Is Kevin Martin fools gold?

And I would rep you if I could, vaids_13 (always wanted to say that).

And again, a franchise player DICTATES the way your team will play the game, by and large. Despite what Yao isn't, wasn't, or ain't-never-gonna-be, he has consistently dictated, to his team and to their opponents, how the game will be played.

And in doing so, he makes the game easier for just about everybody he plays with, and that much harder for practically everyone he faces.

But, to your point about the style of play changing....I don't have a particular problem with that, by and large. The players make the league. However they play is up to them and their coaches to figure out.

The league was very hopeful that the Phoenix Suns and Steve Nash would eventually win a championship. They were as entertaining and breakneck a group as we'll see–they were the Golden State Warriors with a purpose. The Suns almost could not be contained—they were going to score at least 105-110 points, no matter how well you defended or tried to control the tempo. The best you could hope for with them was to play them close, and take advantage of their lack of front line size and interior defense (read: Amar'e Stoudemire) in the closing minutes of a game, when it becomes more of a half court affair, like the Spurs were routinely able to do.

Styles make fights. However you want to win is however you want to win. Chuck it up or muck it up. Run or walk. I don't have a preference.

But make your mind up. And make sure you're better at what you're doing than the competition is at what they're doing.

Looking good in a loss is still losing.

Well, to me, at least…

 

Defense is mostly about coaching. There's a reason that the only 4 Rockets that can defend are also the only 4 that came from Van Gundy regimes. There's a reason that guys like Ray Allen go from being notorious defensive liabilities to above average defenders, and it's not because he suddenly got longer and developed instincts.

 

Yes to all, we should try to trade him asap.

 

I've been saying he's fools gold all along, I never liked that trade because I knew he wasn't good enough to elevate this team to championship contender even if fully healthy because he's not a great one on one player, very poor defender, not a playmaker and has a very care free demeanor on the court which didn't fit the teams hustle mentality but you were one of the ones that actually wanted to keep him over Melo believing in Adelmans "off the ball" philosophy thinking we didn't need a star player because we have Martin who fits the so called princeton offense.

 

I think that you have to take into account that with Yao and AB out, the Rockets have to rely heavily on Scola and Martin's scoring, thus, they have to perserve energy to be effective on the offensive side. Do I like that, NO!! But it has to be considered. i say give them until Jan., once(hopefully) their teams is at full strength, they can come up with some kind of defensive identity.

 

Until Martin starts demanding wins in ball games by stepping up during clutch times,he will alway be a stat padder.....Lock it........IT IS WRITTEN.

Now lets move on...........

 

@DD

Instead of eyeballing KM12's game and making a judgment on his allegedly heartless defensive efforts, why not use bb-reference to genuinely rationalize your thoughts on the issue. Maybe take the statistical average of the SG he faces, compare to his numbers vs KM12, or something like that.

Also, why is it so easy to blame him when Scola is as bad, if not worse, on defense that Martin. I love me some Scola, but he gets pretty frequently abused.

Not taking a jab, just making a suggestion.

 

This is 100% true, and the Allen comparison is particularly apt, given how similar his game is to KM12's. And I don't even blame Adelman that much, it's Elston Turner that draws up the defensive schemes, and clearly he needs to work more, or harder, with the team as a whole.

 

Awesome thread.

-DD sees another team is interested in Brooks and panics. I guess because he is best buddies with Matt Bullard he thinks he might have enough to pull to keep Brooks here just in case Morey was shopping him.

-DD states Martin made the team worse despite the fact that the team was .500 last season with him...the same as it was before he got here (we won't bring up the fact that Lowry and Battier were injured during much of the time after Martin arrived.)

-People here start pretending that Martin was brought here as the franchise player and/or to single-handedly elevate this team to Contender status (which DD thought it was before the season).

Pure awesomeness here. Yes, Morey traded a back up PF for a guy who is supposed to be Carmelo Anthony or D. Wade. Morey is just that good.

This team has multiple issues and Martin's defense is one of them but to call him "fool's gold" means you were a fool for believing he is something more than the rest of us knew he was. Unless, of course, you're DD and you just like riding AB's sack like a cheap hooker.

 

The stats don't back up his points. Example, the whole "Martin disappears in the 4th quarter" line I keep hearing when the fact is that Martin performs better this season in the 4th quarter than in the first three quarters. I also like the fact that DD has now coined the term "put it in the hands of a third party" when a player attempts to draw a foul simply because his boy Brooks doesn't draw fouls and Martin does it at an amazing pace.

 

I just think Martin is 3rd option. He would compliment a team with other go to guys. As a first option and goto guy, well, thats not his game. He is like a guy on the freeway who needs room to manuever around traffic to get his shots. On a packed interstate, his game wont work. He needs the opponents defense focused elsewhere to be most effective.

Gold? Perhaps not. But considering the cost, who thought thats what we were getting back in the first place?

 

That's surprising. Can I get a source on that?

 

Yes he is but he looks good on a spreadsheet.

 

What i'm about to state will probably turn some people off but I don't think Martin is a terrible man to man defender. I do however believe he is a terrible team defender. The man seems to have no idea what help defense is and has absolutely no court awareness(on defense or on offense) whatsoever. He also is a huge ball stopper on offense. He gets you a back door layup every now and again and our announcers say how great he is at running Adelman's offense. If you watch him the rest of the time it is all ball stopping. Don't get me wrong I like Martin and his efficiency(the term most used to describe him)but do not like him as our primary scorer.

 

Amnesia?

First, Scola's rookie year was the first year JVG was out (thus leaving a culture of defense), and he didn't seriously play until about February of that year. I'd like to see some stats on how good the rockets were defensively in the post-yao streak era, considering that's when he really started to play.

Second, Scola's sophomore year was a team that featured Ron Artest and Shane Battier as your wings, Yao in the middle, and a passable defender at the point in Alston (for roughly 2/3 of the season). Yes, Scola was on some good defensive teams, but he was not in any way a meaningful part of that.

Third, if he has been on some good defensive teams but has not been a meaningful part of that, then he is just as culpable as Martin. The team was bad defensively last year, and Scola started all 82 for us. He's started all 13 this year and we've also been bad.

End point being - the Rockets have atrophied defensively while Scola has been on the team, and while it's not all on him, he's a major part of it, playing a position that features many all stars in the Western Conference. Yes, Kevin Martin isn't above average by any means, but if we want to talk about fool's gold, let's keep in mind that we just signed Scola to a contract similar to Martin's in girth and just as valuable on the defensive end of the floor. Like someone else said, defense is a coaching thing, not a one-on-one thing (the Ray Allen part was dead-on).

Oh, and to 'have a discussion' seems misguided when you are eyeballing stuff and don't have a meaningful insight into an issue you find important. I wasn't being rude in my OP (i even went out of my way to clarify that), but your immature jab at me is both embarrassing for you and disheartening, considering you're all about 'discussion.'

 

BINGO!!

 

to clarify, the quote feature didn't indicate which of your lines was aimed at whom, so disregard the last part.