Referring to starter vs. sixth man situations on different teams is an unfair comparison. Different teams have different makeups and matchup problems created. The Grizzlies played an expanded rotation and didn't have any one player (Gasol included) who consistently demanded a double team. This meant that the other players on the floor would not consistently find themselves open for jumpshots. The Rockets are a completely different team. Yao Ming consistenly commands a double team in the low post; and McGrady will get plenty of double teams out on the perimeter. Having players in the starting lineup who can (a) play good defense; (b) hit the open jumper; (c) make the smart passes necessary to facilitate the offense; and (d) defer to the two stars. Rafer and Shane fit nicely into these roles. Hayes was a starter for so long because he fit most of the above criteria better than the other options, but he could not hit the open jumper. This created an opening for Scola to take the starting PF spot. He fits the above criteria much better than Hayes. Ron Artest, while clearly a more talented player than Battier, would NOT be as good a starter on THIS team than Battier would, assuming that Yao and T-Mac are healthy. Artest is a great defender, but so is Battier. Artest is a pretty good outside shooter, but Battier is a little better on a career basis. Where Battier clearly outshines Artest is in his ability to make the smart pass and to defer to the main stars. Artest can clog up the offense when he determines that he wants to score on his man. This can lead to some bad shots and some stagnant offense and was one of the reasons that Sacramento was okay getting rid of him (to clearly make that team Kevin Martin's). Rick Adelman's goal is to put the best COMBINATION of players out on the court for a full 48+ minutes every night. That is not always the same thing as putting the 5 best players out there together at the beginning of the game. Artest will likely finish most games (see Cassell, Sam). Having Shane as a starter and Artest as the sixth man and third scorer on the team (being the primary option with the second unit) maximizes the utility of those two players. Plus, Artest would obviously still see at least half of his minutes with both Yao and T-Mac on the floor. But he is more useful than Shane is when those two stars are NOT on the floor. Having Shane playing without Yao and T-Mac is almost a waste of minutes on this team. Maximizing utility of players is key. That is Rick Adelman's goal. That is definitely Daryl Morey's goal. That approach most likely involves Shane Battier as a fourth or fifth starter, with Ron Artest as the #1 option off the bench.
^^thats what i said earlier.shane is not a 6th man type impact player. he's game is based on playing lock down defense and doing it as a starter. artest however fits provides what an ideal 6th would need. great offense and defense. You want you're 6th man to come in and make a impact straight away. someone like shane who cant even create a shot for himself just dosent fit that bill. shane= a great role player who is ideally suited to a starting spot. It's like the pistons using prince as a 6th man. and considering prince has much better offensive skiulls then what shane does, and even then it's a disaster.
I understand your point on the LLE, but if I remember correctly, one of the reasons by Barry decided to sign with us was because he wanted an opportunity to play more...please correct me if I am wrong. Also, I don't really consider Barry a backup PG, although I see many on this forum do. I don't recall the times where he backed up Parker in SA, although I am not saying it didn't happen if a lot of people here do remember that. And like you said, I think he will get the majority of the minutes behind T-Mac because he is a much more accurate shooter than Battier is. We definitely agree that he will have no competition from Head. But I don't see him getting minutes at the point as many of you do here...not saying that I can't be wrong of course. I honestly would be very surprised to see Battier get ANY minutes at PF with Scola, Landry, Artest and at the moment Hayes and Dorsey on this team. So because of what I have said about the point and power foward positions, and with Artest being a healthy beast, I just honestly don't see where Battier will get the extra minutes from, above what I said barring fouls, injury or blowouts. I get your point man....and I agree that he brings a lot to the table..defensively and IQ wise...but the situation is that now we have players at each position that bring more to the table than he does with each of his individual skills....that doesn't dimish his skills, just the amount of minutes available to him imho.
If the rockets are gonna play shane thirteen to eighteen minutes a night, then we gotta trade him pronto he'll be useless in playing those minutes.
