Just because I am using stats to back up my points, doesn't mean they are driven by stats. For why the heck do you play a player? Do you play players because they get your team a lot of points? Rebounds? Blocks? Steals? Etc. aren't those all stats?
The point about having three point shooters is valid, but Hill isn't a three point shooter, and although Redd has in the past been a decent one, he sure isn't this season. So that leads to another point about Chilldress. If Redd can't make those shots, and he is terrible on defense, why does he continue to get minutes over Chilldress? Chilldress doesn't suck on defense, he creates turnovers in tips and deflections. He doesn't over shoot, and usually takes the best shot available.
But why do we need three point shooters? So Nash can have room to work, and let Gortat have that room as well. I understand that. However, if we are talking about the second unit, are we really talking about Nash and Gortat? Nope. That is why I have been saying we need to adjust our system for the players we have. We can't continue to just have all our guys on the wings. However, I have already suggested an answer to that four out one in play where Chilldress is the one in. I suggested a Nash, Brown/Dudley, Chilldress, Morris, Frye line up for six minutes a half.
As for GH saying Price sucked early this year, he had an 18/8 game when he started for Nash, and did a decent job of working with Gortat (which you have the results of those stats in your sig)
Then he follows that game with only 13 minutes instead of 30 like the night before against NJ, with 7 assists. So again, where/what are you basing this inability to run the offense? Look at his splits and game logs, he later gets the start at the two, where besides defense, we aren't using his point guard skills. Nash dominated the ball (like he should), but the minutes Price got were ridiculous. The first start at the two he gets big minutes, and the next night about 13. It is like this almost the whole season. Big minutes, where he proves that he helps the team, and then limited minutes to no minutes.
Ha, so now you agree with Los Soles that Hill should play more with the second, yet I have been saying this for three years, and when I mentioned it this year, you said it was terrible, because Hill sucks off the bench. I even said that if Hill does start, he gets an early rest, so he can run the second unit. So because months later, when Los comments on this, you now think it is a good idea?
Sounds like you are just hating on me.
Again, I don't care whether many people don't see these issues I bring up. They exist, and many can be backed with stats. And so far can only be disputed by opinions.
