Category: Barstool Debates (Page 7 of 8)

      Barstool Debate: Who is the worst #1 pick in the NBA’s modern era – Kwame Brown or Michael Olowokandi?

      June 25, 2008 /

      As long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those barstools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter debate the worst #1 pick in the NBA’s modern era. Is it the Wizards’ pick of Kwame Brown or the Clippers’ pick of Michael Olowokandi? They’re both bad, but which is the worst?

      John: This is a tough call, but I’m going to have to go with Kwame Brown as the worst #1 pick in the modern era of the NBA. In his seven seasons, he has averaged 7.5 points and 5.7 rebounds, while shooting 48.4% from the field, which is pretty pathetic for a guy his size (6’11”). He has turned himself into a decent defender, but he has only averaged 0.7 blocks per game, so he’s at best a backup center in this league. Michael Olowokandi was a truly awful pick, but his numbers (8.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 1.4 blocks) are a little better. (Boy, his shooting percentage – 43.5% – is even worse than Kwame’s!) Anyway, the Kandi Man managed a couple of decent seasons with the Clippers. He averaged 12.3 points and 9.1 rebounds in the 2002-03 season.

      Anthony: I think what makes the case for Olowokandi being the worst No. 1 pick in the modern era is whom he was taken ahead of. When you see the names Vince Carter, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Mike Bibby, Antawn Jamison and Rashard Lewis, it just makes you shake your head at how bad of a pick the “The Kandi Man” was for the Clippers in 1998. He was taken before four All-Stars and even worse, Nazr Mohammed (the last pick in the first round) arguably had a better career.

      John: Not to get off topic, but Rashard Lewis does have one All-Star nod to his credit, so the Kandi Man was actually drafted ahead of five All-Stars. Kwame was drafted ahead of four (Pau Gasol, Joe Johnson, Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas) as well as Tyson Chandler, Jason Richardson, Shane Battier, Richard Jefferson, Zach Randolph and Gerald Wallace, who are all good players in their own right. What makes Kwame the worst #1 pick is the fact that when the Clippers took Olowokandi, there was only one other “big guy” in the top 5 – Raef LaFrentz – and he was more of a face up shooter. The Clippers were desperate for a post presence so they reached for the Kandi Man. The Wizards’ pick of Kwame Brown was followed by the 7’ Tyson Chandler, the 7’1” Pau Gasol and the 6’11” Eddy Curry. The Wizards had four true centers to choose from and they ended up with the one guy who wasn’t going to turn into a player.

      Anthony: But wasn’t Olowokandi off everyone’s radar in 1998 until the draft eased closer? If I remember correctly, he kind of worked his way into being a top 5 pick, but wasn’t always viewed as “the guy” of that draft. I don’t know if this helps or hurts my argument, but I read somewhere that Olowokandi picked up the game of basketball just six years before he was drafted. So it appears that the Clippers reached big time on a player whose draft stock was better than his overall potential. My point being, the warning signs on the Kandi Man were pretty obvious, yet the Clippers still reached and wound up with one of the worst No. 1 picks in NBA Draft history.

      John: I think what makes the Kwame Brown pick the worst in the modern era is that the guy who was responsible for the selection is regarded as the best player ever to step on the court… Michael Jordan. How could someone so good at basketball be so bad at judging a prospect? Let’s just say that these two guys tied for worst pick in the modern era and leave it at that. I don’t think I can dedicate any more time to Kwame Brown and/or the Kandi Man!


      Poll Answers

      Barstool Debates, Fantasy Basketball, NBA, NBA Draft

      Barstool Debate: Is golf a sport or a game?

      June 19, 2008 /

      As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools arguing about sports, from the big questions all the way down to the minutiae. This week, in light of Tiger Woods’ recent win at the U.S. Open, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen debate whether or not golf is really a sport.

      John: I don’t consider golf a sport. This is not to say that it doesn’t take a lot of skill to master (or to even become good), but the most strenuous thing about it is walking. Walking. A sport is defined as “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” There is no physical exertion, so therefore golf is not a sport. Any competition where a 60 year-old can dominate a 25 year-old is a game. Golf is more similar to pool, darts and bowling than it is to basketball, football or tennis.

      Anthony: A sport is defined as “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” Golf has everything but physical exertion, so why wouldn’t it be deemed a sport? You’re still competing against other individuals and there’s arguably more skill involved in golf than pool, darts and bowling. While I agree that golf isn’t on the same level as basketball, football or baseball, it’s still a competition that requires people to have a lot of skill in order to master.

      John: Right, but a competition requires skill and physical exertion to be a sport, not just one or the other. Due to all the different types of shots, golf definitely requires more skill than those other games, but it’s still a game.