We are hoping the Rockets will be a championship team this year..and Boston was a champsionship team last year. To me there is no better way to evaluate yourself than to see how you stack up against the best in the league...so I respectfully disagree. Now you just said that comparing on different teams is unfair, but yet you are comparing us to the Grizzlies. Now that if anything is unfair because they are NOT in our league, yet still Shane was a bench player behind Posey in the year discussed earlier. Yes..we are championship contenders....the Grizzlies have NEVER been such. Yao and Tracy will get much less double teams with Artest starting over Battier...even though Battier can hit a three pointer, he doesn't strike fear in any team to make them not double off of him to stop one of our other big two. Artest will be a much bigger threat to leave off of double teams on Tmac or Yao, because both of them can pass..and if you get Artest the ball on the move, no one is going to stop him...so what team is going to double team off of Artest that would off of Battier? I think you underestimate Artest...I think he can do A, B, C and D that you listed much better than Battier..imho. But that's just me and debateable I guess. This first statement, we just FLAT OUT DISAGREE ON! I don't think Battier outshines Artest in anything to put it bluntly, although I still like Battier on this team. Maybe you might want to defer to Artest's interview with Stephen A. Smith to see how much he is willing to defer to Yao and Tmac, and even to come off the bench as you prefer. Comparing a almost washed up Cassell to Artest is an insult to Artest to me. (not to me personally of course) Shane is just not starter material to me on a championship contender. I felt that way before we got Artest. I wanted any upgrade that we could get at his position to start over him. He is at best a sixth man, if not 7th or 8th, on a championship team..ala James Posey. And again..you are acting like this team would only have Shane off the bench for scoring...see my last post: Barry, Landry, Francis and Battier if he is the sixth man....that is plenty of scoring off the bench if you ask me. So I ask again...who was the big scoring punch off the bench as the 6th man for the Celtics? Maybe I am forgetting who it was..I honestly didn't watch them that much until the playoffs. Maximizing this team will mean Tmac and Artest at around 35 minutes per game...hopefully a little less..but if at 35 minutes per game...that leaves still only 26 MINUTES PER GAME at the SG and SF position...so even then Shane will NOT get 25 minutes per game. You can forget Shane getting any minutes at PF on this team. So does Barry not get any minutes in your plan or just the 1 minute past 25 for Shane? So while I respect your opinions, and that's why we are on this forum...to discuss them...I still completely disagree with your premise about Battier.
I disagree because there is no one that we can trade him for to give us a better 13-18 minutes a night than he will. Or do you have someone in your mind that would? I would love to hear who if so.
The reference to Sam Cassel was that on the Rockets' two championship teams Kenny Smith started even though Sam was by far the better player and finished games for us. Kenny was better suited to get the Rockets into their offense and helped established Hakeem in the post plus he knocked down threes at a better clip, much like Shane does over Artest. Where as Artest is a much better threat to score he doesn't provide alot in the area of spacing which is key for any big man to work.
It is more likely that Artest and Battier will be on the court together 13-18mpg than it is to say Battier will only get that much. They will be closing out many games together. Anyone who says Battier only gets 13-18mpg can apparently only pigeonhole players and cannot figure out how to get your 5 best players on the court. Every single NBA coach will figure out how to maximize Artest and Battier's minutes. There is no way Battier gets less than 25mpg. it's just a silly notion...borderline, worth ignoring, 'cept i'm bored today.
Okay...I can accept that about Sam being with the Rockets...I thought he meant this year on the Celtics...so my bad. But in regards to that...I think it was more because Sam was a Rookie than it was because of your comparision to Shane and Artest. This is a no brainer for me in regards to whether or not you start Artest over Battier. I can't wait to see what Adelman does...cause all we are doing is speculating with our limited knowledge and observations. But it's fun to do so.
So you are saying that Battier is one of our five best players? You think he is better than Scola? Not to mention that his natural position is the same as Artest. I think most of you are speaking on emotion verses looking at the minutes from a realistic perspective....those that are debating with me I mean. Where will his minutes come from? It is easy to say you have to get him 25 minutes per game...but from where? Who sacrifices? That is what EVERY coach in the league has to figure out when they have a very talented team...and on each of those teams, some player has to suffer in the amount of minutes that they get because of the over abundance of talent. This is a great problem that we have. But if you think Shane gets 25 minutes per game...give me your break down of how he gets it...then maybe I can say if I can accept that as a possibility or not. Fair enough?
I'll try to give you credit that you're just tring to make a point about Battier v Artest. 13-18mpg is silly. you're logic is all messed up dude. you are over analyisting this. Artest and Battier will play significant minutes together.
Why are we catering to Brent Barry? This is the position breakdown I see for the 2/3: T-Mac = PG/SG/SF - Mainly SG Battier = SG/SF - Just as effective in either position Artest = SF/PF - Mainly SF Battier (I believe) played around 40 minutes last year. He will have a drop off in minutes but I doubt it will be significant. Adelman is going to mix and match those players to get the most out of them for the Rockets. Having the the triple point threat of Barry is nice but he doesn't have more value than Battier. With regards to starting I can see merits to playing either Artest or Battier in the lineup, but I am a little more concerned with Artest. No matter what happens they will get their minutes, but I think Battier would better mentally handle coming off the bench. At the end of a close game Yao, T-Mac, Battier, Artest should be in the lineup because the D would be suffocating. Then you either play Rafer or ScoLandry depending on the matchup.
Again, those are easy words to just "say"..but where is your answer to my challenge to give a break down of how the minutes will pan out on this team? Where will his minutes come from? Who loses minutes so that Battier gets all that you won't him to have, assuming everyone is healthy?
