Suuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeeeeeeee!!
Now we all know that you are a closet lover of B Grade action flicks!!
How many more wins without Mcminus?
Moderators: fatlever, JDR720, Diop, BigSlam, yosemiteben
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
Your question has an easy answer, Hamilton... I continue to not play Jeff McInnis, because he is a terrible NBA player. I have confidence in my ability to evaluate NBA talent, because even a group of guys on a message board recognize his awfulness, and hopefully I have at least some ability as an NBA coach.
But then, starting game #1 against Milwaukee, I don't play Jeff McInnis for more than 12 minutes a game. I know ahead of time, as an observer of the NBA, that Jeff McInnis is among the worst players in the NBA, and so do not play him.
As you are fond of saying, it's really not that complicated. He's awful, and you don't play him. Every minute that he played more than absolutely necessary was a mistake on the part of Sam Vincent. Every minute that the roster was set up so that he was our only PG setup was a mistake by our front office.
It would not have been a "courageous" or "surprising" move to not play Jeff McInnis. It would have been completely defensible. Most opinions that I read were surprised that he was playing so much. So I don't really buy the "he was trying everything" angle, because he might as well have tried the "have Okafor cut" plan, it would have made as much sense.
But then, starting game #1 against Milwaukee, I don't play Jeff McInnis for more than 12 minutes a game. I know ahead of time, as an observer of the NBA, that Jeff McInnis is among the worst players in the NBA, and so do not play him.
As you are fond of saying, it's really not that complicated. He's awful, and you don't play him. Every minute that he played more than absolutely necessary was a mistake on the part of Sam Vincent. Every minute that the roster was set up so that he was our only PG setup was a mistake by our front office.
It would not have been a "courageous" or "surprising" move to not play Jeff McInnis. It would have been completely defensible. Most opinions that I read were surprised that he was playing so much. So I don't really buy the "he was trying everything" angle, because he might as well have tried the "have Okafor cut" plan, it would have made as much sense.
-
W_HAMILTON
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,453
- And1: 16,996
- Joined: Jun 13, 2004
-
Then you're saying we would have done better if he had not been playing, to which I ask -- why weren't we playing better? We had almost two months without McInnis as our starting PG. Why did we suck more than when he was our starting PG?
Your answer might be that McInnis shouldn't have been playing at all, and I would accept that as an answer from you, since I don't believe you were one of the ones trying to run Knight out of here with his head on a stick the past few seasons. But quite a few of the other people wanted Knight out of here, they wanted a PG that wouldn't be good enough to challenge Felton as the starting PG, and they got their wish (well, sort of).
And to fatlever, I must not have been thinking...the reason why I didn't bring up what you said I should have brought up in this situation is a pretty simple reason; you don't make excuses for being "first," or being the best. Why would I have to defend McInnis, or make excuses for him when we were winning more with him, scoring more with him, shooting better with him, etc? That's the job of the supporters of the other PG, explaining why we won more, scored more, shot better, etc. with the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad PG than we did with Felton. They've yet to come up with a suitable excuse, but I damn sure know they've spent the last few months trying!
And I've decided that 4 losses is the most you can attribute to McInnis.
Your answer might be that McInnis shouldn't have been playing at all, and I would accept that as an answer from you, since I don't believe you were one of the ones trying to run Knight out of here with his head on a stick the past few seasons. But quite a few of the other people wanted Knight out of here, they wanted a PG that wouldn't be good enough to challenge Felton as the starting PG, and they got their wish (well, sort of).
And to fatlever, I must not have been thinking...the reason why I didn't bring up what you said I should have brought up in this situation is a pretty simple reason; you don't make excuses for being "first," or being the best. Why would I have to defend McInnis, or make excuses for him when we were winning more with him, scoring more with him, shooting better with him, etc? That's the job of the supporters of the other PG, explaining why we won more, scored more, shot better, etc. with the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad PG than we did with Felton. They've yet to come up with a suitable excuse, but I damn sure know they've spent the last few months trying!
And I've decided that 4 losses is the most you can attribute to McInnis.
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
Yeah that's about right, I would have played McInnis as little as possible from day one. The fact that he starts or doesn't is not as important as his minutes, which were about double as long as they needed to be.
