According to your logic, we might as well get Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford. Scoring > Defense. Our GM and coach must both be idiots to have that zero offense bum playing 35 minutes a night. Complete idiots. Yay to the fans! We rule!
yes, explains why both JVG and adelman play rafer a ton of minutes? but yet we all know they don't want to (morey and adelman have admitted trying to trade rafer since lsat yr). sometimes guys get played b/c there's no other options. if brooks matured faster or luther was better at handling the freakin' ball, you think rafer would get 40 mins a game most nights? same case now. if wafer was a little smarter and more mature, shane would play way less.
Brooks was handed the keys to the car the second that they found a buyer for Rafer. He gradually got more minutes until he was running the ship in key moments anyways. This is not happening with Battier. If we don't want Shane, we have alternatives in Artest or Wafer at SF. Adelman could give Shane a lot less court-time, but generally doesn't. I don't buy that statement unless someone provides me with reasonable evidence that the front office is unhappy with Shane.
yeah, i completely don't understand why Ron is playing or starting the SG. I'm cool with Vonzilla, he's talented enough to play in the playoffs.
the front office wasn't entirely unhappy with rafer either. we all know if we had a better backup or found a better PG, no way rafer would have played those ridiculous #s of minutes that he did. but yet every year, we see he plays a ton of minutes. this year brooks has grown up so that gave adelman another option to curb rafer's minutes and eventually trade him. i never said we would trade battier. i'm saying if we had another reliable option (wafer is still too young), shane's minutes would be cut without hesitation from adelman. but right now, adelman has to play it "safe." he'll cut shane's minutes IF wafer played well (like v. the lakers). but in games wafer struggles, he'll go to shane b/c shane has played longer, and will not take any risks that may jeopardize the game. the same reasons why JVG and adelman played rafer a lot.
I don't see your point. Adalmen plays the hot hand like every other coach, but once the players stop scoring, he goes to the better player-the player that can do more than just score the ball. If we had a player better than Shane, then yes his minutes would be cut in half. If we had a player better than Yao or Scola, they're minutes would be cut too... I don't buy this reliable option crap. What makes you think Shane isn't a reliable option? You can't compare Rafer to Shane, because Rafer is average at best. He's an average defender, bad shooter, and decent playmaker. Rafer didn't do anything other than keep the turnovers low. It's easy to say that Shane would be replaced if we had a better option, but how many players in the NBA are better options? I think everyone forgot how bad we were without Shane at the start of this season.
we were 10-5 without shane to start the year. then he whole in and out with tracy and artest began. that was more of a problem than shane not playing. and you don't buy this "reliable" crap? shane is a low-risk low-reward type of player. you don't get much with him nowadays, but at least he doesn't try to do anything crazy. nowadays, you know what you're going to get with shane. hustle, good defense, and no offense. and trevor ariza would make a perfect addition to this team. yes he may not be the defensive player when shane was at his prime (but shane's past his prime now). but he's still an above average defender and he played good D on artest. but more importantly, HE CUTS WITHOUT THE BALL whenever kobe/pau get the ball, an improving jumper, athletic, run the fast break... and still young. but i'm dreaming.
Battier has to learn to shoot the three consistently. If he can do that, he'll be totally solid. If you can't, he just becomes a defensive specialist. Make it happen, Shane.
I'm guessing you missed the rockets lockdown defender prior to shane , right? Why do you assume every good or decent offensive player dont defend? Just as its against your basketball watching to be athletic, i guess your mind cant let you appreciate basketball players and plays.
10-5 with a +3.667 point differential. You guys really forgot how everyone was complaining about our defense not being the same? After one game why throw every single player under the bus.
Check the points per possession... because we have upped the tempo enough for that to make a difference.
we had a tough schedule, with an injured mcgrady, a rotation that hadn't played much through preseason.... so i would say that's pretty good. offense always starts out slow earlier in the season. our defense was great earlier on though.
durvasa claimed that our points per possession was LOWER without battier in those games than now. don't know how true that is.
Just because you uptempo, doesnt mean you have to give up more points or a higher fg%. Go and look at boston,clev,and orlando and tell me their ppg,fg%, and opp ppg. Who cares about pp possession wghen it comes out the same in the end of the game. They dont give bonus point for allowing less pts per possesion than they do if you allow more.
No, no. leebigez, let's just think about this logically. What is the purpose of any defense? To prevent the other team from putting points on the board. How do I do that? 1. limit points scored on each possession 2. run time off the clock by slowing down my offense 3. force the other team to run time off the clock And that's it. There's nothing else a team can do to keep the other team from scoring that doesn't fall under one of those categories. Now, obviously we only care about "defense" so far as it helps a team win games. So, which of those 3 actually will help a team win? If you think about it, only (1) will necessarily give a team an edge in terms of winning. The reason is that each team will get roughly the same number of possessions just by the rules of the game (your turn to score, my turn to score, and so forth). So if I can limit the number of points you score on each of your possession on average, then I improve my chances of winning because I don't have to score as much on my possessions to beat you. What about (2) and (3)? The only thing that achieves is slowing down the game, but slowing the game down does not in itself give me any edge in winning. For instance, maybe the other team plays more efficiently on offense at a slow pace, and I play less efficiently at that pace, and so because we get the same number of possessions I'm only screwing myself by playing slow. Consequentially, we know that everything that actually matters on defense can be understood in terms of how it limits the other team from scoring points each possession on average (or, points allowed per possession). It's what you do each possession that really matters, not how many possessions you allow the other team to work with. And the nice thing about basketball is its symmetric. So everything I said above can be applied to offense as well. It doesn't matter how many possessions I give myself to work with, but rather how many points I'm able to score on each those possessions on average.
Wafer has too much of an offensive attitude to get too much time. A player used for the right amount of time is effective, too long and he becomes a deficit.
