RealGM

If you had a shot to build around one of these combos, who are you going with?

melo/bosh for sureeeeee


gil = chuckfest
amare = no d

kcthekid wrote:melo/bosh for sureeeeee


gil = chuckfest
amare = no d

Shoot first? FOR SURE.

Shoot a tad bit too much? DAMN straight

Chucker? NOPE.

God, I am SO sick of hearing that.

VintaGe36 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Shoot first? FOR SURE.

Shoot a tad bit too much? DAMN straight

Chucker? NOPE.

God, I am SO sick of hearing that.

Especially when he's saying he'd take Melo...hehe

Not even close. Melo and Bosh are the 2 best players in this thread.

The duo without Arenas.

Melo and Bosh would compliment each other so well.

Melo/Bosh for sure.

AA would be nasty.

Their statline would be like

54pts 15reb 9assists

Illuminati wrote:The duo without Arenas.

Melo and Bosh would compliment each other so well.

Man, there's a lot of Arenas hate on this board. It's amazing how if you repeat a myth over and over, people accept it as gospel.

Myth: Arenas is an inefficient chucker.
Fact: Arenas had the thirteenth-best offensive rating in the league last year among the 113 players averaging at least 17 points per 40 minutes. Offensive rating encompasses points, assists, shot attempts and turnovers.

Myth: Arenas doesn't pass
Fact: Arenas was 19th in assists per minute among players who average at least 30 minutes per game. That's not bad when you consider that he was also 5th in scoring.

Myth: Arenas makes his teammates worse.
Fact: Arenas had the third-highest on/off differential in the league last year. Better than Lebron. Better than Kobe. Better than Duncan. Only Nash and Nowitzki were higher. The Wizards were incomprehensibly bad when Arenas was off the floor. They were outscored by a whopping 12 points per 100 possessions. (For comparison, the worst team in the league, Memphis, was outscored by about 5 points per 100 possessions.)When Arenas was on the floor, their on/off differential was 4th-best in the East.

I'd go with Arenas/Stoudemire. Stoudemire's perimeter shot would open things up for Arenas to slash, and Arenas' perimeter shot would keep teams from packing in on Amare. All that team would need is 3 defensive-minded role players and they're easy to find.

melo and bosh

I like the inside/outside combo of Stoudemire and Arenas more than the mid-range and in game of Melo and Bosh.

I'd still take 'Melo and Bosh, personally.

Arenas is a fine player and all and Amare is nasty but I'd rather have 'Melo and Bosh. They actually have more consistent range than the Arenas/Amare pair (Arenas has the 3point range but Amare only gets out to around 18 feet and both Bosh and 'Melo are comfortable from 22 feet and in while occasionally hitting threes).

Melo and Bosh as a pair are more capable of getting shots for themselves and are less reliant on structured offensive situations than is Amare, for example (I'm deliberately avoiding Gil here because he can obviously create a shot whenever he pleases). More to the point, Arenas' range is a crutch; he's got some of the worst shot selection I've ever had the displeasure of seeing whilst watching basketball.

He takes a sinful number of threes per game that cannot be attributed to the offense or end-of-shot-block bailouts or any of that crap. If you're taking 6+ threes a game, you're Ray freaking Allen or you're getting beaten with a stick. Arenas has taken 6.1, 7.0, 6.8 and 7.9 3PA/g the last few years and took 6.5 per game in his 8 games this season; that's unacceptable for a guy who's never been a 40% shooter in his career from that range. I'm much happier with Melo and Bosh working much closer to the basket and rebounding a lot better.

On the surface, an Areas/Amare combo would be nicer on account of the inside/out game but miller31time is wrong; Melo/Bosh isn't mid-range pure, they're inside-out just as well.

Bosh likes to start from around 20 feet and Melo likes to start in the high post, they complement one another perfectly as a forward pair.

Funny that the Wiz fans are the ones who would take their duo.

Not hating, because I would take Dwight in most threads.

