Suppose the Magic had Battier on their team instead of Courtney Lee. Who do you think would be starting -- him or Pietrus? Also, what do you think their minutes would be? I'm not trying to make any point here ... just curious what your thoughts are on that.
Rv6, when u wave the #8, there are a lot of people available , especially a team loaded at a position like wing. The hawks actually had both josh's with a question mark. I've said this before, they shouldve drafted gay or brewer and had mo evans or matt barnes as a backup. If u can win 50 games with david wesley playing 2 guard and barry backing him up, getting a guy like gay or brewer would give u a chance to win pretty much the same,plus those guys can get better.
Leebigez, i know you know it's not that easy......all you're doing is giving kwame's reasoning a thumb's up and i dont even think you agree with him completely to begin with, just on the fact that we need more scoring from shane's position, hell, even i agree with that...but there's a business in the middle of all this entertainment and sports, so not all deals will always make sense. some deals are about pure basketball, others about money, some about both. I think this one was about both, us fans can complain about the basketball side of things all we want, and that's all we really care about, which is understandable, but there's more to it than that. Like i've said before, this isn't trading basketball cards. It's not "here's my all-star i'll give you mine and it's all good" or in this case, "i'll give you my lottery pick you give me yours"....we want to hope we can always get equal value, but we can't. The rockets made the decision they thought was best at the time, things happened, and it didn't pay off to the fullest, although it did allow us some flexibility financially later without Swift. As for childress specifically, the hawks were loaded at the 3 and 4 spots with those types of long, quick, athletic players. Smith, williams, childress, AND harrington. They didn't need another guy like Gay, that makes it highly unlikely that they'd want to give up one of their guys, who's proven what they can and can't do, to get gay, who had potential, but was still a risk since he wasn't a sure thing. They wanted to complete their team and not just stack up talent, that's why they picked Shelden at 5 even though it raised a lot of eyebrows, they needed/wanted a more traditional PF. As for simply giving them the #8 and letting them pick, there's still a risk there for them. There wasn't a sure thing left on the board that would help them in another position. Obryant? Reddick? Sene? Armstrong? It wasn't a strong draft, it really should have only been 6 deep but shelden and morrison were picked mostly on college rep when they weren't gonna be good pro players. So why would the hawka give away childress, when they weren't even sure he was going to be the worst out of their forwards, to grab a pick in a weak draft? Also, if houston was set on giving up swift for financial reasons there's no way the hawks would even listen to them. Yeah that sucks for fans, that money is in the middle of this, but that's reality. So again, it's not as simple as asking and getting just because you're offering equal value. Just look at Pietrus, he was so sure Pietrus was availlable for a low first round pick, Miami couldn't even get him and i'm sure they'd fork over a 20-something pick for him, but GS shut them down and many others. Just not that easy.
@durvasa: I think Pietrus would start with Battier playing 15-20 mpg off the bench. Pietrus is just a better all-around player than Shane. The only reason he's not starting is probably due to the broken wrist he suffered earlier this season. That along with Nelson's injury opened pt or more pt for the rookie Lee in the backcourt, Courtney took advantage of it, and the team began playing well. So when Pietrus came back he just became the 6th man. Stop rambling and going around in circles. Also, stop being lazy and answer the questions.
I think if you're serious about contending next year you don't get rid of Battier. He does all the little things you need to win in the playoffs, and he can even come up with a big game when you need it. His defense is still excellent and you don't win in the post season without defense. Now obviously it depends on what's offered, but no way we should be looking to trade Battier. We should probably be looking to trade T-Mac. The guys I think we should trade are Brooks and T-Mac. I'm sure we can get some quality players for them. I'd build around Scola, Yao, Ron, Battier, Wafer, Landry and Lowry; plus whoever we get for T-Mac and Brooks. I hate to say it ... T-mac has finally run his course. If he can get somewhat healthy, perhaps given that his contract is up after next season, he will have some good value. Brooks is not a point guard and is not a good defender. I like him alright, but i see Lowry as being the guy for the future. Regardless, there's really no reason to give up Battier. He's tough too. He was not healthy through the first couple of months but he played through it. I still think we should have drafted Rudy Gay, but Battier is an important part of our team.
