If Tyson Chandler was a scorer and he had this type of obvious impact: "Top 5 player"

[OldSkoolball#52]

It's funny how if you were to list the NBA's best players, 95% of this website would list guys like Carmelo, Monta Ellis, Kevin Love, Rudy Gay etc. ahead of Tyson Chandler.

Because as we all know, the tier for ranking players amongst "average fan" is simply:
1. volume scores on a good team
2. volume scores on a bad team
3. if he doesnt do that hes not important.


So here we have a guy in Tyson Chandler who: Started on a New Orleans team that made a nice playoff run a few years ago. Started on a championship winning Mavericks team and was acknowledged as the difference maker by Dirk. Started on a Knick team that won its first playoff series in forever AFTER he showed up.

And of course, now that Tyson Chandler is out of the lineup, the Knicks have fallen apart. That doesn't even happen when guys like Kobe or Wade miss time.


But is anyone going to call Chandler a top 10 player? Of course not. But Russell Westbrook and James Harden? Oh, easily top 10. Right?


If Chandler were a wing player who scored 23 points per night on 46% shooting and did nothing else useful on the court, people would look at the way teams perform with and without him, and call him a Top 5 player. But because yall are so stupid? You have Carmelo Anthony ahead of him.


I swear, without volume chuckers to entertain the dumb fans.... this league would be as popular as professional bowling.

[moe94]

Westbrook ruins your argument considering he's every bit the difference maker for the Thunder that Chandler has ever been for any team. Chandler, without an elite PG feeding him, is basically a liability on offense. He probably has the most insane combination of length, height and athleticism in the league and is a relatively poor rebounder and blocker. I'm not impressed and certainly don't consider him anywhere near the top 10.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Westbrook ruins your argument considering he's every bit the difference maker for the Thunder that Chandler has ever been for any team. Chandler, without an elite PG feeding him, is basically a liability on offense. He probably has the most insane combination of length, height and athleticism in the league and is a relatively poor rebounder and blocker. I'm not impressed and certainly don't consider him anywhere near the top 10.


Chandler wearin a ring baby.

Westbrook got one?

[moe94]

Chandler wearin a ring baby.

Westbrook got one?

Tony Parker is 3x the player Iverson was.

[Jameerthefear]

Ellis, Carmelo, and Love are all definitely better players than Chandler.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Ellis, Carmelo, and Love are all definitely better players than Chandler.

Their resumes certainly don't back that up.


This is my point. Players who score, no matter how efficiently or necessary, all get lumped into "top tier" status and compared with each other based on resumes, rings, "playoff moments" and all the other 'superhero, alpha male' cliches.

But try and compare someone who doesn't score with a scorer? The average fan's idiot head explodes, because he doesn't understand anything about basketball other than watching the ball go in the hoop. If you theorize that a guy who is often winning but doesn't score should be ranked based on accolades? Rodman, Bowen, Ben Wallace, Battier, Tyson Chandler... suddenly "rings" doesn't matter so much. Interesting. Unless the sheep are sticking to the general consensus and squeezing Bill Russell into the Top 10 all-time because they know thats a popular thing to say... but saying Rodman is in the top 10 all-time isn't popular, so they're afraid to suggest it.


Seriously, this isn't so much about Chandler and which specific wing player he is or isn't better than. It's about the fact that the idiots on this board, which makes up probably a 95% majority, value players based on two things: scoring and rings. Both of which are incredibly flawed. They compare scorers based on rings. But if a non scorer has rings and playoff success? Oh, well.... so what. Hes not an alpha male!


Bunch of morons. Obsessed with alpha males and the 'super hero' mentality like some impressionable teenage girls.

[moe94]

but saying Rodman is in the top 10 all-time isn't popular, so they're afraid to suggest it.


Do you actually think Rodman has a case for top 30, let alone top 10?

[Brook(lyn)Lopez]

Rules favor offense, and you win by outscoring your opponent.
Your mantra about Chandler is misguided and ignorant to how NBA basketball is played.

[moe94]

Rules favor offense, and you win by outscoring your opponent.
Your mantra about Chandler is misguided and ignorant to how NBA basketball is played.
Defense wins championships doe

[Jameerthefear]

oh okay so oldskoolball is just retarded and not trolling. okay then.

[scm5]

It depends on how your team is made up.

Losing Tyson without a suitable backup hurt the Knicks a lot, just like losing Westbrook without a suitable backup hurt OKC.

[Genaro]

Are you his wife or something? I can't see any argument to backup your statement.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Do you actually think Rodman has a case for top 30, let alone top 10?


Does Bill Russell?

[TheReturn]

Taking away a team's only actual Center is going to hurt them. Would also have a negative impact (not as strong, don't get me wrong) if that center was Marcin Gortat. Doesn't make that player a top 5 player.

[OldSkoolball#52]

oh okay so oldskoolball is just retarded and not trolling. okay then.


You're a old, creepy pervert imitating a 15 year old boy on the internet. Please do not respond to any posts I make.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Taking away a team's only actual Center is going to hurt them. Would also have a negative impact (not as strong, don't get me wrong) if that center was Marcin Gortat. Doesn't make that player a top 5 player.

There you go, "not as strong". Isn't that how you would rank guys? Based on "how strong" their impact is?

