But McGrady's offensive role as "SF" doesn't really change, right, whether there is another SG guard out there with him or not. Does Duncan's offensive role change? He still likes the PnR and to get the entry in the same spot for his face up game. Why move their offensive stats around, when their role remains the same.
I'm not going to rain on your thread, but when teams have a duo, that's usually a sign that both are justt avg.You don't see teams with really good players splitting time. So u can rationalize the duo, but no team will trade u their really good player for 2 avg players. If that was the case, why not just platoon every spot?
Best "Bargain" PF tandem However, if Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett costing $14 mil more per season is there, you have to take them. Thats just the price for greatness over goodness. Rockets could have the best bargains at each position, paying 30th lowest money for 8th place talents. But they'd be an 8th place team, just paying better bargains than everyone else. Not saying you have to spend to get to the top. More that top 3 in their position players just are gonna cost more, but they'll get you more too (most the time) But from the Landry for Villanueva rumor, this indicates it was tinkering with something that didnt need tinkering with.
The Spurs are fielding a team with Bonner at one front court position, and Duncan at the other. In that setup, Bonner plays the PF and Duncan the C. If you want to label Duncan a PF and give the Spurs a higher PF rating, then you're obscuring the distribution of production the Spurs have amongst the five players they put on the court (which is the whole purpose of this). Now, all of a sudden you give the Spurs a great PF rating but a very poor C rating. But that's not an accurate picture of what the Spurs are getting from their two front court positions over the course of a game. They're getting some production from one front court player (Bonner, the designated PF), and a lot of production out of another front court player (Duncan, the designated C). Yes, Duncan can play PF. If the Spurs chose to do so they could play other 7 footers at C and use Duncan as a PF exclusively, and then they'd be getting a lot more production out of that spot. But that's not what they're doing, so why should 82games pretend otherwise? Your approach seems more suitable for a fantasy league or something. First you label every player as a PG/SG/SF/PF/C without regard for the combinations the team uses. Then whatever production they're getting goes to that particular, pre-assigned position. Not very useful, in my opinion. It ignores the realities of combinations and matchups that the coach has to deal with.
durvasa, don't overthink it. Duncan always play the same role on <b>offense</b>? If you want to call it a center, then call it a center. If you want to call it a PF, then do so. But don't move around his offensive stats, merely because his <b>defensive</b> role changes, or because some role player is obviously a center and the other a PF. If you want to be nitpicky about this, when Francis, Moochie and Cuttino were on the court together, Francis's role changed from play to play, and Cat's never changed. Hell, Moochie was in the corner more than Cat ever was. Are you honestly going to call one of them a SF? please. fact is: this sport does not go by strict definitions anymore than soccer does. If you feel like it simplifies stats to simplify the definitions, then go for it. I know that's not reality, and I can show you several offensive systems that explain it very clearly.
I would ask that you not underthink it. To you, things like defensive role and player combinations are mere trivialities that we should ignore. Again, what you're asking for works nicely for fantasy leagues. It's not what's useful for real, objective analysis. You want to ignore what's actually happening on the court and pretend that the Spurs aren't getting production from both frontcourt positions because you happen to think Duncan and Bonner are both "PFs" (whatever that means). In reality, Popovich has decided to play Duncan at one front court position, and Bonner at the other for a reason. Saying, "Well, Duncan is really a PF, so I'll pretend that the Spurs aren't getting anything from one of their front court position when Bonner is on the court with him" doesn't make sense. You're thinking about this all wrong. Suppose the Rockets chose to play Francis, Moochie, and Cuttino all the time. Yes, on one hand we could say they they're playing 2 PGs and 1 SG, instead of a PG, a SG, and a SF. But suppose I want to know how much production the Rockets gets from all 5 of the players on the court over the course of the season. According to you, if we treat Francis and Moochie as 2 PGs and Cuttino as a SG, then the Rockets are getting the average of Francis's and Moochie's production at one position, Cuttino's production at another position, and no production at a third position. This does not properly answer the question: "How much production are the Rockets getting from all 5 of the players on the court?" You aren't properly representing the distribution of productivity amongst the players on the court. That's the entire purpose of "production by position" to begin with. It's not about simplifying it. You're right -- these positions like PG, SG, etc. don't have defined roles anymore. If you prefer, forget the "PG", "SG", ... designations and just think of them as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (without any particular offensive or defensive role implied). You're losing sight of the important question -- on average, what production does the team get from the players assigned 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the court? -- and focusing on a separate and frankly inconsequential issue (whether Mobley is a "true" SF or Duncan is a "true" C).
you are ignoring that the offensive systems of this sport do not always assign 1,2,3,4,5 in a standard way. You are talking about fantasy league stats, not me. Since PER is a per minute stat, why should it matter if one team doesn't field a center for 48 minutes, rather reverts to a real, longstanding dual PF system. Or goes with 3 guards and no SF for awhile. These are real systems. This isn't fantasy. I can agree with you that you can force a PF into an offensive center for PER purposes--that would be the other Spur's PFs, not Duncan. I just don't agree that Duncan's role ever changes...so why dilute his stats across two offensive positions, when the Pops system puts him in the same offensive role regardless.
heypartner, When Morey says that the Rockets like to play small at center when Yao isn't in the game, what does he mean? According to you, since Yao is the only "true center" on the team, the Rockets don't play a center at all when he's on the bench, right? And yet, Morey refers to us playing small at the 5 or at center, and he's said that we play well when we do that. How's it possible? If Yao isn't on the court, are we getting zero production at the 5? Do you seriously think that's how the Rockets view it? Do you think that when the Rockets are scouting the Knicks, that they think the Knicks only shoot 3's from 3 positions instead of spreading the court with 3-point shooting at 4 positions? After all, according to you, the Knicks play 3 guards, a SF, and a PF. So, by position, they get 3-point shooting from only 3 spots (the guards and the SF). You think that actually makes sense? When JVG refers to Duncan as a 5 and Bonner as a range-shooting 4 in San Antonio's system, you think he doesn't know what he's talking about? That he's somehow bought into 82games.com's fallacy? Sorry. I don't see it.
