"Lies, Damned Lies, and Obama (response to Battier article)

It's too bad this has become a race issue. Race was simply used by Lewis to frame a dichotomy. Obvious, sure; right or wrong, that led to this debate.

The main point of the article seems to be that defensive prowess is ofter underrated if the defender don't do anything statistically noteworthy OR make highlight-reel type plays, such as a lot of steals or swats into the stands.

I always enjoyed watching Ron Harper play with Pippen, Jordan, Rodman, etc. I think more people than Lewis realizes enjoy the intangibles and team-play aspects that a smart vet can bring to the table.

And it isn't just on defense that a statistically bland player can attain Battier- or Bowen-like cult status. The constant lionization of Derek Fisher proves as much.

 

but you truly don't see that the standards by which you're measuring "winner" are thickheaded and rendered meaningless by how vague they are? Devean George: a bigger winner than Shane Battier. T-Mac: a super winner. James Posey: Sir Winningham. Robert Horry: a God perched atop Mount St. Winningest.

 

to overstate his value seems to suggest the exact same thing. to claim to prove his value by way of underutilized measures only to settle for +/- and immeasurables such as intangibles: hollow. To measure Shane Battier's importance to a team by the fact it made the playoffs: obtuse.

 

Well said. Or: What?

 

did you read the critique? race was 1/10 of it. Why is it that when someone even mentions race, no one can contemplate, understand, or think about anything else? There were a whole bunch of paragraphs in that critique. all of them weren't about race.

 

What utter nonsense. He was never expected to be be a superstar and he has more than met expectations. As for the stuff about him not measuring up to his his "draft position", here are the last 10 No. 6 picks other than Battier:

08--Gallinari
07--Jianlin
06--Roy
05--Webster
04--Childress
03--Kaman
02--Dejuan Wagner
00--Demarr Johnson
99--Sczerbiak
98--Traylor

Battier more than measures up to that crew. Roy is the only star selected in that spot. Battier has been better than most of those selected in his draft spot, and he's been better than most of those drafted ahead of him in his own draft. Calling him a "collossal disappointment for his draft position" exhibits sheer ignorance.

 

Wait, the national player of the year who was drafted No. 6 was never expected to be a superstar?

 

We can play this game of "pretend" where the #6 pick in the draft ISNT selected with the intention of turning around a franchise, but in terms of his draft position, he falls in line with the rest of the non-gamechanging players you have on that list of players whose play fell short of their draft position.

But then again, we live in an age where the 20th pick in the 2005 NBA draft has more hoopla and greater expectations tied to him than does the #6 pick two years prior, so I'm not surprised by your response.

 

I think there's a difference between what the No. 6 pick is theoretically supposed to do and the reality of who is available. Often times, hell, most of the time, teams gamble at the top of the draft on guys with "upside." That happens all over the lottery. It's why guys like Martell Webster get taken fifth or in the case of 2001, why Jerry Krause took two high school 7-footers who couldn't even win state championships. I don't know why Memphis took Battier that high, but if they were smart, it was because they wanted a solid basketball player who wouldn't get in trouble, wouldn't smoke his way out of the league and was guaranteed to know how to play.

Also, being the POY college doesn't mean much about your expectations as a pro. Given Battier's game, I don't think anyone with any basketball sense thought he'd be anything more than a solid pro, a starter and a guy who'd score anywhere between 10 and 15 a game, depending on his offense/team, etc. I bet every GM or writer who actually follows the NBA would say he'd be a good pick because of his intangibles, his intelligence and his basketball IQ. All things that drove home Lewis' point in the story.

 

Then why haven't the Bruce Bowens and James Posey's of the NBA made up a wealth of top 6 selections in recent years.

They're practically the same player as Battier, equipped with the same intangibles but were selected later in the draft or went completely undrafted.

To put on this front that a No. 6 selection doesn't have huge expectations to them as it relates to their draft position is unrealistic. You can find Battier type players at a much lower selection.

 

I think you measure a player's importance by watching him perform. And you either get it or you don't.
You either understand Kevin Freeman meant more to the 99 Connecticut Huskies than 12 points a game, or you don't. I'm not supportive of making up numbers to try to justify it. It's impossible to quantify team chemistry.

 

Not if you ever watched him play.
He wasn't a dynamic athlete. Athleticism is such an important part of NBA success.
If you drafted him 6 and expected him to be a superstar, you had no clue. If you drafted him 6 and expected him to make you better, you got your money's worth.
You think being a college player of the year means you're going to be a long-term NBA star? It does if you're Oscar Robertson. It doesn't if you're Tyler Hansbrough.