RealGM

It is apparent that Hornacek has everyone on the team pushing the pace at every opportunity. I believe we are in the top three in pace for the league.

I think it is more about how many possessions you get and what you do with them. Those are the teams that end up winning the games.

When we had Nash and Amare running the pick and role along effective three point shooters we dominated most teams if we could stay even or close on possessions. The key was that we always seemed to get great shots while shooting a great percentage. Virtually every year we shot over 50 %.

My belief is that the most important stat is points per shot attempt: In the day Amare was at 1.5 points per shot which was legendary. Prior to him the only one in history in the same zip code was Barkley at 1.46. That included Jordan, Kareem and everyone else. I think Lebron is at or above that number along with Curry. We have one player in that category but he cannot get on the court.

This is how our current roster performs from high to low: Obviously the higher the number all the better

#1 - Goodwin 1.54
#2 - Chandler 1.34
#3 - Booker 1.32
#4 - Len 1.30
#5 - Bledsoe 1.28
#6 - Mirza 1.26
#7 - Leuer 1.22
#8 - Warren 1.20
#9 - Knight 1.18
#10 - Price 1.15
#11 - Tucker 1.04
#12 - Morris .94

Why is Goodwin glued to the bench?
Why does Tucker play at all?
Why don't we run more legit plays for Chandler, Len and Booker when they are on the court?
Why is Knight allowed to chuck away?
Why in the world does Price get any court time?
Morris can not longer be blamed, he is on the bench.

Hornacek really need to get a clue. His rotations have been horrendous and our offensive flow worse. The ball seems to far too often end up in the wrong hands.

We really need a change. I wish that were not the case but I cannot stand watching this crap much longer.

Archie has played in 13 games this season and taken a grand total of 44 shots ( super small sample size). Bledsoe or Knight take that many shots every 2-3 games. For reference, Booker has taken 93 shots so far, and Knight has taken 460 shots. Archie is completely irrelevant to this team and has a very low ceiling. He was a poor player in college, and has under achieved as a pro. I don't think he has ever been considered a good player in his college or pro career. The only people who consider him as having upside are a handful of posters on this board.

Cutter wrote:Archie has played in 13 games this season and taken a grand total of 44 shots ( super small sample size). Bledsoe or Knight take that many shots every 2-3 games. For reference, Booker has taken 93 shots so far, and Knight has taken 460 shots. Archie is completely irrelevant to this team and has a very low ceiling. He was a poor player in college, and has under achieved as a pro. I don't think he has ever been considered a good player in his college or pro career. The only people who consider him as having upside are a handful of posters on this board.

I don't think this is quite true. I remember him being mocked as a lottery pick in early mock drafts. He fell quite a bit, obviously, but at one point he was a pretty highly regarded prospect

He was highly regarded until he started playing. Once he actually started playing, he dropped like a rock as a draft prospect. Suns completely rolled the dice and burned a late 1st round pick for him. They rolled the dice and it came up snake-eyes.

Cutter wrote:Archie has played in 13 games this season and taken a grand total of 44 shots ( super small sample size). Bledsoe or Knight take that many shots every 2-3 games. For reference, Booker has taken 93 shots so far, and Knight has taken 460 shots. Archie is completely irrelevant to this team and has a very low ceiling. He was a poor player in college, and has under achieved as a pro. I don't think he has ever been considered a good player in his college or pro career. The only people who consider him as having upside are a handful of posters on this board.

You dont like the way Archie plays aesthetically we get it.
But in game he got over 15 minutes he has averaged close to 10 points. And his per 36 when he plays 15 minutes and more is good for his age at around 17ppg 6rpg 3apg and a steal. That was last year. He isnt smooth, but he scores easily in the paint when he drives. Yes sometimes he will hit a wall and finish poorly but the impressive feat is the ability beat his man and get into the paint.

He has elite slashing ability and athleticism and he is a raw shooter. But this season he has improved his jump shot and 3pt shooting mechanics and skills. Thats with almost very limited game time either NBA or D league. Basically it safe to assune he still has high room for improvements. The question is whether thats on the Suns or another team.

