Vin Baker Question

by **Full Surface** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 6:17 am

Is he still with he Celtics? I don't follow Boston so I'm not sure. I removed him from my roster but he might still be with the team.

by . on Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:16 am

I think he is released for a time because he has problems at home or something, I´m not sure

YouTube · by **mp3** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:59 am

yer he is still with boston,

http://www.nba.com/celtics/news/baker_s ... 30227.html

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/030228/5/s0ek.html

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:06 am

Yeah, he's still under contract, but has been suspended/given a leave of absence to deal with "personal issues", reportedly problems with alcohol. They'd probably get rid of him if they could, since he doesn't seem to fit into their plans (as soon as they acquired Mark Blount, he was ahead of Baker in the rotation).

A shame, because he had a few good years up until 1998.

by **Clinton** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 10:35 am

That Seattle-Milwaukee-Cleveland deal worked out for everyone real well. Kemp got on the coke, Baker went for alcohol and Brandon's knees are screwed. Would the first two have happened if those players weren't traded from the team they were excelling with??

by **GloveGuy** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:55 am

I bet if Kemp hadn't left Seattle, he would still be a good player. He and Gary Payton were good friends but there was tension between him and the Sonics management. I liked the Kemp-Payton duo. They were my two favorite players in 95-96 when they made the Finals. Both Baker and Kemp had all-star years with their new teams in their first seasons. Kemp averaged 17, 18, and 20 with Cleveland but it went downhill in Portland. Baker ws just horrible in his second season with Seattle and just started getting worse.

by **Chris Ma** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:31 pm

yeah! baker was good when he's in milwaukee. i see this guy's got skill, but he never dominates the board, which is quite strange!

kemp is a very big disappointment. back in the mid 90s, he's definitely the best PF at that time, even better than malone (personally)

by **Colin** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:39 pm

remember kemps huge dunks, like the ones when he grabbed his nuts at the same time. Or Malones put his hand on his head dunks. Classic.

by **Clinton** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:07 pm

I bet if Kemp hadn't left Seattle, he would still be a good player. He and Gary Payton were good friends but there was tension between him and the Sonics management. I liked the Kemp-Payton duo. They were my two favorite players in 95-96 when they made the Finals.

Same here. I used to be a huge Kemp fan and when the Sonics disrespected him it really disappointed me. After what he had done for the organisation and he can't get a pay day. The day I heard he got traded I knew his career would never be the same again.

he's definitely the best PF at that time, even better than malone (personally)

I agree. If it wasn't for the trade he would have been known as the best power forward of the 90's.

Or Malones put his hand on his head dunks. Classic.

Classic or crap?

by **michael myers** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:19 pm

clinton wrote:If it wasn't for the trade he would have been known as the best forward of the 90's.

what with the likes of thes guys to compare with?
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Dominique Wilkins
Chris Webber
Scottie Pippen
Grant Hill

.....i don't think so

by **Clinton** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:32 pm

Karl Malone

Kemp was just as good in the mid 90's as Malone.

Charles Barkley
Dominique Wilkins

Had their best years in the 80's, maybe early 90's, but I think was a better player overall in the 90's

Chris Webber

Kemp had it all over Webber until a few years ago.

Scottie Pippen

Imagine what sort of player Kemp would have been made out to be with Jordan by his side.

Grant Hill

Close, but not close enough.

by **michael myers** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:34 pm

clinton wrote:Quote:
Karl Malone

Kemp was just as good in the mid 90's as Malone.

prove it

clinton wrote:Quote:
Charles Barkley
Dominique Wilkins

Had their best years in the 80's, maybe early 90's, but I think was a better player overall in the 90's

i don't. wilkins was much more dominant in the early 90's than kemp could ever dream of being and barkley, continued to play at a higher lever than kemp up until 98.

clinton wrote:Quote:
Chris Webber

Kemp had it all over Webber until a few years ago.

webber was an instant superstar as he came into the league, kemp wasn't ever a superstar in my eyes. Also in my list of better forwards than kemp of the 1990's: Derrick Coleman, Larry Johnson, Vin Baker, Kevin Willis

by **Clinton** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:29 pm

prove it

OK everyone, jump in my time machine. :roll:

i don't. wilkins was much more dominant in the early 90's than kemp could ever dream of being

Because kemp was a rookie or very raw in the early 90's.

barkley, continued to play at a higher lever than kemp up until 98.

If you think so.

webber was an instant superstar as he came into the league, kemp wasn't ever a superstar in my eyes.

What?? How does a player have to do to become a superstar in your mind?? Derrick Coleman, Vin Baker, Larry Johnson and Kevin Willis were superstars, but Kemp wasn't?? How the hell does that work?!?!

by **michael myers** on Sat Mar 22, 2003 6:28 pm

OK everyone, jump in my time machine

so what you're saying is that u've got no argument.

Because kemp was a rookie or very raw in the early 90's

i'm talking about his whole career

What?? How does a player have to do to become a superstar in your mind?? Derrick Coleman, Vin Baker, Larry Johnson and Kevin Willis were superstars, but Kemp wasn't?? How the hell does that work?!?!

when did i say those players were superstars?

by **Colin** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 2:37 am

Clinton wrote:Quote:
Or Malones put his hand on his head dunks. Classic.

Classic or crap?

I was referring more to kemp's dunks than malone's, but even if the dunk sucked, it's still classic malone.

by **GloveGuy** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:08 am

Kemp was always one of the elite forwards in the 90's. He declined in 2000-2001. When did Coleman decline? That's hard to tell since he was always injured. Larry Johnson wasn't nearly as good as Kemp. And Kevin Willis? He was an all-star for what? One Season! I was watching Seattle versus Houston on ESPN Classic when Gary Payton was more of a role player and the Sonics stars were Ricky Pierce and Kemp. Kemp was awesome. He could shoot the mid-range jumper but also had a ton of power. He was like Amare Stoudamire except he could shoot too. He was definitely one of the best forwards of the whole decade. And why don't you, mike myers, prove to me why he wasn't.

by **Nick** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:25 am

Why are you guys comparing Kemp with Wilkins? Wasn't wilkins an SG? :oops:

Fred Savage wrote:OK everyone, jump in my time machine.

by **Drex** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:30 am

He was a SF

by **michael myers** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 12:58 pm

gayguy wrote:why don't you, mike myers, prove to me why he wasn't

in seattle, it was always gary paytons team. Kemp didn't shoot the ball enough to be considered a leader and he never was. He was happy to sit back while payton ran the team. Kemp was over-rated he never entered that elite group of forwards in the 90's in Malone, Barkley, Wilkins, Webber, Pippen, and Hill

by **GloveGuy** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:58 pm

No it wasnt always Payton's team. GP didn't start putting up all-star stats until 94-95. Kemp was an all-star in 94. They also had Detlef Shremph who had an all-star season once. It was not alway's Gary's team. He was the defender. He wasn't always on the floor during the early ninties. When they wanted defense they would put him in and when they wanted a point guard who could excell in shooting, they put in Dana Barros. But Kemp was always the man when he was in Seattle after his first few years. He either shared it with Ricky Peirce or The Glove.

by **Clinton** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 2:49 pm

so what you're saying is that u've got no argument.

No. What i'm saying is there is no way to compare them without going back in time. :roll:

when did i say those players were superstars?

You said Kemp wasn't a superstar, then went on to say those players were better than him. Would that not make them superstars or at least semi-superstars.

but even if the dunk sucked, it's still classic malone.

Yes, doing crappy dunks or prefering to lay it up is classic Malone.

in seattle, it was always gary paytons team.

No it wasn't. It wasn't GP's team to everyone else left town.]

Kemp didn't shoot the ball enough to be considered a leader and he never was.

So you have to shoot the ball to be a leader?? Why does everyone say Kobe isn't leading his team when he takes 30+ shots?? It doesn't matter how many times they shoot. That has no relevance. So if kemp wasn't the leader when they made the finals, who was??

He was happy to sit back while payton ran the team.

Yeah just sat back and relaxed while averaging just under 20ppg and 10+rpg. Wonder what he would have done if he actually tried?? :roll:

by **michael myers** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:07 pm

No. What i'm saying is there is no way to compare them without going back in time

if this is true why must all you retards object when i say that Malone, Barkley, Wilkins, Webber, Pippen, Hill, Mullin, Coleman, LJohnson, Baker, and Willis were all better than Kemp in the 90's

You said Kemp wasn't a superstar, then went on to say those players were better than him. Would that not make them superstars or at least semi-superstars

not all of them

So you have to shoot the ball to be a leader

kemp didn't take over 4th quarters
kemp didn't want the ball in pressure situations
kemp wasn't vocal enough to be a leader

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:11 pm

Kemp's 23.3 ppg average in the 1996 NBA Finals was second only to Michael Jordan. He also matched up well with Karl Malone in the 1996 Western Conference Finals and was a factor late in the series with averages of 25.3 ppg and 13.7 rpg over the final 3 games.

You could argue that Kemp did not sustain his best performance for long enough to be considered a superstar, but the same case could be made for other players. Shaq was a superstar even before he had won the first real accolade of his career (1993 Rookie of the Year). KG is considered a superstar, yet his teams have never advanced past the first round, and he is criticised for not being selfish enough (and there's another issue for another time). But both Shaq and KG are worthy of superstar status not only because of their on court production, but also their popularity, their appearances on the highlight reels, and their market value.

During the 90s, Kemp made the All-Star team every year from 1993 to 1998. Before that, he had made an impact with his spectacular dunks, both in games and in the slam dunk contest. He entered the league raw, and by his second or third year, had begun to develop into a perennial All-Star, something he might have maintained if he had stayed in Seattle, or kept in shape after the 1998 season. His replica jerseys were popular items, a highlight/profile video of his short career ("The Reignman") was also available, and he continued to post All-Star numbers. In that sense, he was one of the league's young superstars, because his popularity was widespread and his numbers were impressive.

His regular season scoring average never exceeded 20 ppg during his Seattle years, but they always had a balanced attack - in 1996 their entire starting five averaged double figures - so he was not called upon to score 30 points every night.

He wasn't the best forward of the 90s, but he's better than you're making him out to be. Derrick Coleman never really lived up to his potential (he was supposed to be on the same level as guys like Shaq, Mourning etc - his lack of motivation and selfishness prevented that from ever happening), Larry Johnson was never the same after his back injury (and his numbers dipped even further after the trade to NY), and Kevin Willis was no more of a leader than Shawn Kemp. Kemp was certainly more popular than any of those players were during the 90s (or at least as popular) and produced similar or better statistics up until 2000.

Thus, I believe due to his play on the court and popularity with NBA fans worldwide, a younger Kemp could be labelled as being a superstar.

by **michael myers** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:00 pm

Kemp was certainly more popular than any of those players were during the 90s (or at least as popular) and produced similar or better statistics up until 2000.

who cares about popularity when discussing the greatness of an individual?

ok, lets talk statistics:
- every year kemp didn't come close to matching neither malone's or barkley's stats
- see if you can match kemp's best 5 years with dominique's best 5 years
- other than webber's rookie season and 1996 (the year webber was injured) webber was better statistically
- 1996 and 1999 was the only years that kemp had better stats that pippen
- every year hill was in the league he had better stats than kemp
- years that coleman exceled over kemp: 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:23 pm

I see you conveniently neglected to quote my opinion.

[quote=I]He wasn't the best forward of the 90s, but he's better than you're making him out to be.[/quote]

I never said he was better than Dominique Wilkins, Chris Webber, Grant Hill or Charles Barkley, and I certainly didn't say he was better than Scottie Pippen. I said he was better than you are making him out to be. I was contesting your opinion that Kemp was not a star player in his own right,

[quote=As you]kemp wasn't ever a superstar in my eyes[/quote]

who cares about popularity when discussing the greatness of an individual?

I think you've missed my point. I didn't say popularity had anything to do with his greatness - I said it was a factor in saying whether he was a superstar. Elton Brand averaged 20 and 10 during his Chicago years, but you would not call him a superstar because he did not receive much hype, and was not widely popular. His statistical production was impressive, but he did not have matching appeal. It's pretty much the same now that he's with the Clippers. He's probably halfway between being a good player and a great player, but he doesn't get his due, so you can't really say he's a a superstar.

Even Shawn Kemp's video is part of the "NBA Superstars" series of NBA home videos. Why? Because of his popularity and market value, combined with his actual on court production. The term "superstar" does not (but probably should) refer solely to a player's abilities, it takes into account his popularity, his appeal, his ability to draw people to the game. That is how Shawn Kemp is a superstar, that's why he was marketed as one. Combined with his play on the court, he was more of a superstar than a player like Derrick Coleman.

And while I think of it, please refrain from calling people "retards" as you did earlier, or using insults such as "gayguy" directed at Gloveguy. Thank you.

Vin Baker Question

Vin Baker Question

Who is online