# OT: Michael Redd's place among active pure SG's



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

I have maintained that redd is top 3-4 pure SG's in the nba or in the world depending on how you look at it. It was countered that he was worse or just "as good" as the following, "Kobe, Wade, Allen, Manu, Kmart, Gordon, Johnson, Ellis, Roy, Carter, Hamilton, Tmac, Iverson, Durant)"


First of all, i do believe that kobe is better than him, kobe might be the best player in the world at any position. However, we can take off a few others from that list, as they dont meet the criteria that i was saying as a pure SG. Gordon is a combo guard. Ellis is a combo guard. Tmac, a SF/SG, Iverson again a combo, and durant a SG/SF. 

Wade is borderline, but lets call him a pure 100% SG. Same with joe johnson, brandon roy. Vince carter is very borderline as if hes a SG or SG/SF. 

I think that hands down top SG's would be kobe and d wade. If you include the hybrids then perhaps a healthy tmac and carter. That still puts redd right there where i said. 

Kevin martin no way is as good as michael redd yet. If were going to base it on just being a 20+ point scorer then wed have to say maggette is there too, which i doubt anyone outside of our resident maggette fan would say. ray Allen is on the decline, redd has passed him. Ginobli, for sure a SG through and through, but not on the level of redd. Hamilton, a SG, a good one, but not on redd's level, its hard to be an elite SG when you rarely even take 3 pointers. Great player though. Brandon Roy i think has great potential, could be 20/5/5 next year, but another guy that you really cant say has proven himself enough to be on redd's level. Joe johnson is one i havent really thought of as a star, but i think he might have reached that status the last two years. 

You watch the olympic qualifying tournament, national broadcasts, other things, and you will hear the commentators say how redd is arguably the best pure shooter around right now. I dont think that puts him on the level of a kobe or tmac, but theres a reason lebron had him at the top of his wish list, a reason why the bucks gave him all the money they could...its very hard to find a SG that can 150 3's a year. A guy who can light it up in the 4th, a guy who can average 25+ a game.

I would not mind seeing redd in a clippers uniform to see how he can do here. Someone on a bucks board even suggested something ridiculous like our 6th pick, mobley, and thomas for redd. I dont know why the bucks would ever consider that, but that would give us a pretty amazing one year shot at things with a core of kaman/brand/redd, and possibly an up and coming thornton if he can learn dunleavvy's SF position.


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

There is just a huge disconnect between what appears to the consensus opinion of Michael Redd as a player (a very good/excellent SG) and what you believe him to be (a superstar). In all truth, I think most of us believe the Clippers would be a better team with Redd, but only if Brand is still here to anchor the offense and defense, and that by and large there is very little that Redd brings to the table that validates him as a superstar: 

- The fact that Milwaukee paid as much as they did for him speaks more about the trend of teams to overpay for their players for fear of (as someone once put it) being "clipperized." 
- The fact that in all the time that has passed since Redd was signed Milwaukee has continued to be a losing franchise only further cements his true value as being far below what he is being paid. 
- Whether or not LBJ wanted him on his team says more about his value as a #2 option, than the fact that he could be a "superstar." 
- Likewise, the fact an announcer would rave about him speaks more about the sort of hyperbole commentators now routinely engage in, than what his true value to a team is. 

In the end, as I've stated earlier, your opinion of him is well documented, and there seems to be very little any of us can say to sway you, so there's really no reason to pursue this any further. Lets just hope the Clippers resign Brand (at a reasonable price) and somehow find the way to trade for a top notch player who can immediately help this team return to the playoffs, whether that is Michael Redd or not.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

a redd/brand combo would be sick with a decent point guard. i think i just orgazimed thinking of this lineup

pg: mayo
sg: redd
sf: thorton
pf: brand
c: kaman

i would kill anybody for this lineup


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

I dont really think our main purpose in posting should be to indoctrinate others or try to sway people's opinion. At least thats not my purpose in engaging in discussion. Its more to present differing viewpoints, and at the same time show that we are not really that off on opinions as some might make it seems.

Such as in my above post, do you not agree that its premature to say that guys like Kevin Martin and Ben Gordon have equaled or surpassed the talent level of Michael Redd? I believe we already all agree that Kobe, iverson, tmac, etc. are all bonified superstars regardless of what position they play. Even I had forgotten about Joe Johnson, after being mentioned, I must admit that I do feel he should be up there with redd as a second tier superstar. 



> by and large there is very little that Redd brings to the table that validates him as a superstar:


Depends on what kind of "superstar" we are talking about. I never have said he was on the same level as a kobe. Im using the word star, or superstar in the sense of a guy who is one of the best at his position in the game, a guy who would be the best player on the team for a lot of teams, a guy who can go out and drop 25 points a night, a guy who can hit a game winning shot, a guy who has unique ability that sets him apart from others. Im sure you would agree with me he fits those things. 



> The fact that Milwaukee paid as much as they did for him speaks more about the trend of teams to overpay for their players


Did they really overpay? Were not talking about giving 60 million to dalembert and nene. Or paying 21 million to michael finley. Heres a guy who has been their best player for years, and they gave him a deal that i believe started out at like 12-13 million. Cavs would have offered that amount had they had the space available. 



> The fact that in all the time that has passed since Redd was signed Milwaukee has continued to be a losing franchise only further cements his true value as being far below what he is being paid.


So Kevin garnett was drastically overpaid in minnesota because they werent winning? Look at the team minnesota had, look at the team the bucks have. Royal Ivey started 20 games, Ramon Sessions looked like a superstar last few games, Mo williams as the second best player on the team? Bogut is solid, albeit unspectacular. Your other two contributers, Villanueva and Yi, neither much to write home about. 

Since the wizards can win without gilbert arenas, does that mean hes not a star? 



> Whether or not LBJ wanted him on his team says more about his value as a #2 option, than the fact that he could be a "superstar."


So if another star wants another star on the team, that means hes only valuable as a #2 option? Since pierce was estatic to get ray allen and garnett on the team, does that lessen anyones value as stars? Since kobe wanted gasol, does that mean gasol isnt a star caliber player? Iverson/Carmello in Denver...who is the 2nd option and who is the star? 



> Likewise, the fact an announcer would rave about him speaks more about the sort of hyperbole commentators now routinely engage in, than what his true value to a team is.


Perhaps you listen to different commentators than i, but rarely do i hear people discuss other people's shooting ability the way they talk about redd. Not since ray allen's peak. Sure, there are homer commentators who talk ridiculous things like michael smith talks about Q Ross, but im talking on a national level, i really dont hear the best shooter label being given to many players. 



> a redd/brand combo would be sick with a decent point guard. i think i just orgazimed thinking of this lineup
> 
> pg: mayo
> sg: redd
> ...


thats a championship calliber team right there. Not sure if that could ever happen though. Wed probably have to take back a bad contract, plus give the bucks 2 future firsts for them to consider anything like that.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Michael Redd is as good a shooter as there is in this league, and probably has the quickest release I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, in basketball, there is no such thing as a DH... Michael Redd has to play defense and that's what makes someone like Manu, Rip Hamilton, Brandon Roy or Joe Johnson better...

Also, of what relevance is it if a guy can also play another position, such as T-Mac... at least with a guy like Ben Gordon it is a negative, he's too short to guard legit 2's... but with T-Mac its an advantage and shouldn't exclude him from the conversation...


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> However, we can take off a few others from that list, as they dont meet the *criteria* that i was saying as a pure SG.


Nuff said.... Yamaneko's special criteria = *Yamastar.*

Anyways, i've re-posted your original in the general forum, please continue your discussion there. I've only edited it to be easier to read, all content is exactly the same. I'm sure the other fans and mods there will agree with your criteria.

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-forum/400628-michael-redds-place-among-active-pure-sgs.html


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

Dornado said:


> Michael Redd is as good a shooter as there is in this league, and probably has the quickest release I've ever seen.
> 
> Unfortunately, in basketball, there is no such thing as a DH... Michael Redd has to play defense and that's what makes someone like Manu, Rip Hamilton, Brandon Roy or Joe Johnson better...
> 
> Also, of what relevance is it if a guy can also play another position, such as T-Mac... at least with a guy like Ben Gordon it is a negative, he's too short to guard legit 2's... but with T-Mac its an advantage and shouldn't exclude him from the conversation...


As Lawler would say...BINGOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I only want Redd if we keep Brand, or else, its worthless.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Obviously you would want to keep your best players if possible. Id be estatic if we could somehow unload mobley and thomas's contracts in order to get him. One year of a great team that could go places. But at the same time, i realize that its unrealistic. So if its a choice of redd plus a couple million more dollars, or brand, ive got to go with redd, since its already proven were not going much with only brand as our best player. It wouldnt be guaranteed to work, but at least its something new, and something that on paper would make sense to do.


----------



## MicCheck12 (Aug 12, 2005)

Then we all agree, Tim Thomas, Mobley, and Qross and our first round pick for Mo Williams and Redd?


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

MicCheck12 said:


> Then we all agree, Tim Thomas, Mobley, and Qross and our first round pick for Mo Williams and Redd?


I pull a Dev George and say no way! I'm not going to become the Bucks mod! 

But seriously, good luck pursuading Milwaukee to do that. If we can, I don't care if Brand isn't worth 20 mil, we better pay him that. Imagine:
Mo Will - Redd - Thornton - Brand - Kaman and if we can pursuade Maggs to come off the bench..SICK.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Then we all agree, Tim Thomas, Mobley, and Qross and our first round pick for Mo Williams and Redd?


Milwauke would vomit in elgin's face if he came to them with that offer. lol. But no DUH that would be a no brainer for us!


----------



## MicCheck12 (Aug 12, 2005)

Why not they are rebuliding, and they now have a chance to get the first two picks in the draft! Hell I'd even throw in that Minnesota pick.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

leidout said:


> Nuff said.... Yamaneko's special criteria =
> 
> Anyways, i've re-posted your original in the general forum, please continue your discussion there. I've only edited it to be easier to read, all content is exactly the same. I'm sure the other fans and mods there will agree with your criteria.
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-forum/400628-michael-redds-place-among-active-pure-sgs.html


According to the discussion that took place in this thread in the general forum, only ONE person said he could *arguably* see Redd anywhere from #3 to #6.

*Since there is not one person who definitely agrees with yamaneko's criteria, Michael Redd is definitely a YAMASTAR.*

Deal with it. And i'd really appreciate it if you'd continue this argument on the general board, since you'll get a much larger variety of people telling you how wrong you are.


----------



## nauticazn25 (Aug 27, 2006)

u know what ive come to notice in basketball lately? that offense is SO overrated and defense is SO underrated...sure a player like michael redd is a great shooter....but if this clipper team is going to get to the next level, they need to start on the defensive end...getting rid of brand IMO is a huge mistake...defense wins championships...look at the five best defensive teams in the league....detroit, boston, san antonio, houston and new orleans...in that order...detroit is 17th in scoring, houston is 22nd and san antonio is 27th...so michael redd is not the answer....thats why i hope livingston comes back 100%..although he hasn't developed into a the great pg YET, he is a pretty good defensive player....if we get a free agent this year.....im not saying we should forget about players that can score...but a player that is a defensive liability will definitely not help


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

leidout said:


> According to the discussion that took place in this thread in the general forum, only ONE person said he could *arguably* see Redd anywhere from #3 to #6.
> 
> *Since there is not one person who definitely agrees with yamaneko's criteria, Michael Redd is definitely a YAMASTAR.*
> 
> Deal with it. And i'd really appreciate it if you'd continue this argument on the general board, since you'll get a much larger variety of people telling you how wrong you are.


please yama, go defend your position on the general board...i would love to see the reaction it gets over there....


----------



## Free Arsenal (Nov 8, 2004)

What if the policy changes and no longer allows the use of "yamastar"?


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

on the general board? Are you saying you started a similar thread on the general board? Why would you do such a thing? Feeling insecure about your opinions? The only reason why i even made a new thread on it is because it was clutteirng up other off topic threads, and wanted to see what clipper fans thought about where redd rates. So far i dont really see anyone disagreeing wholeheartedly with my comments here on where redd ranks. I see a couple here mentioning defense, which i do think is important, but its almost as if some say redd has cassell like defense. 

Redd's game the last few seasons speak for itself as to where he should rank. Seems like the pure SG is a dying breed. Since Ray allen, other than michael redd, how many really are there...truly elite SG's? Before there were more it seemed. 

I doubt we have a shot at prying michael redd away from the bucks. But unlike most other stars, he just MIGHT be someone on the trading block, come the summer. We shall see.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> on the general board? Are you saying you started a similar thread on the general board? Why would you do such a thing? Feeling insecure about your opinions? The only reason why i even made a new thread on it is because it was clutteirng up other off topic threads, and wanted to see what clipper fans thought about where redd rates.


Oh my ****ing god, you are ridiculous, ONCE AGAIN, read my request:



leidout said:


> when you place special criteria to qualify someone, then you are in fact creating a new definition, which i have coined as Yamastar. *If you would like to test your viewpoint against the general forum, please do*, i'm sure at least 20 people will be happy to tell you that your opinion is flat out wrong


And YOUR RESPONSE:


yamaneko said:


> *As you suggested i will go ahead and start a new thread on michael redd*, and where he ranks among SG's. That actually is a valid topic.


