Shumpert is like Mike and the 2nd Coming...

by Mongoke on Oct 20, 2011 3:22 PM EDT

Iman is like MJ. He shares several features with his airness off the bat. First is the city of Chicago. No Jordan wasn't from Chicago, but he made his career there. He turned Chicago into something big. He put Chicago on the map as they say and made the city important.

The second thing that they share is an extreme leaping ability. Jordan was a great leaper, and some of the players compared to Jordan have this ability and some don't measure up. Iman is definetly the former of this category, he jumps threw the roof.

Finally there's the jumper. I know I'll be taken to task for saying this, but if Iman can bring this whenever his career starts, he could be more a mirror of Jordan's start than most other comparisons. A player who's compared to Jordan is much more likely too have his leaping ability than his jumper. Jordan came into the league with a great mid-range shot. Very few players who are compared with him have this at the start of their careers. Shumpert has a chance to do something unique. The irony is that New Yorker's have always wanted a Jordan and now they have one, kind of.

On the other hand Shumpert isn't really Jordan. Let's face it, he's not as good as Mike and isn't quite as fast as Mike was. But in the name of basketball, he must have a good comparison.

My intial perspective on hearing about him is that he was probably a John Starks kind of guy. A generally solid passer, good defender and scorer with a limited jumpshot. I also thought Starks was 6-5 for some reason, but when I checked I realized he was actually 6-3.

As I heard and read more about his potential I started to look more towards other Knicks, such as Sprewell and Crawford. I eventually came to the conclusion that Shumpert is within the category of a Sprewell/Starks/Crawford type of player. But I specifically stuck to the idea of him being a Crawford/Starks hybrid, with the exact same stats as both player, not a literal combination of both. But then I saw his athleticism and took another look at his stats and his school and thought okay, Stephon Marbury/Russell Westbrook here we come.

This guy actually comes from the same college as Marbury. So I'm thinking second coming of Starbury with a better attitude, I'll take it. But his size always bothered me on that comparison and his stats indicated something fundamentally different, so I took another look and that's when I realized. Is that Frazier?

Walt Clyde Frazier, that's who he is without a doubt. Why Frazier? Frazier was a tall PG, and he was what I like to call a stats all-star. Similar to Kidd and Wade, Frazier could fill up a stat sheet as a small player. Like Kidd he did it at the PG position. He filled up four statistical categories. Frazier was a solid passer, good rebounder, could score the ball well and shot a high percentage. His percentage often ranged from 48%-51%, so Steve Nash eat your heart out.

Shumpert is no different, he's tall and will fill up a stat sheet. He's described as using his strength to throw off defenders, plus he's a leaper. From a Mike D'antoni standpoint acquiring Shumpert is know different than bringing a Shawn Marion to the Knicks. What's amazing is that both the Knicks and Nets have had tremendous success with this type of point guard. Not only that, but New York got precisely what it needed.

Shumpert will bring tremedous excitement to the Garden if he's a good player. He could make up for the lost of some key talents. Our team depth, Felton, both Randolph guys and Azuibuke's health issues. I actually had a name for what I was going to call the fantastic front line of Amare and Anthony(Randolph), the A-Team. It was going to be a super exciting front court and then add Azuibuke, very fun. But Stat, Melo and Shumpert could make up for that.

It's interesting that the Knicks happened upon a player of this type. This appears to be the 3rd athletic guard to come out of Chicago in the last decade. The first 2 are in Chicago and Miami, and this makes the future clashes between these teams interesting. But can Iman live up to the standards of the other 2? We'll have to wait to find out.

Shumpert=Second Coming of Walt Frazier

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think you are suffering from lockout dementia.

SPEND ON BIGS

by StarksMiddleFinger on Oct 20, 2011 5:57 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs

I hope that’s not a response to the Mike comparison, because that was meant to be general.

by Mongoke on Oct 20, 2011 6:19 PM EDT reply actions

No, although that did make me gasp.

But comparing Iman to Clyde is crazy. Did you see Clyde play?

He’s a top NBA legend / one of the greatest of all time for a reason.

So far, Shumpty has been the perfect rookie: working hard, saying the right things, making cool videos of sick dunks. But the fact is, he was selected in the middle of a really weak draft.

Talking about him and Clyde is crazy. But it’s cool because it’s the lockout and we’ve gotta talk about something.