Zach LaVine looked awful too early last season. But with consistent game time he has adjusted and his confidence has allowed him to improve rapidly. This is how I feel about Goodwin. But Hornacek has his ideal players on the court... He wants shooters and wins via his vision.

Archie is shooting 18.2% from 3 this year, and he is in his 3rd year. Not sure that reflects good shooting mechanics. However I will say this is up from the 13% shooting from 3 his rookie year.

I just don't understand the unwarranted optimism people have for Archie. I am a total optimist, dare I say homer, for young players like Booker, Warren and Len. They display positive skills and growth that indicate potential to develop into something special. Archie has done none of those things. It's ok to be hopeful, but it is important to also be realistic. Archie has never been considered a good player in either college or as a pro. Due to his athleticism he was touted highly as a prospect coming out of high school. But once he started playing at Kentucky and scouts saw him in action he dropped like a rock in the draft.

I would love for Archie to prove me wrong, and I will gladly eat a big helping of crow. I don't however think this will happen.

Puff wrote:It is apparent that Hornacek has everyone on the team pushing the pace at every opportunity. I believe we are in the top three in pace for the league.

I think it is more about how many possessions you get and what you do with them. Those are the teams that end up winning the games.

When we had Nash and Amare running the pick and role along effective three point shooters we dominated most teams if we could stay even or close on possessions. The key was that we always seemed to get great shots while shooting a great percentage. Virtually every year we shot over 50 %.

My belief is that the most important stat is points per shot attempt: In the day Amare was at 1.5 points per shot which was legendary. Prior to him the only one in history in the same zip code was Barkley at 1.46. That included Jordan, Kareem and everyone else. I think Lebron is at or above that number along with Curry. We have one player in that category but he cannot get on the court.

This is how our current roster performs from high to low: Obviously the higher the number all the better

#1 - Goodwin 1.54
#2 - Chandler 1.34
#3 - Booker 1.32
#4 - Len 1.30
#5 - Bledsoe 1.28
#6 - Mirza 1.26
#7 - Leuer 1.22
#8 - Warren 1.20
#9 - Knight 1.18
#10 - Price 1.15
#11 - Tucker 1.04
#12 - Morris .94

Why is Goodwin glued to the bench?
Why does Tucker play at all?
Why don't we run more legit plays for Chandler, Len and Booker when they are on the court?
Why is Knight allowed to chuck away?
Why in the world does Price get any court time?
Morris can not longer be blamed, he is on the bench.

Hornacek really need to get a clue. His rotations have been horrendous and our offensive flow worse. The ball seems to far too often end up in the wrong hands.

We really need a change. I wish that were not the case but I cannot stand watching this crap much longer.

Points per field goal attempt? You would be better off using True Shooting Percentage, which represents the best measure of scoring efficiency and which accounts for free throw attempts and three-point field goal attempts. (By the way, the Suns sometimes shot .500-plus with Nash and Stoudemire, but not virtually every year.) Gooden's True Shooting Percentage, at .552, is good yet not extraordinary. The problem is that he fails to convert his free throws, and he has also committed more turnovers than assists. I would like to see him play more, but right now he is basically a one-trick pony that Hornacek does not trust in terms of winning games.

Your mistake, in my view, is citing this "points per shot" stat as some sort of key to the basketball universe. First, as I wrote, True Shooting Percentage is the best measure of scoring efficiency, which seems to be the point of your argument. Chandler and Len respectively rank eighth and ninth on the team in that category, in part because they are not good free throw shooters. Second, a statistic such as "points per shot"—or even True Shooting Percentage—has to be understood in context. Stoudemire posted a "legendary" figure in large part because of the system that he was playing in and the point guard that he was playing with. In those days, some fans constantly complained that Stoudemire needed to be receiving even more shots and touches because he proved so efficient, but he was only so efficient because Nash understood the system and deftly reacted to the defense's coverage of the pick-and-roll. Force-feeding the ball to Stoudemire when good opportunities for him did not exist, rather than swinging the ball out to an open three-point shooter such as Raja Bell or Leandro Barbosa, would have diminished Stoudemire's efficiency.