      Anthony: Why can’t it be both? I tend to lean towards calling something a sport if it can be played at a professional level. Of course I say that not truly believing bowling is a sport and that can be played on a professional level. Tiger Woods is a great athlete (as was Jack Nicklaus), so I hate to downplay golf and call it a game instead of a sport.

      John: You bring up an interesting point. An athlete is defined as “a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of exercise.” Since golf really isn’t sport, one could argue that Tiger Woods is not an athlete at all. I’m not willing to go that far, as I do think all the walking in golf should be considered a form of exercise. But back to your point about a sport being something that can be played on a professional level. Competitive eating is “played” on a professional level, and I doubt you consider that a sport. I will say this – of all the different games out there, golf probably requires the most skill to master.

      Anthony: You’re right about competitive eating; that’s why I mentioned that bowling isn’t really a sport even though it can be played on a professional level. Obviously there’s a fine line between calling something a sport, game or activity. I understand the point that golf doesn’t require physical exertion, but after watching Tiger play the U.S. Open recently, it’s hard not to call him an athlete and therefore, one of the best at his sport. This might be putting too much thought into it, but I almost think calling golf a game takes away how good Tiger is. But maybe that’s just me.

      John: I’m not trying to diminish how good Tiger is at golf. He is a master of what he does, but I believe he’s a master of a game, not a sport.


      Poll Answers

      Barstool Debates, Golf

      Barstool Debate: Does Kobe Bryant compare to Michael Jordan?

      June 13, 2008 /

      Skill-wise, Kobe Bryant is (probably) the best player in the NBA, and since he’s won a few championships and plays shooting guard, the comparisons to His Airness are inevitable.

      But has Kobe done enough in his career to deserve to be compared to MJ? John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter discuss this very topic in this week’s Barstool Debate.

      John: I don’t know that there is anyone that truly compares to Jordan, even Kobe. They do have several similarities. Both are phenomenal all-around athletes. They’re both fierce competitors. But there’s something that sets Jordan apart. MJ won six rings and was the main guy for all of those championships. Kobe was Shaq’s sidekick during the Lakers’ three-peat, and while he was (and is) a great player, he was not the main reason that L.A. won those titles. He certainly made a big contribution, much in the same way Scottie Pippen contributed to the Bulls’ championships, but without Shaq, those Laker teams weren’t going anywhere. However, if Kobe and his Lakers can win a title this year, it will help his case. I think he needs to win two or three more rings as the lead guy in order for us to have a real debate about who is the better player.

      Anthony: I don’t know if it’s fair to compare the two with Kobe still being an active player. Quite frankly, right now there is no comparison. MJ has four more league MVP awards, three more NBA Finals MVP awards, four more All-Star appearances and over 10,000 more points. It’s probably safe to assume Kobe will at least match MJ’s All-Star Game appearances, but it’s so hard to compare everything else considering Kobe’s full body of work isn’t completed yet. And while it’s true Kobe did have Shaq, it wasn’t like Jordan was playing with Teddy Ruxpin and the Hamburglar during the Bulls’ championship runs. Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong formed a formidable team, plus Jordan eventually played with one of the best rebounders in NBA history when Dennis Rodman played in Chicago from 1995-1998. This might be another discussion in itself, but were MJ’s championship Bulls teams better than Kobe’s championship Laker squads?

      John: You’re not getting off that easy, Stalter. You want to wait until Kobe is done playing before comparing the two players? What fun is that? It’s not like this is a 24 year-old we’re talking about. Kobe turns 30 this August and has played in the league for 12 years. Certainly, we must have some idea how he’ll compare with MJ when he finally hangs ‘em up. You’re right about the All-Star appearances – Kobe will probably get at least three or four more. If he plays for five more seasons, he’s likely to approach MJ’s point total as well. But he’s going to have a tough time catching Jordan in MVP awards and championships, and that might have more to do with Kobe’s personality than his sheer talent. Jordan had a reputation for being a hard ass, but his teammates wanted to go to war with him, and I don’t think there are too many Laker fans that would seriously argue that Kobe is a good teammate. For all the talk about L.A.’s magical season, I’ve seen the same ol’ Kobe in the 2008 Finals – barking at teammates, poisonous body language and condescending facial expressions. This is what sets Jordan apart – he didn’t show up his teammates (nearly as much).

      Anthony: Damn it JP, you caught me. I was trying to sneak out of this one with my dignity since you’ve schooled me on previous NBA debates! I think if we’re comparing sheer numbers and achievements, we do have to wait until Kobe is done playing. But if we’re taking less of an analytical approach to the debate, then yes, Kobe has a long way to go to get on Jordan’s level. There’s a fine line between the two player’s styles of play. In some respects, one could view Jordan as being a selfish player with the amount of shots he took. But Jordan was rarely, if ever, accused of being a me-first guy. The same cannot be said for Kobe. So what does Kobe have to do then to get on Jordan’s level then? Win, but win the way Jordan did by becoming a team player? What defines a team player? As a non-Kobe supporter, what would he have to do to earn your respect as a fan and therefore, even mention him in the same breath as Jordan?

