It does because fundamentally basketball is a Team game. Team defense is about 5 men being on a string. That means that when one player is beaten, the next man rotates to cover, which forces the next man to rotate and so on. If the person first on the string refuses to play defense or is ball watching, it forces the team to rotate on far more possessions than they should be rotating as the opposing team keys in on that player. If a single player on that string misses rotations or is lazy on his rotations and close outs it either leaves a wide open shot or forces other players to compensate for those failures. This not only exposes the team to more potential errors (missed rotations) but tires out the rest of the team as they're rotating more often than they would normally. More importantly, it undermines the morale of the team as they look at the player and say to themselves, "Why should I bother if XXX can't be bothered to play defense?" Offensively the bad play of one player can be as obvious as bad shot taking (very obvious in the case of Josh Smith's jump shot), but it can also be more subtle when a player distorts the team's spacing and ball movement. A single player playing as a ball hog basically destroys offensive rhythm. Players stop running as they say to themselves, "Why bother running or cutting or setting screens when he's just going to take the shot anyway?". They also become less inclined to pass the ball versus taking a dodgy shot as they don't believe they'll see the ball again. Even worse, when a player can't refuse the temptation to take an inefficient shot the other team will often play defense to that (giving them that wide open or partially contested shot) knowing that the results will be sub-par. For example, if I wanted to cripple the Lakers then your best bet is put Kobe in single coverage with a soft double (IE, threaten to double enough to make him think, but not hard enough that he'll pass). Kobe will take a contested jumper with just the threat of a double team as long as you don't double him hard, which means that if I'm an opposing coach I want to make sure the ball goes to Kobe all day. So, not only have I made the Lakers offense fully predictable (and removed defensive rotations as a potential point of failure) by killing the team's ball movement, but I'm saving my player's legs leaving them more gas to close out the game as well as win more games throughout the season. Similarly, players that refuse to conform to the offensive set (by spotting up in the wrong places or refusing to run) make it more difficult for others to get to good offensive spots due to either a lack of spacing (opposing defenses not having to spread out) or having plenty of time to implement their set defenses (harder to score in the half court against a set defense). Having players that can potentially score doesn't mean anything if one of your main player is unwilling to come out and set screens, or won't move off the ball to get open, or move out of the block so that others can drive to the middle because you're cherry picking all night at the post and refusing to give them space to drive, It sounds easy to say that they should just be benched, but the pressure on most coaches to play the "stars" is tremendous. The bigger the salaries, the bigger the name, the less likely that the coach will be willing to employ discipline. They don't call this a "player's league" for nothing. As we've seen, the fastest way to earn a ticket off of the bench is for the players to say that the coach as "lost the locker room". SVG is in a fairly unique position as both the Coach and the GM. He learned his lessons from Dwight and the Magic the hard way... if you don't CYA then the players can and will run you over whenever they decide they don't want to buy what you're selling whether it's better for the team or not. The power imbalance on most teams (Stars vs Coaches) ensures that this is what happens far more often than not. Yes, one bad influence, one uncooperative player, one player with too big a head and too small a brain is enough to derail an entire team. Just ask the Raptors. Take away Rudy Gay and substitute role players and they go from a lottery team to a conference power house. The Rudy Gay effect is in full play, except in this case thy name is Josh Smith. That doesn't mean that Josh Smith can't be an asset somewhere, to some team. He may very well prove to be a positive asset for the Rockets. However, if that turns out to be true I think it will be because the Rockets have sufficient star power already in Harden and Howard to simply say to Josh Smith, "Take a back seat son. You're not the driver of this bus..."
Detroit's issue is that it was running 2 guys who can't shoot all the time (and sometimes 3), there have been several games where Monroe has been a hindrance on the court with Drummond, most of the time tbh. The way the nba works now, unless you have a transcendent talent on the perimeter (which is why our offense is complete crap without Harden, whereas teams with said spacing can get good production through pretty basic sets), you will look downright inept without spacing, and this goes double for SVG, whose offense has really only had success playing with a simplistic spacing offense.
we will crush detroit...but smith should play a max of 25 minutes a game. dmo is a lot better than him. smith should not be allowed to shoot 3's
I think this is Josh Smith's biggest issue. He is not a floor spacer. For Rockets, Josh Smith will need to be on the court often with a PG, SG, and SF that can shoot. Ariza slumping has hurt the offense. Brewer has been helping, but I think in the long run, Ariza will be better. Beverley, Canaan, Terry, and Harden can all space the floor. Shved, I'm not sold he can be floor spacer, but he is a very interesting offensive player. I would be happy with him as the backup PG, normally. Dwight Howard and now Smith place a need for the PG to be a shooting threat.
What I love about the NBA is that on any given night the worst team in the NBA can beat the best team in the NBA. Teams that have no chance of winning go on to win streaks of double digit proportions, and teams that are crowned champions before the season starts can go on to miss the playoffs entirely. I also love the overreaction by fans and pundits. Smith is a good player, he will be missed by that team in the same way the Rockets will miss Parsons in some areas. Does that mean neither team can improve in spite of losing said player? No. I'm happy for Detroit, but let's not turn a small sample size into a witch hunt because ESPN tells us to do so.
No they don't miss smith. No one replaced him. Other contributors got more playing time and got to play more cohesively. 8-1 vs 5-23 is not small sample size. You can't win 6 in 28 tries but then flipping the pattern and only got narrowly beat by the hottest team right now. There's no witch hunt, u don't need espn to tell you what happened. **** is not random. Smith hurt Detroit, someone notices, and then the organization as a whole agreed to go ahead. This takes balls. Are you not gonna give them credit?
Josh Smith is so bad that the Atlanta Hawks became the best team in the league after Detroit traded Josh Smith.
Detroit even signing Josh Smith in the first place was one of the more idiotic high-profile signings in recent history. Their core at the time was/is Drummond and Monroe. So, Dumars being the bonehead that he is, decided to sign a player that plays his best basketball at the 4. It's absolutely astonishing. That said, I'm not surprised at all that Detroit has thrived with less clutter and confusion in their front court. Josh has his problems as a player, but the decision to sign him was a disaster from day one. Something you can't really fault him for.
Nine game sample size is tiny, but thanks for playing. You are also oversimplifying the issue dramatically, but then again, a lot of people in this thread have done the same. I can't blame you for doing exactly what others have done.
ok then this conversation is moot and your point is moot, this conversation should be revisited 20 games from now
