Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: Recruiting - Monty at Cal vs Monty at Stanford

  1. #31

    I agree

    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Personally speaking, Leon Powe was the greatest single recruiting disappointment for me as a Cal fan. I went to several of his high school games, and thought there was great potential there. He turned out to be a just another one-on-one player, who stubbornly thought he could shoot over anyone, and got a lot of his shots stuffed, but still never saw a shot he didn't like. He was the Kevin McHale of Cal basketball. Celtic teammates used to call McHale, “The Black Hole”, because when the ball went in to him, it never came back out. Powe never saw a wide open teammate, even when he himself was double and triple teamed. He wrested control of that team away from Ben Braun, and decided which players should play, and that the offense should always run through him. You can have all the Leon Powes of all the Bay Area playgrounds, and you will still not bring Cal a winner.

    You could never build a winner with a guy like McHale playing a big role.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    In 2003, the Bears were 22-9, and averaged 74 points per game. In 2004, Powe, Kately and Ubaka arrived. The Bears played a lot of one-on-one, and the Bears were 13-15, and averaged 67 points per game.

    It is not the number of shots the leading scorer takes, it is the number of good shots he takes. If he is not open, then pass it off, and start the play again.

    Bringing up Mark McNamara makes my point. If Powe passed up three forced shots he took when he was double teamed, which either missed or were blocked, and instead passes to a teammate, maybe two of them go to assists for buckets. Cal gets four more points and Powe’s shooting percentage goes up to 6/9 and 75%, in the McNamara range.

    I would not be so sure that Powe and McNamara were the only two Bears in history to average a double double, as rebounding was not a stat that was kept and archived until maybe the last 15 years, that I know of. I can almost guarantee you that Bob McKeen, Darrall Imhoff, and Bob Presly had double double years. McKeen and Imhoff were the dominant centers on the West Coast in their eras, and Presly was a scorer and a leaper. Not uncommon for him to get 15-20 rebounds or more. Others who might have done it are Bill McClintock, Ansley Truit, and maybe even Carl Bird. McClintock had plenty of games with over 10 rebounds. There were no other rebounders on Bird’s teams that I remember. You can ask him when you see him at a Cal game next year. Go Bears!

    ROFLMAO

    Leon Powe and Mark McNamara (aka "The Lummock"...My dad and I had a running bet whether Mark would get stripped double digits each game bringing rebounds down TIME AND TIME AGAIN) and their relative basketball skills in the same sentence.

    Thank you SF Bear. I really needed a good laugh after this horrific weekend.

    Leon Powe made the Bears MUCH better each and every time he played. Simple as that and end of story.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by dimitrig View Post
    You could never build a winner with a guy like McHale playing a big role.
    Yeah with McHale the Celtics could barely manage a winning record. That Jordan guy was a black hole too who never won.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Yes, looking at the first 5 years of Montgomery’s career at Cal is flawed. I am looking at the five years, because quite a number of fans looked at the same 5 years before I ever did, and pronounced judgment on Montgomery as doing a bad job of recruiting. They said that Braun had done a better job, citing players who Braun recruited after being on the job for 8 years or more. They said that Montgomery himself did a better job recruiting at Stanford, somehow equating the results of his 18 recruiting classes at Stanford with his 5 classes at Cal, as to this being somehow fair. It was the flaws in the original posts that caused me to look into the first five years of Braun and of Montgomery at Stanford.

    The biggest flaw in their logic is that many basketball players improve over the years that they play, and some improve immensely, and they overlook this when passing judgment on Montgomery. Only one of Montgomery’s bigs, MSF, has finished his career. All Montgomery’s Cal bigs together have played a total of 8 seasons for him so far. Together, they have 21 seasons left to play. So, only 28% of the results are in.

    Braun recruited for 12 years, brought in about 20 bigs, who played about 48 seasons for him, and their careers are done. Comparing 48 seasons of results for Braun vs 8 seasons of player results for Montgomery is a tad unfair, wouldn’t you say?

    At Stanford, Montgomery recruited probably 30-35 bigs, who played probably a total of 100 seasons or so for him, and their careers are done. Is it fair to compare Montgomery’s 100 seasons of player results at Stanford with his 8 seasons of player results at Cal?

