I think both players get a little overrated and whenever you have players putting up big numbers on bad losing teams you have to wonder is that the same as a player putting up the same numbers on a winning team? Is there something more at play than JUST the numbers when it comes down to it? There is but how much is unknown.

Example: A Tim Duncan 20-10 game produces wins. A David Lee 20-10 game does not produce as many.

The difference here is that Duncan can score in numerous ways while Lee has 2 pet moves. Duncan plays defense while Lee does not.

So in that example you may find your answer as to why stats aren't anything.
In my first line of this post you may find your answer as to why Lee/Chandler don't get the crticism that Marbury/Crawford got even if the overall stats and w/l records are similar.

Let's say three years down the line Ill Wilson and D. Lee are here and the Knicks are winning 30 games a year. Then they would be hated by everyone in the world.

Bo and Crawstinkyfish? They are so wack. First, they were transplants. Isiah's transplants and they had horrible, losing histories. They just suck, man. Why is this so hard to see difference? I see it plain as day, written on the wall in front of me.

jimimou wrote:quote="orangeblobman"]
This is true, we're not tired of Ill Wilson and D. Lee and they're still young. This is so good.

Let's say three years down the line Ill Wilson and D. Lee are here and the Knicks are winning 30 games a year. Then they would be hated by everyone in the world.

Bo and Crawstinkyfish? They are so wack. First, they were transplants. Isiah's transplants and they had horrible, losing histories. They just suck, man. Why is this so hard to see difference? I see it plain as day, written on the wall in front of me.

i hear ya but jamal is putting up 6th man of the year type numbers in atlanta.

I meant that he sucked in the local sense, not absolute sucking.

Never said they absolutely sucked. They just sucked for us. So for all I know about them, they suck. You see?

orangeblobman wrote:Listen here, Mr. Jimmy. I don't back track, ever, and my **** never stinks. It's aromatic and flavorful because I have a healthy diet.

Never said they absolutely sucked. They just sucked for us. So for all I know about them, they suck. You see?

Flavorful? You mean like chocolate pudding?

Cosmic wrote:The difference is we're not yet tired of Lee or Chandler and they're still relatively young.

I think both players get a little overrated and whenever you have players putting up big numbers on bad losing teams you have to wonder is that the same as a player putting up the same numbers on a winning team? Is there something more at play than JUST the numbers when it comes down to it? There is but how much is unknown.

Example: A Tim Duncan 20-10 game produces wins. A David Lee 20-10 game does not produce as many.

The difference here is that Duncan can score in numerous ways while Lee has 2 pet moves. Duncan plays defense while Lee does not.

So in that example you may find your answer as to why stats aren't anything.
In my first line of this post you may find your answer as to why Lee/Chandler don't get the crticism that Marbury/Crawford got even if the overall stats and w/l records are similar.

True to a point (Pun intended).
Timmy has Tony to shoulder the load, Lee has Duhon.

Moonangie wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:Listen here, Mr. Jimmy. I don't back track, ever, and my **** never stinks. It's aromatic and flavorful because I have a healthy diet.

Never said they absolutely sucked. They just sucked for us. So for all I know about them, they suck. You see?

Flavorful? You mean like chocolate pudding?