Battier can be the Sensei, but Budinger is clearly the starter.

As much as I'd like to see Bud starting he should stay on the bench and just log more minutes than shane. Not enough touches between brooks, martin, yao, and scola he'd be the odd man out. He would also have to guard the star SF in the league and he's not ready for that. He'd be better suited giving instant offense against lesser competition.

On a side note every year I wished the Battier that played at Duke would someday emerge but I've given up on that wish. He's become the next Bruce Bowen and all I can hope for is that he knocks down the corner 3 when Yao kicks it out.

 

You can't put Bud int he starting lineup as there just isn't enough balls to go around. He'd be taking shots from our better players at this point (Yao, Scola, Brooks and Martin). He is better all around player than Battier at this point in his career though, I'll give you that.

Besides, Bud, Lee and Lowry on the second team is a matchup nightmare for most teams.

 

Because that shows what each has done in the pros.

Ha! DaDakota wants someone to be prudent. In a conversation about Budinger! :grin:

But seriously, folks. The percentages from last year, when Battier was injured a good part of the year, aren't THAT different. And we don't even need to include Battier's stats at all to prove that Budinger is not an "elite"-level NBA shooter yet. Will he ever get there? Maybe.

And they said the same exact thing about Boki Nachbar.

And Steve Novak.

And...

 

My question is this.. When over these last few years namely two years has Shane bettier played so much better defense than Budinger currently does to warrant a start over him for that reason in the first place? I mean didnt Battier get continually torched last year? I might have missed something but Budinger gets torched alsmot as often does he not? Whats the difference in having a guy who can shoot and plays a little defense and a guy who plays a good defense and doesnt shoot well? Budinger is better at this point in his career. I think its obvious who can even get better than he currently is with more playing time as well. Making him even further better than Battier if he grows on defense just a tiny.

 

Yeah. I think is clear Budinger is the better player right now. If you watch them we all know Battier isnt as good as Budinger currently is.

 

It's too early to tell. If CBud could take over Battier's starting job, it wouldn't be earlier than the ASG.

 

Frankly, I am speechless.

Carter 5-11
Richardson 2-6

Jefferson 3-9
Ginobli 2-6

Granger 7-13 (5 TOs)
Rush 2-7

Outlaw 3-9
Morrow 1-4

 

That .441 would rank Chase 17th out of 21 SFs who played enough to qualify. Hardly elite.

At SG, he'd be 16th out of 23.

"Elite" by definition means "better than most." Chase might have an elite stroke, but he's NOT an elite shooter yet.

I'm just saying that your original argument is much better if you don't exaggerate and claim the guy to be something he's not.

 

I understand that Bud is a better overall player and probably WILL get more PT, but we def. need a solid defensive presence in the starting lineup.

 

Budinger is still in develop mode and Shane is in decline mode, by the time Shane defensive skills diminishes to the point where he needs to go to the 2nd unit, Bud will be ready to step in permanently with the 1's

 

THIS. But we ain't there yet.

 

i would be more for bud starting towards the end of the season if he shows he can adequately guard the opposing starting SF.

 

our defensive team should be yao, hayes, battier/jeffries, lee, lowry

that seems like a pretty nasty defensive team. i really liked jeffries performance today, if he shows more aggression on the rebounded in the future i would be a lot more comfortable with him on the floor

 

Personally, I like Shane in the starting linup over Bud. The first unit already has enough firepower, Bud is better suited playing with a PG and SG that is not as offensive minded as Brooks/Lowry. Plus he has a solid defender in Lee to back him up in the second unite, versus none in the first unit.

 

Sorry, OP is now corrected.

 

Yeah, don't confuse him with EVIDENCE! :grin: