Nellie... Is reality slapping you in the face?
by brandanwright#1fan on Jun 9, 2009 5:31 PM PDT
77 comments
Hey guys maybe I'm a fan of the old school, but as I watch these finals I cant help but notice Orlando's similar style of play to our beloved warriors playoff run. Our style was...run, run, run and shoot a bunch of threes. I hear all the time from these ex coaches turned analyst ( Jeff van Gundy, Mike Fratello, Doug Collins) and they all seem to say the same things: "Slow the pace down and get a good shot" or maybe "Attack the basket and dont settle for three's". Now how many of us have heard the saying "Defense is what wins championships" and I for one completely agree.
If we look at the two major sports (NFL & NBA) you will see a pattern of defensive teams beating out the more offensive teams. The NBA's past 5 champions include: Boston, San Antonio (twice), Miami and Detriot all whom were good defensively. Same could be said about the NFL with champions such as: Baltimore, Tampa and most recent Pittsburgh.
Now you may say that this years Lakers aren't a good defensive team and you may have a point, but dont overlook the fact that they have taken their defensive intensity to another level. It mostly is inbodied in the play of Paul Gasol and Lamar Odom. Last year they where being called soft and not committed, but this year they are doing a heck of a job on Dwight and getting after it on that side of the ball. How about Kobe and his re-commitment to defense? or maybe Phil Jackson starting Ariza over Lamar?
In conclusion what I'm trying to say is: Nellie if you are watching these finals, I hope you see that your offense tactics will never beat a solid defensive team. As the season goes on, those three's dont go in as much.
I will soon have another post stating the similarities that this years Lakers have to our Warriors. WE ARE NOT THAT FAR AWAY PEOPLE!!!!
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!
0 recs |
77 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Were not that different than the lakers?
Let me know when the Warriors get one of the top two players in the world….until then, we are far from a championship team
by pbra17 on Jun 9, 2009 5:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Nellie knows this
and that’s why he handed the defensive duties over to Keith Smart
by IQofaWarrior on Jun 9, 2009 5:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Lakers get thoroughly manhandled by a flat out better team last year and everyone says they are too soft. Kobe starts scowling (and looking like an idiot) and getting a few more calls going his way than he did last year and suddenly the Lakers aren’t soft anymore and have “re-committed” to defense.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 7:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it’s funny what looking angry and playing a weaker opponent in the finals will do to the perception of a team.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seriously
This Laker team doesn’t look much different to me than the one that lost to the Celtics last year. I haven’t looked at any stats but the eyeball test tells me Ariza and Odom both look better but the non-Kobe guards and Gasol look worse.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From what I’ve seen both Gasol and Odom are playing much better, both offensively and defensively.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ROB KURZ
We USED to Believe...
WE DEMAND IMPROVEMENT!
by RunNdGun on Jun 9, 2009 8:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
this is our similarity to the lakers
Nothing, unless you consider randloph could potentially be like a Lamar Odom then i dont see how we even have one player remotely the same to them, Beans and Gasol, their both tall, skinny and european and can run the pick and role which is actually pretty similar, and Gasols post game is light years ahead of Beans
by bizz 192 on Jun 9, 2009 9:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Gasols post game is light years ahead of Beans
As are his jump shot and ability to grow facial hair.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 9, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s funny what looking angry and playing a weaker opponent in the finals will do to the perception of a team.
If you look at it as being angry you are very mistaken my friend. That is playing with a high level of INTENSITY and that can become contaigous. I do see everyone on the team stepping it up.
Also cap n’ hack you reiterated my point. From an outsiders point of veiw Orlando looks like the weaker opponent due to there lack of defense and physicality. That is why defensive teams win BOTTOM LINE.
Kobe is like Francisco Rodriguez: The Ultimate Closer.
TL32
by brandanwright#1fan on Jun 9, 2009 9:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
kobe put on an angry face and the lakers trotted out pretty much the same team. the magic are a very good defensive team (giving up fewer points per 100 possessions than any team in the nba), but clearly worse than last year’s celtics team. the lakers stepped up the d in the playoffs, giving up 1 fewer point per 100 possessions than they did in the regular season, but i just don’t see this lakers team as much better than last year’s team.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I see is the "Rape Face" not an angry face.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on Jun 9, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I LOL'd at this
is that the face kobe had when he forced himself into that poor, innocent girl? God, I hope so.
I KICKED IT WITH JESUS ONCE.. HE'S KIND OF A PRICK
by DMJR on Jun 10, 2009 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just don’t see this lakers team as much better than last year’s team.
Because its not. Kobe has a scowl. Lamar Odom is playing a lot more confidently. Trevor Ariza can hit the 3 now. Fisher is even worse and the refs are buying/giving in to his tricks less. Bynum gives them 6 more fouls. Vujacic gets fewer minutes. Gasol didn’t come into the series playing nearly as well. These are relatively minor differences. Some of their guys are playing a little better, but I don’t see any evidence that they showing any more intensity. …..unless you count Kobe’s ridiculous “tough-guy” scowl and one word answers as intensity.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Vujacic gets fewer minutes.”
I think we found the difference! Vujacic not playing makes the Lakers a significantly better team. Ugh I hate Vujacic, and man does he suck.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the real difference for the Lakers in finals this year is that Garnett and Pierce are getting fewer minutes.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was really just pointing out that I can’t stand Vujacic…
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was really just sayin’ that I don’t think the Lakers are a different team.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well true, but I do think there’s at least a case that Gasol and Odom are playing better than last years finals, when they completely disappeared.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think there’s at least a case that Gasol and Odom are playing better than last years finals, when they completely disappeared.
Having to match up against Garnett can do that to a player.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, but I’ve been impressed by how effective Gasol has been on both ends against Howard.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i hate him
and i heard that his nickname “the shooting machine” was given to him by none other than himself
by bizz 192 on Jun 10, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nellie on After The Game
Just said that he plans to play Monta at the point so that they could have a bigger frontline.He will play Stephen at the 2. He also said and I quote “Our power/young big guys are still developing and they will take us as far as they can go”. That statement makes me think they will keep there frontline intact (hooray gives me hope they might keep Brandan) and indeed move Anthony to the 3.
What ya’ll think….
TL32
by brandanwright#1fan on Jun 9, 2009 9:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ANTHONY. RANDOLPH. IS. NOT. A. SMALL. FORWARD.
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
was the link an accident or were you trying to trick me into clicking a link to the same picture you posted?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yah, I actually want to read whatever you're linking to because . . .
I agree that he’s not a 3 now, but he could be a point-4 or be the 3 in a lineup with Wright at the 4 because AR can’t make plays consistently on offense yet, and Wright can score. So, offensively it can work with ^^^^ or Turiaf at the 5.
The thing I don’t like about it is that you’re taking a + shot blocker and + rebounder away from the rim on defense. I only like it if you have Wright guarding the opposing 3 on the perimeter and AR defending the 4. Which is completely hinging on Wright putting in the effort on D despite his facial expression and goofy nose.
Regardless, I’m responding to every comment like my name was sam23. So, uh, sam23, where’s the link? Apparently I need more comments to rebut.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 9, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m firmly against the “anthony randolph: small forward experiment”, but also want to read this supposed link (if there ever was such a link). i’m going to go back to the kg analogy because it was fairly well received, pretty clear and i don’t want to keep constructing new arguments against randolph as a small forward:
if randolph developed kg’s perimeter game, he’d still be a better 4, in the same way that kg is a better 4 despite his pretty solid grasp on wing play and the crazy moment where he played point forward in the playoffs when cassell got hurt (sorry to keep bringing that up, but that was such a ridiculous/amazing moment that i love to think about it). if you don’t think randolph can develop a better perimeter game than kg, it’s safe to say he should stay at the 4 and receive little to no time at the 3.
i should save this as a word document and just copy/paste it whenever people suggest randolph as a 3.
i also don’t see wright ever being able to defend small forwards and that’s the first time i’ve ever heard someone suggest that he could. that’s not to say that you’re wrong, just that i doubt he’ll get there.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we mostly agree considering the amount of improbable "ifs" that have to happen for it to work
I think AR will develop a perimeter offensive game, he has a decent jump shot, can handle and can finish if he can drive to the rim without hurting himself or others. My concern is that they’d be wasting his skills on defense by guarding the perimeter.
