Sports Illustrated asked its writers to weigh in with their picks for the greatest college basketball player of all time. Read through their selections and then tell us yours. Spike TV will air a special on the players at 10 p.m. ET on March 30.
I recently mentioned to a colleague that I was writing a piece on how former Duke forward Shane Battier was college basketball's greatest player. His response? "Wow. Shane Battier? Can you really make that argument?"
In a word: yes.
There have been better pure shooters, better ball handlers, better blockers, but there has never been a college player with a better all-around game than Battier. As a senior, he became the first ACC player --- and fourth player overall -- to achieve 1,500 points, 500 rebounds, 200 blocks, 200 assists and 200 steals during his career. It's not surprising then that Mike Krzyzewski calls No. 31 the most complete player he has ever coached. "I've coached a lot of great players, but no one quite like [Battier]. He's so good, sometimes I think he's not human," said Krzyzewski in an interview in 2001. "He must be an alien."
This alien understood as well as anyone what he needed to do to make his team better and what he needed to do to lead his team to victory. The NCAA's winningest player, Battier knew how to win. "The one consistent thing is that Shane Battier is going to have a good game," said Arizona coach Lute Olson after losing to Duke in the national title game in '01. "He just makes things happen."
Battier capped his sensational college career with a national championship and Final Four MVP honors as he led Duke to wins over Maryland and Arizona in his final two games. For his leadership and his outstanding play, he was named Player of the Year and honored with the Naismith and Wooden awards as a senior.
Battier wasn't flashy. He simply worked hard, and was committed to his team and to winning. Defense was the backbone of his game. He became the third NCAA player --- after UNLV's Stacey Augmon and Wake Forest's Tim Duncan -- to be named National Defensive Player of the Year three times. So much of what Battier did --- his anticipation, timing, leadership, communication and heart -- may have been overlooked by outsiders, but his presence on the court was a source of strength and comfort for his teammates and coach. "That kid makes the whole class raise to a higher level," said Coach K.
For all of his on-court prowess, Battier excelled off the court as well. A three-time academic All-America who graduated with a 3.43 GPA and a degree in religion, Battier embodied the student-athlete ideal the NCAA so often touts yet so rarely finds on the Division I basketball court. As an outspoken, intelligent person he often spoke on behalf of student athletes and served as president of the Student Basketball Council, a committee established to give players a voice in the business of college basketball.
So, yes, if you look only at stats, and Battier may not be the absolute best who ever played college hoops. But examine the whole package, and you'll be hard-pressed to find another player who did as much on and off the court.
"CoolHandDuke tbdm" <cbw1972@northstate.net> wrote in news:1111164729.724010.264600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
As a senior, he became the first ACC> player --- and fourth player overall -- to achieve 1,500 points, 500> rebounds, 200 blocks, 200 assists and 200 steals during his career.
I Like Sockeye 18 March 2005 23:01:34 [ permanent link ]
Ask Jerry West how many trades he's turned down involving Shane Battier. He, along with the Custodian and Mike Miller, are the main reasons why the Griz keep winning without Gasol, Stro, JWill, Bonzi, etc. He may not ever achieve "star" status in the NBA, but I'm willing to bet that he's gonig to play in a lot of playoff games throughtout his career.
"elaich" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:3a0hi6F66fq3kU4@individual.net...> "CoolHandDuke tbdm" <cbw1972@northstate.net> wrote in> news:1111164729.724010.264600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:>
Shane Battier>> No college player had more complete all-around game>
And he's become SUCH a big star in the NBA, like all the other Duke> players.
No matter how many times its pointed out that this is a completely irrelevant argument, it continues to be posted.
Geoffrey F. Green 18 March 2005 23:25:24 [ permanent link ]
In article <UJidnWqXh8OatabfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, "Michael 182" <mhoXYZrwith@cXoXYmXYZcXaXYsXYZt.coXYZm> wrote:
"elaich" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:3a0hi6F66fq3kU4@individual.net...> > "CoolHandDuke tbdm" <cbw1972@northstate.net> wrote in> > news:1111164729.724010.264600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:> >
Shane Battier> >> No college player had more complete all-around game> >
And he's become SUCH a big star in the NBA, like all the other Duke> > players.>
No matter how many times its pointed out that this is a completely > irrelevant argument, it continues to be posted.
elaich wrote:> "CoolHandDuke tbdm" <cbw1972@northstate.net> wrote in > news:1111164729.724010.264600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:>
Shane Battier>>No college player had more complete all-around game>
And he's become SUCH a big star in the NBA, like all the other Duke > players.