BTW, i think its quite obvious which one of us is the insecure one, you won't even defend your opinion there where you have much less control. Whereas you've deleted posts that disagree with you on this topic.

And i made no secret at all about the creation of this post, i wanted everyone to know about it the moment i cut & pasted there, i was very very very sure that my belief in what a "Superstar" is, is in accordance with at least 95% of the people, while your criteria about "Superstar" is in the vast minority.

So go to the general board, get railed for a day or two, then come back and say it with me "Ok I admit, Michael Redd is a Yamaneko Superstar only!"

(note to weasel: new word this time, its accurate with no "baiting" implied.)


----------



## ray_allen_20 (Dec 26, 2007)

Michael Redd gets alot of buckets inside. His shooting is COMPLETELY overrated. Not only he is not even close to being one of the elite shooters in the league, hes not even the best shooter on the team! Mo williams has a higher FT% and 3pt% than him.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

ray_allen_20 said:


> Michael Redd gets alot of buckets inside. His shooting is COMPLETELY overrated. Not only he is not even close to being one of the elite shooters in the league, hes not even the best shooter on the team! Mo williams has a higher FT% and 3pt% than him.


you really have no idea what your talking about. couldnt this happen because michael redd attempts the more three pointers and is the main go to option on his team right?

michael redd three pointers made-attempted
130-359/ 0.362

mo williams three pointers made-attempted/ three point percentage
89-231/	0.385


thank you nba.com


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> BTW, i think its quite obvious which one of us is the insecure one, you won't even defend your opinion there where you have much less control. Whereas you've deleted posts that disagree with you on this topic.


Um no...i have not even checked the thread that it sounds like you posted, if i cared about what people in the general forum thought, id be posting there most of the time, instead of the clipper forum. If i would post something about this anywhere other than the clippers board, it would probably be the bucks board, but not interested in doing that neither. Im not insecure at all, i openly discuss any and all things that Ive discussed before here on the clipper board. I dont go to other non clipper boards to have to try to rally people to my cause. Ive never deleted any posts that did not go against board rules, its been explained to you many times. If someone does have a legit argument ive actually welcomed and almost BEGGED for that...but it rarely happens. Instead baiting and personal attacks we have, which do get deleted. But since it seems like you are insecure about your opinions, it seems like you need to resort to continue to slander, and accuse me of things that just arent happening. 

And no, michael redd is not a superstar only in my opinion, but rather the opinion of many. I bet if you do a google search on news reports, there will be quite a few that have michael redd and star or superstar in the same article. I know i hear it on broadcasts the last 3 years. I never have said that 100% of all people everywhere cannot deny that he is a superstar. I gave my criteria of what i view as one, and it obviously is shared by many in the media as they give him that label as well. Heck, there are people out there that do not think that kobe is a true superstar for who knows what reason. 

Even elton brand is considered by some to be a superstar. There are people on this very board who think that guys like maggette and jordan are superstars. So the fact that you take such offense that i would call someone with the resume of Redd a star, is quite perplexing.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

welll, since you lack the <strike>testicular fortitude</strike> to defend your position in the general forum, i will bring the opinions of the general forum in here....

here are some thoughts on redd:



LameR said:


> I don't have a very high opinion of Redd. I'd rank Kobe, Wade, Allen, Manu, and Johnson over him.
> 
> Also, Roy's 19/5/6 now, so I find it a little funny that you say maybe he could become 20/5/5 next year. His scoring may actually end up going down with Oden and Rudy coming, with more assists resulting. [/hijack]





HKF said:


> At his salary for what he brings to a team, he is one of the least impactful players in the NBA. He doesn't rebound, he doesn't assist, he simply is a volume shooter. He's basically Rashard Lewis. I know people will say, "but you're a Ben Gordon fan." To wit I will reply, it's different when Ben is scoring those points on a rookie salary deal, not a 93 million dollar contract.





GrandKenyon6 said:


> Redd is a tremendously over-rated player.





Pioneer10 said:


> No one in there right mind would take Redd over Manu (and I'm hoping the Cavs get Redd). Giniboli's a more efficient scorer (because he's get to the line), is a better defender, better passer, and better rebounder then Redd.





croco said:


> He is a poor man's version of Carmelo Anthony and that is not a good thing.





rawse said:


> I don't really care where he ranks among "pure" SGs (6-5 to 6-7 guys who don't play any other position). It's irrelevant. I'll take Monta Ellis and stick him in there at SG because he gets the job done.
> 
> That's really the only list that matters.





Ruff Draft said:


> He is just a shooter. Plain and simple. I'd take everyone on that list over him easily.





bootstrenf said:


> Kobe Bryant
> Dwayne Wade
> Ray Allen
> Manu Ginobili
> ...





billfindlay10 said:


> Redd is good, but does not seem to be a game changer....





KennethTo said:


> 1)Kobe
> 2)Wade
> 3)Roy
> 4)AI
> ...





Nutritionals said:


> In the right situation, Redd can be a great asset to a team(a la Ray Allen) but he's obviously not someone to build a team around(a la Kobe or Wade)





seifer0406 said:


> Redd is not someone that you build your offense around, and that's why the Bucks have been struggling. He should be used like how the Hornets use Peja or how the Celtics are using Ray Allen, as a pure shooter that relies on someone else to create shots for him. If he's used correctly, he isn't any worse than any other pure shooter in the league but doesn't offer as much to the table as guys that can slash and create shots for others.





Hibachi said:


> He's a shooter, and he's not a superstar. He's a really good second-hand man, which is why the Bucks sucked so much this year. Still not as bad as that eyesore that is Bobby Simmon's contract, but it is pretty bad.





B-Roy said:


> How much defense does Redd play? Close to none.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Good lord, and thats why i dont care much for the general forum. some of those things said are pretty crazy IMO. A guy said he would take ben gordon, kevin martin, durant, etc. over redd? lol. the guy who said redd isnt a game changer despite the game winning shots he has made, despite him holding the NBA record of 3's in the 4th quarter? lol. A guy compared him to carmelo anthony? Lol. Some of those things are downright laughable. Oh well. Not sure why youre posting that here, those opinions really dont help your side of the argument much with some of those things said.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Melo isn't that crazy a comparison because of their scoring ability. They really dont do much besides that


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

But when someone says "poor mans..." usually its to say they have similar look and/or styles right? Like people thought livvy was going to be a "poor mans magic" due to his height and propensity for the no look pass. They call any undersized, stocky PF's a "poor man's elton brand." Heck, when redd first started coming up, youd here that he was a "poor man's ray allen" due to similar size, and shooting ability. I dont know who would be a poor man's carmello, but i dont see much similarities in their style between him and redd.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

you would take michael redd over kevin durant?


----------



## MicCheck12 (Aug 12, 2005)

I woud take...Kevin Martin over Redd, Ellis over Redd, Jason Richardson over Redd, Rudy Gay over Redd, Roy over Redd, Joe Johnson over Redd, Allen over Redd, Manu over Redd, and a box of Coco Puffs over Redd.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> you would take michael redd over kevin durant?


If were talking next year, or next two years, equal salary, no luxury tax implications, blah blah blah, yes, id for sure pick redd over durant. Redd is a proven commodity in the league. Durant is still young, and at one point of the season there were even clipper fans (not myself) saying they thought thornton was better than him.

Now, if were talking salary, or "upside", etc. of course you take durant, as he is on a rookie contract, plus will only get better. 



> I woud take...Kevin Martin over Redd, Ellis over Redd, Jason Richardson over Redd, Rudy Gay over Redd, Roy over Redd, Joe Johnson over Redd, Allen over Redd, Manu over Redd, and a box of Coco Puffs over Redd.


I dont understand, by your last statement, are you basically saying that it doesnt matter who, youd take anyone over redd? Rudy gay over redd? Kevin martin over redd? You must be being sarcastic right?


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

mmmmmmm coco puffs [/homer simpson]


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

I'll take Rudy Gay and Kevin Martin over Redd too.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

So with the same contract, same circumstances, for the clippers and what they need, youd take a guy (gay) thats averaged 20 points once so far (last year, and who plays the position that our pick thornton supposedly is going to play, as well as a guy (martin) who has had about 1.5 good years so far on an even worse team than the bucks, where even scrubs like garcia and salmons look good when there are injuries, over redd? Hey, to each their own, but there wouldnt be any GM's in the league who at THIS point would give either of them a 91 million dollar contract (they still have a shot at becoming great players in the future though)
And while others in the media and bball word have called redd a superstar (not undisputed as ive said many times), youll be very hard pressed to find as many references to those other two guys the same way.

But like i said, if you would take those guys over redd under the same circumstances, thats fine. I dont think its the smartest thing, but then again id be willing to give darius miles a contract perhaps over someone who is better than him, just because i love darius miles.


----------



## PAIDNFULL23 (Jul 9, 2005)

The kings weren't a worse team than the bucks this season or the season before last. They actually had 38 wins this season in the tough west, while the bucks had 28 in a weak east. And the kings probably would have had more if it weren't for all the injuries they had.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Thats what i mean. The injuries. Without the injuries i think they are a pretty decent team. But artest missed 30 games. You had john salmons starting 41 games, paco garcia starting 20, a spurs released player started 51 games, bibby as we know missed a bunch even before he was traded, you had a clippers released player (mikki) starting a team high 79 games, that team was a mess. As is, i believe they still did well for what they through out there, which i attribute to coaching, which shocks as i thought theus had no business coaching in this league.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> a guy (martin) who has had about 1.5 good years so far on an even worse team than the bucks, where even scrubs like garcia and salmons look good when there are injuries, over redd?





yamaneko said:


> Thats what i mean. The injuries. Without the injuries i think they are a pretty decent team. But artest missed 30 games. You had john salmons starting 41 games, paco garcia starting 20, a spurs released player started 51 games, bibby as we know missed a bunch even before he was traded, you had a clippers released player (mikki) starting a team high 79 games, that team was a mess. As is, i believe they still did well for what they through out there, which i attribute to coaching, which shocks as i thought theus had no business coaching in this league.


This doesn't make any sense. Kevin Martin this season has averaged more points, was more efficient from the field, 3pt line, ft line (as well as more aggressive getting to the line for 3 more fta's a game), more rebs, more stls, less to's than Redd (basically every single main category except assists). Leading a team that's had more injury woes, is in the tough western conference, yet has won 12 more games than the Redd-led Bucks have in the weak east.

What's the basis of saying first that kings are a worse team than bucks, and second that redd is a better player than martin? 

If you were genuinely interested in hearing other people's opinons on this there's no reason why you wouldn't want to discuss your point of view and defend it in the main forum when it was raised. Leidout isn't the one coming across as insecure about their opinion :laugh:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

How doesnt that make any sense? When a team has more issues, more injuries, less options, id expect someone to do better than someone in a similar, yet less dire situation. Like Kaman and Maggette this year. All of us here expected them to have statistically better years due to their weak supporting cast. 

What is the basis of saying the kings are a worse team than the bucks this year? My basis is the players they had starting on paper, as mentioned before. Similar to perhaps saying, the clippers were a worse team than the 76ers this year. Maggette might have had better stats than iguoadala, but i dont think that would make him the supierior player. 



> If you were genuinely interested in hearing other people's opinons on this there's no reason why you wouldn't want to discuss your point of view and defend it in the main forum when it was raised. Leidout isn't the one coming across as insecure about their opinion


How so? Is he a regular poster on the general forum? I certainly am not, and cannot remember the last time, if ever, i have psoted on there. I have always posted strictly on this clipper board, so why would i all of a sudden break character, and start going to other boards to post something? But no, the guy who goes and copies someones post and reposts it in other places is the one who is secure....


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> How doesnt that make any sense? When a team has more issues, more injuries, less options, id expect someone to do better than someone in a similar, yet less dire situation. Like Kaman and Maggette this year. All of us here expected them to have statistically better years due to their weak supporting cast.
> 
> What is the basis of saying the kings are a worse team than the bucks this year? My basis is the players they had starting on paper, as mentioned before. Similar to perhaps saying, the clippers were a worse team than the 76ers this year. Maggette might have had better stats than iguoadala, but i dont think that would make him the supierior player.


It doesn't make sense because 1) Martin had a statistically better individual season than Redd, and 2) he led a team depleted by injuries playing in the tougher conference to materially more wins than Redd did with a healthy Bucks team (on which you yourself say he was surrounded by more talent than Martin was). Whether you use the better individual stats argument, or bigger impact resulting in more wins argument, Martin comes out on top as the better player both ways. 

The comparison between Martin/Redd and Maggette/Iguadala is way off. You could try to argue that Maggette is a better player than Iguadala because he had better individual stats (even though I thought iggy's stats > maggette's anyway...?), but the flipside of the argument would be that iggy's the better player because his production even though not reflected in his stats has led to more wins for his team. Both positions could be defended and it would at least be debateable. You can't say either of those things for Redd though.... Martin has him in individual stats and he's shown he's more of a winner as well. 



