Mike Golic "takes dump" on Football Outsiders this morning

[FedEx227]

I don't think that's the point though Warner.

They play different positions, in different eras. There is no comparison, nor a need to do so. Carmelo is a hell of a player, whether his teams win titles or not. As an individual Carmelo does what he does, Isiah did what he did.

You can argue their merits all you want, unquestionably that's going to be on Isiah's side but the entire argument is retarded. It's like asking who is the better player between Julius Erving and Bob Cousy. It's SportsNation level of argument/discussion.

To be fair, yeah Carmelo has gotten bounced from the first round a bunch of times but they did make it to the Western Conference Finals in 08-09.

[Senser81]

You can argue their merits all you want, unquestionably that's going to be on Isiah's side but the entire argument is retarded. It's like asking who is the better player between Julius Erving and Bob Cousy.

Except that both Erving and Cousy are in the NBA's top 50 players ever. If Carmelo Anthony retired tomorrow, I don't think anyone would put him in the top 50. This would be more like asking who is the better player between Kiki Vandeweghe and Bob Cousy.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

When that cockface from FootballOutsiders was on NFL network It upset me as much as any game did that season.

I really wish there was a way to burn a website down.

I suggest you dig up Tex from MM to help you with this.

[FedEx227]

Yeah, I can probably jump on board with that...

Kiki Vandeweghe: 19.7 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.1 APG, 18.4 PER

Carmelo Anthony: 24.7 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 3.1 APG, 20.2 PER

We'll see how long Carmelo plays and progresses, but they are decently similar.

[NAHSTE]

Absolutely, plus baseball at it's core is 1v1 so it's extremely easy to break down quantifiable stuff.

Football and for the most part basketball are completely team sports, so it's really hard to get statistical stuff outside of "this team is better when Player A is on the court/field over Player B". There are some okay ones in basketball, PER is alright, +/- is okay, Usage % can show you some stuff but it's not nearly on the same level as baseball.

Football I think is nearly impossible to get any sort of "higher-level" statistical grasp on.

This, I disagree with. It's 1v9. The pitcher can't exercise his objective without his fielders.

[FirstTimer]

I thought another odd discussion had to do with Paul Piece and Clyde Drexler. Lefty and another guy over there again based on sabre basketball stats had Pierce>Drexler.

Sure you can show it sabremetrically stat wise I guess...? But when it comes down to it who would really start a steam with Paul Pierce over Clyde Drexler? Pierce is a very good player but Drexler is an all time great. Simply looking at the numbers doesn't really show what each meant to the teams in the grand scheme of the system etc.

[FirstTimer]

This, I disagree with. It's 1v9. The pitcher can't exercise his objective without his fielders.

Greg Maddux scoffs at you.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

This, I disagree with. It's 1v9. The pitcher can't exercise his objective without his fielders.

I think 1v1 is more a reference to 1 action = 1 reaction in the game of baseball.

Everything is quantifiable and the final result is the sum of all its parts.

[FedEx227]

I think 1v1 is more a reference to 1 action = 1 reaction in the game of baseball.

Everything is quantifiable and the final result is the sum of all its parts.

Yeah exactly.

[Senser81]

I suggest you dig up Tex from MM to help you with this.

FYI, Tex posts at VSN...just sayin.

[FedEx227]

I thought another odd discussion had to do with Paul Piece and Clyde Drexler. Lefty and another guy over there again based on sabre basketball stats had Pierce>Drexler.

Sure you can show it sabremetrically stat wise I guess...? But when it comes down to it who would really start a steam with Paul Pierce over Clyde Drexler? Pierce is a very good player but Drexler is an all time great. Simply looking at the numbers doesn't really show what each meant to the teams in the grand scheme of the system etc.

I think a lot of people do underrated Pierce though because he plays in this era as opposed to the over-glorified 80s-90s like Drexler.

I'd still probably take Drexler, but I feel like far too many people underrated Pierce. He's a Hall of Famer. I don't think it's a slam dunk/no doubter on Drexler.

[FirstTimer]

FYI, Tex posts at VSN...just sayin.

For realz?

Who is he?

[FirstTimer]

I think a lot of people do underrated Pierce though because he plays in this era as opposed to the over-glorified 80s-90s like Drexler.

I'm not sure the 80-90's is over glorified. I'd take 80's-1995ish era basketball over what we have today pretty quickly. I think when you lump the 90's as a whole in it becomes an issue because IMO even with the Bulls second 3 peat the play wasn't that great in the second part of the decade.

I'd still probably take Drexler, but I feel like far too many people underrated Pierce. He's a Hall of Famer.

And this is where I think Pierce is overrated. I don't think he's a no doubter HOF'er. Do I think he gets in? Most likely...but I don't think he's a lock or a first ballot guy. Until he won that championship I'm not sure he was at all...let alone borderline.

[NAHSTE]

I think 1v1 is more a reference to 1 action = 1 reaction in the game of baseball.

Everything is quantifiable and the final result is the sum of all its parts.

Yeah, good point, I was doing the EmpireWF thing for a minute and thinking about it too literally. Abstractly, it is essentially a zero-sum game at all times.

Greg Maddux scoffs at you.

Lemmer scoffs right back.

[FedEx227]

I just mean the usual and very overdone and annoying "I hate the NBA today, I stopped watching in (insert year between 1995-1998)" makes people naturally overrated guys in the era they watched more and underrated all those in the era that they didn't watch much.