Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by BlueSeats:
some of it is directed at fans who so over-hype Steph.
no one here over hypes steph. No one. The hate is much stronger than the kool aid here, by a long shot.
Do you have anything to match these 2 random devaluations of steph?
BRIGGS: We would have to trade Steph and Frye to get Lamar Odom because Odom is waay better than Steph. [that is a paraphrase, but if forced I will find the original]
McK1: Luke Ridenhour is better than Steph.
can you give me 1 over-hyped statement from ANYONE on this board that comes close to the ridiculousness of those 2 statements?
I haven't been on this board long enough to know who believes what, so some of my precepts were formed on realgm, which most people understand is something of an asylum (however, at it's upper percentiles it has some of the best posters of any board). But wherever one goes they'll hear speak of Steph as a future HOFer and second in stats to Oscar Robertson, and how he's clearly better than the likes of Billips, Parker, Arenas, etc, "end of story!". Putting Steph as "clearly" better than any number of effective PGs is over rating him, as he's yet to demonstrate himself effective in any real measure beyond personal stats.
Furthermore, the small glimpses we get of him being replaced by fairly average PGs like Crawford, and bad PGs like Nate, with equal or better effectiveness from them (on a team level) demonstrates that Steph's worth is not as irreplaceable as some of you would have it.
And all that ignores his negative value persona which leads to the kinds of backbiting and selfishness that leads to trades and breaks up teams (as Penny explained). That's an aspect of the Steph package his supporters love to dismiss and pretend doesn't factor in. meanwhile they can't explain why such a "stud PG" averages 2.5 years per team before he's traded.
Posted by HARDCOREKNICKSFAN:
Killa, it's a waste of time to try making sense out of nonsense.
He's the best player on this team, and real Knicks fans root for him to help this team win. That's just the way it is.
This "best player" rationale is another one I don't buy. First off, I'd trade Steph straight up for either of Crawford or Frye. However, if you want to call Steph our most 'consistent' player I would agree.
But keep in mind that "best players" get moved all the time. Steph is one -- he was considered the best player on pretty much every team that dumped him and bettered themselves in the process. i understand all the extenuating circumstances, but the point remains he's yet to prove himself unreplaceable, or really even missed in the grand scheme of things.
He's also no exception there. Isiah Rider was probably the best player on Portland when they traded him. Derek Coleman was the best on NJ when they moved him. And Jerry Stackhouse was the best on Detroit when they moved him. In each of those cases the team did as well or better without their "best player". Oh, and Antoine walker was the best guy on Atlanta last year.
Being the best guy on a bad team is simply not an immaculate standard of excellence. Especially if he comes at the expense of team chemistry.
Some of you guys just need to get a grip on the concept of putting a franchise above a player. For those of you convinced that without Steph we'd be worse off I understand your support of him. But for those of us who feel he's a drag on the franchise and a distraction to the team it's hardly a betrayal of our loyalty to the franchise to be disinterested in him or want him gone.
12/6/2005 1:42 PM
