5, but even want to say that he is or could be a top 5 center over all. Now, that too is not on topic of my thread, but hey, there are kaman fans out there, and if they want to hype up their guy, i dont have any issues about that.


Why not? If they are off topic then you should treat them the same as me. This inconsistency shows your true colors. 



> This is the clippers message board. The problem comes in when outsiders who just want to cause trouble come on here with negative posts completely digressing the thread.


This IS the clippers message board but it is not just for Clippers fans, so get over it. The thread did not digress, it evolved. And it is better than it would have been had I not posted. 



> If you want to continue to fool yourself thinking you have made any points pertinent to this discussion, continue to do so.


What discussion? Nobody is talking about your "topic." The fact is that my point has been made and the fact that nobody else is coming in here helping you indicates my argument about the relevance of the overall subject has "won."



> Its been a while since ive been able to post with someone who just sets himself up in an impossible to win situation, allowing me to tear down everything stated time after time.


Keep dreaming. Just because your mommy tells you that you are doing a good job doesnt mean you really are. Again, the fact that nobody else is coming in here helping you indicates you have failed.



> However, i dont see how i could have explained the irrelevancy of your points better than this last post. Thus, im not going to beat that dead horse any longer. Until you can debate the 3 issues mentioned above, dont bother posting.


Dont be childish and attempt to tell me when and how to post. If you want people to post when and how you want go start your own forum and allow only yourself to register. yes, we are being repetative here...but its because you dont comprehend that Im not arguing your premises, Im arguing the relevane of the topic.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

Well, now that others have come in this thread only to support my argument, you might as well conceed like a gentleman yamanenko.


----------



## RhettO (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry 'bout the typo. Now get a life.


My bad, I thought you were the one correcting spelling earlier in the thread.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

RD - 
Im not referring to talent proven over years when i say sought after. ANY talent, NO MATTER the size is sought after. If you put up numbers in the NBA, youre sought after. Okur put up decent numbers and is a winner in the NBA with a ring. Of course hes going to be pursued. Foyle is an incumbant, and kind of a wild card...no one could really believe the contract he was given, but he has proven that he can play in the nba for years. Eddy curry will demand big numbers because hes putting up numbers now. 

The majority of the people on that list of 35 centers over 7 feet, were brought in because they were 7 feet tall. Thats how they came into the league. Put up decent, not stunning numbers in college...or overeseas. Im referring to newcomers, either through the draft, or just pickups from overseas. Example of this: Big men signed from overseas as free agents. Most are 7 foot or more, the ones who are centers, and are chosen because of their size. Case in point: dallas with that ulonga benga or whatever his name is. Cuban, when interviewed about him, said, this guy is going to make our roster. is a legit 7 footer who can throw his body around, and contribute to this team. Thats what he said on nba tv. I really dont think that he would have picked him up if he was 6'10." But GMs take more chances on guys that are 7 foot it seems. By no means am i saying this is the way it should be...the number of players under 7 foot who are good shows that...its just a fact.

James - 
Kind of along the same lines as RD's post. The players you mentioned there were almost all highly touted out of college, or high school, or were uber athelete freaks. If you can play, youll get drafted. However, lets say curry had a twin brother who put up the same numbers as him in college, yet he was 7 foot. he would have been chosen before eddy, just on that alone. When elton brand was chosen in the draft, its not like there was a 7 foot center out there who put up the numbers he did, that was passed over. 

jstempi-
As i said before, i will only acknowledge your ridiculous banter, if you tackle the only issues of this thread. That being said, most of your post was worthless, but you did touch on a couple things relative to one of the 3 main issues:
You said their are larger peer groups, like swingmen. I called it the biggest "small" peer group. In other words, the biggest peer group that is ver specific. For example. how many pure SG's are there 6'6" or over. How many pure PF's are there size 69" and below? With the number of centers out there at any size, and the number of centers who also platton at powerforward, one would think that limiting this group to PURE centers, and OVER 7 feet would yeild a really limited number. However, 35 is quite large for such a specific field. 

Anyway, anyone else is welcome to try to refute the issues, but the bottom line is, you cant without trying to twist the main topic into being something that its not.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> James -
> Kind of along the same lines as RD's post. The players you mentioned there were almost all highly touted out of college, or high school, or were uber athelete freaks. If you can play, youll get drafted. However, lets say curry had a twin brother who put up the same numbers as him in college, yet he was 7 foot. he would have been chosen before eddy, just on that alone. When elton brand was chosen in the draft, its not like there was a 7 foot center out there who put up the numbers he did, that was passed over.


evan eschmeyer put up more ppg and brand was only on pace to tear down 77 more rebounds.


----------



## RD (Jun 10, 2002)

Obviously if Curry had a twin that was taller, you take the twin. Obviously you take the taller of two, equal talents.

But, that really is not the issue. 

The height issue goes for EVERY position. TJ Ford had a twin that was 6'2 instead of 6', who do you take?

If Kobe Bryant had a twin that was 6'8, who do you take?

It doesn't just apply to 7' footers with equal skills. That applies to every position. 

And, we aren't really talkign about guys with comparable talent levels. Its very simple to say you would take a 7' Eddy Curry over a 6'11 Eddy Curry.

The point you are trying to make sounds like you would take a guy over another player, despite talent level, just because he is taller.

Would you take Chris Kaman over an Alonzo Mourning in his prime?

Would you take Chris Kaman over Ben Wallace?

Would you take Chris Kaman over Eddy Curry in the same draft? This is the only one that is left to opinion, but coming out, there is no doubt in my mind that Curry would have went over Kaman. The other two are not open to interpretation. You definitely take the 6'8 Wallace and 6'9 Mourning over Kaman, without question. 

Being 7' is a plus. But, it is the same at every position. You always eye the taller talent if the players are comparable talents. But, if the smaller player is the better player, you take him without question. Teams will take the 6'10 player over the 7' player every time if he is the better player. 

Whether or not Chris Kaman is a Top 5 C in the league will depend on the skills he has and numbers he puts up. The group shouldnt be limited to just 7'. He could easily be a top 5 C, or the best C in the league, even if he were under 7' tall.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> evan eschmeyer put up more ppg and brand was only on pace to tear down 77 more rebounds.


First: Evan was not 7 feet. He also played at northwestern. Brand played at duke. He was 4 years older than brand. Brand was player of the year.

Heres a good expample of how hyped 7 footers are. Olowokandi. Olowokandi played in a crap conference. He had barely been playing the game for a few years. However, in the weeks leading up to the draft his stock skyrocketed as teams were looking for "a 7 footer" who could perhaps one day check shaq. He ended up being taken first over all. If he was brands size, even perhaps taller, like 6'10, its very possible he wouldnt get picked in the first 10 picks, perhaps even later. Now, again, this is also an example of how im not by any means saying this is right. Its just a case. I cringed when the clippers picked him up, but i understood the hype, because its commonplace in the nba.

Perhaps my twin illustration was not good. A better illustration would be saying two similar players, perhaps the 6'10" one even a tad better than the 7 foot one, you take the 7 foot one. If there is a player who is averaging 2 points, 2 rebounds in europe, if hes 6'10", he wouldnt even be considered for the nba if hes a pure center. If hes 7 foot to 7'3", he has a shot. 

For players in the prime, again thats not the point im making. Im talking about coming into the league. For talking about an nba draft, for example kaman vs. curry, this is a legitimate scenario. Id take kaman. This is without knowledge of curry's future. You go for the proven college talent whos a 7 footer, and whos nba ready, not a high school kid. However, this brings us to another peer group which is smaller than the 7 foot one. This is the pure center a la curry, who is not 7 feet tall, but who has a shaq type body. Those players too, while not as sought after as 7 footers, also get overly hyped. Players like SoFo who havent done much overseas, but are touted as number one draft picks because of thier size. Kendrick perkins is another one im thinking of.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

ok, then why would the wiz pick kwame over tyson. both put up huge numbers. according to your logic, the wiz's thought process would be 'these guys both look like they can be great but 7' footers are the flavour of the month'. so that proves, your theory wrong. btw, chris kaman hasn't accomplished anything that great. hes top 5, in a weak class means nothing. can he be very good, yes. i wont say he cant. but its just being top 5 in a bogus category filled with bogus players isn't really overcoming anything. wut if i were to say stephen jackson was a top two player on the hawks last year. is it true. yes. does it have any relevance and is it a huge accomplishment. no.


----------



## RD (Jun 10, 2002)

To suggest that Michael Olowokandi would not have been a Top 10 pick if he were only 6'10 is a definite reach.

Kandi was not just drafted #1 because he was 7' tall, he was drafted because he was a legit C, with above average athleticism, agility, and touch. At 6'10, you can still be a legit C.

Teams value C's period. That seems to be the issue you clance over.

He still would have been the #1 pick, whether he was 6'10, 6'11, or 7' tall.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

James, neither kwame nor tyson is a 7 foot pure center. Chandler isnt really a center at all...hes almost considered a pure PF. Remember, my thesis is not just on 7 footers...its on the 7 foot pure center. 

The fact that he is better than 30 of his peers is something, no one here is trying to say hes a 20 and 10 guy. You could say someone was on the top two on a team, but thats just what it is, the top 2 players on a certain team of 12 players with no special criteria to narrow the list down. Kaman is better than not 10, but 30 other players in a significant peer group.