> How so? Is he a regular poster on the general forum? I certainly am not, and cannot remember the last time, if ever, i have psoted on there. I have always posted strictly on this clipper board, so why would i all of a sudden break character, and start going to other boards to post something? But no, the guy who goes and copies someones post and reposts it in other places is the one who is secure....


You say that you BEG for a legitimate argument, it seemed from the responses in the main thread that you would have got that. I guess I just found this statement a bit funny coming from someone who has Redd in their top 3 "pure" sg's in the world above all those other players listed, and refuses to present their case/argument because they don't want to break character and post on the main board:



> Good lord, and thats why i dont care much for the general forum. some of those things said are pretty crazy IMO.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> It doesn't make sense because 1) Martin had a statistically better individual season than Redd, and 2) he led a team depleted by injuries playing in the tougher conference to materially more wins than Redd did with a healthy Bucks team (on which you yourself say he was surrounded by more talent than Martin was). Whether you use the better individual stats argument, or bigger impact resulting in more wins argument, Martin comes out on top as the better player both ways.


Youre missing a key piece though, which is at the heart of my point. Both players played on poor poor teams. I maintain that martin had even less talent surrounding him then redd, thus that would mean he would shoulder more of the scoring load. Similar with maggette. We saw what maggette did the last couple of years with more talent on the team (although his situation seems to be really exaggerated), and then this year when the clippers had almost zero talent. 

Martin I do not believe has shown to be more of a winner at all, and the maggette/iguadala comparison is spot on. Martin having about one and a half decent years, does not equate to being more of a winner and being a better player than redd. Let him average 25 points a game over a few years before we say that. How many more game winning shots does he have, (if any) than redd? Thats another factor in calling someone a winner. Just because a non playoff team has more wins than another non playoff team, that doesnt make the players on the team "winners." More times than not it has to do with coaching, and other intangibles. 



> You say that you BEG for a legitimate argument, it seemed from the responses in the main thread that you would have got that. I guess I just found this statement a bit funny coming from someone who has Redd in their top 3 "pure" sg's in the world above all those other players listed, and refuses to present their case/argument because they don't want to break character and post on the main board:


Yes. Decent debates like most of this thread is the reason i go on message boards. Not to hear people say nonsense like some of those things quoted on from the general board, not to see personal attacks, or someone who does not explain their viewpoint on a matter. Im not "refusing" to present an argument, on the contrary, since i started the topic in the other thread i have clearly and in a very detailed matter gone over my feelings on this topic.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

Lets use a simple example to illustrate my point of why martin has been the better player even if you believe that his individual stats (which have been better than redd's) have been inflated by team injuries. Compare two players, player x and player y. Lets put x and y on two teams which are otherwise identical, and in the same conferences facing opposing teams of the same quality. If player x's team wins 12 more games than player y's team, you can argue a strong case that player x > y. And 12 wins difference over the course of a season (as was the difference for kings and bucks) isn't a small difference. Thats not accounting for the fact that we both agree redd actually had more talent on his team than martin did, and that he also played in the easier conference at a time where we may have seen the greatest ever disparatity between the two conferences.

In fact take the analysis a step further and adjust kings and bucks records to account for games when martin and redd weren't in the line ups, and we see that kings had a worse winning percentage without martin in the line up, while bucks actually won a higher percentage of their games without redd. Martin won over 49% of the games which he played in, equivalent to a fraction under 41 wins over the course of a full season, while Redd won only 29% of his games or a fraction over 23 games out of an 82 game season. So the difference between these two players contributions to the win columns this season has actually been closer to 17-18 wins (not taking into account that martin had worse team mates, and played in a tougher conference). When I say Martin's more of a winner than Redd, that's a relative statement not an absolute one. If you only want to call players who have won championships, or make the playoffs winners than go ahead you seem to like using your own definitions for words. (btw the most wins Redd has ever led a team to has been 41, 5 years ago. Which other superstars can claim that?)

Then you also take into account that Redd's declined somewhat this year, and led a team expected to be competitive and in the playoffs to a 28 win record? In the freakin East where 37 wins = playoffs lol Martin's team would have been in the playoffs in the east. And this isn't a situation like KG's in minny where he didn't have ANYONE else on the team who could contribute, Redd's actually surrounded by talented players and still hasn't been able to get the job done. While Martin star is on the up, he's younger and improved markedly each of his seasons, and is already playing at a higher level than Redd... this comparison seems like a no brainer looking at the facts. If you said you love Redd the same way you say you love Miles and you're not basing this on anything rational i can at least understand that, but otherwise can't see how you can continue to logically argue that redd's a better player than martin at this point in their careers. 

Maggette/Iguadala isn't spot on because Iguadala's individual stats > Maggette's, and he also led his team to more wins. Its nothing like a redd/martin comparison


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> even if you believe that his individual stats (which have been better than redd's)


When you say "which have been better" you make it sound like hes been better than redd for a while. This year was the first year that he even scored more points than redd, and were talking fractions here. 

I do not agree with your illustration, neither of them. Some parts you can use, but you cannot use it in the is the team is better with/without a guy, because theres always cases of arenas, kobe, etc. where sometimes when the team actually does better when they are injured. That doesnt mean they are better/worse players, it just means the team steps it up at times with them out. 

Redd's averaging going down by 2 points, at his age, we can hardly say yet hes on "the decline." Martin jumped up like crazy the year after his rookie year, and this year scored 2. something more points a game, but in only 60 games. I hardly call that " improved markedly each of his seasons". Nor is he playing at a higher level than redd.



> If you only want to call players who have won championships, or make the playoffs winners than go ahead you seem to like using your own definitions for words.


And you seem to like putting words in my mouth. All i did was question youre calling of martin a "winner" when he has none of the usual requirements for what most use that word for, either being a guy who hits a lot of game winning shots, or being always on teams that make the playoffs, go far, etc...



> but otherwise can't see how you can continue to logically argue that redd's a better player than martin at this point in their careers.


yes, the logic is quite simple, you seem to want to make it difficult. Martin has not proven enough yet to be on the same level of redd, plain and simple. He barely edged him in scoring this year, and this was statistically his best year of his whopping 3 year career. Am i saying its impossible for martin to become a star? No, he still has potential, even tmac didnt become a star right away. But martin is not considered elite at anything he does, although he for sure is a well rounded player and one of the more bright up and coming young guards in the league. 

If we were comparing martin to someone like mobley or something, its a whole different story, even at mobleys peak. But were talking about michael redd here, widely considered by basketball analysts (in media, on tv, etc.) to be one of the best shooters around, a guy who has made a number of game winning shots for his team, a guy who has been playing on a high level, for 5 years now. 



> Maggette/Iguadala isn't spot on because Iguadala's individual stats > Maggette's, and he also led his team to more wins. Its nothing like a redd/martin comparison


iguadala at 20 5 and 5 in 40 minutes a game, not sure that its better than 22 6 and 3, in 36 minutes a agme. Id say its the opposite. maggette was on the worse team, just like martin was, and had superior stats as to who we are comparing them. But at the same time, i maintain that had iggy been in maggettes shoes, he would have done even more than maggette, being, IMO a superior player. Same with redd and martin, i maintain redd in martin's shoes would have done slightly better even than martin, being the superior player.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

and by the way, to all those people who dont seem to understand what i mean when I say what i am looking for on this clipper board, this is what i am talking about. A decent debate that is backed by a well thought out hypothesis. A good argument is not a post saying, "oh yamaneko thinks tabuse is a superstar, naaneenanneeenuuuunuuu." 

And like i said, i have NEVER deleted anyones posts for having a differing opinion than me. I invite different opinions. Bon]{eRz has about as different opinion on me on this topic as can be. You dont see me editing or deleting his posts. Why? Because hes not using profanity, hes not making personal attacks, hes not baiting, nor doing anything else that is against the rules, and I applaud him for that. Heres to hoping it rubs off on us all.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Draft Express added an article today about the bucks. I think they brought out one interesting point on why redd perhaps isnt viewed as a star by fans as much as one would think.



> Is probably one of the least explosive stars in the game today.


Hes just not that exciting to watch. Hes not a high flier, not going to do amazing drives to the hoop, or do the no look pass. But they do have it right, hes still a star. They talked a lot about his faults, such as not that great athletism, which im in agreement with. Also said a lot of things that ive been saying:

"his left handed shooting stroke is probably the quickest in the game." 
"One of the game’s most prolific shooters "
"Has one of the quickest, purest, and most consistent releases in the League"
"One of the best catch and shooter players around."


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> "his left handed shooting stroke is probably the quickest in the game."
> "One of the game’s most prolific shooters "
> "Has one of the quickest, purest, and most consistent releases in the League"
> "One of the best catch and shooter players around."


same could be said about jason kapono....except, i don't think kapono is left handed...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

That would be a stretch to say that about kapono. Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot. But even if that were true, kapono is by no means a star...we would be comparing apples and oranges. a 7 point a game scorer to a 25 point a game scorer..

Wouldnt mind a specialist like him or korver on the clippers though off of the bench...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> That would be a stretch to say that about kapono. Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot. But even if that were true, kapono is by no means a star...we would be comparing apples and oranges. a 7 point a game scorer to a 25 point a game scorer..
> 
> Wouldnt mind a specialist like him or korver on the clippers though off of the bench...



yeah, you're right, he's only a decent shooter.....he only *led* the league in 3pt% in 06-07 at 51.4%, and shot 48.3% this year.....:whistling:

he's only a back-to-back winner of the 3 point shootout, and tied the shootout record of 25 points set in 1986 by mark price....:thinking2:

so i guess he really doesn't have that quick of a release, and his shot must not be very consistent....:lol:


and here is one thing about his "catch and shoot" abilities, not to mention his quick release:



> NBA science tells us there must be at least 0.3 seconds left on the game clock for a team to successfully get off a jump shot. (Yes, the Trent Tucker rule.) If there's less time on the clock, you can only score on a tip or alley-oop. (Unless, of course, you're playing in Atlanta. )
> 
> But guess what? Jason Kapono laughs in the face of science....... Observe.
> 
> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzYup6FifRc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzYup6FifRc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Kapono defies the 0.3 second rule


and who said anything about scoring??? you only mentioned 4 set criteria in terms of *shooting*, and kapono fullfills all 4.....



> "his left handed shooting stroke is probably the quickest in the game."
> "One of the game’s most prolific shooters "
> "Has one of the quickest, purest, and most consistent releases in the League"
> "One of the best catch and shooter players around."


where in that list is scoring mentioned???

kapono does everything on the list....only he's right handed...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> yeah, you're right, he's only a decent shooter.....he only led the league in 3pt% in 06-07 at 51.4%, and shot 48.3% this year.....


But does it translate to his overall game? Were talking about in referece to being a tar, and being elite at your position. Hes a decent shooter in that, if you give him an open shot, hes great at making it, as can be seen from his percentages. But i dont think hes as pure a shooter as redd, nor can he get off shots with the ease or regularity of redd. Otherwise hed be more than a single digit scorer in the league. 



> he's only a back-to-back winner of the 3 point shootout, and tied the shootout record of 25 points set in 1986 by mark price....


I bet there are 45 year old gym rats who could probably do that...that doesnt mean much. What this whole discussion is about is being a star, and during games being considered one of the best shooters in the world from your position. There are plenty of shooters out there that can do great in 3 point contests, but if they are single digit scorers in the league, we cant really call them elite.



> and who said anything about scoring??? you only mentioned 4 set criteria in terms of shooting, and kapono fullfills all 4.....


What are we talking about this entire thread? Were talking about where redd ranks among the top SG's of the world, what makes/doesnt make one a star, and which components of redd's game make/dont make him a star. One thing people are not agreeing with me on is how good of a shooter redd is, which is one of my main criteria in calling him a star. 

So, instead of posting crazy opinions from the general board here, i wanted to post what just this week, a respected media outlet had to say on the matter. Low and behold its some of the things that ive been saying for the last week. Still not to be taken as gosphel, but goes to show that my point is, my opinion is also shared by many in the media world as well.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

Why aren't you calling him a superstar anymore?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> But does it translate to his overall game? Were talking about in referece to being a tar, and being elite at your position. Hes a decent shooter in that, if you give him an open shot, hes great at making it, as can be seen from his percentages. But i dont think hes as pure a shooter as redd, nor can he get off shots with the ease or regularity of redd. Otherwise hed be more than a single digit scorer in the league.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i'm not trying to really compare kapono to redd....we all know redd is a better overall player than kapono....


what you did was list 4 things that were factors in making redd a star:



yamaneko said:


> "his left handed shooting stroke is probably the quickest in the game."
> "One of the game’s most prolific shooters "
> "Has one of the quickest, purest, and most consistent releases in the League"
> "One of the best catch and shooter players around."


i'm just countering that those 4 things do not make a star, as players like kapono fullfills the same criteria....

that's all....

of course redd >>>>>> kapono......


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Why aren't you calling him a superstar anymore?


What are you talking about? almost every other post im calling him a star or superstar or elite player. 



