I'm looking for a little info on your team

[SA37]

I agree about playing team basketball, but I just don't see where the productivity is supposed to come from. We moved the ball pretty well and played team basketball with LeBron, but we were better off with him scoring 26 or 27 a night than having Mario Chalmers or Norris Cole for example attempt more shots. Right now, I don't see how we can justify Rio, Cole, Granger or McBob attempting a significant amount of shots while we're keeping Wade's shot attempts low. If healthy, Wade is our best offensive player and if not healthy, probably still our second or third best. He could score 16 or 17 a night on about 54% shooting, but at what price? So that Rio, Cole, McBob, Granger and Deng attempt more shots despite being less efficient scorers?

And we have used Cole as somebody to attack the rim for example, but he's just not a high volume option.

The way I see it, we'll probably have Wade and Bosh hover around 22 to 23 a game, Deng chipping in around 16 to 17 and then we'll have Rio between 9 and 10 a night, Granger at 7 to 8 if he can bounce back, Cole, Bird and McRoberts at around 5 to 6 and then depending who receives the remaining minutes 4 to 5 a night from those guys. That's pretty decent balance while not putting too much pressure in the hands of individual players.

We won't have a Spurs type of balance because we simply don't have a Spurs type of depth. They're playing Parker, Duncan and Leonard 29 minutes a night and those are the ones with the most time on the court. We don't have the likes of Diaw, Ginobili or Belinelli coming off the bench.

That's why we could probably use a guy like MarShon Brooks. He can't do anything but score, but that he can do well, which is why he could be a very valuable asset to us.

Three teams I admire greatly are San Antonio, Indiana, and Memphis. They've built very good teams without requiring a star who scores 25-30 a night to win and they defend well. There isn't anything wrong with having a star, but I don't like the idea of creating such a dependency on a single player. For longevity purposes, teams are better off creating a system where most guys are replaceable.

I agree we don't have the quality depth they have, but a combination of smart drafting and adding under-the-radar guys in free agency can do that. No one was clamoring for Belinelli or Diaw when they became FAs (Diaw was waived by Charlotte and signed by SA for the rest of 2012 and then to a 2-year, $9 million deal; Belinelli signed for 2 years and $5.6 million. Belinelli said he gave up some money to sign with San Antonio, but you can imagine he wasn't giving up any monster contract if he agreed to that sum.)

At any rate, I think a team we could mimmick to some degree given our roster is Portland. I'm not saying we'll be as successful as they were last season, but we have similar players (Aldridge-Bosh, Matthews-Wade, Batum-Deng). The main difference there is we don't have a Damian Lillard. But, we could be a poor man's version maybe.

[DWadeno3]

I agree about playing team basketball, but I just don't see where the productivity is supposed to come from. We moved the ball pretty well and played team basketball with LeBron, but we were better off with him scoring 26 or 27 a night than having Mario Chalmers or Norris Cole for example attempt more shots. Right now, I don't see how we can justify Rio, Cole, Granger or McBob attempting a significant amount of shots while we're keeping Wade's shot attempts low. If healthy, Wade is our best offensive player and if not healthy, probably still our second or third best. He could score 16 or 17 a night on about 54% shooting, but at what price? So that Rio, Cole, McBob, Granger and Deng attempt more shots despite being less efficient scorers?

And we have used Cole as somebody to attack the rim for example, but he's just not a high volume option.

The way I see it, we'll probably have Wade and Bosh hover around 22 to 23 a game, Deng chipping in around 16 to 17 and then we'll have Rio between 9 and 10 a night, Granger at 7 to 8 if he can bounce back, Cole, Bird and McRoberts at around 5 to 6 and then depending who receives the remaining minutes 4 to 5 a night from those guys. That's pretty decent balance while not putting too much pressure in the hands of individual players.

We won't have a Spurs type of balance because we simply don't have a Spurs type of depth. They're playing Parker, Duncan and Leonard 29 minutes a night and those are the ones with the most time on the court. We don't have the likes of Diaw, Ginobili or Belinelli coming off the bench.

That's why we could probably use a guy like MarShon Brooks. He can't do anything but score, but that he can do well, which is why he could be a very valuable asset to us.

Three teams I admire greatly are San Antonio, Indiana, and Memphis. They've built very good teams without requiring a star who scores 25-30 a night to win and they defend well. There isn't anything wrong with having a star, but I don't like the idea of creating such a dependency on a single player. For longevity purposes, teams are better off creating a system where most guys are replaceable.

I agree we don't have the quality depth they have, but a combination of smart drafting and adding under-the-radar guys in free agency can do that. No one was clamoring for Belinelli or Diaw when they became FAs (Diaw was waived by Charlotte and signed by SA for the rest of 2012 and then to a 2-year, $9 million deal; Belinelli signed for 2 years and $5.6 million. Belinelli said he gave up some money to sign with San Antonio, but you can imagine he wasn't giving up any monster contract if he agreed to that sum.)

At any rate, I think a team we could mimmick to some degree given our roster is Portland. I'm not saying we'll be as successful as they were last season, but we have similar players (Aldridge-Bosh, Matthews-Wade, Batum-Deng). The main difference there is we don't have a Damian Lillard. But, we could be a poor man's version maybe.

Memphis and Indiana don't have a dominant scorer because they don't have a player with that quality. It's not like in San Antonio, where you have several guys who could efficiently average 24 to 25 a game. The Grizzlies and Pacers also don't have more than average or even below average offenses and it's part of the reason they're nowhere close to being contending teams. Indiana's lack of offensive talent was a glaring weakness when they faced us. The Grizzlies had the same problem against OKC or else they would've beaten the Thunder.

As for the Portland comparison, the Wade-Matthews comparison is pretty inaccurate. They're not only different types of players but even at this stage, Matthews is nowhere near Wade's level. Those are the topscorers of the Blazers by the way, the 2nd best team in terms of ORtg:

1) Aldridge - 23.2
2) Lillard - 20.7
3) Matthews - 16.4
4) Batum - 13.0
5) Lopez 11.1
6) Williams - 9.7

In our case, that could be 1) Bosh or Wade, 2) Bosh or Wade, 3) Deng, but where are those 13 from Batum, those 11 from Lopez or those 9.7 from Mo Williams gonna come from? Portland is another team that, offensively, has a lot more depth than we do.

[The Bandit]

The Heat may not have the best player (Lebron) anymore, but they'll always have the best fan/poster (HIF), so it's all good.

[SA37]

]

Memphis and Indiana don't have a dominant scorer because they don't have a player with that quality. It's not like in San Antonio, where you have several guys who could efficiently average 24 to 25 a game. The Grizzlies and Pacers also don't have more than average or even below average offenses and it's part of the reason they're nowhere close to being contending teams. Indiana's lack of offensive talent was a glaring weakness when they faced us. The Grizzlies had the same problem against OKC or else they would've beaten the Thunder.

Even if your claim about SA having "several players" who could avg 24-25 a game is true (Only Duncan has averaged that amount and it was in '01-'02. Not to mention Duncan hasn't averaged over 20 a game since '06-'07), the point is they don't need anyone to do it. They just creamed Miami in the Finals and do you know who had the highest ppg average? Tony Parker at 18 per game. (He also led the team in scoring for the playoffs at 17.4ppg. San Antonio went 78-27 for the whole season, which includes a 16-7 record in the playoffs.)

The Pacers made the ECF and were the 4th best team record-wise in the league. If they are "nowhere close to being [a] contending team" then I dunno which team could be considered a contending team. As for Memphis, they managed to win 50 games in the West (9th best in the league; they tied for 5th the year before, losing in the WCF) despite having Marc Gasol play in only 59 games and they took OKC to 7 games. I'd say that's pretty good.

Memphis averaged 96.7ppg in their playoff series against OKC, including 3 games over 100 points. That's plenty of points to win a game, but not when you're giving up 102 a game (the point is proven by the fact Memphis averaged 96.1ppg during the reg season -- 26th in the league -- but won 50 games; Indiana averaged 96.7ppg in the reg season -- 24th in the league -- and won the East.)

Anyway, you may not agree with my stance, but I am not trying to convince you to agree with it. My desire is for Miami to move towards a team-oriented game where we don't rely on a single player to create everything or score the bulk of the points. Even with our perceived lack of depth, I think Miami can mimmick the success Indiana, Memphis, and San Antonio have had (being a top-10 team in the league and being capable of getting deep into the playoffs).

[Maroko]

The Heat may not have the best player (Lebron) anymore, but they'll always have the best fan/poster (HIF), so it's all good.