I think your estimate of 4 losses is fair, and actually the statistics back you up. By +/-, McInnis cost the Bobcats 4.5 points per 100 possessions he was on the floor. He played about half the game, and our games are 90 possessions long on average, so that's about 45 possessions, or around 2ppg. This is rather simplistic, but 2 points of scoring margin per game is a difference of approximately 4 wins so far this season; we go from 22 expected wins to 26.
The thing that I would imagine could actually magnify the difference McInnis made is that his eliminated playing time has been coupled with a huge rise in Dudley's, who makes a HUGE difference for us in his time on the court. This is not directly McInnis' fault... I would have given Dudley more minutes if McInnis weren't playing, but not as many as he's getting now, because Wallace is out.
I think your estimate of 4 losses is fair, and actually the statistics back you up. By +/-, McInnis cost the Bobcats 4.5 points per 100 possessions he was on the floor. He played about half the game, and our games are 90 possessions long on average, so that's about 45 possessions, or around 2ppg. This is rather simplistic, but 2 points of scoring margin per game is a difference of approximately 4 wins so far this season; we go from 22 expected wins to 26.
The thing that I would imagine could actually magnify the difference McInnis made is that his eliminated playing time has been coupled with a huge rise in Dudley's, who makes a HUGE difference for us in his time on the court. This is not directly McInnis' fault... I would have given Dudley more minutes if McInnis weren't playing, but not as many as he's getting now, because Wallace is out.
-
fatlever
- Senior Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 58,864
- And1: 15,454
- Joined: Jun 04, 2001
- Location: Terrapin Station
-
the entire point of this thread is more along the lines of what paydro is talking about and less about who was the better starting pg.
mcinnis had a better starting record when here (by a tiny pecentage). felton has had the better starting percentage overall for the past 3 season and has won 5 games in a row (a franchise record). as of today, feltons winning percentage is better than mcinnis' before he was cut. thats not the point. everyone can decide which stat is the most relevant stat. it doesnt really matter.
the main point is... vincent, for some reason unknown to everyone besides possibly himself, the coaching staff, front office and players, decided to play mcinnis 26mpg game through the end of february, before he was cut. sometimes he started sometimes he came off the bench, but ultimately he averaged 26mpg.
i think most everyone outside of mcinnis and vicent, could see that mcinnis is utterly terrible and his mere presence on the floor during an nba game for and extended period of time was counter productive to winning basketball games.
whether or not felton is a good pg, whether or not he was deserving, whatever.... i, and must everyone, would agree that a combination of felton at pg with carroll or richardson at the sg spot is a much better option than mcinnis at pg and felton at sg. playing mcinnis for 26mpg for 2/3rds of the season, in any capacity other than back up pg, most likely cost this team wins, wins that could cost us a playoff spot.
its possible that our winning streak is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with felton starting or mcinnis being cut.... or maybe its not. however, it is not a coincidence that we are a better team, offensively and defensively without mcinnis playing 26mpg at the expense of carroll and richardson, or even at the expense of felton and okafor running the team's best play, the high pick and roll.
we may go on to lose the next five games. maybe losign wallace finally catches up with us. maybe felton regresses into some old bad habbits. maybe teams begin gameplan to stop the pick and roll. however, i feel totally confident that we have a better chance of winning games when carroll and dudley and even boykins are taking up those missing 26mpg.
none of us know why vincent made the decisions he did regarding the lineups.
mcinnis had a better starting record when here (by a tiny pecentage). felton has had the better starting percentage overall for the past 3 season and has won 5 games in a row (a franchise record). as of today, feltons winning percentage is better than mcinnis' before he was cut. thats not the point. everyone can decide which stat is the most relevant stat. it doesnt really matter.
the main point is... vincent, for some reason unknown to everyone besides possibly himself, the coaching staff, front office and players, decided to play mcinnis 26mpg game through the end of february, before he was cut. sometimes he started sometimes he came off the bench, but ultimately he averaged 26mpg.
i think most everyone outside of mcinnis and vicent, could see that mcinnis is utterly terrible and his mere presence on the floor during an nba game for and extended period of time was counter productive to winning basketball games.
whether or not felton is a good pg, whether or not he was deserving, whatever.... i, and must everyone, would agree that a combination of felton at pg with carroll or richardson at the sg spot is a much better option than mcinnis at pg and felton at sg. playing mcinnis for 26mpg for 2/3rds of the season, in any capacity other than back up pg, most likely cost this team wins, wins that could cost us a playoff spot.
its possible that our winning streak is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with felton starting or mcinnis being cut.... or maybe its not. however, it is not a coincidence that we are a better team, offensively and defensively without mcinnis playing 26mpg at the expense of carroll and richardson, or even at the expense of felton and okafor running the team's best play, the high pick and roll.
we may go on to lose the next five games. maybe losign wallace finally catches up with us. maybe felton regresses into some old bad habbits. maybe teams begin gameplan to stop the pick and roll. however, i feel totally confident that we have a better chance of winning games when carroll and dudley and even boykins are taking up those missing 26mpg.
none of us know why vincent made the decisions he did regarding the lineups.
