How will Zhou Qi be viewed by the end of the season?

@omgTHEpotential

 

Largely I agree, but wasn't Kristaps the second best rim defender in the NBA last year, right behind Gobert?

 

Why are you making such bold statements when you're obviously uninformed about the subject? Both Porzingis and Embiid were very comparable last year as far as rim protection goes. Both held their opponents to around 43% at the rim. Porzingis was even more impressive because he managed to sustain that DFG% over 66 games as opposed to Embiid's 31.

I'll give you that Embiid is a little better rebounder than Porzingis, but the disparity between their rebounding stats is inflated, because Porzingis spent much more time on the perimeter.

I think it's way too early to tell who's the better shooter of the two. 31 game sample is simply laughable to make any conclusions.

As for the post moves, yeah, Embiid is definitely superior in that regard, while Porzingis is a superior face-up player.

 

more popular than Fultz?

 

Also, Embiid got injured just before he completely ****ed his own 3PT shooting stats.

First 13 games:
18/35 - 51.4%

Next 18 games until the injury:
17/63 - 27.0%

He was scorching hot to start the season, but later on fell down to reality - either because he's not that good of a shooter to begin with, or because the opposing defenses didn't give him any easy/open shots anymore.

 

DMo could do those moves.

Seriously, you are too young to have seen Sampson going coast to coast like a guard. I'd admit that if Sampson played today, he wouldn't be as unique as he was because more and more big men are doing those things.

That's my point. If Porzi lived 30 years earlier, he would have been a freak. He still wasn't the defensive player and rebounder Sampson was. But offensively, he's close. He would have been a better post up player back in the days, and scored more points because the offense would have been more focused on him.

 

I agree they're both unique. But it's not fair to Porzingis when you say that Sampson was better on both ends than him. You're comparing a 25-year old Sampson to a 22-year old Porzingis. My point is that Porzingis' ceiling is higher than what Sampson was at his peak before the injuries. KP can become a two-way superstar. He's already one of the most impactful players on the defensive end in the whole league. And there's no doubt in my mind he has an 'omg' potential on offense

 

New generation always will disrespect the accomplishments of the greater generation .
Let's look at this thread.
-A 2nd round pick who I personally saw at summer league is compared to a Rocket legend who helped defeat a Laker team with legends on their roster in LA.
-people actually think Qi should guard Draymon like NOW

The Knicks suck. For a star to be legit, he must be able to elevate his team. Porzingis, it's questionable if he can get his team out of the bottom of the Eastern Conference.

Ralph did that, Dream did that.

The importance of the history of the Rockets is more important than ever.

 

You just proved my point.

That is what he was billed to be. Objectively speaking, did he match his hype/college dominance? No. Was he a bad player by any stretch of the imagination in the NBA? No.

Case closed.

Zhou Qi won't play this year, and if he does, our season is going badly.

 

The league was different and had different rules.
20 points in the 80s is like 30 points now.

Watch that Lakers series .

 

I don't think there's any evidence to that as yet, thanks to Melo being around.

This season will be all on Porzingis for the first time as the main man.

 

I’d like to see how porzingis plays as the main player on that team.
The east is just so bad there’s a chance they can make the 8th seed

 

That was not your point. Here is your point:

Less than stellar pro career? I just proved you wrong. His pro career was stellar right from the beginning. It was just shortened by injury. You didn't make a point about his injury. You just said he was not stellar, which is clearly wrong. His pro numbers are HOF worthy without even looking at his college success.

Not a bad player? Seriously? It's like saying "Harden is not a bad player by any stretch of the imagination in the NBA. But he doesn't have a stellar pro career objectively."

And I don't know what your point is saying that he was 25 years old. As I pointed out, he had stellar numbers even as a rookie when he was 22.

 

Actually, false, 20 points then is not 30 points now. Defense was objectively worse then than it is now. The game has evolved.

Also, tinman, nobody is immune to criticism on the Rockets. I've never denied his ability to play, and mentioned that he has had success in basketball, and have definitely not made any ad-homs to him.

And Ralph Sampson never brought a team out of the bottom of the conference. In fact, they got the 1st overall pick the next year, granted some tanking was involved as well. Your Rockets history is lacking. Name another "generational" player that led his team to the 1st overall pick the next year. I'll wait. (Crickets)

This is moving goal posts, completely ignoring the true point that Ralph Sampson was, with regards to his pre-draft hype, a disappointment, and just arguing over semantics of my diction. Let me clarify then.

Stellar career - Olajuwon

Less than stellar career - (basically) everyone (not all) else that put on a Rockets jersey. Sampson had 4 all-star years iirc. That does not equate stellar in my eyes; if it does for you, well that's just a difference in diction.

Bad player - Allen Leavell.

Not a bad player - most others on that team. That will include Sampson. Once again, just a diction thing, and avoiding my actual point.

But quite frankly, my original point, again, was that Sampson was overhyped.



Ralph Sampson was one of the most heavily recruited high school athletes of all time, considered a generational prospect coming out of the draft, moreso than Hakeem. How did he turn out? Well, not so generational.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...970ccb04497_story.html?utm_term=.ba7d682baa3b

He did not revolutionize the center position, rather, seeded 2nd fiddle to Olajuwon. Heck, he was on 6 SI covers in 4 years! 3-time college player of the year as well. What he did was incredible.

There is just no possible way Sampson's pro career matched the pre-draft hype. None. Period. Stop moving goal-posts because this was my point. I will be waiting on a true rebuttal . Heck, even if he averaged 21/11 for the rest of his career, he still would not have matched his hype. People expected mvp caliber play, not all-star caliber play.

Ralph may have been before his time, but if he actually lived up to his hype, Michael Jordan would not have gotten 6 rings.

Greatly erroneous post. Actually, you can easily tell as well who watched with their red homer glasses:

https://www.basketball-reference.co...Abdul-Jabbar&player_id2=abdulka01&idx=players

Objectively speaking, Kareem outplayed Ralph. Fortunately for the Rockets, Hakeem was up to the task. McHale also trashed Ralph as well.

That sums up Ralph Sampson: "imagine him", and "what-ifs", unfortunately. It's a shame he didn't live up to his billing.

 

Now you are moving the goalposts. If you are saying Ralph was not as good as Hakeem, no one would argue with you. But that is a different argument than Ralph did not live up to the hype.

And as far as Ralph being a "disappointment" I was a Rockets season ticket holder throughout all those years. I didn't know anyone who thought Ralph was a disappointment. He was sometimes passive and could disappear at times, but no player is perfect. Hakeem was incredibly stubborn and didn't not have the highest basketball IQ in his early years ....

This is just a bizarre argument and basically wrong. If Ralph has not gotten injured, and if the NBA has not crucified the Rockets (Lucas, Lloyd and Wiggins) for doing what many of the other players were doing in NY, LA and Boston, Jordan would not have six rings. The 1986 Rockets before the drug suspensions and Ralph's injury were a dynasty in the making, no doubt about it. But that is just my (and many others') opinion.

 

No
The game changed because the league didn’t like the ratings of the Knicks and rockets series
It was too physical

It didn’t evolve it devolved

And If Ralph and Dream circa 86 were transported to this period

They would wipe porzingis and everyone off the court

 

Your Opinion is the Same as when they say the Earth is round

 

Going by jbasket's logic in his arguments, I am inclined to believe he also thinks the world is flat.

 

the Rules Today would benefit Ralph Sampson.
He's got better handles and quickness than Porzingis and on top of that he can pass as well as James Harden.