If only Sac had this REEF?

[jrahn]

In the couple of jumper that shareef took in that reel, he had a decent arch on the ball, alot different these days.

 

[BawLa]

Indeed.

Last got one in December of '05.

Oh bah humbug.

You forgot the important part of that statement. Here it is again for you in bold.

I think the biggest reason his rebounding numbers are down the last couple years is because last year we had Bonzi who was a rebounding maniac, and this year Ron is focusing on rebounding. Plus KT is competing for playing time so all of those factor into his #'s going down. He gets a lot of scrutiny around here from fans about rebounding but he can still get a double-double any game IMO and should be treated as such.

And I should add that he isn't getting double-double type of minutes.

 

[Roman]

Reef was a blackhole in that era not because of shooting stats, but because of how long and often he had to hold the ball to get those shooting stats. If you have to hold the ball for 10 secs, throw it out, catch again and then finally make a move to get your points, you can be an efficient shooter while still using up a disproportionate amount of your team's offensive opportunities.

Obviously, you did not watch much Shareef in that era did you? You act like you've sat down and watched every game ever and attempt to pass your opinion off as a person who has watched a lot on a particular topic. Shareef didn't "hold the ball" in those days. In fact, that didn't really become part of his arsenal until his last year in Vancouver.

It was a set play to take advantage of the double teams. When SAR attacked, doubles immediately came and SAR was not especially good at passing out of them because he spun baseline and would become cut off.

So the coach had him face the basket more and wait for doubles before passing.

In his early years, SAR was much more prone to attack the instant he touched the ball rather than the touchy-feely stuff he does now.

This is how even an efficient scorer can end up with inflated numbers on a bad team -- they have nobody else so they allow that scorer to dominate the touches and ball far more than a team with other options would.

Again, you're blowing hot air. Nothing you said is remotely true.

Shareef led his team in shots, but never by a wide margin.
His shots (Other leading shooters)

• YR 1: 15 (14,14)
  • Total Shots By Team - 6453
  • Total Shots By Utah - 6217
  • Total Shots By Lakers - 6642
  • Total Shots By Detroit - 6095
  • LG AVG: 6505 (-52)
    
• YR 2: 16 (13, 3*10)
  • Total Shots By Team - 6567
  • Total Shots By Lakers - 6536
  • Total Shots By Bulls - 6801
  • Total Shots By Atlanta - 6352
  • LG AVG: 6524 (+43) / LG MEDIAN: 6455 (+112)
• YR 3: 17.9 (12, 11)
  • Total Shots By Team - 3838
  • Total Shots By Atlanta - 3760
  • Total Shots By Indiana - 3866
  • Total Shots By Heat - 3565
  • LG AVG: 3912 (-74) / LG MEDIAN: 3937 (-99)
• YR 4: 15.6 (15, 12, 10)
  • Total Shots By Team - 6440
  • Total Shots By Indiana - 6640
  • Total Shots By NYK - 6372
  • Total Shots By Utah - 6380
  • LG AVG: 6742 (-302) / LG MEDIAN: 6773 (-333)
    
  • REMOVE TOP 3/BOTTOM 3: 6508 (-68)
    
• YR 5: 15.8 (15, 14)
  • Total Shots By Team - 6539
  • Total Shots By Phili - 6487
  • Total Shots By Kings - 6989
  • Total Shots By Spurs - 6262
  • Total Shots By Atlanta - 6668
  • LG AVG: 6611 (-72) / LG MEDIAN: 6541 (-2)
    
  • REMOVE TOP 3/BOTTOM 3: 6604 (-65)
    
• YR 6: 16.8 (16, 9)
  • Total Shots By Team - 6610
  • Total Shots By Dallas - 6930
  • Total Shots By Kings - 7003
  • Total Shots By Nets - 6816
  • Total Shots By Memphis - 6535
  • LG AVG: 6666 (-56) / LG MEDIAN: 6666 (-56)
    
• YR 7: 14.6 (18, 14)
  • Total Shots By Team - 6434
  • Total Shots By Kings - 6990
  • Total Shots By Nets - 6585
  • Total Shots By Phili - 6436
  • LG AVG: 6636 (-202) / LG MEDIAN: 6652 (-218)

After that, his playing time becomes erratic.

