Printable View
This team can't afford to sit on its hands waiting for Matt Bonner to screw his head on right, he looks awful out there. We have Ian and Ratliff doing nothing on the bench. Time to make a move on this, Pop.
Bogans is simply not a consistent shooter and never will be. Might as well see what Hairston has (we know he is far and away a a better offensive player and I even heard he is even starting to extend his range on his jumper to the 3pt range).
If you're going to start Bogans despite his lack of production and lack of defense, how does Ian not even get a few minutes?
I would wait to see if we make any trades at the deadline for a big..I would expect Bonner/Finley to be involved if there is a trade, so I think we'll wait it out..
Bogans needs to make those open shots though, nobody was even near him on his misses..his D isn't good enough to make up for that IMO..
Bonner thread!
I'm glad that at least Dice is playing well enough that he can finish the games...
I'm glad he's playing well enough that Pop doesn't think a guard can do his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I have a real fear that Pop's stubborness in insisting on breaking in Matt Bonner to the rotation is going to eventually end up breaking the team's momentum and confidence.
That, and if Pop does make a move concerning Bogans, it will be Finley's corpse instead of Hairston.
LMFAO......:lol:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
It's not a big deal to bring back Bonner, because his shot's going to start falling once his hand heals up. You should pray that Dyess or Blair don't give Pop an excuse to move Matty back into the starting lineup, because you lose every good thing that Bonner gives the team at that point while matching him up against starting NBA bigs. As long as he's coming off the bench he's going to be useful. He'll have more than one night like Mason had tonight that will help give the team a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Bonner shooting threes with a broke hand is still better than small ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
I don't mind playing Bonner at all, I said it in the other Bonner thread, I gave my reasons..he should play, if not for his game, then at least to boost up his trade value a little..
I didn't like how Pop played him vs. Randolph tonight, that's the only time I have a problem with Bonner..I don't like him guarding guys like Randolph, even though he didn't punish him, he was taking stupid shots against him..
Pop should have put him in later on when the Grizz had Haddadi, Thabeet or Steven Hunter in the game..
I agree with dbestpro that Bonner>small ball though, that's for sure..
I'm with you about Bogans though..
It's not even his shooting that is the most alarming thing. Mentally he is not there at all. He has lost all his confidence, composure or poise out there. It's sad to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
If I recall right, it took him a half a year to regain the last time he lost his head, and the spurs really can't afford his mental miscues this time around with a tough 2nd half (rodeo trip) coming up.
You can tell all of this by looking at a 4 game sample...in which he played a total of 9 minutes in the first two?Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Mc d
Hell ya I can, it's as obvious as the pock marks on Pop's cheeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by benefactor
With all due respect, I'm wary of your opinions of Bonner under the best of circumstances, so forgive me for suspecting your first-hand accounts. I'll weigh in on Sunday after the Denver game.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
If Pop brings in the younger Hairston to replace Bogans I would defenitely lean toward using the more experienced Ratliff over Mahinmi, I think for 10-15 mins a game Theo would be a GREAT rotation player.
This team is scoring plenty of points as is. Since Bonner has been out scoring points hasn't been a problem, but defense has been. Putting Ratliff in for Bonner's 10-15 mins a game would help the defense tremendously.
C McDyess/Ratliff
PF Duncan/Blair
SF Jefferson/Hairston
SG Mason Jr/Ginobili
PG Parker/Hill
There's your 10 man championship caliber rotation. If Hairston can provide some scoring punch from the bench that means Manu and his > 40% shooting can focus even more on playmaking, which I can only see as a good thing.
Bonner has always been bad.... He is A slow, undersized big man, who cannot rebound, or play any type of defense. He can shoot when he is wide open.... but now he cant even do that because of his hand.... He is and always will be garbage to me!
You need to drill in your head right now, January 30th, that neither Hairston or Ian are going to log one single minute the rest of the season unless there's injuries that require their presence in the team. They're the last guys on the roster, and they're not going anywhere...Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
We are not going to win a championship with Bogans and Bonner in the rotation. Book that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
This game in my mind cements the fact that Bogans cannot shoot and Bonner's head is back up his ass. Changes will need to be made or else.
If I had my way.....
Starters
McDyess
Duncan
Jefferson
Finley
Parker
2nd unit
Ian
Blair
Mason
Manu
Hill
Bogans
Ratliff
You can gripe all you want, but not going to happen... Hairston is already a lock for the Toros the rest of the season... Ian got beat by every other big, including Ratliff AND small ball...Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Is that you, Pop? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggems
Hell, I can go out there and move like a turtle, not play defense or rebound and miss wide open three pointers. At this point Matt Bonner is just a warm body. Totally useless. If we don't trade him, at least bury him on the IR.
