Are we too small at the SF?

He’s a very, very talented player. You can’t just say “Well if PP was 3 inches taller” because that person is LBJ, who, ummm, could easily finish his career as one of the top 3 players ever to play the game. So, yes, if Paul Pierce was 3 inches taller but still had the same skillset and quickness, he’d be a better player than he is. However, I fail to see the point of discussing that. Paul Pierce, as is, was a NBA finals MVP as a SF. That is a simple fact. That refutes the claim that you need to be 6’9" to compete in the NBA as a SF now-a-days.

Even you have to admit that Paul Pierce was an NBA finals MVP last year.

ok…but an 8’ PG with the skillset of his shorter counterparts would probably be at more of an advantage than the shorter PGs too. Being tall helps is basketball, that was the point? Crazy.

leans to the wing, though his original position was guard. he’s not very adept at making plays off his dribble, seems more boom or bust. he’s strong enough to defend a lot of forwards, but the quicker 2’s can reduce him to chasing and covering up. the frequency of his starts reinforces the team’s stasis in purgatory with a roster of strong reserves made into inconsistent or flawed starters.

oRwell made that big investment in m’gette when the team would be served better with someone more like battier or even artest, who aren’t any taller—better defense, ball movement, speed to contribute on fast breaks. if they package m’gette with the #7 and move down, ending up with someone like Williams or Johnson, it wouldn’t sadden me.

So are 1s, 2s, 4s, and 5s. Could he rebound better? Absolutely, and it would improve the Warriors performance. He could also improve in other ways… As JAE has pointed out many times, rebounding rates don’t change over time. I’d interpret that as more of a “reflection of him as a player” than scoring efficiency, which you can actually improve upon (by deciding “Hey, next time we’re on a fast break, I’m not going to shoot a 3 pointer”). It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible. Rebounding doesn’t seem to be even possible.

who we pick at 7 is gonna come in and start

owens was the vibe. Him, spree, c webb, hardawa and mullin. damn.

basketballreference.com gives per 40 and per 36 #s

doh. i think i’ve actually heard it used like that – didn’t think to consider that the “whole” would be the “core” (& not the 5 starters).

on Turiaf, i was assuming w/ Randolph & Biedrins already on the court that Turiaf would likely be on the bench.

Dude I’m not saying that it’s necessarily the best group, but I’m just wondering what Nelly might be thinking.

never said you were. if you read my 1st sentence, i said that your sentence (which i misinterpreted, sorry) lead me to a thought on how those players would complement each others games’. and that those 4 collectively don’t complement each other well on the offensive side of the court.

Who do you think would be the best complement with what we have then?

like DFiB posted, i actually think Ronny better complements Andris’ & Randolph defensively (though Ronny probably doesn’t fit the definition of a “core” type player).

as to a SF in the draft, i don’t know that any of the top SF’s really complement who we have or even qualify as “core” players.

My point: just because they don’t shoot 3’s doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be great complements to an Ellis, Randolph, Biedrins core.

if you have 4 guys on the court who don’t really space the floor well, (with zone defenses) you could basically just put at least 4 defenders around the paint and turn that team into a bunch of jump shooters. (consider in 07-08 that Monta is a 43.9% jump shooter & an incredible 63.8% shooter in the immediate basket area (which is better than Andris’ league leading 07-08 FG% – i assumed all of Andris’ shots came within the immediate basket area)).

the only reason teams don’t do this regularly is the threat of the 3 point line where 35% is like shooting 53% from 2 pt land (only two teams shot below 35% from 3 pt land last season – Washington & Philly). even a 30% 3 pt shooter is effectively shooting 45% from 2 (which is better than Monta’s vaunted mid range jump shooting % in 07-08).

thing is, with those 4 as your core players, the opposition doesn’t really have to worry about the 3 pt shot. when those 4 are in the game together, play zone, pack the paint and take away driving lanes, post ups, pick n’ roll and basically let them shoot mid range jumpers. at best those jumpers are falling at 40-44% probably more likely in the 30s.

so what you end up with is that oftentimes, (whoever the coach is by that time) will be forced to sit 1 of their “core” players in favor of guys who don’t clog up the lanes, b/c all 4 of those players need space to work that the other 3 don’t necessarily provide.