For a given play, credit should be allotted to players in proportion to how "valuable" they were in getting the score. The value a player brings to the team should be judged in relation to what can be expected from an easily acquirable replacement-level player. Suppose there's a play in which three things happen: player 1 draws a double team and passes out of it, player 2 catches pass and swings the ball to the next open guy, player 3 catch pass from player 2 and hits open jump shot. All three actions from the players were necessary for the score to occur. Credit should be distributed based on what each player did on that play over what could be expect from a replacement-level player. Almost any player easily acquirable could have been put in player 2's position and we could expect him to make the easy pass to player 3. So, in terms of the "value" he brought the team on that possession, I say it's very little -- hence, he gets proportionately less credit. But if you have to replace player 1 with someone else, it's much more difficult to repeat that type of play. Of course, if you have a David Robinson to fill in for Hakeem or a LeBron James to fill in for T-Mac, then it's not as much of an issue. But obviously that's not realistic. The principle is that how much "credit" you get as a player should be proportional to the value you provided (kind of obvious, right?). And drawing double teams that creates openings for teammates is a more valued skill than just swinging the ball to the open guy.
Agreed. I value the assist more than the hockey assist b/c it is the contributing play that directly precedes the basket. If you're talking in terms of superstars, none of them are "easily acquirable." Sorry, no. You're scenario MIGHT be plausible if player 2 were a robot. After catching the ball, player 2 must decide whether to shoot or pass (and if he decides to pass, he must decide which player to pass to). After evaluating his situation, he decides to pass. Its his decision, not player 1's. Therefore, if a basket is scored by player 3, it is a direct result of player 2's decision to pass and an indirect result of player 1's decision to pass. If you were to hypothetically replace a superstar in a play, you have to replace him with another superstar. To replace him with an average player would change the entire dynamic of the play and the whole point would be moot. Agreed The ability to draw a double team is a more valued skill, but it does not directly lead to points like an assist does.
Wekko, we have the following: (1) credit allotted should be proportional to how valuable the player is (you agreed to this) (2) an assist is more valuable than a "hockey assist" because it more directly leads to the basket. (3) From (2), more credit should always be given to the player who scores the basket, because it is the most "direct" play Suppose it's the end of the game, and McGrady on 5 straight possessions is able to single-handedly draw multiple defenders and spoon feed Chuck Hayes for wide open layups right under the basket. Based on (3) Chuck should get more credit for each of those baskets scored than T-Mac. And, based on (1), Chuck was therefore a more valuable player over those last 5 possessions than T-Mac. Therein lies the absurdity of your logic. No coach in his right mind would look at those last 5 plays and conclude that Chuck Hayes was a more valuable offensive player than Tracy McGrady. Therefore, if you accept (1) (a common sense proposition), and you agree that McGrady was the more valuable player on those last 5 possessions in the scenario described above, than (3) can't hold. And, consequentially, your "directness" theory crumbles. I'm moving on.
acutally you'll find that Novak will score masses of bad plays on the defensive end. T-mac is scoring alot of neutral plays there.
of course his just unwilling to give T-mac that credit. He has openly said he questions T-macs decision making and play anyway.
I can't believe this argument is still going on. Wekko, just come out and say you don't think that Tracy is doing anything special with his playmaking. Then we can all say that we disagree with you. The End. Then we can get back to the real issue at hand: is T-Mac a point-forward?
