Which player is good statistically, but actually a horrible player?

Who you got?

 

too easy of a question. zach randolph.

 

John Salmons and Marcus Camby.

 

zach randolph is fucking horrible.

al thornton is horrible.

every clipper is really bad actually.

 

dude come on, how can you say that about Freddie Jones! you went to barlow with him yeah?

 

my bad everyone EXCEPT him.

and kaman. he's a damn beast!

 

Corey Maggette amd Jamal Crawford. They aren't horrible, but they aren't as good as their numbers make them seam.

 

Yao Ming...he has like 8 games under 10 pts this season..and he gets injured...his is 7'6 and he gets 8 pts and 7 pts and stuff...WHAT!?! u reach up and u drop the ball in at that height wow...

 

uh oh. I hope Yao > Howard man doesn't see this

 

Zach Randolph is the first that comes to mind, as already noted.

John Salmons puts up some good numbers but isn't that great.

Marcus Camby puts up astounding numbers defensively, but isn't nearly as good as some think he is.

 

Zach Randolph is not a horrible player. He's actually pretty effective for an undersized and extremely unathletic player. He has great post up skills, solid range and accuracy on his jumper, and he is definitely a good rebounder. His #1 flaw is defense. Overall though, Zach is a pretty skilled player. He isn't horrible.

 

the only thing randolph has going for him is his rebounding. he's an inefficient scorer that doesn't play any defense.

 

and half of his rebounds are from his own misses.

 

I thought you were only a biased twat towards current Knicks? Randolph is absolutely horrible.

I can't decide my favourite play from him. Either the 30-foot trey attempt against the Cavs this week with a full 4.5 seconds left on the clock and the Clips only down two, or this:

[youtube]7lvYf08X6tc[/youtube]

 

Zach Randolph comes immediately to mind, but you can't deny his skills. Bill Simmons mentioned Al Thornton in a recent BS Report as an example of this.

 

This is coming from the guy who is firmly saddled on the nuts of Andrew Bogut.

Now, I believe our disagreement lies in the subjective word: "horrible". To that I ask, what makes a player horrible? I always considered a horrible player to be someone who, overall, contributes little or nothing on the court. If such is the case, then Randolph is not a horrible player.

Last time I checked, it was pretty difficult to average 20/10 in this league. Lending credence to this is the fact that only four players are currently averaging at least those numbers. How can a horrible player (hindered by size and athleticism, or lack thereof) achieve such a feat? With that said, Randolph does have deficiencies. He is prone to selfish play, is sometimes inefficient, and, as noted, he struggles on defense. But this does not make him "horrible". The stats may connote that he is more effective than what he is. However, they clearly show that he is not "horrible". A word like "overrated" would better describe Randolph.

As a player, Randolph can stretch defenses, and is very skilled in the low post. That coupled with his ball handling ability makes him an offensive threat from just about anywhere on the court. There are few players in the league who have such skills.

 

not sure why you're bringing up bogut's name, but he's a much better player than zach randolph.

 

How so?

 

better rebounder, much better defender, much more efficient scorer(even though he always seems underutilized), much more of a team player.

 

taller, much more bad ass, not as stupid... the list can go on in most cases