Starting out a discussion by calling someone ignorant is a sign of a weak argument, but let's have a little fun, ok? Duh, really, been saying that for more than 5 years, you know a 2nd penetrating player on the court. The difference is that I think Budinger can fill that role and in a year where we are building for the future, I would rather he do it, than a 30 year old malcontent with a bad back, bad attitude, bad knee and bad luck. By George the lack of comprehension level is astounding. You don't need a consumate guy who can beat someone one on one off the dribble, but rather someone that can create for others. Perhaps I did not explain my point well enough, because obviously there will be SOME dribbling involved, but that does not have to be the most important thing, the most important thing is being able to make the proper pass at the proper moment. Be it, off a dribble, off a cut, or off a screen and roll.....the PASS.....I will take the blame for the lack of clarity on this one. That is EXACTLY MY POINT...that we do not need a ball dominator, welcome to the club. I would respect you more if you understood the discussion a bit better. DD
Playmakers dominate the ball. Steve Nash dominates the ball, Billups dominates the ball, Magic Johnson dominated the ball. A guy who creates something from nothing has to dominate the ball. Simple bread and butter plays like Pick and Roll requires a guy to dominate the ball and pass in to the rolling player when the time is right. In the playoffs, you have to require on your stars. Adelman, despite his genius in utilizing role-players, had Mike Bibby and Chris Webber in his Sacramento team. Those guys will all dominate the ball at one point or another to create offense by drawing double team or whatever.
THis is why I don't think you understand NBA basketball. First of all, you discount his ft's that lift his shooting to above 50% - no matter, it should be higher right? Why does t-mac take so many shots? Is it because he is a ball hog? Well, why does he get 5-6 assists per game? More than the point guard was getting!!! How is that possible. Well let's look at his 42% fg shooting. He draws the opposing team's best defender each night, and is consistently double teamed, yet he still manages to effectively get you a score of at least 50% each time he shoots the ball. Not to mention the opportunities he creates on offense for his teammates....5-6 assists translates into 15-30 passes - that's a lot of ball movement - 2 passes = no assist for t-mac. But let's look deeper at the 2008 season when he could play more than 50 games. Who did he have to pass to besides Yao.... There was Rafer Alston shooting 39% How about Aaron Brooks: 41% Oh he had Bonzi!!!! 42.5% Luther Head??? 43% Shane Battier? 43% Bobby Jackson 42% Basically, he was no better and no worse than his teammates...except he could draw fouls... This is why he was so valuable to this team. This is why opposing defenses still double teamed him and FORCED the ball out of his hands...because you were better off with one of the scrubs chucking up a shot than T-mac. Now, put t-mac on a team with the following shooting: Trevor Ariza 42% Brooks 49% Chase B 53% Shane Battier 39% Kyle Lowry 40% First of all, notice that a guy like battier struggles more now although it's a small sample. What really has to jump out though is Trevor Ariza's shooting - the guy who is suppose to replace t-mac is shooting.....42%!!!!! It's not an easy role to fill DADA. Now, you had a playmaker like T-mac to this mix, and you know what will happen across the board....shooting percentages will go up. Brooks might drop a bit, but others will increase...because t-mac will draw double teams...and his passing will create open looks and even easier shots. Why? Because teams are not afraid of t-mac's jumper - they are afraid of his penetration. This is why Morey is hesitant to trade away T-mac and why they won't do it until they see how he plays with this group. It could be a devastating attack to have a great team that is unselfish and loves to pass put togetehr with still one of the best playmakers in the game. They will do that test...it's a no brainer.
dont worry about respecting me, i dont need it. it would be nice, however, if you could at least understand your own arguments.
I understand them quite well, the question is, do you? I mean you start off by calling me ignorant then rant on and get less than 30% of the discussion in the proper context. Staggering really. Another moronic way to engage people in a discussion. Staggering part deux. DD
This is the issue with T-mac's playmaking skills: He likes to make it a two-on-two game. Granted, he has hit Chuck Hayes for some open lay ups very often without Hayes being apart of the two-man game. But, with Tracy, he limits the other players' involvement. He will control the ball so much that when he does get someone else involved they have no choice but to take a shot because the shot clock is running down. You look at other play makers like CP3 or Nash and they get everyone involved which allows for better chemistry and better confidence towards clutch situations. With players like them you get to play 5 on 5. With Tracy, it's 2 on whatever. I do believe that he has a really good two on two game and is a very capable of making a pass to create for others but I see it more with the two on two than anything else. That's way more predictable and limits the freedom of space for the other players. That's just my observation though.
