Voting Closed KB89 Advances 7-4

[NOODLESTYLE]

Nash thinks highly of D'antoni simply becuase he gave him the keys to the offense, unlike what Nelly did in Dallas. it wasnt so much the system as it was the lack of freedom. i dont even remotely buy the idea that Nash was a product of or seriously helped by D'antoni's system. yes it helps that Mike is a smart offensive coach but Nash wouldve been great regardless, as long as you let him play that style of basketball where he controls the ball.

anyways i dont think this is pertinent to my team as there is no proof that Nash is a "system" player nor do i see how it makes a difference. so what if D'antoni's system helped him? does that make him an inferior player? would you also argue that kobe can only be successful in the triangle since its the only thing hes been successful with? because its the same exact thing. my team is still built around letting Nash run the PnR, idont see any problem here, Thibs isnt going to force him to play low post ball with theo ratliff or something.

in the end it doesnt really matter too much what system a player is running, as long as hes not being stifled (like say forcing the triangle on nash) then everything is fine.

also for the record Dallas had the best offense in the league 3 years in a row from 02-04, so its not like Nash wasnt doing anything there, he was still great. he simply went from really good point guard to GOAT level point guard.

The reason why I wouldn't argue Kobe was a triangle player because he was still playing at a high level under both Mike Brown and Mike D'Antoni. These matchups are very close, sometimes down to even the coach. Nelly was also a run-n-gun style coach, so I'm not surprised they had a great offense. But the fact that you're holding your own, I might have to re-consider.

Would you play hack-a-Shaq or hack-a-Rodman?

Note: Out of respect to you Doormatt, I have rescinded my vote. I'd like to see KB89 come in with some counters before I make a final decision.

[Doormatt]

i would most definitely hack shaq first, but rodman is also a 58% career ft shooter.

btw in a close game he has 2 sub 60% free throw shooters in rodman+shaq as well as artest who shoots ~70% from the line.

[Slava]

i would most definitely hack shaq first, but rodman is also a 58% career ft shooter.

btw in a close game he has 2 sub 60% free throw shooters in rodman+shaq as well as artest who shoots ~70% from the line.

I think the argument can go both ways. If you decide to hack Shaq and get your second most important player in foul trouble, you'd have trouble scoring yourself not to mention the regular fouls a guy like Pau or Ratliff might pick just by trying to guard Shaq.

Nash depends a lot on picks to create separation for his offense and he cannot break the defense off his dribble.

[Kilroy]

That and Shaq and Rodman both had a tendency to make their free throws when the game was on the line.

[ak7]

I might rethink my vote. Shaq gets 30 easily, Artest can give you 20, roman 12-14 based off just rebounds and hustle plays. Where would you get your scoring from other than Nash and Rice?
i dont think Gasol gets anything if hes guarded by Shaq and Rodman on Ratliff. your strength lies in the fast break with Nash, but what about in crunch time when the game slows down?

prime butler averaged 20ppg on 55 TS%, if he decides to put artest on nash or rice in crunch time, that means somebody small is going to be guarding butler and i think thats easy points with nash setting him up, hes a pretty decent iso scorer. and anyways my go to play in crunch time will be picking on shaq in the pick n roll.

barnes will get easily as many hustle points as rodman too, hes a pretty good finisher in transition. and will create a lot of problems since he can play the 4 if i want to go small. he can help off of rodman and more importantly he makes it so either shaq or rodman have to guard him on the perimeter as a stretch 4 of sorts. remember the 2 times hes played with pick n roll guards (clippers/suns) hes averaged a career high in points.

Very convincing argument, you got my vote Pleb.

Rodman guarding anyone on the perimeter is a nightmare for your team. He guarded 1-5 in his days with the Pistons and he did it effectively. He also understood spacing on offense (otherwise he wouldn't have averaged the number of rebounds he did offensively). I don't know why you keep trying to downplay Rodman as a player.

How exactly does your team expect to grab a rebound and get out and run against a Shaq/Rodman front court? I'm curious to hear this dormatt, as it will determine who I vote for.