The same principle, in more muted form, applies to Len, Chandler, and even Booker. Len and Chandler can be efficient in selective circumstances, but not in bulk form. The ability to combine efficiency with volume is what makes one a real star—something that Len and Chandler are not. (Note that a lot of supposed stars, such as Derrick Rose, are not real stars because they are inefficient.) Booker, meanwhile, is a nineteen-year old still learning the NBA and the game. Give him major responsibility right now and watch his efficiency decline. Frankly, his present level of efficiency is a total fluke because Booker is shooting .630 on threes in a small sample (27 attempts). Do you actually expect him to maintain that rate? Yes, he can clearly shoot, but even Stephen Curry does not shoot .630 on threes.

Why is Knight allowed to "chuck"? First, he has not been inefficient this season with a respectable True Shooting Percentage of .544. Again, True Shooting Percentage is the best measure of scoring efficiency. Second, he is one of only two players on this team who can consistently create his own offense right now. He combines elite quickness with deep range, rendering him a major weapon. Ideally, he would not be attempting 17.0 field goals per game, but the Suns are not in an ideal situation. Until they significantly improve the forward positions, they will have to live with their current imbalance where the starting guards combine for 33.9 field goal attempts per game, split nearly perfectly down the middle.

Why does Tucker play at all? He defends, whereas T.J. Warren is still learning how to play NBA-level defense. Why does Ronnie Price play? Again, he defends, and unlike Goodwin, he can shoot a little.

The Suns push the pace because they possess no hope of winning any other way. There is no low-post option on offense and Bledsoe and Knight are speed-based guards who are most dangerous in transition or the open floor. Strategically, Hornacek knows exactly what he is doing. He is currently hamstrung by an imbalanced and problematic roster, a muddled situation where the Suns are attempting to compete for a playoff spot yet develop some very young players—who should still be learning the game in college—simultaneously, and by a lack of contract security. Maybe he is not the right choice to motivate this roster, but he understands the game and the data just fine. The right data needs to be used, and then it needs to be contextualized correctly.

By the way, True Shooting Percentage figures can be found here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2016.html

Another worthwhile, if imperfect, metric—Real Plus-Minus—can be found here:

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

Anyone who believes that the Suns possess a good roster right now is, in my opinion, deluding himself. Phoenix is probably one player away from making the playoffs as a 30-something win eighth seed (that one player could have been Markieff Morris, but we know how that matter turned out) and two players away from being anything more than extremely mediocre. And by "players," I mean quality starting-level players, specifically at forward.

i dont believe points per shot attempt is the most important stat, but its amazing how the gut feel of this board echoes with advanced stats. I used to defend Tucker, for the simple reason that i wasnt really impressed with TJ Warren, but now hes indefensible. Bottomline is Tucker and Price should sit and Warren and Goodwin should play more.

I wonder what the first auto response to the subject of this thread (especially after the other one) for everyone was.

blacksun wrote:i dont believe points per shot attempt is the most important stat, but its amazing how the gut feel of this board echoes with advanced stats. I used to defend Tucker, for the simple reason that i wasnt really impressed with TJ Warren, but now hes indefensible. Bottomline is Tucker and Price should sit and Warren and Goodwin should play more.

Tucker is an enormous liability offensively, but he plays defense and regains some value there. The issue is not so much "advanced stats," but trying to reflect the total game through empirical measures. Many fans just do not pay attention to defense.

Another thing about Goodwin. He plays against scrubs while obviously 5 or more others play primarily against starters. And if you never shoot, but only go to the rim, your point per shot is going to be better...part of the reason he was so good early in this stat. He did end up becoming a pretty good shooter though.

And this is the third thread you have started with the same intent. That's probably one too many so leave it at that.

This is certainly interesting to see. I agree Tucker shouldn't play. Defense is admittedly hard to measure and I am admittedly biased against Tucker, but I haven't seen his typical stellar D this year consistently either, and that just doesn't justify playing time when he's offensively inept.