    I don’t agree that Stanford and Cal are similar in any way. Admission standards are different. It is more difficult to get into Stanford, but once you are in, there is no danger of flunking out. The Stanford education is worth much more financially, not only the cost while at school, but the doors which are opened to you after graduation. Stanford has a long, long history of recruiting nationally. They have an extensive national network of recruiting contacts, while Cal’s is not as big, I’d guess. Cal’s athletic department is on shaky financial footing, which may affect the recruiting budget, and may affect how a recruit perceives Cal. Stanford is private, and if they run low on athletic funds, alumni write a check. They are out recruiting Cal in football by miles, and are in basketball as well. They generate much more revenue from sports than Cal does. They have a much nicer campus, not crowded, and isolated from some of the distractions of a Berkeley. Many of these things are attractive to parents.

    I agree that Montgomery’s abilities should not have changed, and his pitch may be better, but he was away from college coaching for 5 years, and must have lost touch with much of recruiting. The older he gets, the more out of touch with young kids he will be, as it is with all of us. Now he has to recruit against his age being close to retirement, and his health may be a factor. Many recruits want to know that a coach will be around for years to come.

    I am not saying Montgomery is doing a good job of recruiting. I am saying we do not know, because all the results are not in yet. Give it some time, and let’s see.
    SFCityBear, 100% agreed with your pointing out the Stanford recruiting advantages. I would add to what you say that the weather is much better there. A bright young relative mine has grown up in the East Bay and is quite familiar with Cal and its campus. I took him a few months back on a walking tour of the Stanford campus just to broaden his horizons. Presto, he now plans to attend Stanford.

    Aside from the obvious attractiveness of Stanford, I would wager that Solomon would not have become academically ineligible had he been at Stanford last year.

    Monty will have a recruiting advantage over Stanford if he is perceived to have a stronger program that I making waves nationally.

    Go Bears!

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Yes, looking at the first 5 years of Montgomery’s career at Cal is flawed. I am looking at the five years, because quite a number of fans looked at the same 5 years before I ever did, and pronounced judgment on Montgomery as doing a bad job of recruiting. They said that Braun had done a better job, citing players who Braun recruited after being on the job for 8 years or more. They said that Montgomery himself did a better job recruiting at Stanford, somehow equating the results of his 18 recruiting classes at Stanford with his 5 classes at Cal, as to this being somehow fair. It was the flaws in the original posts that caused me to look into the first five years of Braun and of Montgomery at Stanford.

    The biggest flaw in their logic is that many basketball players improve over the years that they play, and some improve immensely, and they overlook this when passing judgment on Montgomery. Only one of Montgomery’s bigs, MSF, has finished his career. All Montgomery’s Cal bigs together have played a total of 8 seasons for him so far. Together, they have 21 seasons left to play. So, only 28% of the results are in.

    Braun recruited for 12 years, brought in about 20 bigs, who played about 48 seasons for him, and their careers are done. Comparing 48 seasons of results for Braun vs 8 seasons of player results for Montgomery is a tad unfair, wouldn’t you say?

    At Stanford, Montgomery recruited probably 30-35 bigs, who played probably a total of 100 seasons or so for him, and their careers are done. Is it fair to compare Montgomery’s 100 seasons of player results at Stanford with his 8 seasons of player results at Cal?

    I don’t agree that Stanford and Cal are similar in any way. Admission standards are different. It is more difficult to get into Stanford, but once you are in, there is no danger of flunking out. The Stanford education is worth much more financially, not only the cost while at school, but the doors which are opened to you after graduation. Stanford has a long, long history of recruiting nationally. They have an extensive national network of recruiting contacts, while Cal’s is not as big, I’d guess. Cal’s athletic department is on shaky financial footing, which may affect the recruiting budget, and may affect how a recruit perceives Cal. Stanford is private, and if they run low on athletic funds, alumni write a check. They are out recruiting Cal in football by miles, and are in basketball as well. They generate much more revenue from sports than Cal does. They have a much nicer campus, not crowded, and isolated from some of the distractions of a Berkeley. Many of these things are attractive to parents.

    I agree that Montgomery’s abilities should not have changed, and his pitch may be better, but he was away from college coaching for 5 years, and must have lost touch with much of recruiting. The older he gets, the more out of touch with young kids he will be, as it is with all of us. Now he has to recruit against his age being close to retirement, and his health may be a factor. Many recruits want to know that a coach will be around for years to come.