[Doormatt]

Can you find me any evidence or video of Rodman guarding back court players for any period of time outside of him just switching? Because I don't think that is true.

re rebounds: Artest is not that good of a rebounder, Butler is actually better. Artest with an 8.1 TRB% (12.0% on defense), Butler with 9.1 TRB% (13.5% on defense).

and if Rodman is guarding my players on the perimeter like people think he will then it will be much harder for him to get rebounds than if he was playing down low.

yeah rebounding is a clear advantage for his team but my team has 2 important things going for it

1) We are incredibly efficient so we arent going to be needing too many offensive boards

2) His team has poor outside shooting which means my team can pack the paint and sag off of shooters for easier rebounds. it will be harder for rodman to grab boards when my team will almost always have a guy cheating to help down low. i feel this is really where Thibs would shine as a coach.

[Doormatt]

i would most definitely hack shaq first, but rodman is also a 58% career ft shooter.

btw in a close game he has 2 sub 60% free throw shooters in rodman+shaq as well as artest who shoots ~70% from the line.

I think the argument can go both ways. If you decide to hack Shaq and get your second most important player in foul trouble, you'd have trouble scoring yourself not to mention the regular fouls a guy like Pau or Ratliff might pick just by trying to guard Shaq.

Nash depends a lot on picks to create separation for his offense and he cannot break the defense off his dribble.

well i dont really think its fair to talk about foul trouble when we are comparing 6 man teams, so i dont think we should really bring hacking into this (plus i dont think my team would have to hack to win). just think its worth noting that his team is very poor from the FT line.

also not sure what your second point means, Nash is one of the absolute best ever at breaking down a defense and keeping his dribble alive to make plays. and Ratliff is actually a really underrated player at setting picks, not that Nash really needs incredible ones, post-injury Amare was a pretty lazy pick player a lot of the time.

[Doormatt]

That and Shaq and Rodman both had a tendency to make their free throws when the game was on the line.

no thats not true.



http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/j ... index.html

[Kilroy]

That's a rather limited stat... Last five minutes with a margin of 5 pts or less...

I was talking more about hack-a-shaq situations... He seemed to rise to those occasions and start hitting his free throws when they did that to him at least in his last couple seasons with us.

In any case, "Prime Shaq" could mean 08-09 when he was average at the line in clutch situations.

[Doormatt]

thats pretty standard for the definition of close games no? its generally used as the criteria for clutch stats. unless you have evidence youd like to present im going to go ahead and trust these numbers that shaq wasnt some clutch free throw shooter nor did he make them when they counted. also the stat isnt limited, its goal is to tell us how players perform in teh last 5 minutes of games within 5 points, and it accomplishes that perfectly.

more importantly he makes the point that a free throw early in the game is worth the same as a free throw late, which is the line of thinking i agree with (aka clutch stats dont really matter that much). so overall his team being very poor from the line doesnt help.

In any case, "Prime Shaq" could mean 08-09 when he was average at the line in clutch situations.

well it was actually just him attempting less free throws. in 09 he took 29, compared to 02-05 where he averaged ~65. and really? you want to call 09 prime shaq? come on now.

[Kilroy]

The problem is you're inserting the misnomer 'Clutch' into the discussion... Which is just as useless for Shaq's free throws as it is for Kobe's shooting or LeBron's stats...
And No, I don't consider the last 5 min and 5 points as the standard definition of clutch, because I think "Clutch" is more of an eye-test than it is quantifiable by statistics... There are plenty of "Clutch" plays that happen outside of 5min and 5 points.

Without a spreadsheet of fouls assessed for each game that showed when hack-a-shaq was employed and ended it would be impossible to show you numbers to prove that Shaq had begun to figure out how to stop the Hack-a-Shaq by making more of his free throws... But I thought that was pretty much the standard opinion of anyone who actually watched the last couple seasons of his time in LA and his subsequent seasons in Miami...

Of course a foul in the beginning of the game counts the same as the end of the game, but that's nothing more than a trite platitude when discussing employing a tactic like hack-a-shaq in order to effect the outcome of a game. Because hack-a-Shaq isn't really about free throws... It's about momentum and clock management... And if Shaq makes at least 50% of his free throws, the momentum doesn't change and time runs out.

[Wavy Q]

KB89 to the top

[dockingsched]

i like kb89's roster better, but i like the way doormatt convincingly argued all the points people were using to vote against his team.


doormatt.

[Slava]

KB89.

I like the look of Doormatt's team but when push comes to shove, I'll take the superior frontcourt in a 7-game series. They will have some spacing issues but they might also out-muscle the offensive glass in the most crucial possessions.