Exactly.

You should note that I said Joe Johnson is actually unlikley to have as long a career as Schrempf, just that I think Joe Johnson has a less chance of getting hurt in ages 24-33 than Schrempf does. After 33, I think Schrempf most likley has a more productive career.

I feel like 33-34 on average is the age where most NBA players suffer significant decline. It should be noted that Schrempf also declined from these ages as well.

yeah, of all the arguments, this is a dumb one. both are durable, and JJ will likely have a long successful career. detlef DID have a long successful career, so we should probably give him a small edge in this regard, BUT, we should credit BOTH players for being durable.

i hate to do this, but i feel a need to protect my own players and i feel this is a great time: why is grant hill more injury prone than detlef scrhempf?

can anyone give me a solid argument for this?

because his ankle was already ****ed up before he turned 24? not to mention he had a significantly more than average amount of injuries in college. it was general knowledge that he was injury prone, and the first few healthy seasons were more likely an anomaly than the norm

heh I will also ask this then...

Why is Kevin Martin more injury prone than Rip Hamilton?

detlef missed significant action (15+ games) his first two years in the league. grant hill missed 17 games in his first 5 seasons in the league. next attempt?

Ok if we're gonna go down this road you might as well discount injuries as a criteria all together.

epipen, wait til after i'm done with grant hill. i feel like by the end of this we'll put the injury thing to bed once and for all

since the last few pages seem like an argumentative stalemate, I'll just comment on the teams.

I really really like BigChiip's team. Every player really adds a unique dimension. The team has low post scoring, one of the all time great defensive anchors, strong rebounding, a shooter with great range, a very good ball-handler and distributor, and a versatile big guy with an oddball skillset (who has proven to be a great team cog when he's not a primary option). The team also has the advantage of being extremely flexible for its 5th starter since it has no pressing needs, so you can draft BPA for maximum EV. You can go big and make Odom a 3, which is currently the fantasy for us Laker fans for 2009.

Strickland has nice stats but I never saw him play. Is there a reason why he played on so many teams in his career? Does he have a bad attitude?

you didn't address anything i said.

to an extent, yes, that's my point. some guys got unlucky IRL. by the outlines of this thing, the injuries may or may not happen IRL.

hey guys - I hear people saying that some injuries wouldve been avoided if thse players from back in the day were treated with new age medicine and technology we have today...making them not-so-injury-prone in this league we have today.

If this is true - would the same argument hold for alcoholism??? I mean - I know there was a 12 step program in the 90's but is it fair to say an alcoholic then can be treated better with the better facilities we have today....making him not have the alcohol problems???

klj, that's ridiculous. he wouldn't have been a 3rd overall pick in a strong draft if he was doomed as you've suggested.

because grant hill took ~3 years to recover from a bad ankle. That's why.

shark,

no.

Yes and no. He played on his ankle in NBA games multiple times after his ankle hadn't been completely healed (before and after multiple surgeries). There's a reason that Bynum, Oden, etc. are given the greatest lengths possible to make sure they're healthy enough.

Asking if he has a bad attitude is similar to asking if yao ming is tall

didn't say doomed, and i apologize if my tone came off that way. what i mean is:

he already had problems with his left ankle (and other things, but we'll focus on the ankle). he comes into the league, plays almost 6 full durable seasons, and at the first occurance of re-injuring the ankle, misses 3 seasons and nothing close to a full seasons afterwards.

so - that means Shawn Kemp is destined to be fukd up in this league inevitably? (acoholic)

Yes, but I'm gonna use Oden as an example again. Oden played in a pickup game and got in huge trouble with the Blazers for doing that. This was MONTHS after surgery. Hill played in a playoff series on his ankle which everyone knew had degenerative problems. This was foolish and likely caused the ankle permanent damage. The only argument I think you guys have would be to say "Hill is always going to do this." I disagree with this, but it's at least valid.

yeah, because it's more an underlying personality issue. you can't change those. that's why i think that the "Hill is always going to play on his ankle and eff it up" argument is valid, even though i disagree with it because any good coach would say "no sit the **** down."

I don't think it's even valid, the coach has the final say on if they will play with their injures or not.

I for one, will not be letting God McHale (or any of my other stars) play on any broken foot, or any type of threatening injury.

hey guys i PMed alex bc it looks like he's on. im heading out to play bball. hopefully there are some picks when im back!

the problem is, who knows how it would have healed if he had sat for a week? a month? longer?

this is one of the inherent problems with being time bandits and trying to **** with the past. you can just tell coleman to stay the **** away from the alcohol, or get a great coach that keeps him in line. you can give a longer than usual amount of rest to player X because you "know" what will happen if you dont. hell, you can even tell steve nash exactly the style of play he needs to be successful, and the onset of his peak will be much, much earlier. not to mention the "modern medical advancements".

lets not **** too much with the time-space continuum guys, otherwise this draft is just one big cluster**** with everyone saying, "I can change X and Y won't happen"


p.s. I have injured players too.