His career could end today and he'd still have been a better player than Taj Gibson. That was always my point.

Gibson is more of a success story than Smith.

uh, no

Smith's inability to get playing time is (relatively) recent development. He had plenty of successful years in Atlanta

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Thanks for the clarification Bagels. These drive by analysis discussions become tedious after awhile. Josh Smith has been the better player for about 95% of their respective careers. Taj as the better player is primarily a result of default. At their peak there is no comparison and they are the same age so that isn't even a factor in the evaluation. Smith has had a longer career, but its not his fault that Gibson was literally a "grown ass man" by the time he entered the NBA.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

this line of thinking is foolish. Smith was not merely the better talent. He has been by far the better player. His teams in Atlanta won and during that time he was either their best or 2nd best player for much of that time.

Impact on a team? Gibson has only ever had one good year as an NBA player. He has been a bench player for most of his career. He backed up a guy that most in Chicago believed was a bum. Since he has been a starter the Bulls have been losers. He was outplayed in back to back games by a rookie last week. This is not about Josh Smith's talent as it relates to Gibson. He has been the much better player during the course of his career.

I don't want to get into Smith vs Gibson. I don't think that's an interesting debate. I'm trying to challenge your rigid reliance on the "eye test" to assess a player's worth. By the way you don't think Boozer is a bum, so I'm not sure you can use that argument anyway.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I'd rather rely on that as opposed to statistics all the time. Stats can be manipulated. Guys that watch games know that. Guys that merely chase box scores, advanced stats, and analytics all the time don't. Stats are good as support mechanisms, but it shouldn't be the preeminent way to judge a basketball player.

You say that you don't want to become involved in a Taj vs Josh Smith debate, but you have proceeded to become involved in a Taj vs Josh debate anyway. WYC?

It's not either or..things aren't black and white. I don't care about Gibson vs Smith, I just wanted to point out how you tried to say Gibsoon wasnt good because he backed up Boozer, thus implying Boozer sucked, even though you're a big Boozer guy.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.