Mike Brown explains why he won't play Goudelock

[chubby_1_kenobi]

What's wrong with what he said? I think he's right, Goudelock doesn't bring enough on offense to make up for his defense.

So he brings in an older, even worse defender in Steve Blake (who provides even less of an offensive punch BTW) to anchor the D?

Blake is a below average defender. Still many times better than Goudelock.

The same guy who couldn't keep Derek Fisher from blowing by him last week?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[RocketPower23]

Try this on for size, Blake has played 600 more minutes than Goudelock, and has scored in double figures once more than Goudelock. He really isn't a "stats" guy.

[Asianiac_24]

What's wrong with what he said? I think he's right, Goudelock doesn't bring enough on offense to make up for his defense.

So he brings in an older, even worse defender in Steve Blake (who provides even less of an offensive punch BTW) to anchor the D?

Blake is a below average defender. Still many times better than Goudelock.

Blake is not many times better than Goudelock on defense. I'd argue that Goudelock is a better defender too. Goudelock can literally bring EVERYTHING Blake brings to the table and more.

Entry pass? check.
Spacing? G-Lock is 10x better.
Penetration? G-Lock is still 10x better with his teardrop.
Defense? Even.
Playmaking? Both have none, so its a moot point.

How Blake is still getting minutes despite the Lakers actually having decent PGs (Sessions/Goudelock) is mind-blowing.

[goldenarmz97]

What's wrong with what he said? I think he's right, Goudelock doesn't bring enough on offense to make up for his defense.

So he brings in an older, even worse defender in Steve Blake (who provides even less of an offensive punch BTW) to anchor the D?

Blake is a below average defender. Still many times better than Goudelock.

Blake is a horrible defender, we haven't seen enough from Goudelock to truly evaluate his defense. With that said, if they're both bad defenders, I'm going to at least play the guy that can counter their bad defense with an offensive spark. Derek Fisher lit Steve Blake up, I don't think it gets any worse than that.

[RocketPower23]

That's falling for a very old trick. Goudelock scored in double digits for... 5 games.

Like many rookies, he looks good when you use splits like "when he plays more than x minutes". It's hugely misleading though, because people often confuse the causation effect. Coaches leave rookies on the floor when they are playing well and producing (which with guys like Goudelock means shooting the ball well and putting up points). That's why there's a correlation between high minutes and high production.

Implying he's good when he gets the opportunity to play +20 mpg is simply wrong. It's the other way around.

Your theory is equally problematic and you've slightly shifted from your original point (defensively).

[droponov]

Goudelock was already a putrid defender in college. He isn't any better in the NBA. Blake being the worst defender in the NBA is typical 12-year old over-emotional ranting.

Kids tend to underrated journeymen like Blake - especially the unathletic ones like Blake - and overrate rookies and young players. Goudelock is a shooter who makes way too many mistakes defensively and offensively to send a steady hand like Blake to the bench.

Goudelock will be incredibly lucky if he ends up having a Steve Blake type of career - if he becomes as good as Steve Blake. Heck, he'll be fortunate if he's still in the league the season Blake retires.

[droponov]

That's falling for a very old trick. Goudelock scored in double digits for... 5 games.

Like many rookies, he looks good when you use splits like "when he plays more than x minutes". It's hugely misleading though, because people often confuse the causation effect. Coaches leave rookies on the floor when they are playing well and producing (which with guys like Goudelock means shooting the ball well and putting up points). That's why there's a correlation between high minutes and high production.

Implying he's good when he gets the opportunity to play +20 mpg is simply wrong. It's the other way around.

Your theory is equally problematic and you've slightly shifted from your original point (defensively).

My theory is problematic why? There's nothing problematic about it.

I haven't shifted my point. I was just explaining why using stats like "when rookie x plays y minutes he puts z numbers, see how good he is when he gets minutes" is quite frequently misleading. They get minutes when they're good.

[B-Scott]

The games Goudelock averaged double digits was when Blake was out with the injury and Goudelock averaged 10.3 points a game as backup PG and shot 51 percent.

He was playing a consistent 20 minutes during that 7 game stretch he was backup PG and averaged those numbers. Also there was a couple of games he could have had 18 to 20 points, but Mike brow would take him out when he had 12 ot 14 when he was hot and put Fisher back in

[AllzGudInDaHood]

I don't know if the criticisms on Goudelock's defense are even valid. For the most part, I haven't remembered him being noticeably bad and constantly lit up when he was getting time. I do remember in a preseason game against the clips him being able to stay in front of Paul better than everybody else.

[LascelleL]

They could have gotten Rick Aldleman

[Wone]

i love mike brown. he makes me feel good.

[chubby_1_kenobi]

They could have gotten Rick Aldleman

Still stings like a biatch for me.

[RatherUnique]

That's falling for a very old trick. Goudelock scored in double digits for... 5 games.

Like many rookies, he looks good when you use splits like "when he plays more than x minutes". It's hugely misleading though, because people often confuse the causation effect. Coaches leave rookies on the floor when they are playing well and producing (which with guys like Goudelock means shooting the ball well and putting up points). That's why there's a correlation between high minutes and high production.

Implying he's good when he gets the opportunity to play +20 mpg is simply wrong. It's the other way around.

I've watched the majority of the games LA has played in. Their primary issue is they have ZERO three point shooting. Not from Kobe, Barnes, Artest, nor Blake & such poor spacing really hurts the offense's efficiency.

Blake goes through stretches where he doesn't even score, whereas Goudelock is a superior three point shooter which is something the Lakers need & he always seems to put points up on the board. I don't understand why Brown keeps yo-yoing the Glock's minutes like that especially when Blake literally gives them nothing offensively most of the time in addition to his poor D.

[RocketPower23]

dropnov, do you mind explaining or perhaps show what exactly makes Goudelock a terrible defender. I don't watch college basketball and since you seem certain about it, I've just read a handful of draft reports saying he's at least a decent defensive player, so anything in particular.

[Wasabi_Johnson]

From what I seen from Goudelock limited to play he has only been terrible on D when he is defending other SGs. SGs scored at will on him. When defending PGs he is a little below average. On par with Blake at worse. Anybody who thinks Blake is still the pesky defender he use to be is fooling themselves..