You’re right that the most iffyist of the ifs is if Wright can guard the perimeter. I have no idea ho much lateral quickness he has, he may just be a taller Crawford defending the perimeter. He does have the length to bother jump shooters and get his freaky arms in the lane. He also doesn’t rebound on that end so I have no problem pulling him away from the rim. But, yah, that’s a stretch.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 10, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
offensively, randolph is miles away from being a small forward. he does not have a decent jump shot. jump shots get better in time for young players, but his ability to score from outside the paint is still severly lacking. for the most part, his offense improved greatly when he figured out that he wasn’t a jump shooter and stopped pretending that he was. we saw his shooting percentages drop at the end of the season when he decided to give it another try.
most guys can finish if they make it to the rim without hurting themselves or others. keeping in mind that teammates count as “others” and that turnovers hurt your teammates, i’d say that happens less often than i want out of a small forward. a lot less often. he’ll turn the ball over less as he matures, but probably not to the point where we’ll find ourselves saying “oh man, randolph’s got an iso on caron butler. this is going to be good.”
the question remains: do you honestly think his perimeter offensive is better than kevin garnett’s perimeter offense or will ever be? if the answer is no, then he should not play the wing on offense. his perimeter game should continue to develop and considering his quickness, he’ll be a big mismatch for power forwards if it does. the same will likely be true for small forwards, but in that case, the mismatch isn’t in our favor.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KG
is automatic from the top of the 19’9 arch, i mean he makes what seems like 9/10 from that spot, i can’t really say i’ve ever seen him consistently shoot outside 12 feet anywhere else or seem him take someone off the dribble recently from the perimeter, but if randloph is anything close to KG he will be a very good player for many years.
by bizz 192 on Jun 10, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly, i’m saying that developing kg’s perimeter game is an absolute best (and unlikely) situation for randolph and that even kg is best served as a 4.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jump shots get better in time for young players, but his ability to score from outside the paint is still severly lacking. for the most part, his offense improved greatly when he figured out that he wasn’t a jump shooter and stopped pretending that he was. we saw his shooting percentages drop at the end of the season when he decided to give it another try.
Nov: .343
Dec: .452
Jan: .488
Feb: .500
Mar: .510
Apr: .472
Not that much of a drop-off.
His jump shot improved towards the end of the season, it was pretty consistent for 7 of the last 10 games or so but that means nothing until he can carry it over to next year for much longer stretches. But it looks to me like that part of his game is getting better.
most guys can finish if they make it to the rim without hurting themselves or others. keeping in mind that teammates count as "others" and that turnovers hurt your teammates, i’d say that happens less often than i want out of a small forward. a lot less often.
Agreed unless we’re talking about Warriors-era-Pietrus. But I agree.
the question remains: do you honestly think his perimeter offensive is better than kevin garnett’s perimeter offense or will ever be? if the answer is no, then he should not play the wing on offense. his perimeter game should continue to develop and considering his quickness, he’ll be a big mismatch for power forwards if it does. the same will likely be true for small forwards, but in that case, the mismatch isn’t in our favor.
I don’t see how whether or not his skill at the 4 versus the 3 is as good or bad as KG has anything to do with the Warriors current situation or Anthony Randolph. You have to look at the Warriors roster situation and play the best combination of players for each nightly match-up. I get what your saying, with his current game, he;s not going to create many mismatches on offense.
Here’s my guess. We’ll see him at the 3, 4 and 5 next year. How much time he spends at the 3 I’m guessing will depend on some unknown factors:
1. If Wright is here and how productive and healthy he is
2. If the Warriors go out and acquire a play-making 3 like Riley said. That could be a smokescreen
3. The Warriors acquire a big PG so Jackson can slide back to the 3
4. Bukie’s ability or inability to make plays for others at the 3
5. Game-to-game match-ups
6. AR’s improvement and ability to make plays for others which he has not shown.
I agree with you, I don’t think he’s ready to play the 3 right now unless you are using him for defense and going to Wright on offense at the 4 with AB or Turiaf at the 5. That would be match-up specific though.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 10, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
agreed on the jumpshooting bit. guys get better, randolph has proven to be no exception, but to say that his jumper will ever be “good” is asking it to get a lot better. it is only a slight drop in fg%, but it is a drop and the main reason for that was his increase in jump shots.
