A "worthy" comparison for Antwain Jamison?
Tue Nov 12, 2002 5:56 pm
Often we hear about Kobe being the next Jordan, Dirk the next Larry Bird, or Iverson being the next Isiah Thomas, and we all know how unfair these label's are. But certain player's can have similar games to ones from previous generations, and I don't see any harm in comparing two players playing styles from different generations.
James Worthy and Antwain Jamison... Most people wouldn't think these two players game's have much in common, apart from the fact that they are both Tar Heel's. But there is more than that. Both players were high draft picks (James Worthy, Number 1 in the '82 draft, Jamison was the 4th pick in '98 ).
Physically, they are nearly identical. Worthy was 6-9, 225 lbs. Jamison is 6'9 also, and 223 lbs. Worthy was probably a bit quicker, and Jamison is probably a little bit stronger.
Stats wise, these players are a bit different, but stats can be decieving. How much a team relies upon a player carry the offensive load will reflect not only on his ppg average, but also his fg %.
Playing styles there is some (but not alot) of variation. Jamison, like Worthy, has an exception mid range game. Both can dribble the ball well for their size. But the only real difference in their playing styles is Jamison likes to use his stength in the post a little bit better, and Worthy was more of a slasher. However, both could do a bit of both. Say if a bigger, slower player is gaurding Jamison to neutralise like Maurice Taylor, Antwain can simply face up on him and get to the front of the rim with no real hassles. Likewise, if Boston put Danny Ainge on Worthy to try and stop his penetration, he could simply use his strength and back him down.
Is Jamison's game identical to Worthy's? No. No two players are identical to each other. But the similarities are there, and thus the comparison.
James Worthy and Antwain Jamison... Most people wouldn't think these two players game's have much in common, apart from the fact that they are both Tar Heel's. But there is more than that. Both players were high draft picks (James Worthy, Number 1 in the '82 draft, Jamison was the 4th pick in '98 ).
Physically, they are nearly identical. Worthy was 6-9, 225 lbs. Jamison is 6'9 also, and 223 lbs. Worthy was probably a bit quicker, and Jamison is probably a little bit stronger.
Stats wise, these players are a bit different, but stats can be decieving. How much a team relies upon a player carry the offensive load will reflect not only on his ppg average, but also his fg %.
Playing styles there is some (but not alot) of variation. Jamison, like Worthy, has an exception mid range game. Both can dribble the ball well for their size. But the only real difference in their playing styles is Jamison likes to use his stength in the post a little bit better, and Worthy was more of a slasher. However, both could do a bit of both. Say if a bigger, slower player is gaurding Jamison to neutralise like Maurice Taylor, Antwain can simply face up on him and get to the front of the rim with no real hassles. Likewise, if Boston put Danny Ainge on Worthy to try and stop his penetration, he could simply use his strength and back him down.
Is Jamison's game identical to Worthy's? No. No two players are identical to each other. But the similarities are there, and thus the comparison.
Tue Nov 12, 2002 6:09 pm
I can see the parallel, but as you said, Jamison prefers to post-up, while Worthy was more of a jumpshooter/slasher who spent more time at SF.
Would you say that the comparison extends to the role they are most suited to? Worthy was the third man behind Kareem and Magic, in terms of statistical production (and arguably importance/value). Would you say that Jamison, who the Warriors are counting on to be the team's main statistical contributor and leader, would be more suited to playing third fiddle?
Would you say that the comparison extends to the role they are most suited to? Worthy was the third man behind Kareem and Magic, in terms of statistical production (and arguably importance/value). Would you say that Jamison, who the Warriors are counting on to be the team's main statistical contributor and leader, would be more suited to playing third fiddle?
Tue Nov 12, 2002 6:14 pm
Well thats why I tried to avoid comparing stat's and their situations, and rather compare them both purely on their skills. Thats a good question.. would Jamison be better suited as a role player rather than the goto guy? I don't think so. But I don't think Worthy was better suited for that either, but he had no choice.
Tue Nov 12, 2002 6:20 pm
Well, ignoring stats and situations and trying to stay on topic, I think they are similar players. It's probably not as apparent since Antawn doesn't have as much exposure, but from what I've seen of Worthy in my old All-Star tapes and other NBA videos (thankyou Pontel 
) they seem to have come from the same mold.
It's hard to not take situations into account when comparing though. It's hard to say just how alike they are unless they were to play the same role on a team, that ran the same plays etc. I'm undecided whether Antawn will reach the level of Worthy...maybe if he gets out of Golden State and goes to a team where he doesn't have to be the main man?
) they seem to have come from the same mold.
It's hard to not take situations into account when comparing though. It's hard to say just how alike they are unless they were to play the same role on a team, that ran the same plays etc. I'm undecided whether Antawn will reach the level of Worthy...maybe if he gets out of Golden State and goes to a team where he doesn't have to be the main man?
Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:34 am
this is starting to remind me of them saying Keith Van Horn was gonna be Bird hahaha... WHAT A JOKE!!!
