It drives you nuts because you are heavily influenced by "highlight" plays. This is fine, in fact natural. But it is also why we need objective quantitative analysis to complement our eyes. The difference between us, and why his game tonight was no surprise to me, is that I saw hardly any difference between this and his game in Boston. I didn't see anything close to a "strong effort" then. I can certainly see why someone would disagree, because even though his positive plays were far and few between that I can count them on one hand, they DID stood out as the "highlight" variety. A put back slam. A wideopen dunk on the fast break. The one true positive play was when he chased down an offensive rebound after multiple efforts in the second quarter. All in all he had about 4 or 5 max positive plays in Boston. While a list of negative plays, breakdowns would take me all night to go over. His +/- taking into account the full season of sample size is dead last on the team. He is one of the few players on the team that actually has a negative number in that regard, meaning over the course of the season, we consistently lose when he is on the court. The same story is true for adjusted +/-, as well as on court off court stats. All this means is that the guy greatly contributes to losing. Even looking at a one game sample, it is telling that he is the ONE player on the entire team that had a negative +/- in Boston. And it was a big negative number even in his supposed strong effort. The only difference tonight is he went without even those couple of positive plays that mask his consistently futile effort on a nightly basis.
I am heavily influenced by the 8 rebounds he grabbed on Monday not the put back slams. You confuse me with someone who looks at highlights and doesn't watch the game. I'll be honest, I grade him on a curve, a steep curve, so I don't expect him to put up numbers or run plays to perfection like a vet. Give me hustle, effort and desire from him and i'll be happy because I understand the guy was SUPER raw when he got here and not on the level of a Cousins or Griffin. I'll be the first to admit, he is STRUGGLING and starting against first team centers hasn't worked out but I am far from giving up on the kid. Heck, Adelman should play him more the rest of the season and make sure by season's end what is expected of him is hammered into his brain. This season is lost so his development, T-Will and PPat's should be a priority.
Can't rep you, but obviously agree. If what he did in Boston is a good game for him... we really are in trouble. And indeed we are.
Je-ffries, Je-ffries! Seriously, what is doing now Hill that could not do Jared as starting center? Yes, starting center, Jeffries. I see no reasons to keep playing Jordan, if we're competing for a playoff spot. Showcasing has to go to my mind.
YES!!! Rep+ I would take it a step further, i would trade Scola for a legit young Center, to give Pat and Hill more playing time...
So are you volunteering to teach Jeffries how to dunk a freakin' basketball? (will he ever figure that out??)
I didn't mean that highlights is all you watched, just that it can easily influence you, or anyone. It is human nature to trust in our eyes. I also believe that is the only reason why there are still people who believe he has "potential". Because we get too excited when he shows "flashes", even though his consistent contribution to losing far outweigh any singular plays that might look nice.
Like jopat would say: "I don't want him trying to dunk, I want him passing the ball, passing the ball."
And I largely agree, but the cat is 6'11" and can jump, yet blows layup after layup right around the basket. It's bizarre!
Frankly, it's weird, he must have a better 3PT% than layup%. He doesn't play bad since the high post.
Great post. Everyone always comes out hard on Hill when he has a bad game but not much love here when he has a good one. I think he has officially become the scapegoat this year. Last year it was Ariza. I constantly had to defend the guy and I was never a huge fan of him but people found a way to ignore his good games and highlight his bad ones. It's Hill's second game, he is very raw for a PF yet we are playing him at Center. A position that has a steep learning curve even for guys that have been playing it for years in college and come into the NBA and struggle. I'm not surprised at all by Hill's struggle and inconsistent play, the lack of effort is what should worry people though and at times he HAD the rebound but the other guy just wanted it more.
Russuel Westbrook was missing his free throws so why not quick 2 and foul him. Too bad they got lucky on their free throws. If we missed are 3pointer then the game would of been done. But no RA did the quick 2 pointer to try get the desperate down to 3.
So what other player would have stolen the ball and then picked off a defender to allow AB to shoot (and make) that three to make the late push? He's still making very good plays out there. The no stats all-star label gets made fun of a lot, but that's really what he brings. If we had other players who had the sense (or experience i guess) to make similar plays, then Battier's non-stats would be less valuable, but we don't. Could we use more from him? Well of course. What team couldn't use more at every position? But what is a realistic trade scenario? How do the incoming players fit? Do they make us better? It's not as simple as trading players that are getting older or not meeting expectations.