> i'm not trying to really compare kapono to redd....we all know redd is a better overall player than kapono....
> 
> what you did was list 4 things that were factors in making redd a star:


Then why bring up kapono when its totally out of context as to what we are talking about? Like i said, someone in a gym who shoots all day long and can make half court shots with his eyes closed fits the criteria of an amazing shooter. But not in the context of being a star in this league, which is what youre talking about. And the article quoted either did not have the context of redd just being a guy who can shoot like your regular gym guy, or like kapono, etc. It was in the context of his stardom, they were bringing out things that made him a star...the same things that i brought out. What made it stand out more was his defficiences, about not being an explosive athletic guy like the stereotypical star, yet still his shooting puts him at a high level.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

yamaneko said:


> Then why bring up kapono when its totally out of context as to what we are talking about? Like i said, someone in a gym who shoots all day long and can make half court shots with his eyes closed fits the criteria of an amazing shooter. But not in the context of being a star in this league, which is what youre talking about. And the article quoted either did not have the context of redd just being a guy who can shoot like your regular gym guy, or like kapono, etc. It was in the context of his stardom, they were bringing out things that made him a star...the same things that i brought out. What made it stand out more was his defficiences, about not being an explosive athletic guy like the stereotypical star, yet still his shooting puts him at a high level.



nice try, but wrong again....how is it "out of context"??? you specifically listed 4 traits that were factors in making redd a star...

a scrub like jason kapono had those same traits....the difference between the two players was scoring....

and does scoring alone make redd a "star"??? i don't think so.....

redd might be the best player in the milwaukee franchise, but that does not make him a franchise player....he's more akin to being the smartest kid in a special ed class....


you seem to have your own criteria for what constitues a star or franchise player in the nba....



> "his left handed shooting stroke is probably the quickest in the game."
> "One of the game’s most prolific shooters "
> "Has one of the quickest, purest, and most consistent releases in the League"
> "One of the best catch and shooter players around."


like i said before, kapono has all these traits also....

and you counter that redd scores more...well, like Bon]{eRz said, kevin martin does *everything* better than redd, in a tougher conference, but you somehow claim redd is better...

then you constantly talk about "game winning shots".....well, game winning shots don't really matter when you lead your team to the third worst record in the weak eastern conference....


and finally, you claim redd is a star/franchise player because he is the best player in the bucks organization....well, chris kaman was undoubtedly the best player in the clippers organization.....does that make him a franchise player???? not so much.....


point by point, you have been proven wrong by numerous people, but you never concede....

and some of your arguements are outright funny....you speak on subjects you have no knowledge of....

here's what you said about a back to back 3 point shootout champion that led the league in 3pt% last year at 51.4%
and shot 48% this year:



> That would be a stretch to say that about kapono. Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot. But even if that were true, kapono is by no means a star...we would be comparing apples and oranges. a 7 point a game scorer to a 25 point a game scorer..
> 
> Wouldnt mind a specialist like him or korver on the clippers though off of the bench...


not to mention that kapono completed a catch and shoot under .3 seconds.....


you were so completely wrong, it was hilarious....but you glossed over that by claiming any gym rat could do the same and that it has nothing to do with being a star....but you were the one who brought up shooting ability as a factor in the first place!!!!

you try to backtrack, and circumvent all the stupiid claims you have made, but it's impossiible because you have made so many.....


your claims have been refuted successfully point by point....and quite simply put, redd is not a franchise player, a star, nor a top 3-4 sg in the nba....


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> nice try, but wrong again....how is it "out of context"??? you specifically listed 4 traits that were factors in making redd a star...


Same to you. Out of context, because you are bringing in someone like kapono into the equation, when you know good and well, that were talking about star quality here, which kapono does not have. Its one thing to be able to shoot, but were talking to be able to shoot, and then apply it to superstar status. Not be a good shooter and score 7 points a game.



> and you counter that redd scores more...well, like Bon]{eRz said, kevin martin does everything better than redd, in a tougher conference, but you somehow claim redd is better...


Martin is not a better pure shooter than redd at this point. And i cant believe people are giving martin so much credit this early when hes had 1.5 good years only. He could turn into a great player, but he has not been mentioned at all as being a star that i have seen, at least in comparison to some of the others, including redd that we have mentioned. 



> then you constantly talk about "game winning shots".....well, game winning shots don't really matter when you lead your team to the third worst record in the weak eastern conference....


LOL. game winning shots matter no matter what. It means you have that ability. Its not redds fault that the bucks have built a terrible team. You are either a clutch performer or youre not. Hes proven himself to be able to take the game winning shot, and on occasion make it. 



> and finally, you claim redd is a star/franchise player because he is the best player in the bucks organization....well, chris kaman was undoubtedly the best player in the clippers organization.....does that make him a franchise player???? not so much.....


Hes a franchise player because hes the franchise player, plain and simple. the bucks have called him that, they have given him a contract because he fits that role, so he is the franchise player. Kaman is not the best player in the clippers organization, what are you talking about? Brand is our franchise player, he is our best player, he is paid as such as well. 



> point by point, you have been proven wrong by numerous people, but you never concede....


Out of the 1000 points here, i have not been proven wrong even once. People have posted their own opinions, but there is nothing that proves anything i have said as wrong. 



> not to mention that kapono completed a catch and shoot under .3 seconds.....


So derek fisher must have the quickest release in the game and thus be the best pure shooter? No. Thats a bogus argument there. you or i could catch and toss a ball up there in .4 seconds if we had to. Technically point two seconds if we just volley ball tap it. What the article was talking about, what i have been talking about, what analyssts has been talking about for years, is that redd and allen have the most pure shots, quickest releases, etc. in the game, and that brings them to a superstar level because they translate those skills to the tune of 25 points a game. 



> you were so completely wrong, it was hilarious....but you glossed over that by claiming any gym rat could do the same and that it has nothing to do with being a star....but you were the one who brought up shooting ability as a factor in the first place!!!!


Once again grasping at straws here, taking things out of context, trying to twist my words, because you must be getting desperate to try to prove your unprovable point. 



> you try to backtrack, and circumvent all the stupiid claims you have made, but it's impossiible because you have made so many.....


I havent back tracked at all. I have to go back and explain myself it seems to people like you who keep twisting my words, but thats certainly not backtracking. Not one of my points has been "proven" wrong, because nothing im saying has not been said before by people way smarter than you and I, nor is it based off of faulty information. Its not like im saying spud webb is the greatest player of the 80's. Im maintaing an opinion shared by many analysts, that not all agree with, but is by no means as off base as some here seem to think


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

> When you say "which have been better" you make it sound like hes been better than redd for a while. This year was the first year that he even scored more points than redd, and were talking fractions here.


The fact is Martin's stats have been better than Redd's over the course of the entire 07/08 season which is the most recent one. An entire season isn't something you can just discount as not being long enough



> I do not agree with your illustration, neither of them. Some parts you can use, but you cannot use it in the is the team is better with/without a guy, because theres always cases of arenas, kobe, etc. where sometimes when the team actually does better when they are injured. That doesnt mean they are better/worse players, it just means the team steps it up at times with them out.


You don't have to agree or disagree with anything. Those were just facts that I presented. The Bucks have played better this year without their "franchise" player.



> Redd's averaging going down by 2 points, at his age, we can hardly say yet hes on "the decline." Martin jumped up like crazy the year after his rookie year, and this year scored 2. something more points a game, but in only 60 games. I hardly call that " improved markedly each of his seasons". Nor is he playing at a higher level than redd.


Didn't Martin win or come second for most improved last season? And he was in discussions for that award again for the first couple months of this season when he was averaging 27ppg before going down with the injury. Improving scoring averages by 9.2ppg one year, and 3.5ppg the next, I think most people would call that marked improvements [29 players have averaged over 20.2ppg this season (martin's scoring average a year ago), compared to 6 players averaging over 23.7ppg this season (martin's scoring average)]. But then again as we've seen many times in this thread you prefer to use your own definitions for some words or expressions rather than those widely accepted by everyone else

And yes, he is playing at a higher level than Redd. He was more productive, and led his team to more wins. I can't see what other ways that you can objectively measure you can use to say that redd played at a higher level.



> Same to you. Out of context, because you are bringing in someone like kapono into the equation, when you know good and well, that were talking about star quality here, which kapono does not have. Its one thing to be able to shoot, but were talking to be able to shoot, and then apply it to superstar status. Not be a good shooter and score 7 points a game.


You were the one citing the reasons that some website gave as to why Redd's a superstar. bootstrenf just provided an example of another player who satisfies all those criteria, and who wouldn't be considered a superstar by anyone who knows anything about the game. Also, what's so special about being such a great pure shooter as Redd is, if you still shoot at such poor percentages during games?



> Martin is not a better pure shooter than redd at this point. And i cant believe people are giving martin so much credit this early when hes had 1.5 good years only. He could turn into a great player, but he has not been mentioned at all as being a star that i have seen, at least in comparison to some of the others, including redd that we have mentioned.


Yet another Yamaneko rule that a player shouldnt receive credit for playing at a high level unless they've played at that level for over 2 seasons? So Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant... none of these players would likely qualify as stars due this rule



> LOL. game winning shots matter no matter what. It means you have that ability. Its not redds fault that the bucks have built a terrible team. You are either a clutch performer or youre not. Hes proven himself to be able to take the game winning shot, and on occasion make it.


Give me a player who can lead a team to 15 more wins in a season and not hit a single game winning shot, over a player who's hit 10 game winners but led his team to 15 less wins anytime. 



> Hes a franchise player because hes the franchise player, plain and simple. the bucks have called him that, they have given him a contract because he fits that role, so he is the franchise player. Kaman is not the best player in the clippers organization, what are you talking about? Brand is our franchise player, he is our best player, he is paid as such as well.


There are only a select few players in the NBA at any one time who can be called "franchise players". Tim Duncan is a franchise player. Kobe Bryant is a franchise player. Lebron James is a franchise player. Michael Redd, is not in that category. The fact that Bucks have built their team around him, put guys in there who are talented individuals, had a coach who's structured an offense around the guards (thereby inflating redd's stats over the years) rather than the bigs which would likely have been more effective, and to win only 28 games means that redd is not a franchise player.

FYI according to wikipedia:

_Franchise Player is a modern term used in sports to describe an athlete who is not simply the best player on their team, but a player that the team can build their franchise around for the foreseeable future. *The misnomer that a franchise player is only "the best player on a team" disregards the fact that an inordinately bad team will undoubtedly still employ a player with superior skills, relative to his team. However, such a player could be so bad in comparison to players at-large that labeling such a player as a franchise player would be inappropriate*._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_player



> Out of the 1000 points here, i have not been proven wrong even once. People have posted their own opinions, but there is nothing that proves anything i have said as wrong.


You must be joking.... you've been one contradiction after another with each post in this thread



> So derek fisher must have the quickest release in the game and thus be the best pure shooter? No. Thats a bogus argument there. you or i could catch and toss a ball up there in .4 seconds if we had to. Technically point two seconds if we just volley ball tap it. What the article was talking about, what i have been talking about, what analyssts has been talking about for years, is that redd and allen have the most pure shots, quickest releases, etc. in the game, and that brings them to a superstar level because they translate those skills to the tune of 25 points a game.


In what have been largely losing efforts over their careers. Ray Allen is the more talented of those two players, and even he has to play as 3rd fiddle on a team to be considered a contender.



> I havent back tracked at all. I have to go back and explain myself it seems to people like you who keep twisting my words, but thats certainly not backtracking. Not one of my points has been "proven" wrong, because nothing im saying has not been said before by people way smarter than you and I, nor is it based off of faulty information. Its not like im saying spud webb is the greatest player of the 80's. Im maintaing an opinion shared by many analysts, that not all agree with, but is by no means as off base as some here seem to think


This is hilarious! Especially coming from someone who said this about Kapono:



> Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot.


LOL!!!!


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

Bon]{eRz, that is an absolutely brilliant post. Great work.


----------



## leidout (Jul 13, 2005)

Game, Set, Match to Bon]{eRz! :iwon:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> The fact is Martin's stats have been better than Redd's over the course of the entire 07/08 season which is the most recent one. An entire season isn't something you can just discount as not being long enough


It most certainly is. after last year how many players did ruben patterson do better than statistically? yes did that make ruben patterson a better player than those guys? brand in 05/06 did better than almost any other PF/C in the league that year. Should we right after that year have said that brand was better than those guys? Your logic is not sound in this argument.



> You don't have to agree or disagree with anything. Those were just facts that I presented. The Bucks have played better this year without their "franchise" player.


Wrong again. If you try to misapply an illustration is most certainly can be disagreed with. Your thesis was wrong, and has been proven many times to not be something that is sound. How a team does while a player is injured does not always mean much about that player. Just like i said, arenas and kobe's teams have done well with them out, that does not take anything away from their individual talent. To use facts in a wrong way is misleading. I could use facts such as "in the summer league paul davis this year put up consistently better stats than kaman, and the clippers did better as a unit when davis was in there." that would be a fact. But then if i tried to say, "thus kaman really isnt that good, he isnt the best player on the team, wed be better off with davis starting, etc. etc.", then id be misleading like you are doing. Bucks won/loss record without redd has little to no bearing on how redd's abilities should be viewed. Same as when the lakers did better with kobe out last year, did that mean kobe sucked? When the wizards did well without arenas, does that mean arenas isnt a star? Please.



> Didn't Martin win or come second for most improved last season? And he was in discussions for that award again for the first couple months of this season when he was averaging 27ppg before going down with the injury. Improving scoring averages by 9.2ppg one year, and 3.5ppg the next, I think most people would call that marked improvements


Like i said, he improved a great deal from his rookie year. I certainly dont recall any discussions for most improved award for martin over the first two months of this season when the first month he averaged, what? 24 poitns a game? Then the second month of the season he was injured pretty much the whole month. WHen you use phrases like, " improved markedly each of his seasons", again its misleading. For someone not in the know, they might assume you are referring t oa guy who has improved over the course of 4, possibly 5 years, year to year. We heard that term a lot with maggette who did it over 6 years. 



> But then again as we've seen many times in this thread you prefer to use your own definitions for some words or expressions rather than those widely accepted by everyone else


Again, me calling redd a star, superstar, elite player, super shooter, whatever, are all terms used by analysts for the last few years, all reasons why teams were ready t opay him whatever they could when he was a free agent, and the reason the bucks made sure to keep him. Just because some people on a message board might not agree with them and myself does that mean that we can put the "everyone else" moniker on it. lol



> And yes, he is playing at a higher level than Redd. He was more productive, and led his team to more wins. I can't see what other ways that you can objectively measure you can use to say that redd played at a higher level.


again, flawed logic. Lets see what happens over 2 yers, 3 years, 4 years, when were talking about someone with the history of redd, and an up and comer like martin. Couple years ago mike james averaged 20 points and 6 assists. That was better than most PG's in the league. Did that make him better than those guys? No, what he did over the course of 3/4 years could determine that. And there have been guys who prove themselves better. Rey allens in the beginning of his career put up some nice numbers, but like kevin martin was not yet referred to as a star SG. He did better than one of the current star guards of the time, reggie miller. But most analysts used caution in calling him great, or a star yet until about his 4th season when it was obvious, yes, this guy had something special. Same with redd, you didnt hear him called a star, even after his 8 three pointers in the 4th, until around 05, when it was obvious...this wasnt just a fluke, this guy has incredible game, yes we think hes a star. I never said martin will never reach that level. on the contrary i have stated he very well could get there due to his age. But its premature to say hes at that level yet, or even surpassed someone like redd. I dont buy it, and you dont hear any analysts saying that neither. Next year, if martin averages say 25 points, plays most of the year, i guarantee you will start hearing him in that kind of context. Sorry if i offend you by taking the stance that one and a half years of nice 20+ point ball does not put someone on the level of a michael redd with his resume the last 5+ years. 



> You were the one citing the reasons that some website stated as to why Redd's a star. bootstrenf just provided an example of another player who satisfies all those criteria, and who wouldn't be considered a star by anyone who knows anything about the game. Also, what's so special about being such a great pure shooter as Redd is, if you still shoot at such poor percentages during games?


The guy is a 39% career 3 poitn shooter. Kobe is 34%. Ray ALlen 39.7%. Reggie miller 39%. Tmac 33.7%. All guys who have been doing it a long time, and i would not call redd's percentages poor. I was the one citing noted experts on the game, saying the same things I wa ssaying. I wasnt posting the raving madness of people on other message boards, i am posting professional opinions which happened to be similar to mine. I thought it quite interested that it was just posted a few days ago. if you cannot see how bringing jason kapono into the argument when it is totally off topic as to the context of the discussion, then thats just a dissapointment coming from someone who portrays himself to be a logical thinker. 



> Another subjective Yamaneko rule that a player can't receive credit for playing at a high level unless they've played at that level for over 2 seasons? So Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant... none of these players would likely qualify as stars due this rule


Dwight howard shows special skill set that makes him an obvious star, a definate max player, and puts up numbers that very few guys in the last 20 years can do. You are seriously comparing kevin martin's game and stats to howard? Martin does have a part of his game that is really top top flight yet, hes just been a very well rounded player the last year and a half, nothing to scoff at, but nothing to compare him to dwight howard. Or lebron james for that matter, who just 2 months of watching him you could tell this guy had superstar talent. Kevin durant, correct, im not sure that guy is a superstar yet. At his age, i really think he could be, but id like to wait a year first . 
Deron williams, im reluctant to call a star, but i do admit he probably should be considered one...but he also has 160 games under his belt already of 18 points, 10 assists to his name. How many guys in the league can say that for the last few years? Martin this year, did dang good in scoring, only 5 guys averaged more than him, but heck, only 1 piont a game more than maggette, and his rebound and assist werent exactly on the level of, well this guy had an incredible year, its obvious hes a superstar already level. 

Michael redd himself wasnt one of those right away superstars. Took a while for us to say hes arrived. Mcgrady took a few ywars, but did have a ONE HIT year and boom he was a star, without having to look further, due to his averaging 27 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 blocks, 2 steals. Sorry if im not going to put martin on that level where he can have a year and a half of 22 poitns a game, and then hes all of a sudden passed up guy slike redd?




> There are only a select few players in the NBA at any one time who can be called "franchise players".


im the one who makes up definitions of my own terms? Elton brand has been called a franchise player numerous times, so has most other max or near max players who are the best on their team. I am NOT saying redd is on the level of kobe, duncan, etc, matter of fact i have said the opposite. Id say this is a 50/50 term with many having their own definitions of it. Im willing to accept that some people say franchise player to refer to the kobes of the world. But the other half of the people, again, including media, also use the term to refer to who the best player on the team is, usually after the team invests heavily in such a player. Not sure what point youre trying to prove. Ive already said redd is not that definition of franchise player, of which probaby only 4 guys in the league are, but rather he is a franchise player in the definition of thats how the bucks viewed him when they signe dhim, hes by far the best player on the team, and the guy they have been trying to build the team around for a couple years. You cant really deny those facts, so not sure what point youre trying to make. 



> Give me a player who can lead a team to 15 more wins in a season and not hit a single game winning shot, over a player who's hit 10 game winners but led his team to 15 less wins anytime.


thats a paradox there. You cannot always prove that a guy has "led" his team to 15 more wins in a season, as if you can statistically point to leadership qualities , and other intangibles that "leading" a team has to do with. And im not saying neither id pick robert horry over elton brand because horry hits game winners...again, were talking about stars here, guys considered elite at their positions. If you take two players with similar stats, you go for the one who is a clutch performer, a guy who can take over games down the stretch. Which is why id rather have a star guard or SF that we could pay max money to as opposed to brand. 



> You must be joking.... you've been one contradiction after another with each post in this thread


nope, sorry!



> In what have been largely losing efforts over their careers. Ray Allen is the more talented of those two players, and even he has to play as 3rd fiddle on a team to be considered a contender.


yes. ray allen for years has been considered the top SHOOTING guard around (not SG per ce), and with good reason. He has incredible skills. but hes on the decline, and rightfully so as he is getting up there in years. I think redd might have passed, or is passing him up in star quality. 



> This is hilarious! Especially coming from someone who said this about Kapono:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot.


Dont know what so hilarious about it. Im the one sharing opinions of a lot of professionals out there. And yes, kapono is a decent shooter, and during the game he is not a lights out quick shooter like redd, if he could consistently score from outside during the flow of a game, wouldnt you say that hed be averaging more than 7 points a game? If he was one of the bes tin the league at catch and shoot, wouldnt you say hed do it more often? Again, the reason why kaponos name should not even be brought up in a thread like this.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> It most certainly is. after last year how many players did ruben patterson do better than statistically? yes did that make ruben patterson a better player than those guys? brand in 05/06 did better than almost any other PF/C in the league that year. Should we right after that year have said that brand was better than those guys? Your logic is not sound in this argument.


It depends on who Patterson is being compared to, what role they had in their teams how much the teams depended on those players to make a difference in the win columns etc. Martin and Redd are comparable because they are both in the exact same situation – leaders of their teams. Martin clearly had the better individual season than Redd, thats indisputable he has him beat in all statistical categories except for assists, and incase you forget he also led his team to 12 more wins (18-19 adjusted).



> Wrong again. If you try to misapply an illustration is most certainly can be disagreed with. Your thesis was wrong, and has been proven many times to not be something that is sound. How a team does while a player is injured does not always mean much about that player. Just like i said, arenas and kobe's teams have done well with them out, that does not take anything away from their individual talent. To use facts in a wrong way is misleading. I could use facts such as "in the summer league paul davis this year put up consistently better stats than kaman, and the clippers did better as a unit when davis was in there." that would be a fact. But then if i tried to say, "thus kaman really isnt that good, he isnt the best player on the team, wed be better off with davis starting, etc. etc.", then id be misleading like you are doing. Bucks won/loss record without redd has little to no bearing on how redd's abilities should be viewed. Same as when the lakers did better with kobe out last year, did that mean kobe sucked? When the wizards did well without arenas, does that mean arenas isnt a star? Please.


Lets look at the facts:

*Martin clearly had the better individual season statistically (PER’s: 21.07 vs 18.90)
*Martin has improved immensely each of his 4 seasons
*Redd declined noticeably the past season (scoring average down 4ppg, shooting %’s down across the board, you’d at least expect them to go up if he’s taking less shots)
[Interesting that Martin is already playing at a level above Redd, and they seem to be going in opposite directions at this stage in their careers]
*Martin’s led his team to 12 more wins (18-19 when adjusted for games missed with injuries) 
-in a tougher conference 
-with what you admit to be less talent surrounding him than redd had
*Martin’s team lost a higher percentage of games without him
*Redd’s team won a higher percentage of games without him

A recurring theme here has been that you keep trying to argue against numbers and facts, which have just been stacking up against redd. Any one of those facts listed above on their own wouldn’t mean much, you could come up with possible reasons why they shouldn’t be relied on to really indicate anything... but you look at that list in its entirety and the excuses like “bucks won/loss record without redd has little to no bearing on how redd's abilities should be viewed “ “kings are a worse team and their injuries are why martin’s stats are higher, and even though he led an injury depleted team to more wins that’s irrelevant” sound pretty silly. I don’t think you’ve provided any objective facts whatsoever to support your position that redd is better than martin. Your whole argument has been that he’s a more pure shooter, and as of their most recent performances, martin has him beat even in that area with his 40+ 3pt% and 87% ft%. 



> Like i said, he improved a great deal from his rookie year. I certainly dont recall any discussions for most improved award for martin over the first two months of this season when the first month he averaged, what? 24 poitns a game? Then the second month of the season he was injured pretty much the whole month. WHen you use phrases like, " improved markedly each of his seasons", again its misleading. For someone not in the know, they might assume you are referring t oa guy who has improved over the course of 4, possibly 5 years, year to year. We heard that term a lot with maggette who did it over 6 years.


Just comparing his scoring averages to keep it simple, Martin’s season by season ppg over his career have been:

04-05: 2.9
05-06: 10.8
06-07: 20.2
07-08: 23.7

That’s annual increases of 9.9, 9.4, and 3.5 over a 4 year period. Just over the past year, his scoring increased from what would be ranked 29th in the league, to 7th. How much more improvement would you say he’s needed to show during this season and over his career to qualify as “markedly improved” according to the Yamaneka dictionary? 



> Again, me calling redd a star, superstar, elite player, super shooter, whatever, are all terms used by analysts for the last few years, all reasons why teams were ready t opay him whatever they could when he was a free agent, and the reason the bucks made sure to keep him. Just because some people on a message board might not agree with them and myself does that mean that we can put the "everyone else" moniker on it. lol


The “everyone else moniker” was in particular reference to your definition of “improving markedly”. Which I’ve addressed in the above paragraph... I look forward to reading your definition of improving markedly, which precludes martin. You can add “franchise player” to the “everyone else moniker” list too. Write to Wikipedia and tell them that they have their definition wrong



> again, flawed logic. Lets see what happens over 2 yers, 3 years, 4 years, when were talking about someone with the history of redd, and an up and comer like martin. Couple years ago mike james averaged 20 points and 6 assists. That was better than most PG's in the league. Did that make him better than those guys? No, what he did over the course of 3/4 years could determine that. And there have been guys who prove themselves better. Rey allens in the beginning of his career put up some nice numbers, but like kevin martin was not yet referred to as a star SG. He did better than one of the current star guards of the time, reggie miller. But most analysts used caution in calling him great, or a star yet until about his 4th season when it was obvious, yes, this guy had something special. Same with redd, you didnt hear him called a star, even after his 8 three pointers in the 4th, until around 05, when it was obvious...this wasnt just a fluke, this guy has incredible game, yes we think hes a star. I never said martin will never reach that level. on the contrary i have stated he very well could get there due to his age. But its premature to say hes at that level yet, or even surpassed someone like redd. I dont buy it, and you dont hear any analysts saying that neither. Next year, if martin averages say 25 points, plays most of the year, i guarantee you will start hearing him in that kind of context.