RD - Well, this is just a difference of opinion then i guess. I remember hearing the word 7 footer hundreds of times in the hype that year of the draft. I just dont see the hype being where it was if he was a couple inches shorter. Again, im not saying its right, but thats just the mindset of GMs these days. He would have been a relatively high pick, but i maintain not in the top 10.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> The fact that he is better than 30 of his peers is something, no one here is trying to say hes a 20 and 10 guy. You could say someone was on the top two on a team, but thats just what it is, the top 2 players on a certain team of 12 players with no special criteria to narrow the list down. Kaman is better than not 10, but 30 other players in a significant peer group.


thats the thing, tho, its no longer a signifigant group. big men just arent what they used to be since anyone over 6'10 is picked straight outta high school. and that factor is relevant, as many of these 7' 'pure centers' are just no good as they didn't get a chance to develop. the defensive stopper is a signifigant peer group (ie: big ben, ron ron). the offensive big man is a signifigant peer group (ie: big z, eddy curry). the shot blocking small forward is a signifigant peer group (ie: kg, tay). the athletic big man is a signifigant peer group (ie: dirk, stro, kg again). the 7'0 center, isn't, at least not anymore, with the lack of useful centers. kaman, overcoming those odds isn't too impressive by nba standards. if someone says 'well shaq and yao are better', will kaman have tons of pride saying 'at least im better than loren woods and melvin ely.' becoming top 5 in those other groups is impressive, and is overcoming something as these days and at those particular positions, there is something to over come. if one came to jonathan bender and said 'kg is a better shot-blocking small forward than you' and he says, 'at least im better at blocking shots than tay' thats actually saying something. its not quite saying, 'i could beat sagana diop one-on-one'.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

most of those peer groups you mentioned pale in comparision to the 7 foot pure center. Remember 35. Thats a huge number. Athletic big man would be the only one of your groups that comes close to 35. 

Im not saying its an amazing thing to be better than zarko cabarkaba. Im saying, that there are like 30 zarkos out there who do very little in the leauge, and kaman is better than 30 people. Odds are, when youre a 7 foot pure center, 8 times out of 10 youll do nothing in the leauge. But kaman has beaten those odds, and has started a successful career.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> most of those peer groups you mentioned pale in comparision to the 7 foot pure center. Remember 35. Thats a huge number. Athletic big man would be the only one of your groups that comes close to 35.
> 
> Im not saying its an amazing thing to be better than zarko cabarkaba. Im saying, that there are like 30 zarkos out there who do very little in the leauge, and kaman is better than 30 people. Odds are, when youre a 7 foot pure center, 8 times out of 10 youll do nothing in the leauge. But kaman has beaten those odds, and has started a successful career.


there weren't really any odds to beat. your handicapping him for being big. being big increases your odds of getting in the L. and its wrong to say he beat anything just because other 7 footers dont do anything. its much different for say earl boykins. he has beaten odds. he's under 5'1/2 feet. its different for shorter guys because height is an asset. being big and being able to do something isn't overcoming something just because other people your size dont do anything... and zarko is more of a sf/pf and is not 7'. and he did play well last season... not that its worth anything, just thot i'd point that out.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

No odds to beat? When 80% of the players in your peer group do not contribute much to a team, yet you do, thats pretty good id say. You also argued MY side of it: Being big gets you into the league. Thats exactly my point. Of course earl boykins beat odds to get INTO the league. Im talking about kaman on a different level though...not about getting into the league, but about making a difference in the leauge compared to all the others his size who are in the league. Zarko, i have no idea who he is, just heard the name, and he sounded like a 7 footer who sucked. Perhaps a better example would be N'Diyaye.


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> No odds to beat? When 80% of the players in your peer group do not contribute much to a team, yet you do, thats pretty good id say. You also argued MY side of it: Being big gets you into the league. Thats exactly my point. Of course earl boykins beat odds to get INTO the league. Im talking about kaman on a different level though...not about getting into the league, but about making a difference in the leauge compared to all the others his size who are in the league. Zarko, i have no idea who he is, just heard the name, and he sounded like a 7 footer who sucked. Perhaps a better example would be N'Diyaye.


n'diyaye is a much better example... anyways, thats not beating anything. thats just making the best of your assets. others didnt. using what you have to the fullest isnt beating any odds, its playing to potential. just because lots of peole that are his size suck, and he doesnt, doesnt mean he has beaten any odds. is he a top 7' pure center? yes. has he beaten any odds? no. he's just used what he's been god-given unlike those other 30 or so fools. he has not been faced with an obstacle or anything. in fact, he has an advantage being so tall.


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

Just give this guy the last word James, he'll never shut up in regards to a topic so insignificant.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

James odds are odds. When a singer gets a number one hit, no matter how the cookie crumbles, its a feat. Reason being is that 99.9% of other singers arent able to get a number one hit. Im not saying he has an obstacle to overcome. Just odds to beat. Because no matter how sucessful or unsucessful a player is in college, or overseas, odds are that he doesnt give the same output as kaman is doing.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jcs83md</b>!
> Just give this guy the last word James, he'll never shut up in regards to a topic so insignificant.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------