As for Chandler, he only shoots alley oops because he's a self aware player who knows his strengths and weaknesses, so he's going to look more efficient than he is. He's like Deandre who always is near the to of the league in FG% despite being unable to shoot outside of 3 feet.

I'd like Goodwin to get some of Price's minutes.

AtheJ415 wrote:This is certainly interesting to see. I agree Tucker shouldn't play. Defense is admittedly hard to measure and I am admittedly biased against Tucker, but I haven't seen his typical stellar D this year consistently either, and that just doesn't justify playing time when he's offensively inept.

As for Chandler, he only shoots alley oops because he's a self aware player who knows his strengths and weaknesses, so he's going to look more efficient than he is. He's like Deandre who always is near the to of the league in FG% despite being unable to shoot outside of 3 feet.

I'd like Goodwin to get some of Price's minutes.

There is still a huge difference between Tucker's defense and Warren's, though—probably about as big as the offensive difference in Warren's favor, especially when one considers that Warren is not that effective offensively when the game lacks "flow."

Just in the first half tonight, Tucker made some difference-making defensive plays, whether muscling up against Tyreke Evans and denying him the ball on one possession or diving into the paint at the last moment to plug the lane against the roll man and force the ball back outside for a three-point shot against a (late) rotating defender, resulting in a miss. Just a handful of plays like that per game can make a tangible defensive difference (tangible for the team, if not in the box score), especially when the alternative is a passive second-year defender who lacks strength and savvy on that end of the floor.

I understand the argument for Warren; I am just saying that the defensive difference is pretty large and, really, neither Tucker nor Warren should be starting right now. The Suns need a starting-caliber small forward, and they could then bring Tucker or Warren off the bench on a situational basis.

GMATCallahan wrote:

AtheJ415 wrote:This is certainly interesting to see. I agree Tucker shouldn't play. Defense is admittedly hard to measure and I am admittedly biased against Tucker, but I haven't seen his typical stellar D this year consistently either, and that just doesn't justify playing time when he's offensively inept.

As for Chandler, he only shoots alley oops because he's a self aware player who knows his strengths and weaknesses, so he's going to look more efficient than he is. He's like Deandre who always is near the to of the league in FG% despite being unable to shoot outside of 3 feet.

I'd like Goodwin to get some of Price's minutes.

There is still a huge difference between Tucker's defense and Warren's, though—probably about as big as the offensive difference in Warren's favor, especially when one considers that Warren is not that effective offensively when the game lacks "flow."

Just in the first half tonight, Tucker made some difference-making defensive plays, whether muscling up against Tyreke Evans and denying him the ball on one possession or diving into the paint at the last moment to plug the lane against the roll man and force the ball back outside for a three-point shot against a (late) rotating defender, resulting in a miss. Just a handful of plays like that per game can make a tangible defensive difference (tangible for the team, if not in the box score), especially when the alternative is a passive second-year defender who lacks strength and savvy on that end of the floor.

I understand the argument for Warren; I am just saying that the defensive difference is pretty large and, really, neither Tucker nor Warren should be starting right now. The Suns need a starting-caliber small forward, and they could then bring Tucker or Warren off the bench on a situational basis.

Tucker is a good defender, although he has sunk in on D way too much in this half and is amazingly lucky that NO has missed so many 3s. Open 3s are the worst thing you can give up. Providing extra help on a mid-level difficulty 2 is not worth giving up an open 3. Regardless, at the end of the day, he's a 30+ year old, one way, role player who is a bad starter at the SF position league wide, provides no extra leadership or teaching values to the younger players, and is too old to fit our team's age window. He has no place on this team long-term, and frankly shouldn't be getting Warren's, a guy who does fit our window and who is as good overall, minutes. Relative ties in play on the court in these scenarios should go to the younger player for a team like Phoenix, particularly when the older player is in his last guaranteed year.

blacksun wrote:i dont believe points per shot attempt is the most important stat, but its amazing how the gut feel of this board echoes with advanced stats. I used to defend Tucker, for the simple reason that i wasnt really impressed with TJ Warren, but now hes indefensible. Bottomline is Tucker and Price should sit and Warren and Goodwin should play more.

Another note is that "points per shot attempt" is indeed an attempt at an "advanced stat"—an attempt at measuring scoring efficiency and the effectiveness of a scorer beyond points per game or field goal percentage. However, "points per shot attempt" represents a crude and archaic attempt because, in effect, it counts free throws made yet not free throws attempted, pumping statistical juice into the top half of the fraction while failing to apply the corresponding measure to the denominator. Thus distortions can flourish. True Shooting Percentage, which has actually been around for at least a decade, measures what "points per shot attempt" attempts to gauge yet does so with far more accuracy and with mathematical logic.

Some "advanced stats," such as PER, Win Shares, and Defensive Rating for individual players, are basically junk. Others are better. True Shooting Percentage is an excellent statistic, although one should also account for field goal percentage, especially given that made baskets better enable a team to set up its defense. Real Plus-Minus, while imperfect, is much better than unadjusted plus-minus (or PER, or Win Shares) in attempting a comprehensive measure, especially if one understands its limitations.

The issue, of course, is that people's random opinions about what they believe they are "watching" (not necessarily "seeing") are not reliable, either, especially since they often end up reflecting media cliches.

Its one stat, and not even a very good one. Achie doesn't pass the eye test right now. Agree with you about PJ though.

AtheJ415 wrote:

GMATCallahan wrote:

AtheJ415 wrote:This is certainly interesting to see. I agree Tucker shouldn't play. Defense is admittedly hard to measure and I am admittedly biased against Tucker, but I haven't seen his typical stellar D this year consistently either, and that just doesn't justify playing time when he's offensively inept.

As for Chandler, he only shoots alley oops because he's a self aware player who knows his strengths and weaknesses, so he's going to look more efficient than he is. He's like Deandre who always is near the to of the league in FG% despite being unable to shoot outside of 3 feet.

I'd like Goodwin to get some of Price's minutes.

There is still a huge difference between Tucker's defense and Warren's, though—probably about as big as the offensive difference in Warren's favor, especially when one considers that Warren is not that effective offensively when the game lacks "flow."

Just in the first half tonight, Tucker made some difference-making defensive plays, whether muscling up against Tyreke Evans and denying him the ball on one possession or diving into the paint at the last moment to plug the lane against the roll man and force the ball back outside for a three-point shot against a (late) rotating defender, resulting in a miss. Just a handful of plays like that per game can make a tangible defensive difference (tangible for the team, if not in the box score), especially when the alternative is a passive second-year defender who lacks strength and savvy on that end of the floor.

I understand the argument for Warren; I am just saying that the defensive difference is pretty large and, really, neither Tucker nor Warren should be starting right now. The Suns need a starting-caliber small forward, and they could then bring Tucker or Warren off the bench on a situational basis.

Tucker is a good defender, although he has sunk in on D way too much in this half and is amazingly lucky that NO has missed so many 3s. Open 3s are the worst thing you can give up. Providing extra help on a mid-level difficulty 2 is not worth giving up an open 3. Regardless, at the end of the day, he's a 30+ year old, one way, role player who is a bad starter at the SF position league wide, provides no extra leadership or teaching values to the younger players, and is too old to fit our team's age window. He has no place on this team long-term, and frankly shouldn't be getting Warren's, a guy who does fit our window and who is as good overall, minutes. Relative ties in play on the court in these scenarios should go to the younger player for a team like Phoenix, particularly when the older player is in his last guaranteed year.

... depends on who is shooting the three, where the three is coming from, whether the opposition is hot, the opposition's confidence level and the rhythm of the game at that juncture, whether the next defender is rotating, and so forth. On the play that I was referring to, and probably some of the others, the roll guy would have likely had a shot in the basket area, perhaps of the point-blank variety. And on the play that I was referring to, the shooter was Eric Gordon, who is a good three-point shooter generally yet was ice-cold in this game. Strategies based on "analytics" do not necessarily account for the exigencies and contingencies of particular games and situations.

