View previous topic :: View next topic |
Sheryl Swoopes or Maya Moore? |
Sheryl Swoopes |
|
56% |
[ 28 ] |
Maya Moore |
|
44% |
[ 22 ] |
|
Total Votes : 50 |
|
Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/18 7:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Skyfan22 wrote: |
Maybe you should loosen your concrete adherence to black and white when it comes to semantics. |
The irony in that statement is incredible.
All I was pointing out is that there was an obvious misunderstanding between what SJ meant and what other people understood him to mean. As someone with a doctorate in post-structural critical theory I fully support the fluidity of language and the deconstruction of subjectivity. In fact it comes as an enjoyable surprise to be accused of adhering to some concrete "black and white", since most of the time I am being labeled a "relativist". But suggesting that for the purposes of efficient communication understanding the normative usage of words, and providing detail if you are using them differently, is hardly being "black and white".
Remember, this debate started because one poster accused another about not understanding what "overrated" meant, when the original poster meant it in a non-normative way. I'm not really concerned with where people rank Moore at all. Reasonable people can easily disagree on that.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Skyfan22
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 Posts: 518
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 12:01 am ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Skyfan22 wrote: |
Maybe you should loosen your concrete adherence to black and white when it comes to semantics. |
The irony in that statement is incredible.
All I was pointing out is that there was an obvious misunderstanding between what SJ meant and what other people understood him to mean. As someone with a doctorate in post-structural critical theory I fully support the fluidity of language and the deconstruction of subjectivity. In fact it comes as an enjoyable surprise to be accused of adhering to some concrete "black and white", since most of the time I am being labeled a "relativist". But suggesting that for the purposes of efficient communication understanding the normative usage of words, and providing detail if you are using them differently, is hardly being "black and white".
Remember, this debate started because one poster accused another about not understanding what "overrated" meant, when the original poster meant it in a non-normative way. I'm not really concerned with where people rank Moore at all. Reasonable people can easily disagree on that. |
Well post doc here you go again. All you were trying to do. All you were trying to do is be an irritant. Just like all you were trying to do was stir up shit in the Dallas thread.
There are a finite number of words in the English language and they need to describe an infinite number of situations. The situation that was explained was done so reasonably by two separate posters. Then you refute my post stating that I should rank specifically how I rate the top players. What a fantastic stretch you make to tell me I should have my players numbered for a conversation instead of stating overrated. Speaking of not being normative. I’d bet most don’t have there too 10 or top 5 readily listed on a laminated card they carry with them.
Furthermore, If you were so relative then you would have been able to understand the description and applied it easily, rather than have another insulting retort. But instead, in your black and white view you have decided that you have determined what is normative for us. Thank you for defining it for the universe.
As for your alleged relativism, or moreover your unwillingness to listen to another point of view. This is certainly not the 1st time you’ve taken a stance that you’ve presented in absolutes when the situation is actually a lot less clear. I believe you laid out your version of the facts regarding flagrant fouls late last season. In that instance a whole lot of posters werent convinced in your attempt to state things in absolutes about what is and isn’t a flagrant foul.
Now I am sure you will have an absolute retort since you are unable to pause and consider a different point of view. So, I will let you have the last word as I will not respond. But, one final thought for you. 4 years ago this site was full of posters sharing tremendous ideas, but it has steadily become less populated with less information shared, and I feel it has to do with posts aimed at insulting others to stoke the posters own ego. So by all means, continue to attempt to bully other posters. It has been so fabulous for this site thus far.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 12:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Skyfan22 wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
Skyfan22 wrote: |
Maybe you should loosen your concrete adherence to black and white when it comes to semantics. |
The irony in that statement is incredible.
All I was pointing out is that there was an obvious misunderstanding between what SJ meant and what other people understood him to mean. As someone with a doctorate in post-structural critical theory I fully support the fluidity of language and the deconstruction of subjectivity. In fact it comes as an enjoyable surprise to be accused of adhering to some concrete "black and white", since most of the time I am being labeled a "relativist". But suggesting that for the purposes of efficient communication understanding the normative usage of words, and providing detail if you are using them differently, is hardly being "black and white".