What you say is that "when SAR touches the ball more, the offense stagnates more". The fact is the opposite trend has held true. The more offensive touches SAR has (shots) the more the team shoots compared to the league and compared year to year.

Granted, I will admit the caveat here is that shots equate to how many "touches" a player gets.

Thus I compared the numbers each year to some of the random "top teams" of that year in total number of shots. In no year was there a large differential, except for the strike year and the year after, unless compared to the elite "offensive" teams of the day. In no uncertain terms were the Hawks or Grizz of that caliber talentwise as those types of teams, so the comparison is unfair. Comparing them to the league was far more fair. So, that number is at the bottom of each year.

If you look at the number of shots SAR has to the number of shots the team had you'll notice that the more he shoots the more touches the whole team had. Further, when you compare that number to the league average in that year, you'll see that more touches to SAR meant more touches for the team.

The lower the number of shots, the higher the differential against the league.

Throw in the fact he rarely passed even when doubled (mayhap a good idea given those teammates) and you potentially have a guy maxing out his own game, but not necessarily his teams'.

Yeah, that's not remotely true either. You can see this in the above stats as well.

From that era though I would classify Reef's performances as more of those of a false star, than a guy getting stats pummped up. He dominated the ball too much, did not pass much, but still had a lot of talent. Teh issue with him is that he added exactly 0 wins to his teams' totals. Completely ineffective as a #1 player, whatever the stats.

Did you look at those rosters? I don't care who you have on those teams, they don't win.

Let's compare that to Chris Bosh, who isn't playing for an "expansion team". His stats are irrelevant, I guess? I mean, his team has done little to nothing with his numbers.

Kevin Garnett the past two years?

Mike Bibby last year?

I don't think anyone would claim that SAR is a "next level" player, but it's not his offense that's lacking. There are only a select few players that can truly rise the level of play by everyone around them.

All of SAR's teams needed a solid coach for more than 1 year and a solid core. They were minus that Artest-type player to kick them over the top. They were defensive jokes and they needed that player to help out.

Their core was a bunch of youngsters given direction by a first year coach. That wasn't going to hack it, don't care who was on the team. If you removed SAR and replaced him with almost any player in the league, those teams are still lotto teams.

He had talent worthy of those stats, but never made anybody better or lifted his team with them.

How many of those players exist or have ever existed?

In the league right now, I'd say 5? Duncan, Shaq, Nash, Kidd, ??

So, because SAR isn't a top 5-10 player in the league you find reason to bash him? I just don't get it.

 

[Bricklayer]

I just don't get it.

No, you don't. Which is of course one of the reasons I "bash" Reef for being one of the most talented bigtime losers in the history of the NBA. Nothing quite like a little fanboi club running after a dramatically overrated soft n' pretty player with "isn't he pretty, isn't he nice!" chubbies to draw my ire.

And you just spent 10000 words in praise of a guy who might not even be Top 100 in the NBA anymore. Now there's something not to get.

As an aside, it is your utter cluelessness about the nature of great players that taints every single post you make. You just don't get it. And not getting it makes your conclusions about Reef unfortuinately inevitable. You simply lack the ability to distinguish. Do you know how many sub 30 win teams even flawed stars like Pierce, A.I., KG have played on since Reef entered the league?

 

[BMiller52]

In the couple of jumper that shareef took in that reel, he had a decent arch on the ball, alot different these days.

His springs in his legs are gone.

 

[nbrans]

No, you don't. Which is of course one of the reasons I "bash" Reef for being one of the most talented bigtime losers in the history of the NBA. Nothing quite like a little fanboi club running after a dramatically overrated soft n' pretty player with "isn't he pretty, isn't he nice!" chubbies to draw my ire.

And you just spent 10000 words in praise of a guy who might not even be Top 100 in the NBA anymore. Now there's something not to get.

As an aside, it is your utter cluelessness about the nature of great players that taints every single post you make. You just don't get it. And not getting it makes your conclusions about Reef unfortuinately inevitable. You simply lack the ability to distinguish. Do you know how many sub 30 win teams even flawed stars like Pierce, A.I., KG have played on since Reef entered the league?

I can count how many sub 30 win teams flawed stars Mike Bibby and Ron Artest have played for: 6. 3 for Artest and 3 for Bibby. Flawed star Chris Webber played for a sub-30 win team. Oh, and two of the players you mentioned, AI and KG, actually played for sub-30 win teams. Now, granted, it was their rookie years, but they also had their worst supporting casts at the time...... which just might have something to do with it. Oh, and the Celtics won 33 games last year.

 

[Wheeler03]

This thread is absolutely hilarious.

 

[Wheeler03]

I really don't think Roman or nban (sorry if I spelled name wrong) are asserting that Shareef is a top-flight player anymore. Their central argument is simply that we as a team have been playing better (granted its only been a couple of games) when Reef has been somewhat involved down in the paint. Brad Miller really does not bring any post game, thus, when Reef is relegated back to the bench this team will likely play inconsistently because the starting 5 (minus SAR) relies far too heavily on jumpshots. That, my friend, is not a recipe for success in the NBA -- perhaps highschool basketball. And I know you are thinking Reef can come off the bench and be the focal point; however, the evidence shows that Reef off the bench usually plays with 3 or 4 other starters and he generally plays only 20 minutes per game.

There is another point to consider. With the exception of when the Kings play the likes of Yao or Shaq they are unlikely to miss Miller's 7'0 frame. There simply are not enough true centers in the NBA. And it is not true that we struggle to rebound when Reef is in the starting 5 because as a unit the Kings rebound quite well. If Reef's presence was resulting in a large number of offensive rebounds then I could understand the argument. Fortunately, that is not the case.

Sorry I went off on a tangent there and abandoned the point of my post. Generally, those in our corner think the team will benefit from SAR getting about 14 shots per game (with most coming from the paint). Those will be high % shots, draw double teams, draw fouls, slow the game down and result in open shots for the likes of Bibby, Artest or a slashing Kevin Martin. And finally, I still do not understand why you cannot credit SAR for his very impressive career over his first 7-years. To say he was a fake star reeks of ignorance. People are making broad statements about his game when obviously (because you were Kings fans and not Vancouver or Atlanta fans, which is lucky for you) you only saw him play whenever he played SacTown. The Olympic committee saw something they liked because he was a member of the 2000 squad, which still merited being labeled "The Dream Team."

 

[Wheeler03]

Bricklayer......please refrain from calling people who enjoy Shareef Abdur-Rahim's game "clueless." IMO that is VERY inappropriate.


Sincerely,
President and Founder of
Abdur-Rahim's fanclub

 

[Larry89]

A motivated Shareef is a good Shareef, sans Spurs Vs Kings Playoff game 2 2006..

 

[RaY Z]

i remember someone on these boards mentioning that brick was a former lawyer... if i remember correctly...

mabye thats why he can seem this way at times... but dw he's cool....

trust me kingsfans.com forums would suck without him...

also a contributor sooo helps in someway in helping this website run...

 

[Roman]

No, you don't. Which is of course one of the reasons I "bash" Reef for being one of the most talented bigtime losers in the history of the NBA. Nothing quite like a little fanboi club running after a dramatically overrated soft n' pretty player with "isn't he pretty, isn't he nice!" chubbies to draw my ire.

Wow. Isn't that nice. A moderator talking about fanboi's and chubbies.

Isn't it odd that if we were to do the same thing, we'd get infractions.

The simple fact is - you assume I'm a fanboi. I'm not. I just don't understand your stance. I think it's quite ignorant. You bash SAR without knowing his game, you spout things without having the facts worked out. That's ignorant.

Tossing out names and making fun of people that like SAR doesn't make you right, it makes your stance more ignorant.

Now - before I get infractions and these post deleted - I'm NOT calling you ignorant. I'm saying the way you attack people is ignorant. Two different things.

And you just spent 10000 words in praise of a guy who might not even be Top 100 in the NBA anymore. Now there's something not to get.

Praise?

I guess if saying that a guy can play offense and isn't the root of all that is evil is "high praise" then so be it.

What I said, quite simply, is that you're dead wrong and proved it.

As an aside, it is your utter cluelessness about the nature of great players that taints every single post you make.

Okay.

You just don't get it.

Enlighten me, Obi-Wan.

And not getting it makes your conclusions about Reef unfortuinately inevitable.

