A good article from Hoopsworld...

McDyess - Franchise Player??

There has been alot of debate(well, for the Knicks forum anyway...that place is dead) about whether or not Antonio McDyess is a franchise player. Some say he is, some say he isn't, some don't care, some evidently don't have a clue. This is my effort to sift through the information available and come to a conclusion.

First, one needs to define "franchise player". The simple definition would be: the cornerstone of the franchise. Obvious. Simple. To the point. In my experience, nothing is really obvious, simple or to the point, and this would be no different. That simply cannot be true. If I am Scott Layden and decide to try and build my team around Travis Knight, does that make him a franchise player? According to the previous definition, yes, but I think it's safe to assume we all know that it simply isn't true. He's simply not good enough. So we have our first component of a franchise player: quality. He's gotta be good. What else does he have to be? Well, it always helps if his name is Shaq or Jordan, but that usually isn't the case, so I suppose the next component would have to be dominance. The player doesn't have to take over every single game, but should make teams pay consistently for not double-teaming, and should be able to pass out of said double-teams to make teams pay as well. Basically, they should be good enough to be the focal point of a good offensive attack. The third component should be defense. A franchise player should set a good example on the defensive end by at least trying if he's not a great defender. The fourth component is clutch play. A franchise player should be clutch. He should either be the one taking or setting up the last shot in close games, and he should be the one you look for with the shotclock winding down. The fifth component is consistency. It's no use relying on someone who is only going to show up 75% of the time. They need to be there game in, game out(you reading this, Pippen?) Finally, the last component is the big section...namely, intangibles. Ugh. We all hate those, don't we? No statistics to back them up for the number crunchers, ample arguments for the opposite viewpoint for the arguers...they just don't work. However, they need to be factored into this one equation.

1) Quality. There's no debating that McDyess is a quality player. One cannot put up the 21ppg, 12rpg that McDyess did in his last healthy year without being a good player. Playing on a poor team will do wonders for your stats(see Vaught, Loy) but it can't do THAT much. Grade: A

2) Dominance - McDyess is a dominant physical specimen, depending on how his knees hold up. A great verticle leap, a wide body and good upper-body strength make him physically imposing; a soft touch makes him a likely candidate for double-teaming. His passing and court vision need work, as he seems to suffer from the Patrick Ewing Black Hole syndrome at times, but once Sprewell glares at him for not passing the ball, maybe he'll get scared straight. Grade: B

3) Defense - McDyess seems to be lacking a little bit in this department. Sometimes he looks lazy, sometimes he has that "I'm so bored." look that Shaq rocked in his first few years, but other times he plays great help defense and has shown that he can be quite good at denying the ball. Grade: B-, maybe C+

4) Clutch play - Well, we'll never know until it happens, will we? He hasn't exactly had ample opportunity to prove himself, has he? I'm just going by instinct, but I think he may show himself to be on the Allan Houston/Chris Webber side of this scale. Grade: Incomplete

5) Consistency - One need only look at the numbers to see...his numbers have gone down and come up and gone down and come and gone down and come up so much that it's impossible to gauge how he will do the next year. Look at this two primary categories, ppg and rpg:
96 - 13.4, 7.5
97 - 18.3, 7.3
98 - 15.1. 7.6
99 - 21.2, 10.7
00 - 19.1, 8.5
01 - 20.8, 12.1
02 - Injured
His numbers are like a supermodels sunday dinner...they go down and they immediately come back up. That is not the stuff franchise players are made of. Grade: D

6) Intangibles - OK, this is a sticky one. McDyess obviously sticks up for his teammates, as shown by the players little mini-strike in Denver. He also seems to have maturity issues, as shown by the players little mini-strike in Denver. I think he's trying, and he's learning, and I think he may become a good leader for the team by taking up for them when it needs to be done. Teams always play better knowing there's a big bruiser out there who's go their back(well, if Weatherspoon balloons again, McDyess has got like, half his back, tops, but still...) He seems to lack vision on the court, which is not something that can really be taught, but experience may teach him where to focus his poor eyesight during certain situations. His lack of attention on defense will hopefully be taken care of when Sprewell and Thomas beat the tar out of him for not contesting every shot in the first preseason game. Grade: Incomplete.

The conclusion? Incomplete. The two major categories are, in my opinion, clutch play and intangibles, as there are many good all-around players in the NBA, and McDyess hasn't had the chance to prove himself. I'd like to put on my rose colored glasses and state that he'll get it all together and lead the Knicks somewhere, but I can't do it. He'll lead them to the second round, maybe the Conference Finals once, and then get traded for a draft pick that will be used to select Rolando Blackmon 7th overall in the 2007 draft. Don't say it can't happen...we talkin' 'bout the Knicks.

I think he may show himself to be on the Allan Houston/Chris Webber side of this scale.

That's a bit harsh on AH.

Posted by BigSm00th:

Houston's made a hell of a lot more game winners then CWebb has, with not nearly as much talent around him.

[Edited by - bigsm00th on 07/23/2002 18:10:03]

You make a good point there. Houston does tend to pull disappearing acts during games, but he has had some clutch moments.