RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Swoopes vs Moore
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Sheryl Swoopes or Maya Moore?
Sheryl Swoopes
56%
 56%  [ 28 ]
Maya Moore
44%
 44%  [ 22 ]
Total Votes : 50

Author Message
RavenDog



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5834



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 5:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
RavenDog wrote:
Shocked You either haven't watched/followed much women's basketball or are in serious need of glasses.


Nope, more likely you don't know what 'overrated' means. And also, there's different degrees of overrated; you're reacting like me saying that she's overrated is semantically equivalent to me saying that she's no better than Laurie Koehn, or somebody.

The math is simple: if you think she's the GOAT ("Royal" you, not saying that you, @RavenDog, do specifically), and I think she isn't, then that means I think that you have overrated her. Based on what appears to be the consensus on this board, it would seem as though many WNBA fans consider Maya Moore to either be the GOAT women's basketball player, or in the Top 3, all-time. I do not have Moore in my Top 3 all-time, therefore I think she is overrated. Hell, I could have her at #4, and that would still make Top 3 overrated.


Bingooooo Laughing


No, it's Basketball...

You two have a nice day.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49073



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 6:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Swoopes being on the 2011 Tulsa Shock didn’t change their fortunes.
They went 3-31, the worst team in WNBA history.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3499
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 6:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Swoopes being on the 2011 Tulsa Shock didn’t change their fortunes.
They went 3-31, the worst team in WNBA history.


Not everybody can be great past 40 though.


Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18688



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 6:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

When a player clearly past their expiration date - to borrow a term from Katie Smith - is still considered valuable by a team, then to me that says something positive about them.
But hey, it's easer to take shots.
Swoopes scored 3 times more points in her final season than LJ did, so that proves LJ was a pretty crappy player too I guess.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7491
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 6:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
Swoopes being on the 2011 Tulsa Shock didn’t change their fortunes.
They went 3-31, the worst team in WNBA history.


Not everybody can be great past 40 though.


+1



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49073



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 7:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
Swoopes being on the 2011 Tulsa Shock didn’t change their fortunes.

They went 3-31, the worst team in WNBA history.


Not everybody can be great past 40 though.


Hmm... I guess she was 40 at the time. Maya probably has enough self awareness to realize she can no longer help a team and would tap out before then.

Swoopes and others felt she was still a viable player. It’s still an indelible part of her resume. We’ll see if Maya is ever part of a bad team. It hasn’t happened yet... ever. The 2014 Lynx had every excuse to be a terrible team, but she put them on her back.

To summarize:
1. Maya has self awareness.
2. Maya makes teammates better.
3. Maya is capable of putting the team on her back.
4. Maya has always won at every level solidifying points 2 & 3.
5. Maya will be the GOAT. She’s already close as it is.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7491
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 7:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
Swoopes being on the 2011 Tulsa Shock didn’t change their fortunes.

They went 3-31, the worst team in WNBA history.


Not everybody can be great past 40 though.


Hmm... I guess she was 40 at the time. Maya probably has enough self awareness to realize she can no longer help a team and would tap out before then.

Swoopes and others felt she was still a viable player. It’s still an indelible part of her resume. We’ll see if Maya is ever part of a bad team. It hasn’t happened yet... ever. The 2014 Lynx had every excuse to be a terrible team, but she put them on her back.

To summarize:
1. Maya has self awareness.
2. Maya makes teammates better.
3. Maya is capable of putting the team on her back.
4. Maya has always won at every level solidifying points 2 & 3.
5. Maya will be the GOAT. She’s already close as it is.


Did you watch sheryl play in her prime and in the 90's ? Just asking a serious question ?



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49073



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/18 7:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:

Did you watch sheryl play in her prime and in the 90's ? Just asking a serious question ?


That’s part of the problem for Swoopes advocates. I don’t remember a whole lot about Swoopes, other than that 2011 team and her getting hurt pretty badly in a game against the Lynx. How am I supposed to hold her in more reverence in comparison with somebody proving to be one of the world’s most perfect athletes? Am I supposed Google stats like SpaceJunkie and watch a few clips of Swoopes on YouTube to conclude she was a better player than Maya? It’s not going to happen.

But of course the person who started this topic knew that it would cause angst and hard feelings. Topics like this always do. He knew what he was doing.

Maya is overrated? Ridiculous.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
sigur3



Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6168
Location: Chicago-ish


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 12:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:

But of course the person who started this topic knew that it would cause angst and hard feelings. Topics like this always do. He knew what he was doing.


Did this topic make you upset?


