I love how you say the best players should start "PERIOD", then go on to explain why Manu Ginobli should come off the bench for Michael Finley. What happened to "period"? And if he's so reckless and fragile, why does he play 30mpg and close out games?
Thats because Hayes was the starter before. Chuck freaking Hayes. Battier is a completely different story. If we didn't have Battier, I would rather start Artest because that means we would have to start Tmac at the 3 and Barry or Head at the 2. We were perfectly fine at getting off to a good start when it was just Tmac and Yao. On the other hand, we were famous for losing leads all season long. The reason we lost leads was because we had no one to come off the bench and keep the tempo up.
Its the same, scola brings in much better offense, while a slight drop of defense. Artest brings in much better offense, with no drop of defense. The reason we lost leads, because of there is not enough fire power, especially when tmac/yao goes cold. With artest in the mix, he be the same. And i really cant see whats the difference made with artest starting or not, its the minutes being played that results the difference. And other than the first substitution, i can see other scenario where 2 players got to be at the bench. Hence if there is always 1 or 2 of the "big 3", the offense should not get cold. Oh, and 1 more thing, the psychological factor, battier have shown than start or off the bench, given the same minutes he will give you the same production night in/night out. For artest to do the same thing it will really need some man to man management from rick, as this is the same artest that demands the ball, who thinks he is the best baller out there.
It's the same in that regard, but the situations aren't the same. Chuck Hayes being in the starting lineup allowed people to just flat out double Yao or Tmac and disregard Hayes. Battier is a MUCH better player than Hayes is. Thats the difference. You aren't killing your team by putting Battier in the starting line-up. I agree that its about the minutes. We SHOULD be able get Artest minutes from the bench. Guys like Ginobli, Barbosa, etc, easily got 30 a game coming off the bench. Battier would get like 24 maybe. Its certainly possible for the offense to not be cold with 1 guy out there, or even 0 guys out there. But we shouldn't count on it. The more stars in the game, the less chance of us stalling on offense at any point in the game. I'll sacrifice 5 minutes at the beginning of the game where we have all 3 stars on the court at the same time if it means 5 less minutes somewhere in the 2nd quarter where instead of 1 star we have 2. Thats the thing, Battier hasn't shown he can give you the same production off the bench. I don't know if you can make that assumption. And if we are struggling in the 1st quarter or 3rd quarter, I don't want to ever have to say "we're getting killed, lets bring Battier in and change things up a bit". Artest has more potential to change the tempo (forces opponents to change their gameplans a bit). With Battier its just don't leave him open at the 3 point line. I agree. Artest has to be fine with coming off the bench. He's said he is, but I'm still not sure. But to your other point about Artest being a streetballer and demanding the ball. That seems to favor my point more than yours. If he wants the ball, do you think he would rather play more minutes with Yao and Tmac or more minutes with only one of them? Cause if he starts, more of his minutes will be with both of them rather than only 1. And I think thats the selling point you make to Artest. You tell him that he will still average 30+ minutes a game and he will be the captain of the second unit. As opposed to averaging 30 minutes, but more of those minutes being 3rd fiddle to Tmac and Yao.
um that was his explanation. pop HAD tried manu as a starter for stretches ever since he became a spur and he had never played well as the starter for long stretches. and he has shown to be very injury-proned with more minutes. even pop has admitted this: manu is less effective as a starter or when he plays starter minutes. he's a unique case. artest does not have that problem. he's the intimidation factor that we lack in our starting lineup for the longest time.
Manu Ginobli averaged like 31 minutes a game with Parker and Tim Duncan averaging about 34. I don't know if you can really say that Manu is a special case when he is averaging 3 less minutes than Duncan and Parker. And in any case, I don't see with playing less minutes has to do with starting. You can start and average 30 minutes a game easy, lots of players actually do this. You can also come off the bench and average 34 minutes a game. So those of you trying to explain away Manu being the 6th man on the Spurs as "well, he can't play starters minutes!". I've basically just debunked that myth. And we are back to the fact that Manu is almost on the same level as Parker yet he comes off the bench and this strategy has been effective. Ginobli's gets more minutes when either Duncan or Parker are on the bench rather than when they are both on the court at the same time. I'd rather Artest get more time with either Yao or Tmac and not both. He's not going to get as many looks when both of them are on the court with him.
agentkrib- u didn't debunk anything. The less looks u think artest would get starting is just ignorant. By u rational, Gasol should come off the bench. Shaq and kidd also. By ur thinking, a team can only have 2 all star quality players starting because of touches. Have u ever thought how easy and less stressful it would be at the beginning of the game with all 3 on the floor to start? The game is easier for all with artest,yao and tracy starting.
debunk what myth. pop has publicly stated many times why he doesn't want manu as a starter: he doesn't play as well in games when he starts and his body can't manage more than 35 mpg. plus the spurs always go deep in the playoffs. 3 minutes a game and add that over an 82 game season??? for a guy that penetrates as much as manu. manu just can't handle it. why not let him come off the bench and save the extra 3-4 mins to start the 1st and 3rd quarters and thus give him more rest. popovich has said this many times. i don't know why manu is brought up.