    I am not saying Montgomery is doing a good job of recruiting. I am saying we do not know, because all the results are not in yet. Give it some time, and let’s see.
    SFCityBear, 100% agreed with your pointing out the Stanford recruiting advantages. I would add to what you say that the weather is much better there. A bright young relative of mine has grown up in the East Bay and is quite familiar with Cal and its campus. I took him a few months back on a walking tour of the Stanford campus just to broaden his horizons. Presto, he now plans to attend Stanford.

    Aside from the obvious attractiveness of Stanford, I would wager that Solomon would not have become academically ineligible had he been at Stanford last year.

    Monty will have a recruiting advantage over Stanford if he is perceived to have a stronger program that is making waves nationally.

    Go Bears!

  6. #36
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    ROFLMAO

    Leon Powe and Mark McNamara (aka "The Lummock"...My dad and I had a running bet whether Mark would get stripped double digits each game bringing rebounds down TIME AND TIME AGAIN) and their relative basketball skills in the same sentence.

    Thank you SF Bear. I really needed a good laugh after this horrific weekend.

    Leon Powe made the Bears MUCH better each and every time he played. Simple as that and end of story.
    It wasn’t me who brought up the name Mark McNamara. It was Gobears. McNamara and Powe were very similar players with similar skills. Powe was more athletic. Both rarely threw a pass to anyone. Both had decent NBA careers, and Powe’s would have been better, if not for the injured leg. There are no stats kept on getting stripped of rebounds, as you claim McNamara did, just as there are no stats of getting your shots blocked, like I saw happen to Powe much more than I would have liked. And your point was?

    The reason you and I can seldom come to any sort of understanding is, as you have so aptly pointed out, that we come from different generations. It sounds like you grew up in the era of the “Me” generation. My father was of the WWII generation, the “We”, or “Us” generation, where teamwork won us the most important war of our lifetimes, and created many of the advantages we all have today. Heroes were people who gave their lives to make the world safe for freedom. Today, people call some basketball players heroes. My generation is somewhere in between these two generations.

    I grew up learning basketball from coaches dedicated to teamwork. 80-90% of basketball scoring was done using plays, not individual scoring. On the better teams, probably 95% of the baskets came with the help of an assist pass. Today, stats show that 50-60% of baskets are the result of an assist pass. Assists originally were given to a player for making a pass to a teammate who then made and easy shot, like a layup or a dunk. Over the years the requirements were loosened to give a player an assist for passing to a player for a jump shot, and then to a player for passing to a player shooting a three. Using the old standards, I’d guess that less than 50% of today’s baskets are made with assists.

    The kind of ball you grew up with would lead you to admire the individual more than the team, and it is the individual now who holds sway in basketball. You often say the game has changed. It is the culture that has changed, and the game along with it. Players today all talk about “My game”, as though they were playing the game by themselves. 20 years ago, players were not talking like this. They talked about their team.

    You constantly cite Powe’s individual stats as some measure of how good he was, but you don’t talk about the all results of his individual play. You say that Leon Powe made his teams much better. In 2003, before Powe arrived, Cal was 22-9. In 2004, with Powe and the #6 rated recruiting class, Cal was 13-15. So Powe did not play in those 15 losses? How exactly did he make a 22-9 team better, when they ended up 13-15?

    The next year, 2005, Powe had to sit out the season with injury. The team ended up 13-16, nearly the same record as in 2004. How did Powe not playing make that team worse? They weren’t worse, they were no better or worse with or without him.

    Leon Powe may have made some teams better, but not all of them, and 2004 is the example of one he may have helped make worse. He had one good year at Cal, 2006, where his team had a decent record. Those are the facts. End of story.

  7. #37
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by south bender View Post
    SFCityBear, 100% agreed with your pointing out the Stanford recruiting advantages. I would add to what you say that the weather is much better there. A bright young relative of mine has grown up in the East Bay and is quite familiar with Cal and its campus. I took him a few months back on a walking tour of the Stanford campus just to broaden his horizons. Presto, he now plans to attend Stanford.

    Aside from the obvious attractiveness of Stanford, I would wager that Solomon would not have become academically ineligible had he been at Stanford last year.

    Monty will have a recruiting advantage over Stanford if he is perceived to have a stronger program that is making waves nationally.

    Go Bears!
    +1.

    I hope the relative wasn't a highly rated recruit. Please confine your tours of the Stanford campus to academic students and not athletes. Maybe we can keep the advantages of the Stanford campus secret from the highly rated recruits.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    <Sigh> (well more than Sigh, my blood is boiling).

    1) You do realize that Leon overcame hardships as a young man/Kid that blunty 99.9% of BI'er posters do not have a CLUE as to how hard they are. He will have my life long appreciation for what he did and where he came from.

    2) You must also realize (but I fear not) that Leon played his cal career on essentially ONE leg. His explosiveness was/is severely hampered by that. Nonetheless he averaged over 20 points in his Cal career, was named a second team All American and won MVP his 2nd year.

    3) That player which "wrested the team away from Ben Braun" (honestly I found that nearly hysterical to read) helped them improve from 13 wins the year he sat out to 20 and an NCAA invite. The Bears fell back to just a 16 win season after Leon's departure.

    You know. I enjoy our little dialogue here but for you not to recognize that Leon Powe was among the most special basketball players EVER to put on the Blue and Gold in the modern era....I just don't get you...but hey, I guess I wasn't alive for Newell and the wonder of the four corner weave.
    Great post. Leon was one of the toughest, hardest-working kids I've seen play at Cal, and overcame a hell of a lot just to get there. Put that guy on this team and we'd have a top-15 team.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Thank you for the links, and I enjoyed reading them again. My post in reply to SoCal Townie addresses most of the other points you made.

    As to scorers, if you look at the 5 greatest scorers of all time, Jabbar, Karl Malone, Jordan, Wilt, and Kobe, they averaged 4.5 assists as well. Wilt led the NBA in assists one year. The greatest scorer in NCAA history, Pete Maravich, averaged 5.4 assists. Powe averaged 1 assist at Cal, and 1 assist every 3 games in the NBA. Powe was double teamed a lot, because defenses knew that every time the ball went in to Powe, he was going to shoot. That is when one of his teammates was open, and Powe did not look for him. If Braun directed him to shoot every time he got the ball, then it is on Braun. But if Powe decided this on his own, then it is on him.

    You also said that Powe “got the Celtics a championship”. I’m afraid there were quite a few other Celtic players ahead of him in line for that award. In terms of minutes played, Powe was 11th man on that team. He was 10th in points scored, 7th in rebounding, 13th in assists, and 14th in assist/turnover ratio. The last two stats give an indication of what kind of team player he was. Regardless, he was a member of the team, did make a good contribution, but he sat way down the bench, and did not “get the Celtics a championship.” I admire his drive to fight through injury and make this good contribution, and I am very pleased that he did get a championship ring, in winning the ultimate title in a player’s career.
    Actually, Powe got the Celtics at least one of those championship series victories by playing out of his mind off the bench, and was playing a lot more than the 11th guy by that point. He re-injured the knee toward the end of the last game, iirc, and did not play on an injured knee though.

    You seem to be citing NBA statistics for some unfathomable reason. And I don't care what you say, Kobe is not an unselfish player so if that's your measure I think it's enough said.

    And damn, I'd love to have a Kevin McHale on this team right now.

  10. #40
    Oh my it is getting deep in here. SFCity's predictable handpicking of meaningless stats without any context whatsoever makes me wonder if he actually watched the games he argues about. Or perhaps he thinks the person he is arguing with never actually saw them?

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    It wasn’t me who brought up the name Mark McNamara. It was Gobears. McNamara and Powe were very similar players with similar skills. Powe was more athletic. Both rarely threw a pass to anyone. Both had decent NBA careers, and Powe’s would have been better, if not for the injured leg. There are no stats kept on getting stripped of rebounds, as you claim McNamara did, just as there are no stats of getting your shots blocked, like I saw happen to Powe much more than I would have liked. And your point was?

    The reason you and I can seldom come to any sort of understanding is, as you have so aptly pointed out, that we come from different generations. It sounds like you grew up in the era of the “Me” generation. My father was of the WWII generation, the “We”, or “Us” generation, where teamwork won us the most important war of our lifetimes, and created many of the advantages we all have today. Heroes were people who gave their lives to make the world safe for freedom. Today, people call some basketball players heroes. My generation is somewhere in between these two generations.