Remember, this debate started because one poster accused another about not understanding what "overrated" meant, when the original poster meant it in a non-normative way. I'm not really concerned with where people rank Moore at all. Reasonable people can easily disagree on that. |
Well post doc here you go again. All you were trying to do. All you were trying to do is be an irritant. Just like all you were trying to do was stir up shit in the Dallas thread.
There are a finite number of words in the English language and they need to describe an infinite number of situations. The situation that was explained was done so reasonably by two separate posters. Then you refute my post stating that I should rank specifically how I rate the top players. What a fantastic stretch you make to tell me I should have my players numbered for a conversation instead of stating overrated. Speaking of not being normative. I’d bet most don’t have there too 10 or top 5 readily listed on a laminated card they carry with them.
Furthermore, If you were so relative then you would have been able to understand the description and applied it easily, rather than have another insulting retort. But instead, in your black and white view you have decided that you have determined what is normative for us. Thank you for defining it for the universe.
As for your alleged relativism, or moreover your unwillingness to listen to another point of view. This is certainly not the 1st time you’ve taken a stance that you’ve presented in absolutes when the situation is actually a lot less clear. I believe you laid out your version of the facts regarding flagrant fouls late last season. In that instance a whole lot of posters werent convinced in your attempt to state things in absolutes about what is and isn’t a flagrant foul.
Now I am sure you will have an absolute retort since you are unable to pause and consider a different point of view. So, I will let you have the last word as I will not respond. But, one final thought for you. 4 years ago this site was full of posters sharing tremendous ideas, but it has steadily become less populated with less information shared, and I feel it has to do with posts aimed at insulting others to stoke the posters own ego. So by all means, continue to attempt to bully other posters. It has been so fabulous for this site thus far. |
Okay, I am confused. What, exactly, was "insulting" in my post. And how was it at all bullying? All I have done is taken a position, and defended it. It is the cornerstone of good debate. Nowhere have I called anyone names or resorted to personal attacks.
And how am I telling you what to do when I specifically said that you can define this however you want and that your approach is a valid one? Or in other words, "you do you".
If you look back to how this all started, this was nothing more than me making a claim in support of another poster here (specifically RavenDog who was being told she didn't understand what "overrated" meant). My position was that she understood the term to mean how it is typically used, and thus it is unfair to her to say that she doesn't know what it means. Thus, the long and short of what I was saying: while it is absolutely valid to use the term in that way, don't jump all over posters when they don't realize how you are using it.
Not sure how standing up for someone else is bullying.
As for the Dallas thread I am really not sure how I was the one who "stirred up shit". I posted something that should have been about as non-controversial as can be, and another poster turned it into some insane drama like I posted a story about kicking puppies or something.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12494 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8151 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 6:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm more a fan of pre-structural uncritical practicality, and according to that perspective, Moore can rebound, shoot, pass and finish better and out-athlete Swoopes. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9544
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 10:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Skyfan22 wrote: |
Maya hasn’t known a team that was so heavily on her shoulders except the year she lost in college. |
Not sure she was ever a lone star at Connecticut. Moore was not on a title team twice in college. In 2008 Tennessee won and in 2011 it was Texas A&M. The 2008 Connecticut team had future WNBA players Charde Houston, Ketia Swanier, Renee Montgomery, Tina Charles and Kalana Green on it. The 2011 team had future WNBA players Tiffany Hayes, Kelly Faris, Stefanie Dolson and Bria Hartley on it. But Hartley and Dolson were freshman, and her scoring was the highest on that 2011 team. Four year per game scoring averages were: [17.8, 19.3, 18.9, 22.8].
Last edited by tfan on 03/08/18 11:18 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
LoveJanet
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 945
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11105
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 11:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I picked Moore, but Swoopes was much more athletic, in my estimation. Quicker, faster, jumped better ...
Moore is more fundamentally sound and more skilled.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66773 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 11:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
I picked Moore, but Swoopes was much more athletic, in my estimation. Quicker, faster, jumped better ...
Moore is more fundamentally sound and more skilled. |
Moore is also stronger, as one would expect from the 30 pound weight advantage.
