[ClutchFans] Rockets to begin season with Beverley, Asik as starters; Jeremy Lin off bench

I think role suits him better since he is not as effective when playing with Harden so their minutes should be staggered. Not to mention he would give the bench instant offense in terms of scoring + playmaking.

 

Nate and Bev are not remotely alike.

Clearly Lin is the better player but Manu was better than the starting SG for the Spurs too. It doesn't matter who starts. What matters is who finishes games and plays more mpg.

I like it when Lin plays less minutes anyway. His style of play can be very exhausting. 30 mpg and being in contention for 6MOY isn't bad at all.

 

Sefolosha did indeed have a a bigger role than Harden. That's why Harden's here now, not in OKC

 

I never said that, but playoffs are completely different to regular season. Playoffs are about match-ups.

Would it be fair to post Jeremy Lin's playoff stats as evidence that he shouldn't be a starter?

Do you have evidence to back that up? You are actually saying the Spurs lost in the playoffs because Ginobili was a sixth man.

It's not subjective. It is a fact that Ginobili had his best season as a 6th man. The fact that the Spurs "only" won one championship since Ginobili became a 6th man does not infer that the Spurs could have won more games if Ginobili was a starter.

 

I think he is just talking. I think he is sticking with Bev.

 

Lin won't get 30 mins a night. He'll get around 20.

 

yes, you may be right on this part. however, we have to look at what this means to harden. according to last season's data, harden's efficiency w/o lin is lower than w/ lin. the difference seems pretty significant. so we have to consider all pros and cons on every player and every aspect of a game.

 

We're just making stuff up now? LOL.

 

: ) This McHale interview took place before the game. (I don't know if that makes it better or worse . : ) )

 

He will get closer to 30 than 20. Probably in the 27-28 mpg range.

 

It would make it even more logical than it seemed post-game -- like a coach about to try something new and acknowledging his willingness to change it up if it doesn't work.

 

Dude, did you watch the game? The reason Bev played 10 minutes is because he got injured. ...

 

If you have a good team with all solid players, there is no shame in playing only 25-30 minutes per night.....longevity.

 

Agreed. If we're playing well and up by a comfortable margin, I think the more rest for our go-to guys, the better. Long time til June.

 

If a lineup works in the regular season but doesn't work in the playoffs it's not necessarily so good for the good teams.

If he was injured it's different story, otherwise it could be OK.

You like to put words into people's mouth don't you? You are saying Ginobili was way better after he became sixth man. And I said he might post better stats in the regular season but it didn't help the team win that season whereas they won before that, so they were definitely good when they won.

Huh? Why? Because he posted better stats in the regular season? So what? We are talking about teams with championship aspirations, not just any team. Winning is most important, not just small differences in statistics.

Sure, and I never said that. But it also doesn't mean he was much better as a 6th man than when he played starter. He was pretty good as a starter.

 

That makes no sense.

You are saying that even though Ginobili posted career best in numbers across the board as a 6th man, because the Spurs didn't win the championship that season, it "didn't help the team win"?

I'm just going to let you rethink what you just said.

 

Your reading comprehension is......

"it didn't help the team win that season". This is all I said. I don't know how you could generate "didn't help the team win".

Bottomline, he helped the Spurs win a championship as a starter and in "the best year" they didn't win. So it wasn't necessarily by far a great move.

 

Okay, first of all, you need to stop pretending that everyone else has issues reading your post when you have problems expressing your opinion coherently. Here is an example:

What does this mean? It's not a great move by far? It's not necessarily a great move?

Second of all, Popovich decided to use Manu Ginobili midway through the season in the 2006-2007 season because he thought the Spurs did not have enough fire power. The Spurs went on to have the best record in the 2nd half of the season when Ginobili came off the bench. The Spurs also went on to win the championship with Ginobili coming off the bench. So yes, obviously Ginobili coming off the bench helped a lot.

The very next season, Ginobili came off the bench officially, and he went on to have the best season of his career. However, because the Spurs didn't win the championship, you think it wasn't "necessarily by far a great move?"

 

Everyone? ~lol~ I post so many times and so many people respond to me. These few days you are the only one who has trouble reading my posts. Of course, you come with an agenda to annoy that's why you can't see things clearly and must try nitpicking, trying all kinds of angle to no prevail. I said that you always have problem with comprehension and putting words into people's mouth and that's it, don't blame it on me. Better yet, stop bugging me with your nonsense.

It means this move isn't far greater than the other move.

Sure, it wasn't a bad move but they won the championship in 05. So I wouldn't say it's necessarily by far a greater move than the other, meaning Manu being the starter.

 

I thought Lin did well coming off the bench