    I grew up learning basketball from coaches dedicated to teamwork. 80-90% of basketball scoring was done using plays, not individual scoring. On the better teams, probably 95% of the baskets came with the help of an assist pass. Today, stats show that 50-60% of baskets are the result of an assist pass. Assists originally were given to a player for making a pass to a teammate who then made and easy shot, like a layup or a dunk. Over the years the requirements were loosened to give a player an assist for passing to a player for a jump shot, and then to a player for passing to a player shooting a three. Using the old standards, I’d guess that less than 50% of today’s baskets are made with assists.

    The kind of ball you grew up with would lead you to admire the individual more than the team, and it is the individual now who holds sway in basketball. You often say the game has changed. It is the culture that has changed, and the game along with it. Players today all talk about “My game”, as though they were playing the game by themselves. 20 years ago, players were not talking like this. They talked about their team.

    You constantly cite Powe’s individual stats as some measure of how good he was, but you don’t talk about the all results of his individual play. You say that Leon Powe made his teams much better. In 2003, before Powe arrived, Cal was 22-9. In 2004, with Powe and the #6 rated recruiting class, Cal was 13-15. So Powe did not play in those 15 losses? How exactly did he make a 22-9 team better, when they ended up 13-15?

    The next year, 2005, Powe had to sit out the season with injury. The team ended up 13-16, nearly the same record as in 2004. How did Powe not playing make that team worse? They weren’t worse, they were no better or worse with or without him.

    Leon Powe may have made some teams better, but not all of them, and 2004 is the example of one he may have helped make worse. He had one good year at Cal, 2006, where his team had a decent record. Those are the facts. End of story.
    They lost the heart and soul of the 2003 class before Powe got there, and went from being senior dominated to freshmen dominated. And that No. 6 rated class pretty much fizzled from the beginning, with one decent year out of Kately, Ubaka doing nothing for his first 3 years, and McGuire going a way after doing nothing much at all. So blaming Powe for the dropoff is ridiculous.

  12. #42

    Stanford has a lot of advantages

    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    +1.

    I hope the relative wasn't a highly rated recruit. Please confine your tours of the Stanford campus to academic students and not athletes. Maybe we can keep the advantages of the Stanford campus secret from the highly rated recruits.

    The location of the campus and the campus itself are not among them. Cal's campus is much more beautiful by almost any definition and being so close to SF was wonderful. South Bay sucks and so does Stanford's Taco Bell campus.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    It wasn’t me who brought up the name Mark McNamara. It was Gobears. McNamara and Powe were very similar players with similar skills. Powe was more athletic. Both rarely threw a pass to anyone. Both had decent NBA careers, and Powe’s would have been better, if not for the injured leg. There are no stats kept on getting stripped of rebounds, as you claim McNamara did, just as there are no stats of getting your shots blocked, like I saw happen to Powe much more than I would have liked. And your point was?

    The reason you and I can seldom come to any sort of understanding is, as you have so aptly pointed out, that we come from different generations. It sounds like you grew up in the era of the “Me” generation. My father was of the WWII generation, the “We”, or “Us” generation, where teamwork won us the most important war of our lifetimes, and created many of the advantages we all have today. Heroes were people who gave their lives to make the world safe for freedom. Today, people call some basketball players heroes. My generation is somewhere in between these two generations.

    I grew up learning basketball from coaches dedicated to teamwork. 80-90% of basketball scoring was done using plays, not individual scoring. On the better teams, probably 95% of the baskets came with the help of an assist pass. Today, stats show that 50-60% of baskets are the result of an assist pass. Assists originally were given to a player for making a pass to a teammate who then made and easy shot, like a layup or a dunk. Over the years the requirements were loosened to give a player an assist for passing to a player for a jump shot, and then to a player for passing to a player shooting a three. Using the old standards, I’d guess that less than 50% of today’s baskets are made with assists.

    The kind of ball you grew up with would lead you to admire the individual more than the team, and it is the individual now who holds sway in basketball. You often say the game has changed. It is the culture that has changed, and the game along with it. Players today all talk about “My game”, as though they were playing the game by themselves. 20 years ago, players were not talking like this. They talked about their team.

    You constantly cite Powe’s individual stats as some measure of how good he was, but you don’t talk about the all results of his individual play. You say that Leon Powe made his teams much better. In 2003, before Powe arrived, Cal was 22-9. In 2004, with Powe and the #6 rated recruiting class, Cal was 13-15. So Powe did not play in those 15 losses? How exactly did he make a 22-9 team better, when they ended up 13-15?

    The next year, 2005, Powe had to sit out the season with injury. The team ended up 13-16, nearly the same record as in 2004. How did Powe not playing make that team worse? They weren’t worse, they were no better or worse with or without him.

    Leon Powe may have made some teams better, but not all of them, and 2004 is the example of one he may have helped make worse. He had one good year at Cal, 2006, where his team had a decent record. Those are the facts. End of story.
    LOL. I love how you project.
    As long as we are being insulting, let me show you how it is done.....

    I would refer to YOUR generation as the UNREALISTIC generation - believing that you can have Medicare work when you take out $5 dollars for every $1 dollar invested. Your generation also gave us People's Park, turned the Berkeley streets into goat trails and believes that simply by listening to the Beatles you could somehow make everything turn out all right. Please, the idea that Boomers have ANYTHING to say about "team" and not "Me" is pretty ludicrous to those of us that will be, our entire lives, paying off the debt you have wrung up.

    But perhaps that is why I am REALISTIC. You seem to think I _LIKE_ the way things are. I do not. But to believe we are somehow going back to the rosey pete newell days of old is just ridiculous. The game has CHANGED. Sometimes you really CAN'T go back and, while admirable, I often look at things and see how they ARE rather than Dream about how they might be.

    But here is the thing you should note. NO ONE on this board is rallying to your attack of Leon Powe. The vast majority know that he was a great ball players, a great teammate, and a guy who made us proud to be Bears fan.

    The fact that he was from Oakland just is icing on the cake.

  14. #44
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    Leon was one of the toughest, hardest-working kids I've seen play at Cal, and overcame a hell of a lot just to get there. Put that guy on this team and we'd have a top-15 team.
    I’d agree. Montgomery would likely run actual plays for Powe, getting him in better positions to take good, open shots, screening out defenders, instead of in the Braun offense, where Powe was double teamed most of the time. Powe could have averaged close to 30 points in an offense like that.

  15. #45
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    Actually, Powe got the Celtics at least one of those championship series victories by playing out of his mind off the bench, and was playing a lot more than the 11th guy by that point.

    You seem to be citing NBA statistics for some unfathomable reason. And I don't care what you say, Kobe is not an unselfish player so if that's your measure I think it's enough said.
    I’ve read a lot of your posts, which are usually always reasonable. So you know very well that basketball is a game played and won or lost by 5 players on a side. I had a CYO game once, against a very weak team, where some of my teammates thought the game was so unimportant, that several did not show up for the game. Only 4 of us showed up. We were sure we could beat the other team, using only 4 players, but the referees told us that the rules of basketball required us to have 5 players. The referees made us forfeit the game, and we ended up losing the City title because of it.

    Have you forgotten that there were 4 Celtic players on the floor who passed the ball to Powe so he could shoot? Those same 4 players got some of the rebounds, dribbled up the floor for Powe, and got him the ball? Some of them may have set screens for him or blocked out onrebouds for him. Those 4 also played defense on the other 4 players on the opposite team, to hold the score down just enough so that Powe could have an impact on the game. Calalumnus’s statement that Powe “got” the Celtics a championship, or your statement that Powe “got” them a game are equally ridiculous. Basketball has always been a team game for 5 players.

    I used the statistics of the game’s greatest scorers to answer a post that implied that Braun gave the ball to his best scorers and he shoots, and he doesn't ever have to pass. I used the NBA stats, because some of those players are so old, their college stats are unavailable. I did find Maravich’s college stats. With the exception of Maravich, all the players I mentioned were “selfish” players, in the basketball sense. Many will disagree, but John Wooden, when asked if MJ was the greatest player of all time, replied that he would say no, because Jordan was not a great team player. And Kobe is a “selfish” player, as you said. But the stats show that even these five “selfish” players had the sense to pass to a teammate when they were double teamed or didn’t have a good look.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •