Basketball height prejudice? (with poll)

[Chubbs]

IT has played like a top 10 PG this year, and the sample size is enough for me to say he's a top 15 PG going forward. He is good enough to start on a playoff team, and depending on the players surrounding him, if I squint I can see him starting on a contender.
While I think IT is ideally a 6th man (especially on a team heavy on scoring), if he stays on a non-winning team like Sac it will not be off the bench. I would bet against him being on this team next year.

See, this is where my head explodes. Sure, we have the best center, a top 10 PG, and a top 5 SF, and we're 10-21. Yep. That's how it works.

Sure, he could start on a first round exiting playoff team. I just don't see him competing against the playoff teams PGs at all.

The frustration for me at the end of the day is we've puffed up his value now. Basically to the point we can't keep what would have been a 6th man contender every season. Now we have a guy who's putting up huge numbers that can't reasonably be expected to just go back to the bench.

 

[Kingster]

It's not prejudice to bring up size. It happens across all sports. You don't see many 5'8" PGs, NFL QB's, WR's, TE's, CB's, MLB pitchers, strikers/forwards or CB's/FB's in soccer, men's volleyball players that short, or even male Olympic swimmers of that stature, among other sports for a reason. The reverse is also true. You don't see 6'4" male gymnasts. You don't see 6'4" NFL running backs. Size in sports matters, whether some want to acknowledge that or not.

And when you find differences in size such as this:

or this:

it will be an issue.

The funny thing is that IT just had a huge game against Parker. So size didn't matter. Or to put it more exactly, size didn't matter nearly as much as other characteristics.

 

[Chubbs]

The funny thing is that IT just had a huge game against Parker. So size didn't matter. Or to put it more exactly, size didn't matter nearly as much as other characteristics.

Yet Parker scored the last 7 points and we lost. And if I recall correctly our guy did nothing in the 4th.

 

[mac]

The funny thing is that IT just had a huge game against Parker. So size didn't matter. Or to put it more exactly, size didn't matter nearly as much as other characteristics.

This is the G&J approach to things. All they look at is whether IT's boxscore line is better than his opponent's, usually in terms of scoring alone. Spurs game actually isn't that bad of an example because IT did play well and the whole team played fairly well, but it's also silly to compare individual games as opposed to a player's entire body of work. Up to this day Grant and Jerry still use the argument that IT "outplayed" Kyrie Irving in their 1 game against each other as rookies. End result? We lost the game. Same thing with the recent Spurs game. I take Tony Parker over Isaiah Thomas every single time. Say what you want about their team mates, but the fact is that one has been a finals MVP, the facilitator for multiple championship teams and the main driving force of a 50+ win team for the last few seasons. The other hasn't even won 30 games in a season. And when it's said and done I guarantee that both Kyrie and Parker will have greater careers than Isaiah Thomas.

Nobody doubts IT's ability to score for himself, but many doubt his ability to run a winning team or not be a liability on defense such that it is impossible for us to be a winning team.

 

[Gary]

People do hate on IT a lot here, that's the truth. A lot of the complains are just assumptions though because of his height, like "he can do this" or "He can't do this". He's automatically frowned upon by a lot of people here because of his height. I have seen this on this message board since he came to the Kings a couple years back.

That being said his deficiency on defense is a bit of a concern, and he does have "Iverson-esque" assist numbers (meaning they are mostly bailout assists when he can't get his own shot) but I do think he would make a great 6th man. Probably top 10 in the league as a 6th man.

I have a feeling though that certain people on this forum would still complain about something even if he was playing good defense and getting other players involved before taking his own shots. So it's a lose/lose when discussing IT here.

 

[Uncia03]

People do hate on IT a lot here, that's the truth. A lot of the complains are just assumptions though because of his height, like "he can do this" or "He can't do this". He's automatically frowned upon by a lot of people here because of his height. I have seen this on this message board since he came to the Kings a couple years back.

That being said his deficiency on defense is a bit of a concern, and he does have "Iverson-esque" assist numbers (meaning they are mostly bailout assists when he can't get his own shot) but I do think he would make a great 6th man. Probably top 10 in the league as a 6th man.

I have a feeling though that certain people on this forum would still complain about something even if he was playing good defense and getting other players involved before taking his own shots. So it's a lose/lose when discussing IT here.

See I don't get this. You say that people hate on IT because of his height, which makes it seem as if you're an advocate for IT.
Then you voice some concerns about IT and end with saying that he'd be a great 6th man and probably top 10 in the league as a 6th man.

But you voted him in the 7-10 range for 6th man in the poll, while the previous 16 votes had him all in the top 6.

So going by the poll voting you're 'hating' on IT more than the previous 16 people who voted.

I know for a fact you don't hate IT, but you're voicing the exact same concerns that everyone else has (defense and "Iverson-esque-ness"), while voting him lower as a 6th man than anyone else to date.

It would seem as if the 'hate' for IT that advocates for IT think exists simply isn't there as can be seen by the poll results thus far.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Hate on IT, Hate on this, Hate on that, is most overused, becoming totally meaningless phrase in the English language. I don't "hate" IT, he's heck of a swell guy. I just don't want him to be the pseudo PG starting for the Kings. First off the bench, fine, no problem at all. For all the good he does on offense (most often for himself) he's just way, way too much of a liability on D. Unfortunately for him, being "official" 5'9" is major overall negative factor in THE NBA.

 

[treach1976]

See I don't get this. You say that people hate on IT because of his height, which makes it seem as if you're an advocate for IT.
Then you voice some concerns about IT and end with saying that he'd be a great 6th man and probably top 10 in the league as a 6th man.

But you voted him in the 7-10 range for 6th man in the poll, while the previous 16 votes had him all in the top 6.

So going by the poll voting you're 'hating' on IT more than the previous 16 people who voted.

I know for a fact you don't hate IT, but you're voicing the exact same concerns that everyone else has (defense and "Iverson-esque-ness"), while voting him lower as a 6th man than anyone else to date.

It would seem as if the 'hate' for IT that advocates for IT think exists simply isn't there as can be seen by the poll results thus far.

Nobody hates IT as a 6th man. In fact, few people "Hate" IT. Most of the IT angst revolves around him as a starter.
But, as a broader topic, this board is a perfect case study for attitude polarization, where slight disagreements quickly morph into full-on controversies as people take sides. What results is unrealistic/innacurate beliefs on both sides of the coin. Maybe if we all recognize we are doing this we can avoid it, but I'm not hopeful that will happen.

 

[rainmaker]

This statement:

The funny thing is that IT just had a huge game against Parker.

In no way proves your follow up statement:

So size didn't matter.

Unless of course, you a) fail to understand how size effects more aspects of the game than IT's points/assists vs his counterpart's points/assists and b) fail to comprehend the issues a few here have taken the time to lay out yet you continue to ignore, then attempt to boil it down to some ridiculous, elementary level statement which my grandmother, who's watched 15 mins of basketball in her life could come up with.

But we saw this tiring pattern with Reke as well. A few would take the time to layout well thought out arguments as to why he is/was an asset, then a few from the opposing crowd would come in, fail to refute any part of the arguments presented and basically say, Reke is NAPG. We're all seeing it again, where some in the IT crowd repeatedly fail to acknowledge or face up to the arguments presented, then pop in with some simpleton response which shows they have zero understanding of the actual issues. The amusing part, is those who repeatedly fail to show an understanding did it for years with Reke and now are doing it with IT. Frankly, it's borderline trolling and intellectually lazy.

The issue is not is IT capable of big games against the better PG's. Of course he is. The issue also is not whether IT is a talented player who can make an impact offensively at times. Of course he is, it's why many like him as an ideal and potentially top 6th man league wide. What the issues are have been addressed countless times, yet a certain crowd continues to ignore them.

 

[Chubbs]

I think why the guy is so divisive is what we do with him is a key part of this upcoming offseason, and what we do on the trade market right now. It's important. He's the only expiring contract that matters, and it's a big decision. It's the big one right now. Well, him and Aaron gray. I think that is of less import, but that's just me.

I feel bad for some of these defenders of the little man. I don't know if their lack of knowledge is due to watching Jerry and Grant spew their nonsense or what. It's like talking to a brick wall. They point out his numbers, someone logically explains there's more to it, and they respond, but look at the numbers, ignoring the entire argument.

 

[Spike]

Rainmaker, I can't like that enough. Especially the last paragraph.

 

[mac]

This statement:

In no way proves your follow up statement:


Unless of course, you a) fail to understand how size effects more aspects of the game than IT's points/assists vs his counterpart's points/assists and b) fail to comprehend the issues a few here have taken the time to lay out yet you continue to ignore, then attempt to boil it down to some ridiculous, elementary level statement which my grandmother, who's watched 15 mins of basketball in her life could come up with.