First off, Thanks Blake for taking the time and the headache of creating this post. I wish you would keep them coming but fully understand if you don't. When first coming to this site I assumed I would see more post like this where we were talking about specific plays, but it seems to be more name calling and mudslinging than expected. I'm guilty myself as I tend to want to see Mcgrady prove himself, which in my opinion he hasn't, yet. I for one will never confess to being a Tracy fan, some call me a hater and I understand why. My two cents on this: 1.)Yes, a hockey assist is a good play for the player that created the double team. Sometimes it takes more than one pass to get to the open man, considering where the double is coming from, otherwise the person that created would have to throw over the defense to get the assist. Anyone who watched Hakeem play knows this. 2.)Yes, you can take good shots and miss. It happens every game to every team. How any times have you seen or heard the coach say "we got the shot we wanted, it just didn't go down." Sometimes they fall and sometimes they don't. As great of a player Hakeem was everyone one of his shots didn't go down and neither did Jordan's, we wouldn't call them bad shots, would we? They both have won games and lost games at the buzzer. They both have had good games and bad. 3.)If you take the ball to the basket and get a bucket, whether its non contested or threw 4 defenders it's a good basket. If you get fouled and get free throws it's a good basket. If you take the ball to the basket and miss or turn the ball over is Bad. If you get a assist or a hockey assist, you created the play and it's good. If the guy who receives the first pass, decides to shoot instead of passing to the next open man and misses, he gets the bad mark, not the guy that created the play. My main beef with Tracy is that he never seems to truly run the floor. He also needs to let the PG handle the PG duties and try moving without the ball. I hate when he jogs from three point land to three point land just to jack up jumpers, especially when he's covered. One other thing I want to point out is that this [wekko368] guy doesn't know what he's talking about so don't let him get under your skin. Sad but true. Personally he seems to be full of hot air and jacking up his post # along the way.
huh? lol talk about avoiding the point here coz you are wrong. Ok, let me re-re-iterate that you agreed that Yao has huge impact on a play even if its the subsequent pass after his pass out of double team that leads to a bucket. Now, we are saying the same thing about TMac but you clearly twists it and disagree with it, this is not about giving an "assist" to TMac, it is him making the "right" play and having a "positive" impact by making that pass, got it now? Ok, first the irony comment is for the above point. Here you clearly said it should be negative if TMac attacks the basket and misses... because it is an easy shot right? Ok in that case everytime you miss, it is in effect a negative by your definition, because if you miss a contested shot it is bad and if you miss an easy wide open shot it is negative (or neutral as you agree now). I guess you have seen the illogical reasoning because at least now you agreed that it should at worst be neutral. Maybe I made a good point there to change your mind, anyways.. ok next Maybe if he doesn't wait, you will yell that he never passes to Yao and is selfish ballhog?? I am not making excuses, YOU are making assumptions. Your point is only valid if there is a fast break opportunity and TMac decides to just not run, then you can call him lazy. If you are just saying that he doesn't bring the ball up the court full steam every single time, then by that definition, all PGs in this league not named Nash are lazy. You changed your stance again from "Sure, we may win against lesser teams, but overall, gundyball has a detrimental impact on the team." to gundyball is fine as long as we dont meet halfway with motion offense.. lol I guess I debunked your theory that Gundy ball maybe not be so bad afterall. Anyways, the fact is this is exactly what we need to do, meet halfway. With two super talents like Yao and TMac you would be wasting their talent if we play pure motion offense. A pure motion offense is basically to mask the lack of superstars who can create offense. A great well oiled motion offense like Sac still got beat year after year by two superstars, thats not an exact indication of what will happen everytime, but its food for thought. If you can't name 5 jumpshooters in the NBA who takes contested 18 footer jumpshots, I don't know what else to say to you.... seriously.
