Yes, he did refer to health issues, but didn't seem to reference them as the reason why the Lakers and Hornets should be ranked ahead of the Rockets. If that is what he meant, it is a justifiable (and maybe obvious) position. Given health, I would like to see some real basketball analysis regarding the top teams in the West. Proving something, which the Rockets surely need to do, has little to do with analyzing rosters nor predicting outcomes. I believe both the Hornets and Lakers have some things to prove too. The Hornets choked away a 2-0 lead and lost game seven at home (sound familiar?) to the Spurs. The Celtics made the Laker's run to the top of the West look a fluke and brought considerable questions about their other two 'stars.' In the final scheme of things, the Rockets will have to prove their big three and other important players like Landry can all be on the floor come playoffs. But I think it fun to assume fully healthy teams in analyzing the rosters, and then, of course, final considerations can be given for health. As far as that issue goes, the Lakers have not been a perfect picture of health either.
I hate to see the "Who is ***" pop up every time I login to the farm. It seems like once a while that unique single Real Rockets Fan will push up the thread by replying to his own informative comments.
Don't know why people can't understand that. Battier backed up Posey in Memphis, so now all of a sudden Artest is supposed to play behind Shane. I remember people thought Battier could play the 4. Then game 1 vs utah, the team had to put Hayes and howard in the game.
Chuck played 8 minutes in that game, and Juwan played 0. And Battier's ability to defend the PF was not a factor against Utah for one simple reason. JVG (and Adelman, for that matter) always assigned Yao Ming to the PF with Okur on the floor. It didn't matter who else is playing alongside Yao.
Excellent point leebigez. I completely forgot that Shane came off the bench behind Posey in Memphis...and Posey is a bench player. So it just makes totally no sense for people to be discussing Artest playing off the bench behind Battier. Battier is just not starter material on a Championship contender, but he will be great off the bench which is why I hope we keep him and don't trade him in any scenario. I remember last year when people wanted to keep Hayes in the lineup so that Scola could be a spark off the bench and because Hayes and Deke were offensive liabilities that couldn't both come off the bench for us. Yet once Scola began to start, the team started to flourish. Barring injury, I am still saying that Shane is about an 13-18 minutes per game backup for Artest. Barry is gonna need his 15 or so minutes behind Tmac to be happy here and to get his three pointers in. I doubt Barry will see minutes at the point or 3 position barring foul trouble or injuries.
There's no way in hell that an NBA coach will play Shane Battier only 13-18 minutes a game. Sorry, that's just not happening. You severely underrate what Shane brings to the table in terms of man defense, team defense, extra possessions, making the extra pass, and of course, three point shooting. I'm just glad someone else in charge of distributing the minutes.
Starting Scola was the right choice in my opinion, but this is inaccurate. The team started to flourish a number of weeks before Scola entered the starting lineup. And while it's true that Battier was coming off the bench for Hubie Brown (he started his last two years in Memphis), keep in mind that Brown was playing a very deep rotation that year. Only one player averaged more than 30 mpg, and that was Gasol at 31.5. That was also Posey's best year as a pro, by far. And the following year, Posey lost his starting job to Battier.
1. The whole bench/starter debate is pretty meaningless. Who starts and who comes off the bench depends on the how the coach wants to play the rotation. Shane was 6th man in Memphis one year, Mike Miller came off the bench the next year as the 6th man with Shane starting. Over in San Antonio, I lost count of the times Popovich has changed his mind about whether to start Manu or have him off the bench. When you have multiple good players (particularly, ones who can play multiple positions) there are a variety of things you can do with your rotation. There are enough minutes to go around for everybody. Most likely Adelman will experiment with the lineups some at the beginning of the season before settling down into a regular rotation. The ideal situation would be what the Spurs does-- having enough depth so that you can get a good playoff seed even when your starters don't play huge minutes in the regular season.