But we saw this tiring pattern with Reke as well. A few would take the time to layout well thought out arguments as to why he is/was an asset, then a few from the opposing crowd would come in, fail to refute any part of the arguments presented and basically say, Reke is NAPG. We're all seeing it again, where some in the IT crowd repeatedly fail to acknowledge or face up to the arguments presented, then pop in with some simpleton response which shows they have zero understanding of the actual issues. The amusing part, is those who repeatedly fail to show an understanding did it for years with Reke and now are doing it with IT. Frankly, it's borderline trolling and intellectually lazy.

The issue is not is IT capable of big games against the better PG's. Of course he is. The issue also is not whether IT is a talented player who can make an impact offensively at times. Of course he is, it's why many like him as an ideal and potentially top 6th man league wide. What the issues are have been addressed countless times, yet a certain crowd continues to ignore them.

But there are only like 3 PGs in the league who can stay in front of their man!

 

[Chubbs]

It's funny, I've really paid attention to PG D in other games lately , and it's simply not true that they all get blown by routinely. And if they do, they don't just give up either. They recover and at least affect the shot or pass.

 

[Padrino]

People do hate on IT a lot here, that's the truth. A lot of the complains are just assumptions though because of his height, like "he can do this" or "He can't do this". He's automatically frowned upon by a lot of people here because of his height. I have seen this on this message board since he came to the Kings a couple years back.

That being said his deficiency on defense is a bit of a concern, and he does have "Iverson-esque" assist numbers (meaning they are mostly bailout assists when he can't get his own shot) but I do think he would make a great 6th man. Probably top 10 in the league as a 6th man.

I have a feeling though that certain people on this forum would still complain about something even if he was playing good defense and getting other players involved before taking his own shots. So it's a lose/lose when discussing IT here.

speaking for myself, i can say that none of my "complaints" are "just assumptions." at his height, IT gets shot over. a lot. at his size, IT gets caught up on screens. a lot. despite his quickness, IT gets blown by. a lot. these are empirical factors that are certainly worth complaining about.

 

[VF21]

Not sure that poll is really in the spirit of this thread.

It was suggested so I went with it. Besides, I think it makes the thread more interesting.

 

[ESP47]

IT's height isn't the biggest problem people. It's hit lateral quickness and reaction time on D.

Opposing guards are getting to the basket on him every game. They aren't jumping over him. They aren't posting him up. They aren't shooting over him. They're going around him. If they aren't going around him, they're standing wide open for 3.

Are you guys even watching the games or just assuming that he's being shot over because his height? I'm not saying it never happens, but it hardly ever happens. 9 times out of 10 he's just getting beat off the dribble or getting screened but he's not being shot over. It's one of the biggest misconceptions about the guy and it's annoying because I've watched nearly every game and just never see opposing guards disrespect his height and pull up a jumper in his face. In fact, I wish they were just doing that because then IT would have a legit excuse. Instead he has no excuse because he's one of the fastest offensive players in the league, yet it's like he's standing in quicksand on defense.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

im not a fan of IT as our starting PG for a variety of reasons that i wont get into in this thread. but as a Sixth Man as the poll states, he is top 3

 

[bloom]

It’s not I.T’s size that’s the problem, it’s part of his game. Like most posters have said, he’s a wonderful 6th man. He brings that energy that you want from your bench, but he has several holes in his game - defense, passing and the overall need to play hero ball a good portion of the time.

 

[SacKings2002NBAChampions]

I think the issue here is that IT actually believes he can be a starter in this league and why wouldn't he. He averages 22 and 7 in the last 10 or so games. It's really amazing but he also allows just as much if not more on the other end. The fact is, there is less than a hand few of guards that he can guard and that won't abuse him each time down the opposing basket.
IT will not be staying with us long and to be honest I'm going to enjoy the run he has here because he's a great character and brings a lot of energy to the team
I just hope we get something quality in return for him.


As for the ideas of him being a permanent 6th man....yeah right
He'd be the most expensive 6th man in the league lol. I have a feeling he'll be asking for something between 8-10 million which is a lot considering we have Gay and Cousins and hopefully offload Landry/Thornton.
I think it will also take a couple years for IT to finally accept his role as a 6th man like Nate Robinson and Boykins and Atkins and all those preceding. I really feel bad for the kid cause he had major hopes of making a name for himself. However, the Kings do have good trade value with Ben Mac, Jimmer, and IT if and when they choose to make a trade.
IT talks about wanting to be like AI but AI was 6'0 and had remarkable defense/hustle. I swear he was the only player I'd ever seen who would play a full game without sweating at all :O

Poor kid :/

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

As for the ideas of him being a permanent 6th man....yeah right
He'd be the most expensive 6th man in the league lol.

More expensive than Ginobili? More expensive than Evans? I rather doubt it.

I'm not concerned with paying Thomas; I'd hope to get him for ~$4.5-5M, but I could be convinced to go as high as seven. Hell, it's not my money: **** it, pay him eight. The problem is that he doesn't want to be a sixth man. He's said it himself, he wants to be the best little man ever; the next Iverson (and, by the way, to all the people who want to point to his assist numbers this season and say, "See, look at all the assists! He is too a good starting point guard!", Iverson averaged 6.1 assists for his career, and went over seven three times; anyone want to call him a legit point guard?). He's not going to accept going back to the bench, and unless you try to build a 2000-02 'Sixers-like team around him, he's got no business being a starting point guard; he absolutely has no business being the starting point guard on a team that features two guys like Cousins and Gay.

It's not prejudice to state that Thomas' height is going to keep him from being an elite point guard in the NBA, and the very suggestion is one of the straw-graspingest things I've ever heard.

 

[SacKings2002NBAChampions]

"More expensive than Ginobili? More expensive than Evans? I rather doubt it."

The first is not a real 6th man and the second has a very good chance of becoming a starter soon

You're right, as I stated, IT will not go back to being a 6th man; however, he will play the next two years for a crapty crapty team until they get a good draft pick and then he's back to the bench. I mean there's not much else to it. He will figure out in a year or so that he was meant to be a star 6th man. Embrace it, boy! Anyhow, I admire him wanting to become a starter and the next AI
Unfortunately, AI was also 6'0
Kind of a major deal when it comes to the NBA

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

"More expensive than Ginobili? More expensive than Evans? I rather doubt it."

The first is not a real 6th man and the second has a very good chance of becoming a starter soon

Ginobili has started less than half the games he's played in his career, and has only started as many as 25 games in a season once since 2006-07, so your sense of a "real" sixth man is in need of calibration. As for Evans, unless they find a buyer for Gordon before the trade deadline, I wouldn't bet on him starting this season: he's already had opportunities to replace an injured Gordon in the starting lineup, and they appear to prefer him coming off the bench for rhythm/flow purposes.

You're right, as I stated, IT will not go back to being a 6th man; however, he will play the next two years for a poopooty poopooty team until they get a good draft pick and then he's back to the bench. I mean there's not much else to it. He will figure out in a year or so that he was meant to be a star 6th man. Embrace it, boy! Anyhow, I admire him wanting to become a starter and the next AI
Unfortunately, AI was also 6'0
Kind of a major deal when it comes to the NBA

I've stood next to Iverson. I'm taller than Iverson. I am not six feet tall.

 

[SacKings2002NBAChampions]

First, AI is 6'0. Congrats, you're taller than you initially assumed.


Second, Ginobili plays more minutes than the starters most often. Hence why he only won the damn 6th man of the year award once. It's not fair to consider him as a 6th man considering his very active role.

Don't give me stats because I'm well aware that Popovich makes sure none oh his players play more than 35 minutes per game unless he has no choice.

I'll give you that Evans' role is a 6th man currently but not for long as I said. They'll have to make some cap room for a certain Davis soon enough.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Iverson is not six feet tall, and anyone who told you otherwise was lying to you, even if it was Iverson himself.

"Don't give you stats?" So, wait, your contention is that Ginobili plays more minutes than the starters, but you're aware that the stats say otherwise, so they're not allowed to be included in the discussion, because they'd prove you wrong? Is that how that works?

Incidentally, the 6MOY award has been given out thirty-one times, and only three players have ever won it more than once, so the notion of saying that Ginobili is not a "real" sixth man because he's only won it once is a really poor argument.

Also, Davis is locked in until at least the end of next season, with a team option after that. That's not really all that "soon," but it's cool. I think I've read enough to understand that you like to play fast and loose with the definitions of words.

 

[Chubbs]

IT's height isn't the biggest problem people. It's hit lateral quickness and reaction time on D.

Opposing guards are getting to the basket on him every game. They aren't jumping over him. They aren't posting him up. They aren't shooting over him. They're going around him. If they aren't going around him, they're standing wide open for 3.

Are you guys even watching the games or just assuming that he's being shot over because his height? I'm not saying it never happens, but it hardly ever happens. 9 times out of 10 he's just getting beat off the dribble or getting screened but he's not being shot over. It's one of the biggest misconceptions about the guy and it's annoying because I've watched nearly every game and just never see opposing guards disrespect his height and pull up a jumper in his face. In fact, I wish they were just doing that because then IT would have a legit excuse. Instead he has no excuse because he's one of the fastest offensive players in the league, yet it's like he's standing in quicksand on defense.

"In the third, the Kings defense looked noticeably better, but Kemba Walker kept Charlotte on top with some hot three-point shooting. (He just shot over the top of Isaiah Thomas repeatedly.)"

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/1/4/5275634/kings-vs-bobcats-final-score

You're spot on, that never happens.

So I've gotta ask, are you watching the games?

 

[ppine]

The thread is about height prejudice. The conversation instantly goes to IT and the poll is about being a sixth man. That proves the point right there.

 

[Chubbs]

The thread is about height prejudice. The conversation instantly goes to IT and the poll is about being a sixth man. That proves the point right there.

You posted a topic about height prejudice on a Sacramento kings board. Who else could this possibly be about?

 

[mac]

The thread is about height prejudice. The conversation instantly goes to IT and the poll is about being a sixth man. That proves the point right there.

Firstly - you are noted IT advocate.
Secondly - As Chubbs said, who else could this possibly be about?
Lastly - Half your original post doesn't even make sense/ I have no idea what you were getting at other than trying to start a discussion Isaiah Thomas.

Size plays a part in almost every sport. There's usually a tradeoff between size and quickness, but generally size confers certain advantages. In some sense so does lack of size, i.e. IT's quickness, but there's a very good reason why the average NBA player is about 6'7 and the average American male (who is already taller than the average male in most of the rest of the world) isn't even 6'.

 

[Chubbs]

I guess height prejudice was meant to be about life in general? I mean, it's true. Did you guys know in some parts of the good ol USA they won't even let you ride certain roller coasters if you don't reach a certain height? They even have separate rides for those people.

It's true. The world is messed up, man.

 

[Kingster]

This is the G&J approach to things. All they look at is whether IT's boxscore line is better than his opponent's, usually in terms of scoring alone. Spurs game actually isn't that bad of an example because IT did play well and the whole team played fairly well, but it's also silly to compare individual games as opposed to a player's entire body of work. Up to this day Grant and Jerry still use the argument that IT "outplayed" Kyrie Irving in their 1 game against each other as rookies. End result? We lost the game. Same thing with the recent Spurs game. I take Tony Parker over Isaiah Thomas every single time. Say what you want about their team mates, but the fact is that one has been a finals MVP, the facilitator for multiple championship teams and the main driving force of a 50+ win team for the last few seasons. The other hasn't even won 30 games in a season. And when it's said and done I guarantee that both Kyrie and Parker will have greater careers than Isaiah Thomas.

Nobody doubts IT's ability to score for himself, but many doubt his ability to run a winning team or not be a liability on defense such that it is impossible for us to be a winning team.

This is the G&J approach to things. All they look at is whether IT's boxscore line is better than his opponent's, usually in terms of scoring alone. Spurs game actually isn't that bad of an example because IT did play well and the whole team played fairly well, but it's also silly to compare individual games as opposed to a player's entire body of work. Up to this day Grant and Jerry still use the argument that IT "outplayed" Kyrie Irving in their 1 game against each other as rookies. End result? We lost the game. Same thing with the recent Spurs game. I take Tony Parker over Isaiah Thomas every single time. Say what you want about their team mates, but the fact is that one has been a finals MVP, the facilitator for multiple championship teams and the main driving force of a 50+ win team for the last few seasons. The other hasn't even won 30 games in a season. And when it's said and done I guarantee that both Kyrie and Parker will have greater careers than Isaiah Thomas.

Nobody doubts IT's ability to score for himself, but many doubt his ability to run a winning team or not be a liability on defense such that it is impossible for us to be a winning team.

But are they right in their doubt? What is silly and illogical is this general response to the specific addressed in the post. What is silly and illogical is changing the narrative from the specific performance of IT against the Spurs, which was in response to a specific in a post referring to IT's "mismatch"against Tony Parker due to his size, to a general abstract opinion based on people's perceptions. Isn't that the basis of "prejudice": to judge the specific solely on the basis of a general and ignorant idea. Was IT the defensive problem against the Bobs? Houston? Spurs? (Those are specifics). Hardly. And if it's really that simple - IT is too small, ergo he's the main reason in the defensive inadequacy of this tem - why don't Malone and DA and Vivek see the obvious? It shouldn't be all that difficult to trade IT for a Chalmers, a Douglas, a Cole, or someone else of that ilk. Problem solved. How come they don't just do the obvious so we can all watch the Kings defense improve tremendously and start winning again?