SPEND ON BIGS

by StarksMiddleFinger on Oct 21, 2011 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions

No I didn't see Clyde play

I also don’t think Shump and Clyde will have mirror matching careers, just similar stat stuffers at the PG position. I still see Shump as more of a Shawn Marion for this team.

Also cool phrase, “SPEND ON BIGS”

by Mongoke on Oct 21, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Clyde and Shumpert are nothing alike in style of play.

Clyde’s game was more smooth and based on skill, Shumpert’s is more about power and Athleticism. Clyde was a decent athlete but even he will admit he wasn’t an elite athlete. Clyde also came into the league as a polished point guard, Shumpert is very raw.

There are only two potential places that these guys may compare. Clyde was a great one on one defender, and was very effective scoring in the paint. Shumpert has the potential to play great defense, although he will need to prove it on the NBA level, and in college he was his most effective offensively when he could get into the paint.

by Robert Curre on Oct 24, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Perhaps

But they’re both oversized, defensive point guards who are good rebounders for their position and who are well regarded on the defensive end. It’s hard to say what Shump’s NBA style of play will be.

I will say that Clyde was the oldest of a bunch of kids and was always a leader. Shump’s a middle child, so I’m not sure he’ll develop that calm, cool, leadership style.

Get The Frickin' Rebound

by fuhry on Oct 26, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions

I believe that Shumpert is already considered to have an NBA level defense.

by Mongoke on Oct 28, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

How? the guy has never a played one minute in an NBA game?

Let’s not get overzealous now.

by Robert Curre on Oct 31, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Getting a little ahead of yourself, dude

I guess they’re mildly similar in some aspects, but it’s really reaching for it. To even call him the second coming of Clyde is a gigantic stretch. Especially when he hasn’t played a single minute in the NBA

by WSD on Oct 20, 2011 8:02 PM EDT reply actions

I know, that’s why I said if Shumpert is a good basketball player. But have you ever thought what it would be like if several Knicks greats from different eras played at the same time. Carmelo Anthony is always compared to Bernard King. Well what if King and Frazier played together? Stats would be seriously effected by this reality. For instance, there’s no way Frazier would have had 20+ppg year with King on the team.

by Mongoke on Oct 21, 2011 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Why wouldn't Clyde remember he was a point guard which meant he had the ball in his hands

the majority of the time the Knicks were on offense so Clyde could shoot when he wanted and you are probably have the wrong idea about King. King averaged a little less than 19 shot attempts per game when he played for the Knicks, which is about average for a number one option. When Willis Reed was in his prime he took about 17 shots a game, but you have to remember that the Knicks spread the ball around more than today’s NBA teams, all 5 starters on the 69-70 Knicks averaged 14 pts or more and Cazzie Russell averaged 11.5 off the bench. Carmelo for his career averages a little over 19 shots per game, so Clyde would probably average 20 with either King or Melo as a teammate.

by Robert Curre on Oct 24, 2011 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions

My consideration concerns what would’ve happened if King or Anthony were on his 70s team with players like Reed and Debusschere.

by Mongoke on Oct 28, 2011 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions

They would have taken their shots

and so would Clyde. Clyde played with Earl Monroe and that did not effect Clyde taking his shots. Remember NBA basketball was different then. Teams moved the ball more and shared the ball more. Therefore there were more shots to go around. The reason teams scored more points then than they do now is there were more shots to go around. Things like ISO’s early in the shot clock were things that you didn’t see in those days. Monroe used to Iso but when the shot clock got down to 6 or 7 seconds and he ended up with the ball. The other time you might see teams Iso alot is in the last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter, where coaches would do that because they wanted to make sure their best player took the shots. Today you see guys like Lebron, Carmelo, or Joe Johnson catching the ball with 19 seconds on the shot clock, dribbling it down to 6 seconds before deciding to either shoot or pass, and they are doing that from the first quarter on. That cuts down shots. So I hope you understand why you question about Clyde’s shooting and scoring is a non-issue, it was a different game back then.

by Robert Curre on Oct 31, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I like how you took us through your process

And, as I’ve mentioned before, I’m a great fan of irrational exuberance. We could all sit around and try to mitigate our hopefulness by convincing ourselves that Shump is the second coming of Mardy Collins, but what’s the point? Dare to dream.

Shump has a lot going for him. As someone who is athletic with good size for his position, and who cares about defense, he’s ahead of the game, and he compares to Clyde in that regard. As someone who is athletic and who could stand to improve his shooting, sure, why not, he could compare to Jordan, but Jordan was an otherworldly ball handler and finisher.