We are catering to Barry because he will be by FAR the best 3 point shooter on this team. With our other stars, he spreads the floor much better than Battier and has a much better, quicker shot. His defense is no where near Battier, but if you already have Artest on the floor for around 35 minutes per game imho (leaving only about 13-18 mpg at the SF), and it is not the last 3 or 4 minutes of a close game, Barry will be a better choice at the SG than Battier on any day. So my question stands for you also: give me a minute breakdown scenario that you think is realistic for each player that gets Battier 25 or more minutes a game please.
Rocketsanalyst, I'm just going to go ahead and tell you that I guarantee Shane Battier will not play 25 minutes or more a game, and those minutes will be more than the minutes Brent Barry plays. I respect your opinions, but I really can't see Adelman playing Shane frickin' Battier 13 minutes EVER. He is too good to keep off the floor. It's not about Artest vs. Battier (although it is very debatable who the more effective defender is). It's about how many minutes Battier plays and in what positions. No one ever suggested that Artest play less than 32 minutes or more. He will get his minutes because he is a very talented player. But Battier is too good to keep off the floor (I've said this twice already just because it's so true), so he's gonna get his. SF, PF, SG, whatever. Shane Battier is playing more than 13-18 minutes
Okay man...I get the passion...I really do. Don't forget...I like Shane Battier...I am no where near a Battier hater. I just see that with our talent and lineup, it's going to be harder for him to get all those minutes. If we don't have Artest...not even a topic...no Barry...clearly he gets more minutes at the SG over head or anyone else. But just try to work it out on paper..and then tell me where he gets his minutes from. I think what you will find out is that you have to take those minutes from someone else in another position that will get those minutes in that position first, so his minutes go down. That's all that I'm saying..not that Shane is underserving. So try it...put pen to paper...try to work out the minutes and tell me where Shane gets 25 minutes, let alone more than that. If you put them at SG..you hardly have any for Barry...who is a much better three point three, extremely high BB IQ and brings a championship clutch mentality that Battier doesn't have. If you put Artest at less than 35 minutes per game at SF....then you have to give him more minutes somewhere else because he is that much better than Shane or anyone else on our team not named Yao or Tmac. If 35 minutes at SF...that leaves only 13 minutes at SF left for Battier...and we already discussed the SG position. If you try to put Artest on a regular basis at the PF..that means you take Scola down from less than 32 minutes at that position, in which case he is then playing some center, which weakens our team and means we have no legitimate back up center; which Scola is NOT; and/or that means you take some of the 18 mpg that I have slotted for Landry (assuming we are going to resign him and possibly even pay him more than we would like), a player that if in good health will require more minutes than last year legitimately. That also would mean that Hayes gets ZERO minutes at PF, and Dorsey and Deke get to split less than 16 to 18 minutes a game (minus how ever many you want to give Artest at the PF and then give Scola at C), which doesn't make us better either....all just to try to get Shane some more minutes. Coaches talk about this all the time in how some good players have to sacrifice minutes on a championship team to make the team most effective. I see Shane as that person on this team. If you think otherwise...again...give me your minute breakdown instead of just saying "I know he has to get more minutes than that."
This is a pretty ridiculous task so early in the off season but I'll play along. C = Yao 35 min, Deke 10, Scola 3 PF = Scola 25, Landry 15, Artest 8 SF = Artest 28, Battier 20 SG = T-Mac 30, Battier 10, Barry 8 PG = Alston 30, Brooks 10, T-Mac 4, Barry 4 Artest = 36 Yao = 35 T-Mac = 34 Battier = 30 Alston = 30 Scola = 28 Landry = 15 Barry = 12 Brooks = 10 Deke = 10 This is a ten player rotation, I doubt Adelman will go too much past 8/9 deep so there will be even more minutes to spread around.
To add to the discussion, some people still actually want to trade Shane because of the exact problem that I am pointing out..redundancy. But I prefer to keep him because I don't think that if we trade him we can get any player that we be a better back up SF and defensive specialist off the bench than he will be. But Artest is a better defender than Shane to me, not to mention overall player. But keeping Shane gives us security in case of injury, fouls, or losing Artest at the end of the year; not to mention a lock down defender at the end of close games, which hopefully we won't have too many of.
Okay...nice point of view. Although I don't agree...I can respect your perspective on how the breakdown will go. Here are a couple of things that I may disagree with a little in your assessment: 1) I think Scola will and should be a 30 plus minute player this year. 2) You have no minutes for Hayes or Dorsey at PF or C if they are on the team. 3) If Landry is healthy, I don't see Artest getting minutes over him at PF when Scola is not in. 4) I don't see Tmac or Barry getting any regular minutes at the PG position...it may happen in a certain game...but enough minutes to average your average per game I don't see..which means that they will need to get their minutes back at the SG or SF positions. 5) Take away the 8 minutes at PG for Tmac/Barry and add those back to their minutes at SG/SF, and then take away the 8 minutes at PF for Artest and give them back to him at SF/SG...and you are with Shane at your 30 min minus 16 min...leaves 14 min..in the range that I said. That being said...I respect your prediction and agree to wait to see what Adelman will do.