If you take any player off any team it's going to leave a void. The question is, how big?


How badly did it hurt the Nuggets after Carmelo left? I thought Carmelo was a SUPERSTAR? The media certainly billed him as one. People on this board sure did. But the Nuggets were a better team for two years after he left than the team he WENT to.

Where is his impact? He's the leagues LEADING SCORER. You're telling me the league's "best pure scorer" leaves a team and they go win 60 games with no 'star' replacing him?


ZOMG. How irreplaceable scorers are. :rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

Tyson Chandler might not be a top 40 NBA player...LOL

[OldSkoolball#52]

Tyson Chandler might not be a top 40 NBA player...LOL


I guess Dirk Nowitzki thinks a lot higher of Chandler than you do :confusedshrug:





But I'm sure you're right.

[Jameerthefear]

seriously though is op retarded? how can you even attempt to argue tyson chandler is better than Kevin Love? There is no one else that thinks this.

[DMAVS41]

I guess Dirk Nowitzki thinks a lot higher of Chandler than you do :confusedshrug:





But I'm sure you're right.

Not sure what that means...the dude is an often injured over-rated as **** specialist of a player. He sets good screens though...I'll give him that.

He's over-rated if anyone considers him a top 25 player...let alone a ****ing top 5 player.

Notice how Monta Ellis is playing next to Dirk and under Carlisle? I guess people are going to start talking about Monta as a top 5 player in a couple years as well...

[97 bulls]

What's the argument here? Why are you guys calling him names? He's presenting his argument and backing it up with facts.

I think his point is defense doesn't get the same recognition as offense but based on what unfolds on the court has the same impact. And he's providing examples.

[DMAVS41]

What's the argument here? Why are you guys calling him names? He's presenting his argument and backing it up with facts.

I think his point is defense doesn't get the same recognition as offense but based on what unfolds on the court has the same impact. And he's providing examples.

What happened the last two years in the playoffs with Chandler? He had his offensive force in Melo...where was his impact?

You're telling me that Chris Paul and Melo would have the same expectations as Melo and Chandler?

See? This is what people do...but you know what...we all know he's not top 5 because Chandler took no criticism for playing like complete shit the last 2 years in the playoffs.

Backing it up? Damn...that has me :roll: :roll: :roll:


ISH...where averaging 6/8/1 in 31 mpg over 2 years in the playoffs is good enough for top 5 in the league...

[OldSkoolball#52]

Not sure what that means...the dude is an often injured over-rated as **** specialist of a player. He sets good screens though...I'll give him that.

He's over-rated if anyone considers him a top 25 player...let alone a ****ing top 5 player.

Notice how Monta Ellis is playing next to Dirk and under Carlisle? I guess people are going to start talking about Monta as a top 5 player in a couple years as well...


Youve missed the point of this thread.

I was not suggesting Chandler is a top 5 player. I was suggesting that if he had the role of volume scorer, but had the exact same impact on his teams as he does now... He would be considered a top 5 player. Because people overrate volume scorers.

If this dude had won playoff series with three different teams including an NBA title, and was an inefficient chucker instead of a rim protector? He would be called a top 5 player.


The point of the thread wasnt even about CHANDLER, it was about the perception of scorers versus "glue guys"

[moe94]

What's the argument here? Why are you guys calling him names? He's presenting his argument and backing it up with facts.
.

What? His entire argument rests on the idea that Chandler has a ring in Dallas. :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Youve missed the point of this thread.

I was not suggesting Chandler is a top 5 player. I was suggesting that if he had the role of volume scorer, but had the exact same impact on his teams as he does now... He would be considered a top 5 player. Because people overrate volume scorers.

If this dude had won playoff series with three different teams including an NBA title, and was an inefficient chucker instead of a rim protector? He would be called a top 5 player.


The point of the thread wasnt even about CHANDLER, it was about the perception of scorers versus "glue guys"


Terrible argument. Monta Ellis has never been considered even close to a top 5 player. Even Gilbert Arenas when he was going off was not considered as such.

And you know what...Chandler's impact isn't as big as an Arenas or peak Monta in my opinion actually.

[97 bulls]

What? His entire argument rests on the idea that Chandler has a ring in Dallas. :oldlol:
He presented the other side. A great scorer in Anthony and how his team fairs with and without him

[OldSkoolball#52]

You're telling me that Chris Paul and Melo would have the same expectations as Melo and Chandler?


lolwut?

Chris Paul is better than Chandler. And hes better than Melo. So of course Carmelo would fair better with Chris Paul, cause Paul would carry him. Chandler would fair better with Paul than with Melo as well. You literally made no point there.


I would rather have Paul and Chandler for 10 years than Paul and Melo. CP3 is the best player in the group so id prefer to have a complement rather than a cancer competing for touches.

[97 bulls]

What happened the last two years in the playoffs with Chandler? He had his offensive force in Melo...where was his impact?

You're telling me that Chris Paul and Melo would have the same expectations as Melo and Chandler?

See? This is what people do...but you know what...we all know he's not top 5 because Chandler took no criticism for playing like complete shit the last 2 years in the playoffs.

Backing it up? Damn...that has me :roll: :roll: :roll:


ISH...where averaging 6/8/1 in 31 mpg over 2 years in the playoffs is good enough for top 5 in the league...
The Knicks play hero ball. Their offense is a bunch of isolation and drive and kick.

This is exactly his point. So its Chandlers fault the Knicks failed in the playoffs?

[Jameerthefear]

Terrible argument. Monta Ellis has never been considered even close to a top 5 player. Even Gilbert Arenas when he was going off was not considered as such.

And you know what...Chandler's impact isn't as big as an Arenas or peak Monta in my opinion actually.
That's the biggest thing. Tyson Chandler's "impact" is way overrated by the op. Literally to the point if you agree with him you'd have to be borderline retarded.

[andremiller07]

He's lucky if he's a top 10 C let alone a top 5 player

[Jameerthefear]

He's lucky if he's a top 10 C let alone a top 5 player
He isn't even that tbh
In no order:
Cousins
Dwight
Noah
Hibbert
Gasol
Duncan
Vucevic
Pekovic
Horford
Bogut

[andremiller07]

He isn't even that tbh
In no order:
Cousins
Dwight
Noah
Hibbert
Gasol
Duncan
Vucevic
Pekovic
Horford
Bogut
Yeah he's not I just cbf typing all of them out ty for doing it, there's probs a few more you could add as well.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Terrible argument. Monta Ellis has never been considered even close to a top 5 player. Even Gilbert Arenas when he was going off was not considered as such.

And you know what...Chandler's impact isn't as big as an Arenas or peak Monta in my opinion actually.

Bro, you are really struggling to grasp the point here, arent you?


People compare volume scorers based on team accomplishments, WITHOUT taking into account how much credit they actually deserve. Team wins, volume scorer is a superstar, clutch, alpha male. Team loses? What has this volume scorer ever done, he has no rings, empty stats. Nobody analyzes their specific impact. They just take the winning team and credit the highest scorer. Volume scoring wings always get credit for whatever the teams fortunes are when hes there, no matter what. With no further analysis.


If Tyson Chandler was a scoring wing player.... And the Mavs won a title as soon as he showed up... Then he went to the Knicks and they won their first playoff series in 10 years with him.... And then he got hurt and they collapsed.... He would be considered a superstar.


Do you follow me? People mindlessly judge scorers based on team results. If Chandler had the exact same career... Teams winning when hes there, losing when hes not.... But he was vince carter or rudy gay? He would be CONSIDERED a top 5 player by the masses.


Please..... Please tell me you are able to grasp this...

[97 bulls]

He's lucky if he's a top 10 C let alone a top 5 player
He never said such. Heres what he said:



If Chandler were a wing player who scored 23 points per night on 46% shooting and did nothing else useful on the court, people would look at the way teams perform with and without him, and call him a Top 5 player.*
Granted he might be exaggerating a bit but the point is scorers are regarded as better than defensive players but have no more impact. And the he uses examples.

[fpliii]

Jesus ****ing Christ ISH, stop overrating individual scoring!

:facepalm

Individual PPG isn't the bottom line, and defense/rebounding are NOT footnotes, no matter how you slice it. End of discussion.

God damn. Not a fan of the Chandler example but the OP raises a legitimate point.

[97 bulls]

Jesus ****ing Christ ISH, stop overrating individual scoring!

:facepalm

Individual PPG isn't the bottom line, and defense/rebounding are NOT footnotes, no matter how you slice it. End of discussion.

God damn. Not a fan of the Chandler example but the OP raises a legitimate point.
Lol and there you have it

[moe94]

JGod damn. Not a fan of the Chandler example but the OP raises a legitimate point.

OP is implying that Chandler is a better and more valuable player than Anthony. Do you agree?

[Teanett]

OP is implying that Chandler is a better and more valuable player than Anthony. Do you agree?
yes

[OldSkoolball#52]

God damn. Not a fan of the Chandler example but the OP raises a legitimate point.

And really, I wasn't even trying to make a statement about Chandler's game.

He's just a good example because he went to the Mavs, they won a title. And it's not like he was Juwan Howard on the Heat, he was the starting center. He had a direct impact on their title.

He left the Mavs, and they didn't do squat.


He went to the Knicks, who had stunk for years, even when Carmelo showed up, and they finally had a good season and notched a playoff series win.

He got hurt, and the team completely fell apart.



When things like this happen to guys like Carmelo, or Westbrook? People call them superstars and claim they are all-important, irreplaceable players. But what about when the exact same thing happens to a guy whose role isn't as exciting? Once again, the exact same thing. The exact same thing.

Suddenly people don't wanna build a guy up as a superstar? Because he's not the designated volume scorer? Don't people realize a group of regular players can move the ball around and score at an average clip without a guy like Melo? The only time a volume shooter is a real asset is when his efficiency is way above average, like a Dirk or Durant. Chuckers like Melo? They're just massively overrated. Ask the Denver Nuggets.

[andremiller07]

Suddenly people don't wanna build a guy up as a superstar? Because he's not the designated volume scorer? Don't people realize a group of regular players can move the ball around and score at an average clip without a guy like Melo? The only time a volume shooter is a real asset is when his efficiency is way above average, like a Dirk or Durant. Chuckers like Melo? They're just massively overrated. Ask the Denver Nuggets.
The only three current big men you can say that about are Marc Gasol, Noah and Hibbert not Chandler, they bring far more to the table in terms of all around game and impact and all three are far superior on D.

[OldSkoolball#52]

The only three current big men you can say that about are Marc Gasol, Noah and Hibbert not Chandler, they bring far more to the table in terms of all around game and impact and all three are far superior on D.


Yes, I prefer all three of those players to Chandler.


Once again, the reason I used Chandler as an example was this:

Chandler is an obvious example of changing teams' fortunes. When he went to the Mavs, they won a title. When he left they crumbled, and the Knicks were suddenly respectable. When he got hurt and went out of the Knicks lineup, they crumbled.


When folks compare guys like Kobe, Rose, Wade, it's always about "resumes" and their success in the playoffs, what their teams have done. Which is dumb, it's a fallacy. But if that's how you're going to do it, why not call Chandler the GOAT center? He is the last center to win a title (not counting miami's token centers) and he is the difference between the Knicks being a playoff threat and not MAKING the playoffs.

So if youre gonna rank scorers based on team results, why not defensive players?

[fpliii]

OP is implying that Chandler is a better and more valuable player than Anthony. Do you agree?

No, but I think a Chandler-like player could be considered more valuable than an Anthony-like player. This particular comparison though, no. I'm in-market so I watch every game on MSG (unless the Lakers are on at the same time on LP), and don't see it. Chandler being out hurts the Knicks more than Melo being out has, but that's partially on the FO for not having depth at his position.

[fpliii]

And really, I wasn't even trying to make a statement about Chandler's game.

He's just a good example because he went to the Mavs, they won a title. And it's not like he was Juwan Howard on the Heat, he was the starting center. He had a direct impact on their title.

He left the Mavs, and they didn't do squat.


He went to the Knicks, who had stunk for years, even when Carmelo showed up, and they finally had a good season and notched a playoff series win.

He got hurt, and the team completely fell apart.



When things like this happen to guys like Carmelo, or Westbrook? People call them superstars and claim they are all-important, irreplaceable players. But what about when the exact same thing happens to a guy whose role isn't as exciting? Once again, the exact same thing. The exact same thing.

Suddenly people don't wanna build a guy up as a superstar? Because he's not the designated volume scorer? Don't people realize a group of regular players can move the ball around and score at an average clip without a guy like Melo? The only time a volume shooter is a real asset is when his efficiency is way above average, like a Dirk or Durant. Chuckers like Melo? They're just massively overrated. Ask the Denver Nuggets.

I think you're raising some good points, but it really depends on the situation. WB was so integral to OKC that they've looked horrible without him.

IMO it's not so much that players like Chandler are necessarily more valuable than players than Carmelo, but they're not necessarily any less valuable. It comes down to what your team needs, and volume scoring is generally easier to find than a good rebounding, defensive anchor.

[CavaliersFTW]

Does Bill Russell?
Do you think what Rodman did was anywhere close to Bill Russell?

[DMAVS41]

Bro, you are really struggling to grasp the point here, arent you?


People compare volume scorers based on team accomplishments, WITHOUT taking into account how much credit they actually deserve. Team wins, volume scorer is a superstar, clutch, alpha male. Team loses? What has this volume scorer ever done, he has no rings, empty stats. Nobody analyzes their specific impact. They just take the winning team and credit the highest scorer. Volume scoring wings always get credit for whatever the teams fortunes are when hes there, no matter what. With no further analysis.


If Tyson Chandler was a scoring wing player.... And the Mavs won a title as soon as he showed up... Then he went to the Knicks and they won their first playoff series in 10 years with him.... And then he got hurt and they collapsed.... He would be considered a superstar.


Do you follow me? People mindlessly judge scorers based on team results. If Chandler had the exact same career... Teams winning when hes there, losing when hes not.... But he was vince carter or rudy gay? He would be CONSIDERED a top 5 player by the masses.


Please..... Please tell me you are able to grasp this...


What are you talking about? I grasp your point...I just could not disagree more.

Tyson Chandler's wing equivalent would be someone like Brandon Jennings or something like that. He was probably the 3rd best player on the title team. His impact was absurdly over-rated after the Mavs won actually.

So it's just a terrible point. His impact is nowhere near top 5 no matter what. You think if the Mavs win the title this year with Monta Ellis that he'll be thought of as better than Paul, Westbrook, Love, Harden, Curry, Wade...etc.? No...he wouldn't...and that probably isn't even fair considering Ellis is currently the Mavs best player and Chandler was 2nd or 3rd.

Bro...I get your point clearly...it's just an awful point that happens to be dead wrong.

We already saw exactly what you are talking about. Chandler got paid 14.5 million a year and people were talking about him as good and as important to the Mavs title as Dirk.

So what the **** are you talking about him not getting credit? He's gotten way more than he deserves.

I'll say it again. 6/8/1 over the last 2 years in the playoffs...ROFL...

[Clifton]

I think guys like Chandler are more overrated by knowledgeable fans than scorers are overrated by casual fans. No one thinks Bargnani is better than Chandler.

Everyone knows Lebron is the best player, even if he barely hits 20 in a game. They see the way he plays, they see the impact.

