Pietrus at Power forward

by Zig on Oct 31, 2007 8:59 PM PDT

Can someone explain the theory on this

I understand the idea of Nelson starting a smaller line-up to exploit the other team on offense by fast breaking. I could see the logic last year with Monta who poses match-up problems and J_Rich and JAX in smaller line-ups

but MP seems to me to be about the worst type of swing player to do this with. You give up a ton and get little back. He poses little match up issues for the other team

He has no handles, can't really take bigger players off the dribble, hardly has a midrange game, can't pass or initiate the offense,

He had a nice game last night its not his fault but I just don't see this ever working in our favor

Any thoughts?

I hate to question the Maestro Nelson but this one has me mystified. I think Al fits much better and honestly I would rather see Croshere starting (he can shoot the spot up 3 too).

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Pietrus

I believe the simple answer is because both Pietrus and Buke had great preseasons, and Barnes and Harrington did not.

This starting lineup did pretty well against the Jazz in the first quarter actually.

by jlagace on Oct 31, 2007 9:39 PM PDT reply actions

Harrington

had a great pre-season. Especially promising was his rebounding

Doing well in the first quarter is about as irrelevant as it gets

by Zig on Oct 31, 2007 9:46 PM PDT reply actions

Harrington

had a great training camp, but not a great preseason.

Harrington: 37.8% fg, 22.2% 3pt, .6 assist/TO ratio. But you are right, he did rebound well.

Pietrus: 49%fg, 57%3pt

I'm not defending the starting lineup, I'm just suggesting why Nellie did what he did.

And doing well in the first quarter wasn't irrelevant, it meant our first team could hang (and was beating) their first team. Harrington didn't fare any better than Pietrus did either: One more rebound and seven less points on two more shot attempts, in nearly the same amount of minutes as Pietrus.

Again, I'm not a total advocator of Pietrus starting at PF, but when Harrington and Barnes are struggling as much as they are.. well, what can ya do?

by jlagace on Oct 31, 2007 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Fair enough

I though Harrington had been better than that this pre-season

My real point is Pietrus doesn't give you much on the Offensive end as a mismatch (which is the point of small ball) and therefore isn't a worth the tradeoff

by Zig on Oct 31, 2007 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions

And I think what you do is

start Harrington simply because of his size and ability to physically bump Boozer

All things being equal (not looking at pre-season stats) I don't see it really compromising small ball on offense at all

by Zig on Oct 31, 2007 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions

1st Qtr

As far as the first quarter is concerned, it sure appeared as though we spread the floor and attacked the basket off the dribble better than we had consistently last year, but we didn't stick with it enough perhaps ...

as for MP, or any other smallish 4, I agree with those who've written that Nelson tries to force the other coach to match GS, while Sloan didn't fall into that as Avery Johnson did in Rd#1 ...

for what it's worth, the tv guys were praising Harrington's D on Boozer, for keeping him in front of him & denying him direct drive to the hoop ...

by hardcore on Oct 31, 2007 10:18 PM PDT reply actions

He's doing it for the reason you mentioned...

Tell me. If Pietrus came off the bench, what are the odds his numbers will be that good? By bringing him alongside Baron, he becomes more of an asset while not diminishing Al's value. Again, he just starts, he doesn't eat all the minutes.

And doing well in the first quarter is relevant. If Al would've played better, provide some spark from the bench, then we could have been more competitive. The key here is to get a consistent contributor from the bench. Right now, we don't have one.

Barnes, Harrington and Belinelli (see the two back to back 3's last night) can be spark plugs and that's what Nellie is looking for. It's more about getting help from the bench than Nellie favoring MP over Barnes and Harrington. And that's where our glaring need for a PG really shows.

by lightz0ut on Nov 1, 2007 12:16 AM PDT reply actions

too bad

that Nelson doesn't put Belinelli in until its basically over.

by david240z on Nov 1, 2007 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

the starting line up in irrelevant

baron will hold it together. pietrus is starting over barnes b/c he's been shooting well, as jlagace pointed out.

the REAL problem is "the team that's in when Baron is resting". Nellie's experimenting to try to get the most out of that group. He was probably hoping Al could carry that squad. I'd actually rather see Monta be that player, but it looks like Nellie's pretty insistent on playing Thud... Belinelli and Croshere will probably get an early look Friday.

Maybe if "team that's in when Baron is resting", isn't scoring ala last night, Nellie will get desperate and play zone defense by going as big and long as he can w/in reason 1-2-2(wright, beli & jax, beans & pob) and hope those 16 minutes the score is like 20 to 23. heh, no way that's happening.

by the evil monkey on Nov 1, 2007 12:51 AM PDT reply actions

My Hopes for Friday

Is that Nelson will get off his ass and let Croshere play. If there was one thing about Tuesday's game that I was truly upset about was the fact that we had a veteran on the bench for most of the game who had the best chance at locking Boozer up. Boozer always gets a free ride against the Warriors on both ends of the court. Even with Okur out of the game, Boozer never had to play any real defense and all his offense were easy layups. A couple intangibles that Croshere can do for the Warriors:

-He sets "real" screens (he rarely will slip b/c he's a pick and pop screener...unlike Biedrins)
-He blocks out
-He hits the glass

I also think that Croshere is one of those players that can get in people's heads... just like the wa he got in Baron's face. He's not backing down and he doesn't care who you are... he'll throw down. I wonder how Nelson will play against the Clips considering who's going to be guarding Chris caveman Kaman. I really hope that Belinelli will get some real PT, as he can help spread out the defense... that is if Hudson and Ellis decide to pass him the ball instead of going in for layups that get sent into the stands.

by david240z on Nov 1, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions

Nelson

wants the 4 to be able to shoot the 3. Maybe Pietrus can't dribble that well, but all he has to do is sit there in the corner and draw his big out. And he can dribble well enough to occassionally pump fake and drive on the opposing 4.

I'm not going to judge the starting lineup based on one game - especially considering the general consensus is that MP2 and Baron were the only players to play well on opening night.

It's almost like the Warriors have 6 guys out there... they always have a guy open! - Jon Barry commentating game 3 last year

by gsw4life on Nov 1, 2007 9:46 AM PDT reply actions

AL shoots the 3

just fine

by Zig on Nov 3, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

sadf

People are putting way too much stock in the starting line up, all it means is the 5 players who are starting the game. Who cares if Al comes in off the bench, MP2 is going to get minutes whether he starts or comes off the bench so it'd be better to get him on the floor with BD who can create for him rather than have him stand around watching THud dribble around all night. Who cares if the starting 5 was THud, Wright, POB, Monta and MP2, they way they play is going to dictate how many minutes they play, if they're playing like garbage Nellie will take them out, if they're lighting it up he's going to keep them in, it's all about the people who are performing, not the people who might or might not start.