This whole debate has gotten silly because RV6. He keeps going around in circles. If people don't believe that the Rockets could've gotten a better player for that lottery pick than a role player who hit his ceiling in college then they're just ignorant when it comes to basketball. What RV6 doesn't understand is that you have to thoroughly shop the pick and contact as many teams as possible with proposals. This is what the Pistons did when the Rockets traded Elliot for Horry and Bullard. Houston had no intention of trading Horry, but when Detroit contacted them with the proposal they considered it then agreed to it, and it was only rescinded due to Elliot failing his physical. When lottery picks can get you upper echelon players, you don't give them away for role players. This is what RV6 in his defend Battier at all costs approach has failed to understand. He keeps harping on who was available and when you answer that, he ferociously tries to prove that you're lying, but what he doesn't understand is that as a team, you maximize the asset by thoroughly shopping it around if you want to trade it, which I don't think the Rockets did. Thus, they made a mistake and it was a stupid move. Everybody makes mistakes. Look at all the poor draft picks CD made. This was just a very poor decision by Morey. @durvasa: I've asked you this before, but you never answered me. In your opinion what are the independent and dependent variables the Rockets use in their quantitative model in analyzing Battier's impact on the team? Only reason I ask is because you seem to be very high on a quantitative approach to basketball. @RV6: I'm still waiting for you to answer the list of questions I asked in my previous post.
Lmao...it's funny how when i told you in other threads Shane hit his ceiling back in college (so teams didn't expect much improvement in him) you dismissed it completely , now you're using that as a way to back up your argument! Only Kwame.... Even funnier is the fact that you still don't get anything, you dont get the business side of the NBA, you don't get how value can change, you don't get how it takes different things to fall in place for trades to happen, etc. If what i truly was writing was ignorant, circular, and silly, then why would you keep answering? I think you've officially gone past that point and that's why i'm ending it here. Oh yeah, don't forget you victory statement, the one with "tacitly admitting defeat", and you should probably throw in one of your repetitive closing statements, maybe the one about how you can't believe shane shot more FTs his first year than as a rocket, you'd think you'd believe it after writing it so much, but I guess not.
I don't remember you asking me such a question. I can only refer you to all the quotes from Rockets coaches and scouts regarding Battier's value, and the numerous radio interviews and articles where Morey talks about what Battier brings the team. But you being a pretty knowledgeable guy, I'm sure you're already familiar with it. My opinion is that the Rockets management, coaches, and scouts are far better equipped than you or I to understand the strengths and weaknesses Battier has within their system. As for what they track from a quantitative standpoint to assess the performance of their players, my best guess is everything you can imagine and more. But I don't believe the Rockets confidence in Battier is purely derived from a quantitative approach. I think the coaches and scouts probably appreciate Battier as much if not more than the stat-oriented front office people.
Far, far, far too much emphasis is placed on number crunching. And it gets more precarious when the primary cruncher never played a lick of basketball beyond grade school. Contrast this with a balanced approach like Portland. Kevin Pritchard does statistical analysis AND he played PG in the NBA. Beyond that, if winning an NBA Championship could be accomlished using a Super Computer at warp speed...Mark Cuban would have several rings on his fingers by now. I put stat analysis in these terms for two reasons. First, it ultimately is an opinion. And secondly, the end result of stat analysis is highly affected by the emphasis which is placed on the variable. Case in point. YOU a season or so ago, derived an arithmatic formula which placed Chuck Hayes as one of the 5 most valuable players in the NBA. Hayes by your calculation was on par with Kevin Garnett. I mention this NOT to single you out. I mention this because IMVHO...any person who relies on a stat analyis misses a HUGE portion of the game. That portion consists of the infinite possibilities associated with what DID NOT but absolutely COULD happen on an NBA court. For lack of a better term, I'll call this "Imaginative Extrapolation". Case in point. I have watched for 5 years as Shane Battier totally depletes any transition O advantage the Rockets gain from his/their good defensive scheme because his primary transition O move is to run to the nearest short corner arc. This will NEVER show up in a stat analysis. But I propose it's more than a coincidence that the Rockets recent success is attributable to playing at a quicker tempo. And further, Battier jock-riding NBA commentators such as Van Gundy and Mark Jackson want us to believe there is only one end of a basketball court that matters. And the legions here...just like lemmings...parrot the sentiments. But yet...when the microphones find their way into the Conference Final's huddles...what is the most common coaching refrain regardless of team? We need to pick up the tempo. That is what is needed. Using "Imaginative Extrapolation", I can see a player like Pietrus making a contibution to the Rockets because he is long enough to play passing lanes and then quick enough to help get easy transition points. A Yao Ming team will NEVER be totally successful until there are way more easy transition baskets. I fully expect you to disagree. And frankly...I don't care. I've grown tired and numb of the legions of Battier fans who are oblivious to his short comings.
Beyond me, it was Jerry West who preferred Rudy Gay to Battier. Get back to me when Morey has as many rings as West.
Battier should absolutely be staying in the Rocket team! Everybody knows what he can do on the defense end, that's no doubt that he can defend almost every guard in this league. For those people who wanna challenge battier's offense end, i think he actually does great. let's forget about the numbers first. Think about when Yao and Tmac, Scola and Arron are all on the court, why do we still need an offense player? We need a player who willing to pass the ball to a suitable player and shoot an open shoot. Also, this player can fight for the rebound and take the charge. sometimes, he can shoot a clutch 3 pointer. This is our battier! we can all see how battier fight against kobe and leborn or whoever he faced. He absolutely brings the team better by bringing energy, and leadership to the teaļ½. Still remember the game Battier held leborn's score below 10 or 20. There is no doubt Rockets will fall down if he is not here.