I think both DD and the T-mac folks are making decent points (despite spending half their time making ad homs)--but there is a middle ground that is ignored here. Empirically, T-mac is an highly inefficient volume shooter. DD is right about that. On the other side of the coin, there is also empirical evidence that he CAN play a better team game. In 07-08, coming off an injury, he claimed he didn't want to mess with chemistry created in his absence. His increasingly team-oriented game played an undeniable role in our 22 game win streak (you don't win 22 straight despite your best player...). HOWEVER, by the end of that year, he did revert back to a LESS efficient, LESS team oriented game, ultimately culminating in another first round failure. On one side, you can say that a volume shooter like T-mac can never change--that's the iverson example. On the other, you can argue that former volume shooters can become effective role players--Jerry Stackhouse comes to mind. My point is that arguing in polemics ("T-Mac will be great!" vs. "T-Mac will be awful!") accomplishes nothing save for getting our internet-fight jollies and boosting rep with like-minded posters. T-Mac has incentives to play a team game--his reputation is on the line. He also has incentives to play selfishly--he needs to put up numbers to get one last contract. He may have had a come-to-jesus moment about the way he plays and prepares--his conduct in the off-season points to this--or he may just have worked hard because he's desperate to get paid again. This is a moment without precedent in t-mac's career. Any speculation about how he will fit in is precisely that--speculation, and conjecture, based largely on peoples' set-in-stone opinions of Tracy. I, for one, will take the position of the Rockets management: wait and see. If Tracy makes an effort to fit in, he could be the piece that moves our team from surprise feel-good story to legitimate playoff threat, and I would be willing to embrace that. If he takes bad shots and stagnates the offense, we should bench him or ship his ass out. I would be happy with that too. We should do what's best for the team based on how Tracy performs, not what we think is best based on stubborn pro or con opinions of T-mac. Good GMs are flexible. Good fans should be too. To say, now, that T-mac will be good or bad is wrong. He could be either. Let's just wait and see. //sorry for the rant...i'm a college debate coach...just got back from a tournament...still in excessive argument mode.
Lets just face it DD you do not like TMAC end of story. No one knows how he is going to play. We just need to give him a chance. He was our best player and I for one still think he can be our best player. So he never made it out of the first round. Anyone who looks at his playoff stats and tells me he is the reason his underdog teams don't win must be smoking something. Sure in the regular season he dogs it sometimes and settles for way to many jumpers, but he definately plays hard when it matters most. And Chase Budinger, I like the guy but cmon anyone who thinks he is anything but the next Great White Hope or best case Brent Barry needs to pass me some of what they are smoking. He is the ideal player for adelman system, but he can not create his own shot against far superior athletes.
Btw DD or someone with thread privileges, ESPN has us 6th in the western conference from ranked 17th in the league to 12th. With our upcoming schedule of ten games or so, expect that ranking to go a few. Here is the link: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/powerranking
To disagree is one thing, the other is to call somebody's ideas moronic. Others respect you, so should do so as well.
You think Tmac dominates the ball more than CP3? Oh my lord! Half that team's offense comes from Paul. That's not hyperbole, he literally scores or assists on half that team's points. He's not a ballhog, of course, but he certainly hasn't played off the ball. Does anyone still want Brandon Roy? Because he plays exactly like Tmac. He's a half-court guy who creates for his teammates and scores in bunches. Look at his playoff performance against us, he had the ball in his hands all the time. He certainly doesn't move without the ball. Now he's even prone to taking low-efficiency, contested three point shots. Apparently, his playing style would be cancerous on the rockets.
Daywalker, please review this thread and see who threw the first fistful of poo..... At some point you just have to aim and toss back ! DD
I can understand your enthusiasm and that of fellow poster Sweet Lou. Tracy would thank you all because he is still someone that is worth our time discussing. I will say it only once, there will be absolutely no question if he played remotely like his 04 self with out the volume of shots. I hate to use IFs.
When CP3 'dominates' the ball, he is capable of drawing all of the attention towards the middle of the paint and then getting everyone involved. Half of the team's offense does come from Paul. He makes the players around him better. The same players who have played with T-mac are now making a name for themselves without him. That should say something about T-mac's "playmaking" skills. Like I said, CP3 can play a 5-on-5 game that gets everyone involved even if he does control the dribble the majority of the time. T-mac gets one or two players involved unless if the shot clock is winding down. Either way, T-mac's playmaking ability does not suit well with Adelman's style.
He didn't look like he was limping to me in the latest videos...but what did you expect Bucher to say? He's probably hating again, we all know he doesn't like T-Mac
Excuse me? I have no idea where that came from. You might be pissed at the other guy, but I didn't say anything to you that deserved that sort of response.
Tmac played with a rookie Brooks, a rookie Scola, and a rookie Landry. Of course they've gotten better since then. They're putting up gaudy stats without Yao too, but Yao undoubtedly makes his teammates better. Look at the veterans that have played with Tmac and Yao: Battier, Hayes, Rafer, and Head are the same players they've always been. Hell, Ariza's having a career year. He's turning heads around the league. Do you think Kobe and Gasol held him back?