This is what that reply was in reference to:



BonKeRz said:


> _And yes, he is playing at a higher level than Redd. He was more productive, and led his team to more wins. I can't see what other ways that you can objectively measure you can use to say that redd played at a higher level._


Where is the flawed logic in that? I’ve supported my assertions with facts and numbers. You want to wait 2, 3, 4 years to see who’s right? That’s your argument? Lol

Its laughable to call redd a superstar and point to the 8 three pointers he’s hit in the 4th quarter as his greatest achievement... Donyell Marshall’s hit 12 three’s in a game once, guess that makes him a star and deserving of a top 3 place among pure shooting fwds in the world lol



> Sorry if i offend you by taking the stance that one and a half years of nice 20+ point ball does not put someone on the level of a michael redd with his resume the last 5+ years.


I’m not offended. I’m not even a fan of martin. Don’t think he cracks the top 10 sg’s in the league, he’d be somewhere right on the edge.. but the fact that you could argue such a strong case about him being a better player than Redd really makes your assertion on the first post look very silly. 



> The guy is a 39% career 3 poitn shooter. Kobe is 34%. Ray ALlen 39.7%. Reggie miller 39%. Tmac 33.7%. All guys who have been doing it a long time, and i would not call redd's percentages poor. I was the one citing noted experts on the game, saying the same things I wa ssaying. I wasnt posting the raving madness of people on other message boards, i am posting professional opinions which happened to be similar to mine. I thought it quite interested that it was just posted a few days ago. if you cannot see how bringing jason kapono into the argument when it is totally off topic as to the context of the discussion, then thats just a dissapointment coming from someone who portrays himself to be a logical thinker.


He's a good shooter with good career numbers, but look how much the %'s and other numbers have declined in the past season. You haven’t taken that into account at all, yet you call my logic faulty 

Its good that you posted those professional opinions of the reasons why redd’s such a great player. And it was good seeing bootstrenf shoot down that list of reasons with one role player comparison. It was in the context of the discussion, if you (or a “professional opinion”) say a player is a superstar for x y and z reasons, and there are other players in the league who also meet that same criteria but clearly aren't superstars, then logic says just because a player can do x y and z it doesn’t mean he’s a superstar. If you can’t make that simple connection of why kapono was relevant to the discussion, well I don’t think I can help you



> Dwight howard shows special skill set that makes him an obvious star, a definate max player, and puts up numbers that very few guys in the last 20 years can do. You are seriously comparing kevin martin's game and stats to howard? Martin does have a part of his game that is really top top flight yet, hes just been a very well rounded player the last year and a half, nothing to scoff at, but nothing to compare him to dwight howard. Or lebron james for that matter, who just 2 months of watching him you could tell this guy had superstar talent. Kevin durant, correct, im not sure that guy is a superstar yet. At his age, i really think he could be, but id like to wait a year first .
> Deron williams, im reluctant to call a star, but i do admit he probably should be considered one...but he also has 160 games under his belt already of 18 points, 10 assists to his name. How many guys in the league can say that for the last few years? Martin this year, did dang good in scoring, only 5 guys averaged more than him, but heck, only 1 piont a game more than maggette, and his rebound and assist werent exactly on the level of, well this guy had an incredible year, its obvious hes a superstar already level.


So this Yakamano rule states that a player cannot receive credit for playing at a high level for 2 years or less, but it doesn’t apply to select players which meet some other kind of criteria set by Yakamano. Gotcha!



> Michael redd himself wasnt one of those right away superstars. Took a while for us to say hes arrived. Mcgrady took a few ywars, but did have a ONE HIT year and boom he was a star, without having to look further, due to his averaging 27 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 blocks, 2 steals. Sorry if im not going to put martin on that level where he can have a year and a half of 22 poitns a game, and then hes all of a sudden passed up guy slike redd?


I’m not trying to put Martin up on that level. Rather I’m showing that Redd doesn’t belong there right now.



> im the one who makes up definitions of my own terms? Elton brand has been called a franchise player numerous times, so has most other max or near max players who are the best on their team. I am NOT saying redd is on the level of kobe, duncan, etc, matter of fact i have said the opposite. Id say this is a 50/50 term with many having their own definitions of it. Im willing to accept that some people say franchise player to refer to the kobes of the world. But the other half of the people, again, including media, also use the term to refer to who the best player on the team is, usually after the team invests heavily in such a player. Not sure what point youre trying to prove. Ive already said redd is not that definition of franchise player, of which probaby only 4 guys in the league are, but rather he is a franchise player in the definition of thats how the bucks viewed him when they signe dhim, hes by far the best player on the team, and the guy they have been trying to build the team around for a couple years. You cant really deny those facts, so not sure what point youre trying to make.


Ok this is starting to get tiring. I provide fact, link, objective definition… and you argue that 50% of people don’t use that definition. What evidence do you have to back this statement? Let me re-paste part of the definition, because I don’t think I could say this any better:

_The *misnomer* that a franchise player is only "the best player on a team" disregards the fact that an inordinately bad team will undoubtedly still employ a player with superior skills, relative to his team. However, such a player could be so bad in comparison to players at-large that *labeling such a player as a franchise player would be inappropriate*._

You called Redd a franchise player. You were called out on it, and you still defended your position that Redd fits the bill as a franchise player. You were WRONG. Labelling him that would be a misnomer. 

_Misnomer:
1. a *misapplied *or *inappropriate *name or designation. 
2. an *error* in naming a person or thing._ 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misnomer



> thats a paradox there. You cannot always prove that a guy has "led" his team to 15 more wins in a season, as if you can statistically point to leadership qualities , and other intangibles that "leading" a team has to do with. And im not saying neither id pick robert horry over elton brand because horry hits game winners...again, were talking about stars here, guys considered elite at their positions. If you take two players with similar stats, you go for the one who is a clutch performer, a guy who can take over games down the stretch. Which is why id rather have a star guard or SF that we could pay max money to as opposed to brand.


Any casual fan knows martin’s been the best player on the kings, and redd’s been the best player on the bucks. If you need me to statistically prove to you that the number of wins they had was related to how they “led” their teams... well its like me telling you 1 + 1 = 2, and you saying “prove it”. I’ve stated several reasons and facts why martin’s been a better player than red, you haven’t got a single one yet that says otherwise. 

You go with your clutch performer who’s been a perennial loser, and I’ll go with the guy that gets more wins. Btw I have no idea how many game winners martin’s hit over the last couple years, I don’t even know that he hasn’t hit more than redd. And tell me how many game winners shaq has hit over his career. Not too many I’m guessing... but I bet you’d take a player with his ability to put his team in a position to get the W over his career over 99.9% of the other "clutch" players in the league. 



> yes. ray allen for years has been considered the top SHOOTING guard around (not SG per ce), and with good reason. He has incredible skills. but hes on the decline, and rightfully so as he is getting up there in years. I think redd might have passed, or is passing him up in star quality.


Redd hasn’t passed Allen in star quality. And that's another one of your own definitions or categories... if you’re only considering shooting skills then why isn't someone like kapono the top SHOOTING guard in the league?



> Hes a decent shooter, but not sure that he has that quick of a release, that its consistent, nor that hes one of the best catch and shoot.





> Dont know what so hilarious about it. Im the one sharing opinions of a lot of professionals out there. And yes, kapono is a decent shooter, and during the game he is not a lights out quick shooter like redd, if he could consistently score from outside during the flow of a game, wouldnt you say that hed be averaging more than 7 points a game? If he was one of the bes tin the league at catch and shoot, wouldnt you say hed do it more often? Again, the reason why kaponos name should not even be brought up in a thread like this.


Its hilarious because Kapono is one of the best shooters in the league, with a very quick release timed at faster than 0.3 seconds as evidenced in the vid, is consistent, and he’s one of the best at catch and shooting he actually makes a living off that. And you’re still defending your statement! That’s the hilarious part


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> It depends on who Patterson is being compared to, what role they had in their teams how much the teams depended on those players to make a difference in the win columns etc. Martin and Redd are comparable because they are both in the exact same situation – leaders of their teams. Martin clearly had the better individual season than Redd, thats indisputable he has him beat in all statistical categories except for assists, and incase you forget he also led his team to 12 more wins (18-19 adjusted).


Here you go again with your "led his team to wins" as if he is the sole reason that the kings won games. As if coaching has nothing to do with it. As if team chemistry has nothing to do with it. Sacramento hands down played better than the bucks. You cant say that martin led his team to more wins than redd, as if hes the driving force. Heck, he missed 20 games even. You can say the kings had a better standing than the bucks, thats a fact. can we say that carmello "led" his team to more wins than lebron did, so carmello must be better? You going to say bosh "led" his team to twice as many victories as jefferson did with minnesota? And again, youre comparing a guy who for the first time scored 23 points a game this year, in 60 games, as having surpassed a guy who has averaged 24 over the last five years. Like i said, lets wait until we hear the same superlatives about martin before giving him accolades. Lets wait until he truly sets himself apart like redd has done in this league. Like i said many times, he could become a great player. But thats what everyone said about maggette too when he was improving, and was putting up similar numbers. 



> *Martin clearly had the better individual season statistically (PER’s: 21.07 vs 18.90)
> *Martin has improved immensely each of his 4 seasons
> *Redd declined noticeably the past season (scoring average down 4ppg, shooting %’s down across the board, you’d at least expect them to go up if he’s taking less shots)
> [Interesting that Martin is already playing at a level above Redd, and they seem to be going in opposite directions at this stage in their careers]
> ...


Here you go talking about the same stuff again when it proves almost nothing yet. Now you bring up Per which is highly subjective. Chris paul had a per about 50% higher than deron williams. Is he that much better than deron? Amare had a PER 25% better than Dwight howard. Would many people here take amare over dwight? Al jefferson had almost identical per to yao and dwight howard..

Yes, with less talent around him, martin was able to do more IMO. Same as with less talent around him, maggette's numbers got inflated, as did kaman. And again with the losses w/wo which have been proven time and again to be highly subjective, and not an accurate guage of player talent. Lakers did better with kobe out with injury, washington did great without arenas. One of the few absolute clear cut examples of how a team suffers when someone goes is nash and phoenix, where their offense is so reliant on him, its like they dont know what to do when he doesnt play.



> A recurring theme here has been that you keep trying to argue against numbers and facts, which have just been stacking up against redd. Any one of those facts listed above on their own wouldn’t mean much, you could come up with possible reasons why they shouldn’t be relied on to really indicate anything... but you look at that list in its entirety and the excuses like “bucks won/loss record without redd has little to no bearing on how redd's abilities should be viewed “ “kings are a worse team and their injuries are why martin’s stats are higher, and even though he led an injury depleted team to more wins that’s irrelevant” sound pretty silly. I don’t think you’ve provided any objective facts whatsoever to support your position that redd is better than martin. Your whole argument has been that he’s a more pure shooter, and as of their most recent performances, martin has him beat even in that area with his 40+ 3pt% and 87% ft%.


Ive been giving nothing but facts, facts over the course of 5 years, not over 60 games. And even if we were comparing apples with apples, were talking martin outscoring redd by 0.8. Out rebonding him by 0.2. getting less rebounds by 1.3, same steals, same blocks, 0.4 less turnovers, and all this in 10 less games than redd played. Even going by your logic of one year of a guy with decent stats can tell us that hes better than a guy who has been averaging better for the last FIVE years, its not as if martin was leaps and bounds over redd on the stats sheet as you make it seem. 

Im not the one reaching here. 



> That’s annual increases of 9.9, 9.4, and 3.5 over a 4 year period. Just over the past year, his scoring increased from what would be ranked 29th in the league, to 7th. How much more improvement would you say he’s needed to show during this season and over his career to qualify as “markedly improved” according to the Yamaneka dictionary?


Like i said, i use the maggette example as one example. Heck, even redd is a guy who we can say had improved each season, and it wouldnt just be a case of going from bench warmer to rotation player and then a couple good years as a starter. If anything redd seems to have had what you are calling marked improvement using martin as an example. went from 2 points to 11 points to 15 points to 22 points to 23 poitns to 25 points to 27 points. Although thats technically improvement over 7 years, id mainly highlight the last 5 to call that improvement "each season" since it would mean so much more than scoring 22 points over a season and a half as big time improvement.

Once again am i saying that its out of the question for martin? he very well could end up with a career statline like redd has had over the next 3 years. 



> Write to Wikipedia and tell them that they have their definition wrong


thats pointless, id have to talk to them about the millions of other things that are not entirely accurate there on that website. Its not "wrong" per ce, just one definition of the word that people, by no means just me, define differently. Thats one of the thoughts behind that site, different people can add different ideas and thoughts as to topics and words on there. 



> Where is the flawed logic in that? I’ve supported my assertions with facts and numbers. You want to wait 2, 3, 4 years to see who’s right? That’s your argument? Lol


Your assertions are flawed and so is your logic. You say things like, Martin has led his team to more victories. You make it seem like martin has crushed redd in stats this year. You make it seem like one year of equal stats wipes out the fact that redd has been doing this for years, and that its premature to annoint someone as better than another guy after 60 games. We dont have to wait to see who is right, were not talking about right and wrong, were talking about fact and opinion. Fact is someone with martin's resume cannot be considered to be better than anothe rplayer after doing nothing that spectacular, and having basically equal stats to the other guy in only 60 games. Thats just a fact. Now, if he did something really amazing, like average 30 points a game or hit 150 out of 300 three pointers on the year, then yes, its a fact that you can go ahead and call that player better than almost anyone else who is averaging 24 poitns a game and shooting 40% from three point land. But youre stretching it to annoint martin as better so soon, thats just the plain and simple of it. Its not a matter of lets see in 3 years who is right. I myself have said about 8 times now that martin very well could become a star, and surpass redd, hes certainly young enough. But its too early to call him that when he has a 23 point season in 60 games on his resume. 



> He's a good shooter with good career numbers, but look how much the %'s and other numbers have declined in the past season. You haven’t taken that into account at all, yet you call my logic faulty


Again, you are using this whole one season thing so dramatically. Redd last year averaged what hes been averaging the last 5 years. Points, FG%, 3P %, in almost ever major statistical category. The only one was under by a bit on his career average was free throws and were still talking the difference between 82 and 84%. Kobe bryant has had about FOUR different seasons where his numbers dipped from one year to the next, on how many of those times can we say that he was on the decline? Give me a break with the rapid aging theory you have. Once agian, lets wait to see like 2 years or 3 years of decline to call a guy on the decline. Someone like shaq, closer to home: mobley, etc. To say that redd must be on the dcline because of one year in which is still averaged what he has been the last 5 years, is yet again flawed logic. 



> So this Yakamano rule states that a player cannot receive credit for playing at a high level for 2 years or less, but it doesn’t apply to select players which meet some other kind of criteria set by Yakamano. Gotcha!


Youre saying you disagree? Please. youre not going to sit there and tell me that kevin martin has shown the same brilliance that superstars like lebron, etc. showed right off the bat. You cannot say that martin's stats showed something absolutely spectacular that allows us to annoint him a star after 60 games of 23 point ball. Now youre just trying to call me out on things that you HAVE to agree with, just for spite. Are you saying that deron williams and chris paul havent accomplished anything special? Nothing to set them apart from kevin martin? That perhaps tim duncan and 21 poitns and 12 rebounds 3 blocks playing next to david robinson wasnt enough to call him a guaranteed star?



> You called Redd a franchise player. You were called out on it, and you still defended your position that Redd fits the bill as a franchise player. You were WRONG. Labelling him that would be a misnomer.


No, i would not be wrong, because i am not using someone else's definition of the word. That is not a word that is set in stone in a dictionary like "misnomer" which cannot have varying definitions. Franchise player is a subjective phrase that can be used in many different ways, even can be used for a guy like david beckham in the galaxy last year, not the best guy on the team, played in almost no games, yet probably made more money for the club in one year than their entire 10 years combined. People called him the franchise player for the galaxy, and it had nothing to do with on the pitch action. 

I cannot be "wrong" at using a word that has a subjective meaning. Just like the word "fanatic." Some might call a fanatic anyone who reads the sports page just to see scores of a game. Others might draw the line at fanaticsim of waiting in line for 5 days just to buy playoff tickets. Neither would be "wrong," as that word is not a word that is set in stone. Quit trying to play word games just for the sake of trying to prove me wrong at something. 



> Any casual fan knows martin’s been the best player on the kings, and redd’s been the best player on the bucks.


Id say thats a pretty decent statement. Its not AS set in stone perhaps as one might think due to the enigmatic artest who when he is on, is one of the better all around players in the game, but with artest having been in la la land much of the past 3 years, id have to say that with equal salaries, about 90% of teams would choose martin to be on their team than artest (clippers probably being in the 10% who would not). 



> I’ve stated several reasons and facts why martin’s been a better player than red, you haven’t got a single one yet that says otherwise.


its pretty much the opposite. You keep bringing up equal stats in less games this year as your main tpic, as well as intangibles such as him having "led" the team to this and that victory. Look at the clippers in 05/06. Brand by far had the best stats onthe team, and better than most in the league. Did brand "lead" us to all those victories? Most will say cassell "led" us to those victories since he made everyone better around him, and was able to take over games down the stretch. Others might argue that someone who averaged 17 points and 7 assists cannot be considered as the leader over someone who averaged 25 and 11. Its a subjective argument. 



> You go with your clutch performer who’s been a perennial loser, and I’ll go with the guy that gets more wins.


Again, martin isnt "getting" more wins. Is robert horry a guy who "gets" wins, even with his clutch play? or is he perhaps a recipient of being in the right team at the right time. Again, a subjective argument. Garnett could be considered a perennial loser. Yet others consider him to be probably top 2 most talented players in the league of the last 10 years. Do you pick a guy like rasheed wallace over him because he "gets more wins.?"



> Redd hasn’t passed Allen in star quality. And that's another one of your own definitions or categories... if you’re only considering shooting skills then why isn't someone like kapono the top SHOOTING guard in the league?


Her eyou go yet again with this nonsense of bringing up 7 point a game scrubs into a conversation about stars and potential stars. A rec guy can be a great shooter, but if he doesnt have the skills to translate that into a 25 point a game scorer, then of what good is that, and how could he be considered something like that?



> Its hilarious because Kapono is one of the best shooters in the league, with a very quick release timed at faster than 0.3 seconds as evidenced in the vid, is consistent, and he’s one of the best at catch and shooting he actually makes a living off that. And you’re still defending your statement! That’s the hilarious part


Nope, you insisting on bringing up kapono into this conversation is hilarious. Kapono is consistent. A consistent single digit scorer in the league. A guy who is so good at catching and shooting, that hes been able to average a whopping quarter and a half of playing time each game for his 5 year career. ANYONE can get a shot off with .3 seconds. Even kaman can. (of course shooting guards would be much more accurate in a testing situation), but yet again were not talking rec league, were not talking all star weekend, or scientific youtube experiments. Were talking who is the best pure shooter, and proves it during the games. Kapono is what he is. a nice spark plug off of the bench to draw out the defense, and is good for 1-2 three pointers a game, but literally thats about it (7 points a game average). Should never be brought up in a topic that has to do with guys like michael redd, ray allen, and reggie miller. 

Kaponos name should be talked about when were discussing the best shooting specialists off of the bench in the league. Korver, daman jones, etc. etc.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Here you go again with your "led his team to wins" as if he is the sole reason that the kings won games. As if coaching has nothing to do with it. As if team chemistry has nothing to do with it. Sacramento hands down played better than the bucks. You cant say that martin led his team to more wins than redd, as if hes the driving force. Heck, he missed 20 games even. You can say the kings had a better standing than the bucks, thats a fact. can we say that carmello "led" his team to more wins than lebron did, so carmello must be better? You going to say bosh "led" his team to twice as many victories as jefferson did with minnesota? And again, youre comparing a guy who for the first time scored 23 points a game this year, in 60 games, as having surpassed a guy who has averaged 24 over the last five years. Like i said, lets wait until we hear the same superlatives about martin before giving him accolades. Lets wait until he truly sets himself apart like redd has done in this league. Like i said many times, he could become a great player. But thats what everyone said about maggette too when he was improving, and was putting up similar numbers.


Martin and Redd, both the leaders of their teams. Martin surrounded by less talent than Redd. Martin playing in a tougher conference. 12 games difference, which would likely have been 6-7 games higher if you extrapolate their individual records during the games they missed with injuries. Kings played better with Martin in the team. Bucks played better without Redd in the team. You don’t have to be a freaking genious to come to the conclusion that even if there was better coaching involved, better team chemistry on a team with less individual talent (which Martin should receive some credit for anyway as the leader of the team), Martin has done a BETTER job leading his team than Redd has. You’re saying “it could be due to this, it could be due to that”, you’ve got nothing to point at to indicate that Redd’s a better leader, and your criticisms of everything that’s in Martin’s favour can be applied to any player in the NBA. Can’t prove that Kobe’s a better leader than Redd, because the difference in their records “could be due to team chemistry or better coaching”. Same with Redd vs Garnett. Same with Redd vs Duncan. So in your books, even though there is nothing to indicate that Redd is a good leader, as long as it can’t conclusively be proven that any other player is the sole reason for their team’s better record well then you feel justified to claim that they haven’t been a better leader than Redd. 

Comparison of Carmello vs Bron isn’t relevant here because Lebron is clearly more productive on the court, whereas Martin has trumped Redd in both wins and production. We can say that Bosh’s team won more games than Jefferson, and his production was greater on the court so he was a better leader.

I’m taking their most recent performances. Martin’s been on the up the past 4 years, Redd’s started to decline. Why choose 5 year numbers? Shaq’s 5 year averages are 19.4pt 9.7reb 2.0blck, guess you would take him over a player like Dwight Howard who’s only had the one most recent season with better stats than Shaq. Great reasoning!

How has Redd set himself apart in this league? He’s led his team to one (maybe two) playoff series, and that was a first round exit lol



> Here you go talking about the same stuff again when it proves almost nothing yet. Now you bring up Per which is highly subjective. Chris paul had a per about 50% higher than deron williams. Is he that much better than deron? Amare had a PER 25% better than Dwight howard. Would many people here take amare over dwight? Al jefferson had almost identical per to yao and dwight howard..


Same stuff which are all facts in Martin’s favour. PER is an objective statistic, but even if you don’t go by that look at every single stat, they’re all in Martin’s favour except for assists. So don’t even know why you’re arguing the validity of PER when no matter which way you slice it, Martin had the more productive season than Redd. Either agree with this statement, or please present your argument of why Redd had the more productive season.



> Yes, with less talent around him, martin was able to do more IMO. Same as with less talent around him, maggette's numbers got inflated, as did kaman. And again with the losses w/wo which have been proven time and again to be highly subjective, and not an accurate guage of player talent. Lakers did better with kobe out with injury, washington did great without arenas. One of the few absolute clear cut examples of how a team suffers when someone goes is nash and phoenix, where their offense is so reliant on him, its like they dont know what to do when he doesnt play.


Wtf are you talking about, on one hand you say playing with less talent has inflated martin’s numbers, but on the other hand you give him no credit for leading that less talented team to more wins?? LOL 
Martin’s played better than Redd over an entire season. We’re not talking a span of 5 games that Kobe’s missed. And you could at least argue that Washington is a better team without Gilbert… he’s not exactly the most efficient pg in the league.

What about Milwaukee year after year basing their offense around their guards rather than their interior players, which has inflated Redd’s numbers, and led the team to nowhere? Redd could only be successful as a third fiddle, possible 2nd fiddle on a team with a good leader, and in that situation he would not be averaging over 20ppg. 



> Ive been giving nothing but facts, facts over the course of 5 years, not over 60 games. And even if we were comparing apples with apples, were talking martin outscoring redd by 0.8. Out rebonding him by 0.2. getting less rebounds by 1.3, same steals, same blocks, 0.4 less turnovers, and all this in 10 less games than redd played. Even going by your logic of one year of a guy with decent stats can tell us that hes better than a guy who has been averaging better for the last FIVE years, its not as if martin was leaps and bounds over redd on the stats sheet as you make it seem.
> 
> Im not the one reaching here.


He doesn’t have to be leaps and bounds over Redd. What’s important, and what you’ve just admitted yourself, is that he is ahead of Redd on the stat sheet. On a team which wins more games. That should be the end of the argument there. That 5 year argument is bull****, unless you also agree that Shaq is a better player than Dwight Howard.



> Like i said, i use the maggette example as one example. Heck, even redd is a guy who we can say had improved each season, and it wouldnt just be a case of going from bench warmer to rotation player and then a couple good years as a starter. If anything redd seems to have had what you are calling marked improvement using martin as an example. went from 2 points to 11 points to 15 points to 22 points to 23 poitns to 25 points to 27 points. Although thats technically improvement over 7 years, id mainly highlight the last 5 to call that improvement "each season" since it would mean so much more than scoring 22 points over a season and a half as big time improvement.
> 
> Once again am i saying that its out of the question for martin? he very well could end up with a career statline like redd has had over the next 3 years.


Backtracking once again lol You yourself defined “markedly improved” as someone who’s improved steadily over 4 or 5 years. Well Martin has improved the 4 years he’s been in the league. Caught out again as Martin even meets YOUR definition of markedly improved. Dictionary definition or marked and improvement:

_Marked:
1.	strikingly noticeable; conspicuous

Improvement:
1.	an act of improving or the state of being improved._

Nowhere in there is there a time period stated. But once again, definitions are irrelevant. Because half people don’t use words according to their definitions, right? LOL And that dictionary was written by some person, who knows how many inaccuracies there may be in it. You are a joke



> thats pointless, id have to talk to them about the millions of other things that are not entirely accurate there on that website. Its not "wrong" per ce, just one definition of the word that people, by no means just me, define differently. Thats one of the thoughts behind that site, different people can add different ideas and thoughts as to topics and words on there.


That Wikipedia entry made particular reference to people like you, who mistakenly define the word. Its an objective site, which backs mine and another poster’s opinion in this thread on what a franchise player is. You’ve been proven wrong yet again.



