Should we trade Shane Battier to give Chase Budinger more playing time?

I wish i was young enough to know what sod off meant,lmao. Ok, he made a left hand hook despite passing up other,uncontested shots doesn't mean much. How about you put down your wii or whatever console you're playing, pop in some game film and watch the game. You made reference about the team playing well espite not having a all star. Scott skiles bulls won a bunch of games without a all star. In fact they won like 47 games with guys like deng,gordon,hinrich,chandler,curry and were a top defensive team.Who was their battier or intangible guy? Thought so because they didn't have a guy that columns or articles have to be written to illustrate he's even playing. Playing not to make a mistake is just like playing scared. Go watch the 2 utah series,every series in memphis, and every road game last year and tell me what kind of "leader" on a young team is a ghost. Just go look at the road games alone and tell me what battier did. for the record, brooks is close enough to a all star and landry and scola are playing well also. If you think its because 31 is playing, then you need your eyes checked after your brain.

 

I understand real basketball as well as the next guy. Guys that think Shane is untouchable aren't being realistic. If you haven't seen a drop off in his ability the last couple of years (even on the defensive end) then you are letting your emotions overwhelm your basketball common sense.

I like Shane. I think Shane is an asset to this year's team. I wouldn't trade him just to get Budinger more minutes. But for a big man that we clearly need and to get Budinger more minutes, definately. I'm a team fan and a reasonable one. This team this year will not compete for a championship without a big man. This team can compete when Yao gets back and I believe a more experienced Budinger will contribute more than an aging Battier. Of course, you are free to disagree, but don't make stupid assumptions about people basing all their opinions on the stat line, although I am dominating my fantasy league.

 

To add to the idea that he plays scared, shane rarely actually hesitates on his shots. You really won't see him think about a shot too long, he either shoots it or passes. On that hook shot he hit, he was in traffic, yet the moment he caught it he made his move and launched it. You don't make decisions that quickly and smoothly if you're scared. To me that tells me he knows what kinds of shots to take and which to pass up, not that he's just running around scared and afraid to do anything on offense.

 

there's actually not that many posters who feel that way, at least not many that post consistently. Problem is you got those who want to trade battier at all costs, so when you have an extreme like that the other side ends up sounding extreme as well in any discussion. Personally i'm all for a trade that makes the team better, which is how i think many battier fans feel as well. That being said, if the staff still sees something in him for them to play him every game for 30 mins, then why are we in a rush to trade him? We only see the on court stuff, they see everything and break it down to the smallest detail.

 

QUESTION: Can Ariza be a better SF than SG?

Rocket River

 

Ariza's true role on this team should be on the bench behind Shane. He can come back to being a starter after 3 years when Shane can't run anymore and he knows how to play proper D 100% of the time.

 

No, we should trade Battier for an expiring so we have more cap space in the off season.

 

well that's his real position, alongside a true SG he shouldnt have to do so much and that'll limit his shots, so i'd say yes

 

Another great game by ariza.

 

Looking at the boxscore, Budinger seems to have had a pretty ineffective game tonight. Do people think it's still better for him to be a starter and play starter's minutes every game?

I'm not being snide. I'm actually curious.

 

I do. He wasn't shooting the ball much but was playing some pretty solid defense. I'll take that over Ariza's "I'll shoot until the buzzer sounds" offense and his on/off approach to defense.

Budinger will shoot you into a game but he appears to have a conscience that prevents him from shooting you out of a game like Ariza does most nights.

 

like i mentioned in the gamr thread, budinger so far has been on one game off the next, and so on. He's got the skills and talent, but mentally he's still a rookie and is going to be up and down all season like that. I think it should keep going the way it has, when he's hitting let him play more, when he's cold sit him.

 

I think what screwed us was the early McGrady substitution.

I am not mad he got minutes, but when we did we were up, during which Denver (mainly 'Melo) made a comeback, we brought Shane back later, but by then the damage was done.

Although, I think a lot of the issue with the latest loss was that our usually productive Power Forwards couldn't muscle or out hustle the opposition, like we usually do. Rebounding, the whole Rockets team was fine but individually, Hayes, Scola and Landry, while not terrible, didn't have their usual superb nights thanks to the Denver defense knowing to double them or move them out of their comfort zones.


Oh and anyone thinking we should trade Shane to give Chase a starter's role THIS season needs to put the crack pipe down.

 

Yeah this is what I see too.

The thing I like about him though is that he seems to be pretty aware when he's having an off game. You can see that when his shot isn't falling, he seems to consciously try to figure out how to contribute in other ways.

