rockymac52 wrote:Deeptu McPullup wrote:I have concern with both guys in that, despite all the glue-gooped oohs-n-ahs (or would that be "ooze-n-ahs"?), we don't end up being that much more effective than if we just rolled with a designated hitter of a squat-n-plop corner 3 man.
The corner 3 is the best shot in basketball with Webster giving an outright silly 1.8 PPS from the right corner. It's an easy, low risk release valve that sets the stage for "kind of a big deal around here" guys to create high percentage rimshots as you preemptively put paid to the slinking charlatans who'd otherwise clog the keyhole with double teams.
Beal is elite in the left pocket, but you'd be remiss to have him hanging a hammock there and taking a nap for 36 minutes. I can't help but think we can get by with a specialist at the other wing slot and commit our resources better up front. There's a reason the mid-range game is lamented as a lost art by the old timers.
Are Dipo or Porter going to generate better offensive looks and final outcomes than we could have gotten with a cheap specialist who plays at least respectable defense? Maybe, but I expect the drop off there is less than the difference between the bigs we're going to have and what we might be able to do up front if we used the third pick to bait the hook.
Really great points, deeptu. I'm definitely going to have to research this further before I fully formulate my opinion on the matter, but at first glance, I think you're onto something here.
At first glance, we don't appear to have a long-term starter at SF at the moment. But if we bring back Webster at a reasonable rate, which it sounds like we probably can, then we clearly have 2 very capable, above average but not great by any means SFs in Webster and Ariza. Neither blows you away or has any real chance of developing into a great player at this point in their careers. But they both bring something to the table.
To oversimplify this, Ariza is a fantastic on-ball defender, and a capable offensive player with solid 3 point range and an ability to penetrate and drive. Webster is a phenomenal 3 point shooter, and while his defense leaves a lot to be desired, it's not quite awful either.
Before reading your post, I was inclined to think that we could use a long-term solution at SF, and that Porter and Oladipo both sounded like perfect fits. Guys who could do a little bit of everything on both sides of the ball, who were hard workers and maybe didn't project to ever be a star caliber player, but were virtually a lock to at least be "good" all-around role players.
But now I'm reconsidering that notion. First of all, Webster and Ariza both have their strengths and weaknesses, but their skill sets actually complement each other perfectly, in the sense that what one lacks, the other seems to have. I'd go so far as to say if you combined Webster and Ariza into 1 player, he might be an all-star. Their diverse skill sets allow us to have a great deal of flexibility with our rotations, and we can rotate the two of them in and out depending on the matchups and specific need for any given point in a game. Come the fourth quarter, they make it incredibly easy to make substitutions for offense/defense. So while we might not have one SF that is great on both sides of the ball, a real star, we at least have a SF for any given situation. Having such a complementary combo of SFs might arguably be better than having one very good SF who is good all-around, but not great at any one thing. That's what we'll have to explore further.
Then there's the point you raised about cheap alternatives at SF. Webster last season was a perfect example of what you're talking about. Hell, there's a good chance that Webster will still be a huge bargain value-wise after we re-sign him, as he'll only be making about $3-4 million a year I suspect. But I'm inclined to agree with you here, as I feel confident saying that in any given offseason, there's probably a solid handful of overlooked wings who are phenomenal 3 point shooters, especially from the corner, and who aren't absolutely awful on D, that can be had for less than $3 million a year. On the other hand, I can't say the same for backup big men, at least off the top of my head. Part of the problem is that I think it's harder for a big man to make an NBA roster if he's a "specialist." What can a big man realistically specialize in that is important enough to outweigh his lack of other skills. I guess there's a couple stretch 4s in the Novak mold (although many might consider him a SF anyways), but having a 3 point specialist at PF hurts your team a lot more than having one at SF, IMO. It's important that your big men can defend the opposing bigs, because as good as a guy like Novak is at shooting 3s from the corner, he has absolutely no shot at defending even an average PF, let's say Patrick Patterson. However, even if your 3 point specialist SF is awful on defense, he is still probably more capable of trying to stop the opposing team's SF, because the opposing SF is at least likely to take a few jumpers here and there, and no matter how good of a shooter are, you will always miss some shots. The same can't necessarily be said for a big man shooting within 5 feet of the rim. They could do that all day, IMO.
Again, you brought up a very intriguing point, and I'm going to have to research this further. It might just be enough to convince me that Porter and Oladipo are not the ideal picks for us at 3, and that we might be better off trying to draft a big man - whether it's Bennett, Len, Zeller (probably not at 3), or Noel.