When did I say that the originator of a hockey assist, whether it be tmac or yao, isnt an important part of the play? All I said was that I value the actual assist more than the hockey assist. If you interpret that as me saying yao is god and tmac sucks, then thats your choice. Got it? I said that based on the original good/bad/neutral criteria, missing a contested layup with no foul called should be rated as bad. Keep in mind that i'm following the preset criteria. Since you continually ignore me when I say this, i'll repeat: Keep in mind that i'm following the preset criteria. As I've said many times, I believe that tmac is most effective when he's penetrating. First of all, theres a huge difference between coming up the court full steam and coming up the court in a leisurely jog. Just b/c I dont want him to be lazy doesnt mean that I expect him to go full steam every play. Secondly, I said that tmac should move at a quicker pace than yao up the court. If you disagree with that, well....I dont know what to tell you. Once again, you fail to comprehend what I said. I'll explain it very clearly for you. Rick Adelman was brought in, and he prefers a motion offense. As of now, we havent fully mastered this offense. So reverting back to gundyball prevents us from implementing the motion offense. If our ultimate goal is a fluid motion offense, constantly playing gundyball will prevent us from achieving our goal. Thats what I meant when I said it had a detrimental impact on the team. When we continually switch back and forth between gundyball and the motion offense, we can beat the lesser teams. This isnt indicative of either playing style. Its actually a testament to the talent of our players. I cant explain it any clearer than that. How many championship teams implement multiple styles of offenses with the same 5 players on the court during a game? You need to understand that I'm speaking in terms of goals and the obstacles to achieve the goals. If our goal is a motion offense, we shouldnt rely so much on gundyball. I personally believe that gundyball would be the best way to go for our team. We just need more reliable role players. Again you misunderstand. I wasnt talking about regular contested jumpers. I'm talking about contested fadeaways. Why is it that everytime i say "fadeaway", you say "jumper"? They're not the same thing.
sigh, dont want to argue with you anymore because you seriously have selective memory. One sentence for you that will explain how much you know about basketball ALL FADEAWAYS ARE CONTESTED! Which idiot would hit fadeaways when they are uncontested? Got it??
When all is said and done, the great passes that tmac throws are worthless if they dont result in baskets. The most important part of the play is the part that scores the points. So when the opposing coach looks at the game film, is he going to be angrier that tmac drew multiple defenders for 5 straight plays or that hayes was left open for layups for 5 straight plays? Goodbye.
We can assume that most shots superstars take are contested. But very well...if you'd like, you can ignore the word "contested." The words you should focus on are "jumpers" and "fadeaways". When you're 18 feet away, theres a big difference in shot quality. Do you really think you can list 5 players who shoot fadeaways from 18 feet? Please dont reply with names of players who shoot jumpers from 18 feet away.
I already did you just don't agree Vince Carter Kobe Bryant Tracy Mcgrady Jamal Crawford Ben Gordon Jason Richardson all boys i noticed shooting fadeaways from around 18 foot away in highlights over the last 5 days.
first I don't know what you watch, but TMac rarely takes any fadeaways, let along 18 ft ones because he is always so much taller than his defender that he just shoots over them. He does have a signature turnaround fadeaway that he shoots, but thats like 1 a game if any.
Shoot to add to bbjais list Kevin Martin Michael Finley Wade seems like a lot of the atheletic skill guys that can use it to seperate themselves from the defender likes to use the fadeaway.
I watched the nba.com highlights for the nets. Didnt see any Carter fadeaways past 8 feet against the Hawks, Heat, and Bucks. Against the timberwolves, he did try a fadeaway 3 as the final buzzer expired in an attempt to tie the game (nets lost 95-98). Even though those were extenuating circumstances, I'll give you credit for it. Ben Gordon has only played 1 game in the last 5 days (vs Sac). I watched the nba.com highlights and didnt see any fadeaways. I watched the nba.com highlights for the bobcats. Didnt see any richardson fadeaways against the nuggets, warriors, kings, or clippers. I watched the nba.com highlights for the knicks. Didnt see any richardson fadeaways against the jazz, blazers, or sonics. I didnt bother checking Tmac and Kobe. I know they both do (thats why I mentioned them before) So in summation, the other 4 players you named shot a total of 1 fadeaway and it was a desperate attempt to tie the game at the buzzer. I know that fadeaways typically arent made and thus arent usually in highlights, but bbjai said he saw them in highlights.
How can a "signature" move be performed at most once a game? In the past, he's taken a lot of fadeaways b/c his height, elevation, and the added separation from jumping backwards allow him to.
