Seems like Mcgrady and Mike Miller want back in Orlando. Hmmmm

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

quote:

Originally posted by ThisIsTheYear:

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

 

Whoa, whoa whoa... slow down.

 

Mike Miller is a playmaker?

 

Pau Gasol was the only reason those Memphis teams were worth a **** when he was there. He also went to two championships with the Lakers and even won one.

 

Jason Williams won a championship with the Heat and was a humongous contributor on those early playoff Kings teams.

 

How far has Mike Miller been in the playoffs again?

 

Please notify me when Mike Miller makes it to the finals and is an integral part of the team like J Will and Pau were and are currently.

 

So, are you willingly aware of how moronic you sound, or do you not see the blatant contradiction in your argument?

 

Pau/Williams were "losers" before landing on perennial contenders, that's my point. Miller has never had the chance to play for a powerhouse team, so naturally, the chances of him taking a team far into the playoffs were slim to none. Miller, when he was a part of the Memphis Grizzlies, was a combined 0-11 in playoff games. You know who else was? Pau, J-Will, Batter, etc. As far as contributing, Miller was an efficient 2nd/3rd scoring option on a team that featured little to no scoring beyond him and Pau Gasol.

 

And yes, he's a **** good playmaker.

 

Do you have any idea how clueless you are?

 

What team has Miller even made a team good? Forget making a team a team great. How many teams has Miller been on that have turned out better than 6th-7th seed? What has he contributed?

 

Pau took the Lakers (a team which couldn't get over the hump without Shaq) and made them a championship team. He instantaneously made the Grizzlies a better team (until the year he was inevitably traded) in which they struggled, mightily.

 

Jason Williams was a loser in Sacramento? Really? That's news to me. I seem to remember him being the starting PG on a team that played the Lakers in the Western Conference Championship and contended in the tough western conference pretty much every year he was out there.

 

Mike Miller though has never done anything, actually, except for exist on a team who had a superstar carry his sorry *** to the playoffs. If it wasn't for T-Mac or Pau, Mike Miller would never have even sniffed the playoffs as a starting player. With your inane logic, Andray Blatche is a great playmaker also - because he puts up all sorts of stats on the Wizards. If Blatche gets a great player on his team and rides his coattail like Miller did (and has done for his entire career) I assume you're going to nominate him for the HOF?

 

C'mon man, give me a break.

 

i think the real issue here is the word playmaker because you both are arguing different points.

[UBBALLER8 248]

quote:

Originally posted by Lewis4thewin:

let me try and break this down easier for people to understand.

 

Lets say we have a scale from 1-10 (10 being highest) of potential impact on a game.

 

Mike Miller's offensive impact might be a 7 (he's a good scorer but not really a 17+ppg guy)

 

His defense is probably a 4.

 

Pietrus' offensive impact is about a 5 (can hit a shot and have games where he randomly goes off)

 

Pietrus' defensive impact is an 8 (not a first team defensive guy (10) not an intimidating defensive force (9) but a pretty good stopper)

 

7+4=11 8+5=13

 

pietrus is more valuable.

 

I think Pietrus can range though from about a 4-7 and you're not counting value during clutch moments as well.

 

Pietrus seemed pretty important during our playoff run last year on offense. Especially in the Cleveland series.

 

He was important to those run and gun Warrior playoff teams as well. See the pattern here?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I find it utterly fascinating that UBBaller is arguing Pietrus is better than Miller because Miller never carried a team deep into the playoffs, as though Pietrus had done anything remotely comparable to that.

[UBBALLER8 248]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

Jason Williams was a loser in Sacramento? Really? That's news to me. I seem to remember him being the starting PG on a team that played the Lakers in the Western Conference Championship and contended in the tough western conference pretty much every year he was out there.

 

That was Mike Bibby. If you're going to insult people, it's a good idea not to get well known things blatantly wrong.

 

True that was Bibby. My mistake.

 

He was out there before the Western Conference finals team though. Also was in the playoffs out there. Just wasn't on that team... sorry it's been a long day.

[Darthmagic 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

I find it utterly fascinating that UBBaller is arguing Pietrus is better than Miller because Miller never carried a team deep into the playoffs, as though Pietrus had done anything remotely comparable to that.

 

Quoted for truth.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

quote:

Originally posted by Lewis4thewin:

let me try and break this down easier for people to understand.

 

Lets say we have a scale from 1-10 (10 being highest) of potential impact on a game.

 

Mike Miller's offensive impact might be a 7 (he's a good scorer but not really a 17+ppg guy)

 

His defense is probably a 4.

 

Pietrus' offensive impact is about a 5 (can hit a shot and have games where he randomly goes off)

 

Pietrus' defensive impact is an 8 (not a first team defensive guy (10) not an intimidating defensive force (9) but a pretty good stopper)

 

7+4=11 8+5=13

 

pietrus is more valuable.