I'm a big fan of Jamison since he's a Tarheel... but there's no way he's a hall of famer... Sure he's posting some great numbers... He probably can post four more years of these numbers... I don't think that that is enough. Although i like his team... a lot of great young talent, it will ahve to win soon for him to be a "hall of famer" type player.... I don't see this yet...
I'm a big fan of Jamison since he's a Tarheel... but there's no way he's a hall of famer... Sure he's posting some great numbers... He probably can post four more years of these numbers... I don't think that that is enough. Although i like his team... a lot of great young talent, it will ahve to win soon for him to be a "hall of famer" type player.... I don't see this yet...
Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:23 am
Jamison is playin shitty lately...he ain't scorin much and is grabing less rebounds than SF and SG on his team...he will NEVER be a hall of famer!!!
he's still young...and he's playing great...not the next bird...but he will surely be a superstar one day...
this is starting to remind me of them saying Keith Van Horn was gonna be Bird hahaha... WHAT A JOKE!!!
he's still young...and he's playing great...not the next bird...but he will surely be a superstar one day...
Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:38 pm
koolkatgold wrote:this is starting to remind me of them saying Keith Van Horn was gonna be Bird hahaha... WHAT A JOKE!!!
Did you read the entire thread? Becuase I never said Jamison will be James Worthy, I was just pointing out similarities. And I think he can make the Hall of fame despite being on a shonky team, becuase Mitch Richmond was destined for it before being traded to washington, and he never experienced much playoff success.
Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:59 pm
i think jamison is a good player right now... he's killing me in fantasy for this week damnit! but still think he's a got a lot of work ahead of him if he wants to be a hall of famer. he can start off by figuring what position he is: sf or pf? i don't really get to see him play that much since he's in the west coast though..
JMT
JMT
Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:24 pm
I think he is more of a small forward who likes to play power forward and use his speed to create mismatches against slower power forwards. But Golden State's problem is they have a really good rebounder in Danny Fortson, so they like to play Jamison at small forward, and I doubt they will trade either of them soon...
Thu Nov 14, 2002 11:16 am
yet how come that the OTHER SF Arenas is getting more rebounds then Jamison ?!
Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:41 pm
ain't Arenas the point guard ...... 
Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:53 pm
sorry my bad...well...a PG getting more rebs than him...lol 
Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:59 pm
Silly Pavel...
Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:02 pm
No such thing as comparing players...
Antawn Jamison will be the next Antawn Jamison
Antawn Jamison will be the next Antawn Jamison
Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:13 pm
Gilbert Arenas is the best well-kept secret of the NBA this current season. He's averaging something like 17 ppg, 7 apg and rpg, 50% FG and 80% FT.
As for Jamison, all I can say is that he'll never live up to the expectations of being a max-salary player.
As for Jamison, all I can say is that he'll never live up to the expectations of being a max-salary player.
Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:45 am
jamison is third fiddle in dallas now. the next james worthy?? 
(sorry to bring up past topic, but i accidentally pressed page 9 and was curious to what people were saying about jamsion way back when)
(sorry to bring up past topic, but i accidentally pressed page 9 and was curious to what people were saying about jamsion way back when)
Sun Aug 24, 2003 11:45 am
no, aint gonna happen
Sun Aug 24, 2003 11:51 am
no i don't think so...he's skinny..not tall enough of a PF...not a double digit rebounder...only a 20 ppg scorer...that isn't enough to make him a hall of famer..
Sun Aug 24, 2003 12:01 pm
NO...
next to mchale, worthy probably had the best post moves in his era. also, big game james didn't earn his reputation for piling up stats on insignificant games and on crappy teams. jamison can't create his own shot and is actually a poor ball handler at his position. he prolly has the quickest release on his shot (around the paint). the only similarity in their games is that both are pretty good on the fast break
next to mchale, worthy probably had the best post moves in his era. also, big game james didn't earn his reputation for piling up stats on insignificant games and on crappy teams. jamison can't create his own shot and is actually a poor ball handler at his position. he prolly has the quickest release on his shot (around the paint). the only similarity in their games is that both are pretty good on the fast break
Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:44 pm
I still stand by my previous post...
Jamison is 2nd to Abdur-Rahim in that "player with great stats but who can't lead a team" dept... He has horrible passing skills, isn't a below-than-adequate defender... Does that warrant you a max contract? Of course not. I'm glad the Warriors trade him, I just wish Golden State could squeeze better Dallas' players out of the deal...
Jamison is 2nd to Abdur-Rahim in that "player with great stats but who can't lead a team" dept... He has horrible passing skills, isn't a below-than-adequate defender... Does that warrant you a max contract? Of course not. I'm glad the Warriors trade him, I just wish Golden State could squeeze better Dallas' players out of the deal...
Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:55 pm
maybe jamison will thrive in the situation where is he not the main defensive priority for the other team. dallas starting 5 now has such deadly range you cant leave your cover, so it becomes essentially a one on one situation when defending the mavs, which of course is in dallas's favor.
shareef's ok, he just doesnt have "it", my philosophy is that players like him and jamison quietly make good teams better and have essentially no effect on already bad teams.
shareef's ok, he just doesnt have "it", my philosophy is that players like him and jamison quietly make good teams better and have essentially no effect on already bad teams.