I never said Moses wouldn't be a fine coach for Yao. I was asking Yetti to clarify his feelings on not wanting a coach who will force Yao to be agressive. Please explain how Smith was trying to mold Yao into a mean machine. What specificially did Smith do to make you say this? How did Smith ask Steve to play differently? Please elaborate. Common sense or not, no one has yet to explain to me how the rotation was altered, beyond the Yao/Cato situation.
You have turned this into a bunch of mud slinging, not me. You decided to quit and ran away calling me a 14 year old. Sure. I am game if you are. I have already stated many times (several in my posts to you), that I do not feel Smith cost Rudy his job. Yes I would, as I have done that with every thing I have disagreed on with you. If you are going to engage me in debate, I would assume that you want to afford me that same privelege. Last I saw, it is your turn to respond. I responded, in debth, and in detail, to your last post before you decided that you wanted to quit. You are on the clock. I don't feel the need to make "1 point, 1 statement". I have already done that and don't feel the need to rehash my feelings when they are quite evident throughout this whole thread. I have finished what I have to say, unless you want to continue the debate. You go 1st, please (again, I don't feel the need to make a statement as I have already done this multiple times) I thought your points were very clear. I refuted them. I don't need any clarifications. However, where we (actually you) left off, was my last posts on the 2nd page. You have yet to respond to that. I would appreciate it if you would. If you don't, then go away. Yes, I believe it would be fair for you to respond to the last post on the 2nd page. That is where we left off.
Why is this stupid debate still going on? Larry Smith is useless and some of you deem it is fit to discuss or argue that? He is not only useless he is THE BLACK HOLE. He contributed to Rudy loosing his job. He is an idiot. He was out of his depth standing in for Rudy (Rudy's fault here) He was and still is clueless. He is stupid. He was the invisible cancer in our locker room. He should remained a "video room guy". Finally, HE WILL NEVER EVER GET a head coaching job in the NBA. In all it was ultimately Rudy's fault that we had to suffer those painful weeks with this moron at the helm. Rudy indeed had to GO!!!
Fegwu, Try reading the entire thread before you pass judgement on why it should still be going on. Way to throw out a whole bunch of name calling and hatred. You have added nothing to this discussion. Good job.
Codell, This is the reason why I stopped and not responded to your last post on the 2nd page. I've experienced similar thing before in another forum among my friends and family. Another person and I went on and on making point after point about a subject. We both thought we were great stuffs, making grand arguments .... until a friend chimed in and said simply ..."when will you hens stop pecking?" Do u want to continue at such risk? It's up to u.
What risk? lol If you are game to continue, then I am. If not, then I have nothing left to say. Either respond to my last post on the 2nd page, or stop responding period. I am not interested in seeing the admins lock this thread because you want to go back and forth about arguing about debate decorum or whether this arguement is worth it or not. It either is or isn't. You decide (I already have).
Codell, In order to debate, we need to start with certain premises and use logic to move thru to a conclusion. i.e., start with an single point, if we agree on it, we use it as fact and move on to the next. If we don’t agree, we need to debate that assumption. If we don’t do it this way, we would just keep going in circles. Let’s try to take this 1 point at a time. Don’t get off on a tangent.
1) Yao got less minutes under Smith. 28 min/ game vs 32 /game. Agree or disagree? (We can argue the why later) If u agree, we move to another point. If u don’t agree we can debate it further.
Disagree because your #s are not even correct. Do we need to really go through this again? I have already addressed this (1st page, 24th post - http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=886141#post886141). I really don't feel the need to keep repeating myself just because you want to selectively overlook the posts where I have refuted every single one of your theories. I still don't understand why you can't just respond to this post: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=888384#post888384
I don't need instructions on how to debate. Quit trying to change the subject. Either respond to my posts or just stop responding. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I am perfectly content with the way I have structured my posts and responses. If you feel you are not able to respond to them because they address multiple points and not one single point at a time, then I can't help that. We have already done this. I am not going in circles. You are. Your last 10 posts have had NOTHING to do with debating this subject. You are using stall tactics. I have begged you to respond to this post (http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=888384#post888384) and yet, you still have not. Why? What can't you just respond to the points I have made? I don't feel the need to start ALL OVER and rehash my points "one at a time". Again, if you are incapable of addressing posts with multiple points, then don't respond. Pretty simple eh? I have not gone on a tangent. You have. My last 5 posts to you have asked you to respond where we left off. YOu have chose not to. You have officially turned this thread from "Larry Smith = Coach Killer" into "Ragingfire = Thread killer".