Hey man, I understand your passion about Shane. I really want him on this team as well and think that he will be a key to us winning a championship, especially in any close games down the stretch where our larger definsive lineup might go on the court with Tmac, Battier, Artest, Scola and Yao. The reason I only give him 13-18 minutes, is that I think you are underestimating what a BEAST Artest is. He will take the MAJORITY of the minutes at the 3 up. Scola and Landry will take the majority if not all of the minutes at the four up, and the only reason Scola will play some at the 5 will be if we don't have a decent backup, which means our team has a glaring weakness. Scola really isn't a backup center imho. Also, Barry is a much better three point shooter than Battier is, and he didn't come to this team to get less minutes than he did in SA. So if Artest is on the floor, other than at the end of the game for defensive purposes, Barry will be a better backup at SG than Battier is, so I don't see Battier getting those minutes over Barry when Tmac is out. Tmac will still average between 32-35 minutes per game barring injury, if not more. Realistically, it would not be improbable for Adelman to play Tmac and Artest even 38 minutes per game each, leaving only 20 minutes between the SG and SF spots to be had. I seriously doubt that Battier is gonna take all 20 of those from Barry because Barry is just TOO good of a shooter. So while you may be passionate about Battier and what he brings to the table, he is redundant behind Artest and it just doesn't make sense to take a better player off the court for no reason to give Battier some minutes, unless Artest is hurt or in foul trouble. So while I like Battier like you do, I think that I have a logical argument as to why he won't see as many minutes as you or others may think he will. We can accept to agree to disagree if you like and just wait to see what Adelman does in the season.
Shane is at he's best when he is playing around minutes. be it off the bench or not. he's not a scorer. he's a lockdown defender. he needs more minutes then what scorer would need to be effective. thats just the way it is. Idealy you want youre 6th man to be a legit scoring threat. thats how traditionaly all 6th man and youre most impact type bench players are. shane dosentr provide that. he's not a burst player. Artest fits that bill better. the delima here is should we go with Alston McGrady Battier Artest Yao But that team is woefully small. ut if we go by Alston McGrady Artest Scola Yao I fear we dont have a 6th man who can come in and provide a boost on offense However if we go by Alston McGrady Battier Scola Yao Not only our 6th man (Artest) Can provide a burst of offensen , but he can also take over what battier was doing on defense and provide some more on offense.it's a great delima to have.
You can see some of my explanations for my reasoning in my post prior to this one, but another point that I wanted to make after reading your post is that to the best of my recollection, I don't think that the Spurs have won a championship with Manu coming off the bench. Please correct me if I am wrong. I didn't see Boston benching one of their Big 3 to have a spark off the bench, or cutting their minutes back to less than 30 so that another player like POSEY could get more minutes; please correct me if I am wrong. I think it matters greatly who starts the game because the tone of the game can be set there if the team is hungry. No one knew what to expect from Boston last year, but their Big 3 set the tone early last year by going out with all of them starting and blowing teams out so that they could rest in the fourth quarter....not planning to save the Big 3 for the fourth quarter. So I think if Battier gets more minutes than I have predicted, it will be only because we are blowing teams out and our starters are taking whole fourth quarters off in games. Of course all of these are just predictions, that's what forums are for.
The final year with JVG, a starting lineup of Alston, McGrady, Battier, Hayes, and Yao were blowing teams out in the first and third quarters. They led all starting lineups in point differential, if I remember correctly. So, would it be so unreasonable to think we could do the same thing after a year gelling in Adelman's system and with Scola replacing Hayes? Plus, Artest would add a great punch off the bench, something we haven't had in forever. I'm not saying putting Artest on the bench is the better move, but it's not completely illogical either.
Barry came for the LLE didn't he? I don't think there's too much obligation on the Rockets' part to play him when there's a Shane Battier ready to play. Also, I don't think Barry will have any qualms about being given less minutes than Battier. He didn't expect to have Artest and Battier ahead of him. But, like you said, isn't he a SG/PG anyway? He'll be getting the bulk of his minutes behind T-Mac, so I don't see how Battier takes any of those minutes away. The only competition he (Barry) is going to get is gonna come from Luther Head, and we all know who's going to win that battle. He might also get some minutes at the point, so I don't think he's going to be complaining about a lack of minutes. Anyways, back to Battier. I suppose he'll get minutes behind Artest and some as PF when Scola/Landry slides to the C. I still don't see him getting less than 25 minutes a game with these options available. Adelman will be able to mix and match a LOT with the line-up he has right now, so a lot of our guys are gonna get a chance to contribute. I'm not a Battier fanboy by any means, btw, I just realize that he brings a lot more to the table than other players, and that he should be on the floor as much as possible.