Show a guy who's seen only 50 games in his life footage of Damian Lillard, then show him footage of Mike James in Toronto. Both are 20/6 players, but everyone can tell they're not equal. If anyone watches a game in which Pierce and Nick Young both score 25 points, no one will be in doubt as to who's better. Not even the most casual fan.

But we who overthink the game are likely to overrate guys like Chandler, I think. When I watch Chandler in real-time, I don't see a game-changer of a Ben Wallace type, nor do I see an intimidator of the Shaq type, nor a defensive captain of the KG kind, nor a guy who simply has great defensive instincts like Duncan. I see a guy with a big body and some athleticism who tries hard on that end. I appreciate it. But his impact on the game is not that great. There's something missing in that package. And his offense is inept enough that I really don't see him as a can't-miss player.

I'd rather have Omer Asik. Asik is closer to the type of player casual fans don't pick up on.

A guy like Brandon Bass is another one. Casual fans probably think Damian Lillard is good, but may not be able to see why he's better than Deron Williams.

[longtime lurker]

Jesus ****ing Christ ISH, stop overrating individual scoring!

:facepalm

Individual PPG isn't the bottom line, and defense/rebounding are NOT footnotes, no matter how you slice it. End of discussion.

God damn. Not a fan of the Chandler example but the[B] OP raises a legitimate point.

No he really doesn't. No one considers Kevin Martin or Montae Ellis top 10 players.

[DMAVS41]

And really, I wasn't even trying to make a statement about Chandler's game.

He's just a good example because he went to the Mavs, they won a title. And it's not like he was Juwan Howard on the Heat, he was the starting center. He had a direct impact on their title.

He left the Mavs, and they didn't do squat.


He went to the Knicks, who had stunk for years, even when Carmelo showed up, and they finally had a good season and notched a playoff series win.

He got hurt, and the team completely fell apart.



When things like this happen to guys like Carmelo, or Westbrook? People call them superstars and claim they are all-important, irreplaceable players. But what about when the exact same thing happens to a guy whose role isn't as exciting? Once again, the exact same thing. The exact same thing.

Suddenly people don't wanna build a guy up as a superstar? Because he's not the designated volume scorer? Don't people realize a group of regular players can move the ball around and score at an average clip without a guy like Melo? The only time a volume shooter is a real asset is when his efficiency is way above average, like a Dirk or Durant. Chuckers like Melo? They're just massively overrated. Ask the Denver Nuggets.

So many more things other than Chandler changed on the Mavs. This is why the argument is so bad. Not to mention that defensively the Mavs actually got better.

That Mavs team in 12 was one good player away from being a contender again. If Lamar Odom plays to his career averages...that team had a shot again...and was just as good as the previous team.

The 12 Mavs struggles were not because Chandler left. It was because Chandler left and we didn't replace him with anyone...the Odom experiment killed us.

Seriously...give the 12 Mavs a healthy Marcin Gortat and I love our chances against OKC in round 1.

So again, the point is awful. Teams can't just lose a key player and not replace him and not get worse. Especially an older team like the Mavs. Also, did you watch the OKC series in 12? Mavs were literally like 2 plays away from winning the first 2 games...and were up 13 in the 4th in game 4. That series may have ended in a sweep, but give the Mavs that 1 player they needed...and it's a completely different series.

You could make that argument with so many players. Take Bosh off the Heat and literally don't replace him with anyone...and they aren't winning the last 2 years. You really think Bosh should be considered top 5 because of that?

[Clifton]

Anyone who watched the champion Mavs knows that the "X factor" was Kidd, not Chandler. (Aside from the obvious X factors of Terry's clutch play and Dirk's aggressiveness.)

They needed someone in the middle, and again, I appreciate Chandler for what he is. But circumstantial arguments and rpg numbers do not give us the real picture here IMO.

[bond10]

If Carmelo was a team player and had defense, top 5.
If Wade was always healthy and had a jumper, top 5.
If Nash had solid defense, top 5.
If Dwight had an offense and wasn't a dumass, top 5.
If AI was 6'9, top 5.

What's the point of these things?

[OldSkoolball#52]

I think guys like Chandler are more overrated by knowledgeable fans than scorers are overrated by casual fans. No one thinks Bargnani is better than Chandler.

Everyone knows Lebron is the best player, even if he barely hits 20 in a game. They see the way he plays, they see the impact.

Show a guy who's seen only 50 games in his life footage of Damian Lillard, then show him footage of Mike James in Toronto. Both are 20/6 players, but everyone can tell they're not equal. If anyone watches a game in which Pierce and Nick Young both score 25 points, no one will be in doubt as to who's better. Not even the most casual fan.

But we who overthink the game are likely to overrate guys like Chandler, I think. When I watch Chandler in real-time, I don't see a game-changer of a Ben Wallace type, nor do I see an intimidator of the Shaq type, nor a defensive captain of the KG kind, nor a guy who simply has great defensive instincts like Duncan. I see a guy with a big body and some athleticism who tries hard on that end. I appreciate it. But his impact on the game is not that great. There's something missing in that package. And his offense is inept enough that I really don't see him as a can't-miss player.

I'd rather have Omer Asik. Asik is closer to the type of player casual fans don't pick up on.

A guy like Brandon Bass is another one. Casual fans probably think Damian Lillard is good, but may not be able to see why he's better than Deron Williams.



I totally agree with your post.

I see Tyson Chandler as a role player. Period.

However, the purpose of this thread is to illustrate two things: One, the fact that volume scorers like Carmelo, Rudy Gay, Gilbert Arenas and those types of guys, are role players. In fact, you made a comparison between Lillard and Mike James, in terms of statistics vs the eye test. Every time I watch Kevin Love, there is no clear impact I can feel just from watching him, and then by the end of the game he's somehow got 28 and 14. And we're putting him in the MVP discussion. We give scorers too much credit for the things that show up on stat sheets, and other guys too little credit for the things that don't.


Two: People use team success to give guys too much or too little credit. People kill Chris Paul for not having much playoff success. People exalt Kobe for "five rings."

If you are claiming you judge players based on team success, based on WINNING........ then how do these same people not see the difference Tyson Chandler has made for the last two teams he's been on, and not call him a superstar?


I'm not calling him a superstar. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy amongst people who judge scorers by team success, but not guys like Chandler.

[fpliii]

I totally agree with your post.

I see Tyson Chandler as a role player. Period.

However, the purpose of this thread is to illustrate two things: One, the fact that volume scorers like Carmelo, Rudy Gay, Gilbert Arenas and those types of guys, are role players. In fact, you made a comparison between Lillard and Mike James, in terms of statistics vs the eye test. Every time I watch Kevin Love, there is no clear impact I can feel just from watching him, and then by the end of the game he's somehow got 28 and 14. And we're putting him in the MVP discussion. We give scorers too much credit for the things that show up on stat sheets, and other guys too little credit for the things that don't.


Two: People use team success to give guys too much or too little credit. People kill Chris Paul for not having much playoff success. People exalt Kobe for "five rings."

If you are claiming you judge players based on team success, based on WINNING........ then how do these same people not see the difference Tyson Chandler has made for the last two teams he's been on, and not call him a superstar?


I'm not calling him a superstar. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy amongst people who judge scorers by team success, but not guys like Chandler.

:applause:

[2LeTTeRS]

There you go, "not as strong". Isn't that how you would rank guys? Based on "how strong" their impact is?

If you take any player off any team it's going to leave a void. The question is, how big?


How badly did it hurt the Nuggets after Carmelo left? I thought Carmelo was a SUPERSTAR? The media certainly billed him as one. People on this board sure did. But the Nuggets were a better team for two years after he left than the team he WENT to.

Where is his impact? He's the leagues LEADING SCORER. You're telling me the league's "best pure scorer" leaves a team and they go win 60 games with no 'star' replacing him?


ZOMG. How irreplaceable scorers are. :rolleyes:

If you don't realize the difference in a team adding talent to replace a departed player in a trade versus losing a player to injury with no replacement then your being denser then you normally pretend to be. Also what about the fact that when the Knicks added Chandler in '11-'12 they were just as mediocre as ever; until they got a halfway decent point guard (Lin, then Felton and Kidd)?

Lets be real -- Chandler is a good role player but your analogy fails on multiple levels. Anybody who watches the Knicks knows Chandler is nowhere near as impactful as Melo. There are a lot of arguments available which suggests Melo is overrated; but the fact that he can't will a team that has 40% of payroll out due to injury (Chandler and Felton) or has been rendered ineffective (Amare) is not one of them.

[TonyMontana]

Good post, I said something similar about Chander last week and recieved the same backslash from the majority of these idiots. None of these guys can ever present an argument though. They are sheep that are unable to think for themselves.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317248


So many more things other than Chandler changed on the Mavs. This is why the argument is so bad. Not to mention that defensively the Mavs actually got better.

That Mavs team in 12 was one good player away from being a contender again. If Lamar Odom plays to his career averages...that team had a shot again...and was just as good as the previous team.

The 12 Mavs struggles were not because Chandler left. It was because Chandler left and we didn't replace him with anyone...the Odom experiment killed us.

Seriously...give the 12 Mavs a healthy Marcin Gortat and I love our chances against OKC in round 1.

So again, the point is awful. Teams can't just lose a key player and not replace him and not get worse. Especially an older team like the Mavs. Also, did you watch the OKC series in 12? Mavs were literally like 2 plays away from winning the first 2 games...and were up 13 in the 4th in game 4. That series may have ended in a sweep, but give the Mavs that 1 player they needed...and it's a completely different series.

You could make that argument with so many players. Take Bosh off the Heat and literally don't replace him with anyone...and they aren't winning the last 2 years. You really think Bosh should be considered top 5 because of that?

Tyson Chandler was the best teammate Dirk ever had. 1 year with him resulted in a ring. The next year Mavs lose in round 1 in embarassing fashion. The 15 or so other years without were ringless as well. not a coincidence.

Tyson Chandler certainly impacted the game more than Finley or any other player Dirk played with. The results speak for themselves.

[Clifton]

I see Tyson Chandler as a role player. Period.

However, the purpose of this thread is to illustrate two things: One, the fact that volume scorers like Carmelo, Rudy Gay, Gilbert Arenas and those types of guys, are role players
That's fair enough and I agree.

I've actually said that Tyson Chandler is the defensive equivalent of Carmelo. Just as I don't think Tyson's performance on the boards and in the middle makes him a top 5 defensive player, I also don't think Carmelo's arsenal and scoring totals make him a top 5 offensive player. Both are overrated in the same way.

Melo and Chandler both ball hard, and are good, but don't have that extra mile of impact that the real stars have.

I will say this though... I don't agree that defense is half the game. Not with NBA rules the way they are. I think defense is maybe 40% of the game. With great defense you can give a great offensive team a run for their money (Pacers and Bulls against Heat)... but the reality of the rules means in the fourth quarter, when the superstar's getting the ball every time, you're not going to be able to stop him; and you're going to need your own go-to star to take advantage of the rules on the other end or you're going to get outclassed.

So I think because of NBA rules and NBA culture, a guy like Melo is more important than a guy like Chandler. All things being equal, offense is more important. You need both obviously, but offense is what gets you over the hump. IMO.

And unless you're talking a Ben Wallace or a Kevin Garnett (who himself was a top offensive option), it's really the coach who makes a defense, not a few individuals who play hard on that end. In fact.. if a player does have a huge impact on the team's defense, it's often because the headline scorer has made it a priority and sets the example - like Lebron James does with the Heat. So even then, scoring is prior (because unless you're the franchise player, it's hard to have that effect).

[moe94]

That's fair enough and I agree.

I've actually said that Tyson Chandler is the defensive equivalent of Carmelo. Just as I don't think Tyson's performance on the boards and in the middle makes him a top 5 defensive player, I also don't think Carmelo's arsenal and scoring totals make him a top 5 offensive player. Both are overrated in the same way.

What do you mean offensive player? Someone who can run the offense? Are you taking into account point guards or something? If you mean scorers, then flat out list 5 better scorers in the NBA.

[DMAVS41]

Good post, I said something similar about Chander last week and recieved the same backslash from the majority of these idiots. None of these guys can ever present an argument though. They are sheep that are unable to think for themselves.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317248



Tyson Chandler was the best teammate Dirk ever had. 1 year with him resulted in a ring. The next year Mavs lose in round 1 in embarassing fashion. The 15 or so other years without were ringless as well. not a coincidence.

Tyson Chandler certainly impacted the game more than Finley or any other player Dirk played with. The results speak for themselves.


This is an awful argument. Just awful.

They played the best team in the West in round 1 and didn't replace the 2nd or 3rd best player on the roster from the year before.

Do you people not get this? Imagine Terry leaving and we just didn't get anyone else. We still lose in 4 to the Thunder.

****...the defense was better in 12 than it was in 11.

You can't gauge the value of a player unless you replace him with at least something.

I'm not denying that Chandler is a good player. Maybe a top 40 or so player in the league, but claiming he was the reason the Mavs won is just laughable. He was part of the reason...

We lost Barea and Stevenson as well. It was a totally different team with at least 1 less key player as the Odom experiment failed. And even with that, we were literally 2 plays away from winning the first 2 games against the best team in the conference.

Give the 12 Mavs Gortat and that OKC series is going 7...and I love the Mavs chances.

You guys literally have no clue what you are talking about here. The over-rating of a role player has gone too far. ****er is averaging 6/8/1 in the playoffs over the last 2 years and he's talked about like he's a legit superstar still...

[tpols]

Tyson Chandler's wing equivalent would be someone like Brandon Jennings or something like that.

Tyson Chandler was a double double DPOY caliber player when he was on the Mavericks. In the 11 playoffs he was actually better than he was on the knicks the following year when he won the award.


Brandon Jennings is a low IQ below average guard. Tyson does the most impactful things a big man can possibly do.. all at an extremely high level. Rebounding, rim protection, and finishing/screen setting. Thats all positive impact. Jennings literally has negative impact as a guard.


A good small man comparison for Tyson would be someone like Ron Artest... not a great scorer, but can do all the fundamental things necessary to win and has a game predicated on great defense and toughness. I'm talking about ron artest here.. not metta world peace.

[Dresta]

I kinda agree, particularly in regard to defensive sieves like Harden who get way more respect than they deserve.

[moe94]

Ron Artest was once a legit offensive threat and absolutely a two way player. Chandler isn't on that level.

[Clifton]

What do you mean offensive player? Someone who can run the offense? Are you taking into account point guards or something? If you mean scorers, then flat out list 5 better scorers in the NBA.
I mean total offensive impact.

Chris Paul is in the top 5, and he doesn't score too much. Durant is in the top 5, and he regularly leads the league in scoring. It's scoring, passing, playmaking, and all that; but really it's the intangible quality of having control over a game on the offensive end. Jason Kidd at 40 is a good example of that quality. He could go 5 games without hitting a shot and still impact the game more than many guys who averaged double digits.

Even as a 20+ppg scorer, Dwight Howard ranked very low as an offensive impact player IMO. (As far as top players go he might have been dead last.) But even when Dwight's bpg numbers are not especially impressive, he still has a very high defensive impact. Shaq had some of the greatest defensive impact of all-time simply by being (and playing) bigger than everyone and being mobile enough to get in your face when you approached the basket - I wouldn't call him a "good defensive player" though like I would Duncan.


Ron Artest was once a legit offensive threat and absolutely a two way player. Chandler isn't on that level.
Yeah, and an absolute beast and game-changer on defense.

Artest is a good example of a guy who was never much of an impact player on offense, even when he was getting 20ppg. (Still a good contributor but hardly on any of the upper tiers.) But yes Artest could score much better than most guys whose primary impact is on D. A 2-way player to be sure, just not evenly.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I sort of agree with the OP. If Melo went down and the Knicks played like shit (as they are now) then we would be hearing about how impactful Melo is etc.. Chandler is underrated.

[Clifton]

I sort of agree with the OP. If Melo went down and the Knicks played like shit (as they are now) then we would be hearing about how impactful Melo is etc.. Chandler is underrated.
Well, it's funny you mention this, because, IIRC, when Melo goes down, the Knicks play okay...

And are people not saying the Knicks miss Chandler?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Well, it's funny you mention this, because, IIRC, when Melo goes down, the Knicks play okay...

And are people not saying the Knicks miss Chandler?
They are, but probably not as much as they should.

[DMAVS41]

Tyson Chandler was a double double DPOY caliber player when he was on the Mavericks. In the 11 playoffs he was actually better than he was on the knicks the following year when he won the award.


Brandon Jennings is a low IQ below average guard. Tyson does the most impactful things a big man can possibly do.. all at an extremely high level. Rebounding, rim protection, and finishing/screen setting. Thats all positive impact. Jennings literally has negative impact as a guard.


A good small man comparison for Tyson would be someone like Ron Artest... not a great scorer, but can do all the fundamental things necessary to win and has a game predicated on great defense and toughness. I'm talking about ron artest here.. not metta world peace.

Except he wasn't a double double player on the Mavs. And even worse, he was an 8/9/0 player in the playoffs in 32 minutes per game.

Prime Ron Artest was infinitely more valuable to a team than Chandler was on the 11 Mavs.

Isn't it a little odd that you rail on Dirk for his rebounding throughout his career...yet now Chandler is an elite rebounder at his position? May want to check that "extremely high level" rebounding...doesn't really make sense.

Chandler can only play roughly 30 to 32 minutes a game without getting into foul trouble as well.

His over-rating has become absurd...

Put it his way. If Chandler is your clear cut 2nd best player...you likely have little to no shot to win the title. I don't know what that makes his impact, but sure as hell isn't top 5 caliber in the league.

[tpols]

Except he wasn't a double double player on the Mavs. And even worse, he was an 8/9/0 player in the playoffs in 32 minutes per game.

Prime Ron Artest was infinitely more valuable to a team than Chandler was on the 11 Mavs.

Isn't it a little odd that you rail on Dirk for his rebounding throughout his career...yet now Chandler is an elite rebounder at his position? May want to check that "extremely high level" rebounding...doesn't really make sense.

Chandler can only play roughly 30 to 32 minutes a game without getting into foul trouble as well.

His over-rating has become absurd...

Put it his way. If Chandler is your clear cut 2nd best player...you likely have little to no shot to win the title. I don't know what that makes his impact, but sure as hell isn't top 5 caliber in the league.
You should slide an 'offensive' in there.. Tyson cant be your 2nd best offensive player. I agree.

He can sure as hell be your first best defensive player and make a frontcourt that would otherwise get trampled a formidable force. And I believe that has a lot of value. He's not a top 10 player or whatever.. but if you have a team with capable offensive talent but no defensive anchor and you add a piece like Tyson to it.. it just takes them to the next level. A level they would have never come close to reaching had the defense not been there.

[DMAVS41]

You should slide an 'offensive' in there.. Tyson cant be your 2nd best offensive player. I agree.

He can sure as hell be your first best defensive player and make a frontcourt that would otherwise get trampled a formidable force. And I believe that has a lot of value. He's not a top 10 player or whatever.. but if you have a team with capable offensive talent but no defensive anchor and you add a piece like Tyson to it.. it just takes them to the next level. A level they would have never come close to reaching had the defense not been there.

If you are talking about the Mavs...it's just false. The 06 Mavs didn't have a Chandler and went through the Spurs...a team that was better than anyone they beat in 11.

But who is arguing that Chandler isn't good?

And you are just sidestepping the statement. Forget offense vs defense. I'm talking overall. If Chandler is your clear cut 2nd best player...you simply aren't winning realistically. For example...if Terry had played like he normally did in the playoffs since 06...the Mavs don't win and Chandler would have then been the clear cut 2nd best player.

I mean...Jesus. This is a guy that has averaged like 7/8/1 in 32 minutes per game over his last 3 playoff appearances. And he's a really good defender, but nowhere near the Duncan or KG anchor that you speak of.

Like...he's really good. Maybe a top 40 or so player in the league. Something like that. And that just isn't worth his contract nor the praise he gets here.

[FreezingTsmoove]

I guarantee any member on ISH would have him as a Top 5 defensive player in the NBA right now.

[Kyle_korver]

THE MOST OVERRATED CENTER IN THE LEAGUE, PLAYERS LIKE DEANDRE JORDAN, DWIGHT HOWARD AND MCGEE GET BASHED FOR NO MOVES WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TRY TO DEVELOP THEM BUT ALL TYSON DOES IS YELL AND CATCH ALLEY OOPS.. KNICKS SUCK WITH HIM OR WITHOUT HIM:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: