I just said that it is a lot like those 4 champions, perimeter cores, with solid bigs.</p> Ben Gordon is better than Byron Scott ever was from the small forward spot. While Luol Deng isn't quite as good as Worthy was on those 2 championship teams, I think Deng is about as good as Worthy played for a lot of his career, and I think with a little improvement he will be right there.</p> As far as using allstars as a barometer....23 teams in the Lakers championship season, 30 now....same amount of spots, larger player pool. Harder for Gordon/Deng to get in....and they were in the snub category this year as far as the allstar game goes. (Gordon was, I don't think Deng deserved it).</p> Magic Johnson is a night and day difference from Hinrich of course.</p> But like I said, 23 teams back then, 30 teams now. The player pool was less spread out in those days, so while the current Bulls may not be as good head to head as that Lakers team, but adjusted for era, they would be imo.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> I just said that it is a lot like those 4 champions, perimeter cores, with solid bigs.</p> Ben Gordon is better than Byron Scott ever was from the small forward spot. While Luol Deng isn't quite as good as Worthy was on those 2 championship teams, I think Deng is about as good as Worthy played for a lot of his career, and I think with a little improvement he will be right there.</p> As far as using allstars as a barometer....23 teams in the Lakers championship season, 30 now....same amount of spots, larger player pool. Harder for Gordon/Deng to get in....and they were in the snub category this year as far as the allstar game goes. (Gordon was, I don't think Deng deserved it).</p> Magic Johnson is a night and day difference from Hinrich of course.</p> But like I said, 23 teams back then, 30 teams now. The player pool was less spread out in those days, so while the current Bulls may not be as good head to head as that Lakers team, but adjusted for era, they would be imo. </p> </p> </div></p> </p> I stopped reading @ Ben Gordon is better than Byron Scott ever was from the small forward spot. </p> </p> </p>
Meant shooting guard, but Ben does play some small forward in Skiles' three guard offense, so Ben is probably better at that too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>Reading comprehension boys. Deng - nothing yet</p> And saying they have similiar styles doesn't make a comparison either, which is my point. And even with that, Hinrich + Gordon still isn't anywhere near Magic & Byron, so it's moot.</div></p> Besides ability, what else would you use to compare players on different teams at different stages in their career? Crystal ball or the magic 8 ball?</p> -Petey</div></p> So you'd say Deng is comparable to Worthy because he plays like him?</div></p> Once again, I haven't watched much of Deng. But if someone is saying that he plays like him, that would be part of what makes them comparable or not, along with worth ethics and natural ability.</p> Maybe that is why draft sites and professional evaluators of talent often compare players to one another?</p> -Petey</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> So you'd say Deng is comparable to Worthy because he plays like him? </p></div> Ding ding ding. You said it. He does play like him. Of all the NBA players in history, Worthy is the most comparable in how the two play the game.</p> As for the stats, you brought up his 36 point game... Who's the stat geek? </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> So you'd say Deng is comparable to Worthy because he plays like him? </p></div> Ding ding ding. You said it. He does play like him. Of all the NBA players in history, Worthy is the most comparable in how the two play the game.</p> As for the stats, you brought up his 36 point game... Who's the stat geek? </p> </p></div> </p> Honestly, I hate stats and would rather talk about watching the guys play and how they play, but saying that awards are biased and prejudiced, when Worthy busted out an amazing performance in game 7 is unbelievable. If I had mentioned his 87 Finals game 7, how many people would know what he did? </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> So you'd say Deng is comparable to Worthy because he plays like him? </p></div> Ding ding ding. You said it. He does play like him. Of all the NBA players in history, Worthy is the most comparable in how the two play the game.</p> As for the stats, you brought up his 36 point game... Who's the stat geek? </p></div> Honestly, I hate stats and would rather talk about watching the guys play and how they play, but saying that awards are biased and prejudiced, when Worthy busted out an amazing performance in game 7 is unbelievable. If I had mentioned his 87 Finals game 7, how many people would know what he did? </p> </div></p> It's a general statement. Even if a player finishes with half of the awards or doesn't win an MVP, does that mean much considering how some of the fans or writers have voted on awards in the past decade? </p> -Petey</p>
