RealGM

Ben Wallace played his best ball at PF, but plays Center for us.

Andres Nocioni came billed strictly as a SF, but has spent a lot of time playing SF.

Kirk Hinrich has played SG in college, but, on the NBA level, his size and his game seem more suited to PG, as he has always ranked highly, if not in Assist, in Assists per 48.

Did any of you ever dream in a million years, after watching Chris Duhon play Robin to Jay Williams' Batman, that Duhon would EVER IN HIS LIFE play a single minute at Shooting Guard?

While the case may seem more clear cut with these players who, coincidentally, are our biggest underperformers on the season, similar questions seem to surround others.

Is Ben Gordon a SG or PG? (I say SG, but the question has been raised and still doesn't seem to be settled.)
Wasn't there talk of playing Deng at SG for some time? (Although I consider that a bit far-fetched).
Is Tyrus Thomas a SF or PF? (Consensus says PF.)

I'm not so much looking for answers to these specific questions, although conjecture is welcome, but raising the concern that there may be too much ambiguity about position with our current roster.

Does anyone else feel that this is a concern?

This is a problem that arises when you keep drafting the best available player and collect assets as Pax has done. Its a real problem on the court, but if the assets perform (which they are not) it could actually give you more flexibility when trading.

Basically, only Loul (SF) and Duhon (PG) fit their positions.

shorter list. who doesn't

I manage people. One of my foundational management principles is that people work better if they have a feel for what their role is. I cannot micromanage every situation. If someone KNOWS what they are supposed to do under what circumstances and what I expect of them? They more often than not succeed and if they do not I have explicit metrics/behaviors that I can address with them. They are able to act without hesitation (or less at least) because they go "hey, that's my job!" Without this understanding, my experience is that most folks will say "maybe that's somebody else's job" OR, the high achievers will say "maybe that's my job, nobody else is doing it, so why not?" and they will butt heads with the other high achievers.

But

None of my folks are professional athletes who have been focused on one arena as their focus since before they had facial hair. So I admit it's a bit different

But

My observations of this team suggest roles, or solid rotations, might help

Cliff Levingston isn't confused about what their true positions are, but they obviously aren't in the correct places at the moment:

- Ben Gordon would be most effective at the 1, given the right system and given plenty of time to adapt his game accordingly. His size simply does not allow for him to play the 2 for many teams both offensively and defensively, including us.

- Kirk Hinrich would be most effective at the 2 alongside a play-making 1 like Baron Davis, Chris Paul or even T.J. Ford. His ball handling and passing are good but he's not creative enough with the ball to be a primary initiator of the offense, so he'd be best used a spot up shooter who's primary value to a team is doing an effective job defending the opposition's best perimeter player.

- Aside from ideal bulk, Tyrus Thomas is and always has been a 4 in the NBA. Pretty much the same thing can be said of Noah and the 5 position.

- Thabo Sefolosha's best position would be the 3 but he can defend most 2's and even 1's effectively due to his length and quickness. His current lack of shooting ability makes it hard to play him at the 2.

Andres Nocioni is probably the only one who really suffers from position confusion. He's the classic tweener; too small for the 4 (his better position) and too flat footed/slow for the 3. He truly does not, and probably will never have a true position.

Our biggest problem right now (other than just the general sucktitude of the players) is that our system is primarily geared around the 1 and 2 positions and we have the completely wrong personnel playing those spots right now. Switch Hinrich and Gordon and we'll be a little more effective this season but the change would be marginal at best.

I think it's a large problem. I also think it compounds into other problems, such as no one outside of Gordon having a defined role on the team.

I kind of felt bad for Kirk at the beginning of the game when I noticed he was matched up against Johnson. I know Kirk has been less than acceptable this year, but he's simply physically outmatched in that scenario. Thabo is a good defender, but I don't expect him to keep up with Tyronn Lue. I believe Noce was playing center at one point yesterday, as well, but it was difficult to discern with Deng, Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon on the floor with him. Or maybe it was Griffin instead of Duhon. Does it matter?

Good point.

Deng, Duhon and Nocioni know and have known what they're doing. Duhon is just a terribly inconsistent scorer, so I think he knows where he stands, so I can't knock him.

Hinrich, Gordon, Thomas, Noah, Wallace and Sefolosha have NO clue where they belong.

Cliff Levingston wrote:
- Ben Gordon would be most effective at the 1, given the right system and given plenty of time to adapt his game accordingly. His size simply does not allow for him to play the 2 for many teams both offensively and defensively, including us.

- Kirk Hinrich would be most effective at the 2 alongside a play-making 1 like Baron Davis, Chris Paul or even T.J. Ford. His ball handling and passing are good but he's not creative enough with the ball to be a primary initiator of the offense, so he'd be best used a spot up shooter who's primary value to a team is doing an effective job defending the opposition's best perimeter player.

- Thabo Sefolosha's best position would be the 3 but he can defend most 2's and even 1's effectively due to his length and quickness. His current lack of shooting ability makes it hard to play him at the 2.

Our biggest problem right now (other than just the general sucktitude of the players) is that our system is primarily geared around the 1 and 2 positions and we have the completely wrong personnel playing those spots right now. Switch Hinrich and Gordon and we'll be a little more effective this season but the change would be marginal at best.

I think Cliff is so on target and our coaches & GM are so off target it makes me ill.

I agree with a lot of what Cliff said except that I'd flop Hinrich and Gordon. But I do think they have hybrid offensive games, both of them. I'd like to see them used interchangeably, switching roles throughout the game.

