Comments on: Who’s Better: Michael Beasley or Luis Scola?

By: Carlos

Carlos — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:39:30 +0000

Scola is fundamentally solid and a much better player than Beasley who by the way is really soft as most young black players. Black players in general are soft and hate to be pushed around they all think they own basketball but they are letting it slip away little by little by neglecting fundamental aspects of this game and putting too much emphasis on dunks and flashy stuff instead.

By: Curtis G

Curtis G — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:26:52 +0000

If ignorance is bliss, then stupidity must be f*cking heaven because I swear some of you basketball “guru’s” on here don’t have a clue about talent! For starters, the question is the article is “who’s better?”, not who will better. As some smarter posters noted, you can’t go by potential because Scola is already as good as he is going to be since he is 29 freaking years old! And I hate to hear supposedly knowlegeable basketball fans say that they’ll take an unproven commodity over a proven one because that has to be one of the most inane choices a GM could make… which is probably why it is a good thing most of you aren’t in a position to make those type of decisions. In any case, even if you look at potential, do any of you really see Beasley being a virtual double-double machine (which is what Scola is)? He may end up putting up more ppg but I wouldn’t even put up money for that happen since Beasley seems to be missing one vital element to make that happen: heart. At times (too often) Beasley just seems to be in coast mode and only playing when the spirit moves him. Honestly, he reminds me of a slightly more motivated Stromile with less atleticism. Hell,if it weren’t for that sweet jumper, Beasely would basically be Stromile Lite. Now I am not bashing the youngster at all because I am actually rooting for him because he was one of my picks (when he was drfated) to wind up as a difference maker. But he has fallen into a chasm that I see many young players (and older ones) fall into… the type of attitude that only comes with those that get gauranteed money. I’m not saying it is the money that changed him at this level but hell, how many players drafted in his class behind him would kill to get the shine that he gets and he still manages to put up below average to mediocre numbers with an attitude that says “I don’t give a f*ck!” Yes, I recognize that he plays beside one of the most prolific scorers of this era but, at the same time, that is not an excuse to not shine as well or at least do ONE aspect of the gae well on the court. Jordan’s teammates weren’t anything to scream about (with exception to Pippen, and that only serves to prove my point) but they all did something well; Rodman rebounded, Grant shut down the lane as an enforcer, Kerr set up the offense without falter, and so on. What the hell does Beasley do well consistently? For a player drafted that high, I expect more and it’s players like Evans and Jennings that show that high picks can and should perform, but they also demonstrate the fickleness of the science behind predicting “upside”. I They also demonstrate how upside is complete bullsh*t… a word scouts started throwing around to influence the draft potential of prospects. Evans and Jennings could have easily been bust but they aren’t (and likely won’t be). That’s why it’s no surprise that they emotion, the fire, the heart that they show on the floor is conspicuously missing from Beasley most nights. And that my friends is why Scola is better as well. Every night, whether Scola is chunking up goose eggs on the offense, he finds ways to make himself relevant to the game. Shot not falling? Pull down 14 rebounds. Can’t grab a board? Put up 20 points. Can’t shoot or rebound? Step in the lane and take a charge… repeatedly. Fouls taking you out the game? Cheer like hell from the bench. That’s Scola. Every night. Every game. In truth, this article could have been between Beasley and any other number of 3 to 5 year forwards and Beasley still loses simply because his heart is lacking. And for the record, all the pro-Beasley people are right; if Beasley ever “gets it”, he will be a beast. But then, ask yourself this: How many players over the last decade has that been said about? After you make that list, tell me how many of them are worth jack sh*t right now? Yea… that’s what I thought…

By: Colton

Colton — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:40:56 +0000

two things other people said will sum this debate up.

beasley has upside thru the roof, but scola has IT!!!

By: lamar

lamar — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:42:52 +0000

this is a joke. obviously beasly is far superiour way more talented and skilled all scola has over beasly is his savy play and expeirence but in terms of who is the better player it has to be beasly. beasly is a much better scoer way more athletic quicker jumps higher and is better on the offensive glass. scola is a good solid team player but beasly right now if given the oppurtunities can average easily over 20 a game. cant say the same for scola. scola has to work incredibly hard to get his points with extreme hustly. while beasly it just comes naturally just becuase one player works harder than the other does not mean they are better. this will be a laughable board a couple year from now or the beinning of next season.

By: bfears

bfears — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:35:21 +0000

beasley no question

By: Chicagorilla

Chicagorilla — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:47:56 +0000

LMAO@ scola being better than Beasly.

If you show up to a gym in Houston to play pick-up ball, and Luis Scola is in there and So is Mike Beasly. Floyd Mayweather comes in and wants to make you a bet. You have $10(K) to bet on that game. How many of you are putting your 10 stacks on Scola still?

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:14:04 +0000

Beasley is supossed to be the better player in the future (we’ll have to wait and see) but right now Scola is better. Luis isn’t only better defensively (the guy above that said that he doesn’t play D has obviuosly never seen him play) and on the boards, he has more tools on the ofensive end right now, Beasly’s offensive game consists basicaly on hitting mid-range jumpers while Scola besides hitting jumpers pretty efectively has some of the most refined post up moves in the league.
Oh, and Jensen: Ariza and Landry aren’t more important than Scola for this Rockets team.

By: AdvancedMind

AdvancedMind — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:09:52 +0000

Bottum line is if you put Beasley on Houston right now, not only does he start over Scola, he becomes Houstons number 1 scoring option, and the team wins the same amount of games.

By: the big fundamental

the big fundamental — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:03:03 +0000

b-easy! Offensively he has way more weapons than Scola! WAY MORE!

By: Abrew

Abrew — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:56:40 +0000

It’s Beasley and its not even close. I just watched him abuse a gold medal winning all star power forward last night for 28 and 11. The kid’s 36 per numbers at power Forward (and at power Forward alone because Coach Spo is an idiot for playing this kid at small forward) at great for a 20 year old with about 90 nba games under his belt. Match up his rookie season numbers with the best power forwards over the past 10 years rookie seasons. Beasley had better numbers than almost all of them except for Duncan and he had like numbers as Amare.