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 8:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As other people have picked up on, the answer to this question isn't necessarily who the best player is, but who you can rely on to be a franchise cornerstone. And though I think Swoopes in her prime was a more well-rounded player than Moore, with Moore you get about 2000% less batshit crazy drama. So I'd rather build a franchise around Moore.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5112
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 10:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
justintyme wrote:


Maya is the epitome of a team player who gets along with literally everyone. And a leader with that personality type shapes a team in that image.


Just to get it out of the way, I voted for Moore. My question though is about being the team leader. Is Moore really the take charge leader of the Lynx? On the Dream there is no question it was Angel; on the Fever it was Catchings, the Liberty it's Tina, and on the Mystics/Sky it was Elana.* On the Lynx though, it isn't clear to me that Moore is that take charge leader, but I don't watch that many Lynx games so maybe I just don't know. Is that how Lynx fans see her? I sort of thought it was Whalen recently and before that Augustus.


*As an aside, I'm pretty sure not all the players on that list are the ideal "team players".


Some lead, like Jordan and Kobe, "I'm the leader. Lets go." Others lead by example and involving others, like say, Akeem Olajuwan and Steve Nash. Moore is more like the latter. Swoopes like the former.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
jap



Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 7445



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.


Maya: "I'll have you know I'm exciting where it counts in my private life, Buddy!!! I just don't need to paint the town red to prove I'm having fun like other folks do!"



_________________
Regards,
J A P
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7491
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 12:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.


Post of the month Laughing Laughing My thoughts exactly , nothing wrong with that though !



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 12:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.

So in other words, Maya Moore is a leader in a Tim Duncan-ish way. Worked well for Tim, and seems to be working well for Maya.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
mavcarter



Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 4646
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 1:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Wasn't even worth it. Razz Laughing




Last edited by mavcarter on 03/07/18 11:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Aladyyn



Joined: 23 Jul 2017
Posts: 1138
Location: Czech Republic


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 1:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.

So in other words, Maya Moore is a leader in a Tim Duncan-ish way. Worked well for Tim, and seems to be working well for Maya.

That comparison is on-point. Even down to being drafted by a "stacked team" that never won anything before they arrived Very Happy


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 1:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.

So in other words, Maya Moore is a leader in a Tim Duncan-ish way. Worked well for Tim, and seems to be working well for Maya.


That's not a comparison that leaps immediately to mind, probably because their styles of play are so different, but it works. I never saw Duncan as much of a leader either.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
Skyfan22



Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Posts: 244



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 8:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
RavenDog wrote:
Shocked You either haven't watched/followed much women's basketball or are in serious need of glasses.


Nope, more likely you don't know what 'overrated' means. And also, there's different degrees of overrated; you're reacting like me saying that she's overrated is semantically equivalent to me saying that she's no better than Laurie Koehn, or somebody.

The math is simple: if you think she's the GOAT ("Royal" you, not saying that you, @RavenDog, do specifically), and I think she isn't, then that means I think that you have overrated her. Based on what appears to be the consensus on this board, it would seem as though many WNBA fans consider Maya Moore to either be the GOAT women's basketball player, or in the Top 3, all-time. I do not have Moore in my Top 3 all-time, therefore I think she is overrated. Hell, I could have her at #4, and that would still make Top 3 overrated.

While semantically true, if someone you feel is a top 4 player is typically considered a top 3 player by most others you will only confuse people by arguing that player is "overrated". This is because that is not how the term is typically understood in these sorts of debates. When someone says a player is overrated usually it is by matter of degree (eg: good versus very good, very good versus one of the best ever". Or better yet, by matter of tier. If people have that player as a tier 1 player, and you have them as a tier 2, the it would be common to say you find them "overrated".

But when the difference in something so subjective by nature is only 1 or two spots arguing "overrated" doesn't make much sense, since that sort of difference would be well within the "margin of error", if you will.


I disagree. There is a difference when you’re talking topplayer in the world. Also, when talking top 3 in the world. It may even be pretty significant if you’re discussing top ten and a player is frequently placed 1-2 spots ahead of what someone else considers the number 8 in stead of number ten in the world. When a player is in the elitist of company and she is referred to as overrated when she is argued to be better than the 3 or 4 player it seems very fair to state one’s opinion as she is overrated.

You sort of elude to this in your commentabout margin of error. The margin of error becomes very small when discussing the very top.

Now, when discussing top 100 players and there is needling whether a plate a who is 48 vs. 49, then, yes then the distinction is watered down and the term overrated would seem inappropriate.


sigur3



Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6168
Location: Chicago-ish


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:
Shades wrote:
But of course the person who started this topic knew that it would cause angst and hard feelings. Topics like this always do. He knew what he was doing.


Laughing You're an idiot.


Come on mav, stop knowingly causing angst and hard feelings.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/06/18 8:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Skyfan22 wrote:
[
I disagree. There is a difference when you’re talking topplayer in the world. Also, when talking top 3 in the world. It may even be pretty significant if you’re discussing top ten and a player is frequently placed 1-2 spots ahead of what someone else considers the number 8 in stead of number ten in the world. When a player is in the elitist of company and she is referred to as overrated when she is argued to be better than the 3 or 4 player it seems very fair to state one’s opinion as she is overrated.

You sort of elude to this in your commentabout margin of error. The margin of error becomes very small when discussing the very top.

Now, when discussing top 100 players and there is needling whether a plate a who is 48 vs. 49, then, yes then the distinction is watered down and the term overrated would seem inappropriate.

Well people can define these things however they want, so the approach you describe is valid. However, you will have to allow for the fact that most people will not understand what you are talking about if you call someone "overrated" and you simply mean #4 rather than #3. Most people are going to think you are saying that she belongs substantially lower on the list, and you will likely have to spend more time explaining what you meant.

If a player is held by general consensus to be a top 3 player, and you think there is one player in the history of the league that should be above her that typically isn't placed there, calling her "overrated" is going to confuse a lot of people about what you are saying. People aren't going to read that as you think she and the player below her should be flipped, they are going to think you are saying she is significantly lower on your list. If you just mean she is #4, why not just say "not top 3" or explain who you rank higher?



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
mavcarter



Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 4646
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 11:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sigur3 wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
Shades wrote:
But of course the person who started this topic knew that it would cause angst and hard feelings. Topics like this always do. He knew what he was doing.


Laughing You're an idiot.


Come on mav, stop knowingly causing angst and hard feelings.


Mr. Green


Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 815



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 12:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Skyfan22 wrote:

I disagree. There is a difference when you’re talking topplayer in the world. Also, when talking top 3 in the world. It may even be pretty significant if you’re discussing top ten and a player is frequently placed 1-2 spots ahead of what someone else considers the number 8 in stead of number ten in the world. When a player is in the elitist of company and she is referred to as overrated when she is argued to be better than the 3 or 4 player it seems very fair to state one’s opinion as she is overrated.

You sort of elude to this in your commentabout margin of error. The margin of error becomes very small when discussing the very top.

Now, when discussing top 100 players and there is needling whether a plate a who is 48 vs. 49, then, yes then the distinction is watered down and the term overrated would seem inappropriate.

Well people can define these things however they want, so the approach you describe is valid. However, you will have to allow for the fact that most people will not understand what you are talking about if you call someone "overrated" and you simply mean #4 rather than #3. Most people are going to think you are saying that she belongs substantially lower on the list, and you will likely have to spend more time explaining what you meant.

If a player is held by general consensus to be a top 3 player, and you think there is one player in the history of the league that should be above her that typically isn't placed there, calling her "overrated" is going to confuse a lot of people about what you are saying. People aren't going to read that as you think she and the player below her should be flipped, they are going to think you are saying she is significantly lower on your list. If you just mean she is #4, why not just say "not top 3" or explain who you rank higher?


FWIW, I never said that I had Moore at #4**. I said that I could consider Moore to be overrated if the general consensus had her as Top 3, and I had her at #4. And @Skyfan22 has it right. Sure, I'll stipulate that it becomes a pedantic splitting of hairs when you're using 'overrated' to delineate between the 100th-best player and the 101st-best player, but I would argue that it's a distinction that still matters when you're talking about the GOAT versus Top 3, or Top 3 versus Top 5, or Top 5 versus Top 10.

** For the record, I do not have Maya Moore at #4, either. My Top 4, all-time (in no particular order), are Swoopes, Catchings, Jackson and Taurasi.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 815



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
WNBA 09 wrote:

Did you watch sheryl play in her prime and in the 90's ? Just asking a serious question ?


That’s part of the problem for Swoopes advocates. I don’t remember a whole lot about Swoopes, other than that 2011 team and her getting hurt pretty badly in a game against the Lynx. How am I supposed to hold her in more reverence in comparison with somebody proving to be one of the world’s most perfect athletes? Am I supposed Google stats like SpaceJunkie and watch a few clips of Swoopes on YouTube to conclude she was a better player than Maya? It’s not going to happen.


*coughrecencybiascough*



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
Skyfan22



Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Posts: 244



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 6:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Skyfan22 wrote:
[
I disagree. There is a difference when you’re talking topplayer in the world. Also, when talking top 3 in the world. It may even be pretty significant if you’re discussing top ten and a player is frequently placed 1-2 spots ahead of what someone else considers the number 8 in stead of number ten in the world. When a player is in the elitist of company and she is referred to as overrated when she is argued to be better than the 3 or 4 player it seems very fair to state one’s opinion as she is overrated.

You sort of elude to this in your commentabout margin of error. The margin of error becomes very small when discussing the very top.

Now, when discussing top 100 players and there is needling whether a plate a who is 48 vs. 49, then, yes then the distinction is watered down and the term overrated would seem inappropriate.

Well people can define these things however they want, so the approach you describe is valid. However, you will have to allow for the fact that most people will not understand what you are talking about if you call someone "overrated" and you simply mean #4 rather than #3. Most people are going to think you are saying that she belongs substantially lower on the list, and you will likely have to spend more time explaining what you meant.

If a player is held by general consensus to be a top 3 player, and you think there is one player in the history of the league that should be above her that typically isn't placed there, calling her "overrated" is going to confuse a lot of people about what you are saying. People aren't going to read that as you think she and the player below her should be flipped, they are going to think you are saying she is significantly lower on your list that is 2nd. If you just mean she is #4, why not just say "not top 3" or explain who you rank higher?


I was giving an example of how the definition changes as you get to the top. Could easily be applied to a group I believe is top 5 and another group that is the 2nd 5. I suppose you would have me say she belongs in the second 5 instead of the top 5. Whole thing seems ridiculous. More than 1 here seem to have agreed on an alternative description, so it seems that we can communicate using the term overrated without it conferring an insult on precious Maya.

Maybe you should loosen your concrete adherence to black and white when it comes to semantics.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 8505



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 7:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So Skyfan and Silky are saying "she's not all that." Razz



_________________
Lodestar
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/18 7:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
So Skyfan and Silky are saying "she's not all that." Razz

Or more accurately "she=(all that) - x; where x=some amount > 0 but < Laurie Koehn"

Wink



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Skyfan22



Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Posts: 244



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 12:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 12:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7491
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 11:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Where is the love Exclamation Exclamation We must all stick together as WNBA fans to support our league



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 6:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 6718



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 10:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
PostPosted: 03/08/18 10:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
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.




ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9187



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 11:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 11:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm not sure leadership is the best quality of Moore or Swoopes.

This is a fascinating comparison because they're such polar opposites in terms of personality. Swoopes' private life wasn't private at all. We all heard about her money problems and her sex life and her hard partying ways. She was the #1 wild child of her day. Maya, OTOH, comes across as one of the dullest people to ever grace a basketball court. There's scant evidence to suggest she ever does anything besides play ball and go to church. She's a 60-year-old in a 28-year-old body.


Post of the month Laughing Laughing My thoughts exactly , nothing wrong with that though !


I was attempting imply there was anything wrong with it, it's just unusual and as far removed from Sheryl Swoopes as you can get.

My favorite picture of Maya Moore is this one...



...because it's one of the rare instances when she displayed a silly side, or gave an indication that she has a sense of humor at all.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49073



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 11:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
My favorite picture of Maya Moore is this one...



...because it's one of the rare instances when she displayed a silly side, or gave an indication that she has a sense of humor at all.


I appreciate that you’re on Maya’s side in all of this, but I can’t side with this comment. She’s constantly being funny/goofy on her level. If you need Pee Wee Herman level stuff like this for you to consider her silly, then maybe you wouldn’t think so.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 12:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
My favorite picture of Maya Moore is this one...



...because it's one of the rare instances when she displayed a silly side, or gave an indication that she has a sense of humor at all.


I appreciate that you’re on Maya’s side in all of this, but I can’t side with this comment. She’s constantly being funny/goofy on her level. If you need Pee Wee Herman level stuff like this for you to consider her silly, then maybe you wouldn’t think so.


I actually voted for Swoopes, but the "no contest" tone some of the old folks were taking is obviously incorrect. I doubt Peak!Moore will ever match Peak!Swoopes, but Career!Moore is likely to end up > Career!Swoopes.

As for the other, I wouldn't want her to be like that all the time, but it was refreshing for her to not come across like a basketball playing robot for once.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
Libra_Girl



Joined: 12 Jul 2013
Posts: 1159



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 1:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 6718



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/09/18 8:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1159



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 12:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 8505



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 9:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Lodestar
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 7491
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 10:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 815



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 8:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 8:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18688



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 8:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 9:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin