I agree. Sam Cassell came off the bench. You could all probably argue that he was better than Kenny Smith, but he was an offensive sparkplug, which is something we needed off the bench. Remember, before he moved to the starting line-up, Mobley was in serious contention for 6th man of the year. Moochie's pretty good at being a sparkplug off the bench, I suppose. I dunno. I really like Shandon's work ethic & his hustle, even when he's not getting the looks. Mobley's very talented as well, and no question he's a valuable member of the Rockets team. But Shandon's not really a 3, he's a 2. Mobley's a 2. One of them has to come off the bench (if both are on the same team), otherwise, there's a mismatch at the 3. (Granted, there will be times in just about all the games where we play small ball, and they'll both be on the court at the same time.) Regardless, I for one am glad that he opted out of that contract, 'cause I imagine that contract was one of the reasons Shandon was starting at the 3 instead of playing his game. Hopefully a new contract will benefit Shandon AND the Rockets. ------------------ Founding Father of the Refs Suck Club
Anyone watching the Rockets would know Shandon's not a natural 2. Never has been since his Utah days. He is more of a 3. He doesn't have the shooting/handles to be the starting 2 on our team. I like Shandon but his role is better suited back up our 2 & 3 spots. Cuttino is the starter, always will be, and can only improve. ------------------
Did anyone watch the last three games of the season? Shandon averaged around 18 ppg, and was much more assertive. The Rockets made an effort to involve him more, and he delivered. If anyone recorded that Portland game, I suggest you watch it. If Shandon is "remembered" in the offense now and then, he is quite capable of putting up big numbers. ------------------ Protrolls.com! I wish I could come up with a decent signature, but I can't. You'll just have to live with this one.
Heypartner: I'm not disagreeing with Mobley's playmaking skills. I don't disagree that he should be a "go-to guy" in the 4th quarter. I agree that he should be getting 35-40 minutes per game. But by having him come in later, the Rockets get a big advantage. We get to match our 2nd best player against either a winded starter or a sub. Mobley's going to benefit from that, and the Rockets are as well. It isn't a matter of a "reduced role" or of Mobley being a "typical 6th man." Just a matter of using people where they're best. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
Haven, Do you see how once again you find yourself in a circular debate with someone? The way to get out of that circle is to state the position of the other person rather than refining yours. I believe that I have stated your position better than you have stated mine. Until I feel like you can understand my position that we are better team with Mobley improving as a playmaker, rather than your position that the main options learning to get Shandon involved more; I can't continue with you. I certainly understand your sparkplug thingie, as every Rockets fan remembers Sam Cassell. Vinnie, Delk, McHale, and so on. Do you really think you have to teach us that argument all over again? We are avid basketball fans here. That is all you are doing is applying logic to the Rockets. Comparatively to me, your logic detaches your analysis from the players, THIS TEAM, and their situations. imo, your sparkplug argument is better suited if Shandon and Mobley were on Utah 3 yrs ago w/o Hornachek. Shandon would start and Mobley would be the league's Sixth Man scoring when Malone and/or Stockton rest. Fine, but we are talking about the Rockets here, not the best PG/PF tandem in league history. Nor are we talking about resting Drexler or Dream. On our team, we are best with a system that uses 3 playmakers, more like the Bucks. Mobley is one of them. Basically, you guys are saying Mobley's improvement with increased playing time hurts the Rockets overall. That is exactly what you are saying. Now, please try to understand my side of the player/system analysis. I think I have done a much better job understanding your side. If not, get your last bit of detached circular logic in, because we are going no where with this debate. I agree to disagree....ugh!
If I'm not wrong, your position was summed up right here. Too bad I don't advise diminishing Mobley's role, or your argument would be quite accurate. If you believe that I'm reducing Mobley to an ISO player... well, fine, but that's not what I'm saying at all. It's not necessary to my argument that Mobley be "reduced" in any way. You're a huge Mobley fan; in fact, I can't remember the last time you took *any* side against him. I think you're letting Mobley's starter status and thus "prime SG desgination" interfere with your thinking about what benefits the Rockets as a whole. How does it reduce Mobley's position to have him come off the bench? How does this render him ineffective? Those are the questions you need to answer to defend your position. Right now, we're both just reasserting the same positions. If you want anything resolved, I think you need to demonstrate how Mobley is specifically geared to starting. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st. [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 26, 2001).]
Haven, where do I say "reduce" Mobley role, except to assume you want to keep him at 33mpg. You say he can play 35-40 minutes but from the bench! I don't follow those logistics. How do you get 35-40 mpg from Mobley and Shandon plays like he did in April? Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways. I can't argue with your logic. You beat me!!
HP: I'm not trying to beat you. Argh . Reduce Shandon's role. Just start him . ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
well you did beat me. In fact, I'm beating my head against the wall right now, trying to figure out your 35-40 mpg bench player role. Shandon is an 10-15 mpg starter...ouch Shandon is an 10-15 mpg starter...ouch Shandon is an 10-15 mpg starter...ouch Someone make it stop!
How about a 22-28mpg starter? *mentally reminds himself to smile and nod next time he disagrees with something heypartner says* ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
Shandon did play himself into the starting lineup for us, in Utah. He was a better player than Mobley at the start of '99-'00. Mobley really didn't have a choice on going to the bench, as SA was clearly the better 2-guard with more experience. Mobley should not have been starting in '99 anyway, but that's another topic. Rudy has always been extremely reluctant to bench a starter -- this is how bad Walt was playing. Shandon had an off year (surely the death of his mother didn't help), but he never reached Walt's level of Rudy finally having to bench him -- he was better than any "3" we had, so Rudy moved him there. If Walt had been hitting his shots, I don't see the move ever happening. Mobley would still be coming off the bench today. If anything, you're ignoring history by not taking into account Rudy's penchant for never pulling his starters.
If Shandon started because he was better than Mobley, he would have always had more minutes. He has never been a primary option; he has rarely been a 4th quarter starter; he has never been a go-to guy. What you are saying is Shandon's downfall was because he had to play more 3-spot with Mobley? That is not true. At the time in March/April 2000 that Shandon was playing better and the system was getting him more involved because Walt went on a shooting tear, and Mobley became Mr efficient at 48%, Mobley was getting 34mpg and Shandon 39mpg. Those two shared the court in a 3-guard lineup, and Walt actually played some 4. We have not had a 2-guard lineup since Barkley went down, so your logic that Shandon role changed significantly because Walt sucked does not follow history. It is a common misnomer on this BBS that Shandon all of a sudden had a tougher defender on him. That is not true. Mobley has always drawn the tougher defender, be it a SF or a SG. In the 3-guard line-up of March/April and all year last year, Shandon drew the easier defender. Another misnomer that seems to have peeped out in this thread is that Mobley was no longer the sparkplug in the 2nd Q or 4th, once he became a starter. Now that is the biggest untruth of them all, Haven. I know there are many who don't watch the 1st Q of NBA games, because it is boring. Well, season tickets holders who invest too much money in that fun, most definitely catch the whole game. And I can tell you that for the first 8-10 minutes of the game, throughout his starter reign, Mobley was nothing more than a weakside option in the 1st Q. Anderson's role did not change that much, and neither did his defender. Mobley was a weakside player in the 1st and 3rd. Francis ran the offense as primary playmaker for those very times that Mobley used to sit on the bench. Rudy figured Mobley could do the weakside thing better than Walt. He did not move into Shandon's role, imo. Mobley was still the sparkplug in the 2nd and 4th, as always, and Shandon was still the opportunistic wing player in the 1st and 3rd. I can't argue inductive reasoning like TheFreak's when there is so much empirical memory that Shandon's role did not change that much, nor his opportunities. If anything, Mo' got more involved, and Mobley's role increased as planned. Shandon's has always been a 4th option. ...be "more assertive next year" Shandon. That will make us better. Not benching Mobley. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 26, 2001).]
Shandon helps this team a lot when he is agressive and takes his shots. He does not have a good enough three to start if we get Austin Croshere, though. With the zone in effect we can't afford to have a 3 on the floor who can't hit an open jumper. If Shandon was going to really impress us and ask for more monye, he should have been aggressive THIS year, not NEXT year. He already showed he isn't worth much more than 2-3 million. If he had played out his contract and put up some big numbers, that's one thing. Being invisible 50% of the time doesn't make me think you need a big contract. It makes me think of Kelvin Cato. TRG ------------------ <A HREF="http://www.TheRocketGuy.com " TARGET=_blank>http://www.TheRocketGuy.com </A> "You try to improve and do better. It's a journey, not just the destination." - Hakeem Olajuwon
First - Haven, Those two statements are contradictory. Secondly - Cuttino Mobley is a playmaker, he makes the other players in the line-up better. Shandon Anderson is a complementary player, he feeds off of players who make other players better. You do not start a complementary player and sit a playmaker on the bench. Not if you expect to be succesful. P.S. - Mobley played his way into the starting line-up, it was just a matter of who he replaced - Walt or Shandon. P.P.S. - Moochie is better than Shandon too.
Puedflor: They're not contradictory. If you let him sit on the bench for the first 8 minutes, he's going to face a winded starter or sub. What's inaccurate there? I realize he wouldn't have this advantage for the entire game. But any mismatch in your favor is to be desired, no matter how temporary. As for the rest... yeah, Cuttino makes other playres better. I agree. And he can do this just as well 8 minutes into the 1st quarter. Moochie... Anderson... two very different types of players. I wouldn't want to evaluate one as better... I'd say they're probably about the same, although on our team, Anderson may be more valuable because his best feature (defense) is in short supply on the Rockets. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st. [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 26, 2001).]
So, he sits the first 8 minutes, and plays the rest of the game???? Mobley sits for 8 then plays 40 ... ouch Mobley sits for 8 then plays 40 ... ouch Mobley sits for 8 then plays 40 ... ouch Mobley sits for 8 then plays 40 ... ouch Mobley sits for 8 then plays 40 ... ouch Someone make is stop!
So to create a 4-minute mismatch in our favor, you would create an 8-minute mismatch in the opposing teams favor? ------------------
heypartner: Your point is moot. Mobley was the starting 2 during our best play as a team, and Walt shooting 60% is what contributed the most to our April push in 2000. Couldn't disagree more. Anderson was phenomenal that month. He was hitting shots, playing D, and cutting very well. That month, he was better than I think Mobley will ever be (for the defense reason). Unfortunately, I doubt he's ever going to replicate that month (or two) again. I don't know if it's mental, or if he was just playing above his head for a while. Regardless, I'd like to see Anderson return as a guy who's going to get 25 minutes a game backing up Mobley and our new SF . ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
It worries me that a guy playing for a new contract had such a poor year. Typically you have an average player, coming up on a contract year who suddenly busts out and gets a multi-year for one good season. I like ANderson a s a good role player. We need those type of players and he will have opportunities to get some touches, but he is a role player (good defender, who can run the court, and can slash to the basket).