He is only leading his playoff-bound team with a +/- of 10.1. That is #20 overall. But I guess you believe individual stats are more important than being a team player or winning.
Harry Everhart 19 March 2005 00:01:05 [ permanent link ]
elaich <a@b.c> wrote:> And he's become SUCH a big star in the NBA, like all the other Duke > players.
Honestly - what do you care how well your team's former college players do in the NBA? College ball is different - it requires team work. NBA ball is about individuals. Once a kid gets done his ball in college - it is out of my realm and on to a different blowoff newsgroup.
If anything - it proves what a great coach that K is. When his team wins six out of seven ACC championships - and then the players go to the pros and do not do as well - it means K's coaching was the difference. It is just the opposite for UNC players - they do not do well in the ACC - and then go to the NFL and star. It must mean that UNC's (four coaches in four years) and not that good with all that talent. I think 4 UNC players will bolt to the NBA and star there. What does that say for Roy - if he chokes and does not win the big one this year?
If you want to take it to the extreme - should Duke claim success if Livingston does well in the NBA simply because they drafted him?
NCAA > NBA. I f you do not believe that - why are you blabbing on this here chat
Mr. Everhart, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Emeka Okafor was everything that Battier was, but better. Stronger, faster, smarter. Also won a national championship. Graduated in 3 years, not 4. Legendary in terms of his off-the-court class and dignity. And - simply a better player. Much.
Battier was great, but if Duke had Okafor, Battier would be a footnote. Battier - as with all Duke players - benefited from the media hype machine that drives Duke basketball.
Sorry, it's true. I know Battier was great guy, and a great college player. He was. But Okafor is Battier - just one level better.
Honestly - what do you care how well your team's former college
players do in the NBA?
The point is that Duke players are overrated and benefit from the media's false perception. You could make an argument for perhaps a few Duke underachievers. But ALL of them? Even the successful ones are no where near the level they should be based on where they were drafted.
If anything - it proves what a great coach that K is.
These players are not "no-names" that K found in the bargain bin. They are ALL HS All-Americans of the highest degree. Every one. This year alone - in a year of so-called Duke dearth of talent - K has FIVE HS All Americans. FIVE. Do you realize that is just one less than Calhoun has EVER had in almost 20 years at UConn?!?!?!
K is a great coach. I think the best. I think Calhoun (or Knight) are the only coaches even in his class. But the evidence is clear, the guy just can't develop talent for the NBA like his peers.
Geoffrey F. Green 19 March 2005 00:37:00 [ permanent link ]
In article <1111177778.204311.286040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Jama" <mrjama@aol.com> wrote:
These players are not "no-names" that K found in the bargain bin. They> are ALL HS All-Americans of the highest degree. Every one. This year> alone - in a year of so-called Duke dearth of talent - K has FIVE HS> All Americans. FIVE. Do you realize that is just one less than> Calhoun has EVER had in almost 20 years at UConn?!?!?!
At the same time some people claim that players are named to the McD A-A team solely because they are going to Duke or NC. Players like Casey Sanders or Neil Fingleton or Michael Thompson or Kris Lang (IIRC). I'm not sure how much of this is actually true, though, but I'm not certain in which universe Casey Sanders (or Neil Fingleton) were considered to be among the top players in the country.
Jama wrote:>>Honestly - what do you care how well your team's former college>
players> do in the NBA?>
The point is that Duke players are overrated and benefit from the> media's false perception. You could make an argument for perhaps a few> Duke underachievers. But ALL of them? Even the successful ones are no> where near the level they should be based on where they were drafted.
Elton Brand Carlos Boozer Luol Deng (injured but starting earlier) Chris Duhon Corey Maggette Michael Dunleavy Jr. Shane Battier Grant Hill
That is 8 NBA starters from Duke. Name another team with that many.