Shump lacks that bulldog toughness you like to see in a point guard, but just because he doesn’t show it externally doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it. A point guard needs to be able to rally the troops when times are tough or stressful at the end of games, and that’s not something that seems readily apparent with Shump… but he does seem to be kind of emotional and sincere and communicative, and that does remind me of Starks a little. But he seems a bit more stable than Starks. His game could be sprewellesque, but his mental makeup seems a lot different. His offensive game could be Crawfordesque, but his defense will likely be better than that.

He’s his own guy – hard to make a comparison. I think he will be a good player, don’t really see him as a floor general, but you never know, it might happen. That would be exciting.

Get The Frickin' Rebound

by fuhry on Oct 21, 2011 10:17 AM EDT reply actions

No comparison is absolute

There’s no way any player can be absolutely the same as another. I was speaking merely from a statistical perspective, trying to find a really good historical example, especially one from the Knicks. There was someone else on this site who compared him to Wade when they saw his workout video. Players like that are similar, because their stat stuffers. I also don’t believe Shumpert should be our sole PG, but he did run the floor in college. I hadn’t really given my true perspective of how the Knicks should work, but I’d say it involves more Bird than Paul.

by Mongoke on Oct 21, 2011 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I like your comparison

He is the same size as Jordan
He has great hops, just like Jordan
He’s got a good midrange jumper similar to Jordan
From behind I bet he looks like Jordan
His name has four syllables
coincidence?

by YuckFou on Oct 21, 2011 9:07 PM EDT reply actions

They both wear shoes

Posting and Toasting: DWTDD.

by Seth on Oct 22, 2011 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions

They both have the ability to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide

by flossy on Oct 22, 2011 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions

they both poop

Last night, a comedian died in New York. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows

by Rorschach44 on Oct 22, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Hopefully Shump learns to poope like Poope

by WSD on Oct 23, 2011 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Personally I think it is not a good idea to compare a rookie to anyone before the guy

actually plays a NBA game. Shumpert may turn out to be better than Clyde or worse than Larry Demic only time and NBA games will tell. Don’t Know who Larry Demic is, ask your father’s you young pups! Here is a hint he was a teammate of a Knicks assistant coach and he wore the Same jersey Number as a former Knicks Power Forward/Center.

by Robert Curre on Oct 24, 2011 1:53 PM EDT reply actions

True, but all the nba does is compare players. The higher a player is ranked the more enthusiasm for comparing. If Shumpert were a top 5, comparing him is more readily accepted. But the lower ranking leads to more conservative talk. What would happen if we were talking about Blake Griffin or Derrick Rose? Still, I feel the same about Shumpert as I did about Gallo and he turned out to be a success. It seems as if Shumpert was probably a steal.

by Mongoke on Oct 28, 2011 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions

And you should be enthusiastic.

But just bare in mind that even Rose and Griffin, were not Rose and Griffin before they actually played a game. Shumpert is definitely athletic, you could argue that he is a better athlete than all the guards taken before him in the draft. And I have seen the kid play and he has a considerable amount of Raw talent, but Shumpert needs coaching and time to develop. In 2015 we may be looking back at this draft and saying Shumpert was the best player in it, or we might not. Rajon Rondo was taken 21st in the draft and there were people questioning the pick back then. Who would question the pick today? The only question about that draft now is how in the hell did Rondo not end up being a top 3 pick at the worst.

by Robert Curre on Oct 31, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions

I"ve always mentioned Shumpert as a potential, but if you see him as a Rondo type development we’ll never agree because I believe he’ll have a much better start. I’m also not certain Rondo couldn’t have started better, but their not the same player. Calling Shumpert raw is nice, they said the same thing about Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings. Even Gallo was considered to be a player who need more time to become consistent.

by Mongoke on Nov 1, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

I am not comparing him to Rondo

they have completely different games. What I am saying is no one really knows about players in a given draft until a few years down the line. Rondo was the 21st pick and you had numbskulls like Doug Gottlieb saying that was way too high that Rondo was 2nd round talent at best (He said the same about Shumpert by the way). Well if we were to do that draft over again Rondo would clearly be in the top 3 and maybe even the number one overall pick. Shumpert went 17th and experts said that was too high. In 3-4 years they might have a totally different view.

by Robert Curre on Nov 1, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions