I get the disntinct impression people ITT A) don't remember how Arenas and Marbury actually played and/or B) only remember their antics. Damian's game is very, very close (right down to the disinterested defense).
One poster suggested we need to trade Lillard for double-ACL tear Jabari Parker. So it's not just this one thread. You're confusing intensity on a forum for real emotional intensity.
How is it ironic? From a game standpoint i think arenas is more like dame than marbury. That in NO way is a bash against Dame. Arenas was a great player. Dame is a great player. They both had their weaknesses.
People like efficiency stats, but if a player is injured or doesn't play, his effect on the team is diminished so there is an argument for taking missed games into consideration: First 3 seasons Curry: 1042 assists 3155 points Dame: 1495 assists 4977 points 82 games per season x 3 seasons = 246 games Curry: 4.2 assists/possible game 12.8 points/possible game Dame: 6.1 assists/possible game 20.2 points/possible game Curry had a LOT of games with ZERO points and ZERO assists, because he was injured a LOT. My point isn't that Dame is better than Curry, he isn't. My point is that by taking certain stats too seriously, you can come to bizarre conclusions. The OP was being disingenuous, because he was intentionally using stats to SUGGEST similarities between Dame and a player with low character. The natural implication is that Dame has low character, or is a "flash in the pan." The whole idea is preposterous, which is why I totally agree with Bones, who is obviously correct. If I wanted to, I could counter with stats that suggest that Dame is one of the best players of all time. These stats have come up from time to time. They, too, don't tell the whole story, though.
Some of this we can't know for sure, certainly. There is some merit when it comes out of examining aspects of players' games. I remember someone telling me once that Elton Brand (this was when he was in his prime) was underrated because his offensive numbers were so close to Tim Duncan's. I pointed out that Tim Duncan generated his offensive numbers while drawing significantly more double-teams than Brand did, which made things easier for his teammates. On defense, while Brand was a good defender, he wasn't the off-ball rim protection juggernaut that Duncan was, which again allowed his teammates to take liberties, like playing tighter man defense, knowing they had a shot-eraser behind them if they were beaten. I think when you can use concrete examples of making teammates better or making their jobs easier, it's worth talking about. In that vein, it's pretty obvious to me that Lillard makes his teammates better. His ability to draw defensive attention (his "gravity") leads to many more open shots and opportunities for his teammates than they'd have otherwise. More and better opportunities inevitably means that their production is superior to what it would be without him. When "making teammates better" is left nebulous, as some kind of "force of will" argument, it does tend to just be a narrative tool rather than an analysis tool.
Sometimes it's subtle and difficult to tell, but other times it's not so subtle. Think Nash/Amare or Nash/Marion. Think LBJ/Delonte...or LBJ/anyone! There are clearly players that make those around them better. But they are rare players, and I don't think an argument can be made that Dame clearly makes his teammates better. Impeccable court vision is almost a requirement to be considered a player that makes their teammates better, and Dame's court vision is fairly average.
When I say "emotional intensity," I don't mean that the person is crying in real life. I mean that they're using combative rhetoric more appropriate for defending themselves from personal attacks. It seems out of place for what's should be a more analytical discussion.
Why is it disingenuous to make a statistical comparison with a player who was similar (All-Star scoring point guard, net minus defender)? We're discussing on-court stuff here, not attitude. I think most teams would have been (mostly) happy to have a sane Arenas or Starbury in their prime, but it does raise the question of whether or not you can build a championship team around a player like that, when they are your best player.
The obvious implication is attitude, not just stats. If you compare him to a player that won multiple championships, you are a homer. If you compare him to a player that never made it to the championship game, you are a hater. If you compare him to multiple types of players, you have the basis for an intelligent conversation. This Isn't.
I deleted about a hundred pointless back-and-forths that amounted to "You're stupider than me." I figured it was obvious why they got deleted. Can we try staying on topic?
