|
Post by bringit - CHA on Oct 25, 2009 16:40:16 GMT
Al Harrington is a 79 overall right now and that is when he was avg around 12 points per game last year, Al posted 20 points per game along with 6,2 REB per game. Pretty good if you ask me i think AL should be a 81- 82. Since the trade from Indy to New York, Al has step his game up and turn out to be a great pickup for New York. what you think? sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3268
|
|
|
Post by od3n52 - OKC on Oct 25, 2009 19:06:02 GMT
He's part of the system.
|
|
|
Post by bringit - CHA on Oct 25, 2009 19:56:43 GMT
what u mean part of the system?
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Hawks on Oct 25, 2009 20:07:47 GMT
yo he is just a cheap scorer...give Ronald Murray the ball and he will put up 18-20 points a night...
|
|
|
Post by bringit - CHA on Oct 25, 2009 20:11:21 GMT
still he got the job done
|
|
|
Post by jlawdrummer - GSW on Oct 25, 2009 22:54:38 GMT
I'm tired of players getting punished for playing well in a system! I've gone on a rant about this in the Azubuike thread, but basically, it is not a players' fault that they do well in a system. If you want to punish players who perform well in a system like the Knicks/Suns then you should punish almost every player that does well on any team ever. The Spurs have a system that is beneficial to Duncan, I guess we should punish him and lower him. The Lakers have a system that is beneficial to their stars, let's lower their ratings. The Cavs have a system that gives Lebron the ball more than their PG gets it, let's lower LeBron's rating.
It is completely foolish to punish a player because of "their system." Check out the stats and if anything just put more weights into percentages and into the "harder stats" to find.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Oct 26, 2009 11:33:26 GMT
Harrington and Azubuike are more the products of their system than those others, and also they haven't achieved any level of success as major contributors.
I agree with ATL, although i think Harrington is more effective than Flip Murray, i don't think he warrants a ratings increase.
|
|
|
Post by jlawdrummer - GSW on Oct 26, 2009 21:03:08 GMT
No, Harrington and Azubuike just play in a more uptempo system than those others, that doesn't mean they are "more the products of their system than those others." Every team in the NBA has a system. Every team builds a system around their star player, or acquires players based on their system.
Tim Duncan would do terribly in the Suns or Knicks or Warriors' system. So would Shaq. But both are obviously great players. Those two guys and almost everyone else in the NBA does well because of their system. I just think it's foolish to not recognize a player as doing well, because they play in an uptempo system. They should be rewarded for having the stamina, athleticism, and endurance to play in an uptempo system like that.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Oct 27, 2009 9:48:58 GMT
Almost every single player in the league has the stamina, athleticism and endurance to play in those systems.
And btw, Shaq did infact play for the Suns and went from averaging (14.2ppg and 7.8rpg) in Miami to (17.8ppg and 8.4rpg) in Phoenix and didn't receive a ratings boost here.
|
|
|
Post by jlawdrummer - GSW on Oct 27, 2009 21:21:24 GMT
The Suns changed their entire system when Shaq got there, or at least while he was on the floor.
And I do not agree with your first sentence. I think most of the players can work their way up to having that stamina and endurance (most have the athleticism yes), but the players in those systems put in a ton of time to gain that stamina and endurance.
Also, I am not asking for a reward because of a system. I am asking that players not get punished because they perform well in a system. There is a difference.
|
|