The-Power wrote:TT isn't able to guard Thomas regularly. Anyhow, I agree that there are still offensive roles and that Point Guards in particular are the ones who initiate offense primarily. But still, what is LeBron's position? What is Harden's, what is Beverley's? Livingston's and Igoudala's? The main point is: traditional position labels are becoming more and more obsolete and Bell can be, if we want to continue using labels in this discussion, be a 4 on defense while filling a role on offense that is more expected from 5's in today's game. But even then, what is a 5 on offense these days?
I agree positional labels are becoming obsolete, but it's really just short hand for a description of a player. Like if I say someone plays like a 1, you immediately get a sense of what the person's game would be like. I would say Lebron functions as a 1 on Cleveland. He's the primary distributor and Kyrie plays more like a 2, or a scoring guard. Harden again plays like the 1 while Beverly is more like a spacing defending 2. Livingston, while being the primary back up 1, in actuality probably is more a wing (2/3) now a days and backs up Klay. He rarely played without Curry by the end of the season. Iguodala is a playmaking 3/defender.
Tweener has a negative connotation and I'm not sure it fits Bell – just like it didn't fit Green. His ability to guard bigger players will in a significant way impact his ceiling, I agree. But I'll say this: if Bell is able to guard 4's at an elite level while also being able to switch onto 1-3's and 5's then he'll be a valuable player regardless of whether he can guard most C's every possession.
Tweener does have a negative connotation from a few years back, but now people are looking for versatility, and tweener isn't as bad anymore especially if you can guard multiple positions. But the main use for Tweener in this case is if Bell were 3 inches taller, would we really be having this discussion of whether or not Bell is a 4 or 5?
Yes Bell can be a valuable player, though he will gain his most value if he's capable of holding down the 5. If he can't hold down the 5 he becomes a niche specialist, even more so if Curry weren't on his team. How many defending 4s that can't shoot or have any offensive game are even in the league? There's a few defensive 3s that have moved down to the 4 recently in LRMM and James Johnson.
Incidentally, the team that drafted Bell for us could have really used him next to Markkanen who would then play the 5 most of the time. Or imagine him next to Jokic. More and more Centers are able to shoot the ball (and facilitate from the high post) and Bell is a natural fit with them on both ends. Davis actually already plays a lot of minutes at the 5 for the Pelicans, just not as a starter.
If you play Bell and Markkanen together, you still have the same problem, neither can guard beefy 5s out of the gate. Will Bell be able to, that's going to determine his long term outlook. Next to Jokic, could be nice, but again, if you have a facilitator out in the high post, why would you want someone in the low post clogging the lane with more bodies than having a stretch option and having a wide open lane? Theoretically teams would just put their 5 on Bell and just clog up the lane.
Allen is an entirely different case. He's not worth his defense when he can be completely disregarded on offense by the opposing team. Meanwhile Bell has a) the chance to impact team defense at a higher level than Allen and b) more tools to punish teams for cheating off him on the other end. Look no further than McGee. He can't shoot at all, yet he in fact raised our offensive ceiling considerable. Bell isn't McGee athletically, but being able to catch lobs and grab offensive boards is worth something on offense and, on the right team, might actually raise your ceiling.
McGee raised our ceiling because he's a 5 and a fantastic finisher when the floor is optimally spaced. Add another big body next to McGee that clogs the lanes and that ceiling drops since it seems like you've conceded that Bell isn't going to be the only big on the floor anyway. Now if he's playing with someone like Dirk or Curry, Bell will most likely be very useful regardless of who else is on the floor.
Other example. In the final game of the Finals we changed our offense a bit as a reaction to Cleveland not guarding Green, Igoudala and Livingston at the perimeter. So what we did was changing their position on the court, putting them in spots where they are close to the rim rather than out at the perimeter. If you have three good 3pt shooters out there is can definitely be effective. So what we're probably do when teams cheat off Bell is to let him be in spots where he can catch the ball close to the rim and, if he doesn't receive the pass, crash the offensive glass. He should also be effective in the PnR when his man rotates over to the ball handler because Bell with a straight lane to the rim should be quite effective as he's quick, can finish strong, put the ball on the floor if necessary and facilitate on the move. We have to wait and see but it's premature to consider him someone who limits our ceiling as a 4 – there are ways to make him effective on offense even without a shot and without playing with four shooters around him.
To be fair having Iguodala and Livingston in the finisher spots worked wonders because you had Deron Williams trying to protect the basket rather than a normal rim protector like TT. If the Cavs had decided to play big rather than match up small those dunks wouldn't have been there.
It maybe premature to consider a 4 with limited offensive abilities as one who limits your offensive ceiling, but that's what the evolution of the game has been pointing towards. If you want to take the stance against that evolution, as you've chosen to do, well it could happen, although signs point to it being unlikely.
In your characterization, Bell would serve as a finisher and that's something we really need. Who else on our team is as effective as an athletic finisher as Bell? Durant of course, and then there's McGee (a bit more limited than Bell but more effective in what he can do). Igoudala can do it at times and Jones might be able to get there similar to McGee but I don't expect him to play much next year. But on our team, Bell absolutely does not need to be anything more than someone who can finish above the rim, run the floor and play within our offense (player and ball movement).
I agree with this. I'm just saying it would be best for the team if Bell is able to do so as the 5.
Sure, pair him with Kidd-Gilchrist and Greg Monroe and you're going to struggle with that frontcourt on offese. But on our team I don't see why Bell would limit our offensive ceiling just because he can't shoot and/or fill out only one role when playing that role is exactly what we need of him. As I wrote above, McGee helped us tremendously on offense – much more than he did on defense – and he's even more limited and one-dimensional on offense than Bell.
Mcgee helped us tremendously when he was the 5. Play Mcgee as a 4 and another big next to him and do you still believe that he raises the ceiling of our team offensively? Because that's what it seems like you're alluding to and that just seems absurd.
As stated above, playing the 4 or 5 on offense actually isn't easy to determine anymore. If you insist on using traditional positions, we should distinguish between offense and defense. So I'll say: Bell can be a 4 on defense and a 5 on offense. And given that many 5's are capable of doing things mostly 4's could do a couple years ago that's not necessarily an issue.
Also, let's see how Bell is used off the ball. You said he would be clogging the lanes but he might just as well be able to fill the lanes as a cutter. Let him screen off the ball and cut to the rim, why wouldn't West be able to play his game with him then? Bell moves around really well, so I'm not too worried about him clogging any lanes – I'm rather optimistic that he can use them himself.
If it helps we can use role terms rather than positional terms. But having two strictly just finishers out on the floor is not conducive to elite offensive basketball.
The thing is if you play with a 5 that is capable of doing what most 4s could do then you're negating the advantage that they're creating by playing a traditional big with them. Yes it could work, but it wouldn't be optimal and you're lowering the offensive 5's impact by negating his advantages that he would be creating.
Theoretically speaking on pure offense, which team do you think will be able to score better?
McCaw, Young, Iguodala, Casspi, West or McCaw, Young Iguodala, Bell, West?