Jama wrote:> Emeka Okafor was everything that Battier was, but better. Stronger,> faster, smarter. Also won a national championship. Graduated in 3> years, not 4. Legendary in terms of his off-the-court class and> dignity. And - simply a better player. Much.>
Battier was great, but if Duke had Okafor, Battier would be a footnote.> Battier - as with all Duke players - benefited from the media hype> machine that drives Duke basketball.>
Sorry, it's true. I know Battier was great guy, and a great college> player. He was. But Okafor is Battier - just one level better.
You must lack the skill of reading comprehension. The headline speaks of all around game. How many 3 pointers did Okafor hit? What was his FT shooting like? What about assists?
Okafor defensively compares with Ewing and Hakeem. An all-timer. He would own the all-time NCAA block record had he stayed 4 years. Battier was a great college defender, but certainly not an all-timer.
Offensively, Okafor was not 'super'. But neither was Battier. Didn't Battier miss his first 20 3-pt attempts? Plus, Okafor scored 20 points in 18 minutes against Duke in a Final Four game. I'd call that pretty good offense. His offensive stats compare favorably (that means better than) to Ewing and Hakeem as well.
And off-the-court, you'd be hard pressed to show me Battier was a better person than Okafor. Okafor did graduate in 3 years, and I know his GPA was in the stratosphere. Remember, Okafor played his entire (just about) junior year with a very painful bad back. He had guts, style and class.
Be honest - if you could start a team right now, I guarantee you 75% would pick Okafor over Battier.
"Jama" <mrjama@aol.com> wrote in message news:1111177778.204311.286040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
K is a great coach. I think the best. I think Calhoun (or Knight) are> the only coaches even in his class. But the evidence is clear, the guy> just can't develop talent for the NBA like his peers.
I'm no Duke fan, being a UNC grad, but maybe "guy just can't develop talent for the NBA like his peers." because he is too busy doing his job - developing great college basketball teams that consistently win.
"Jama" <mrjama@aol.com> wrote in news:1111179482.576388.80520@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Offensively, Okafor was not 'super'. But neither was Battier. Didn't> Battier miss his first 20 3-pt attempts?
And Okafor was able to downplay his offense in college for the good of the team, and then bring it to the fore in the pros. By comparison, Battier's PPG has slid steadily during his NBA stint (Dookies don't have NBA careers).
Jama wrote:>>The headline speaks of all around game.>
[response which doesn't address all around game snipped]
I am not arguing with you over which player is better. You are so blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that someone could say something positive about another team's (especially Duke's) player. Sure, Okafor is better, but does he have a better all around game?
It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue that Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a better all around game.
Perusion Hostmaster 19 March 2005 01:13:36 [ permanent link ]
On 2005-03-18, Erik T. Nomad <erikthenomad@hotmail.com> wrote:> At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were> you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.> Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it.
Some of us don't listen.
--
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
I'm not trying to diss Battier. He was a great college player. But the Duke media bias continues to amaze. If Okafor were on Duke, I'm telling you - he would be the Duke poster boy over Battier. You know he would be. He had everything Battier did AND now the NBA superstar career. No if ands or buts.
blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that someone could say something positive about another team's (especially Duke's) player.
Geez would you please read my posts. I said that Battier was great, just that Okafor was better. And he was. It's just an opinion. Also, in case haven't read all my posts, I DID say in this same thread that I think K is the best coach - even better than Calhoun. Read, please.
Jama wrote:> I'm not trying to diss Battier. He was a great college player. But> the Duke media bias continues to amaze. If Okafor were on Duke, I'm> telling you - he would be the Duke poster boy over Battier. You know> he would be. He had everything Battier did AND now the NBA superstar> career. No if ands or buts.>
Jama
I'm just amazed that nobody on this thread has brought up, say, Bill Walton or Lew Alcindor. Must be the dreaded ECMB.
It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue
that Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a better all around game.
You've just proven how silly your position is. It's not about who will win a game of "h-o-r-s-e". Or who can make more free throws. Best all-around means offense, defense, and off-court.
Jama wrote:>>The headline speaks of all around game.>
Okafor defensively compares with Ewing and Hakeem. An all-timer. He> would own the all-time NCAA block record had he stayed 4 years.> Battier was a great college defender, but certainly not an all-timer.>
Offensively, Okafor was not 'super'. But neither was Battier. Didn't> Battier miss his first 20 3-pt attempts? Plus, Okafor scored 20 points> in 18 minutes against Duke in a Final Four game. I'd call that pretty> good offense. His offensive stats compare favorably (that means better> than) to Ewing and Hakeem as well.>
And off-the-court, you'd be hard pressed to show me Battier was a> better person than Okafor. Okafor did graduate in 3 years, and I know> his GPA was in the stratosphere. Remember, Okafor played his entire> (just about) junior year with a very painful bad back. He had guts,> style and class.>
Be honest - if you could start a team right now, I guarantee you 75%> would pick Okafor over Battier.>
And I could name a guy who was better at both ends than either of them. Fits my definition of all-around.
Jama wrote:>>It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue>
that> Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a> better all around game.>
You've just proven how silly your position is. It's not about who will> win a game of "h-o-r-s-e". Or who can make more free throws. Best> all-around means offense, defense, and off-court.
No, you still don't understand the writer's point. You can be a very one dimensional player and still be a great player. But that doesn't make you a good all around player.
The writer attempted to look at more than just one or two stats to make his argument. If you agree with his methodology you can't argue the results that the methodology generates, only the methodology itself. But you haven't decided to do that, but instead to argue that "EMEKA'S BETTER, EMEKA'S BETTER!!!"
Along those lines, I'll argue "TIM DUNCAN'S BETTER, TIM DUNCAN'S BETTER!!!!"
blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that> someone could say something positive about another team's (especially> Duke's) player.>
Geez would you please read my posts. I said that Battier was great,> just that Okafor was better. And he was. It's just an opinion. Also,> in case haven't read all my posts, I DID say in this same thread that I> think K is the best coach - even better than Calhoun. Read, please.
I did read that, it had nothing to do with who has a better all around game. And I agreed that Okafor is better, even if the stats guys at www.82games.com disagree for this year.
It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue>>
that>> Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a>> better all around game.>>
You've just proven how silly your position is. It's not about who will>> win a game of "h-o-r-s-e". Or who can make more free throws. Best>> all-around means offense, defense, and off-court.>
No, you still don't understand the writer's point. You can be a very > one dimensional player and still be a great player. But that doesn't > make you a good all around player.>
The writer attempted to look at more than just one or two stats to make > his argument. If you agree with his methodology you can't argue the > results that the methodology generates, only the methodology itself. But > you haven't decided to do that, but instead to argue that "EMEKA'S > BETTER, EMEKA'S BETTER!!!">
Along those lines, I'll argue "TIM DUNCAN'S BETTER, TIM DUNCAN'S > BETTER!!!!"
blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that>> someone could say something positive about another team's (especially>> Duke's) player.>>
Geez would you please read my posts. I said that Battier was great,>> just that Okafor was better. And he was. It's just an opinion. Also,>> in case haven't read all my posts, I DID say in this same thread that I>> think K is the best coach - even better than Calhoun. Read, please.>
I did read that, it had nothing to do with who has a better all around > game.
blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that>>> someone could say something positive about another team's (especially>>> Duke's) player.>>>
Geez would you please read my posts. I said that Battier was great,>>> just that Okafor was better. And he was. It's just an opinion. Also,>>> in case haven't read all my posts, I DID say in this same thread that I>>> think K is the best coach - even better than Calhoun. Read, please.>>
I did read that, it had nothing to do with who has a better all around >> game. >
Larry Bird, '79.
Fair enough... That would have been awesome if Bird had single handedly won the championship. I wish I could have seen his run through the tourney.
Michael Sullivan 19 March 2005 03:23:02 [ permanent link ]
Jama <mrjama@aol.com> wrote:
I'm not trying to diss Battier. He was a great college player. But> the Duke media bias continues to amaze. If Okafor were on Duke, I'm> telling you - he would be the Duke poster boy over Battier. You know> he would be. He had everything Battier did AND now the NBA superstar> career. No if ands or buts.