      John: One thing that really jumps out at me when comparing these two players is their FG%. Jordan shot a career 49.7% from the field while Kobe shoots 45.3%. If not for MJ’s last few seasons, he would have finished over 50%, which is astounding for a guard. I don’t think anyone can criticize Jordan for being selfish when he is hitting half of his shots. Moreover, Kobe’s numbers will likely go down a bit as he gets older. He has always been a little suspect in his shot selection, and I don’t think anyone would say that about Jordan. But back to Kobe’s legacy… his numbers will ultimately compare, but Kobe has to be “The Man” on two or three more championship teams before a real comparison can be made. Winning one will be a big load off his shoulders, but it won’t be enough to erase four years of selfishness, perceived or not. For Kobe to be considered “The Greatest,” he has to stop with all the faces/barking at his teammates, quit complaining so much to the refs, and win a few more championships. The Lakers are young and talented, and are poised for a great run, but it’s up to Kobe to lead them to the Promised Land.

      Anthony: I wonder which player had/has it tougher in terms of winning championships. As you noted, the Lakers are a solid young team, but the Western Conference is brutally tough and it’s so hard to repeat in the salary cap era. By no means am I saying Jordan and the Bulls had it easier, but was the league as competitive as it was in the mid-90’s as it is now? Who knows, maybe this is the last chance Kobe has to win a championship. After all, it took Kobe and the Lakers five years to get back to the NBA Finals. Nothing is guaranteed.

      John: Well, the Lakers just lost Game 4 at home, so it looks like a title in 2008 is a long shot. Kobe still has a lot of work to do if he wants to pass up MJ. With the return of a healthy Andrew Bynum, I think the Lakers will be the favorite to win the 2009 NBA title.

      Barstool Debates, NBA, NBA Finals

      Barstool Debate: Which is the more storied franchise – the Lakers or the Celtics?

      June 5, 2008 /

      As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools arguing about sports. In this week’s Barstool Debate, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen ask the question – which is the more storied franchise, the Lakers or the Celtics?

      John: Those that know me know that I am no Laker lover, but it is my premise that the Los Angeles Lakers are the most successful franchise in the NBA. Counting its stint in Minneapolis, the franchise has 14 championships and 29 Finals appearances in 60 seasons. That’s an amazing stat – the Lakers have gone to Finals 48% of the time.

      Anthony: Hold on a second, sports fan – what do you mean the Lakers are the most successful franchise in the NBA? By my count (and when I say that, I mean by Wikipedia’s count), the Celtics have hoisted 16 NBA Championships, which gives them two more than the Lakers’ 14. Plus, Boston won 11 titles in 13 years from 1957 to 1969, which is an incredible stat. An even better stat that relates more specifically to this debate is that the Celtics have absolutely owned the Lakers in head-to-head matchups, winning eight of the 10 times they faced L.A. in the NBA Finals.

      John: True, true, the Celtics have owned the Lakers in their head-to-head meetings, but seven of those wins over the Lakers came in the ‘50s and early ‘60s when the league had a grand total of nine teams. That’s right, the Celtics typically just had to win one (sometimes two) playoff series and they were in the Finals. Then they were fortunate to have the league’s best player (Bill Russell), who towered over everyone else on the court. It’s not the Lakers fault that they happened to be the second-best team during Russell’s reign. Had the Celtics been able to get to the Finals during George Mikan’s run in Minneapolis, the series record would be a whole lot closer. Besides, what has Boston done lately? They haven’t won a title since 1986 and the Lakers have won five championships since the Celtics won their last. Plus, L.A. has won its last two Finals meetings with Boston. I’d say that the mantle of “success” is on the Lakers’ side.

      Anthony: True, the Celtics haven’t done much lately. But look at this list of past greats the organization has turned out: Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Paul Pierce, Sam Jones, Jo Jo White, Tommy Heinsohn, Tiny Archibald and of course, the original “Big Three” – Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. You can’t overlook how good the organization was for decades. Plus, can any area trump the Garden? Nowadays, the Lakers get just as much attention for what celebrity is courtside as they do for their play on the court. The Celtics organization and fan base has always been about basketball and not Hollywood!

      John: Have you seen all the celebs sitting courtside in Boston these days? Sure, L.A. is more star-studded, but the Celtics can no longer talk about their blue-collar work ethic with the new arena and ticket prices the way they are. But since we’re talking about the most successful franchise, let me list a few Laker greats: Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, James Worthy, Elgin Baylor, Byron Scott, George Mikan, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, and let’s not forget the “Big Two” – Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal – who won just as many titles together as Boston’s original “Big Three.” While it’s true that the Celtics have the head-to-head edge and two more titles, if it weren’t for one player – Bill Russell – the head-to-head numbers would be much different. The Lakers have won through so many different teams and eras (and have won lately, during the salary cap era) that they have to be considered the most successful NBA franchise of all-time. Let me ask you this – if the Lakers prevail this year, will you change your tune? That would make the total titles 16 to 15 (in favor of the C’s) but the Lakers would have won six titles since the Celtics’ won their last.

