cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 18:10:13 GMT -5
Are you serious EJA? I admit there are a lot of talented pgs in teh NBA today, but half of them couldn't run an offense to save their lives. Outside of the likes of Nash, Arenas, Paul, Kidd, Billups, Baron. Maybe Cassell, there is not one player on that list. I don't think you ever saw Doc play. Maybe you are too young. And that list of yours I'm surprised at the players you listed.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 18:11:50 GMT -5
Just face it EJA, you don't know what you are talking about and you are just making a fool out of yourself. Please..... I listed the numbers as to why Doc is a top 25-30 pg of all time, if that is what proves it. Maybe that will go down a bit because of all the pgs in the league today, but he's still up there. That has nothing to do with knowinig how to run an offense. The numbers speak for themselves. Plus he knew how to run an offense and was an unselfish player. He also played in an era where most teams would kick the (censored) out of most teams nowadays and Doc was on one of the best teams in the East and was one of their best players. Doc is easily a top 50 pg of all time. And realistically he's in the 25-30 range. I dont see how you can even argue that. AFter Isiah, Mo Cheeks, and DJ, there wasn't a better pg in the East during probably the best era in basketball. The West had Magic. Doc was probably the 6th best pg during the 80's and probably would have made several allstar games had he played in the west. And you say he wasn't good..
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 19:14:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Feb 8, 2007 20:02:56 GMT -5
Look I realize some of you guys took remedial math and aparently I am a little younger than some of you guys and can barely remember his playing days but seriously get over your teenage man love for Doc and look at the math. Math doesn't lie. If he is a top 25 pg then those other guys that are statistically similar to him are also. Kendall Gill anyone? Spud Webb?
You say he was an unselfish guy. He better have been seeing as how he couldn't shoot.
he was a 2nd round draft pick, and every single year like 3 pgs enter the league who I'd rather have than him, and that is a historical trend. 3 times 50 equals 150. Simple 3rd grade math guys. The guys on my list aren't necessarily better but since most of them are pretty young I'd rather have them. They are sort of projections. You say he is 45th in something. Fine. Let's look at his shooting percentages. Or is shooting something point guards in the 80's didn't do? Where does that rank? Like 500th? Actually his 44% shooting is decent. But not his 3s or free thows. And 44% isn't phenomenal or anything.
A guy who plays a long time will have a lot of assists even when he averages only 5.7 per game.
The guy was 6 ft 4 and averaged 3 rebs a game. Where does that rank? Like 300? By comparison TJ Ford and Brevin Knight are both averaging 3.5 and 7.7 this year.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 20:15:28 GMT -5
He was a pg eja. I didn't realize rebounding was a prerequisite. In assists and steals he ranks in the top 30, top 10 in steals all time for pgs. What is it you dont get here? During the 80's he was one of the best at his position. I honestly don't care about the numbers but they are still right in front of you. And the position has changed. Whether that is for the better or worse that can be debated. You are making no sense whatsoever. I also have a college degree and being a CS major, I took high level math classes that you probably wouldn't even understand(including a course called statistics if you've ever heard of it), so please before you spout off (censored) about taking remedial math shut the (censored) up.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Feb 8, 2007 20:27:16 GMT -5
Well in your genious level math classes at Chico State did they teach you anything about standard deviation or exponential trends? What are you saying? The position has changed so much that pgs now are like 900% more efficient on paper than 15 years ago, but only equally as good? What happened that changed so much? Did they stop shooting and rebounding and blocking shots? No wait. They stopped using a ball. Last time I checked pgs can rebound. It's allowed. That's one reason why guys like Kidd and Oscar Robertson were considered good. Not Doc. Did your stats classes tell you that you have to compare the same things or else it's meaningless? I'm beginning to think you think Doc was a hockey player or NFL quaterback or something. The guy was a one whole time all star who put up some numbers that he Accumulated over time. Nothing more.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 20:34:29 GMT -5
What i'm saying is he is currently statistically around 25-30 all time. Even if you take every starting pg in the nba today, and somehow miraculously every one of them surpasses him which they wont, statistically he is still ranked 60. Saying Doc is not one of the top 150 pgs of all time is way off EJA. Maybe 50 years from now you can say that but a top 150 player also holds more weight then, because you are dealing with a larger number of players. The reality is Doc is in the top percentage of pgs that have ever played the game period.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 20:45:40 GMT -5
Plus the game has changed like I said. What does that say for Cousy if suddenly every pg starts averaging 18 and 8. Does that mean Cousy wasn't as good as he was? Does that mean damon stoudemire is as good as Cousy because his numbers are better and he shot better percentages than cousy? The game has changed.
