# Article: Nash on Wallace v. Martin



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Here.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Typical misleading journalism:



> But [Wallace] has been an enigma — a player lauded by his teammates for his unselfishness, but also one who set a record for technical fouls, when he was whistled for 41 of them in the 2000-1 season, symbolizing the misbehavior that has plagued the Trail Blazers in recent seasons and cost them some of their fans.
> 
> Martin seemed on that path, too. He was called for six flagrant fouls in his second season, in 2001-2, was suspended for seven games, was fined $347,000, and was sent to the office of Stu Jackson, the league executive in charge of discipline.
> 
> But Martin learned to control his anger, although not, he said, because of Jackson's admonishments or the rapidly growing pile of money he was shipping to the league.


Boiling it down:

-Wallace had an anger problem, as evidenced by his 41 technical fouls

-Martin had an anger problem, as evidenced by his 6 flagrant fouls

-But Martin learned to control his anger (not stated but implied: evidenced by cutting down his flagrant fouls)

...so where's the similar noting that Wallace learned to control *his* anger, considering his technical fouls have dropped off greatly?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

While I am mad at Nash for devaluing Rasheed, I still wish we'd gotten Martin instead of SAR and Theo.

I doubt I will find many people to agree with me (especially as Theo turned out so much better than expected - although SAR turned out so much worse) but you can't argue with the production Martin has given in the playoffs.

Yes, there's still the serious downside that Martin's preferred starting position is PF, but I think you could play Martin and Zach at the same time with little problem, because Martin's mobile enough to guard any SF. The thing about Martin is he's just an animal - in a GOOD way. He cares almost TOO much, but I think he's really set the tone for the Nets, who, after all, are back to back Eastern Conference champions. Do we have anyone setting the tone for us?

(Another objection: we have a TON of SFs, most notably Darius. True, and the Darius trade is easily the best thing Nash has done for us, but it remains to be seen if he'll ever turn into anything good. If he does, great, forget Martin. But he's almost the ANTI-Martin in temperament.)


----------



## MrWonderful (May 18, 2003)

*Kind of homerish for the NY Times, eh?*

Minstel said:
"...so where's the similar noting that Wallace learned to control his anger, considering his technical fouls have dropped off greatly?"


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I will have to agree with Nash on this one. In the few times Sheed and Martin matched up, Sheed always looked passive. He doesn't like guys like Martin who play a physical game. As soon as Kmart roughs up Sheed a little bit, we'll see Sheed drift around three point line for the majority of the series.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Typical misleading journalism:
> 
> 
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing while reading this....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> I will have to agree with Nash on this one. In the few times Sheed and Martin matched up, Sheed always looked passive. He doesn't like guys like Martin who play a physical game. As soon as Kmart roughs up Sheed a little bit, we'll see Sheed drift around three point line for the majority of the series.


The Nets were the one team that Wallace played against as a Blazer (twice), Hawk, and Piston. Dispite Kmart roughing Sheed up , Wallace blocked more shots (9 to 8), had the same amount of rebounds (28), and was outscored by 2 points in 16 fewer minutes. Most importantly IMO, Wallace's clubs won 3 of 4, only losing while a Hawk. His one matchup vs the Nets while a Piston was a complete blowout in NJ. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240318017

STOMP


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

A seven game series is a different story.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> A seven game series is a different story.


You wrote that Martin makes Wallace look passive every time they match up. Faced with facts contradicting this, it seems you're now settling for predicting the future. While Rasheed will continue to shoot some shots from the perimeter (he is one of their two main 3 pt threats), I think the Nets dream of becoming the Buffalo Bills of the NBA ends shortly. We'll see, but I don't think it's going to take 7 games...

STOMP


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Goldmember- As referee here, STOMP has defeated you convincingly. Take it gracefully and let's move on to the next item.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Sheed was recently asked what he though about Nash's assertion that he was more talented than Martin, but not as tenacious:



> “I couldn’t care less what John Nash thinks,” Wallace said Sunday. “We’ve all seen what he thinks and where’s he at.”
> 
> The Blazers, after Nash traded Wallace, Jeff McInnis and Bonzi Wells, missed the playoffs for the first time in 21 years.
> 
> “That’s where his thinking got him,” Wallace said.


http://www.detnews.com/2004/pistons/0405/03/c05-140803.htm


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

I'd take Wallace over Martin any day.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Nice article on Rasheed:



> You bring in Rasheed Wallace, what's the worst that can happen? Larry Brown, who championed the deal, could think of a few things. The team's chemistry, which was pretty good, could dissolve. The fan base, which is remarkably loyal, could be alienated. The referees, given his famously hostile disposition, would make his team a target. The coach's prestige, which is unrivaled, could take a hit.
> Any of that happen? Not a one. That's why Brown gets emotional when he talks about Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Wallace may have created some of his own problems here, but some were created and fueled by the worst sports media of any city with any type of major league sports team. On top of that, Wallace was misunderstood as a person and held up as a scapegoat.

In a city like Detroit, with several sports franchises and very knowledgable media types & fans (who really understand both sports & athletes), he is clearly understood and appreciated. Yet he's the same Rasheed.

He was out of his element in a backwards sports town like this.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> 
> He was out of his element in a backwards sports town like this.


hyuck..garsh!


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> I'd take Wallace over Martin any day.







same here


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Sheed is nothing but a petulant little child as far as I am concerned, who curses at refs, and fellow players & disses reporters and fans when things don't go his way. Like I said before, GOOD RIDDANCE.

Rasheed will ALWAYS be an underachiever....

Personally I don't think Nash said anything wrong OR disrespectful about Sheed in his comparison with K-Mart. Is K-Mart as athletically gifted as Sheed? No... But does he have more heart? Does he get MORE out of his "inferior" abilities? Hell yes he does...

The fact that Sheed goes on to blast Nash shows what a punk he really is. POR is better off w\o him long term....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> The fact that Sheed goes on to blast Nash shows what a punk he really is.


Ha! Amazing how when Nash is giving Sheed backhand compliments, he's not saying anything wrong or being disrespectful, but whether Sheed is relaying facts, his opinion, or nothing at all, he's a punk. Some things never change. 

Martin's physical limitations only allowed him to become the #1 overall pick. Was it his great heart that drove him to commit all of those malicious cheap shots? Heres that classy fugazi after Detroit crushed them on their homecourt...

_"They're not better than us," New Jersey's Kenyon Martin said. "They had a decent ballgame today, and we had some careless turnovers, but they're not better than us by any means. Hopefully we'll see them down the line and show them who's the better team."_ 

Careful what you wish for...

STOMP


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> Wallace may have created some of his own problems here, but some were created and fueled by the worst sports media of any city with any type of major league sports team. On top of that, Wallace was misunderstood as a person and held up as a scapegoat.
> 
> In a city like Detroit, with several sports franchises and very knowledgable media types & fans (who really understand both sports & athletes), he is clearly understood and appreciated. Yet he's the same Rasheed.
> ...


Just to add a dissenting opinion. I played basketball at a reasonably high level and clearly understand the game. Having played both in Corvallis and at various summer leagues in PDX, I'm acquainted with several professional basketball players. I'm not a backwards fan who doesn't understand the game and I still feel that Sheed absolutely created his own situation. While he was one of my favorite players to watch play the game with his incredible talent, I'm very glad he's gone.

Furthurmore (I'm not going to go back and hunt for links) but on more than one occasion, PDX has been named as one of the more intelligent fan bases in the league.

Obviously we're all entitled to our opinions but it still irritates me when someone labels me backwards (by association) and perhaps from too small of town to understand what a classy individual Rasheed Wallace truely is.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Rasheed will ALWAYS be an underachiever....


What do you mean? Are you predicting, or are you saying that irrespective of how many championships or all-star appearances, or MVPs he wins he'll still be an underachiever?

Compare Rasheed to his draft class and tell me he's an underachiever. Joe Smith? Jerry Stackhouse? Antonio McDyess? Damon Stoudamire? Ed O'Bannon?

All of those guys were lottery picks with Rasheed. Other than Garnett, Rasheed's been better (by a LONG shot) than any of them.

If he's an underachiever, what are they? 



> Personally I don't think Nash said anything wrong OR disrespectful about Sheed in his comparison with K-Mart. Is K-Mart as athletically gifted as Sheed? No... But does he have more heart? Does he get MORE out of his "inferior" abilities? Hell yes he does...


Um. What? Martin was the first pick overall for a reason. It's not like he's some scrub athletically.



> The fact that Sheed goes on to blast Nash shows what a punk he really is. POR is better off w\o him long term....


You might be right on the latter point (although I think it's doubtful now, I think it's possible) but IMO Rasheed showed some restraint by only saying what he did. Nash is off-base with regards to Rasheed and Martin, IMO... Rasheed's a consistently superior player on consistently superior teams (normalizing for strength of schedule). Martin might be able to beat up Tim Thomas in a phone booth, but if that's the criteria for players Nash wants to acquire I hope we get a new GM soon.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> "In a one-game situation, one series, Rasheed is capable of outplaying Kenyon," Nash said. "He's immensely talented, bigger and longer. But the old adage goes that it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog, and Kenyon is far more tenacious.





> Ha! Amazing how when Nash is giving Sheed backhand compliments, he's not saying anything wrong or being disrespectful, but whether Sheed is relaying facts, his opinion, or nothing at all, he's a punk. Some things never change.


Say What? Where is the "backhanded" compliment here? Is that not an accurate assessment of Rasheed? Is Kenyon Martin not more tenacious than Sheed? I hardly see the "invisible" diss\backhand job that Nash has "supposedly" done to Rasheed here. And Sheed being the "class act" that he is :uhoh: comes back with this



> "I could care less about what John Nash thinks. We all see what he thinks, and where he's at. So that's where his thinking got him."


Yeah...ok Sheed....just like Bonzi this knucklehead doesn't get it...uh Bonzi...Sheed...YOU were the problem not Nash...not the POR fans (how laughable) or the POR media...YOU and YOU alone were the cause of all your problems....



> What do you mean? Are you predicting, or are you saying that irrespective of how many championships or all-star appearances, or MVPs he wins he'll still be an underachiever?


What championships? What MVP's (um...yeah...right :uhoh: )? Oh and that ONE All-Star appearance? The FACT is Ed, the guy has ALL WORLD game. a $.02 head and a MILLION dollar chip on his shoulder, THAT is why he underachieves. He could be as good or better than KG, he could be as good or better than Duncan, but he isn't. He doesn't work on his game, he doesn't have the drive to excel, he just likes "ballin" as he puts it. He let's that colossal chip on his shoulder towards authority blow up into needless and POINTLESS tirades & rudeness towards refs, fans and the media, often at the worst times. But whatever..... Apparently he is misunderstood...a "good cat"....yeah...ok.... :uhoh: 




> Compare Rasheed to his draft class and tell me he's an underachiever. Joe Smith? Jerry Stackhouse? Antonio McDyess? Damon Stoudamire? Ed O'Bannon?


What's you point here? That he is better than his draft class,so that makes him NOT an underachiever? Huh? The point is he SHOULD be a top 5 player in this league, he SHOULD be WAY better than he is today, but he isn't. Blame it on character flaws, that huge chip on his shoulder, or those "ruthless" POR fans and media :uhoh: , but he HAS the talent to be great, but he isn't....thus...underachiever.



> Um. What? Martin was the first pick overall for a reason. It's not like he's some scrub athletically.


Never said K-Mart was a scrub....What I said was he isn't as athletically gifted, not NEARLY so IMO. Yet he produces as much as Sheed does.

K-Mart 16.7 ppg 9.5rpg 1.26bpg in 34.6mpg

Sheed (POR only) 17.0ppg 6.6rpg 1.6bpg in 37.2mpg

Hardly a large discrepancy there...but there IS a large discrepency in overall talent, it is HEART...TENACIOUSNESS...that makes the difference...one has it...the other most certainly does not...that is unless he is going after a ref...he is tenacious then.

Look there is no need to grind this point into the ground....You and several others liked Sheed for what he is...and I and several others disliked him for what he is not (well...and a little part for who he is too  ). I think POR, while maybe not in the short term, but in the long term is better off w\o him.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Kenyon Martin jumps out of the gym... dunno what you're talking about with athletic gifts - maybe height?