Yes, it's just you. Go and re-read BimaThug's first post in this thread. Then re-read it again. Don't post again until you have understood it. Thanks.
OMG... thank you for taking my point and just taking it to the extreme. Kidd can't come off the bench because the backup PG behind him sucks balls. Shaq can't come off the bench for the same reason. Gasol... the same reason. What, are you going to start Turiaf? Are you crazy? Ray Allen/Paul Pierce for the same reason, Posey is your next best guy and you don't want him to have to start. If a team has more than 2 guys that are 20-25ppg type of players AND you have the potential to bench one of them because the guy behind him is a quality starter (obviously not as good as Artest, but good enough to be a starter) AND you also currently have no good player to fit the 6th man role (which Battier doesn't)... I say every team should have that guy come off the bench. If instead of Battier we had Bonzi Wells, I would say start Artest. Bonzi fits the 6th man role better. Our offense isn't going to completely go to **** when he comes into the game. Yes. Having 3 stars in is better than having 2. But would you agree that having 2 in is better than having 1 also? Because at some point in time you are going to have to rest your stars, and there will be a couple of times in the game where 2 of your stars need rest. I'm fine sacrificing 5 minutes of 3 stars on the court at the same time if it means preventing 5 minutes of 1 star on the court.
I for one disagree with your views. My primary concerns with this is Artest needs to get quite comfortable with Yao and Tmac on the floor. You get him in the 6 man role where he has a big green light and then it may not be easy to switch to be a somewhat passive player around Tmac and Yao in the closing lineup. A second factor is I really don't think we lose anything offensively or defensively with Artest in and Battier out. Artest was just as efficient offensively as Battier, and gets more fouls, boards, physicality and other things that will make our team jump on other teams earlier. The bottom line is if Artest doesn't get comfortable with the majority of minutes with Yao and Tmac, and them comfortable with him, we are not going to have the best team possible. Like I said and nobody addressed, Manu is extremely unique as being techically the 6th man but just as effective in a deferrent role as offensive leader role, and seamlessly move in between. For one I don't think Artest is quite that offensively gifted in the 5 man game, and two, he doesn't have like 6 years of previous experience with the other two superstars. Notice the Celts didn't sit Pierce or Allen for Posey to help the 2nd unit. They knew the critical factor was getting the big 3 comfortable with each other. In summary, yes Artest should start. The ultimate championship potential this year is going to depend on how well our big 3 play together--and they need time together. If Artest becomes a "ball stopper" we are probably screwed anyway (for the title anyway), so do what we can so he won't be. IMO the question is whether Scola or Battier should be the 5th starter, I am actually OK with even a platoon system defending on the opposing PF (want Scola's length Vs Artest power and athleticism on them).
Terry was the pg before kidd. Terry is a really good player. Amare was the center in phoenix and marion was the 4. The suns couldve easily played diaw at the 4 and brought shaq in to get his touches when nash sits. I could keep going, but I won't. There is a reason why guys start and others come off the bench. You start ur best players to set the tone. If battier and artest were close as players, then I might agree, but its not even close. Battier does nothing more than posey does and I've always said that. Artest is top 5 at his position. 55 wins was cool with almost half won in one stretch is nice, but artest is will be the best player on the team for about 1/3 of the games. There will be games or ponts early on when he's the #1 option and mismatch problem. U don't bring a guy like that off the bench.
The same situation apply. Battier is a MUCH better player than hayes, but artest is also MUCH better than battier. If the team plays better in the first quarter, its always much better as the opposite have to adjust to rox play. Its more of having effective times and partnership, then having 2 stars all the time. I rather like the combination of scola, landry, harris, battier and AB. Hustle and running. What i'm trying to say is, get your best 5 players against their best 5, kick their ass, and then continue for the rest of the game. look at his stats during the memphis days. Off the bench or starting. playing for a winning team or a losing team. It makes no difference. Thats why i play him off the bench as i know what he is capable of doing night in night out. Artest on the other hand, have cold nights, bad nights and just plain ugly days. Its either you are a big fish in a small pond or a small fry in the ocean. I have no idea what artest prefers. But even if he starts off the bench, and you proposing that at least 2 stars are on the floor at any one time, then artest will forever be the 2nd or 3rd fiddle. Hence it makes no difference for him being the "captain" of the 2nd unit.
Let's wait and see. I would like to see what Artest looks like in the starting lineup and get us off to a quick start. We are a notoriously slow starting team. If Tmac and Yao are on, we suffer. I would like to see Shane develop and offensive game with the second unit.