[quote name='Petey'][quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='Kid Chocolate'] So you'd say Deng is comparable to Worthy because he plays like him? </p> [/QUOTE] Ding ding ding. You said it. He does play like him. Of all the NBA players in history, Worthy is the most comparable in how the two play the game.</p> As for the stats, you brought up his 36 point game... Who's the stat geek? </p>[/QUOTE] Honestly, I hate stats and would rather talk about watching the guys play and how they play, but saying that awards are biased and prejudiced, when Worthy busted out an amazing performance in game 7 is unbelievable. If I had mentioned his 87 Finals game 7, how many people would know what he did? </p> [/QUOTE]</p> It's a general statement. Even if a player finishes with half of the awards or doesn't win an MVP, does that mean much considering how some of the fans or writers have voted on awards in the past decade? </p> -Petey</p> [/QUOTE]</p> So awards are meaningless. Got ya. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> If I had mentioned his 87 Finals game 7, how many people would know what he did? </p></div> Depends how many significant figures you used</p>
Let me just make sure I've got this right...</p> (Syllogism time! hooray!)</p> James Worthy plays like Luol Deng</p> <u>James Worthy is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</u></p> Luol Deng is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</p> (are you kidding me? are you f***** kidding me?)</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me just make sure I've got this right...</p> (Syllogism time! hooray!)</p> James Worthy plays like Luol Deng</p> <u>James Worthy is one of the greatest players to ever play the game </u></p> Luol Deng is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</p> (are you kidding me? are you f***** kidding me?) </p> </div></p> Nobody's said that.</p> Both players ran the court well, finished at the rim in a simlar fashion, had a nice mid-range game, played good defense, rebounded well from the SF position, shared the ball, didn't need to dominate the ball to score, were efficient scorers, and so on.</p> People compare Gordon to Andrew Toney, which may be a fine and similar comparison.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> I just said that it is a lot like those 4 champions, perimeter cores, with solid bigs.</p> Ben Gordon is better than Byron Scott ever was from the small forward spot. While Luol Deng isn't quite as good as Worthy was on those 2 championship teams, I think Deng is about as good as Worthy played for a lot of his career, and I think with a little improvement he will be right there.</p> As far as using allstars as a barometer....23 teams in the Lakers championship season, 30 now....same amount of spots, larger player pool. Harder for Gordon/Deng to get in....and they were in the snub category this year as far as the allstar game goes. (Gordon was, I don't think Deng deserved it).</p> Magic Johnson is a night and day difference from Hinrich of course.</p> But like I said, 23 teams back then, 30 teams now. The player pool was less spread out in those days, so while the current Bulls may not be as good head to head as that Lakers team, but adjusted for era, they would be imo. </p> </p></div> </p> Of course, now the 07-08 Bulls are the showtime Lakers! </p> Why couldn't I see this?</p> </p> This thread is just</p> </p>
Your just trolling now.</p> I said that the Showtime Lakers are better head to head (post Tyrus for Shaq swap), but do to the diluted talent pool in the games, when you adjust for era, they could be pretty close.</p> And I'm not talking about the Magic and Kareem led Lakers. I'm just talking about the Magic-Scott-Worthy led Lakers of the later 80's, after Kareem declined. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me just make sure I've got this right...</p> (Syllogism time! hooray!)</p> James Worthy plays like Luol Deng</p> <u>James Worthy is one of the greatest players to ever play the game </u></p> Luol Deng is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</p> (are you kidding me? are you f***** kidding me?) </p> </div></p> Nobody's said that.</p> Both players ran the court well, finished at the rim in a simlar fashion, had a nice mid-range game, played good defense, rebounded well from the SF position, shared the ball, didn't need to dominate the ball to score, were efficient scorers, and so on.</p> People compare Gordon to Andrew Toney, which may be a fine and similar comparison.</p> </p></div> </p> No but you are saying that! That's why its chock full o'crazy! Comparing him to one of the greatest players to ever play the game is nuts! </p> Hey player X and player Y both shoot the ball and dribble it! They must be the same!</p> I wrote that syllogism to really break down the fallacy you make by using that comparison. There are many basketball players who can defend and shoot the basketball, don't just pick one of the greatest to do so even if he also defends and shoots the basketball. It's a poor comparison. Esepcially in the context of grading a player's value. Ron Artest would be a better comparison.</p>
And in making this thread, I was bringing up the topic whether or not it would be worth it to trade the future (Tyrus Thomas) for now (Shaq), in what would create a team in a model that worked for championship success in the late 80's (87-90 champions all on the same model).