And I do think Gil gets a lot of heat for being a shoot first point guard.

melo/bosh. Arenas's team is doing betta without him lol and Stoudamire aint so good to his team either.

cbosh4mvp wrote:melo/bosh. Arenas's team is doing betta without him lol and Stoudamire aint so good to his team either

Suns are only a top team in the NBA with Amare afterall.

cbosh4mvp wrote:melo/bosh. Arenas's team is doing betta without him lol and Stoudamire aint so good to his team either.

nate33 wrote:Man, there's a lot of Arenas hate on this board. It's amazing how if you repeat a myth over and over, people accept it as gospel.

Myth: Arenas is an inefficient chucker.
Fact: Arenas had the thirteenth-best offensive rating in the league last year among the 113 players averaging at least 17 points per 40 minutes. Offensive rating encompasses points, assists, shot attempts and turnovers.

Myth: Arenas doesn't pass
Fact: Arenas was 19th in assists per minute among players who average at least 30 minutes per game. That's not bad when you consider that he was also 5th in scoring.

Myth: Arenas makes his teammates worse.
Fact: Arenas had the third-highest on/off differential in the league last year. Better than Lebron. Better than Kobe. Better than Duncan. Only Nash and Nowitzki were higher. The Wizards were incomprehensibly bad when Arenas was off the floor. They were outscored by a whopping 12 points per 100 possessions. (For comparison, the worst team in the league, Memphis, was outscored by about 5 points per 100 possessions.)When Arenas was on the floor, their on/off differential was 4th-best in the East.

And the "Wizards are better without Arenas" argument, which was laughably ridiculous to pretty much everyone a month ago, doesn't even stand anymore based on record. We were, at this time last season, one of the top teams in the East (at one point #1, actually). And now, we're clinging on to the 6th seed and 3 games below .500. So no. No we aren't.

Miller31time,

Bit of a tangent based on that post: what's your thoughts about the 'offensive rating' stat? Nate cited it in reference to Arenas, but I'm a little leery of it...I'm partial to any stat that installs Jose Calderon as the greatest offensive player in NBA history, but rational people might question its validity on those grounds.

Schadenfreude wrote:Miller31time,

Bit of a tangent based on that post: what's your thoughts about the 'offensive rating' stat? Nate cited it in reference to Arenas, but I'm a little leery of it...I'm partial to any stat that installs Jose Calderon as the greatest offensive player in NBA history, but rational people might question its validity on those grounds.

I take nearly every statistic with a heaping grain of salt. Offensive rating isn't something I use in my analysis of anyone's offensive capabilities (that's not to say it can't be useful, though), as I mainly reference eFG%, TS%, PER, and +/- (though +/- is HIGHLY flawed).

When nate points to Gilbert being an extremely efficient offensive player, he isn't just citing offensive rating as his basis. It's a combination of a multitude of stats that all seem to be pointing in the same direction.

As for Calderon, he is ridiculously efficient, whether you pay attention to advanced stats or not. The man is putting up, what, 50fg%, 40 3pt%, 90ft%, 61 eFG%, 64 TS% and a PER of 23.37, while getting significant minutes? That's incredible, IMHO.

miller31time wrote:
As for Calderon, he is ridiculously efficient, whether you pay attention to advanced stats or not. The man is putting up, what, 50fg%, 40 3pt%, 90ft%, 61 eFG%, 64 TS% and a PER of 23.37, while getting significant minutes? That's incredible, IMHO.

Arenas and Calderon are in different situations offensively though, so it's hard to compare them directly based on type and significance of defensive attention.

Schadenfreude wrote:Miller31time,

Bit of a tangent based on that post: what's your thoughts about the 'offensive rating' stat? Nate cited it in reference to Arenas, but I'm a little leery of it...I'm partial to any stat that installs Jose Calderon as the greatest offensive player in NBA history, but rational people might question its validity on those grounds.

Offensive rating is a measurement of offensive efficiency. It's slightly more comprehensive than TS% because it also factors turnovers and assists.

Calderon is certainly a more efficient scorer than Arenas, but then you have to take scoring volume into account. I doubt Calderon could maintain such a a high offensive rating while scoring 28 points per 40 minutes.

My point was that Arenas is very efficient relative to other first option scorers.