-
W_HAMILTON
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,453
- And1: 16,996
- Joined: Jun 13, 2004
-
fatlever wrote:the main point is... vincent, for some reason unknown to everyone besides possibly himself, the coaching staff, front office and players, decided to play mcinnis 26mpg game through the end of february, before he was cut. sometimes he started sometimes he came off the bench, but ultimately he averaged 26mpg.
And that's my point...it's not "some reason unknown to everyone." We won more with him as our starting PG. We scored more with him as our starting PG. We shot better with him as our starting PG. We were outscored less with him as our starting PG.
Vincent had to win. He was probably on the hot-seat. He shook up the lineup, like he has done on several occassions this season, and he found something that worked, if just for a month. The question shouldn't be why he would start someone that we won more with, or scored more with, or shot better with, etc. That should be pretty damn obvious.
The question is, for such an awful, horrible PG .............. why did we perform better when he started?
-
fatlever
- Senior Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 58,864
- And1: 15,454
- Joined: Jun 04, 2001
- Location: Terrapin Station
-
let looks closely at the stretch of game to begin the season that you keep referring to.
mcinnis started only one of the first 27 games. felton started the other 26.
felton was 10-16 as the starter, mcinnis was 0-1.
however, regardless of who started, mcinnis still averaged 23mpg during that stretch, much of which included felton at sg.
dudley played less that 10minutes in at least 10 of those 26 games.
brezec started i think 18 of the first 20 games.
gerald wallace is a notorious slow starter (based on the past 4 seasons) and once again started poorly.
is it not entirely possible that our 10-16 record with felton as the starter had something to do with other factors such as:
1. mcinnis playing 23mpg while having the worst +/- on the team.
2. felton again playing numerous minutes at sg
3. brezec starting 18 games
4. dudley not playing many minutes
5. wallace starting in a slump
6. vincent not putting in his full offensive system, but focusig first on defense.
7. not having a decent back up big man for okafor until nazr.
8. not playing herrmann
you keep harping on mcinnis' record as a starter 9-17 which is worse than feltons record as the starting pg (10-16) to open the season. how is 9-17 better than 10-16?
but like i said in my last post, thats really not what we are debating in this thread. the entire point was to determine, what negative impact, if any, did mcinnis playing 26mpg have on our overall record.
mcinnis started only one of the first 27 games. felton started the other 26.
felton was 10-16 as the starter, mcinnis was 0-1.
however, regardless of who started, mcinnis still averaged 23mpg during that stretch, much of which included felton at sg.
dudley played less that 10minutes in at least 10 of those 26 games.
brezec started i think 18 of the first 20 games.
gerald wallace is a notorious slow starter (based on the past 4 seasons) and once again started poorly.
is it not entirely possible that our 10-16 record with felton as the starter had something to do with other factors such as:
1. mcinnis playing 23mpg while having the worst +/- on the team.
2. felton again playing numerous minutes at sg
3. brezec starting 18 games
4. dudley not playing many minutes
5. wallace starting in a slump
6. vincent not putting in his full offensive system, but focusig first on defense.
7. not having a decent back up big man for okafor until nazr.
8. not playing herrmann
you keep harping on mcinnis' record as a starter 9-17 which is worse than feltons record as the starting pg (10-16) to open the season. how is 9-17 better than 10-16?
but like i said in my last post, thats really not what we are debating in this thread. the entire point was to determine, what negative impact, if any, did mcinnis playing 26mpg have on our overall record.
-
W_HAMILTON
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,453
- And1: 16,996
- Joined: Jun 13, 2004
-
The team got off to a decent enough start.
McInnis didn't start then.
McInnis didn't start until almost two months of the season had passed, after we had lost something like 13 of our last 18 games, including some downright AWFUL losses. That's the reason McInnis entered into the starting lineup; because we were playing poorly, and Vincent had to shake things to try and get the team going again.
And it worked. Like it or not, it worked. Whether it was a complete fluke or not, due to McInnis being the "worst PG in the league," it worked. The final two games he started in December, we won 1 of them. January was our most successful month, winning 7 games, and beating the best team in the league, along with division-leader Orlando, and another pretty good team in Denver. I don't see how you can blame him for losses during that time, when he posted a BETTER record than we had before? That makes no sense to me. Again, if the team would have been better without him starting...WHY THE HELL WEREN'T THEY?
So, what's left is February. It took all off one-game in February before Vincent benched McInnis. Benched him completely. Went from starting, to 0 minutes. We still lost that game by double-digits. You could see over that span that Vincent was trying to go another route, and "shake up" the team again to get them going...and they didn't get going. So, eventually McInnis regained his starting role.
I don't know if everyone realizes this or not, since I certainly didn't...but McInnis didn't start all that many damn games. Outside of starting due to Felton's injuries, McInnis started 2 games in December (record: 1-1), 16 games in January, (record: 7-9), and a little over half of February's games, which was the only month where the team really disappointed.
So, are you all complaining about those 6 games? We played 12 games in February, he started 7 of them going 1-6. Our record when he didn't start was 0-5.
So, you're left with him playing well in two calendar months, playing poorly in one calendar month, but still having a better record as a starter than anyone else in that calendar month.
As I said, get over the past. If we played like we should have most of the year, he wouldn't have been in the starting lineup to begin with. He did better than anyone else as our starting PG for four months, even though he is the worst player to ever play in the NBA. That doesn't say something about him, that says something about the rest of the players. Why someone would blame him for losses, when we inexplicably won MORE with him in the starting lineup, when you could be blaming other players that haven't performed at this type of level for most of the season, I have no clue.
So, in summary:
(1) You can't say we would have done better without Jeff McInnis, if we were not doing better without Jeff McInnis.
(2) You might can get away with it, if you are complaining about us playing McInnis at all, but again, we had to have an awful backup PG that couldn't challenge Felton for the starting PG spot for him to "succeed," so, who's fault is that? Jeff McInnis'? Mine? Vincent, a guy who had to get some wins, playing a guy that he had a better winning percentage with? Who's fault is it that we had to have such a god-awful backup PG this season?
McInnis didn't start then.
McInnis didn't start until almost two months of the season had passed, after we had lost something like 13 of our last 18 games, including some downright AWFUL losses. That's the reason McInnis entered into the starting lineup; because we were playing poorly, and Vincent had to shake things to try and get the team going again.
And it worked. Like it or not, it worked. Whether it was a complete fluke or not, due to McInnis being the "worst PG in the league," it worked. The final two games he started in December, we won 1 of them. January was our most successful month, winning 7 games, and beating the best team in the league, along with division-leader Orlando, and another pretty good team in Denver. I don't see how you can blame him for losses during that time, when he posted a BETTER record than we had before? That makes no sense to me. Again, if the team would have been better without him starting...WHY THE HELL WEREN'T THEY?
So, what's left is February. It took all off one-game in February before Vincent benched McInnis. Benched him completely. Went from starting, to 0 minutes. We still lost that game by double-digits. You could see over that span that Vincent was trying to go another route, and "shake up" the team again to get them going...and they didn't get going. So, eventually McInnis regained his starting role.
I don't know if everyone realizes this or not, since I certainly didn't...but McInnis didn't start all that many damn games. Outside of starting due to Felton's injuries, McInnis started 2 games in December (record: 1-1), 16 games in January, (record: 7-9), and a little over half of February's games, which was the only month where the team really disappointed.
So, are you all complaining about those 6 games? We played 12 games in February, he started 7 of them going 1-6. Our record when he didn't start was 0-5.
So, you're left with him playing well in two calendar months, playing poorly in one calendar month, but still having a better record as a starter than anyone else in that calendar month.
As I said, get over the past. If we played like we should have most of the year, he wouldn't have been in the starting lineup to begin with. He did better than anyone else as our starting PG for four months, even though he is the worst player to ever play in the NBA. That doesn't say something about him, that says something about the rest of the players. Why someone would blame him for losses, when we inexplicably won MORE with him in the starting lineup, when you could be blaming other players that haven't performed at this type of level for most of the season, I have no clue.
So, in summary:
(1) You can't say we would have done better without Jeff McInnis, if we were not doing better without Jeff McInnis.
