1. It's one game. 2. The opposing PF was murphy, who played decoy at the 3 pt line throughout the night. 3. Like i posted in the game thread, where this should be, since it's only happen for ONE game, this didnt affect our inability to defend in crunch time. I posted every def play from 5 mins down, and it was Scola, aariza, and brooks who were "score" on. Battier has 10 rebounds and 3 blocks. Seems pretty decent at the PF to me. Offensively he wasnt great, but not terrible either. Meanwhile the Pacers who had big games and shot well were Ford and Granger. Murphy shot 15 times to get 18 pts. Got 2 more rebs than his season average, but 0.4 more than his avg this month. Some of y'all are acting like Murphy went off for 30 and 20 and we got destroyed inside. Not even close. Maybe it'll be an issue against a team with better bigs, but maybe Adelman won't play battier much at 4, if at all, in those game. We wont know unless we WAIT it out.
Hurt us? Couldn't hurt anymore than what I saw on the floor last night. Do these guys have to practice to know how to play 4 or 5 their natural positions? So Yao will have to practice before he remembers he's a center next season right? Only needed one game of Shane at PF to let us know he's not up to the job.
you mind telling us what he did or didnt do that that contributed to the loss, especially at the end of a close game?
Please make up your mind. Find out if Ariza can handle a bigger workload? We already seen that in the first half of the season when he had basically freedom to do whatever. You were the one hoping he got less work, and how Daryl messed up on signing him and on how Rick doesn't know how to use him giving him 39 minutes a night, giving him what was then 15+ shots a night. Remember that? You wanted less of him, you wanted him coming off the bench playing only 20 minutes like he did in LA and how Phil was using him. You went as far as saying trade him if you can because of his contract and how Shane expires next year. Now you want to see if he can handle that larger workload again? So which is it? Do you want Ariza or not?
or you can keep him in there for a playoff run, where you can also test the young guys in the playoffs, instead of waiting for a legit playoff run next year and throwing out the young guys then without any playoff experience..
yeah i missed that, ariza definitely needs less work , not more. He'll be fine with martin and yao in the lineup, that'll settle him down into a nice role. Right now he's not going to develop into someone who can have 20 shots a game, not even if you throw that role at him. Not good enough of a ball handler or fluid enough to make moves that many times a game.
I think this thread is a little premature. I'm sure he did it because we've had 0 practices with the new bigs and needs time to work them in, not worried at all that this is the new thing coach is going to have Battier do. Battier knows the system already, the new guys don't, but they will soon. When they do things will change (or go back to normal).
not likely to make sense to teams, you're basically giving up the same salary for still one year, but giving up a pick. would of made sense a week ago, so that we could use the expiring money this summer. Now battier himself is techinically an expiring, unless he's part of a bigger deal it's not likely he can be traded. On draft night, teams that have picks that are worthwhile are bad teams or young teams. Why would they give up a pick that could get a young player with potential for a vet? A top team is more liekly to want battier, but would offer a very high pick, not that great of a deal, we'll already have a lower pick than that.
i love how nobody appreciates the defense that battier provides. its true that he had a bad game last night but so did a lot of the players on our team. battier provides defense and everyone knows that his defense is key. i wouldnt start him, but i would still give him minutes especially against teams like the lakers or the cavs where we need to shut down one player to win
i'm still trying to figure out what he did so badly last night. Of all possible games, why are some fans calling last night's a bad game? Shot just ok, but not terrible. 10 boards, 3 blocks, 1 TO. What happened last night was that when battier went in in thefinal minutes at the 4, the team continued to play poor d, but also had some turnovers. Turnovers + bad d = deficit. Althought battier was on the floor at the 4 spot, he didnt contribute directly to many of these, if any, but some posters figure there had to be a relation b/t battier and the deficit, so they jumped on it. CORRELATION does not imply CAUSATION.
I think all the good rep shane has blinds coaches to what he really is: an unathletic but heady player who doesn't like contact. I remember when shane first got here there was talk about playing him at PF. The problem is Shane is pretty soft, he's not the guy you want banging inside for that reb. I think for some reason or the other Shane has lost that agressive mentality, and now all he wants to do is defend and spot for 3s, which is sad because someone like him should still have a lot left in the tank. IMHO RA needs to sit him down and tell him to be more aggressive going forward. As it is though he needs to be benched. He's contributing nothing across the board, no defense, no offense, no rebs, steals, assists and no points.
the "talk" was that he'd give them another look at the 4, if they wanted that. Not necessarily that he was going to play 4 for sure or that he'd work there. It was more of a "oh and he could slide into the 4 spot at times". In other words, it would be against certain teams where it was beneficial to space out the floor with a perimeter player at the 4. The fact that he can't "bang inside" like other 4s shouldnt be a knock on him because that wouldnt be the point of him playing at the 4. We're not talking about Dorsey or Harris here. Battier at the 4 would simply mean he'd be out on the perimeter either because they want to space out the offense or because he'd be guarding another Pf who would be.
Who was playing PF? Whoever it was, we must be losing because they were at the PF spot. If that player was at the PF spot and we've been trailing since, then that surely must be the reason we're losing. Of course unless that player was wearing black shoes during that time, then we must be losing because he wore black shoes during that time. Black shoes can't handle the other team's bigs.
