Luigi wrote:My supposition was that there is a line at which shooting from 3 is a worse idea than shooting from 2. I think it's clear that Rubio, Crowder, and Exum have been below that line. My other supposition is that Favors offers more value than shooting and dribbling. There is a point at which dribbling doesn't get you much, and rebounding and defense in the paint gets you more.
Of course there is a point at which a 2 pointer is a better shot than a 3. But it depends on what 2's you're taking instead of the 3's. Also, if you're not shooting 3's and not spacing the floor, you're 2's are much more likely to be at a lower percentage. We don't have to argue this. I will just say that I completely disagree with your assessment of the value spacing. I have stated my reasons many times.
When it comes to actually making a move, it is absolutely all about priorities and who gets moved first. That was my entire point. I see you disagree with it here, but I see no reasoning for disagreeing with it. That's disappointing, since I went pretty far making concessions to meet you where you were. We are looking at a realistic Conley addition. Who do you ship first?
My reasoning was right there, but I did have a typo so my bad on that. It's about building the best team around Gobert and Mitchell. On top of that, we should be focusing on the ceiling of this team. It's not about getting rid of this guy before that guy. You make moves in whatever order builds the best team around Gobert and Mitchell. Let's say you think Exum is a bigger issue than Favors. If the right move comes along for Favors, you don't have to get rid of Exum first. That's so dumb.
We've talked about this before, but my approach isn't centered around getting rid of guys, and certainly not in a specific order. It's to address the problems I see within the team.
I guess there is a version of spacing-is-everything that claims there are never any basketball skills on the court that are more valuable than 30% 3 point shooting. It's extreme, and if that's where you're coming from, I see why you'd drop Favors before Crowder, Rubio, or Exum. I know you don't accept the most extreme version of this, since you seem to want to keep Gobert, so other basketball skills (Gobert's) can eclipse bad 3 point shooting at some point for some position. But I thought I conceded a pretty far out there point for the discussion. But I see you want it even further out. At that point, I think I'll just say the view is too extreme for me.
If I accepted the premise that there is never anything more valuable than a 30% shooter, I would have said it. You would not have had to make it up. This a complete strawman and I will no longer address your strawman attempts other than pointing out that it is indeed a strawman.
Again, by the same token, non shooting, non playmaking guards make it infinitely harder on everyone, including themselves. The general 4 out offense argument applies equally to Rubio, Crowder, Exum, and Favors. The difference with Favors is that he still finds other ways to contribute, while our non guard skills guards don't do as well in bad situations or with bad skills. I think this is precisely because Favors brings big man skills to the table, which have their own value apart from missing open 3s. .
The bolded claim is just absolutely ridiculous. Rubio, Crowder, Favors, and Exum all have their issues within the offense. Their issues are of different magnitude because they have different skills. Of course the spacing issue depends on the individual players ability to space the floor. I'm also completely confused as why you keep arguing as if I'm defending Rubio, Crowder, and Exum's fit into the offense when I explicitly said that they were bad in the offense. It was never an argument about Favors versus Rubio, Crowder, and Exum.
This is again nothing but a strawman. You are arguing against an idea that never came from me. In fact, I said they were the opposite. I said they were bad and all needed to be upgraded.
I guess you have to buy that basketball is about more than spacing, to some degree, to agree with that. But I would think all but the most extreme spacers would go for some version of balance. I don't understand the all or nothing mentality about basketball plays that don't terminate in a 3 (clogged paint). Any competitive game with options is about tradeoffs and margins. To claim that the paint will be clogged, making anything but a 3 pointer from Jae Crowder or Ricky Rubio completely worthless, misses the balance point.
Of course I buy that there is more to basketball than spacing. The bolded is a completely ridiculous claim that was never said or insuinuated by me. Once again, I explicitly said the opposite.
There are other effective things to do with a basketball with 3 shooters and 2 bigs on the floor, and I trust Conley to do them. Especially when we've already been watching 3 shooters on the floor for a long time already, with much worse percentages than Conley. I mean, in my view, Rubio has value despite his bad shooting. He takes care of the ball pretty well, can move it around in an offensive set, and plays solid defense. Those skills count for something on a non-spacing-is-everything model. I see that you are lower of Favors than me on the floor for the Jazz (not in isolation). But you seem higher on Crowder and Exum on the floor for the Jazz. At their numbers, I find this confusing, especially if you really do see how good Favors is in isolation. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have a very extreme spacing view, one that allows for 30% 3s and disallows for solid big men like Favors. If so, that's fine. I just wanna see where the line is
Again, I don't know how we're in a position where I'm supposed to defend Crowder or Exum. They are not good enough. I said this.
I explicitly gave two kinds of priority argument, twice for your benefit. They weren't based on emotion. I have seen you repeat yourself, but not really address them. Maybe what you've said already counts out the priority argument. The only way I could see that is if nothing but 4 shooters can please you, under any circumstances. But if that's true, then why does my priority argument not work? Don't you have to make multiple moves to get 4 shooters on the floor? Or are you just as dedicated to move Crowder and Exum as you are Favors? And when does Gobert get moved?
This argument again. I am not dedicated to moving Favors. I am dedicated to improving this team. The issues with this team are obvious. Shot creation and spacing at the forefront. We should not let Favors get in the way of improving our team. Same goes for Crowder or Exum. I keep repeating myself, because you keep ignoring what I say and make up arguments and statements to speak against that did not come from me.
If you'd like an emotional argument, I can give you one: Favors has been loyal to the Jazz for a long time, plays through injuries, and wins playoff games, even when he sits out other games in the series, and is a lot better than any free agents willing to meet with us and take our money. As emotional as that sounds, there are some undeniable facts in there, too.
I don't subscribe to the emotional argument. That was the whole point.
I like you man, and I love talking ball, but I'm just not going to argue positions someone makes up for me. If I say that Rubio's fit is horrible, I'm not about to argue the opposite and try to tell you that he's not a horrific fit.
. Favors still found ways to contribute (and at least his missed wide open 3s were occasional instead of incessant!). He'll be a beast in a Conley pick and roll while Gobert sets off ball screens for Ingles and Mitchell and crashes the boards, or vice versa. Board men get paid