      Anthony: What happened to you, JP? You’re such a Lakers lover now… Sure, I’ll change my tune if L.A. wins this year. That would still only give them three out of 11 head to head victories against the Celtics in the Finals, but your point about the Lakers being incredibly successful in the past decade would be even more validated.

      John: Laker lover – ha! I just call them like I see them. The main advantage the C’s have is in the head-to-head matchup, and that’s because nobody could cover Bill Russell for a decade. You could make a strong argument for either franchise, but I think the Lakers have to get the nod due to their consistent success.


      Poll Answers

      Barstool Debates, Fantasy Basketball, NBA, NBA Draft, NBA Finals

      Barstool Debate: Does the NBA lottery need to be fixed?

      May 29, 2008 /

      As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools debating the most important topics in sports. In this week’s Barstool Debate, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen discuss the pros and cons of the NBA’s current lottery system and what can be done to fix it.

      John: The current NBA lottery system just isn’t working. It was designed to give the worst teams in the league the best draft picks while eliminating (or at least limiting) teams tanking in order to get a better pick. But every March, we start to see teams that are out of the playoff hunt shutting down their “injured” stars while “developing” their younger players. To be fair, these teams aren’t intentionally losing games, but they are intentionally not giving themselves the best chance to win. One way to eliminate this would be to give each lottery team an equal chance at the top (let’s say seven) picks, and go by record after that. Sure, decent teams will occasionally get the top pick (like in 1993, when the 41-41 Orlando Magic landed the #1 pick), but it will eliminate most of the tanking and put a better product on the floor later in the season.

      Anthony: I agree that having a system in place that would give all lottery teams a fair shot at the No. 1 pick would eliminate tanking even more, but is it really fair that the fourth- or fifth-worst team gets a shot at the best player in the draft? Look the Spurs the year they drafted Tim Duncan. The only reason they were a lottery team that year was because David Robinson got hurt and missed most of the season. Now they’re a dynasty thanks to that draft. Isn’t there even a better way than giving all lottery teams a shot at the No. 1 pick? I understand that the NBA can’t adopt the NFL’s draft approach and pick just based on win-loss records, but it just doesn’t seem right that a decent team can become great just because they finished in the lottery one year.

      John: I guess it depends on whether or not it’s right to reward failure. The idea is for the worst teams to have a shot at the best players so they can improve their teams and increase parity in the league. But look at the lottery this year. The Bulls overcame 1.7% odds to get the overall pick. Chicago was a playoff team two years ago and now it gets to add Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley to its talented roster. Meanwhile, the Heat are picking #2. Of all the teams in the lottery, Miami is the only one with a true superstar to build around and now they get to add whomever the Bulls pass on to a talented core that includes Wade and Shawn Marion. So even without an equal chance, decent teams are still getting the top picks, so why not make all the odds even so that we can at least eliminate tanking at the end of each season? I know that fans that fork out big money for seats want to see the stars play, but if they’re going to a game that features two non-playoff teams in March, chances are they will only get to see the scrubs in action. The most important thing is the product that is put out on the court, and tanking undermines that product.

      Anthony: The overall goal in having a lottery is twofold. One, the NBA wants to encourage parity and two, it wants to avoid teams tanking at the end of the year. Unfortunately, it appears that there’s no way to accomplish both. If you want parity, you have to give teams with poor records a shot at the best prospects. But to avoid several teams “resting” their starters at the end of the year in order to get a better pick, you have to have a lottery. And in a lottery, you run the risk of decent teams like the Bulls and Heat coming away with some of the best talent. It seems like a no-win situation.

      John: I say that the product that the league puts on the floor should be the priority. Therefore, it is most important to eliminate tanking, so the league should give each team even odds at winning the top seven picks. Then picks #8-#14 should be based on record. That, or devise a win-or-go-home playoff system that would keep some or all of the lottery teams involved until the very end. Maybe seed the top 14 teams in the playoffs and then take the other 16 teams and have a single-elimination tournament that would yield the final two playoff teams. Not only would that be exciting, but it would discourage tanking for most teams as they would still be playing their stars in an attempt to make the playoffs. Whatever the direction, the league should do something. Right now, tanking is running rampant and some good (or at least decent) teams are getting the top picks.


      Poll Answers

      Barstool Debates, NBA, NBA Draft

      « Older posts Newer posts »

      © 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog

      Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