If McDyess is playing well, Bonner is completely insignificant. I just don't want to see him anymore. It bums me out when he comes in. I don't want to be in a bad mood when I watch the Spurs.
I want to break-up with Matt Bonner.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggems
You've added youth with Ian balanced out by the veteran Finley. Interesting choices. Might work if Finley can find his legs for one more year.
Defenitely > the current rotation.
You act like Pop's decisons can never be questioned and are always correct. Let's get this straight, small ball is POP's choice.. and it backfires ALOT as we've seen so far this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
43% and 39% from downtown. Sorry he disappointed you tonight, but I guess you're just pre-conditioned for that. He's not consistent, but then again, he takes very few shots. He's going to shoot 4-5 one night and 0-5 the next. That's what happens when you're always the 5th option on the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
This would be a great rotation if we had somebody good to start at a 2G instead of Finley and someone reliable in Ian's place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggems
You act like somehow, your opinion (that you're entitled to) will have some bearing on Pop or this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
He's a frustrating player to watch for sure. You can thank his 39% from feasting against weak teams this year. In tough games against playoff contenders I would have to guess he is shooting 25% or less. The 2nd half will be a real test for him, as there will be fewer chump teams to feast on.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
All I can say is thank god this team has Roger Mason to pick up the slack for him.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
It's not too far fetched to think people in the spurs organization might peruse these boards and possibly glean ideas off them.
It's worth a shot.
Small ball IS Pop's choice, but with so much inconsistency with this year's roster (top to bottom), he hasn't had a much better option than to go small at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Malik's just a better player than Bogans; flat-out (and I'm a fan of Bogans).
Having said that, Bogans is a consistently better option to throw out there defensively because of his experience and the respect he's built up with officials. But even if he's marginally better or just going to bring a little more consistency than Hairston towards that end, I'd argue it's close enough that Hairston's overall game and upside to impact the game, on both ends, more than makes up for it.
I get why Pop prefers Bogans, as his skill set is a natural plug-in to a proven system: take on the opposition's best offensive option on the wing and be ready to finish plays as a spot-up shooter to spread the floor (the problem is, he's neither the defender nor the high-percentage spot-up shooter that once occupied the role).
Pop's got to break away from the tried and true and start allowing the Hairston's of the world to really show him what they can do; Malik earned the job through his play during SL, TC and the preseason, it's time he was finally rewarded.
Bogans is everything we hoped Udoka would be when they brought him aboard, all of which includes being a backup. Why should a backup who was outplayed for the job to start the season, who happens to be an inferior overall player, not have to compete for the role?
I'm not buying this. When the spurs are getting pounded on the boards or have guards and small forwards trying to guard 4's and 5's (like against blazers' Aldridge for instance) inconsistent or not Pop needs to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
That's like saying "I'm going to use a hammer to screw this screw in because my screwdriver is slightly bent".
You don't understand. I actually agree with most of what you're saying. It's just not going to happen. No amount of bitching will make it happen. The quicker you understand that, the quicker we can move on without these silly threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
It's more like the screw driver is broken and you only have an inch and a half to use and you have to hold it with two fingers and you keep dropping it and you can't get enough torque but you keep trying anyway at least until your friend comes back from the hardware store with a new screwdriver but your friend is a stoner and kind of unreliable so you're not really sure if there's a new screwdriver coming so you keep using the nubby one. . . but your metaphor is good too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
that's actually how I took your comment, but we can all hope for logic. My question to those that are in support of Bonner regaining his minutes - while he was out, did TD have a harder time scoring inside because we didn't have a "3 point threat" from a big? If the answer is no, that has to be considered in Bonner's minutes as his hustle is not enough to overcome the glaring weakness in the other parts of his "big man" game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackjack
Hairston can play defense too. We've all seen it. He plays very big and has an uncanny ability to block shots. He's young and fast and has given the spurs good energy every time he's been allowed to play.
So even if he gets less respect from the refs playing defense he will MORE than make up for it offensively. Look at the way he is TEARING up the D league right now. He would be a HUGE asset off the bench at 20 mins a game.
I've been talking up Hairston since he was drafted, but I've really given up wasting my time posting about him like I used to.
Hopefully he'll get his shot next year. (I'll hope to be surprised by a good showing that forces Pop to give him his shot, though; The RRT would be as good a time as any.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Are the hawks a good team so uh, what about the bad shooting against good teams?
I think it's extremely far-fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
The problem with Hairston is that, while he seems to be able to hit the 3 in the d-league, he has yet to hit one NBA 3 pointer in 36 games over two seasons. I don't know if it's a confidence thing, or the faster pace of the NBA, but he's only attempted two 3 pointers in his NBA career, one each season, both misses.
A wing who can't hit or won't shoot the 3 pointer is useless to this team. His man will give him no respect on D, and will basically be sitting in Duncan's lap all game. You guys like to bag on Bogans, but if he takes 100 shots from long distance, he's going to score 117 points. 39 made 3 pointers X 3 = 117. Tim would score 106 points shooting 100 shots at his current FG%. Hairston, with a shiny excellent career FG% of 48, without the 3 pointer in his repertoire would score only 96 points shooting 2 pointers, even at a high clip.
You can't really make that kind of assumption though..he has improved his 3-point shot over last season, and a sample size of 2 shots obviously isn't fair..there's no way anybody can make a judgment based on 2 shots..
What he said. Besides, you can't just say "36 games" and make it sound impressive like that. Dude has played a grand total of 73 minutes in 21 games this season, taking a total of 11 shots. Sample sizes need to be much larger to make any kind of conclusion. Besides, if Pop believes Malik to be a true 3-point threat (which I think he can be), and if he eventually gets a shot to play some legitimate minutes (which I think he will, but perhaps not until next year), then Pop has a way of dealing with shooters: "Take the open shots you get, or I'll bench you."Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
You can judge whether he should take more three pointers to play on the Spurs with that number.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
Shot is still flat, but it goes through the hoop in the D-League.
Your actually judging Hairston on the sporadic garbage minutes Pop has tossed him like small scraps from the table you'd toss your dog?Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Puh-leeze. If he's shooting 3's well in D league I'm sure he can shoot em in the NBA. As far as I know, they play using the same size NBA standard balls and hoops.
I don't really have anything against Bogans BTW..I don't feel comfortable with him as a starter or even a significant contributor, but he has somewhat exceeded expectations..
I'd obviously prefer that Hairston got his minutes, I've been saying that since he looked better than him in preseason, but I understand what they're doing with Hairston at least..the time in Austin should serve him well and help him iron out the problems with his game..
Hopefully they don't have another vet in front of him next year though, unless it's a no-brainer type of guy..
He should probably shoot more of them in the NBA then.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
:rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
3 point shooting is overrated. Sure you score more points at face value (3 vs 2) but your also not getting to the line at all (unless the occasional 3pt foul which is ultra-rare) & subsequently not getting opposing players in foul trouble in their teams into the penalty for easy points.
Not to mention it breeds laziness and a bunch of players who just stand around and do nothing but wait for a kick out.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
We've found the level of the room.
All I'm saying is he should take more than one three point shot every 114 minutes in the NBA.
You obviously think he is a perfect player without doing this.
Good for you.
He takes one every 21 minutes or so in the D-League as the focal point of the offense, and makes 47% of them.
Good for him.
LOL you obviously think 3 point shooting is the holy grail of basketball. Hell, maybe I should try out for the NBA, I can chuck up 3's too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lol
If you can make 47% of them in an NBA season, you'd be a millionaire several times over.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
It's a pretty valuable skill. I'm not sure you understand that.
It's a valuable skill but you act like its the holy grail, therefore overrating it. Especially the way the league is now where its so easy to get to the line with a little body contact. Look at the orlando magic, they've been doing nothing but chucking 3's all year long and it hasn't done jack for them. Against the celtics yesterday they finally pounded the ball inside to Howard and took the ball to the basket strong all game long which resulted in 40 FT attempts compared to just 18 for the C's. They also shot 6 less 3's than the C's which was a total role reversal and (amazingly!) won the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you're saying no NBA player should take more than one shot per 114 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
OK.
You've made yourself clear.
I think a player like Hairston could do well shooting threes more often than that. I believe that it would draw his defenders out to him more on the perimeter, which would keep them from sagging into the paint to help double a player like Duncan, and allow Hairston to drive around them easier should he choose to do so. It could also make Hairston's defender foul him more when he does drive since they are in a less optimal position to guard those drives.
Now give me your arguments why Malik should never take a three point shot in the NBA more often than once every 114 minutes. Give examples of starting NBA shooting guards -- I'm sure you consider Malik starting material -- that shoot it at that rate. I can't think of any offhand.
Your argument is invalid. It was stated earlier that Pop would make Hairston shoot some 3's if he actually played meaningful rotation minutes, something he has never done before.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
And I actually LOVE the fact that in those 114 minutes he has never once shot a 3. Why? Because it tells me he is cutting and slashing to the basket and getting to the line, instead of standing around out on the 3 point line like a lazy fuck.
That completely validates my argument and destroys yours. You don't want him to shoot more threes. You want him to just put his head down and hope to draw a foul. The last guy who did that was Darius Washington. Which NBA team is he playing for now?Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
You know he shot .286 from the line in the NBA, don't you?Quote:
And I actually LOVE the fact that in those 114 minutes he has never once shot a 3. Why? Because it tells me he is cutting and slashing to the basket and getting to the line, instead of standing around out on the 3 point line like a lazy fuck.