I thought it was forbidden to have 2 accounts ?

[DWadeno3]

Even if your claim about SA having "several players" who could avg 24-25 a game is true (Only Duncan has averaged that amount and it was in '01-'02. Not to mention Duncan hasn't averaged over 20 a game since '06-'07), the point is they don't need anyone to do it. They just creamed Miami in the Finals and do you know who had the highest ppg average? Tony Parker at 18 per game. (He also led the team in scoring for the playoffs at 17.4ppg. San Antonio went 78-27 for the whole season, which includes a 16-7 record in the playoffs.)

Yes, but here depth comes into play again. They have several guys who are strong offensive players, we don't.

The Pacers made the ECF and were the 4th best team record-wise in the league. If they are "nowhere close to being [a] contending team" then I dunno which team could be considered a contending team. As for Memphis, they managed to win 50 games in the West (9th best in the league; they tied for 5th the year before, losing in the WCF) despite having Marc Gasol play in only 59 games and they took OKC to 7 games. I'd say that's pretty good.

Memphis averaged 96.7ppg in their playoff series against OKC, including 3 games over 100 points. That's plenty of points to win a game, but not when you're giving up 102 a game (the point is proven by the fact Memphis averaged 96.1ppg during the reg season -- 26th in the league -- but won 50 games; Indiana averaged 96.7ppg in the reg season -- 24th in the league -- and won the East.)

The Pacers made the ECFs because the East is that weak. They never had a shot against us despite us not defending extremely well and struggled to score mightily for many stretches, which ended up costing them the series. A contending team to me is one that has a decent shot at winning the title and the Pacers never had one.

The same goes for Memphis. You mention them averaging 96.7 points a game in the playoffs against OKC but fail to acknowledge four of the games going into overtime. Their offensive rating for the series was 103.1, that's on the same level as the Milwaukee Bucks in the regular season at 103.0 and they ranked 26th in the league. Their offensive was pretty poor and their usually good defense wasn't there to cover up for it.

They're both good teams, no doubt, but not contenders.

Anyway, you may not agree with my stance, but I am not trying to convince you to agree with it. My desire is for Miami to move towards a team-oriented game where we don't rely on a single player to create everything or score the bulk of the points. Even with our perceived lack of depth, I think Miami can mimmick the success Indiana, Memphis, and San Antonio have had (being a top-10 team in the league and being capable of getting deep into the playoffs).

I want team basketball as well, I just doubt that your scenario of Wade scoring 15 and Bosh scoring 19 to 20 is realistic in any way because we don't have anybody to efficiently cover up for it. My point is, I don't want shots going to players who are less efficient just for the sake of balanced shot distribution.

[MuggsyBogues]

It's always easy to beat a team when they've already lost. A bunch of stats can then be used to show that they lost. But both Indiana and Memphis look like contenders to me. They haven't managed to click at the right time so far, and Indiana utterly collapsed starting February, but they've both shown that they can be the best team in the league for a few months.

[DWadeno3]

It's always easy to beat a team when they've already lost. A bunch of stats can then be used to show that they lost. But both Indiana and Memphis look like contenders to me. They haven't managed to click at the right time so far, and Indiana utterly collapsed starting February, but they've both shown that they can be the best team in the league for a few months.

So evidence of an entire season isn't enough for you? Because that evidence includes the good stretches you mention and it clearly shows that Memphis was only an average offensive team and Indiana was a below-average offensive team. Do you remember the last time a team ranked 15th or lower in terms of ORtg won a championship? The 03/04 Pistons (and in the Finals they beat a Lakers team that was falling apart). And if you take into account that the West at this point is stronger than the East was when the Pistons played, you can dismiss the Grizzlies as a contender in a conference where you several teams that are better balanced.

[MuggsyBogues]

The Pistons were a fantastic team, there's no reason to devalue what they did. After the Rasheed Wallace trade, they played the best defense I've ever seen any team play. There was a stretch where they held opposing teams at around 70 points for like two weeks. And then they nearly won again next year. It was a brilliant team, especially for that first 2-3 months. People dismissed them because they were in the East and they had no stars, and their most talented player was a nutcase, but they were clearly the best team in the league after that trade.

Ultimately, I think if you said something not so dramatic, no one would probably argue with you. Like, if you said they weren't top 4 contenders or something, I'd think fair enough. But when you say that these teams are "nowhere close to being contending team," I think that's just way too dismissive. I've seen both of these teams play fantastic basketball for long stretches.

Stats are a useful tool, but I think it's important not to take them too far. Memphis had injury issues, Indiana had some chemistry issue or whatever they had. Indiana was a shell in the second half of the season and the playoffs. But their dominant games are still there, on the internet, easy to access and watch. The Pacers were scary for a long while, and then collapsed. Their season stats may tell you that they weren't a threat all along, but that's not what I saw, I saw them play fantastic basketball and then fall apart. Same with Memphis, I saw them nearly beat the Thunder. I know it took some time for them to get going during the regular season, and so their overall season stats may tell you they aren't close to a contender, but for me it's hard not to consider them a contender when they are one of the very best teams in the 2nd half of the season and come within an inch of beating the Thunder.

[DWadeno3]

The Pistons were a fantastic team, there's no reason to devalue what they did. After the Rasheed Wallace trade, they played the best defense I've ever seen any team play. There was a stretch where they held opposing teams at around 70 points for like two weeks. And then they nearly won again next year. It was a brilliant team, especially for that first 2-3 months. People dismissed them because they were in the East and they had no stars, and their most talented player was a nutcase, but they were clearly the best team in the league after that trade.

Ultimately, I think if you said something not so dramatic, no one would probably argue with you. Like, if you said they weren't top 4 contenders or something, I'd think fair enough. But when you say that these teams are "nowhere close to being contending team," I think that's just way too dismissive. I've seen both of these teams play fantastic basketball for long stretches.

Stats are a useful tool, but I think it's important not to take them too far. Memphis had injury issues, Indiana had some chemistry issue or whatever they had. Indiana was a shell in the second half of the season and the playoffs. But their dominant games are still there, on the internet, easy to access and watch. The Pacers were scary for a long while, and then collapsed. Their season stats may tell you that they weren't a threat all along, but that's not what I saw, I saw them play fantastic basketball and then fall apart. Same with Memphis, I saw them nearly beat the Thunder. I know it took some time for them to get going during the regular season, and so their overall season stats may tell you they aren't close to a contender, but for me it's hard not to consider them a contender when they are one of the very best teams in the 2nd half of the season and come within an inch of beating the Thunder.

A contender to me is a team that has a legit shot at winning a title. I wouldn't need to include the term top4 because I don't believe there are that many contenders in the first place.
And yes, those Pistons were so ridiculously good defensively that they could get away with an average offense. Neither can be said about Memphis or Indiana.

[MuggsyBogues]

I would describe Indiana's and Memphis' defense at their best as 'ridiculously good'.

Anyway, I don't share your views about the number of contenders. I've seen enough surprises.

[jazzfan1971]

any major errors with this depth chart?

PG - Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, Shabazz Napier
SG - Dwyane Wade, Shannon Brown, Reggie Williams
SF - Loul Deng, Danny Granger, James Ennis
PF - Josh McRoberts, Udonis Haslem, Shawne Williams
C - Chris Bosh, Chris Anderson, Justin Hamilton

If so, could you please post a corrected version? Thanks.

[SA37]

any major errors with this depth chart?

PG - Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, Shabazz Napier
SG - Dwyane Wade, Shannon Brown, Reggie Williams
SF - Loul Deng, Danny Granger, James Ennis
PF - Josh McRoberts, Udonis Haslem, Shawne Williams
C - Chris Bosh, Chris Anderson, Justin Hamilton

If so, could you please post a corrected version? Thanks.

The only possible change I see there is perhaps Haslem starting over McRoberts to help Miami bolster its bench production. McRoberts would still get the bulk of the minutes, though.

[jazzfan1971]

Thanks.

[SWadeUP]

Also With hamilton needeing surgery, he most likely wont make the team.

[dancing2thabeet]

any major errors with this depth chart?

PG - Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, Shabazz Napier
SG - Dwyane Wade, Shannon Brown, Reggie Williams
SF - Loul Deng, Danny Granger, James Ennis
PF - Josh McRoberts, Udonis Haslem, Shawne Williams
C - Chris Bosh, Chris Anderson, Justin Hamilton

If so, could you please post a corrected version? Thanks.

I don't think Reggie, Shawne and Justin are locks for the team, but that's not a major error anyway.