winforlose wrote:1. I have not been doom and gloom. I have correctly pointed out that roster construction is important and that we are dangerously thin at PG. The people who say PG doesn’t matter are the same people who say let Ant or NAW bring it up. Then you listen to Finch saying we lost because we took the ball out of Mike’s hands and made bad decisions late in the game. Not to mention Ant frequently saying he does not want to play on ball because it makes him more of a facilitator and less of a threat. NAW proved he lacks the handle and BBIQ to properly run point, which is why when he plays with Ant he often goes off ball guard instead of on ball guard. We have a 37 year old starting PG, and an undersized rookie PG with a lot of uncertainty. But it’s okay because we have Jingles (the guy who struggled at PG in Orlando last year,) and Dozier (who wasn’t even in the league last year,) oh and Nix on a two way (the all time GOAT at pointing at people after dunks and looking stunned when something cool happens.) Bottom line, the level of risk is higher than I like, and I am not alone in this position.
So point guards are the only ones who can make good decisions?
Look, I admire your dedication to this conviction you have about the point guards. However, I think where I vary the most is that I don't come at this from a perspective of my own personal basketball ideology. I come into this argument looking at the ideology of two individuals: Chris Finch and Tim Connelly.These are the individuals who constructed a roster and a system that isn't reliant on one player to set everything up.
“I'm not a big fan of these heliocentric offenses.” - Chris FinchNext, I would like to focus on what I believe to be a misrepresentation of comments Finch has made in the past.
Taken from your post above:
Then you listen to Finch saying we lost because we took the ball out of Mike’s hands and made bad decisions late in the game.You are obviously interpreting this comment as "we lost because Mike didn't have the ball", whereas my interpretation of that comment is "we lost because we made bad decisions". Now let's take a few quotes taken directly from the head man himself: (
h/t Britt)
"I think we have got some guys who have become really comfortable trying to – well wanting to – break off the offense early; trying to get into an iso (isolation) game."
"I think (that is because of ) our reluctance – or at times frustration – to just kind do something for each other early in the (shot) clock; sometimes it has been there and not others. I’m not sure exactly why but when you add it all up it is still … there is room for growth and we need to keep trying to hammer down on those things.”
"The deal I have always tried to strike with those guys is you have the freedom to do your thing in the flow of the offense but you also have the responsibility to keep the offense going."
"But it feels sometimes like guys are forcing it. They have to do a better job of making the offense work for them and everybody else."These aren't quotes saying "I need to find someone else to give the ball to" but rather "these guys need to make better decisions". Now of course roster turnover happens every year, so technically they did have to find other players with the departures of Kyle Anderson, Jordan McLaughlin and Monte Morris. Enter a guy like Rob Dillingham.
But there's one thing that's easy to forget (I know, because I forgot about it as well): Chris Finch is a big believer in pushing the pace.
This is a great writeup from early on in Finch's Minnesota tenure, discussing his time in New Orleans:
Although Finch and Head Coach Alvin Gentry had a generational big man in Davis and another of the league’s best bigs at the time in Cousins, the predominant feature of the Pelicans’ offense was the pace at which they played. Here is Bourbon Street Shots’ Lead Writer Shamit Dua on what that pace did for New Orleans’ offense.
“Both Gentry and Finch loved to play at a breakneck pace and operated under the premise that shots in the first eight seconds of the shot clock tend to be the most efficient. They didn’t hesitate to push off made baskets and always had defenses on tilt, frequently forcing cross matches due to the speed of play. They had many clever actions designed to get either a good look at the rim or an open three early in the clock and gave all players the freedom to take advantage of this.
This style of play requires a good bit of offensive improvisation and on bad nights can lead to a lot of turnovers. However, when it’s clicking, it’s some of the most entertaining basketball to watch.”
The most intriguing part about Shamit’s transition analysis is denoting the freedom in which Finch’s gameplan gives his players to make plays (and mistakes) on the break. That doesn’t just mean Lonzo Ball or Ricky Rubio, it means anyone who can willingly start a break and bend broken defenses to their will. This allows team’s coached by Finch to play at that high velocity all of the time, without having to worry about getting the orange to a traditional ball-handler before starting the break.As the article notes, Jarred Vanderbilt was one of the first players who we really saw do this on a regular basis. But at the end of the day, he's Jarred Vanderbilt. We swapped that role out largely for Kyle Anderson, but I think the Mo was too Slo for what Finch was trying to push here. Naz pushes it sometimes, but transition offense has been sorely lacking.
It's why Jordan McLaughlin was often such a safety blanket for Finch, and why he played more than Morris down the stretch.
"He creates pace, gets off it early, we just play with a different tempo...his shot making...is super high level."
"He creates great pace. Gets us into our stuff clean. That early ball movement was what we were kind of lacking at times. He’s really a catalyst for that."Like I said earlier, enter a guy like Rob Dillingham. There will be zero concern about whether Dillingham will push the pace in transition. This is why he will find an immediate role in the lineup. Not because he's a point guard. Because he's a blur.
)
