Bonn1997 wrote:Bippity10 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:holfresh wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Melo and Amare have to play hard on both ends of the court for a full season before making the top 15 club. Amare might be in the club now but Carmelo has to also shoot more efficiently and pass better.
Name 15 players better than Carmelo playing today..
You can get a pretty good list if you look at the wins produced and win shares statistics. There's a lot of error in any one single data point but you can look for the guys who year after year are ahead of Carmelo. People blindly look at PPG. I'm sure you and about 15 other people will say their lay perception is better than any statistical analysis and I'll get sucked in and we'll be just redoing a debate that we've done dozens of times over the years. I hope Melo shuts me up with on the court play. I hate that we went 14-18 with him this past year and that his teams are 2-8 in playoff series. If he gets new and better results, I'll congratulate him.
If you want to talk about "wins produced", I'm not sure it's fair to compare a guy that was the main guy on his team to guys that are second fiddle. Guys like Tyson Chandler and Bynum are riding someone else's coattails for their "wins produced" Obvioulsy it was easier for Amare to have more "wins produced" in Phoenix when he had Nash by his side then it was for him to have a lot of "wins produced" when he was leading the Knicks to a .500 record. It was obvioulsy easier for KG to have more "wins prodcued" with Ray and Rondo and Pierce by his side then it was in Minnesota. If Amare had spent his entire career in a Knick type situation or KG had never gone to the Celtics would that mean they weren't any good? Using "wins produced" as a data point is as flawed as using his PPG
Tyson Chandler, both Gasol's, Bynum, Westbrook, Rondo and Stephen Curry aren't even the best players on their own team let alone lead their team to wins.
You constantly point out that people here are blindly looking at his PPG and yet if you look back at 3 or 4 posts above yours there was a pretty obvious conversation about his scoring and his defense, shooting percentage and his shot selection. It always seems that you are the one that is fixated on this stat.
We were 14-18 with him and Amare. So you hate that. That's fair. Shouldn't Amare then get as much heat(if not more) then Carmelo. It was Amare's team. Carmelo was just a guest. Amare was our leader. The 14-18 should fall on him then, which means he sucks as much as Melo.
Isn't the whole conversation of talent more nuanced then "wins produced" and ppg and shot seleciton. This isn't about shot selection, wins, leadership, shooting percentage, defense and everything else. This is about your affect on the game. Does Melo have a positive affect on the game? Does he make a mediocre team good. Taht's what stars do. I personally think he does. I think it's the next level he has proven incapable of doing. It's the next level that he has to prove to me. The rest of this argument about him being just a mediocre player, blah, blah, blah. It's just nonsense.
I cited win shares, not just wins produced. Both are adjusted for shot frequency, which is one of the reasons why they are better than PER. I listed a few things (like shooting efficiency and defense) to simplify the discussion but Melo's wins produced and win shares numbers are low (and his team success in the NBA is mediocre) because there are many, many things he does mediocrely--basically, everything except rebounds and scoring (although scoring is only moderately above average after taking efficiency into account). He can prove me wrong on the court, and I hope he does, but his past outcomes give me no confidence.
You are a very stats driven guy.
In high school my senior year I averaged a lot of points, never missed a shot, grabbed 6 or 7 rebounds at the PG/sg position, played defense and led my team. My co-captain missed the first 10 games because of injury(we were 9-1, I produced wins). When he came back he averaged 10 ppg, 5 assists, 2 or 3 rebounds and probably shot in the mid 30's percentage wise. I don't know what his "wins produced" was. I dont' know if his PER was all that great. I have no diea what his plus minus was. What I do know is that while I was putting up the pretty numbers and "producing wins" he was the best player on the team. He was the true star. He was the one that put us over the top. He was the true superstar. I worship this guy and his stats were nothing special. We all followed his lead and fed off him. Unless you were on our team and in our locker room you would have thought I was the guy. But he was. I learned first hand that affect on the court is most important and cannot be measured in stats. I've played with guys that score, rebound, pass and defend but never win because they have one major flaw(whatever that is) that destroys a team. I coached a kid that was the most talented player in the league. He was a great one on one defender, scorer, passer. But he killed my team because he could not take coaching. He was never in position on d and would destroy our defense. Eveyr fan thought he was fantastic but in reality I could not win with him. I've also coached guys who all they could do was score and rebound, or pass and defend, or shoot and play d that were team and league MVP's. I know an NBa player who can barely defend that won back to back league MVP's. Ben Wallace was the most important player on his team and could not score on a 4th grader. All players not named Jordan or Wilt or Kobe have flaws to their game. Waht is important is their overall affect. Not their positives and not their negatives not their flaws. Patrick Ewing was a flawed player. And yet he was a shot or two away from winning a title or two.
As for Melo, I'm an open minded guy so I have no problem guaging fan reaction on this site. While you think everyone is focused on his PPG and thinking he is a god for scoring so much, what I see is much different. What I see is a fan base that thinks they got a great player, who has not learned how to take his team to the next level. What I see is a fan base who thinks he is a winner, but has a lot to prove in order to show us the true results of a superstar. Very few on this site seem to be fawning and drooling over the guy, but many do think he is a damn good player, and only one on this site thinks he's just slightly above average. Melo is a top 15 talent no doubt. What he has to prove is what affect will he have on this team. He will need to prove that he can lead us to higher levels like you say. I think almost everyone is in agreement on this, even Nixluva. Doesn't mean that he is not a star because he hasn't done this.
Before KG was a Celtic
7 straight 1st round playoff outs
6-19 in his first 25 playoff games
Won one year when Latrel and Casell came over
Followed that up by not making the playoffs 2-3 straight years
Was he mediocre, just above average, too many flaws? Or was he just another star that needed to prove that he could take his team to the next level?
You can't always judge a player by wins. I know everyone says "wins is all that matters", but it's a cliche. Sorry, I know this goes against conventional thought, but it is a cliche. If you put Michael Jordanin his prime on a team with you, me, Allanfan and Fishmike we ain't winning too many games(if any). Would that mean he was just an above average player? Why is it sometimes I go to the gym and win 10 games in a row and then other days I'm one and out? Do I become great and then lose my greatness a few days later? Or does the team that I'm on matter somewhat?
Melo's time in Denver proved to me he wasn't Dirk(but neither was Dirk for most of his career) a solo star that can lead his team to a title. He proved that he's not Lebron or Wade. But he also proved to me that he's not Andrew Bynum or mark Gasol either.
