It's (way beyond) time for Hayes to come off the bench.

Mike James
T-Mac
Shane
Scola
Yao

try it for a few games...it may work.

 

I'd hate to have to pick between the two, but I'd rather see Hayes keep his starter spot over Battier. I agree, 3 starters who pose almost no threat on the offense is not very effective, especially in Adelman's plans. Hayes brings so much w/ his rebounding, defense, and his steals. The guy is incredibly smart on defense. Battier is fantastic too, but I think the sheer number of second chances we get w/ Hayes is too valuable. At this point the first starter I'd like to change is Alston of course.

 

No offensive flow. James is most effective when he is commanding the ball. Not gonna happen when T-Mac and Yao are there.

 

That's for those people who want to focus on Chuck's box score numbers and say that he therefore shouldn't be starting. Based on such numbers, Kurt Rambis from 84-85 was virtually identical to Chuck.

If you have an argument that's based on something else, I'm happy to consider it. But it's kind of hard to make a convincing argument when you don't have real data (e.g. "stats") to back it up.

What has a weight in your choice? A "stat" is nothing but a record of what a player does on the court, so I'm not understanding your point at all. Paraphrasing, this is what I think you've said so far: "Chuck is an offensive liability because he's too short and can't shoot away from the basket. With someone else in there, our offense would be much better. And Chuck isn't that great on defense either, so we're not going to lose much on that end either, if any."

What I'm saying is that you're severely underestimating Chuck's defensive abilities and overstating the "offensive liability" stuff. And your understanding of how to evaluate rebounding is also completely out of whack. I think that if you actually venture to examine the games in an analytical way (and, yes, unfortunately that will entail recording information during the game .. i.e. "stats"), that you'll be surprised how off you are.

Now, maybe you're not interested in being analytical, or listening to those that try to be. Maybe you have your opinion, and you don't give a damn how it holds up when you look at things in a more detailed manner. If so, I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

 

Hayes, Battier and Rafer as starters, means you are playing at best 2 1/2 on 5...

Ane when teams like the Mavs or Suns go to a spread offense with 5 shooters on the floor, that means death.

I know Hayes plays great D, but that is not enough to be an elite team.


DD

 

Why? If the opposing team has a more potent offense, doesn't that mean you should put players on the court that are best suited to stop it? If you're talking about a spread offense, I would say Yao could very easily become a greater "defensive liability" than Chuck would be an "offensive liability". Teams like the Mavs and Suns try to attack Yao on virtually every possession, and they've been very successful at it over the last couple years.

Suppose we start Scola in place of Chuck to combat this spread offense. Do we really gain more on offense then we'd lose on defense? Chuck's far better guarding on the perimeter and rotating to help than Scola is. Thus far this year, Scola hasn't shown to much offensively except for a couple games. I'm hoping he develops enough consistency on the offensive end to the point where he provides more on offense than he gives up on defense (compared to Chuck). But I don't think he's there yet.

 

Fair enough. I think who ever plays best with the starting group should start. It could be Hayes, it could be Scola. I just don't think it's set in stone that just because Hayes doesn't score a lot, he can't start; there's no rule that your best scorers should be the ones that start. I would say that your best 5-man unit should start while also leaving enough talent to come off the bench and make a contribution against the opposing team's reserves.

 

A 6'4" as our starting PF? Even Barkley was a defensive liability at 6'4" but at least he used his stubby big body when PFs tried to post him up, and his offensive game made up for his disadvantages on defense.

 

What makes you think Chuck (or Barkley, for that matter) is 6'4? Is this your impression from meeting them in person, or do you have some other source for it? I've asked before, and you didn't give an answer.

 

he is basically pulling stuff out of his a$$ and presenting them as facts..

I don't care how tall the damn guy is, if he can average 7 rebounds per game in 23 minutes of play, along with all the hustle plays and great b-ball IQ, he is a reliable PF IMO..

 

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but start Scola, bench Alston, start James, and have Francis come in to sub for him. We couldn't possibly play any worse than we are.

 

Hayes is excellent at what he does (defense and rebounds). You will not loss much starting Scola because he does hustles and rebound as well as Hayes. Hayes does play better defense because he is stronger than Scola.

 

How many games we won when Luis Scola scored more than 8 points? That's right 0... He is still fouling like mad and causes Rockets turnover when he hesitate to shoot the ball.

I am fine with the way it is. Hayes shouldn't be on the floor without Yao and Tmac anyways. The team needs Scola's bench scoring too especially now when Mike James and Bonzi are shooting at 36, 33 FG%...

 

You have no bbs cred cause Hayes can't score! That makes 3 players in their starting lineup that can't score.

Maybe if you have seen Hayes and Barkley play from court level, you would know that they are not their listed height. I guess you believe Aaron Brooks is really his listed 6 feet?