Swatguy Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 So, basically you are saying that we should make personnel decisions based on ticket sells and merchandising rather than basing the decisions on whether it will help the team win, which Shaq doesn't do. Pardon me, 'Cyde gives Qualifiable, undisputable assertions based on truth and logic and you throws your twist (rather than basing the decisions on whether it will help the team win, which Shaq doesn't do.) which is biased BS. There is no question that the Hawks would be better with Shaq than without Shaq. Just listen to what the players are saying, Al says, I need help. Looking over his shoulder with Shaq is what he is saying. Josh gushes at the mere notion of getting Sthaq. Joe advocates for the cause. Chiiiiiiiiittt. It is a No-Brainer, unlest your brain is not fully engaged. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Buzzard Posted July 27, 2010 Popular Post Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) So, basically you are saying that we should make personnel decisions based on ticket sells and merchandising rather than basing the decisions on whether it will help the team win, which Shaq doesn't do. I think what he is saying is we should base those decisons on what we know about the player more than just on one stat that you think supports your whole point of view. IMO you are reaching here and about to fall off a cliff. Your other point about Shaq being a locker room cancer that cannot be overcome is kind of mute also. Shaq only hindered his ex teams significantly on his way out. Obviously it was not to bad while he was there since he has helped win NBA championships with two different teams. No doubt Shaq leaves, just like he arrives, with a bang. I also find it a little strange that you stated its ok to sign this so called locker room cancer for the vet minimum but not for the MLE. You are shocking me KB with your Shaq hate; its almost like the Bron hate going on in Cleveland right now. But not nearly as justified IMO. Edited July 27, 2010 by Buzzard 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member niremetal Posted July 27, 2010 Premium Member Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 There is no question that the Hawks would be better with Shaq than without Shaq. Just listen to what the players are saying, Al says, I need help. Looking over his shoulder with Shaq is what he is saying. Josh gushes at the mere notion of getting Sthaq. Joe advocates for the cause. Yeah, and good players have always proven to be such adept GMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheNorthCydeRises Posted July 27, 2010 Popular Post Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 This is why they have a stat called WS/48, which measures your individual contribution to team wins on a per minute basis. Guess what. Zaza has a higher WS/48 than Shaq. Zaza is 18th in the NBA among centers with a 0.121 WS/48. Shaq is 20th with a 0.119 WS/48. Once again, Atlanta doesn't gain anything relative to wins by adding Shaq and diminishing Zaza's playing time. PER is a nice stat, but it is flawed because it puts too much emphasis on scoring and not enough on rebounding and defense. Also, per 36 numbers definitely tell you more than the standard per game numbers, but if you want to go there, then Randolph Morris averaged 18.0 P/36 and 11.0 R/36 last year, and he also had 2.4 combined blocks + steals per 36 minutes last year. So, if you want to use Shaq's per 36 averages as a sign that he still is a strong player, then we might as well bring Randolph back and just give him more playing time. Well let's put it to the test KB. It's not like this isn't easy to look up. I'll go through the playoff teams, and let you and other decide if that player contributed more to wins, vs what the win share/48 stat tells you who actually did according to their stat. ATLANTA Mario West: .106 Mike Bibby: .104 BOSTON Shelden Williams: .162 Rajon Rondo: .156 Kendrick Perkins: .117 CHARLOTTE Derrick Brown: .114 Boris Diaw: .113 CHICAGO Acie Law: .101 Derrick Rose: .100 John Salmons: .092 ( while he was in Chicago ) CLEVELAND JJ Hickson: .123 Antwan Jamison: .122 Shaquille O'Neal: .119 DALLAS Rodrique Beaubois: .134 Jason Terry: .123 DENVER Chris Andersen: .166 Carmelo Anthony: .145 LA LAKERS Pau Gasol: .220 Andrew Bynum: .180 Kobe Bryant: .160 Sasha Vujucic: .120 Ron Artest: .098 MILWAUKEE Luke Ridnour: .168 John Salmons: .165 Brandon Jennings: .075 MIAMI Dorrell Wright: .137 Udonis Haslem: .132 OKLAHOMA CITY James Harden: .124 Russell Westbrook: .105 ORLANDO Marcin Gortat: .151 Rashard Lewis: .132 Jameer Nelson: .130 PORTLAND Nicolas Batum: .181 Brandon Roy: .180 Andre Miller: .134 PHOENIX Louis Amundson: .118 Grant Hill: .109 SAN ANTONIO Matt Bonner: .153 George Hill: .142 Tony Parker: .101 UTAH Kyle Korver: .130 Wesley Matthews: .108 So does the win share tell the absolute truth? Or can it be disputed? LOL . . . can it be HEAVILY disputed? When you look at stats, you pretty much have to look at everything. Because there's not one stat that will tell you all you need to know about a player. You pretty much have to look at everything from all angles, to make an educated assessment of what that player has the ability to do, and what his worth to a team is. To think that the "win shares" stat isn't as flawed as any other stat, is simply not being honest. Like all stats, it does give you some idea of what is going on. But it is NOT the end all . . be all. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Sothron Posted July 27, 2010 Premium Member Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 I think what he is saying is we should base those decisons on what we know about the player more than just on one stat that you think supports your whole point of view. IMO you are reaching here and about to fall off a cliff. Your other point about Shaq being a locker room cancer that cannot be overcome is kind of mute also. Shaq only hindered his ex teams significantly on his way out. Obviously it was not to bad while he was there since he has helped win NBA championships with two different teams. No doubt Shaq leaves, just like he arrives, with a bang. I also find it a little strange that you stated its ok to sign this so called locker room cancer for the vet minimum but not for the MLE. You are shocking me KB with your Shaq hate; its almost like the Bron hate going on in Cleveland right now. But not nearly as justified IMO. Buzzard usually we are in agreement but not on this. Shaq's problems with teams isn't just when he leaves. He had a public war with Kobe, he was critical of Penny back in Orlando days while on the team, he was such a cancer in Phoenix that Steve Nash of all people begged management to trade him and in the playoffs he was heard telling the Cavs in time outs to listen to him and NOT the COACH. As I said before if this were another player at Shaq's age with his body and skill set I'd like to see him here but once you add in his cancerous personality then its a wash for me. He quite frankly isn't worth the head ache any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNorthCydeRises Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 And most important . . . trust what you see with your OWN EYES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators lethalweapon3 Posted July 27, 2010 Moderators Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/350522-shaq-a-cancer/ ~lw3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thescout5 Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 I know a motivated Shaq is a much better played than Za Za and Powell.He's going to cost but if you want to win and go far the rewards are greater. I think this off season as shown Shaq he is not nearly valued around the league and that will be a motivating factor for him. Do other teams know something the Hawks don't? Is it Shaq's ego clubhouse cancer? Even with those possibilities I still take the chance or face the alternative getting beat again in the 2nd round and maybe the first with other teams improving. We haven't even talked about oher teams improving outside of Miami and you know Orlando and Boston are going to be tough.Other teams have improved as well yet the Hawks what have we done? 1.fired Woody hired Drew. That will help but still getting killed by Orlando should show us we do lack talent also to keep up with the elite teams. Don't just think Drew's new philosphy will be the magic potion. 2.resigned JJ until he does it in the playoffs overpriced 3.sign Powell - Joe Smith 2 ? How is that closing the gap. Few players I see could make a difference.Shaq is the best alternative we have and it's worth the risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddielives Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Broussard was just on 680 the fan and I did not hear him mention anything about Shaq. Guess that means that things have cooled off again as far as the Hawks and Shaq are concerned. I really think Shaq is going to retire if he can't get at least 5+ million from some team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swatguy Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 I know a motivated Shaq is a much better played than Za Za and Powell.He's going to cost but if you want to win and go far the rewards are greater. I think this off season as shown Shaq he is not nearly valued around the league and that will be a motivating factor for him. Do other teams know something the Hawks don't? Is it Shaq's ego clubhouse cancer? Even with those possibilities I still take the chance or face the alternative getting beat again in the 2nd round and maybe the first with other teams improving. Few players I see could make a difference.Shaq is the best alternative we have and it's worth the risk. Give this man a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swatguy Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Broussard was just on 680 the fan and I did not hear him mention anything about Shaq. Guess that means that things have cooled off again as far as the Hawks and Shaq are concerned. I really think Shaq is going to retire if he can't get at least 5+ million from some team. Broussard has flip-flopped more than a hooker at the beach. Can't trust what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now