Friday, March 04, 2005
Winners or Wieners?
My favorite of the many inane rationalizations of the Walker trader is the laughable ‘AW can teach our youngsters how to win,’ argument. Huh?
Such a comment, I would assume, must be predicated on the theory that AW is a winner. Since he was drafted, those teams with #8 in their employ have logged a record of 296 wins and 383 losses. That bears repeating.
Antoine Walker is a career 296-383, a 44% winning percentage.
Now, that includes two of the worst team in NBA history, the ’96-97 Celts and the ’04-05 Hawks, but it also includes the 52-30 Dallas team from last year. How can a guy with almost 100 more losses in his career be considered a winner? Walker has had one legit playoff run in eight years. Hell, he’s only had 3 seasons over .500 in eight years.
Similarly, Celtic teams with Paul Pierce have a combined record of 248 wins and 269 losses. The dramatically overrated Pierce has had one playoff run in 6 years and only 2 winning seasons. Why does everyone think they are such big winners, and that they can teach are youngsters how to win?
Interestingly enough, two of the rookies apparently in drastic need of peers who know how to win - frankly are winners. Tony Allen’s Cowboys went 31-4 last year, reached the Final Four, and were a last second shot away from having the honor to lose to UConn in the Championship. West’s Hawks were 30-2, went most of the season with the burden of being undefeated, and become one of the few very small schools to make it as far as the Elite Eight. (I know PP and AW had successful college career too, I’m just making the point that these guys are already winners)
Maybe I’m being to negative, perhaps this will work out.
Maybe Allen and West can teach Walker and Pierce how to win.
Such a comment, I would assume, must be predicated on the theory that AW is a winner. Since he was drafted, those teams with #8 in their employ have logged a record of 296 wins and 383 losses. That bears repeating.
Antoine Walker is a career 296-383, a 44% winning percentage.
Now, that includes two of the worst team in NBA history, the ’96-97 Celts and the ’04-05 Hawks, but it also includes the 52-30 Dallas team from last year. How can a guy with almost 100 more losses in his career be considered a winner? Walker has had one legit playoff run in eight years. Hell, he’s only had 3 seasons over .500 in eight years.
Similarly, Celtic teams with Paul Pierce have a combined record of 248 wins and 269 losses. The dramatically overrated Pierce has had one playoff run in 6 years and only 2 winning seasons. Why does everyone think they are such big winners, and that they can teach are youngsters how to win?
Interestingly enough, two of the rookies apparently in drastic need of peers who know how to win - frankly are winners. Tony Allen’s Cowboys went 31-4 last year, reached the Final Four, and were a last second shot away from having the honor to lose to UConn in the Championship. West’s Hawks were 30-2, went most of the season with the burden of being undefeated, and become one of the few very small schools to make it as far as the Elite Eight. (I know PP and AW had successful college career too, I’m just making the point that these guys are already winners)
Maybe I’m being to negative, perhaps this will work out.
Maybe Allen and West can teach Walker and Pierce how to win.
# posted by jerkycsfan @ 11:54 AM 
