where does it say how he does it? all i see on the website is this: a video and 2 charts showing that he has a high field goal percentage (and ppp) i dont see where it shows/says he has a nice drop step, fake/shake, turn around hook shot, a bank shot, or counters... you know, stuff that you use in a post game.
"Via Synergy Sports Technology (in the Post-Up category):" The "how" is post-ups. The evidence shows that he's an effective post-up player. Whatever moves that entails, they are designated by the people who track it as post-up moves. If I had to venture a guess, I'd think its mostly him converting on running hooks in the lane or getting fouled and sent to the free throw line. But, whatever it is, what counts is how effective he is, not how pretty you think his moves are.
that's a pretty poor argument imo. a guy can be an athletic freak and just dunk on ppl all day and the only way to stop him is to foul him.... this would lead to high field goal percentage (since all he does is dunk) and high ppp (because he gets fouled a lot)...................... but it still doesnt mean he has a good post game (which is your argument)
dont you see the fallacy in your argument? just because he's efficient doesnt mean he has a post game; where post game is defined by what i said in the post above, not just dunks and simple layups. efficiency =/= post game
Ultimately, there is one and only one criteria that matters in evaluating a player's post up game: Can he score? The rest matters ONLY to the extent it leads to the player being able to score. In the final analysis, I don't care how varied Howard's moves are or how fluid they look. When you drop the ball down to him in the post, how effective is he in putting points on the board? There is no sense in saying, as you do, that a player doesn't have a post game when he's scoring effectively and frequently in the post. And, again, the evidence shows that Howard's effectiveness in the post has steadily increased year after year. If it was nothing but sheer athleticism, how can that be explained? Physically, Howard has been a beast for a number of years.
so you're REALLY arguing that howard's efficient, not that he has a post game. no one is arguing that howard's inefficient.
I'm arguing: (1) "Having a post game" = "being effective in the post" . (2) Howard is effective in the post (evidence in link). (3) So, by (1) and (2), Howard has a post game. I take it that you dispute (1).
Don't think so. A post up can of course end in a dunk. Like, if Howard flashes into the paint, gets the ball, and turns and dunks over the defender. That's a great post-up play if you have a player capable of doing it.
But what does it mean to have a "good" post game? We can think of it in two ways: (1) A large repertoire of moves. Polished. Impressive footwork and touch. "Skilled". The more "moves" you have, the "better" your post game is. (2) Effectiveness -- bottom-line. The more capable you are of scoring in the post, the "better" your post game is. I don't agree with (1). You can have all the moves in the world, but if you're not an effective player I don't care and I certainly wouldn't say you have a good post game. (2) is what matters. How good your game is corresponds to how sure I can be that if I look to get you the ball, you'll get us points.
2 points are 2 points no mater if it's a dunk or a dream shake. dwight is effective and hat's what matters.
I say give him more time, He still learning, I still thinks he should watch a couple of Scola's trick shots, the scoop, shoulder fake, up and under, oh so effective Luis
My god Durv are you this hardheaded in real life? Your arguing over what your definition of "post game" is. It's all semantics.
Durvasa is right. You guys seem very hard headed. I don't understand how one can not comprehend the FACTS he is presenting. Seems simple enough. One can have a good post game if his teammates can depend on him to score effectively in the post, no matter how he does it. Durvasa is basically breaking it down for a 6th grader to understand. Anyway, anyone can have their own opinion which is fine and you can say pretty post moves that don't score constitutes as a good post game till you're blue in the face. However you're argument doesn't mean Durvasa is wrong. So what, Durvasa uses facts to back up his statements and you use.... opinion?
Y'all are arguing freakin semantics. I actually had synergy access a while back and spent a lot of time researching that stuff when I was interested in going into scouting. Game logging is an imperfect science, and I'm not sure how offensive rebounding put backs or quick posts from oRebs are factored into this. My take is that I can see where everyone is coming from, and we'll just add a practical spin here. Howard has gotten better and better every year at scoring in the paint. That's a fact. It's generally deep positioning, great athleticism, and ugly moves...but it works. But when the Celtics scouted him, they determined that Howard can do this against smaller scrubs, but lacks a real repertoire of post moves. They determined that they're confident with any of their big men guarding Howard 1-on-1 and that if pushed slightly outside his comfort zone, Howard becomes ineffective. So everyone has a point. Howard has a post game that works and has gotten better every year. Statistically, that is proven. But just by watching a lot of film, it has been decided that legitimate defensive big men can guard Howard 1-on-1 and render him almost useless. So while he has gotten better, I can understand when many say his post game is trash.
Alright, I'm reviewing Howard's monster game 2 (30pts) and logging his post-ups. I'm talking legitimate post-ups, which for me, does not include offensive rebound put backs or fast breaks or creations by drivers that lead to dunks. 17 post up possessions, 16 points = 0.94 points per possession many turnovers and missed free throws If you include the alley-oop, which is debatable, then it'd be 18 post ups and 18 points for a 1ppp rate. This is more in line with what he's been doing all season.