Thats a tall order to suggest that Tyrus future is comparable to the career that shaq had. It's not exactly "the future" for "now" since the manitude of each category is different, and subjective to each player. I'll take an old beat up shaq over a young Tyrus anyday. Tyrus, Deng, and Gordon is another matter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me just make sure I've got this right...</p> (Syllogism time! hooray!)</p> James Worthy plays like Luol Deng</p> <u>James Worthy is one of the greatest players to ever play the game </u></p> Luol Deng is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</p> (are you kidding me? are you f***** kidding me?) </p> </div></p> Nobody's said that.</p> Both players ran the court well, finished at the rim in a simlar fashion, had a nice mid-range game, played good defense, rebounded well from the SF position, shared the ball, didn't need to dominate the ball to score, were efficient scorers, and so on.</p> People compare Gordon to Andrew Toney, which may be a fine and similar comparison.</p> </p></div> </p> No but you are saying that! That's why its chock full o'crazy! Comparing him to one of the greatest players to ever play the game is nuts! </p> Hey player X and player Y both shoot the ball and dribble it! They must be the same!</p> I wrote that syllogism to really break down the fallacy you make by using that comparison. There are many basketball players who can defend and shoot the basketball, don't just pick one of the greatest to do so even if he also defends and shoots the basketball. It's a poor comparison. Esepcially in the context of grading a player's value. Ron Artest would be a better comparison. </p> </div> Luol Deng was only 21 years old last season. He put up 18.8 and 7.1 last year. Why are you acting like the books closed on Deng? James Worthy was putting up 13.4 and 5.2 at the same age. James Worthy only had three seasons with a higher PER than what Deng did last year. Is Deng not going to improve at all from here on out? Will he not be a more improved player next year, compared to what he was last year? Maybe. But whats to say that Deng isn't considered one of the greatest players to ever play the game when all is said and done? Worthy only put up 20 PPG and 5.2 RPG in his best statistical season. Is that out of the realm of possibility for Deng? Ugh...don't think so. In addition to their games being very similar, it seems like a very valid comparison. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'>Thats a tall order to suggest that Tyrus future is comparable to the career that shaq had. It's not exactly "the future" for "now" since the manitude of each category is different, and subjective to each player. I'll take an old beat up shaq over a young Tyrus anyday. Tyrus, Deng, and Gordon is another matter.</div></p> You have a major failure of comprehension of what we're talking about.</p> No one is suggesting that Tyrus will be better than Shaq. I think almost every Bulls fan, and NBA fan will agree that Tyrus probably won't be better than Shaq.</p> But its the idea of trading a 21 year old, who could potentially be an allstar for the next decade, for a guy that you are just going to have for the next 3 years, but who (at least in the first year or two), should increase your chances immensely of winning an NBA championship. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'> Let me just make sure I've got this right...</p> (Syllogism time! hooray!)</p> James Worthy plays like Luol Deng</p> <u>James Worthy is one of the greatest players to ever play the game </u></p> Luol Deng is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</p> (are you kidding me? are you f***** kidding me?) </p> </div></p> Nobody's said that.</p> Both players ran the court well, finished at the rim in a simlar fashion, had a nice mid-range game, played good defense, rebounded well from the SF position, shared the ball, didn't need to dominate the ball to score, were efficient scorers, and so on.</p> People compare Gordon to Andrew Toney, which may be a fine and similar comparison.</p> </p></div> </p> No but you are saying that! That's why its chock full o'crazy! Comparing him to one of the greatest players to ever play the game is nuts! </p> Hey player X and player Y both shoot the ball and dribble it! They must be the same!