What are you basing your argument that Sheed SHOULD be a top 5 player? Just because you say it doesn't mean that it's true...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> What championships? What MVP's (um...yeah...right :uhoh: )? Oh and that ONE All-Star appearance? The FACT is Ed, the guy has ALL WORLD game. a $.02 head and a MILLION dollar chip on his shoulder, THAT is why he underachieves.


There's a difference between holding an opinion that he's underachieved and saying he's ALWAYS be an underachiever.

If you don't see the difference, then I'm sorry. I thought you'd be able to pick up on it since it's pretty clear.



> He could be as good or better than KG, he could be as good or better than Duncan, but he isn't. He doesn't work on his game, he doesn't have the drive to excel, he just likes "ballin" as he puts it.


How on EARTH do you know how good he can be? IMO it's just plain silly to say he could be as good as Duncan. Duncan was detroying him when they were in the ACC together... he's NEVER been as good as Duncan and I don't know why you would say he should be better. 

Should, say, Brendan Haywood be as good as Shaq? Haywood was a highly regarded prepster who went in the first round... he's big and bald, just like Shaq. Is he an underachiever because he's only a starting center on a lottery team?



> He let's that colossal chip on his shoulder towards authority blow up into needless and POINTLESS tirades & rudeness towards refs, fans and the media, often at the worst times. But whatever..... Apparently he is misunderstood...a "good cat"....yeah...ok.... :uhoh:


People like you are still railing against him in spite of his continued success as a team player... does Detroit have the kind of hatred towards him that so many Portland fans and media do? When and if they do (and I know that your answer, or someone like you will be, "Give them time.") then I bet he clams back up. Until then he's comfortable being himself in a city that's MUCH more diverse and seemingly willing to let him be himself.



> What's you point here? That he is better than his draft class,so that makes him NOT an underachiever? Huh?


Absolutely. How else should we be judging him?

Do we want to compare him to the acquisition price, which was Rod Strickland? He looks like even less of an underachiever then.

Or by his salary? Again, Damon comes into the loop. Scottie Pippen the last few years. Shawn Kemp. Rasheed was the best player on the team... he deserved to be the highest player so again he hardly looks like an underachiever to me.



> The point is he SHOULD be a top 5 player in this league, he SHOULD be WAY better than he is today, but he isn't.


Oh, I see. You go back to your seemingly _a priori_ definition that he SHOULD be as good as Duncan and Garnett...

If you think so, then I guess he's an underachiever to you... but that's like my wife thinking I SHOULD be 6'4" and disappointed that I never get taller than 6'1".



> Blame it on character flaws, that huge chip on his shoulder, or those "ruthless" POR fans and media :uhoh: , but he HAS the talent to be great, but he isn't....thus...underachiever.


I totally blame it on overblown expectations. Such as the one where some fans inexplicably expect him to become the equal of a Tim Duncan.



> Hardly a large discrepancy there...but there IS a large discrepency in overall talent, it is HEART...TENACIOUSNESS...that makes the difference...one has it...the other most certainly does not...that is unless he is going after a ref...he is tenacious then.


Who defines "heart"? You? Nash? Larry Brown?

It's a touchy-feely thing that has no ultimate definable value. If Rasheed wins a ring this year, will it be because of his "heart"? After all, looking at the Pistons and the series of losing teams they've been on (Hamilton on bad Wizards teams, Ben on mediocre Magic teams and Billups on bad teams for 2/3 of the NBA), it seems that SOMEONE's heart has to have gotten bigger than it was when the Pistons got their tongues ripped out in the playoffs last year... right?

If the Nets get swept in spite of having Jason Kidd and the Team USA Richard Jefferson, will Kenyon Martin's heart not be big enough?

Winning sticks. Arbitrary definitions of character (especially by fans, who don't know these people any more than we know people in movies) are fleeting.

Ed O.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> Goldmember- As referee here, STOMP has defeated you convincingly. Take it gracefully and let's move on to the next item.


We will see. I'll stick to my opinion that Sheed gets taken out of his game by physical players. When it's all said and done, I believe Kmart will get the better of the matchup.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> There's a difference between holding an opinion that he's underachieved and saying he's ALWAYS be an underachiever.


Uh...no Ed...it's a FACT he has underachieved, it is my OPINION that he will ALWAYS be an underachiever...I see the difference quite clearly. It's not just my opinion either that he has underachieved, it has been stated numerous times by GM's, coaches, analysts and sportswriters. Heck, that is EXACTLY what our CURRENT GM, John Nash was alluding to in his quote about Sheed. He has immense skills, but is unable to capitalize on them consistently (I would even say frequently). He should be better than he is....he is consistently INCOSISTENT.....8pts one night....28 the next....that is an all too common occurance with Rasheed.




> Should, say, Brendan Haywood be as good as Shaq? Haywood was a highly regarded prepster who went in the first round... he's big and bald, just like Shaq. Is he an underachiever because he's only a starting center on a lottery team?


Uh...yeah...right :uhoh: ...because Brendan Haywood has skills SO similiar to Shaq. Big and bald...well that says it all....And no one ever suggested Haywood COULD be one of the best players in the NBA. A suggestion that has been made about Rasheed Wallace several times.



> People like you are still railing against him in spite of his continued success as a team player... does Detroit have the kind of hatred towards him that so many Portland fans and media do? When and if they do (and I know that your answer, or someone like you will be, "Give them time.") then I bet he clams back up. Until then he's comfortable being himself in a city that's MUCH more diverse and seemingly willing to let him be himself.


People like me?....:laugh: How dare we speak bad of Sheed!

Oh I see Ed....its ALL of the FANS and media members fault, we made him SOOO uncomfortable here. Of course it is OUR fault... we drove Rasheed away. :uhoh: and of course, he never did anything while he was here to deserve the negative criticism he recieved? Yes, we are so close minded here in POR, no wonder he hated it. Oh yeah, DET is MUCH more diverse than POR 

How dare we expect so much from Sheed? How dare we expect him not to act like an immature child & to actually PLAY up to his abilities and $17mil contract CONSISTENTLY on a nightly basis. IF we had only shown him the love...like the "true" fans in Detroit do...  



> Absolutely. How else should we be judging him?


How about by performance? You know...what he actually DOES on the court night in and night out. Not whom he was traded for, how he compares with whomever else was drafted that year with him, but his LEVEL OF PLAY on the court. He flashes dominate ability, but doesn't consistently play that way. He is a player who takes several nights off...He could average 25 & 10 if he wanted to, but he doesn't have that drive in him. You put Zach's motor in Rasheed's body and Sheed WOULD be a top 5 player. He has the athletic skils, that has never been questioned, it is what's upstairs that keeps him from reaching the next level.



> If you think so, then I guess he's an underachiever to you... but that's like my wife thinking I SHOULD be 6'4" and disappointed that I never get taller than 6'1".


It's not just me who thinks he has underachieved....and um...that is a bad analogy Ed. Sorry she feels that way....



> I totally blame it on overblown expectations.


Of course YOU would. I must say that I was really surprised by that statement  , you Sheed apologists have an excuse for everything...we expected too much of him...we actually expected him to play up to his abilites every night, or at least put forth the EFFORT to every night. How dare we expect such a thing from our best player.



> Winning sticks. Arbitrary definitions of character (especially by fans, who don't know these people any more than we know people in movies) are fleeting.


The definition for Sheed is HARDLY arbitrary...he earned all of the negativity he recieved here and then some.

Is it fleeting? maybe so...If this season has shown us anything it is that jerks like Bonzi and Sheed can cause unprecedented bad PR for this franchise....and when we finally clean house and deal them out of town....they get a "clean" slate, while the POR franchise is left with all the residual bad publicity still hanging over them....and still taking shots from the national media.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> We will see. I'll stick to my opinion that Sheed gets taken out of his game by physical players. When it's all said and done, I believe Kmart will get the better of the matchup.


Having watched Sheed limping around last night, you might be right about Martin winning the individual matchup... but I think it will be the Pistons who handily take the series. They're just too big and long on D to get something going inside, and NJ is not a jump shooting team... despite Martin's best 2nd half efforts to become one  

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Uh...no Ed...it's a FACT he has underachieved, it is my OPINION that he will ALWAYS be an underachiever...I see the difference quite clearly.


Obviously, you don't.

First of all, it's not a fact he's underachieved. It's your opinion. Objectively, Rasheed Wallace has outperformed the vast majority of his peers and, indeed, is one of the best players in his draft class even considering where he was taken.

And you still aren't answering my question: will he always be an underachiever to you irrespective of what he accomplishes, or are you predicting that he'll never live up to what you think he's capable of. It's a simple question.



> It's not just my opinion either that he has underachieved, it has been stated numerous times by GM's, coaches, analysts and sportswriters. Heck, that is EXACTLY what our CURRENT GM, John Nash was alluding to in his quote about Sheed. He has immense skills, but is unable to capitalize on them consistently (I would even say frequently). He should be better than he is....he is consistently INCOSISTENT.....8pts one night....28 the next....that is an all too common occurance with Rasheed.


Inconsistency and achievement are entirely different things. The former can be an indicator of the latter, but it's not like it's conclusive proof.

Please show me some quotes where Rasheed Wallace has been considered an underachiever at the same level, say, Joe Smith (who is from the same conference, class and draft lotter) is.



> Oh I see Ed....its ALL of the FANS and media members fault, we made him SOOO uncomfortable here. Of course it is OUR fault... we drove Rasheed away. :uhoh: and of course, he never did anything while he was here to deserve the negative criticism he recieved? Yes, we are so close minded here in POR, no wonder he hated it.


Listen to yourself. Would YOU want to play for fans like you?



> Oh yeah, DET is MUCH more diverse than POR


Are you really that sheltered? I can't believe I'm even bothering to find stats to back this up, but from the Census 2000 site:

Percentage of blacks in Wayne County (Detroit): 42.2%
Percentage of blacks in Multnomah County (Portland): 5.7%

Do you think that's an insignificant difference?



> How dare we expect so much from Sheed? How dare we expect him not to act like an immature child & to actually PLAY up to his abilities and $17mil contract CONSISTENTLY on a nightly basis. IF we had only shown him the love...like the "true" fans in Detroit do...


See, the thing is you're working for a false premise that his abilities mean he should be better than he is... that's simply something I reject. I appreciate or criticize based on what HAPPENS, not on what I THINK should happen.

You can certainly root or bellyache however you please, but you shouldn't ignore the basic difference nor fail to understand that you're simply setting yourself up for disappointment repeatedly if people don't live up to the status you (for whatever reason) think they should get to.



> How about by performance? You know...what he actually DOES on the court night in and night out. Not whom he was traded for, how he compares with whomever else was drafted that year with him, but his LEVEL OF PLAY on the court. He flashes dominate ability, but doesn't consistently play that way.


Sure. He was the Blazers best player. His team consistently went to the playoffs, and made a couple of runs deep into them. He's gone to a team where the same thing might be able to be said, while his old team is sitting at home for the summer.

I do judge him on what he and his teams accomplish on the court. You seem to only judge him based on how good you wish he was.



> It's not just me who thinks he has underachieved....and um...that is a bad analogy Ed. Sorry she feels that way....


It's certainly not a bad analogy. You're wishing for something (Rasheed to be as good as KG and Duncan) that simply will never happen. You're setting Rasheed up to fail.

That he DOES fail under your standard is YOUR fault, not his. And it seems that the anger you hold towards him might mean you understand this at some level.



> The definition for Sheed is HARDLY arbitrary...he earned all of the negativity he recieved here and then some.


It's totally arbitrary. Why did Detroit want him if he lacked heart? Why is the team so much better if he's such a cancer/bad apple/whatever? It's merely your interpretation of who Rasheed is when you don't KNOW him. You've never interacted with him. You've never been a teammate.