What would you make then of the fact that Pritchard has sought after Battier for the past two offseasons. However, I would definitely look to move him if the price is right as his value will never be higher.
I think we've all heard just the opposite of that a lot of times. I don't think you can clearly say picking up the tempo is more common. Are you refering to this year only? Also, i agree some fans just follow what "experts" say, but is it really only "jock-riding commentators" that talk him up? Would you say then that's pretty much every commentator out there? What about other coaches, players or NBA people that have never been on a team with him who have similar praise for him?
and if anyone is going to get blamed it should probably be Dawson, Morey was only the assistant GM at the time, he didnt take over until the following year, so I don't think he had the only or final say in the trade, maybe not even most of it. I think Dawson was the one who envisioned a future playing 90s basketball. Lately, Morey seems to talk a lot about speed and seems to like the Aaron Brooks and Carl Landry's (and unfortunately Dorsey's) of the NBA.
This is an ironic comment, coming from you. Here's one of your older posts, attempting to demonstrate the failings of "$Ball" by pointing to the success of the Mavericks: [rquoter]And therein lies one of my major complaints with $Ball for basketball. The Mavericks have averaged 58 wins over the last 6 seasons. They have paraded a cast of characters through their locker room that would NEVER have been involved in a $Ball equation...younger more expensive Juwan Howard, Raef LaFrentz, Antawn Jamison, Antoine Walker, Keith Van Horn and Austin Croshere. But as a consequence to these $Ball "undesireables", Dallas built up trade commodities. I greatly dislike Cuban the owner...but he is far more willing to take a risk...hiring the NBA oddity of Don Nelson as a case in point.[/rquoter] You want to have it both ways, apparently. Before you realized how much Cuban relied on statistical analysis, he was willing to take risks and not rely on "$Ball". Now, he's a failure because of his reliance on a Super Computer. GATER, you're better than this. For anyone who wants to check what I actually said, here's the link to that thread. I never once even suggested that this formula showed Hayes was "one of the 5 most valuable players" in the NBA. This is exactly what I wrote: [rquoter]The idea is to quantify how players "create possessions" for their team. What do I mean by this? Basically, anything you do give your team a possession while taking a possession from another team is a created possession. And when you miss a shot or turn the ball over, that's like using up a possession. I wanted to combine the information in the box score to capture the net created possessions a player gives his team.[/rquoter] I would say that your memory is merely failing you, but in fact in that very thread you tried to make the same argument with my words right in front you so I don't get what your angle is here. Why would that "NEVER" show up in a stat analysis? This would be well within the Rockets means to track. Anything observable can be tracked and considered in a stat analysis, given enough resources and time. The Rockets have invested in both. You think they all they do calculate PER and +/- in a spreadsheet and then go to work? Perhaps that was your impression of things in the early-going, but I hope you've been following along closely enough in the last few years that you know now its much more than that. There's less disagreement here than you may think. I think transition offense is extremely important, and something we need to improve on to take the next step as a basketball team. For the right player, I'm fully willing to trade away Battier. And I do not consider Battier a good transition player. But I do not agree with you and some others that spreading the court and looking for 3s in transition is a bad strategy. The best transition team of the last decade -- the Phoenix Suns -- had one or two players run out to the 3-point arc in transition most of the time. Orlando does the same thing. The short-corner three is a great shot for multiple reasons -- it's extremely efficient, it spreads the court, and it prevents the defense from clogging the middle of the floor.
GATER is correct. I've talked about this before in one of the other Battier threads. I don't want to bring in my own professional experience, because people will inevitably say that you don't know as much as Morey and company, but I've worked with statistics and numbers enough to know that quantitative analysis in general is driven a great deal by theory. Subsequently, you look for variables that prove your theory while either disregarding and/or explaining away other variables that contradict you pre-existing ideas. Sometimes those contradictory variables are even ignored. More often than not if something is creating a problems for a quantitative model its categorized as a statistical aberration, anomaly, or even an outlier. This allows the researcher to downplay its statistical significance and explain it away or minimize its impact on the model. This is not the primary or best way to look at the game and there should NEVER be an over-reliance on the quantitative approach in analyzing bball. I asked you the question in one of the other Battier threads, but thanks for your reply. Unlike RV6, who asks questions, gets answers, but then refuses to answer questions himself. Just answer the questions. Everybody, if they're even paying attention to what you're saying, can see that you're ducking and dodging the questions. I asked durvasa a question and he answered it. I may not always agree with him, but at least he has the integrity to answer a question that's posed to him. Why can't you do the same? We're all witnesses to your inability and/or refusal to answer the list of questions I posed to you. Stop avoiding them, stop being lazy, and answer the questions.