(2) You might can get away with it, if you are complaining about us playing McInnis at all, but again, we had to have an awful backup PG that couldn't challenge Felton for the starting PG spot for him to "succeed," so, who's fault is that? Jeff McInnis'? Mine? Vincent, a guy who had to get some wins, playing a guy that he had a better winning percentage with? Who's fault is it that we had to have such a god-awful backup PG this season?
Howard Mass wrote:You do not have the right to not be offended. Just because something is offensive to you does not mean that it breaks the board rules.
-
fatlever
- Senior Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 58,864
- And1: 15,454
- Joined: Jun 04, 2001
- Location: Terrapin Station
-
W_HAMILTON wrote:McInnis didn't start until almost two months of the season had passed, after we had lost something like 13 of our last 18 games, including some downright AWFUL losses. That's the reason McInnis entered into the starting lineup; because we were playing poorly, and Vincent had to shake things to try and get the team going again.
And it worked. Like it or not, it worked. Whether it was a complete fluke or not, due to McInnis being the "worst PG in the league," it worked.
You call going 9-17 working?
W_HAMILTON wrote:The final two games he started in December, we won 1 of them. January was our most successful month, winning 7 games, and beating the best team in the league, along with division-leader Orlando, and another pretty good team in Denver.
We went 6-8 in November (felton) and 7-10 in January (mcinnis), so far in March we are 5-0 (felton). At worst, 2 of our 3 most successful months have with felton at the helm.
W_HAMILTON wrote:Again, if the team would have been better without him starting...WHY THE HELL WEREN'T THEY?
We are 5-1 without him. But to really answer your question, even when Mcinnis wasnt starting he was still playing 26mpg. Whether he started or came off the bench, he was still playing significant minutes. You keep ingnoring that fact and pretend like everything is based on who started, when this thread is clearly about the fact that Mcinnis was playing 26mpg taking away minutes from Carroll and Dudley.
W_HAMILTON wrote:I don't know if everyone realizes this or not, since I certainly didn't...but McInnis didn't start all that many damn games. Outside of starting due to Felton's injuries, McInnis started 2 games in December (record: 1-1), 16 games in January, (record: 7-9), and a little over half of February's games, which was the only month where the team really disappointed.
you are the only one who keeps bringing up who started. Again, the rest of us are talking about the fact that he played 26mpg taking away time from Dudley and Carroll and forcing Felton to play sg, where we all know that doesnt work.
W_HAMILTON wrote:As I said, get over the past.
you should follow your own advice
W_HAMILTON wrote:So, in summary:
(1) You can't say we would have done better without Jeff McInnis, if we were not doing better without Jeff McInnis.
5-1
W_HAMILTON wrote:(2) Who's fault is it that we had to have such a god-awful backup PG this season?
the front office
-
W_HAMILTON
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,453
- And1: 16,996
- Joined: Jun 13, 2004
-
I've already been through it before. Apparently you don't understand that now isn't then, and if the team was playing like this back then, McInnis wouldn't have started, or gone back to starting. Vincent benching McInnis and cutting his minutes in February shows that he wasn't exactly thrilled with him either, but when he gave opportunities to the rest of the team to step up and prove they are better without him, they DIDN'T.
The question shouldn't be, "how many more wins would we have without McMinus," the question should be "how many more wins would we have if this team played like this the first four months of the season?"
It took five months before we won a game without Jeff McInnis (we were 0-3 until the start of this win streak, losing by an average of 11 points).
This season, when Jeff McInnis played fewer than 20mpg, our record is 3-6 (33% winning percentage).
The problem wasn't Jeff McInnis, the problem was the team not playing like they should. If they played like they should, McInnis would not have been a problem.
The question shouldn't be, "how many more wins would we have without McMinus," the question should be "how many more wins would we have if this team played like this the first four months of the season?"
It took five months before we won a game without Jeff McInnis (we were 0-3 until the start of this win streak, losing by an average of 11 points).
This season, when Jeff McInnis played fewer than 20mpg, our record is 3-6 (33% winning percentage).
The problem wasn't Jeff McInnis, the problem was the team not playing like they should. If they played like they should, McInnis would not have been a problem.