</p> I wrote that syllogism to really break down the fallacy you make by using that comparison. There are many basketball players who can defend and shoot the basketball, don't just pick one of the greatest to do so even if he also defends and shoots the basketball. It's a poor comparison. Esepcially in the context of grading a player's value. Ron Artest would be a better comparison. </p> </div></p> There's simply nobody else that's a good comparison, and I have given it a lot of thought. Walter Davis? I don't think Davis was the finsher or open court player that Deng is.</p> I wouldn't compare Deng to a flashy dunker at SF (like Dominique Wilkins), because Deng doesn't do anything particularly flashy. But neither did Worthy. Like Worthy, Deng isn't even considered the best player on his team. They carry themselves the same on the court. For so many reasons, they remind me of one another. If Deng's teams win 5 championships, people will consider him as great or better; the converse is true, as well - if Worthy didn't play on teams that won those championships, he wouldn't be as highly regarded.</p> Why do I think he wouldn't? There were LOTS of guys who were awesome SFs - Dominique Wilkins, Bernard King, Mark Aguirre, Adrian Dantley, et al, yet I'm not so sure that Worthy was particulary better than any of those.</p> Consider Dantley: 6 all-star game vs. Worthy's 7, much higher rebounds/game (career), shooting %, was a 30PPG scorer several times, and was a key member of the back-to-back championship Pistsons teams in 1988-89 and 1989-90.</p> FWIW, people want to compare Thomas to a young Karl Malone or Shawn Kemp. That's not what I see, though. He reminds me of Eddie Robinson (all athlete, not a very good basketball player) or a young and much shorter Tyson Chandler (expected to be a defensive player, scores on putbacks, blocks a lot of shots, freakish athlete, lack of basketball skills)</p> </p>
[quote name='BG7 Lavigne'][quote name='GMJigga'][quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='GMJigga'] Let me just make sure I've got this right...</p> (Syllogism time! hooray!)</p> James Worthy plays like Luol Deng</p> <u>James Worthy is one of the greatest players to ever play the game </u></p> Luol Deng is one of the greatest players to ever play the game</p> (are you kidding me? are you f***** kidding me?) </p> [/QUOTE]</p> Nobody's said that.</p> Both players ran the court well, finished at the rim in a simlar fashion, had a nice mid-range game, played good defense, rebounded well from the SF position, shared the ball, didn't need to dominate the ball to score, were efficient scorers, and so on.</p> People compare Gordon to Andrew Toney, which may be a fine and similar comparison.</p> </p>[/QUOTE] </p> No but you are saying that! That's why its chock full o'crazy! Comparing him to one of the greatest players to ever play the game is nuts! </p> Hey player X and player Y both shoot the ball and dribble it! They must be the same!</p> I wrote that syllogism to really break down the fallacy you make by using that comparison. There are many basketball players who can defend and shoot the basketball, don't just pick one of the greatest to do so even if he also defends and shoots the basketball. It's a poor comparison. Esepcially in the context of grading a player's value. Ron Artest would be a better comparison. </p> [/QUOTE] Luol Deng was only 21 years old last season. He put up 18.8 and 7.1 last year. Why are you acting like the books closed on Deng? James Worthy was putting up 13.4 and 5.2 at the same age. James Worthy only had three seasons with a higher PER than what Deng did last year. Is Deng not going to improve at all from here on out? Will he not be a more improved player next year, compared to what he was last year? Maybe. But whats to say that Deng isn't considered one of the greatest players to ever play the game when all is said and done? Worthy only put up 20 PPG and 5.2 RPG in his best statistical season. Is that out of the realm of possibility for Deng? Ugh...don't think so. In addition to their games being very similar, it seems like a very valid comparison. </p> [/QUOTE] I hope that I haven't subliminally said that Deng has no potential; I don't think any of my posts would give reason to think that. Like wise, potential has nothing to do with this. You are comparing Deng to James Worthy. This conversation is happening now, not 5 years from now. Deng may reach a level where he is considered one of the greatest to ever play the game. But he certainly hasn't. No one has brought up potential until you just did, so now you're starting to confuse me. </p>
