<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trip:</div><div class="quote_post">I've said that Thomas is the better player, yes, but also that he won't be much of an upgrade over Howard. I don't see the addition of Thomas help the Rockets reach 60 wins and become a contender.</div> I'd say that that they'd reach 55-58 victories with the addition of Thomas. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> With Howard for about 50 starts, the Rockets got to 51 wins. With your implication that Thomas would do so much more for the Rockets, wouldn't you be implying also that the addition of Thomas would essentially put us over the top? </div> I would not be implying that, I'm saying that he will allow the Rockets to win more games - probably 55-58 wins. Over the top? No. Contender? Possibly a title contender, yes. There's more to winning than just an upgrade at a postion - the team has to find chemistry, the coaching has be in line...there are a lot of factors. Kurt would most definately give the Rockets a better chance of contending for a title. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If he's so much better a player, hey, 65 wins with Thomas for 82 games would sound reasonable according to you right?</div> No, don't put words in my mouth. Kurt is a better player, no doubt. But how many wins does a simple quality uprgade bring you? Not so many as that, and I never suggested that. I'm saying he could contribute more effectively than Howard, there's no doubting that - is there really much doubt he'd get them more wins? You resorting to putting words in my mouth and magnifying the points I made using win totals just shows that you have no more arguments. Howard is less of a player, Kurt would bring them more wins - never did I say he'd make them a championship-caliber team. I'm so sorry if you happened to have such an off-base interpretation, but surely I clarified everything now.
i still think you exagerate a bit on the defensive part. You keep talking like the guy is an all star caliber player or something. And Howard isnt that bad of a defender either. He isnt exceptional, but he still is above mediocre. Like i said before, his stats are misleading, and he was actually a good rebounder for us. KT might be a good fit for us, but he isnt going to change our status. We would have won possibly 60 games had it not been fo al the injuries. There ar other roster problems in this team that kept them back, not just our PF. Look at our pgs, we dont have a true point gaurd. Our PF has no backups, we just have a whole bunch of one dimensional 4s.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">In Houston it will be hard to stay close to him all game and guard the pick and roll with Yao down low, it'd be pretty hard to collapse on him - he'd just sling it out to Kurt for a jumper (you know JVG would set that up). And ok, if he was used as a 4th option he probably would get his 9-11 PPG, which is exactly what he's getting around now - but he'd play his defense and get his boards, which make him better than Howard. Kurt's defense (shot-blocking included) and his rebounding make him a better player than Howard even though he only scores 10 or 11 a game. Even so, I think in Houston he would be perfect - with Yao taking up room down low, Yao would benefit like crazy if he was constantly left with one man (assuming he improves a good amount over the summer he would be a real force). As a 4th option on most teams Kurt will give you 9-11 PPG, but his defense and rebounding are what make him so valuable, more valauble than Howard is (even Trip admitted that Kurt is the better player). Though I admit, Howard is a better scorer - Kurt's defense and rebounding put him ahead. On a team with a really good center, Kurt could benefit like crazy - that's all I'm saying. Kurt would score more in Houston per game, than he does in New York - and if he was the 4th option, he'd probably put up similar numbers to what he did in 04-05 (with his defense and rebounding, making him the better player).</div> Yeah...I'm not really arguing any of that. I don't really got anything against Thomas in this trade. He'll be an upgreade over Howard, but not really a huge one, any it wouldn't be worth the value of the player chosen at 24. This whole trade thing relates back to the 24th pick overall being valued more to the Rockets than acquiring Thomas.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd say that that they'd reach 55-58 victories with the addition of Thomas.</div>The Rockets were 32-15 when Howard starts. If he started 82 games for the Rockets this season, stats plus calculations would show that the Rockets would have won 56 games. So Thomas, according to you, would help the Rockets win a max of 58? 2 wins more than Howard would bring? How is that much of an upgrade? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No, don't put words in my mouth. Kurt is a better player, no doubt. But how many wins does a simple quality uprgade bring you? Not so many as that, and I never suggested that. I'm saying he could contribute more effectively than Howard, there's no doubting that - is there really much doubt he'd get them more wins? You resorting to putting words in my mouth and magnifying the points I made using win totals just shows that you have no more arguments. Howard is less of a player, Kurt would bring them more wins - never did I say he'd make them a championship-caliber team. I'm so sorry if you happened to have such an off-base interpretation, but surely I clarified everything now.</div>I'm using possible win totals because it is the only way to calculate whether an added player would actually make the team better. Individual stats don't tell the whole story, wins do. According to you and also to math, I've come to the conclusion that the addition of Thomas for a whole season instead of Howard would mean a 2 win increase for the team. Is that really as much of an upgrade as you're making it seem? I'm also not the type to keep on going with losing facts, like some of the Knicks forum posters. If I see what situation I'm in and someone has used facts to prove me wrong, I gladly accept it. Hey, I learnt something new about a player I didn't before, I'm happy. Before that happens though, don't think you're too much a big shot yet.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trip:</div><div class="quote_post">The Rockets were 32-15 when Howard starts. If he started 82 games for the Rockets this season, stats plus calculations would show that the Rockets would have won 56 games. So Thomas, according to you, would help the Rockets win a max of 58? 2 wins more than Howard would bring? How is that much of an upgrade?</div> First off, you're simply using basic mathematics to come to the conclusion that Houston would've won 52 games. How do you know he wouldn't have cooled down and get in a slump, causing the Rockets to lose a few more? I factored in the likelihood of slumps in calculating my potential win totals, it's nearly impossible to make such a bold "if" statement. Factor in streaks and such and chances are you'll find a different number. Even if it were only two wins, two wins could potentially be the difference of a seed or two in the playoffs - and that can make all the difference. It probably would be more than just two wins (if you put slumps and streaks into the calculations) I'd guess 3-5 more, which is huge. Making such calculations are hard to make, the "if" statements are often too bold. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I'm using possible win totals because it is the only way to calculate whether an added player would actually make the team better. Individual stats don't tell the whole story, wins do. </div> The likelihood of accurately estimating win totals is low. If you're just calculating, the results are very shaky. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> According to you and also to math, I've come to the conclusion that the addition of Thomas for a whole season instead of Howard would mean a 2 win increase for the team. Is that really as much of an upgrade as you're making it seem? </div> See points made above. It's very difficult to make such bold "if" statements without being off. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I'm also not the type to keep on going with losing facts, like some of the Knicks forum posters.</div> You were doing ok for a little while, but then you had to make such a stupid generalization - good job. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If I see what situation I'm in and someone has used facts to prove me wrong, I gladly accept it. Hey, I learnt something new about a player I didn't before, I'm happy. Before that happens though, don't think you're too much a big shot yet.</div> What? I don't consider myself a "big shot" because I happened to beat you in an argument.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, you're simply using basic mathematics to come to the conclusion that Houston would've won 52 games. How do you know he wouldn't have cooled down and get in a slump, causing the Rockets to lose a few more? I factored in the likelihood of slumps in calculating my potential win totals, it's nearly impossible to make such a bold "if" statement. Factor in streaks and such and chances are you'll find a different number.</div>Hey, I don't know what will happen. Who knows, if Howard had stayed healthy the whole year, maybe the Rockets would have done worse. It's that "if" that's also limiting your argument. If Thomas was on the Rockets, the team would be better. Don't accuse me of doing something that you are doing as well. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Even if it were only two wins, two wins could potentially be the difference of a seed or two in the playoffs - and that can make all the difference. It probably would be more than just two wins (if you put slumps and streaks into the calculations) I'd guess 3-5 more, which is huge. Making such calculations are hard to make, the "if" statements are often too bold.</div>Two wins is good, but would it be too much of an improvement? I've never doubted Thomas's ability, but the fact is that he won't be as much of an upgrade over Howard as you're making him out to be. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The likelihood of accurately estimating win totals is low. If you're just calculating, the results are very shaky.</div>I happen to concur. Yet your prediction of 55-58 wins isn't shaky? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">See points made above. It's very difficult to make such bold "if" statements without being off.</div>See points made above. I'm just giving you your own medicine. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You were doing ok for a little while, but then you had to make such a stupid generalization - good job.</div>Thank you, you're making yourself look smart too. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What? I don't consider myself a "big shot" because I happened to beat you in an argument. </div>You haven't won yet.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post"> What? I don't consider myself a "big shot" because I happened to beat you in an argument. </div> I don't really think you have "beaten" anyone...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trip:</div><div class="quote_post">Hey, I don't know what will happen. Who knows, if Howard had stayed healthy the whole year, maybe the Rockets would have done worse. It's that "if" that's also limiting your argument. If Thomas was on the Rockets, the team would be better. Don't accuse me of doing something that you are doing as well.</div> Oh I know I'm doing it as well. But I have facts on my side. The truth is that Kurt's the better player, and he nearly perfectly suits the Rockets' system. He'd be a sure upgrade over Howard. Two wins is good, but would it be too much of an improvement? I've never doubted Thomas's ability, but the fact is that he won't be as much of an upgrade over Howard as you're making him out to be. [/quote] I'm saying that chances are that he'd have accounted for more than just two wins anyway, your entire calcualtion is very shaky, with no consideration whatsoever of streaks. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I happen to concur. Yet your prediction of 55-58 wins isn't shaky?</div> I'd say less so. I didn't just use mathematic calculations that don't tell the whole story. I assumed he'd be pretty successful in Houston, and used basic reasoning. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">See points made above. I'm just giving you your own medicine.</div> Your argument runs on "if". Mine doesn't. Overall Kurt's the better player. It's nearly impossible to guess accurately win totals, but with Kurt being the better player in mind, it's likely that they'll win more games. I have facts on my side. Kurt's the better defender, defender and shotblocker, Howard's the better scorer - all together Kurt's defense, shotblocking, and rebounding more than make up for his less points (which he'd more than likely average more of if he was in another system, outside of New York). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Thank you, you're making yourself look smart too. </div> I'm going to show some mercy. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You haven't won yet.</div> Since you say that "if's" shouldn't come into play, I think we can deduce from the facts I've provided and repeated that Kurt is the better player. I've also supported the argument that he'd do well in Houston. Along with that I've proven that Howard in his career is/has been a horrible shot-blocker and rebounder. His defense is mediocre, but since he's improved in Houston now you say it's solid. So, since Kurt's improved these past three seasons, it's pretty clear that Kurt would improve defensively with Houston as well (I also supported an argument that he would be strong offensively). Kurt would prove to be a very good-great player in Houston, more valuable than Howard. Nevermind shaky little win totals based totally off of even shakier calculations. You lured me into offering one, I can't believe I bit. The whole win total thing is a weak topic because you can never be 100%. But it's more than likely that Kurt would be a good improvement over Howard for the reasons listed in the paragraph above.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">Oh I know I'm doing it as well. But I have facts on my side. The truth is that Kurt's the better player, and he nearly perfectly suits the Rockets' system. He'd be a sure upgrade over Howard.</div>The truth is that Kurt is the better player, I've said that too, but he won't be too much of an upgrade over Howard. Both are similar on defense, similar dimensions, similar ages, just that Thomas according to you is better at defense and according to stats, shotblocking. Would he fit so much better than Howard in the Rockets offensive and defensive system though? I'm not quite so sure. Both on offense can hit the mid range jumper, but Howard has a better game with his back to the basket and can create for himself. Thomas, from what I see, gets his points mostly from open J's and putbacks. On defense, the Rockets just need a body to guard the opposing four. I personally would also like to see the power forward block some shots and relieve Yao the duties of help side defense. If we draft Diogu or Turiaf in the draft, this problem would be solved. We don't revolve our defense around the power forward; is there really much need to get someone "so much better"? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm saying that chances are that he'd have accounted for more than just two wins anyway, your entire calcualtion is very shaky, with no consideration whatsoever of streaks.</div>What streaks? It's a very ambiguous word. Losing streaks, winning streaks? Team streaks, individual streaks? You also know that if a team goes on a winning streak, it's players have to play well too right? It's not the Rockets would go on winning streaks and Howard would be a non-factor. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd say less so. I didn't just use mathematic calculations that don't tell the whole story. I assumed he'd be pretty successful in Houston, and used basic reasoning.</div>He would enjoy success in Houston, but not so much that we would want to replace Howard with him, especially when Thomas is the older player and has a long contract. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Your argument runs on "if". Mine doesn't. Overall Kurt's the better player. It's nearly impossible to guess accurately win totals, but with Kurt being the better player in mind, it's likely that they'll win more games. I have facts on my side. Kurt's the better defender, defender and shotblocker, Howard's the better scorer - all together Kurt's defense, shotblocking, and rebounding more than make up for his less points (which he'd more than likely average more of if he was in another system, outside of New York).</div>Thomas is the better player, but he won't be a significant upgrade over Howard. How many times do I have to say that? Also, Thomas would average less points in Houston guaranteed. He'd play a similar role as Howard, and he won't even be able to create for himself. He might get a few pick n rolls going his way but he most likely will be at a max of 10ppg, which will be lower than on the Knicks. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm going to show some mercy.</div>I was cringing. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Since you say that "if's" shouldn't come into play, I think we can deduce from the facts I've provided and repeated that Kurt is the better player. I've also supported the argument that he'd do well in Houston. Along with that I've proven that Howard in his career is/has been a horrible shot-blocker and rebounder. His defense is mediocre, but since he's improved in Houston now you say it's solid. So, since Kurt's improved these past three seasons, it's pretty clear that Kurt would improve defensively with Houston as well (I also supported an argument that he would be strong offensively). Kurt would prove to be a very good-great player in Houston, more valuable than Howard. </div>Would Kurt be the factor that could bring much more success to the Rockets? That's the only way to determine whether he actually helped the team.