Or perhaps you're so full of your own horse manure you actually can't examine things objectively. Perhaps you're clouded by your own hate.

You simply lack the ability to distinguish.

Cool. I was about to say you lack the ability to debate the points I made above, so that's fair.

Do you know how many sub 30 win teams even flawed stars like Pierce, A.I., KG have played on since Reef entered the league?

Yes, I do. I'll answer that in a minute.

Since you're so keen on asking me pointless questions while completely ignoring the relevant facts surrounding the situation, let me ask you some questions that help out.

• Do you know how many expansion teams Pierce, AI, KG have been asked to carry since they entered the league?
  • 0
• Do you know how many large minute players from SARs teams were full-time starters (or had significant games played) after/before Vancouver/Atlanta (or stayed and played high level)?
  • 21 players. Let's look at the cream of the crop, can you name them?
    • Bryant Reeves (12.5 / 6.9 / 1.6) VAN
      • 3 seasons before gaining weight and leaving starting center position to 6'8" Tony Mass. Even when he started, he was a poor man's Brad Miller. Preferring an outside shot, no defense and no rebounding.
    • George Lynch (6.6 / 5.0 / 1.4) VAN
      • 6'8" PF. Defensive type player. Logged starter minutes in Philly for 3 seasons.
    • Otis Thorpe (14.0 / 8.2 / 2.2) VAN
      • 36 years old on Grizzlies. Half-season. Never started after leaving Grizz.
    • Tony Massenburg (6.2 / 4.3 / .4) VAN
      • 6'9" C. Averaged 13 MPG after Vancouver. Pretty good for a 34 year old.
    • Antonio Daniels (8.0 / 1.3 / 3.3) VAN
      • Played 1 year in Vancouver and that was rookie yea after being picked 4th in the draft. Averaged 21MPG off the bench since.
    • Mike Bibby (16.7 / 3.3 / 6.4) VAN
      • Played together for Mike's first 3 seasons in the league for 3 different coaches. Moved to a great team and has been just as good since.
    • Othella Harrington (7.7 / 4.6 / .7) VAN
      • After playing as a starter in Vancouver for 2 seasons, went on to play an average of 17.8 MPG off the bench. Of note - he did start for a year for the Knicks.
    • Damon Jones (6.8 / 1.6 / 1.8) VAN
      • Nice backup off the bench during his stint in Vancouver and after.
    • Stromile Swift (9.0 / 4.5 / .1) VAN
      • Known to be a bust and got to help SAR out his rookie year. Go STRO!
    • Grant Long (9.5 / 6.1 / 1.7) VAN
      • Nice player, before he turned 34 when he came to Vancouver.
    • Jason Terry (15.8 / 3.0 / 5.3) ATL
      • Nice player. Terrible PG. Have you seen him since Dallas moved him to SG?
    • Nazr Mohammad (7.1 / 5.7 / .4) ATL
      • Second tallest center SAR has played with at 6'10". Has done some things and started a few games. Still a bench player rather than a starter.
    • DerMarr Johnson (6.6 / 2.4 / 1) ATL
      • Nice to see him get 15 minutes a game!
    • Toni Kukoc (11.6 / 4.2 / 3.7) ATL
      • One of the better players SAR's had on his team, too bad he was hurt and only a part of the team 1 year. (not to mention 33)
    • Jaque Vaughn (4.8 / 1.4 / 2.6) ATL
      • Got to play 2 more years after leaving Atlanta. I think you can see him in Europe.
    • Theo Ratliff (8.0 / 6.2 / .5) ATL
      • Wish he could have stayed healthy. Good player.
    • Glenn Robinson (20.7 / 6.1 / 2.7) ATL
      • Ummm ... worst. defender. ever. Career low shooting % and career high TOs with his 1 year in ATL. Did he play again after?
    • Dan Dickau (6.7 / 1.4 / 2.8) ATL
      • Rookie season and SAR got to play with this stud among studs.
    • Ira Newble (5.4 / 3.0 / 1.0) ATL
      • He played 3 years after leaving ATL. Got to start too. Until they realized he sucked and was a 6'7" PF.
    • Stephen Jackson (13.8 / 3.7 / 2.4) ATL
      • Decent. Headcase. Hated his game.
    • Boris Diaw (7.8 / 3.8 / 3.7)
      • Rookie year. Coach gave him no minutes. People considered him a bust.
• How many of players on all of SAR's teams ever made an all-star team?
  • 3.
    • Glenn Robinson
    • Theo Ratliff
    • SAR
• Do you know how many large minute players from the Kings, which barely made the playoffs, from LAST YEAR were full-time starters (or had significant games played) after/before the Kings (or stayed and played high level)?
  • 7. Can you name them?
    • Mike Bibby (16.7 / 3.3 / 6.4)
    • Shareef Abdur-Rahim (19.1 / 7.8 / 2.7)
    • Kenny Thomas (10.6 / 7.4 / 1.7)
    • Bonzi Wells (12.8 / 4.7 / 2.3)
    • Ron Artest (14.8 / 4.8 / 3.1) / Peja (18.4 / 5.1 / 2.0)
    • Kevin Martin (7.8 / 2.7 / 1.0)
    • Brad Miller (12.3 / 7.8 / 2.3)
• How many of the players on the Kings roster that got significant minutes made an all-star game?
  • 4
    • SAR
    • Peja
    • Ron Artest
    • Brad Miller
• Realistically, how many players from the lists above would you swap (at any point in their respective careers)? (SAR for SAR doesn't count)
  • NONE!!!!

Now that I've asked you some questions (and supplied the answers, since you're not so adept at arguing points), I'll answer your question:

AI - 1. But, he's been on 5 "better than .500 teams" in 11 years. Only 1 in the past 3 years. But, he's hardly been struggling for a supporting cast of roleplayers.

Pierce - 1. He's only been on 3 "better than .500 teams" in 8 years. 0 in the past 3 years. He's had a pretty sub-standard team for most of his career and I'm not going to nail the guy for being the lone player on a lot of those squads.

KG - 1. His TEAM only won 33 games last year and that was bubble. The great thing about KG is he's usually been surrounded by talent and roleplayers. He's never had a squad that was just dreadful until ... pretty much last year (and I'd still take that team over most of anything SAR had).

What you failing to make the connect on is that this is a team game. Only a handful of players can play so far above the greats to inspire (or carry) everyone else. I've yet to say SAR is one of those players, what I have said is that you kick him in the teeth because he's not.

You expect him to carry these teams ... that were desperately hopeless into the promised land. Yet, there isn't a player on those teams I'd swap for any player on our current roster (save maybe Boris Diaw for KT).

You treat him like he's Tim Duncan. If he's so sub-standard, you'd think he'd get a break from you.

 

[Kevin's Good Feet]

And you just spent 10000 words in praise of a guy who might not even be Top 100 in the NBA anymore. Now there's something not to get.

And you spent an entire post not only completely avoiding responding to his points but resorting to name calling as well. I was under the impression that posters were held to a higher standard than this. I think Rome brought up some good points and deserves to have them responded to with something other than generic talking points

 

[Wheeler03]

Alright boys....lets quit with the squibbling. It is all just fun and games and not something to be taken too seriously.

 

[6th]

I think the entire thread should be erased.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I think the point of the thread was that some posters were pining for the SAR of yesteryear. Others were not impressed. Personally I find such debates as pointless as discussions about who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman...

What we have is the current state of Reefness, for better or worse.

 

[Wheeler03]

They are most definately a pointless exercise in futility; however, that is some of the fun of it.

 

[Wheeler03]

On a side note: did anyone see Peja flat out catch fire at the beginning of his game tonight. Unbelievably, he scored the first 25 points for his team. That is quite impressive.

 

[VF21]

Enough is enough, IMHO.

This is ridiculous. This board is NOT going to turn into a testosterone-laden pissing contest. A couple of you apparently have no respect for the board, for what we've accomplished here or what we're trying to keep going.

If you want to disagree with someone, fine. Do so. But the insults are going to stop. If you want to throw your chests out and pound on them, please find somewhere else to do it...

It got old quite a while ago.

I've closed this thread because it's deterioriated into something pretty ugly for Kingsfans.com

I'm going to repeat this once more... KNOCK OFF THE STUPID INSULTS.

Thanks ever so. If the shoe fits, wear it.