Matthew wrote:Is Ronny Turiaf really a better shot blocker then Emeka Okafor?
his shot block numbers were high because of the weak defense by the rest of the Nuggets
A great shot blocker doesn't have to swat the ball away.
Are those stats meant to prove something?
If someone bothered to measure blocks recovered by the defense, we'd know.
Well, got any evidence he isn't? I mean it's not like he's never blocked shots at a high rate. And he did swat just shy of a shot a game in the playoffs despite not even playing ten minutes a game.
Or any evidence for this:
Quote:
his shot block numbers were high because of the weak defense by the rest of the Nuggets
Or any evidence that "intimidation" has any actual effect? And if you aren't actually blocking shots, are you really intimidating people with the threat of blocking their shot? (i.e. Russell, who also gets often told tales of 8+ blocks a game)
No, and nobody said they were. Maybe you shouldn't assume. (And I would certainly never argue that Marcus Camby is the best shot blocker in the NBA because of his league leading status in blocking shots in 2007-08.)
I didn't assume anything you cocksucker
You post your stats like they are the be all
you can't logically justify them
Your replies are just a little song and dance to get around the issue.
Do you even, or have you even, played basketball? Do you think those players are robots and don't recognise when there is a good shotblocker out there and they don't try to attack him? You really think Mutumbo, Alonzo, Shaq never intimidated players into not trying to score inside?
It's simple? If you're playing in a face paced game, and you're a big man and the opposing teams guards continuously get into the lane and you come on help, naturally you will get more opportunities for blocks.
If you want to take Turiaf over Emeka, then you do that.
Emeka is a much bigger presence around the basket then Turiaf will ever be
Such language. Certainly looks like you're assuming my motives. And you did assume that the stats were supposed to prove something. Instead of simply being the information dump that they are.
Are those stats meant to prove something?
Your replies are just a little song and dance
Yeah, I have. And I'm not a crybaby who when a player gets a lone block on me I wet my pants at the thought of ever trying to score inside again. And I don't think NBA players are children who get scared of the three or less blocks a game a player gets that they're actually afraid of trying to go inside. Especially if they're a star who gets 20+ shots a game.
Well, the pace is acounted for by doing a percentage of all opponents shots. And it certainly is plausable that Marcus Camby got more blocks because perimeter players were so bad they let players drive. But it's also plausable that Marcus Camby is such a great shot blocker, and his intimidation factor is off the charts leading the league in "opposing players shorts soiled," that the Nuggets purposely filtered players towards him.
So you finally admit what your stats are. You could of just said that when I asked
In such a case, it is nice to include some information, especially when not easily available in a nice list (you'd have to go to each players 82games page), when discussing things instead of just listing names.
If a player is a dominating shot blocker, do you really think NBA players are stupid enough to keep attacking him and get their shot blocked?
See, what the fuck is that. Is that even a joke?
How can anyone take anything you say serious when all you do is post a useless (and large) amount of stats
which imply that Jordan Famar is a better defender then Garnett (because he gets more stops) and Ronny Turiaf is a better shot blocker then Emeka (because he has a higher % of opposing teams shots blocked.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest