If you hadnt broken up my post the way you did, you would see that I was basing it on the last two months of the season.
My breaking up your post did not affect my understanding of it one way or they other. I actually read it before I copied and pasted your post in sections that I could reply to.
Maybe you did not read my post! I responded to you basing your opinion on the last two months of the season:
But remember it's an entire season that is important, not just an arbitrary period.
***
And yes, it was on stats.
All their stats were very close. You probably didn't look at minutes played though, Nenad produced very well and he averaged less time than any of those players, and he was not the focal player on the Nets by a long shot. He also made the playoffs and performed outstanding in the first round series.
Read my post again and dont break it up to make it seem hesitant.
I don't read and post simultaneously, so please don't worry about my reading comprehension. I did not break it up to make it seem hesitant. Nor did I take anything out of context. If that is the impression you got, maybe YOU read it the wrong way?
Do I tell you how to post? Do I ever write: Hey Silverfuel, it would be nice if you brought some concrete data with your opinion, and by the way, telling me what posters on other forums think is not substantiation?
Furthermore, you engaged me on this thread. You know how I post. And when I ask you why you have a certain contradictory opinion in reply to my post, you get defensive! If you want to discuss contrasting basketball opinions with me, you should be prepared to "thrust and parry", so to speak. From what I have seen, you like to deal in generalisms. I like to deal in specifics, you know that.
Ok, you look at the Game Logs for the entire season and compare the season stats if you want. Its clear Okafor and Howard had better seasons.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3818/gamelog (Howard)
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3819/gamelog (Okafor best out of the 3)
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3622 (Nenad Krstic)
No, what is clear is that Howard and Okafor had statistically "bigger" regular seasons, but not by a landslide. They also logged more minutes (Except Howard). Nenad Krstic performed very well in the playoffs after a strong rookie season. The playoffs are when big-time players step up.
Perhaps.
(Just for your orientation, this quote was in reply to my writing we should compare all of the players playoff averages.)
Now let us compare all four players playoff performances:
Nenad Krstic:
Playoff 4 4 38.5 .563 .000 .792 2.5 5.0 7.5 1.8 .25 .50 1.50 5.00 18.3
Quite impressive.
Eddie Curry, Dwight Howard, Emeka Okafor,
0 combined.
Big-time star!? He has a chance to be the best big man in the league.
I think the best big man in the league would be considered a big time star in most cases. They are not mutually exclusive. And even if Howard doesn't become the best big man in the NBA, I still think he will be a big time star.
The way he rebounds at the age of 19, come on, I didnt need to see a picture of him kissing the rim to form an opinion either. It was like I said, unreal.
I am basing my opinion on his performance/age as well. Howard kind of reminds me of Shawn Kemp: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/shawn_kemp/index.html
I said that too.
(Just in case you forgot, this quote was in reply to my writing that after Howard, it would be hard to rank Curry, Okafor, and Krstic.)
You did not say the same thing. You wrote: "I think they were clear cut better." in reference to Curry, Howard, and Okafor, compared to Krstic, then in the same paragraph: "If you compare the last two months from last season, Howard and Okafor were absolute beasts. What they will be in the future no one can tell.".
Maybe you forgot to write Krstic's name in that blurb?
***
ok.
(The previous quote was in reply to my writing that I have a feeling about Krstic.)
Alrighty!
oohah
11/1/2005 12:59 PM