Other than that, I think most of our guys should have set positions. Its just that they aren't really being used that way (like Cliff says).

Deng is a 3.

Tyrus is a 4.

Noah is a 5 who can play some 4.

Chapu is a 3.

Duhon is a 1.

Gray is a 5.

Smith is a 4.

And I don't want to talk about Wallace today. The Hawks/Knicks games have me too frustrated.

DuckIII wrote:And I don't want to talk about Wallace today. The Hawks/Knicks games have me too frustrated.

Cliff Levingston would put him at the FAN position; at home, on the couch, playing with his kids.

This thread reminds me of the old commercial that NBA-TV used to show a lot back in it's infancy.

Was Jerry West a PG or a SG?

MJ?

The Big O?

Pistol Pete?

AI?

When MJ first came into the league, he spent much more time (and was infinitely more effective) driving to the basket than he did shooting jumpers. Did that make him a SF, since he wasn't a very good shooter?

Scottie was our primary ball-handler and distributor, was he a PG or a SF?

Back in the 1970's, was Sloan the PG and Norm the SG or the other way around?

When Houston had Hakeem and Sampson, who was the PF and who was the C?

Unless a player is a "pure" PG ala Magic or Stockton, or a "pure" C like Wilt or Kareem, he usually is a 2/3 or a 3/4 or a 4/5.

So why do people try to pigeon-hole players into one set-in-stone position? If a guy can play, he can play, and he'll find his way onto the court.

People overblow the Hinrich-isn't-a-point-guard thing. He's not especially creative and definitely not flamboyant, but he's an effective point guard. He's a better scorer than passer (except this year), but he's still better as a point.

Bullsville wrote:So why do people try to pigeon-hole players into one set-in-stone position? If a guy can play, he can play, and he'll find his way onto the court.

Preach on, brother Bullsville!

This insistence on pigeonholing players into arbitrarily created "positions" confounds me to no end.

Even in this thread, there is not agreement. Cliff Levingston says Noch's best position is 4, whereas DuckIII says he is a 3.

Sham wrote:People overblow the Hinrich-isn't-a-point-guard thing. He's not especially creative and definitely not flamboyant, but he's an effective point guard. He's a better scorer than passer (except this year), but he's still better as a point.

Excellent point.

When Tyson was a Bull, people kept saying he wasn't a center, he's a PF.

I think the Hornets would disagree.

Tyson, with that build, should be a power forward. But he just isn't. It's beyond the point now where he'll ever be fluent in any way with the ball, or ever a comfortable offensive player. He'll just be his awkward but occasionally useful self.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Bullsville wrote:This thread reminds me of the old commercial that NBA-TV used to show a lot back in it's infancy.

Was Jerry West a PG or a SG?

MJ?

The Big O?

Pistol Pete?

AI?

When MJ first came into the league, he spent much more time (and was infinitely more effective) driving to the basket than he did shooting jumpers. Did that make him a SF, since he wasn't a very good shooter?

Scottie was our primary ball-handler and distributor, was he a PG or a SF?

Back in the 1970's, was Sloan the PG and Norm the SG or the other way around?

When Houston had Hakeem and Sampson, who was the PF and who was the C?

Unless a player is a "pure" PG ala Magic or Stockton, or a "pure" C like Wilt or Kareem, he usually is a 2/3 or a 3/4 or a 4/5.

So why do people try to pigeon-hole players into one set-in-stone position? If a guy can play, he can play, and he'll find his way onto the court.

Didn't see enough of West.

MJ and AI- can't get much more shooting guard (early or late in MJ's career)

A true point guard is the distributor, pass first guard. Not all teams have a true point.

A shooting guard doesn't have to shoot, just score.

A small forward is essentially the same player as the 2, they are both wings. Ideally the SF is slightly bigger than a SG, but their roles are the same, score.

In todays NBA the 4 and 5 are interchangable, with the 4 being more fleet of foot, and the 5 being more defensive minded and bigger.

FWIW, Tyson is #32 in the NBA in efficiency this season.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp

There are only a few players ahead of him who aren't current or former All-Stars.

That being said, I still understand why Pax traded him, his last season here was a complete bust.

And that being said, I still wish he was a Bull.

I wish he was a Bull, too. I still watch plenty of game tape from previous years, and even during Tyson's worst stretch, he'd still the knack of just always being there on the defensive glass. We don't have anyone like that now. Even Ben Wallace's rebounds come arduously.

But oh well. Tyson packed his own bags. Good for him that he sorted it out.

Gregnice33 wrote:Didn't see enough of West.

MJ and AI- can't get much more shooting guard (early or late in MJ's career)

MJ usually led the Bulls in assists, especially early in his career. Shouldn't a PG lead the team in assists?

A true point guard is the distributor, pass first guard. Not all teams have a true point.

So how can a team play offense without a true PG? Exactly.

A shooting guard doesn't have to shoot, just score.

Bruce Bowen? Raja Bell? The 1993-94 Bulls, who had Pete Myers as their SG? No scorers here.

A small forward is essentially the same player as the 2, they are both wings. Ideally the SF is slightly bigger than a SG, but their roles are the same, score.

Dennis Rodman played SF almost exclusively for the Bad Boys, and he wasn't much of a scorer. But he used to make Scottie his bitch back in the day.

In todays NBA the 4 and 5 are interchangable, with the 4 being more fleet of foot, and the 5 being more defensive minded and bigger.

My point exactly.

Ben Wallace is confused. He thinks that he's a leader.