Posted by majorleads:

Posted by PresIke:

I can't believe there is two pages of discussion over Eddy Curry's fantasy ranking as having significant meaning.

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-09-2007 5:50 PM]

We're discussing Curry's pathetic all around game. His poor fantasy ranking is a by product of his overall ineffectiveness.

Surely you distinguish in some way a difference between fantasy sports numbers and players playing in real games? Pathetic and ineffective are not fair adjectives to describe Curry's game, and clearly reek of bias. Is his game flawed? Sure, so are most players...even the "good" or "great" ones. But why get caught up in such things as objectivity and weight of measurement when you can pick and choose information that suits your view, regardless of how much it fits reality.

Anyone who knows fantasy sports games (and believe me I do, as I used to play it ferociously and obsessively) like Yahoo know that some stats are worth or hurt more than others in scoring in fantasy sports, but don't necessarily correlate to measuring a players' value. If stats were all that matters then the Lakers with Malone, Shaq, Payton & Kobe should have destroyed the league and NOT lost to Detroit in the Finals...but they did. The best fantasy players fill the stat sheet, and don't hurt you anywhere. So guys who score and put up numbers that are measured in by official NBA game statistitions are the basis for all scoring in fantasy sports. Curry has been a bad fantasy player because he hurts you. He doesn't rack up assists, and turns the ball over at a high rate, so in fantasy sports games where turnovers affect things that might count like assist-to ratio rates, or taking away points gained in other categories...which are interesting stats but do we measure all play in the NBA by stats? Also, for someone with those kinds of numbers he doesn't help you in other areas that others care about, like FT%, and for a big man, blocking shots as a center or double digit rebounding. He only helps you in two areas and that's scoring and FG% (of which he typically leads the NBA, and with many shots), but in fantasy sports you need guys who help you in areas to not hurt you much in others.

I'm not saying that these stats don't indicate weaknesses on Curry's part, but they tend to focus on the negatives and diminish his strengths which is perfect for those who despise him for whatever reason to make such a case. Where is the measurement of getting opposing players in foul trouble, or tiring out the other team's big men, or even the mental frustration trying to stop him may have on the outcome of games? Ricky Davis has consistently been a better fantasy player than Curry, but which player do you think most teams would rather have?

The problem is this case is highly flawed and not by any means an objective take on his game because it doesn't look at the whole picture.

Oh yeah...let's not forget the fact that this is a PRE-season ranking created by some fantasy "expert," all the more reason to call it into question.


[Edited by - PresIke on 10-09-2007 9:17 PM]

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-09-2007 9:20 PM]

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-09-2007 9:26 PM]