Sometimes this leads to him overcompensating - for example, trying to force his way to the basket which leads to turnovers or fouls. But in the long term, this self awareness will help him become a better b-ball player IMO.

 

I don't really see Ariza as a ball hog. He is going through a shooting slump and takes some bad shots (maybe more so because of the pressure to break out of the slump), but I think it's more about Adelman wanting him and Brooks to be aggressive offensively.

 

Ahhhhhh.......

...refreshing.

Part of what had the league take a downward spiral offensively, to me, in the 1990s was the preoccupation with the three-point shot, leebigez....
....along with the predeliction toward one-on-one basketball.

I have to admit, I'm from the old school on this. The goal of any basketball offense is to get as good a shot as close to the basket as you can manage. Because players are generally bigger and stronger than ever, the distance of a shot isn't as important to an individual player, or even some coaches, as it once was.

Offense (good, steady consistent offense) should work inside-out. And believe it or not, it usually does, leebigez.

One of the things I read once about the Rockets that won their championships (particularly in 1995), was how dependent they were on shooting a high percentage from the three-point line (the three-point line's been moved around a lot over the years). And how their ice-water-in-the-veins, no-conscience success at it influenced much of the rest of the league to follow suit as best they were able at the time.

Once, three-point shooters were considered specialists, leebigez. And the astounding thing was...if you shot below 45% from there, you weren't considered a good three-point shooter. Now, if you manage to shoot in the high 30% range, you're a three-point threat.

I understand that there's a trade-off, percentage-wise, between a perimeter shot (say, 12' to 18' from the basket—the shot that has practically disappeared from the pro game) and the three-point shot....meaning that, because of the reward in making a three-pointer (an extra point) is seen as a worthwhile risk much more often than in the past, leebigez.

A 45% chance of making a 20ft shot for two points isn't as big a payoff as a 35% chance of making a three-point shot. The three point shot is a weapon, and an equalizer. It changed the way the pro game was played an officiated when the ABA and NBA merged, and the three-point line was established from the ABA game. People who saw Pete Maravich play swear that if he had the benefit of playing with a three-point line, he would have finished his career as possibly the third-highest scoring player in NBA history, as a GUARD.

But unfortunately for me, leebigez, the overuse of the three-point shot as a substitute for good, high-percentage offense has made the pro game a bit more difficult to watch at times than it's supposed to be.

An open look at the basket at this level is hard to come by. And because the standard has been lowered in terms of what a "good shot" is, more often than not, you'll see people taking a three-point shot because they're wide open, or because the offensive philosophy calls for it.

Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it. The players make the league. Good coaches tailor their strategies to what their players excel at, or what works best for the personnel on hand. There's certainly more than one way to win. And fans want to see dunks and threes, not middle-distance shooting, leebigez. Lots of other reasons for the three-pointer being so huge in today's game come to mind, but it's late and I've got a terrible office party to get ready for tomorrow.

The game has always been about getting the best shot you can, leebigez. Not the most open one.

But try telling NBA players that.....

 

mdrowe00, I know what you're saying and a lot is true until we had the stat guys trying to tell us how great the shot is from 24ft, but the best scorer's in the league and the history of the game have made their living from inside 20ft contested or not. Look at the top scorer's now and u will see mid range attack the basket types. Very,very rarely will a 3pt shooter be a great scorer in the nba. The reason is simple and the % don't lie. There isn't one stat u can can show me that says uncontested 23'9 has a higher probability than uncontested 12 ft shot. Reggie Miller was a pretty good scorer and dealy 3 pt shooter and most of his points came from 20ft and in. Sure teams can get hot from 3 and make the oofense look better, but we've seen way to often when the bombs don't fall, the game is lost.

 

Battier airballed a 15 footer wide open. He is better at chucking 3's.

 

i don't think that you trade Shane. he's a great defender and a great locker room guy with leadership. intangible or not, the Rockets are going nowhere if they play dumb even if they have everyone healthy. those qualites alone are undervalued. if Shane really is the worst of the 4 wings (i don't think he is), i see him having no problem with being used like Hayes or coming off the bench in much more limited minutes. i don't think Ariza will handle it nearly as well. it looks like it's already gotten into this head that he's "the man". just like with Alston and Artest (two more frustrating players), i think less is really more with Ariza.

on the other hand, C-Bud has no choice but to play a little more than garbage minutes. he's just a rookie and Adelman always prefers the vets. it's only a matter of time before T-Mac gets C-Buds minutes unless C-Bud can beat out one half of Battriza. not likely in the limited minutes he's going to have to show that he can.

 

I would rather trade Ariza away to give Budinger more playing time