Codell, Very weak! You are like the politicians. Slippery. If you can't answer a question, u throw 5 other answers out there to muddle the issue. How hard is it to discuss 1 thing at a time? I think you can see that you are going to be nailed to the wall if you do.
E-gad man. I just answered your "1" question 2 posts ago and you STILL don't respond to what I had to say. You just don't like to respond and instead want to establish rules on how you are going to respond to subject matter in this thread before you will give an answer. Fact is, you will never respond. Ever. Prove me wrong. I tell you what. As soon as you feel you can respond (this is the 5th time I am asking you) to my post on the subject (last post, 2nd page) OR, to my post on the bottom of the last page (where I answered your 1 question), I would love to give you a response. Its simple. You won't respond to my posts because they address too many points (this did not seem to be a problem for you before I shot your argument clean out of the water). You won't respond to my posts even when I follow your rules. Stall tastics. You are trying to slow this discussion down to a snail's pace in hopes that I will become disinterested and stop responding. You are trying to get this thread locked by the admins and you know you are. Just so you know, this will not work. Save what little pride you have left and respond to the subject matter for goodness sakes.
I told you we need to establish the ground rules and debate one point at a time because drawn-out posts like we had before only muddle the issues. You have a talent like politicians to tell half-truth and to confuse the public by answering A with B. This is a good example:. My calculation which I did a month ago gave me 32 and 27 but we can use 31 and 27 like u have. No big deal. You said: Under Larry, Yao played poorly in some games -> less minutes in those games -> it pulls his avg down. Fine, nothing wrong with this argument except it only tells half of the truth. Under Rudy, Yao had poor games too -> less minutes in those games -> it pulls his avg down but he played well in some games -> more minutes -> this pulled his avg up to 31 min. Under Larry, Yao had good games too but he did not get the minutes in those games -> his avg stays down at 27 mins. Which games? I gave 3 games as examples: Seattle (4/12) 22 mins Orlando (4/6) 27 mins Denver (3/29) 15 mins This is a lie. Yao started the game, checked out at 3:15 in the 1st, played ok, 2-3FG with 4 pts, no (0) foul. Yao sat out the entire 2nd quarter. Yao started the 3rd, commited his 1 st foul at the 6:09 mark. His 2nd foul at 0:40 mark. His 3rd foul at the 0:09 mark. He ended the 3rd with 8 pts, 4-6FG, 3 reb, 2 ass, 2 stls. Yao started the 4th, committed 4th foul at 11:05 and checked out of the game and stayed out. Ended the game with 10 pts. Cato played about as well for 26 mins. Now you try to spin that stat. If you can't spin the stat then you spin other stuff. The Rox had a rest day before they played the next game so your spin is pathetic. Smith rested Yao and what happened, he went 2-13 FG the next game. I say when Yao plays well, give him the minutes to build his numbers and his confidence. Maybe he can even play the next game better. Foul problem? Yao had 2 fouls in the 1st , 0 in the 2nd, 2 fouls in the 3 rd. He checked out at the 9:20 mark in the 3rd and never came back in. Under Rudy, starters always come back in to start the 4th with 4 fouls. (In some cases starters don't start the 4th because they played the entire 3rd). Cato played better? This is the chicken and egg theory. What came first? Cato played well because he got the minutes or did he get the minutes 'cause he played well? Check out the stats: PLAYER MIN FGM-A 3GM-A FTM-A OFF DEF TOT AST PF ST TO BS PTS YAO MING 15 3-8 0-0 5-5 1 1 2 0 4 0 0 2 11 Kelvin Cato 33 6-7 0-0 2-6 4 2 6 2 3 1 3 6 14 You like to do your 48 mins/ game projection, let's try that and assume Yao gets to play 33 minutes: Yao 33 min 4.4 reb 4.4 bs 24 pts. Any 20+ pt game can surely build his case for ROY, don't u think? (Man, I hate drawn-out posts and this one only answers 1 pt. Don't worry, I will come back and shoot your other theories down too. )