You are arguing Doc Rivers wasn't that good because he averaged 11 and 6 and shot 44% with 2 steals a game. Those are good numbers eja during the 80's. Those numbers are also misleading because he had an 8 year stretch where he averaged much better than that, and his averages were hurt because of the tail end of his career. Cousy averaged 18 pts and 7.6 assists per game and never had a season where he averaged more than 10 assists a game. He also shot like 38% or something like that. What does that say for Cousy? By your argument Cousy wasn't as good as Damon Stoudemire, when in reality he was one of the best pgs and passers EVER to play the game.
Math has nothing to do with your argument. It's just common sense.
Even if every player nowadays and in the future, starts averaging better numbers, and his numbers hold less weight ultimately, that is why statistics are misleading and aren't the end all be all when you are talking about a sport that changes and not something concrete. During his era Doc was a top pg. It also happened to be the best era of basketball. He also is currently a top pg of all time statistically. Saying he isn't in the top 150 is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Feb 8, 2007 21:04:19 GMT -5
I love how you say he didnt shoot 80% on his free throws. His career average was .794. Give me a break.
You always go on about effort and hustle and tough play in other posts. Doc was all about these things.
I could go on, but this is already verging on ridiculous. Keep fighting the good fight Chief.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 21:21:10 GMT -5
You can say Doc is a (censored) coach, and his record speaks for itself, but to say on top of that he wasn't a good pg is taking things too far. And even his coaching can be defended because he's dealing with some variables here as well, considering he has a team of 20 year olds, late 1st round picks and 2nd round draft choices he's dealing with.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Feb 8, 2007 21:21:45 GMT -5
I'm still comfortable with 150 but if 70 makes you feel better fine. My point is he wasn't that good. I think Manute Bol got a good handful of blocks. In you and Fresh's mind i guess that makes him a top ten center. Yinka Dare got like 0 assists in like 5 years but since he was a center maybe that doesn't matter?
If you want to say that some of the poing guards today, if they got in a time machine and went back in time, they would have been dominant and blown everyone away and changed the game way before its time I guess I'd go along with that. But i'd take Doc, but him in a time machine and send him to any era and there's just no way he'd be that good.
You want to talk about Cousy and his stats and common sense? 6 rings. 1 MVP. 9 All-NBA First teams. 2 2nd Teams. 13 All Star games. Led the league in assists with 9.5 in in 1960
Now lets do Doc. 1 All star game. He got 16 whole minutes in the game. he went 5 for 11 from the line.
I guess maybe you guys feel about Doc the way I feel Dennis Rodman and at the time Horace Grant were under appreciated.
Hey Fresh. What next? Dan Marino was a great quarterback? You know something isn't true just cause you say it is. Maybe do a little objective analysis every once in a while, make a little sense, and then come back and talk to the big boys when you're ready Fresh.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 21:23:07 GMT -5
Wow eja. It's fact here we are dealing with. It's not even a debate. And yes Dan Marino was a great quarterback.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 21:25:05 GMT -5
There's so many flaws with your logic EJA its ridiculous. Now you are comparing Cousy to Doc. Cousy was one of the top 4 pgs ever. You are saying Doc was not in the top 150. He was in the top 25-30 range because of his accomplishments were greater than than anyone else on that list.
|
|
cfoo
Welcome To Celtics Green!
Posts: 1
|
Post by cfoo on Feb 8, 2007 21:26:11 GMT -5
It takes a man to admit when you are wrong and you are wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Feb 8, 2007 21:30:25 GMT -5
Manute Bol?
Yinka Dare?
Dan Marino?
Huh?
|
|