> Your assertions are flawed and so is your logic. You say things like, Martin has led his team to more victories. You make it seem like martin has crushed redd in stats this year. You make it seem like one year of equal stats wipes out the fact that redd has been doing this for years, and that its premature to annoint someone as better than another guy after 60 games. We dont have to wait to see who is right, were not talking about right and wrong, were talking about fact and opinion. *Fact is someone with martin's resume cannot be considered to be better than anothe rplayer after doing nothing that spectacular, and having basically equal stats to the other guy in only 60 games.* Thats just a fact. Now, if he did something really amazing, like average 30 points a game or hit 150 out of 300 three pointers on the year, then yes, its a fact that you can go ahead and call that player better than almost anyone else who is averaging 24 poitns a game and shooting 40% from three point land. But youre stretching it to annoint martin as better so soon, thats just the plain and simple of it. Its not a matter of lets see in 3 years who is right. *I myself have said about 8 times now that martin very well could become a star, and surpass redd*, hes certainly young enough. But its too early to call him that when he has a 23 point season in 60 games on his resume.


Fact is, Martin was more productive on a team that won more games. There are no opinions in that statement. That’s all we need to know. This debate should have ended there. Btw since 3ptrs seem to be so important to you, did you know Martin’s matched Redd in 3ptm/g on less shots? 

Thing is Martin’s already surpassed Redd this past season. Your argument is based on Redd from now on reverting to his form from a few years ago (during which he was still a perennial loser anyway). If during the more recent season Martin already played at a higher level than Redd, and Martin’s been improving every season, and Redd’s declined, why would you think that next season the opposite of that would happen? That’s not logical. 



> Again, you are using this whole one season thing so dramatically. Redd last year averaged what hes been averaging the last 5 years. Points, FG%, 3P %, in almost ever major statistical category. The only one was under by a bit on his career average was free throws and were still talking the difference between 82 and 84%. Kobe bryant has had about FOUR different seasons where his numbers dipped from one year to the next, on how many of those times can we say that he was on the decline? Give me a break with the rapid aging theory you have. Once agian, lets wait to see like 2 years or 3 years of decline to call a guy on the decline. Someone like shaq, closer to home: mobley, etc. To say that redd must be on the dcline because of one year in which is still averaged what he has been the last 5 years, is yet again flawed logic.


I actually went to the trouble of analyzing player’s ppg averages over the past 3 years (3yrs are all the stats I could get), identified those who’s average dipped from 05/06-06/07, and then calculated what percentage of those players average ppg increased the following 07/08 season. Starting sample was the top 150 players in 05/06 by points total on the entire season. Of the players who’s scoring averages dipped in 06/07, only 31% of them saw an increase in their scoring 07/08. So statistically, we can say that its more likely that Redd’s scoring will not increase next season that it is to increase. I can pm you the entire list of players if you’d like to check the analysis yourself.

Once again… facts backing my argument. Something which you’ve lacked through this entire debate. 



> Youre saying you disagree? Please. youre not going to sit there and tell me that kevin martin has shown the same brilliance that superstars like lebron, etc. showed right off the bat. You cannot say that martin's stats showed something absolutely spectacular that allows us to annoint him a star after 60 games of 23 point ball. Now youre just trying to call me out on things that you HAVE to agree with, just for spite. Are you saying that deron williams and chris paul havent accomplished anything special? Nothing to set them apart from kevin martin? That perhaps tim duncan and 21 poitns and 12 rebounds 3 blocks playing next to david robinson wasnt enough to call him a guaranteed star?


I do disagree. Why on earth would you not give a player credit for playing well over 2 years? Lol 

And again, I don’t believe that Martin is some great player. Just showing that Redd isn’t even better than him, let alone in the top 3 sg in the world lol 



> No, i would not be wrong, because i am not using someone else's definition of the word. That is not a word that is set in stone in a dictionary like "misnomer" which cannot have varying definitions. Franchise player is a subjective phrase that can be used in many different ways, even can be used for a guy like david beckham in the galaxy last year, not the best guy on the team, played in almost no games, yet probably made more money for the club in one year than their entire 10 years combined. People called him the franchise player for the galaxy, and it had nothing to do with on the pitch action.
> 
> I cannot be "wrong" at using a word that has a subjective meaning. Just like the word "fanatic." Some might call a fanatic anyone who reads the sports page just to see scores of a game. Others might draw the line at fanaticsim of waiting in line for 5 days just to buy playoff tickets. Neither would be "wrong," as that word is not a word that is set in stone. Quit trying to play word games just for the sake of trying to prove me wrong at something.


You are wrong. The wiki definition didn’t overlook and actually made reference to the way that people like you define franchise player, and it’s a misnomer, and an error to define it that way.



> its pretty much the opposite. You keep bringing up equal stats in less games this year as your main tpic, as well as intangibles such as him having "led" the team to this and that victory. Look at the clippers in 05/06. Brand by far had the best stats onthe team, and better than most in the league. Did brand "lead" us to all those victories? Most will say cassell "led" us to those victories since he made everyone better around him, and was able to take over games down the stretch. Others might argue that someone who averaged 17 points and 7 assists cannot be considered as the leader over someone who averaged 25 and 11. Its a subjective argument.


Martin had better stats. They weren’t equal. 

How many times do I have to shoot down your comparisons by explaining that whats important are individual stats, AND wins. Brand had good stats, but didn’t lead his team to many wins. Martin had better stats than Redd, AND led his team to more wins. That’s the difference



> Again, martin isnt "getting" more wins. Is robert horry a guy who "gets" wins, even with his clutch play? or is he perhaps a recipient of being in the right team at the right time. Again, a subjective argument. Garnett could be considered a perennial loser. Yet others consider him to be probably top 2 most talented players in the league of the last 10 years. Do you pick a guy like rasheed wallace over him because he "gets more wins.?"


Again, your argument is that if I can’t conclusively prove something that’s obvious anyway, you can continue to believe whatever you want. When there is no evidence whatsoever for your argument. 

Garnett has been surrounded by less talent than Rasheed. And anyway he had better individual stats. So again your comparison is irrelevant here. 



> Her eyou go yet again with this nonsense of bringing up 7 point a game scrubs into a conversation about stars and potential stars. A rec guy can be a great shooter, but if he doesnt have the skills to translate that into a 25 point a game scorer, then of what good is that, and how could he be considered something like that?


Because you’re the one who defined it to SHOOTING guards. If you’re comparing players by simply their shooting ability, I’m sure there are several players in the nba who are more accurate shooters than Redd.



> Nope, you insisting on bringing up kapono into this conversation is hilarious. Kapono is consistent. A consistent single digit scorer in the league. A guy who is so good at catching and shooting, that hes been able to average a whopping quarter and a half of playing time each game for his 5 year career. ANYONE can get a shot off with .3 seconds. Even kaman can. (of course shooting guards would be much more accurate in a testing situation), but yet again were not talking rec league, were not talking all star weekend, or scientific youtube experiments. Were talking who is the best pure shooter, and proves it during the games. Kapono is what he is. a nice spark plug off of the bench to draw out the defense, and is good for 1-2 three pointers a game, but literally thats about it (7 points a game average). Should never be brought up in a topic that has to do with guys like michael redd, ray allen, and reggie miller.
> 
> Kaponos name should be talked about when were discussing the best shooting specialists off of the bench in the league. Korver, daman jones, etc. etc.


Kapono was brought into the conversation as someone who meets the criteria that the professional opinion you brought up said was so special about Redd. If its so special about Redd, then why is it you can say those exact same things about a scrub like Kapono? Lol I can’t believe you’re still not getting this point. 

Anyways this is my final post here… As much fun as it is proving you wrong over and over again and watching other posters do it, its too frustrating arguing with someone who keeps making up his own definitions, and doest apply common logic to his arguments.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

I rest my case. You are just continuing to twist words and dodge truth. Theres no sense arguging with someone like you who continues to mis speak time and again and twist arguments. 

1. Martin barely had better numbers than Redd this year, contrary to the way you make it seem. It even could be argued that it is less than redd inasmuch as he played in 10 less games even. Martin averaging the same or perhaps 5% more than redd in some categories this year means little to nothing when redd has been averaging more than that for years. Redd is now "on the decline" because for the first time in his career his scoring average dipped? Like i said, what about all the dips that every other star has had...were they on the decline? Somtimes yes, but more often than not the players bounce back. 

2. You continue to try to argue about martin leading his team to x amount of victories as if he singlehandedly did it for the kings. You just cannot argue that as a fact because its something that cannot be proven due to all of the intangibbles and even tangibles such as coaching that is involved. About the only time you can use such an argument is when a player or coach is substituted in for another player or coach mid season, all other factors are the same, yet the outcome is drastically different after that player or coach arrives. George Karl a few years ago comes to mind. 

3. How has redd set himself apart in this league? Ask basketball analysts, ask all the GMs who wanted him when he was a free agent. 

4. You can call bs on the 5 years that im bringing up, but its only because you cant face cold hard facts. When were talking about two guys, and one guy has been putting up star numbers for years, is in the prime of his career, and the other guy had 60 games of 23 point ball, it doesnt take a rocket scientest to say that its too early to call the other guy better. Why would you bring shaq into the equation? are we talking about 45 year olds? Quit trying to twist my words as usual. 

5. Havent back tracked and I wont. I say that the way you made it sound was a player who had beeen improving big time over a long period of time, not a bench player who has made the most out of his first opportunity to start for the last 2 years, or year and a half considering injuries. Theres a difference. 

6. Your nonsense analysis is again faulty. You said flat out redd is on the decline. thats a bogus claim. Its as bogus as if i were to say he for sure is going to jump back to 26 points a game next year. Quit trying to make absolute statements when you have no idea what you are talking about. There is not a long list of people who are star 24-30 point a game players who go down one year before the age of 29, and never go back up again..dont try to twist the facts to say there are. 

7. you say you disagree with my comment on lebron, stop lying. You are saying you equate what martin did this year to the kind of stardom that lebron, carmello and others did their first two years in the league? Please. That should show people what kind of side youre taking here, you inferring that we should be able to see smiliar stardom of martin that we see in guys like lebron, chris paul and more, despite martin not doing anything that spectacular yet. 

You really shot yourself in the foot with so much of your arguments, instead of basing it on facts you based it off of twisting my words, and making bold faced statements on things that just cannot be proven due to its subjectivity, and lack of common logic. Oh well.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Wow...now here is a thread. I apologize but I will not write 2000 words. 

If I were Clipper GM and you told me to pick one between Redd and Martin...I pick Martin. The dude is a stud, and he has youth on his side. I see somewhere back the argument was made about him not doing it for a long time...He was a stud last year and only got better this year. How long does he have to kick *** for people to repect what he is doing so far early into his career. Sky is the limit for Martin. We already know Redd's limit


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

That there is a different topic almost though, as far as youth goes. Who would i rather give a 7 year contract to starting this year? Well thats a more difficult topic. I wouldnt want to give redd such a deal, since he would be making the most money when hes like 36 years old. It would be a gamble to bank on martin getting up to redds level, but agian, age is a big issue with that, when were talking long term deals. 



> How long does he have to kick *** for people to repect what he is doing so far early into his career. Sky is the limit for Martin. We already know Redd's limit


Thats where we differ. I dont consider what he has done the last year and a half, kicking butt just yet to make him a guaranteed star now, or guaranteed star in the future, or on the same level as redd. 

To illustrate, lets take a look at 2 of maggette's years

Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 
24 73 72 36.0 6.2 13.9 .447 1.0 3.2 .329 7.2 8.5 .848 1.3 4.6 5.9 3.1 0.9 0.2 2.8 3.0 20.7 

25 66 60 36.9 6.4 14.9 .431 0.8 2.5 .304 8.5 10.0 .857 1.1 4.9 6.0 3.4 1.1 0.1 3.0 2.9 22.2 

And lets compare him to martin at about the same age.
Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 
23 80 80 2818 6.5 13.6 .473 1.6 4.3 .381 6.1 7.3 .844 0.9 3.5 4.4 2.2 1.3 0.1 1.7 2.3 20.7 
24 61 57 2216 6.8 14.8 .456 1.7 4.3 .402 8.2 9.4 .869 0.8 3.7 4.4 2.1 1.0 0.1 2.1 2.4 23.4 

Those are very similar numbers. But I doubt many would have said, well, look at those two years, maggette is on the level of other star guards around the league, and is only going to get better. And for any who did feel that way, they would have been wrong. 

Dont get me wrong, i dont think stats tell 100% of the story. GUys like tayshaun prince and bruce bowen are a lot more talented than just what their stats are. But still i just am not convinced that martin is a star alrady, nor is going to be come one guaranteed. I have said 10 times though that at his age he certainly has star potential.

Its true we already know redd's limit. But thats a fact. Redd's limit is being one of the deadliest shooters and offensive players in the nba. A 27 point a game player. With martin we really DONT know his limit since weve only seen him starting for a year and a half. He could be a 30 point a game superstar. Or he could be the next jamal magloire. Someone who improved at the beg. of his career as he got playing time ,only to peak and then fall off the face of the earth.


----------