This is the part of codell's last post on the second page that I had not responded to. This is where you confused the issues and answered A with B. I did not argue about these games. Go back thru all my earlier posts, I only listed the 3 other games. I am making an arguments about these games now. While it is true that Yao got to play 31-33 minutes in these games, those are avg minutes, not big minutes. Under Rudy, when Yao played well, he got 38-40 mins. Piston (3/4) 38 mins, Wizards(2/27) 39 mins, Lakers (2/18) 40 mins ... Imagine what Yao can do if he had gotten to play 38-40 mins in the games you listed. We can talk about monster games then. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never ever said that he should get big minutes in his bad games. I'd answered this point in prev post, did I not? Let's debate this. Sometimes the C do not line up for FT to save energy. The Lakers did it with Jabbar. I think they did it with Shaq too sometimes. What is wrong with that? It is also true that 99% time you want your big men to line up for FT. It is also a fact that you almost never get offensive rebound after a FT. You can get off rebound because the defense are out of position. At the FT line, that is almost never the case except when defensive players fall asleep. That means we need not line up our tallest when we shoot FT or when opp shoot FT. I would suggest that a PF can box out opp's C and the SF can box out the opp's PF at the FT line adequately. Again, it has been proven with Jabbar and the Lakers. You also admitted that teams do that 1% (?) of the time, I assume you agreed with no ill effect? Given the above facts, is it to our advantage not to require Yao to line up for FT. I think so. Yao got very few off rebound after the FT. On the defensive end, lots of time, he just boxed out the opp. and our other players grabbed the rebound also. We clearly do not depend on him for rebounding at the FT line. How much energy would this save him? The Rox and opp. combined to shoot 46+ FT a game. Some of them are 2 shot fouls, some are the bonus shot. I would guess about 30 trips up or down the floor. Let's say Yao is in the game for 2/3 of the time, that would be 20 trips up and down the floor when he does not have to run. For a 7'-6 guy, it is a big help. I never said to double the scrub centers. You said it. I would say to double Shaq most of the time. Other C, you play by ear, you double the guys who get deep on your C for whatever reason. Many times opp's C just dribbled and dribbled and help never came. You watch other teams, they might not double opp.'s C right away but they do not allow them to go 1 on 1 unmolested. At times, they would try to swipe the ball to put doubt on opp's C about putting the ball on the floor. What more, Yao gets doubled all the time. He is put at a disadvantage on the off. end, yet you don't reciprocate and help him out on the def. end? And you blame him for being out of gas? Is Cato your answer? oh, yes. He has more energy on defense because he does not do jacks on the off. end. Not just that he almost never posts up, he seldom sets pick like you see Yao does. 2 alley-oops dunks a game does not constitute work! Tell me if I need to answer this! You are indeed desperate if you want to argue this point!
Funny how you call me a politician when it is obvious that for the last 1 1/2 pages, you have danced around, changed the subject and would never give a response even after I asked you to 3 or 4 times. I did these calculations on a spreed sheet, so my math is positively right. If you are going to quote stats and numbers, please make sure they are correct, because mine will be. Don't expect me to agree with something, even though its only 1 min off. You posted incorrect #s, and I disagreed with them because of that. No big deal when you are the one posting erroneous information. You are incorrect here once again. Here is a link to my post that shows where Yao received his normal minutes or more when he played well: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=888384#post888384 It is a fact, based on those games, that Yao received his normal minutes when he played well. Ill agree here that there is no plausable explanation as to why he didn't return in the 2nd quarter. Normally, hell come back in at the 5 min mark. So he lost 5 mins there. We agree that he picked up his 4th foul with 11:05. I am assuming we agree that it was right to take him out. Cato came in and picked up 8 pts, 3 rebs the rest of the 4th and the Rockets were up by 15-20 pts throughout the 4th and were not challended. I don't think you can fault Smith for leaving him on the bench. I don't see how its a spin when Yao was taken out of the game with 1:09 left in the 3rd and we were up by 18. In the 4th, we went up by as much as 27 in the 4th. Why bring him back in? Just so he can pad his stats. For this sake of expediting this discussion, Ill go ahead and concede the 4 mins (under his average) that he lost. Again, I disagree. This is highly subjective and there is no statistical or factual proof that states that this would or would not happen (i.e. hes followed up high minute games with good games and bad games). I do not think its wise to base your arguements on maybes. Again, in addition to foul trouble, Yao was 3-8 also. When Cato came in at the 9:20 mark, he put up 7 pts, 5 rebs and 4 blocks. We went from being down by 2, to up by 13 to end the game (15 pt. swing). I have no problem with Cato being kept in (also, this is one of the games where Yao was missing alot of layups and obviously did not have it going). Only one small problem here. You are being selective here with his stat projections for this game. You forgot to project that with 4 PFS, he would have fouled out @ 22.5 mins (based on a projection of 22.5 mins, Yao's adjusted #s are 38% shooting, 16 pts, 3 rebs and 3 blocks; nothing to get ROY voters excited over). However, because I am a swell guy, Ill give you the 8 mins here (22.5 - 15 (I am even rounding up in your favor)). So thats 3 games and a total of 17 mins. 17 mins (roughly a projection of 6 pts, 4 rebs and 1 block based on his per 48 stats)would not have made 1 bit of difference with the voters. I hope you do better that you did here.
Ummmm, yeah you did (you said when Yao had good games, Smith didn't give him the minutes; this was in your 2nd to last post). I see no reason for Yao to play more than his normal mins when he is already running on fumes. You are advocating giving him around 40, when he was inconsistent when playing only 27. My reasoning says, by forcing him to play more mins when he is already tired, his production will decrease, not increase. This was a game where Yao played big mins out of necessity. I remember this game vividly. Not sure if was late in the 1st or early in the 2nd, but after Cato came in, he took a hard foul and was hurt (I think it was Okur that fouled him). Cato was removed a min or so later and I don't think ever came back in the game. This game went into OT (with Yao playing the whole 5 mins). Also, this is the game that Cato was nursing an injury (I believe it was a strained hip), which explains why Yao played more and Cato only played 3 mins). He played big minutes out of necessity, not because of his production. He didn't even shoot well in that game (6-15), although he had a nice rebounding night. Without the OT, Yao plays 34 mins, which is close to his norm. Quit picking out overtime games. This game went into 2 overtimes. Yao played all 5 mins of the 1st before fouling out (he had an overall great game). Without the overtime, Yao plays 35 mins, which is close to his norm. Yes you did. I don't feel the need to go back and disect all your posts and find where you have given explanations as to why he should have been given more minutes (I believe this is where you say that Yao could turn this bad games into monster games if given more minutes). Yes you did. Finally. It seems we can now agree that Yao did not deserve his normal minutes when playing poorly. In all my years of watching and playing basketball (JH, HS and College), I have never not seen a C line up for a FT in order to conserve energy. You keep going back to Jabbar, and I am not disputing that they did this. However, that doesn't mean it should be done now or is sound basketball philosophy. What is wrong with that, is the fact that you should always have the strongest rebounder on the floor lining up for FTs. ALWAYS. By not having your C line up, you are vastly decreasing your odds of grabbing the defensive board (by asking one of our PFs to box out a C). So in summary, I completely disagree with this point. We should never have Yao not rebound a FT just so he can rest on the other end. Whoa whoa whoa. Now you are talking about offensive FTs. You started out by saying that Jabbar took breaks on defensive FTs. When we shoot FTs, I agree, not necessary as often (up until this post, you have been referring to defensive FTs; you have never discussed offensive before). When rebounding defensively, you always want your best rebounder (whether they are the tallest or not) in position (this means Yao needs to always be in defensive rebounding position when he is on the court). Always. Again, I strongly disagree as this goes against basic bball philosophy, regardless of whether the Lakers and Jabbar did it. Griffin and Taylor aren't even good rebounders when trying to box out players at their own position. I think it is safe to say that they would be even less successful when trying to box out bigger and taller players. Same goes for our SFs. Actually, even more so. There is not one PF I can think of who can be boxed out effectively by Posey or Rice. No way. Why create obvious mismatches just to give Yao a few mins of extra rest? Does not make sense at all. This places team success in jeopardy for the benefit of one player. If Yao is that tired, then Cato is an effective replacement and rebounder. 1% means that the only time I see your best rebounder not lining up for a defensive FTs, is when there is lil time left in the game, you are up and you want your C back protecting the basket against a last second shot/drive . Again, as stated earlier in this post, I strongly disagree (and those are not facts; they are subjective opinions ...please keep the difference in mind). To say we do not depend on Yao for rebounding on FTs is a completely inaccurate statement. Next to Cato, he is our best rebounder. He should always line up for FTs. ALWAYS. To suggest he do something else instead places the odds of us grabbing that board in SEVERE jeopardy (by asking Griff/Mo to box out Cs and Posey/Rice to box out PFs). Disagree once again. Ill restate my position. Not having your best rebounder not line up on defensive FTs goes against basic bball principles (as I have seen and learned). I don't care if it helps him rest or not. We stand to lose more by giving up offensive boards then we do to gain by giving Yao an extra rest by not having him rebound. Ummmm ....yeah you did. You said Larry should have sent help to double the opponents center to help Yao conserve energy. With the exception of the Laker game (Shaq), we did not play a team that had a center that should have been doubled. Therefore, by saying that Larry should have helped Yao by sending an extra defender to double, you are saying that we should have doubled scrub centers. I disagree again. If and when srub centers are pushing Yao deep under the basket (consistantly), you don't sacrafice an extra defender just so he can stay in the game. You bring in Cato, who normally can hold his position Again, Yao should be expected to hold his position against weaker centers (lets not forget that one of Yao's positives, is his lower body strenght). If he can't, then it is a sign he is tired or worn out. Therefore, he should be taken out to rest. So you are saying that since Yao gets doubled (something we have no control over), the coaches should return the favor and double Yao's man (even if the player is not someone you double)? That is quite an odd theory. I guess we should also double Junior Harrington since Denver quite often doubled Steve on the perimeter when we played them. BTW, you still have not explained why its not ok to bring in Cato when Yao is not capable of holding his own on the defensive end. You want to make exceptions for Yao so that he can stay in the game and pad his stats for ROY even though by doing that, it would place team goals in jeopardy. I never blamed Yao for anything. But rather, stated it as a fact (that he is out of gas). There were a # of things that contributed to Yao's stamina problems with the main thing being that he had played Bball year round without a break. If having to handle scrub centers singlehandedly was contributing to his stamina problems, then he should be taken out and rested since Cato usually can hold his own. You are really starting throw around the subjective matter while at the same time, disregarding factual stats ............anyway .....I digress. I agree and disagree here. Both Yao and Cato are utilized very differently on the offensive end. You can make the arguement the Yao works harder by setting picks, etc. You can also make the argument that Cato works just as hard by constantly going hard to the offensive glass (unlike Yao). BTW, Cato set picks on more plays than you think. You don't notice them because they aren't always done in the same places where Yao sets his (Cato sets alot of back picks). Its a hell of alot more work than trying to fingeroll 2 feet layups (Yao likes to do this instead of dunking). You can either answer it or not answer it. I am not "desperate" to argue this point as I have already refuted (beyond a shadow of a doubt) your theory that Cato's numbers drop the longer he plays. The ball is back in your court on this one. I hope your next post is better than these last two (shooting fish in a barrel).
E-gad. You again? The reason why you stopped responding is because you were posting incoherent untruths and had nothing to back it up. Don't blame me for that my friend.
to prove that Larry did try to play Yao differently, thereby affecting his production is easy. Yao himself said so! I remember him talking about adapting to Larry's coaching style and the the way he's being used in the post-game interview by that Chinese reporter after the last lakers game. That interview was posted and translated here as well. but of couse, you can argue that Yao is biased too or the interview can't not be trusted.