i also agree that we’ll probably see him at the 3 from time to time. i don’t understand why that is the right decision. he isn’t productive as a small forward and he’s a good power forward. why take him out of the position where he’s been good and into the position where he hasn’t? randolph is not the answer at the 3; he just doesn’t have the game for it. he hasn’t proven effective offensively or defensively on the wing, and while these things should improve, i don’t want to bet on them improving enough to make him a small forward.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
I was trying to link O.M.’s post on the subject. This one.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah, yeah. you keep using that post, someone else write a new one and rec it up and i’ll stick with the kg analogy. we will debunk this myth eventually.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea I think its our only actual post on the subject even though it comes up in about half the threads.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there really should be more considering how often the idea is floated out there. maybe a fanpost series, each with a fresh take on why anthony randolph is a better 4 than 3. something, anything!
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, what he said about making the frontline bigger seems to suggest AR at the 3.
I don’t think that would work, I’m not sure Nellie thinks that either. He could just be suggesting that instead of playing Maggette at the PF or Buike there, they will be permenant SF’s. I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant. The young guys proved themselves to Nellie last year, and they’re gonn get A LOT of pt. Thus, Maggette is allowed to be a beastly SF as opposed to an undersized PF. I’ve thought the lineup would be this
Monta
Jack
Buike
AR/BW it’s gonna be awesome to see them try and out do one another for that spot
Biedrins
Much like Nellie, I think this gives us our most balanced lineup, although he could go back to starting Maggette. But Corey is such an asset to have on a bench, he can come in get the other team flustered and in foul trouble; score at will, and completely give the team a HUGE momentum boost. That’s probably why he’ll be our sixth man, maybe even sixth man of the year. I also see Jamal coming off the bench and doing the same thing. Our starting 5 will be able to compete with most teams, but our bench is superior to any team. Ronny, BW/AR, Corey, Jamal, and Morrow/Marco, that is a fantastic bench.
by myk on Jun 9, 2009 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does anyone else really really not like the idea of Jack at the 2?
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like it better than Jax at the 3, where he’s a minus rebounder.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it’s a little bit of a moot point since he’s essentially a “wing” and being a 2 or a 3 is only really a formality and won’t actually change any matchups (it will still be decided by who the other person playing next to him is), but I just don’t like Jack’s matchup defensively against 2’s as much as 3’s because he’s not always quick enough for it.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There really does seem to be less and less difference between 2’s and 3’s. As you alluded, the bigger difference is that if Jax is the 3, there might be more of a temptation to use a smaller guy as the ‘2’, while if he’s nominally your ‘2’, he’s more likely to be paired with a guy who isn’t an incompetent rebounder.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're in the NBA finals and they beat the team with the league's best record
That’s how bad a coach Stan Van Gundy is. That’s exactly why you shouldn’t “settle for” threes.
Think of it this way, this is a bit of an oversimplification because it doesn’t take into account free throws and longer rebounds but . . .
1. A 2pt FG is worth 2 points
2. A 3pt FG is worth 3 points
3. To get 6 points, you need to make THREE 2pt shots or TWO 3pt shots
4. If you had SIX attempts to get 6 points and you only took 2pt shots you’d have to make 50%. If you only took 3pt shots, you’d have to make 33%.
5. How many teams shot UNDER 33% on 3pt shots last year? One. Philadelphia. That’s it.
6. How many teams shot OVER 50% on 2pt shots last year? Four. Phoenix , Boston, Utah & The Lakers
7. So which is the more efficient way top score points? Which way are teams better at scoring points? With 3pt or 2pt shots?
In conclusion what I’m trying to say is: Nellie if you are watching these finals, I hope you see that your offense tactics will never beat a solid defensive team. As the season goes on, those three’s dont go in as much.
In conclusion: The Lakers and the Magic both attempted more 3s than the Warriors this season.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 9, 2009 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There are negative externalities associated with shooting three pointers. Shooting 33% on threes is certainly not the same as shooting 50% from two. Most importantly, your odds of being fouled on a three are virtually nil, whereas shooting fouls on two-pointers happen all the time.
by markdash on Jun 10, 2009 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. That's why I mentioned that. You're just elaborating on what I said before I got into the 2nd-grade math
this is a bit of an oversimplification because it doesn’t take into account free throws and longer rebounds but
Did you not read that part? The ENTIRE reason I put that qualifier in was so somebody wouldn’t get all excited about the fact that I was excluding those variables and miss the fact that I was laying down a foundation for understanding that “jacking up 3s” is not as insane as people make it out to be. But thank you for running straight through that stop sign.
There are negative externalities associated with shooting three pointers. Shooting 33% on threes is certainly not the same as shooting 50% from two. Most importantly, your odds of being fouled on a three are virtually nil, whereas shooting fouls on two-pointers happen all the time.
We can nuance the living crap out of this if we want, but you didn’t provide any useful information like what the actual statistical affects on FTs and scoring in general are of shooting 3s versus 2s. It doesn’t end there right? There is also a different probability of getting fouled if it is a 2pt jump shot or a shot in the paint. What about the % of the offensive getting the rebound for each of the three different shots?
All these stats are out there but I was trying to make a simple point, while qualifying it, without having to cite every possible variable involved.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 10, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we really need to crunch a bunch of numbers to establish the mind-numbingly obvious?
I mean, maybe we can get Jae to do if for us, but that aside …
Don’t be rude to somebody because you tried to hedge your half-assed analysis with a single sentence, which you even seemed to ignore yourself when drawing conclusions.
by Ronaldinho on Jun 10, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
I’m no basketball luddite; I think the 3-point shot is a very valuable weapon which, if anything, is underused.
But saying things like “shooting at least 33% from 3 is the same as shooting 50% from 2” is providing only the most basic of analysis. While I like the three and prefer to have players who are good at it, if I had a team that shot really well from 2, I would prefer to go that way. There’s a good reason that the most efficient players every year are power forwards and centers.
by markdash on Jun 10, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of true shooting percentage (factoring in type of shot, how often a player is fouled and how well they do from the line) there’s actually very, very little difference in the average for each position. The average hovers around 54% for everyone.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I stand by my statement that the “most efficient players” play inside since 4 of the top 5 (arbitrary, I know) this past season were Hilario, Yao, Shaq, and Gasol. It’s interesting to see that the distribution is a lot more even than I would have thought. I guess the problem is that those guys aren’t generally any good at shooting free throws.
by markdash on Jun 10, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The most efficient scorers do tend to be big men. The reason the average is what it is falls mainly because the quality of big men is highly variable. The small supply of tall people means that the best bigs are much, much better than the average big man and the guys who fill out the bottom ranks of the league are just terrible.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: But saying things like "shooting at least 33% from 3 is the same as shooting 50% from 2"
I think this may be the point of disconnect between you and I on this particular issue.
I never said it was a clean, absolute comparison. This is why I was being transparent by mentioning a couple of variables that I didn’t have metrics for in order to contextualize the comparison.
Nothing I stated in my original post was untrue, dishonest or misleading. That’s why I was rude, and I apologize for that, because I had been overly clear about what I was considering and what I was omitting and then I get the comment “yah but you can’t say that because you left out free throws” when I had clearly stated that was a variable.
I think comparing 33% to 50% is a very helpful way to illustrate the value of the 3pt shot as long as everyone understands the limitations of that comparison, which isn’t as drastic as people seem to believe.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 10, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Do we really need to crunch a bunch of numbers to establish the mind-numbingly obvious?
Well it’s not mind-numbingly obvious if someone puts a fanpost together and concludes that the Warriors need to shoot less threes. Sorry if you hate numbers or find them useless. The cool thing about numbers is that they verify, refute or augment what we may think to be “mind-numbingly obvious”.
Don’t be rude to somebody because you tried to hedge your half-assed analysis with a single sentence, which you even seemed to ignore yourself when drawing conclusions.
You mean by being transparent and clearly explaining what I was trying to demonstrate? That’s called defining the parameters of my assertion. What is wrong with that?
Nobody has to be rude, that’s true, but I felt that I had tried to be exceedingly helpful and clear as to why it is good to take 3pt shots instead of just saying “Magic and Lackers both shot more threes than the Warriors so you’re wrong”. You know, not just state “the mind-numbingly obvious” but state my reasons for believing so. Then I get this comment that basically lectures me on the fact that I didn’t consider something that I had already said I wasn’t considering without showing how that additional information changes my conclusion. To me, that’s rude.
So, how would you have stated it better?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 10, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, did you watch last night's game?
The Lakers played defense?
by Ronaldinho on Jun 10, 2009 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
DWIGHT HOWARD
my opinion is that if you put da-wight howard on the ‘we believe’ warriors, that team would instantly be a championship contender. its incredible how much better a superstar (especially one that big and athletic) can make a team (as has been outlined in many different posts).
jameer & rafer < baron
courtney lee, mikael, jj redick < jrich, monta, mikael
hedo ~ jax, barnes
rashard lewis ~ al harrington (when playing well)
DWIGHT, gortat, foyle >>> biedrins, foyle, POB
so yeah, we aren’t/weren’t THAT far away. just one player. just one MEGASUPERSTAR player away. ok now tell me how we are going to get that player…
by gogoldenbears on Jun 10, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rashard Lewis’s regular play is better than Harrington at anything other than his absolute best. Turkoglu produced more than Jax and Barnes, and Nelson’s season was superior to what Baron had been doing.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that that team would be very good, but Rashard Lewis is a much better player than Harrington and Turkoglu is much better than Jackson and Barnes
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 11, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Instead of comparing Anthony to KG.... why not compare him to Teyshawn
I keep on hearing all these arguments stating that moving Anthony to the SF would take away from his rebounding/shot blocking, but that is not true. When a shot is taken the opposing teams 5 players must crash the boards not just the PF/C. Last season I saw Anthony run from the 3 point line to out jump the opposition for a board, who is to say he couldn’t do that next year from the SF positon.
Also, moving Anthony to the SF doesn’t necessarily mean that he will live in the perimeter on offense. He could be used the same way Teyshawn is used up in Detriot, post up and pass from the low post. He would already be taller than the opposing teams SF, so he would have the ability to look over defenses.
By moving Anthony to the SF this team would be a freakishly good defensive team w/ very long arms to get hands in passing lanes. In my mind Anthony could and should play the SF next year.
Next years starting lineup should be:
C Andris
PF Brandan
SF Anthony
SG Stephen
PG ???? ( I just dont want Monta) Maybe draft someone who could play point forward like TWILL
TL32
by brandanwright#1fan on Jun 10, 2009 4:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“PG ???? ( I just dont want Monta) Maybe draft someone who could play point forward like TWILL”
I think the anti-Monta faction has hit a new low. You’d rather have Terrence Williams than Monta to fill out that lineup? I don’t even know what to say to that. Monta has established himself as a good NBA player and you’d rather have a guy who may or may not get drafted in the lottery who has character red flags. We’re much better off giving Monta a shot at running the point – either he starts learning to do it effectively or he doesn’t and we switch him back, either way, it’s not like he’s going to be worse there than bringing in a guy like Terrence Williams.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with the point in general; it’s ridiculous to say that terrance williams would come in and be a better point guard than monta ellis (particularly in a lineup that would then include, one center, two power forwards, and two swingmen trying to initiate the offense), but what are williams’ character red flags? i haven’t heard about any issues with him.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No idea, but I’ve seen it mentioned in a couple draft locations like ESPN and draftexpress.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why not compare him to tayshaun? because his game isn’t anything like tayshaun’s. prince is a perimeter player with some post skills when he’s being guarded by smaller guys. he’s a much better passer, shooter, and perimeter defender than randolph. to say that randolph won’t have the perimeter game of kg but will have the game of prince would require him to completely reinvent himself as a player both offensively and defensively. randolph would not improve the team defensively at the 3, he’d make it worse.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does have a fair point when it comes to D. You had a good argument with the Garnett thing earlier, but I see some validity in the Tayshaun argument, too. Prince is also athletic, 6’9, and long, if he can do it defensively, why can’t Randolph? I think further thoughts on this are necessary.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mostly because body type and athleticism aren’t all that goes into defense. randolph seems to lack perimeter defensive instincts and doesn’t defend like tayshaun at all. the better comparisons i heard for him defensively are guys like noah and birdman. active post defenders who block a lot of shots. his size and athleticism do not give him guaranteed perimeter defensive skills. he just doesn’t look like tayshaun at all on defense.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could it be inexperience from playing down low his whole life? It may be with some experience he improves a lot. Body type/length/athleticism are huge factors in D, does Randolph have the quickness, and especially the lateral quickness for it? I don’t get enough Warriors in my life on the east coast to have an answer to that.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he actually played on the perimeter a lot at LSU for some reason, giving the assumption that he projected as a better 3. i don’t know if you’d be able to find hollinger’s pre-draft write-up from last year, but he absolutely hated randolph as a player because he was unproductive and tried to play the wing too much (if my recollection is accurate). so it’s not just that he hasn’t ever tried to be a perimeter player, it’s that he isn’t good at it. from what i’ve seen from randolph, he just can’t stay in front of perimeter players all that well. athleticism is important, but there’s more to defense that i’m not sure how to explain.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hollinger’s analysis was flavored by two things: Randolph didn’t shoot particularly well for a guy his size and he turned the ball over a whole bunch while at LSU. Both of those things tend to make teams lose games (LSU wasn’t particularly good) and both of those things are more likely to occur when a guy is on the perimeter. It’s what we saw at the beginning of last season too. Then Biedrins got hurt and Wright got hurt and Randolph was forced into PT as a “big” and those problems seemed to diminish and he was a much more productive player. It was as if for the first time
LSU’s coaching situation while he was there was a mess and when a HS team with a future NBA lottery pick has a losing record, I have to suspect that they weren’t getting the best coaching there either. I wonder if this is the first time that someone has really put Randolph in the right situation to succeed. It would be a shame to toss it back in favor of the flashy, but rather ineffective perimeter version that Hollinger and company didn’t see much promise in.
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have an opinion on the Randolph can or can’t play 3 issue, but I think for his development and for the Warriors someone that knows what they’re talking about needs to just make a decision on what he’s going to be and stick with it. Unlike Ellis, who I’m fine trying at 1 this coming season and moving back if it doesn’t work, I think we’re best off putting Randolph in one place for good.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I wonder if this is the first time that someone has really put Randolph in the right situation to succeed.
That’s almost a certainty and he’s going to end up making so much more money because of it.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 10, 2009 6:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
randolph will excel at the SF
randolph seems to lack perimeter defensive instincts and doesn’t defend like tayshaun at all
All I got to say is watch 0:10-0:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TJARASNxEo. It may have been Gooden he stole that from, but he did show great ability to defend the perimeter. He also guarded point guards and they where not able to get by him due to his quickness and length.
Randolph is a player than can guard MULTIPLE positons: from oppositions pg’s-pf’s. So to say he cant guard the perimeter is absolutely irrelivent. If he where to get beat of the dribble all he has to do is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whh9ZCFoYLQ haha.
As far as the Monta issue, im not saying bring TWILL to run things: all im saying is bring someone who can run point forward and defend multiple positions. If this where the case we could just switch all pick n rolls. Maybe im just facinatated by tall PG’s like Magic.
TL32
by brandanwright#1fan on Jun 10, 2009 7:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
youtube clips of him guarding post players do not demonstrate that he can guard perimeter players.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The dead link highlight reel aside: I remember highlight reels of Adonal Foyle when he was drafted. It was before the youtube explosion, but man, he looked good. Active, fast, blocked everything in sight and seemed to be able to throw it down with authority. There were even so nice moves near the basket where he got guys to look silly trying to defend him. I remember highlight reels of Dunleavy aggressively putting it on the floor and blowing by people on his way to the hoop too.
But that’s highlight reel stuff. It’s hard to find a guy in the NBA who you can’t find enough clips to put together to make him look awesome. Highlight reels aren’t scouting reports. They’re best-case scenarios. When you bank of best case scenarios, you tend to find yourself disappointed with the long-term outcomes.
(And the "first initial, first syllable of last name thing was outlawed. You are now in violation of the “It’s just an overused, lazy excuse for giving a guy a real appropriate nick-name” act of 2009.)
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
t-will almost falls under the “one word corallary” of the “IJOLEFGGRANN” act, but twill is too lame sounding to make that work.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 11, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Twill is fabric. That name just screams that he’s a soft player.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