_________________ Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66773 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63712
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66773 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Libra_Girl
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 Posts: 1237
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 1:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Skyfan22 wrote: |
Aladyyn wrote: |
Skyfan22 wrote: |
Aladyyn wrote: |
Ok, Fowles was better than Maya in 2017. What about the previous 3 titles? Specifically the 2 she won without Fowles? Swoopes won 0 after Cooper retired. None of the team based arguments go in Swoopes' favor. |
Hmmm,I believe both titles that Syl won as a Lynx, she was MVP of the finals. And kind of to the extent that it was beyond question. If we remove Syl, the finals MVP, do the lynx win 2 more titles? After cooper left then Swoopes played as part of the big 2 + arcain. When has maya not been comfortably positioned around 3 other stars, or more? |
Cooper won the FMVP for all 4 of the Comets titles. Point to Maya. |
Yes, it is a close comparison. And I believe Cooper was the best player on that team. I still think Swoopes is better. Maybe it’s because Moore has been surrounded by such support her whole career, but I don’t sense her ability to do it on her own. It would be interesting to see Maya play once her current team moves on. Will she be Able to establish herself Dominance without players to set her up, take some of the defensive pressure off her or be the leader of a team? |
While I understand your point and it has some validity, I disagree that "not being able to do it on her own" matters. Why? Because no player can do it on their own. No one player in the modern game of professional American basketball (NBA or WNBA) can single-handedly win a team a championship. Even the greatest stars need a supporting cast, and no matter how good you are if no one else on the team is a threat and team sell out against you, you can and will be shut down more often than not.
But all this feeds my original point, which I think has gotten lost in the noise. The poll question was not asking which player is better, it was asking who to build a franchise around. IMO, these are not the same thing. The reason I would want Moore is that she is the rare Superstar with little to no ego. She is a player that will get along with whatever other personalities I bring in, and as I noted, if I want to win I will need to bring in other stars/superstars. Also, she is a type of player that will do whatever we need to win games, even if that means taking a backseat to another player (as she demonstrated last year when the Lynx retooled their offense to feature Fowles as Reeve felt that was the best way to exploit mismatches against other teams).
And you get all this with a player who is one of the best players in WNBA history? That is who I would want to cornerstone my franchise as I build. |
Honest question will you take Moore to build a franchise around if she was a locker room problem with her top level talent cause I would. I know Tina Thompson said Houston had issues with each other but they still manage to work together to win 4 titles. Houston needed Swoopes to win all those title even if she wasn't the best teammate.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 2:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Libra_Girl wrote: |
Honest question will you take Moore to build a franchise around if she was a locker room problem with her top level talent cause I would. I know Tina Thompson said Houston had issues with each other but they still manage to work together to win 4 titles. Houston needed Swoopes to win all those title even if she wasn't the best teammate. |
Honestly, it depends on a whole bunch of factors. If I have a choice between two players that are close to equal in my evaluation I will take the "non-issue" player 100% of the time. If the talent gap is bigger, that could change. Of course that also depends on what the "problem" is. There are some things that are so disastrous to team chemistry that I wouldn't want them no matter how talented they were.
In this case I would take Swoopes over most players out there, but since I have Maya on the same tier as her I would go with Maya.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9544
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 8:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Best performance by either was Swoopes in the NCAA Finals, scoring 47 points. 177 points for the five games of the tournament.
|
|
Libra_Girl
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 Posts: 1237
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 12:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Libra_Girl wrote: |
Honest question will you take Moore to build a franchise around if she was a locker room problem with her top level talent cause I would. I know Tina Thompson said Houston had issues with each other but they still manage to work together to win 4 titles. Houston needed Swoopes to win all those title even if she wasn't the best teammate. |
Honestly, it depends on a whole bunch of factors. If I have a choice between two players that are close to equal in my evaluation I will take the "non-issue" player 100% of the time. If the talent gap is bigger, that could change. Of course that also depends on what the "problem" is. There are some things that are so disastrous to team chemistry that I wouldn't want them no matter how talented they were.
In this case I would take Swoopes over most players out there, but since I have Maya on the same tier as her I would go with Maya. |
I should have been more clear my question had nothing to do with Maya being a better teammate than Swoopes but was just wondering if you were the gm of a bad team that had 1st pick would u honest not pick a talent like Moore or even Swoopes if you were told about them not being the best teammates.My thing is talent over everything and the Houston Comets are the perfect example of that yes they had teammates issues but their talent helped them get titles.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 1:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Libra_Girl wrote: |
I should have been more clear my question had nothing to do with Maya being a better teammate than Swoopes but was just wondering if you were the gm of a bad team that had 1st pick would u honest not pick a talent like Moore or even Swoopes if you were told about them not being the best teammates.My thing is talent over everything and the Houston Comets are the perfect example of that yes they had teammates issues but their talent helped them get titles. |
It would depend on a lot of factors. Who is the alternative to the talented but problematic player? If there is someone close to their talent level I could draft instead, and that person would fit my team better I would go with them. I am likely to have a better overall product that way.
If there was a huge drop off in talent it would then depend on what not being the "best teammate" meant. If it was just a matter of having a strong personality that might rub other teammates with strong personalities the wrong way and lead to some clashes (a la Houston), I would draft them and expect my players to be professionals. If the player had a reputation of being a locker room cancer, on the other hand, and I didn't like what I heard in the interview process, I would pass on them no matter their talent. If a player is going to be so hated that other top players aren't going to want to sign with me, there is no way I could assemble a winning team.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 9:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
This year's draft may answer the question of talent v. trouble by where DeShields ends up being picked.
There have been other example - first one that comes to mind is R. Williams who fell all the way to round 2 on the basis of some unknown issues that got her kicked off her college team before the NCAA tournament. She was a early to mid first round pick before that, as I recall.
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12494 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 10:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
This year's draft may answer the question of talent v. trouble by where DeShields ends up being picked.
There have been other example - first one that comes to mind is R. Williams who fell all the way to round 2 on the basis of some unknown issues that got her kicked off her college team before the NCAA tournament. She was a early to mid first round pick before that, as I recall. |
Agreed i remember this , i had her going higher than her teammate Shenise Johnson , but i believe it was something dealing with drugs that got her kicked off dont quote me on that as its been years but im about 60% sure.
_________________ 3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3303
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 8:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
It would depend on a lot of factors. Who is the alternative to the talented but problematic player? If there is someone close to their talent level I could draft instead, and that person would fit my team better I would go with them. I am likely to have a better overall product that way. |
Wait a minute, back up: I thought that the original question was, which player would you choose as the foundation around which to build a team? If you're building the team around a player, then you make the team fit the player, not the other way around. It seems to me like you're answering the question, "If I needed one final piece to put my team over the top, would I choose Sheryl Swoopes, or Maya Moore?", which I did not think was the question being asked.
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 8:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Silky Johnson wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
It would depend on a lot of factors. Who is the alternative to the talented but problematic player? If there is someone close to their talent level I could draft instead, and that person would fit my team better I would go with them. I am likely to have a better overall product that way. |
Wait a minute, back up: I thought that the original question was, which player would you choose as the foundation around which to build a team? If you're building the team around a player, then you make the team fit the player, not the other way around. It seems to me like you're answering the question, "If I needed one final piece to put my team over the top, would I choose Sheryl Swoopes, or Maya Moore?", which I did not think was the question being asked. |
I wasn't answering the original question here. I was answering the one Libra_Girl asked me about whether I would honestly pass on a talented but troubled player at #1 if I were the GM drafting them.
But I also think GMs or coaches who are building a team have a blueprint for what they would like to see. In the example I was giving for the hypothetical, if there were two generational players available and I could take whatever one I wanted, I would take the one that fits the style and personality of the team I wished to build. If there were only one available, I would have to tailor the team around the player.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Luuuc #NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 21901
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 8:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I feel like there are some liberties being taken with the chemistry thing. The Houston Comets proved very conclusively that not everyone needs to be BFFs away from the court in order to play great basketball on it.
_________________ Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 9:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Luuuc wrote: |
I feel like there are some liberties being taken with the chemistry thing. The Houston Comets proved very conclusively that not everyone needs to be BFFs away from the court in order to play great basketball on it. |
Without a doubt. It's just that we are being offered a choice here between two players that are both generational talents. It's not like taking the easier to manage personality comes with a significant decrease in talent. Why not take the one that makes building and managing a team easier, and more likely to have long term cohesion?
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
|
|