 

I think Pietrus can range though from about a 4-7 and you're not counting value during clutch moments as well.

 

Pietrus seemed pretty important during our playoff run last year on offense. Especially in the Cleveland series.

 

He was important to those run and gun Warrior playoff teams as well. See the pattern here?

 

i didn't want to overrate him. 5 is about right.

[UBBALLER8 248]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

I find it utterly fascinating that UBBaller is arguing Pietrus is better than Miller because Miller never carried a team deep into the playoffs, as though Pietrus had done anything remotely comparable to that.

 

I'm not saying that.

 

I'm saying Pietrus has a larger impact on possible big games than Miller has.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

oh and everybody needs to settle down. remember this http://orlandomagiczone.com/ev...9871/m/386101008/p/1 ?

 

no more insults.

[UBBALLER8 248]

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

quote:

Originally posted by Darthmagic:

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

quote:

Originally posted by Darthmagic:

quote:

Originally posted by ThisIsTheYear:

quote:

just based on age alone i'm not on the miller train, dude's older, and more injury prone, i know peitrus has his bouts, but miller goes down alot.

 

Miller's as old as Barnes, meaning, he just turned 30. For a guy that relies on shooting, 30's not exactly one of his final twilight years as a player.

 

He's injury prone? Assuming he finishes off his final four games this season without getting inured, Miller has averaged 69 games played per season since the beginning of his NBA career. MP, by contrast, has averaged 62 games played. Who's injury prone again?

 

It's amazing that people can compare Peaches to Mike Miller. I'm at a loss as to how people think Peaches can come close to Miller's all around game. Peaches can't even dribble three times without traveling.

 

Read Lewis' post above yours.

 

PS I assume you are a UF fan as well.

 

No i'm not. But i've watched both players play for my team and trust me, Mike Miller is the better player.

 

Let's just all be glad you're not Otis... I hope.

 

Lol I agree!

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

quote:

Originally posted by Lewis4thewin:

let me try and break this down easier for people to understand.

 

Lets say we have a scale from 1-10 (10 being highest) of potential impact on a game.

 

Mike Miller's offensive impact might be a 7 (he's a good scorer but not really a 17+ppg guy)

 

His defense is probably a 4.

 

Pietrus' offensive impact is about a 5 (can hit a shot and have games where he randomly goes off)

 

Pietrus' defensive impact is an 8 (not a first team defensive guy (10) not an intimidating defensive force (9) but a pretty good stopper)

 

7+4=11 8+5=13

 

pietrus is more valuable.

 

I think Pietrus can range though from about a 4-7 and you're not counting value during clutch moments as well.

 

Pietrus seemed pretty important during our playoff run last year on offense. Especially in the Cleveland series.

 

He was important to those run and gun Warrior playoff teams as well. See the pattern here?

 

Pietrus went to the playoffs with the Warriors exactly once, and put up 6pts, 3.8 rebounds, and .5assists per game on shooting percentages of .347/.259/.694, which would be embarrassing for pretty much anyone in an NBA uniform.

 

You really need to at least try to make factually accurate arguments.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

I find it utterly fascinating that UBBaller is arguing Pietrus is better than Miller because Miller never carried a team deep into the playoffs, as though Pietrus had done anything remotely comparable to that.

 

I'm not saying that.

 

I'm saying Pietrus has a larger impact on possible big games than Miller has.

 

I'd agree with this. you dont even need to qualify it with "big" games though. Because Miller needs opportunities to be valuable and Defensive players can be valuable by being on the court.

[UBBALLER8 248]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by UBBALLER8:

quote:

Originally posted by Lewis4thewin:

let me try and break this down easier for people to understand.

 

Lets say we have a scale from 1-10 (10 being highest) of potential impact on a game.

 

Mike Miller's offensive impact might be a 7 (he's a good scorer but not really a 17+ppg guy)

 

His defense is probably a 4.

 

Pietrus' offensive impact is about a 5 (can hit a shot and have games where he randomly goes off)

 

Pietrus' defensive impact is an 8 (not a first team defensive guy (10) not an intimidating defensive force (9) but a pretty good stopper)

 

7+4=11 8+5=13

 

pietrus is more valuable.

 

I think Pietrus can range though from about a 4-7 and you're not counting value during clutch moments as well.

 

Pietrus seemed pretty important during our playoff run last year on offense. Especially in the Cleveland series.

 

He was important to those run and gun Warrior playoff teams as well. See the pattern here?

 

Pietrus went to the playoffs with the Warriors exactly once, and put up 6pts, 3.8 rebounds, and .5assists per game on shooting percentages of .347/.259/.694, which would be embarrassing for pretty much anyone in an NBA uniform.

 

You really need to at least try to make factually accurate arguments.

 

His defense was the bigger factor with the Warriors.

 

His offense in the Cleveland series for us last year was important, however.