I know that the Rockets only played two games last week but Scola got snubbed for player of the week. He averaged 33.5 and 11. Roy did play well but it looks like Scola was penalized for only playing two games. http://www.nba.com/2010/news/03/15/players.week/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt2
If he would have titled it "Roy beat out Scola for player of the week" then it'd easily fit here. I really don't understand why people take so much joy in telling telling people they're in the wrong forum.
I disagree...just rename it "Do you think Scola got snubbed for player of the week?" and work that angle.
It was about Scola so that is why I put it here. I may have named it wrong. Big deal. Scola may have a shot at player of the month. I believe he had the 20-20 game this month and he has been beastly. Let's hope he keeps it up.
Well the reason why Roy got the player of the week instead of Scola is because nobody really notices anything about the Rockets. Even when Scola scored 44 points and I believe 12 or 13 rebounds, it really didn't make headline. Lebron James could have a good game with 25 points, 6 assist, and 5 rebounds and the NBA would considered that a better performance than Scola's 44 points and 13 rebounds. It shows you the NBA today worries more about highlight reels than a blue collar performance. It sucks that the NBA today focused more on highlight reels. That's the reason why Houston don't really get any media attention because they don't make it to ESPN highlights. The Rockets are more of playing humbled, and hard-working hustle plays. That's why ESPN rather not have them on national tv. Lets say Lebron is more of a finesse player that don't do crazy dunks but more layups instead. If so, he wouldn't even be considered to be as good as Jordan, Kobe, Magic or Bird. But because he is a walking highlight reel, they considered him one of the greatest to ever play basketball. Look at Danny Granger, he is a great player that really don't play above the rim as much. Because of that, he don't get the recognition as some players do. Kevin Martin is a great scorer but he also don't get recognized because his shooting form is awkward and he too don't play much above the rim. Back then, the NBA was about basketball. Today, the NBA is about business. If a player can jump out of the gym and is a pretty good player that play high above the rim (Amare, Dwight etc..) would get more of the NBA, and media's attention. That's the reason why David Stern is all about Lebron James. Lebron is a great NBA player but he isn't near Jordan's level. But because of all his highlight reels and spectacular dunks, the NBA and David Stern wants him to win lots of championships, MVPs and awards so they can say he's better than Jordan.
Neither of those guys can tie lebrons shoes. I guarantee if james was on the pacers or kings, their teams would have 1015 more wins than the teams with granger or martin. I like granger and martin, but james is on the quick path to the hall be he is a freak of nature with a high,high bbiq.
Yeah I think it is ridiculous to say LeBron is only considered great because he is a highlight reel player. LeBron is way way ahead of those guys based on basketball skill alone. I agreed with you up until that point.
It's criminal since the guy not only scored 44, but he also did it on 80% shooting from the field which counts for a lot to me.
So LeBron James is only great because he has highlight reels. I wonder why Ricky Davis, Shannon Brown and Stromile Swift were never compared to Michael Jordan and the other greats. Sometimes I wonder do some of you even watch basketball to say some of the stuff that you say.
do you even watch basketball because you forgot to put sombody on that list and guess who it is?nate robinson.
I didn't think I needed to put every single athletic player to prove my point. Btw besides the dunk contest Nate Robinson does not have a lot of highlight reels in his career.
