1. Much better at free-throw shooting and not turning the ball over.
   
2. Slightly better at shooting from the field and rebounding.
   
3. About the same at assisting (per minute).
   
4. Slightly worse at stealing and three-point shooting.

Just as a reminder, the statement I took issue with is this:

As much as not a fan of Dunleavy, I'm even less of a fan of "sacred cows." Basically, I think everything merits fair comparison, critical thinking, and an attempt to be objective. If JRich ends up ahead after a critical analysis, fantastic. As I said, I like JRich miles more than Junior. But saying any kind of thinking is "shameful" smacks a bit too much to me of President Bush saying "how can you even compare us to the terrorists?..."

I'm assuming these are the claims you are talking about,

I don't think J-Rich was ever really a near All Star. He was never a top level player on a winning team, which outside of the fan selected hype driven starting line-up is usually a requirement for making an All Star game. But yeah obviously because of the age discrepancy J-Rich is going to have a fat "resume" compared to Kaz.

True. But they play the same position with similar skill-sets for a drastically different salary... thus the frequent comparisons.

Again, true. But if we kept JR, Kaz wouldn't be getting the opportunity he is now, so I think it is fair to factor that into the trade at least to a small degree.

How do you know? I wouldn't assume that Kaz and Monta's ability at a greatly reduced price didn't factor in the decision to jettison JR. Don't forget that Nellie and Mullin got to see a lot more of Kaz than we did last year. Most of us were clamoring for more minutes for Kaz because of his good showing in limited minutes, but the W's chose to go with JR raising his trade value and keeping Kaz under the radar (and yes, winning games thanks to JR's good play down the stretch).

All I'm saying is that you really have no idea what the true motives for the trade were and neither do I but a good case can be made for a number of scenarios (saving $$$, making a run at KG, opening up minutes for Kaz while landing a top prospect).

Also as far as my "shot" at you goes, I just thought it was lame that you said Sleepy wasn't capable of having a good discussion because you couldn't see eye to eye. If you took offense to me calling your argument weak look again at your post that I quoted. You called my arguments weak and unfair indirectly to start the conversation off, when I think many people would call the JR/Kaz comps very fair and not weak in the slightest.

As far as you taking the moral high ground goes, I probably should have left that one alone. You generally are one of my favorite guys around here but I've seen you do this a few times, and for whatever reason this got a harsher than usual reaction out of me. When someone hits on a touchy subject for you, sometimes (albeit rarely) you will jump on their behavior and make them feel unwelcome or like they are posting in a unacceptable manner as a way of ending the argument. If you need examples look here:

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/11/4/223714/873

where you jumped out of a perfectly productive (passionate and slightly contentious but productive) debate about JR vs Kaz to tell OZ that he was a bully and that his tone wouldn't fly here. I ask that you thoughtfully consider whether your perfectly justified issues with OZ's tone had any place what-so-ever in that particular discussion. As someone who read it as it was posted it seemed like a bit of a curveball to me. (I'm sure I could find other examples but I've already spent way too much time on this)

Hey it's no big deal. I don't want to start some big thing here but it seems like you did take this discussion a little more personally than I would expect and you made some pretty sweeping statements about Sleepy as a poster. I just don't want to be lumped in with the "annoying" simplistic "homer/too negative" daily shots taken at you.

Anyway, as always I have to say that I am grateful for all of your hard work at GSoM, and I've got a lot of respect for you as a blogger. Please don't take this post personally because the whole point is that maybe you take some of this stuff too personally, lol. I'm not trying to attack your character or anything I'm just pointing out what I see. If anybody asks me, you are a stand up guy in my book. No hard feelings. Sorry if I came off harsh.

.

I'll limit myself to your attacks that followed my first JRich comment in this thread; you of course are free to fall back on your previously sterling record of fairness and objectivity.

Way to set a productive, temperate tone from the outset.

An exaggeration of my words. I made no personal attack; my implication was "if the shoe fits." And hey, there's nothing wrong with a little whine with one's cheese. I'm a big fan of whining. I consider myself a proud member of the "KG whiners club," for example. Are you still there with me, or are you taking your ball and going home now that you know I'm a member?

Well, see the stats OZ posted, or my response above to ffgolden's kind request for statistical corroboration. Dunleavy has been much better at FT shooting and not turning the ball over, slightly better at rebounding and shooting from the field, and slightly worse at 3 pt shooting and steals. You draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for the permission.

Word to that.

Word to that.

I always acknowledge good points. In fact, IIRC, I've had a couple of knockdown-dragouts in which I've defended Jrich. As I said, the division of this site into "sides" (basically, those who agree with you and those who don't) is your own mental construct.

As for the "wasting everyone's time and not worth a response" comment, well, if you think that's mature and appropriate, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, here's where you trot out your trusty "stop playing the victim" line. Where did you learn that one?

Heh, yup, you've got me figured out. I had you going when you used to call me "a valuable member of the community" and as recently as a couple of weeks ago wrote me a friendly e-mail, but now you've removed the mask, to reveal the "true me" lurking behind the nice guy act. Well done.

Well, I don't. Try reading my initial JRich comment in the light of day, after a deep breath, and see if you still think your hostility is appropriate.

I never characterized them at all -- I simply noted them. And you're in total denial if you don't think they at least partly contributed to your pissy tone.

(total non-sequitur)

You mean, because of my constant profanity and contradictions? Again, a division into "camps" that exists only in your mind. I've argued with Coma and OZ at least as often as I've argued with you.

But let me ask you this: why do you think posters here disagree with you so often? Are we all card-carrying members of the Atma-hating club? Is it because of our demographic similarities -- you know, Coma the 18-yo African American, OZ the 20-something (guessing) Asian-American, me the 40-y.o. secular Jew, et al? Or is it something ... to do with ... you?

Well, I'm taking my ball and going home too. And by the way, that game-winning lay-up was a carry that I could have called. And I could have beaten you if my knee didn't hurt.

Now to your comments to the affable and fair Mr. OlympicMike:

Done.

Again, lumping together anyone who disagrees with you. And again, you need to acknowledge that you're giving me and Olympicmike at least a little of the lingering venom from your spats with OZ and Coma.

Well, that was before you started reading this post, assuming you're reading it. You might want to change your vote now. That a 40 y.o. man is taking this much time to rebut silly claims by an angry internet blogger is, indeed, sad.

Hmm, sounds to me like a backhanded slap at OZ, who has nothing to do with OlympicMike, but correct me if I'm wrong...

On your past comments: somehow despite your constant protests of a sterling history of respectfulness and fairness, you're the only GSoM founder who regularly gets into spats with long-time posters. Why do you think this is?

Speak for yourself. It's not the "writers here" --it's you. A friend of mine who writes for the NYTimes and used to be a regular reader specifically called out your constant sniping and politicizing as a reason he stopped surfing by here. I mostly enjoy and agree with your main blog posts; but if you compare the way you deal with dissenting views to the way your colleagues or Adam Lauridsen do, you may find a big source of the "strife" this site has seen. I take some of the blame myself -- I know my tone can be a little strident and smart alecky -- but when you've started in on OlympicMike, it's pretty clear to me that the comments section would be a lot more fun if you took a little break from hanging out in it. I doubt I'm alone in this view.