Um. I love Okafor, but right now Battier is a better NBA player. In fact, Battier is good enough that Okafor could end up doing quite well and still not be any better than Battier long term.
Which says exactly zero about who the better college player was, but I'm just saying. The notion that Battier is no more than a role-player in the NBA is ludicrous. Just because he doesn't score 20 and grab a ton of headlines with flashy aerobatics, doesn't mean he's mediocre.
In terms of total value to a team, he's probably in the top 30-40 players in the league (#20 by Roland ranking as navin mentioned). Lotta guys get drafted #1-4 and never play as well as Shane is playing right now.
Edward M. Kennedy 19 March 2005 03:25:32 [ permanent link ]
"Michael Sullivan" <michael@bcect.com> wrote
In terms of total value to a team, he's probably in the top 30-40> players in the league (#20 by Roland ranking as navin mentioned). Lotta> guys get drafted #1-4 and never play as well as Shane is playing right> now.
Trotting out actual facts in front of a troll isn't going to get you anywhere. It only amuses the troll.
Perusion Hostmaster 19 March 2005 04:21:04 [ permanent link ]
On 2005-03-18, navin <snivan@earthlink.net> wrote:> Jama wrote:>>>It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue>>
that>> Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a>> better all around game.>>
You've just proven how silly your position is. It's not about who will>> win a game of "h-o-r-s-e". Or who can make more free throws. Best>> all-around means offense, defense, and off-court.>
No, you still don't understand the writer's point. You can be a very > one dimensional player and still be a great player. But that doesn't > make you a good all around player.
Duncan is a *tremendous* overall player. Decent if not great outside shooter, multiple go-to post moves, great rebounder, great shot-blocker, underrated passer. Freethrows shaky, but better than Shaq.
Duncan over the past 8 years has by far been the best *all-around* player in the game. I have to give best player to Shaqille O'Neal, but not by very much. They are without a doubt the top two.
--
If you like what you're gettin', keep doin' what you're doin'. -- Hector
Perusion Hostmaster wrote:> On 2005-03-18, navin <snivan@earthlink.net> wrote:>
Jama wrote:>>
It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue>>>
that>>>Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a>>>better all around game.>>>
You've just proven how silly your position is. It's not about who will>>>win a game of "h-o-r-s-e". Or who can make more free throws. Best>>>all-around means offense, defense, and off-court.>>
No, you still don't understand the writer's point. You can be a very >>one dimensional player and still be a great player. But that doesn't >>make you a good all around player.>
Duncan is a *tremendous* overall player. Decent if not great outside> shooter, multiple go-to post moves, great rebounder, great shot-blocker,> underrated passer. Freethrows shaky, but better than Shaq.>
Duncan over the past 8 years has by far been the best *all-around*> player in the game. I have to give best player to Shaqille O'Neal, but> not by very much. They are without a doubt the top two.
Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I'm looking at as all around. Blocks, steals, points, rebounds, 3's, shooting, free throws is a pretty broad range. PTS RBD AST STL BLK FG FT 3PT Kirilenko 15.6 6.7 3.2 1.6 3.3 48.2 79.0 0.6 Duncan 21.2 11.6 2.8 0.7 2.7 50.0 66.7 0.1
Kirilenko's numbers are down this year because of his knee injury, but I hope they still provide a good look at his "all-around" game. Picking Duncan was probably a bad move on my part, he is well rounded for a center. A better pick would have been Shaq vs. Kirilenko.
I also must disagree with you leaving out Kevin Garnett. He has definitely been up there with Duncan and Shaq in the discussion for best player in the game. The Roland Ratings certainly agree with me.
Perusion Hostmaster 19 March 2005 05:20:58 [ permanent link ]
On 2005-03-19, navin <snivan@earthlink.net> wrote:> Perusion Hostmaster wrote:>> Duncan is a *tremendous* overall player. Decent if not great outside>> shooter, multiple go-to post moves, great rebounder, great shot-blocker,>> underrated passer. Freethrows shaky, but better than Shaq.>>
Duncan over the past 8 years has by far been the best *all-around*>> player in the game. I have to give best player to Shaqille O'Neal, but>> not by very much. They are without a doubt the top two.>
Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I'm looking at as all around. > Blocks, steals, points, rebounds, 3's, shooting, free throws is a pretty > broad range.> PTS RBD AST STL BLK FG FT 3PT> Kirilenko 15.6 6.7 3.2 1.6 3.3 48.2 79.0 0.6> Duncan 21.2 11.6 2.8 0.7 2.7 50.0 66.7 0.1>
Kirilenko's numbers are down this year because of his knee injury, but I > hope they still provide a good look at his "all-around" game. Picking > Duncan was probably a bad move on my part, he is well rounded for a > center. A better pick would have been Shaq vs. Kirilenko.
Then we see things the same way. Shaq is a better player than Kirilenko by far, as is Duncan. But Shaq (though he passes well) is not the overall player -- for instance, Duncan can handle the ball whereas Shaq cannot.
What Shaq and Duncan both have over Kirilenko is something you don't see in stats; if you did, I would call it DDA. That stands for "demanding defensive attention". If you don't pay that attention, either Shaq or Duncan will absolutely run wild. DDA is what Shaq has over every other player, and what makes him the biggest impact player in the game.
--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. -- unknown
Perusion Hostmaster 19 March 2005 05:22:28 [ permanent link ]
On 2005-03-19, Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusion.com> wrote:> What Shaq and Duncan both have over Kirilenko is something you don't see> in stats; if you did, I would call it DDA. That stands for "demanding> defensive attention". If you don't pay that attention, either Shaq or> Duncan will absolutely run wild. DDA is what Shaq has over every other> player, and what makes him the biggest impact player in the game.>
Perhaps we could call it "DDT", for "drew double team". Obviously hard to score, but it would be an interesting stat.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time. -- Barney
Sports Illustrated asked its writers to weigh in with their picks for> the greatest college basketball player of all time. Read through their> selections and then tell us yours. Spike TV will air a special on the> players at 10 p.m. ET on March 30.>
I recently mentioned to a colleague that I was writing a piece on how> former Duke forward Shane Battier was college basketball's greatest> player. His response? "Wow. Shane Battier? Can you really make that> argument?">
In a word: yes.
No.
This is the kind of high-school-essay question where getting an interesting answer is valued more highly than getting the right answer.
There have been better pure shooters, better ball handlers, better> blockers, but there has never been a college player with a better> all-around game than Battier. As a senior, he became the first ACC> player --- and fourth player overall -- to achieve 1,500 points, 500> rebounds, 200 blocks, 200 assists and 200 steals during his career.
Very impressive, but he was only the fourth guy to do this.
...
Battier capped his sensational college career with a national> championship and Final Four MVP honors as he led Duke to wins over> Maryland and Arizona in his final two games. For his leadership and his> outstanding play, he was named Player of the Year and honored with the> Naismith and Wooden awards as a senior.
Only one NPOY. Doesn't rule him out, but some have won more.
...
For all of his on-court prowess, Battier excelled off the court as> well. A three-time academic All-America who graduated with a 3.43 GPA> and a degree in religion, Battier embodied the student-athlete ideal> the NCAA so often touts yet so rarely finds on the Division I> basketball court. [etc.]
Not really relevant to the question, even if it is more important in the grand scheme of things.
So, yes, if you look only at stats, and Battier may not be the absolute> best who ever played college hoops. But examine the whole package, and> you'll be hard-pressed to find another player who did as much on and> off the court.
Here's where the author admits he's wrong.
I don't mean to badmouth Battier. But "best college player of all time" is a pretty high bar, and he had a lot of good teammates to help him win a championship. I think people tend to negatively weigh pro performance when they're trying to come up with an interesting "best collegian" candidate. Bird pretty much took Indiana State to the finals by himself. Sampson was the only reason UVa was a power. Walton and Alcindor weren't so bad in college. I could go on. Of course, lately nobody plays for four years, so gives Battier an edge in the "best of the turn-of-the-millennium era" category.
On Fri, 18 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:> At the same time some people claim that players are named to the McD > A-A team solely because they are going to Duke or NC. Players like > Casey Sanders or Neil Fingleton or Michael Thompson or Kris Lang > (IIRC). I'm not sure how much of this is actually true, though, but > I'm not certain in which universe Casey Sanders (or Neil Fingleton) > were considered to be among the top players in the country.
Fing must have been one of the best IN THE WORLD if he was a McD AA since he wasn't even from the US.
[response which doesn't address all around game snipped]>
I am not arguing with you over which player is better. You are so > blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that > someone could say something positive about another team's (especially > Duke's) player. Sure, Okafor is better, but does he have a better all > around game?>
It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue that > Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko has a > better all around game.
Well, the headline of the original article did talk about "all around game", but that seems to be the criterion that the author chose to justify Battier as "the greatest college basketball player of all time", which was the question SI asked.
If you're not talking about the *best* player of all time, then you might as well be talking about the best free throw shooter or taker of charges. Being roughly equally far above the mean in everything is just another specialty.
Perusion Hostmaster wrote:> On 2005-03-19, navin <snivan@earthlink.net> wrote:>
Perusion Hostmaster wrote:>>
Duncan is a *tremendous* overall player. Decent if not great outside>>>shooter, multiple go-to post moves, great rebounder, great shot-blocker,>>>underrated passer. Freethrows shaky, but better than Shaq.>>>
Duncan over the past 8 years has by far been the best *all-around*>>>player in the game. I have to give best player to Shaqille O'Neal, but>>>not by very much. They are without a doubt the top two.>>
Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I'm looking at as all around. >>Blocks, steals, points, rebounds, 3's, shooting, free throws is a pretty >>broad range.>> PTS RBD AST STL BLK FG FT 3PT>>Kirilenko 15.6 6.7 3.2 1.6 3.3 48.2 79.0 0.6>>Duncan 21.2 11.6 2.8 0.7 2.7 50.0 66.7 0.1>>
Kirilenko's numbers are down this year because of his knee injury, but I >>hope they still provide a good look at his "all-around" game. Picking >>Duncan was probably a bad move on my part, he is well rounded for a >>center. A better pick would have been Shaq vs. Kirilenko.>
Then we see things the same way. Shaq is a better player than Kirilenko> by far, as is Duncan. But Shaq (though he passes well) is not the> overall player -- for instance, Duncan can handle the ball whereas> Shaq cannot.>
What Shaq and Duncan both have over Kirilenko is something you don't see> in stats; if you did, I would call it DDA. That stands for "demanding> defensive attention". If you don't pay that attention, either Shaq or> Duncan will absolutely run wild. DDA is what Shaq has over every other> player, and what makes him the biggest impact player in the game.
Agreed, at least on the offensive end. In theory, a player could be unguardable on offense, but could play matador defense. Both players are excellent defenders though.
One last point on Kirilenko... He is a wonderful defensive player, he is great at generating a bunch of turnovers. However, his offensive game still needs improvement. I am hoping he can make the jump--it's what he needs to join the elite players.
Donnie Barnes wrote:> On Fri, 18 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:>
At the same time some people claim that players are named to the McD >>A-A team solely because they are going to Duke or NC. Players like >>Casey Sanders or Neil Fingleton or Michael Thompson or Kris Lang >>(IIRC). I'm not sure how much of this is actually true, though, but >>I'm not certain in which universe Casey Sanders (or Neil Fingleton) >>were considered to be among the top players in the country.>
Fing must have been one of the best IN THE WORLD if he was a McD AA since> he wasn't even from the US.
Geoffrey F. Green 19 March 2005 07:23:38 [ permanent link ]
In article <423B9996.2020600@nc.rr.com>, Charlie Board <charlieDIESPAMMERSboard@nc.rr.com> wrote:
Donnie Barnes wrote:> > On Fri, 18 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:> >
At the same time some people claim that players are named to the McD > >>A-A team solely because they are going to Duke or NC. Players like > >>Casey Sanders or Neil Fingleton or Michael Thompson or Kris Lang > >>(IIRC). I'm not sure how much of this is actually true, though, but > >>I'm not certain in which universe Casey Sanders (or Neil Fingleton) > >>were considered to be among the top players in the country.> >
Fing must have been one of the best IN THE WORLD if he was a McD AA since> > he wasn't even from the US.>
On Sat, 19 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:> In article <423B9996.2020600@nc.rr.com>,> Charlie Board <charlieDIESPAMMERSboard@nc.rr.com> wrote:>> Donnie Barnes wrote:>> > Fing must have been one of the best IN THE WORLD if he was a McD AA since>> > he wasn't even from the US.>>
I wasn't trying to say he wasn't a McD AA, I was just making a joke in reference to you saying "were considered to be among the top players in the country." See, Fing wasn't *in* the country when he was made a McD AA. In fact, he isn't even American. I'm sure that doesn't matter, but it is a bit humorous.
[response which doesn't address all around game snipped]>>
I am not arguing with you over which player is better. You are so >> blinded by your love of UConn and Okafor that you can't admit that >> someone could say something positive about another team's (especially >> Duke's) player. Sure, Okafor is better, but does he have a better all >> around game?>>
It's like Tim Duncan and Andrei Kirilenko. No one (yet) will argue >> that Kirilenko is better, but most people will admit that Kirilenko >> has a better all around game.>
Well, the headline of the original article did talk about "all around > game", but that seems to be the criterion that the author chose to > justify Battier as "the greatest college basketball player of all time", > which was the question SI asked.>
If you're not talking about the *best* player of all time, then you > might as well be talking about the best free throw shooter or taker of > charges. Being roughly equally far above the mean in everything is just > another specialty.
As you said above, it's like a High School Essay. I would argue the point by saying the author's criteria for determing the best college player is wrong.
"Jama" <mrjama@aol.com> wrote in message news:1111180425.530402.239870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
I'm not trying to diss Battier. He was a great college player. But> the Duke media bias continues to amaze. If Okafor were on Duke, I'm> telling you - he would be the Duke poster boy over Battier. You know> he would be. He had everything Battier did AND now the NBA superstar> career. No if ands or buts.
And I'm not trying to diss Okafor, but calling him an NBA superstar is a *tad* premature, don't you think? After all, Battier averaged just about 15 ppg his rookie season as well...
Yes, if Okafor were a Dukie, there would be more press on him, more talk about his awesome GPA, etc. But would he beat out Battier for poster boy? I just can't see it.
There's no doubt when it comes to Krzyzewski's coaching ability. He's an all time great. In addition, this year he has done a great deal with the players he's got. That said, please don't suggest that coach K doesn't get great players. Look at all the McDonald's All Americans that are on his teams. He gets some of the best talent every year.
At the same time some people claim that players are named to the McD >>A-A team solely because they are going to Duke or NC. Players like >>Casey Sanders or Neil Fingleton or Michael Thompson or Kris Lang >>(IIRC). I'm not sure how much of this is actually true, though, but >>I'm not certain in which universe Casey Sanders (or Neil Fingleton) >>were considered to be among the top players in the country.>
Fing must have been one of the best IN THE WORLD if he was a McD AA since> he wasn't even from the US.>
--Donnie>
Believe it or not, he was a 2000 McDonald’s All-American. Although born in England, he played at Holy Name High School in Worcester MA.
Michael Sullivan 19 March 2005 21:09:20 [ permanent link ]
Kubez <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
"Jama" <mrjama@aol.com> wrote in > news:1111179482.576388.80520@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Offensively, Okafor was not 'super'. But neither was Battier. Didn't> > Battier miss his first 20 3-pt attempts?
And Okafor was able to downplay his offense in college for the good of the> team, and then bring it to the fore in the pros. By comparison, Battier's> PPG has slid steadily during his NBA stint (Dookies don't have NBA > careers).
ITYM "didn't have much offense". When Okafor was a frosh, he didn't score much because he had no moves. As a soph he was better but unspectacular. Oddly enough both years UConn has good but not dominant teams. Third year, he starts to really polish up that side of his game, averages close to 20 and they win the national championship.
I see clearly now that Okafor was just downplaying his offense for the good of the team in 2002/2003. Why if he'd been scoring 20, they probably wouldn't even have made the NCAAs!
Michael
-- "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -- Dwight Eisenhower "In Christ there is no killing" -- St. Patrick