You are willing to label him because he's not who you want him to be.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh...no Ed...it's a FACT he has underachieved


No, I'm afraid it isn't. This also goes to your contention that Wallace didn't provide enough "effort." Your measure of effort is classically bad logic. You define "giving effort" as reaching a certain performance level (in that case, the tremendously likely level of Duncan and Garnett, probably two of the greatest talent in NBA history).

Then, if he doesn't reach that arbitrary performance level, he's not providing effort. The analogy, KMurph, is that I believe you should be three times as good at whatever your profession is than you currently are. Since I believe you should be that good, you simply aren't providing effort if you don't reach that level.

What you can't seem to understand is that unless you are a god, you cannot *possibly* know what his true performance level is. You can guess, like anyone else, but you could be miles off. Basing effort or achievement on that guess is tremendously faulty.

Wallace has achieved more than 99% of people in this country and more than the vast majority of players in the league. But that's lack of effort to you. You remind me of parents who grumble that their highly successful doctor child should have / could have been even more successful and thus is a failure in their eyes. Same exact logical flaw, basing effort and achievement on a random guess about what they *could* have been.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Uh...no Ed...it's a FACT he has underachieved, it is my OPINION that he will ALWAYS be an underachiever...blah blah blah blah


Putting random words into caps doesn't help your point, IMO it mostly makes you seem very upset. It is not a fact that he underachieved as a Trailblazer, it is your opinion. It is your opinion that he could be so much better then he's been. That other people share your opinion and suggest that he could perfom much better does not make it a fact. It used to be most everyone's opinion that the world was flat. 

25-7 (a 78% winning clip) is Detroits record since he arrived, while Portland is out of the playoffs for the first time since before some of our regular posters were born. Post Wallace trade some of the random boos were gone from the RG, but then again so were a lot of the fans... attendance dropped. While you and others didn't appreciate having him in town for various reasons, obviously there were plenty of fans who didn't get bent out of shape by percieved underachievement, or that he was personally slighting them by not speaking to the O. I enjoyed his defense and passion, even though some of it was misdirected.

Did you happen to stay with last night Nets destruction on TNT for the post game Sheed interview? Amoung other questions they asked him why the PR has been going so much better for him in Detroit. He said (roughly quoting), "_You tell me whats different? I'm still the same cat, doing the same things. I don't know, you tell me?_" At the end of the interview, Kenny asked him for a "_Both team played hard_," he obliged and added on a smiling "_God bless and good night_" cracking everyone up.

One of the same old things he still does is his "_That ball aint gonna lie!_" line when he feels a bad call has gone against him (or his team) as the opponent is toeing the FT line. I heard it clearly twice after Martin clanged a 3rd quarter free throw. I thought it was very cool of him that down the stretch of the Piston's season (when he was collecting DNPs due to injuries) that he would show up in full uniform to sit on the bench to root on his teammates. Classy move IMO. I'm sure he's happy to have a fresh start with fans who are appreciative of what he's bringing their team rather then complaining about what he could be. 

The only pro team I root for is the Blazers. Without them involved, I just want to see good ball. Detroit has the sort of defensive oriented team I'd love to see Nash build towards. They've been putting on a clinic shutting opponents down. 

STOMP


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

WOW!!!!!!!! 


Somethings never change on this board! 

Ya know if Sheed ever brought the passion that ED, Minstrel and Stomp use defending him, Portland would have had three rings by now!


On a side note a more troubling thought might be that now Sheed has been turned into a Saint in Detroit and Bonzi and Jeff are gone why is it that Portland still is on the crap list with the refs? You'd think that our team might get a break from time to time since the bad element is gone? Was it really our players or is really just Portland?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> 
> Ya know if Sheed ever brought the passion that ED, Minstrel and Stomp use defending him, Portland would have had three rings by now!


What's passionate about what we have to say? You're the one using all the exclamation marks, and sometimes angry words and sarcasm. It seems like the emotion is all on the side of people who feel Rasheed Wallace did them and their community wrong.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

You got me Minstrel, I'm the one writing page after page stat after stat defending a guy who you claim means very little to the joy in your day.

[strike]Minstrel you have 7 thousand posts in what two years? I wish Sheed had your passion or your time.[/strike]

Later

Please take personal digs to PMs. Thanks.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> You got me Minstrel, I'm the one writing page after page stat after stat defending a guy who you claim means very little to the joy in your day.


I've written maybe one post about Wallace on this forum in the past few months, the one above, and it contained no basketball stats. If that's what you call "page after page" and "stat after stat," then we are definitely operating in different realities.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

*My Two Cents...*

...I also feel that Wallace was an underachiever, among other things. I base my opinion on things like:

Wallace comes to camp in poor physical shape, planning to play his way into shape. (This was discussed on this forum at the start of the last couple seasons, IIRC.)

Wallace works in the weight room for (purportedly) the minimum time required by his contract. (I don't recall if this discussion occured on this forum, or it may have been at this forum's former home...but it was based on a picture of the sign-in sheet in the weight room.)

Wallace was said to be out of shape when he went to Detroit...in the middle of the season. (IMO, the fact that he wasn't in great shape might indicte that he could have played harder/longer/better if he was in top physical condition.)

I think Wallace is not the team player some here believe him to be because:

As the team's best and highest paid player, he never took on the role of leader.

He never took on the center position, when we were loaded at PF.

He chose to be kicked out of a playoff game.

He chose to get tossed from the Kings game this year, just as the game went to overtime, in perhaps the biggest game of the season to that point.

He threw a towel in the face of one of his classier teammates.

He chose to give away ?? points when he was setting records for T's. It was more important to show off how his bad self didn't take no stuff from the refs.

His antics are at least a contributing factor for why the refs seem to dispise the Blazers.

I think Wallace is a jerk because:

He was willing to be suspended for 7 games for verbally attacking a ref after a game.

He has set a two year record of 70 (?) T's over two seasons....probably an unbreakable record. (I hope)

He sided with Bonzi over Mo when the chips were down.

These are just the things I can quickly point to in the short time I have to post today. There are plenty of other examples.

It should be noted that these things have nothing to do with what the press 'misreported' or exagerated. It has nothing to do with his trip form Seattle with Damon, either. Also, note that I don't give a rip that he didn't talk with the press.

I'd be happy to let the Wallace issues die, but if some of us are going to prop him up, despite all the crap he's pulled here, I feel the need to tell the other side of the story.

Go Blazers


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> You'd think that our team might get a break from time to time since the bad element is gone? Was it really our players or is really just Portland?


The Blazers didn't get a lot of love from the refs going back to the Drexler days. I remember that team being branded as a bunch of whiners. 

Shareef used to get a ton of calls, but that all came to an abrubt end as soon as he put on a Blazer uni. 

Old stigmas are hard to break, and being in one of the smaller markets doesn't help.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> 
> The Blazers didn't get a lot of love from the refs going back to the Drexler days. I remember that team being branded as a bunch of whiners.
> ...


Not only were the Drexler era Blazers derided as whiners in the national press, but they were often refered to as athletes lacking basketball IQ. Nothing like the pre-Sheed days when Portland had all those stupid crybabies 

Of course now as then, it's their big market counterparts that are featured drinking sugar water every commercial break. When you've got a commissioner who openly endorses the officiating system that favors "star" players, it only makes sense why the bottom half of the league's markets haven't won a title in 20+ years. It also makes it harder for smaller markets to sign established "stars."

Bonzi, McInnis, and Wallace are gone, but I really doubt anything will change in regards to the refs and Portland. The only way they ever get a fair shake with the officials (IMO) is if they land someone who has the looks, charisma, or flashy game to really move product. As a Bball fan, it's sad for me to come to that conclution. 

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Ah...and here they come...the rest of Sheed's posse...riding to his rescue....I am sure the check's in the mail....CTC baby :grinning: 



> First of all, it's not a fact he's underachieved. It's your opinion. Objectively, Rasheed Wallace has outperformed the vast majority of his peers and, indeed, is one of the best players in his draft class even considering where he was taken.


Once again...the fact that he was one of the "best" players taken in his draft class has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with his LEVEL of PLAY on the court. He SHOULD be a better player than he is, this is not a hard concept to grasp Ed...refuse to accept it all you want...but he has the TALENT to be better than he has been. This has been a common observation made about him, whether it is from analysyts like Doug Collins, Hubie Brown, George Karl...his coaches like Mike Duneavy, Maurice Cheeks, his fellow teamates like Damon Stoudamire, Scottie Pippen and his CURRENT GM, whose comments sparked this whole debate. They ALL say they like him as a player, but they all have made comments about his inconsistency as a player, or how he needs to step it up.
It is his inconsistent play that DEFINES his underachievment.



> "In a one-game situation, one series, Rasheed is capable of outplaying Kenyon," Nash said. "He's immensely talented, bigger and longer. But the old adage goes that *it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog* , and Kenyon is far more tenacious.


I guess that is our GM's view as well....."size of the fight in the dog"....desire...heart...Sheed displays these qualities by his level of play some nights...on other nights that "fight" is either inexplicably absent from his play or is reserved for the guys in stripes...



> Rasheed Wallace has outperformed the vast majority of his peers and, indeed, is one of the best players in his draft class even considering where he was taken


Again with the "Well, he was better than everyone in his draft class...blah..blah...blah... So what? So he was worthy of his draft spot...maybe he deserved to be drafted higher...this has NOTHING to do with HIS growth as a player (or lack therof)...Sheed is an above average player...nothing more...he COULD be better, but he isn't b\c he won't mentally accept that challenge to better himself. Therefore he underachieves...he has the talent to be a better player than he is...he dominates the floor one night and is practically invisible the next night...



> Listen to yourself. Would YOU want to play for fans like you?


Get over yourself Ed....Yeah your right, I complain about every player  What? Did I ruffle your feathers b\c I picked on your favorite EX-Blazer?  We all know that according to you, fans shouldn't expect the players to own up to their own mistakes and transgressions.....heaven forbid we actually criticize a player who has had SEVERAL run ins with fans...the media...nba officials...his own coach...his teamates...and yes...the law.



> Are you really that sheltered? I can't believe I'm even bothering to find stats to back this up, but from the Census 2000 site:
> 
> Percentage of blacks in Wayne County (Detroit): 42.2%
> Percentage of blacks in Multnomah County (Portland): 5.7%
> ...


Oh I see, so its PURELY a black and white thing huh? Right...:uhoh: b\c the majority of the "white" fans and "white" media picked on Sheed b\c he was black...uh huh...sure they did....keep spinning it Ed, I am sure someone will buy your garbage...

Yeah...you got me...I am sheltered alright...I guess POR isn't diverse at all...we hate all minorities here...blacks...homosexuals...uh huh...you hit the nail right on the head there Ed, good job...Oh and thanks for the census lesson. I never knew DET % of blacks was higher than POR  :laugh: 



> See, the thing is you're working for a false premise that his abilities mean he should be better than he is... that's simply something I reject. I appreciate or criticize based on what HAPPENS, not on what I THINK should happen.


Ah, finally a sentence w\o a veiled insult in it...good job Ed...congrats. 

Actually, the fact that he has underachieved IS EXACTLY based on his on court play. Like I said..he IS an above average player, he has the skillset and athletic talent to BE an even better player, but he is not. This isn't "wishful" thinking here...he has shown glimpses of fantastic play...so the ability is there, the mindset is not, and that is of his OWN choosing, unless of course you want to blame the fans and media for that as well.  



> Sure. He was the Blazers best player. His team consistently went to the playoffs, and made a couple of runs deep into them. He's gone to a team where the same thing might be able to be said, while his old team is sitting at home for the summer.


So? Yeah we made the playoffs alright, ALL b\c of him too  And I remember his classic meltdowns costing us a few games as well, or his mysterious 4th quarter dissapearances when we desperately needed him to step up. Talent wise, yeah he was our best player, the problem was, he never played up to his abilities every night.



> It's certainly not a bad analogy. You're wishing for something (Rasheed to be as good as KG and Duncan) that simply will never happen. You're setting Rasheed up to fail.


Last time I checked I didn't think you could be 6'4 one night and 6'1 the next....and he isn't failing MY standard...he is failing his own...he displays greatness one night and dissapears the next...so he has the ability in himself, but he doesn't capitalize on it as often as he should or display the consistent effort required of such a level of play. His choice, his standard, he set the bar...not me.



> Why did Detroit want him if he lacked heart?


Um let's see...b\c they got him for a song? b\c he is a FA this offseason, so they can rent him and if he works out great, if not no big deal, let him walk and use his capspace for someone lese? b\c even though he underachieves he is still an above average player...need anymore?

This thread has now become pointless, we can go back and forth forever...you seem to think that Sheed could do no wrong, that if he were still here POR would be better off...whatever...I think your 100% incorrect in that regard...The bottom line is he is gone...and all of you "Sheed lovers and apologists" will have to deal with that sooner or later....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> This also goes to your contention that Wallace didn't provide enough "effort." Your measure of effort is classically bad logic. You define "giving effort" as reaching a certain performance level (


Yeah reaching a performance level that he has SHOWN he is capable of reaching through his own level of play...it is EXACTLY his incosistent level of effort that is a major cause for why he underachieves. HE set his own bar, he just chooses not to reach it or try and better it every night.



> The analogy, KMurph, is that I believe you should be three times as good at whatever your profession is than you currently are. Since I believe you should be that good, you simply aren't providing effort if you don't reach that level.


That is a fine analogy IF I have shown the ability to be 3x as good as others are. Sheed has shown that ability. I didn't "wish" he showed it....he has had games where his level of play was clearly better than his average indicated...quite a few of them actually.



> What you can't seem to understand is that unless you are a god, you cannot possibly know what his true performance level is


I understand fine...I just disagree...I have seen the "best" of what Sheed can bring to the table on a given night, the "whole" package on display, and it is quite amazing...that COULD\SHOULD be his true performance level, but it requires dedication, work, effort...things that Sheed doesn't seem to care about. You want to rate "true" performance levels based on what they give you on an average night, instead of what they CAN provide you if they are maximizing their abilites...seems like a recipe for mediocrity to me....



> Wallace has achieved more than 99% of people in this country and more than the vast majority of players in the league.


I see so he should just rest on his laurels now that he is in the NBA, an above average player, b\c he has already proven himself, right?...thank goodness Michael Jordan didn't think that way or Larry Bird, heck or even Zach Randolph...flaws and all...work ethic is not one of them...and he IMO pretty much squeezes the most out of his bball abilites...Sheed does not.



> You remind me of parents who grumble that their highly successful doctor child should have / could have been even more successful and thus is a failure in their eyes. Same exact logical flaw, basing effort and achievement on a random guess about what they could have been.


Yeah you sure got my behavior as a parent pegged alright  Stick to bball topics, so then you won't embarress yourself with inaccurate assertations like that beauty...
Maybe I should make one about you?





> Did you happen to stay with last night Nets destruction on TNT for the post game Sheed interview? Amoung other questions they asked him why the PR has been going so much better for him in Detroit. He said (roughly quoting), "You tell me whats different? I'm still the same cat, doing the same things. I don't know, you tell me?" At the end of the interview, Kenny asked him for a "Both team played hard," he obliged and added on a smiling "God bless and good night" cracking everyone up



Come on Stomp...yeah sure it was ALL the POR media and fans fault...Sheed was just the innocent victim of spiteful reporters and hateful fans...



> Putting random words into caps doesn't help your point, IMO it mostly makes you seem very upset.


Not upset, just making a point. Actually, you could say that the majority of responses to my initial post were made by posters who were upset, and they showed it by lacing their responses with personal insults and insinuations about my character\intelligence...Does that help make their point?

I don't have a beef with you Stomp, we disagree about Sheed being an underachiever and that is fine. Like I said in an earlier post, this could go back and forth forever, I am not going to change my views and niether are you, so I said my peace and that's it for me on this thread.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I don't think there's any question that Sheed is an underachiever. 

He's a seven footer that can run the floor like a gazelle, can jump out of the gym, has an unstoppable shot, soft touch and a sweet stroke. He has range out to the three point line (and beyond), he can score from anywhere on the floor, he's a great one on one defender, a good shot blocker, and has IMO a good court IQ. 

Now how can a player with those kind of credentials be merely a borderline all-star? It's because he has no heart. Just cashing checks. You put Tim Duncan's brain inside Sheed's head and you have an MVP candidate and one of the top 5 PF's ever.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Yeah reaching a performance level that he has SHOWN he is capable of reaching through his own level of play...it is EXACTLY his incosistent level of effort that is a major cause for why he underachieves. HE set his own bar, he just chooses not to reach it or try and better it every night.
> ...
> That is a fine analogy IF I have shown the ability to be 3x as good as others are. Sheed has shown that ability. I didn't "wish" he showed it....he has had games where his level of play was clearly better than his average indicated...quite a few of them actually.


A player's *best* is not his true performance level. Tony Delk scored 50 one game. Does that mean he's underachieving every game that he doesn't score 50, because he *showed* he can do it if he puts his mind to it?

Maybe Wallace's talent level is to score 30 some nights and 15 other nights, for an average of about 20 points per game. Taking his best nights and saying that he could do that every night "if he just tried" is faulty.

Maybe he "tries" every night, and that trying leads to some good games and some subpar games and some great games. Which puts him at a lower talent level than Duncan and Garnett for whom "trying" results in many more great games.

Let's remember that Larry Brown, a guy who was driven nuts by Allen Iverson, a guy he thought didn't always put forth his best effort and attitude, can't stop singing the praises of Rasheed Wallace. I think a guy who actually works with Wallace, and is regarded as a top head coach, carries more weight in his opinion than guesses from you or me, or from a general manager who's only "observed" Wallace.



> I understand fine...I just disagree...I have seen the "best" of what Sheed can bring to the table on a given night, the "whole" package on display, and it is quite amazing...that COULD\SHOULD be his true performance level


No, that could/should be his best nights. His true performance level may well be his career averages.



> Yeah you sure got my behavior as a parent pegged alright  Stick to bball topics, so then you won't embarress yourself with inaccurate assertations like that beauty...
> Maybe I should make one about you?


I hope you're joking. I wasn't commenting on your parenting, at all. I wasn't even aware you *were* a parent. I was saying your assertions *about Rasheed Wallace* reminds me of parents who exhibit the behaviour I described.

All clear, now?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Come on Stomp...yeah sure it was ALL the POR media and fans fault...Sheed was just the innocent victim of spiteful reporters and hateful fans...


I never said Sheed's problems in Portland were all the faults of others. I relayed his quote towards the positive media coverage he's recieving where he claims he hasn't changed his behavior, but thats not entirely true from what I see. He is now speaking, if briefly, to the local press, and they in turn haven't burned him. Maybe it's because he's the new face in town thats providing the Bball fans there some hope, and they (the press) haven't had to resort to isolating quotes out of context and nasty spinning to keep their readers tuning in, but the press coverage has been very different. Wallace hasn't been racking up techs at a ridiculous rate (which has been the case for a few years now), he hasn't been involved in any off the court stories this season other then the birth of his daughter... local writers are letting the past stay there for the most part. 

It was stupid IMO that the relationship between the players and the local Portland press was so strained. While I don't absolve the individual players of blame for their part in that situation, I don't put it all on them either. Future Blazers will likely remain young, dumb, and spoiled. Thats not ideal, but thats how it is with guys who've been fawned over their entire adolescence by their peers, often not taken their studies seriously for the most part, and are now multi-millionairs with fans all over the world. Okafor sounds like he might be the exception to this rule, but I wouldn't be surprised if Telfair or Livingston arrived in the league with an over-inflated sense of self.

It would be cool by me if the JQuicks of the Blazer world didn't feel the need put their individual gossipy agendas ahead of covering basketball. Being older and not the story themselves, the local press should avoid getting into stubborn standoffs with the players as part of being professional. Who JQuick likes most on the team is not anywhere near as important to me as the games. 

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> A player's best is not his true performance level. Tony Delk scored 50 one game. Does that mean he's underachieving every game that he doesn't score 50, because he showed he can do it if he puts his mind to it?


Well Minstrel you and I disagree then on what the definition of "true" performance levels are. You define it by what a player does, I define it by what he is capable of. The fact that Tony Delk scored 50pts in a given game, shows me that he is capable of playing BETTER than his average. That doesn't mean he should average 50 every night, but it does mean that he is a better player than he has shown, and niether he or Sheed are alone, the NBA is full of players who underachieve.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> Now how can a player with those kind of credentials be merely a borderline all-star?


If he stays in the East next season, I think he's all but a AS lock. I don't think he's a 7 footer though... more like 6'10 barefoot. That's good size, but certainly many of his Western peers are taller and/or bigger. KG, Dirk, Duncan, Pau, and Webber all seem noticably bigger to me when standing next to him. Many of the other starters at 4 are at least as big as well. Nene, Troy Murphy, Cato, Brand, and Uncle Cliffy all bring at least his beef and length, and thats just 4s from the West. 

He's a talent no question, but I don't see him as enjoying physical size advantages over many in the league as you've asserted. 

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> Well Minstrel you and I disagree then on what the definition of "true" performance levels are. You define it by what a player does, I define it by what he is capable of. The fact that Tony Delk scored 50pts in a given game, shows me that he is capable of playing BETTER than his average. That doesn't mean he should average 50 every night, but it does mean that he is a better player than he has shown, and niether he or Sheed are alone, the NBA is full of players who underachieve.


This is a ridiculous position to take.

In numerous other posts in this thread you keep repeating over and over and over that Rasheed's best games set the bar for what he should be doing every game - anything less is underachievment.

What?!?!?!?!

You need to calm down a little bit, go search the net for game by game stats of Hall of Fame players, and show us all that Hall of Fame basketball players are "consistent". I won't hold my breath waiting.

They call them averages for a reason. Get a grip on this already.

And speaking of stats, and the misleading nature thereof, here is a link to some new numbers done by Dan Rosenbaum which should peeve you to no end:http://www.uncg.edu/eco/rosenbaum/NBA/stats1.htm

Rasheed is ranked 11th in the NBA and Zach 120th. You can have the opinion that the Blazers are a better team without the 11th most effective player in the NBA, but it is just that - your opinion. Some disagree and have some substance to back up their stances. It is not as if the Blazers dumped Antione Walker or Juwan Howard. They booted, even by your admission, and above average player, who was all about the team game and never about his numbers, and replaced him with a young gun who is all about stats ("heart" in your lexicon, selfish in mine), can't defend a lick, and is one of of THE black holes in the NBA on offense. OK.

It would help in your postings if you didn't write most of them with the attitude that those that disagreed with your position on Sheed are clueless and wrong. It is an opinion. There will never be any way to prove either side of this issue.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> Rasheed is ranked 11th in the NBA and Zach 120th.


Not that it weakens your point, but the site you link rates ZR as the 110th best player. This quote alludes to why...

"_Amare Stoudemire and Zach Randolph do not seem to help their teams as conventional wisdom would have it. The Suns go from -2.0 to -3.1 points per 48 minutes when Stoudemire is in the game, and the Blazers go from +1.9 to -0.6 points per 48 minutes when Randolph is in the game. I suspect that these two players are giving up more on the defensive end than what they are contributing on the offensive end._"

I think Zach is better then the 110th player in the league, but defense factors a whole lot into who wins the games.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> Well Minstrel you and I disagree then on what the definition of "true" performance levels are. You define it by what a player does, I define it by what he is capable of. The fact that Tony Delk scored 50pts in a given game, shows me that he is capable of playing BETTER than his average. That doesn't mean he should average 50 every night, but it does mean that he is a better player than he has shown, and niether he or Sheed are alone, the NBA is full of players who underachieve.


No, by this definition, *every* player who has ever played in the NBA was an underachiever, because they had great nights, well above their averages, which prove that they were capable of playing BETTER than their averages.

There is no player who's ever played in the NBA (assuming a real career, not a few games) that you can't say that about.

Magic Johnson had games far, far above his career averages or any season's averages, proving he could play BETTER than his averages, thus proving he's an underachiever. Just like Tony Delk, as you explain above, and just like Rasheed Wallace.

Are you sure that you feel you're taking a position that makes sense? That any player who's had games better than his averages is an underachiever?


----------