Anyway, regarding Tucker's defense in more of a big-picture sense, he ranked twenty-eighth among small forwards in Defensive Real Plus-Minus in '13-'14 at +0.05.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2014/sort/DRPM/position/5

Last season, in '14-'15, he ranked twentieth at +0.60.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2015/sort/DRPM/position/5

And this season, in '15-'16, he currently (entering tonight, at least) places seventeenth at +0.62.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM/position/5

So the data does not suggest that his defense has declined at all. Now, I am not saying that even advanced plus-minus data is definitive or inarguable, but the consistency here indicates that Tucker is still the same defensive player. He is a very aggressive, very physical, fairly disruptive defender who puts pressure on opponents. He lacks the athleticism and height to prove elite, but he compensates in ways that render him above-average. And his seventeenth-place standing in Defensive Real Plus-Minus right now contrasts dramatically to Warren's eightieth-place standing.

I do not know that Tucker provides no intangible value. He plays harder than anyone on the team and competes as well as anyone, and there may be a little intangible value in those qualities.

Regardless, my view is that Warren is not ready to play thirty-five minutes per game and he needs to earn additional time. The best incentive to improving one's defense is the carrot of additional playing time and the stick of the bench. If one is not forced to play better defense, one may never play it: see Amar'e Stoudemire, for instance. And besides, Warren has been playing a lot in the fourth quarter. I am not sure of Hornacek's exact strategy, but if he wants Warren to increase his playing time by improving his defense, I agree with that philosophy.

GMATCallahan wrote:

AtheJ415 wrote:

GMATCallahan wrote:
There is still a huge difference between Tucker's defense and Warren's, though—probably about as big as the offensive difference in Warren's favor, especially when one considers that Warren is not that effective offensively when the game lacks "flow."

Just in the first half tonight, Tucker made some difference-making defensive plays, whether muscling up against Tyreke Evans and denying him the ball on one possession or diving into the paint at the last moment to plug the lane against the roll man and force the ball back outside for a three-point shot against a (late) rotating defender, resulting in a miss. Just a handful of plays like that per game can make a tangible defensive difference (tangible for the team, if not in the box score), especially when the alternative is a passive second-year defender who lacks strength and savvy on that end of the floor.

I understand the argument for Warren; I am just saying that the defensive difference is pretty large and, really, neither Tucker nor Warren should be starting right now. The Suns need a starting-caliber small forward, and they could then bring Tucker or Warren off the bench on a situational basis.

Tucker is a good defender, although he has sunk in on D way too much in this half and is amazingly lucky that NO has missed so many 3s. Open 3s are the worst thing you can give up. Providing extra help on a mid-level difficulty 2 is not worth giving up an open 3. Regardless, at the end of the day, he's a 30+ year old, one way, role player who is a bad starter at the SF position league wide, provides no extra leadership or teaching values to the younger players, and is too old to fit our team's age window. He has no place on this team long-term, and frankly shouldn't be getting Warren's, a guy who does fit our window and who is as good overall, minutes. Relative ties in play on the court in these scenarios should go to the younger player for a team like Phoenix, particularly when the older player is in his last guaranteed year.

... depends on who is shooting the three, where the three is coming from, whether the opposition is hot, the opposition's confidence level and the rhythm of the game at that juncture, whether the next defender is rotating, and so forth. On the play that I was referring to, and probably some of the others, the roll guy would have likely had a shot in the basket area, perhaps of the point-blank variety. And on the play that I was referring to, the shooter was Eric Gordon, who is a good three-point shooter generally yet was ice-cold in this game. Strategies based on "analytics" do not necessarily account for the exigencies and contingencies of particular games and situations.

Anyway, regarding Tucker's defense in more of a big-picture sense, he ranked twenty-eighth among small forwards in Defensive Real Plus-Minus in '13-'14 at +0.05.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2014/sort/DRPM/position/5

Last season, in '14-'15, he ranked twentieth at +0.60.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2015/sort/DRPM/position/5

And this season, in '15-'16, he currently (entering tonight, at least) places seventeenth at +0.62.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM/position/5

So the data does not suggest that his defense has declined at all. Now, I am not saying that even advanced plus-minus data is definitive or inarguable, but the consistency here indicates that Tucker is still the same defensive player. He is a very aggressive, very physical, fairly disruptive defender who puts pressure on opponents. He lacks the athleticism and height to prove elite, but he compensates in ways that render him above-average. And his seventeenth-place standing in Defensive Real Plus-Minus right now contrasts dramatically to Warren's eightieth-place standing.

I do not know that Tucker provides no intangible value. He plays harder than anyone on the team and competes as well as anyone, and there may be a little intangible value in those qualities.

Regardless, my view is that Warren is not ready to play forty minutes per game and he needs to earn additional time. The best incentive to improving one's defense is the carrot of additional playing time and the stick of the bench. If one is not forced to play better defense, one may never play it: see Amar'e Stoudemire, for instance. And besides, Warren has been playing a lot in the fourth quarter. I am not sure of Hornacek's exact strategy, but if he wants Warren to increase his playing time by improving his defense, I agree with that philosophy.

Tyreke Evans and Eric Gordon can shoot 3s, so no, this isn't a "he was following the scouting report", scenario. And the plays I was referring to were, for example, one in which Ish Smith was attacking the hoop right to left, Bledsoe was in solid position to contest on Ish's right shoulder, and Len was on the opposite side of the hoop ready to contest, and where the proper help is supposed to come in that scenario. The wing defender on the right is not supposed to leave a good 3 point shooter on a drive towards the left, the left help defender is supposed to. And when I say left, I mean relative to Ish, and towards the left half of the paint. Ish simply dribbled and made an easy cross hoop pass to the then WIDE OPEN shooter. It was Tucker's fault, unequivocally. He's a good defender but that was a bad play, and he had a few of those today that he got bailed out on due to misses, as did some of our other players.

I'm not saying Tucker's D has declined at all. I'm just saying he did a worse job than the numbers will show tonight. I think he's a good defender. Not sure where you're going with his defensive numbers.

And, if you believe this is all a carrot for Warren, then why has Tucker, at no point, been given a carrot of playing offense? He is the worst offensive starting SF in basketball. He is absolutely inept at that side of the court. You discuss his starting as if it's some matter of fact, obvious thing, but it's not. He is an orange cone offensively, who kills spacing for everyone else, can no longer even hit a wide open 3, and only is good at muscling up shots from right beneath the hoop. His offensive efficiency is down substantially this year, and he has no upside. None of what you posted points to any evidence that PJ can help this team long-term when it is actually ready to win, and that's why I believe he has no role on this team. I never advocated that he can't play defense right now. My problem is his age and that he can't play on the offensive end.

TJ Warren is the #2 player in PER in his draft class, and he's sitting behind arguably the worst starting SF in basketball. He doesn't need to be ready to play 40 minutes a night to start. Tucker isn't ready to play 40 minutes per night either. Not sure what the point is there. Nobody expects him to play that many minutes. What I want is for Warren to start, play 30 minutes a night, and for us to get somebody young who could help us long-term get those remaining minutes, or perhaps put Booker, who is tall enough to play the 3, in for those minutes.

Also, TJ does play defense. Being 80th in the NBA is not a non-defender. There are a lot of teams and a lot of players, and so this isn't a "he may never play D or want to improve" scenario. He already has improved on that end from his rookie year.

Reminds me of the Cal Poly team on NUMB3RS. Bunch of nerds out there trying to figure out how to play basketball better by calculating the trajectories of their shots. I don't mind using statistics to analyze, but when those stats are telling you stupid things, you have to recognize its stupid.

You can make numbers say anything. The simple fact is that Archie is NOT better than Knight or Booker and he is NOT a pg so he is not playing over Price. If Price gets less minutes, Booker should get more, not Archie.

BTW all basketball geeks out there-- and I say that lovingly because I am one. What is wrong with this video basketballwise.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpnilLugXko[/youtube]