-
fluffernutter
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,690
- And1: 52
- Joined: Oct 10, 2007
- Location: Here
W_HAMILTON wrote:I've already been through it before. Apparently you don't understand that now isn't then, and if the team was playing like this back then, McInnis wouldn't have started, or gone back to starting. Vincent benching McInnis and cutting his minutes in February shows that he wasn't exactly thrilled with him either, but when he gave opportunities to the rest of the team to step up and prove they are better without him, they DIDN'T.
The question shouldn't be, "how many more wins would we have without McMinus," the question should be "how many more wins would we have if this team played like this the first four months of the season?"
It took five months before we won a game without Jeff McInnis (we were 0-3 until the start of this win streak, losing by an average of 11 points).
This season, when Jeff McInnis played fewer than 20mpg, our record is 3-6 (33% winning percentage).
The problem wasn't Jeff McInnis, the problem was the team not playing like they should. If they played like they should, McInnis would not have been a problem.
That's strange. Because as soon as we got rid of Jeff McInnis, we went on a franchise-high win streak.
Who wudda thunk it was all coincidence?
i.e. it isn't the lack of McInnis that's helping the team, it's the team playing "like they should" despite McInnis' absence.
It's such a wild coincidence!
God, why didn't the team "play like they should" before? Why didn't they "play like they should" when McInnis was on the team?
What a dag-blasted waste.
DURN THIS TEAM!
IF THERE ARE ANY BOBCATS READING THIS, THIS PICTURE IS FOR YOU, YOU... YOU... YOU BUNCH OF PLAYERS THAT DON'T PLAY LIKE YOU SHOULD!
-
fatlever
- Senior Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 58,864
- And1: 15,454
- Joined: Jun 04, 2001
- Location: Terrapin Station
-
W_HAMILTON wrote:The problem wasn't Jeff McInnis, the problem was the team not playing like they should. If they played like they should, McInnis would not have been a problem.
Jeff wasnt the only problem in November and December, but he was certainly one of the problems (the others being the things i mentioned earlier in this thread - Brezec starting, Wallace slumping, Vincent's learning curve, Vincent's reluctance to play Dudley and Herrmann, lack of a true back up big man, Carroll slumping etc...)
But again, the question that was asked in this thread was simply how many more wins, if any, would we have this season without mcinnis. obviously its purely an opinion question and cannot truely be supported with concrete facts.
i said 5 more wins without mcinnis, based on his awful +/- and his awful offense. I would GUESS that if Vincent had started with and stayed with:
felton/richardson/wallace/herrman/okafor
or
felton/carroll/richardson/wallace/okafor
or
felton/richardson/dudley/wallace/okafor
and kept mcinnis' as a true backup, that we would probably have at least 5 more wins right now. But of course that's just a guess.
and of course if the team opened the season playing like they are playing right now, which i think would be impossible with mcinnis on the floor for 26mpg (but whatever), we would also not be having this conversation.
anyway, i can see that we are going i circles............
so, i'm out.
-
fluffernutter
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,690
- And1: 52
- Joined: Oct 10, 2007
- Location: Here
W_HAMILTON wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
It's not a coincidence, it's the team playing at a level like they should have the first four months of the season, which is my point.
And they were not playing at that level when McInnis was logging heavy minutes.
Yet McInnis bear no responsibility for this, nor (apparently) did he have any other negative effect on the team.
Got it.
Let me write it down.
-
W_HAMILTON
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,453
- And1: 16,996
- Joined: Jun 13, 2004
-
fluffernutter wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
And they were not playing at that level when McInnis was logging heavy minutes.
And that is all because Jeff McInnis is not on the roster anymore? It's not because Felton is on his 2nd waived-PG and 3rd attempt at being our starting PG this season, and has something to prove? It's not because Carroll had been turned into a forgotten man most of this season, and he has something to prove? It's not because Dudley is an energetic rookie who has been given some consistent PT, and wants to do his best so he can show his coach he deserves more minutes? It's not because Richardson wanted to torch his former team?
If you saying that those things would not have happened if McInnis was on the roster, that's not so much an indictment of him as it is those other players. If some are complaining that McInnis was taking the minutes of other players, that's another discussion, but (1) I didn't want McInnis as our backup PG to begin with, and (2) if those players had been playing at the same level they are now, they wouldn't have seen Jeff McInnis take so many of their minutes, or "their" role.
Yet McInnis bear no responsibility for this, nor (apparently) did he have any other negative effect on the team.
I didn't say that. I said he is not THE problem. The problem is not Jeff McInnis, the problem is some of these players not playing like this earlier in the year.