Forgive me for asking, because I honestly can't remember, but who was the 6th man scoring threat off the bench for Boston? I thought Posey was the 6th man off the bench, and he is a defensive player with a decent three point shot to keep you honest. As already mentioned, a season in Memphis, Battier was his backup. And I still don't get how people think that Artest is better at starting at 4 over SCOLA and LANDRY, but not at starting over Battier at the 3. How is Battier's value better at the three to you more than Scola or Landry's value at the 4 when you have Artest who is a natural 3? Please explain your logic to me on that one cause I am honestly trying to understand your point of view. Battier is NOT a better defender than Artest is at the 3......and if you start Artest at the four, do you think that Scola is a better sixth man than Battier off the bench? If so, why should Shane start if he is not better than either Scola or Artest? If Shane's offense is not good enough to thrive against second stringers, why should he start? Just so that we can cover up his offensive weaknesses? I don't think that is a good reason, plus I think he will get more shots off in the post as well as at the 3 in the second unit to be more effective off the bench, which still to me might not be the 6th man; but could even be 7th or 8th off the bench....BECAUSE ARTEST IS A BEAST AND PLAYS THE SAME POSITION AS BATTIER.
I understand your point, although I don't think it was a significant number of games in which that lineup was "blowing teams out in the first and third quarters". I think for when they did that, it was more a fluke than an issue of talent. I also think teams have adjusted to that lineup's weaknesses and some teams have gotten much stronger with trades, etc. since then. I just think that a bench of Francis, Barry, Battier, Landry and Deke...or whomever else we might bring in, has enough scoring on it to not worry about having to put one of our best players on the bench just to keep some offense available. In the past, we didn't have a bench that was that strong so they would struggle offensively. I don't think the unit I just mentioned would struggle like others second units in the past..not to mention that when those players are in, they are likely to still have at least on of the Big 3 on the court with them. I see no scenario where all of our Big 3 are on the bench unless it is a blowout or all 3 are in serious foul trouble.
You think Artest would only get only thirteen minutes off the bench? no he'll alternate regulary between the SF, PF and SG if needed be. he'll still get big minutes(just as much if he were to start) and more importantly, he'll have the whole offense run through him as the number one option off the bench. Btw, when did actually i say artest is a better choice then scola at the PF?. i went as far as saying that the team would be woefully short. but you go on and and make false assumptions.
It was a consistent trend that lasted the entire season. Not just a small number of fluke games. Have teams adjusted to that lineup? Perhaps. Or perhaps a new coach and offensive system threw off their chemistry. In any event, as last year progressed the chemistry improved significantly. Coming into next year, with Scola replacing Hayes, Battier remaining a starter, and the group fully used to one another, I think the starters would project to perform very well. Even Ron Artest, as great as he can be, has been known to disrupt offensive chemistry because the ball sticks in hands. That would be much less of an issue if he's the first option for the second unit rather than the third option in the first unit. Does your opinion change if Francis is not part of the rotation? Because I think there's a very good chance it shakes out that way.
He mentions something that you might want to pay attention to. It wasn't a fluke, friend. They were the best 5 man line-up in terms of point differential that season. The bench, on the other had, that's another story.
Artest would be best coming off the bench for Battier because it's a better fit for the starting lineup. Battier plays well with McGrady and Yao...he's a great compliment. Shane Battier cannot create his own shot unless he's in the post. Artest can. Also, Battier gives opposing stars problems on the perimeter. Imagine the opposing star having to play against Battier, only to see Ron Artest's defense when Battier sits. This would be a great situation for the Rockets. Let's say we play against the Lakers. Battier plays hard defense on Kobe for half of a quarter. Then Artest comes in. Not only does the defense on Kobe get harder, but also Kobe should be worn out by Battier. If he's not, he will be against Artest. Kobe would have to play defense against Artest.