Nah, you didn't.
And you didn't respond to my request:
I'm waiting.Quote:
Give examples of starting NBA shooting guards -- I'm sure you consider Malik starting material -- that shoot it at that rate. I can't think of any offhand.
I never said shooting an occassional 3 is a terrible idea, the point I was making was Malik is obviously doing alot of cutting to the basket / setting screens / etc which IMO shows he is not a lazy fuck just standing around on the 3pt line. With just a little work he could easily incorporate a 3pt shot into his arsenal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Jump to extreme conclusions much, dickhead?
So you actually agree with me that Hairston should shoot more threes in the NBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Nice. :toast
As fanatical as you are about the 3 point shot you must nut yourself watching an orlando magic game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I'm not fanatical at all. I simply believe Malik should shoot more than one three every 114 minutes in the NBA.
And you agree.
I just said it might not be a terrible idea. Implying if it helps his game sure. But if the guy is productive without shooting any 3's at all then who cares. It's not that big of a deal IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you don't agree?
You're being awfully wishy-washy about this.
And you wouldn't be arguing like this if it wasn't a big deal to you.
I feel it would help his game in the NBA quite a lot for the reasons I stated above.
You still haven't named any starting shooting guards who shoot threes at the 1/114 minute rate you feel they should.
:corn
Got anything else, Chump? Grant Hill has taken a 3 point shot every 61 minutes in his career. How did he make it 15 years in the league shooting so few 3's?
1) He's a small forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
2) Thanks for proving my point.
Again. :toast
Good to know it's not a big deal to you. All your extensive research might cause one to think it actually is.
Extensive research? LOL hardly. Not hard to plug 2 numbers into a calculator.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
And Hairston is a SG/SF hybrid, much like Grant Hill. Very similar players IMO, and both effective. You haven't proved anything as far as I'm concerned, other than than your own talent for pompous self aggrandizing.
I think you're being kind with that characterization.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker23
It's NOT overrated, and the more you shoot it, the more efficient your offense becomes. Tim and Tony get to the line and play enough minutes to get the other teams into foul trouble. That's covered. Once you realize that, you go for efficiencies in offense. The most efficient shot in basketball is the corner three. In addition, if you shoot from beyond the arc, the ref has to raise his hand, and the play can even be reviewed later and changed for or against you. Not the case with a penetration, bump, and score. When you do that, you're relying on a call from the ref. You really don't want to do that when the chips are down in a playoff game against, say, LA.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
??? Manu is not a standstill 3 point shooter. Mason isn't either. That's not what I want Malik to be. What I want him to be is a multi threat player that can shoot from beyond the arc, put the ball on the floor for a mid range pull up J, or finish. You have to have the first one to set up the others.Quote:
Not to mention it breeds laziness and a bunch of players who just stand around and do nothing but wait for a kick out.
In the Spurs system, in 228 minutes, you HAVE to be open for a three pointer more than 2 times, no matter what kind of minutes they are.
I'll let Hollinger finish for me. I'm not a stat geek, per se, but when it drives directly to offensive efficiency and winning, I'm all over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollinger
And found that Hill shoots threes at roughly twice the rate that Hairston has. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Again, thanks for proving my point for me.
:lmaoQuote:
And Hairston is a SG/SF hybrid, much like Grant Hill. Very similar players IMO, and both effective. You haven't proved anything as far as I'm concerned, other than than your own talent for pompous self aggrandizing.
Now Malik Hairston = Grant Hill.
I think we're done here.
I compared the two and said their games have similarities, not that Hairston = Hill. Again, you jump to extreme conclusions and fail to read and comprehend. Hill has made a living for 15 years as a guy who rarely shoots a 3. Hairston seems to be similar in that regard and plays as a bigger defender than his listed height, similar to Hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Just for your reference.
sim⋅i⋅lar /ˈsɪmələr
–adjective 1. having a likeness or resemblance, esp. in a general way: two similar houses.
But by all means keep up your egotistical self flatulence. Maybe you can set a spurstalk record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
alright alright. I like it when there's a mediator. So I'll be the mediator in this one. Both of you, take it easy. It's really funny, but soon it's gonna get lame. not taking any sides, just trying to help.
for the record, Chumper did ask for a shooting guard and TJastal brought up a small forward.
But I don't think he meant GH=MH he simply wanted to use someone he didn't shoot a lot of 3s.
now stop jumping to conclusions and using dramatic multi-syllable name calling.
you both win. ok? draw. now move on.
sometimes we all need a pal to mediate.
The corner 3 is an efficient shot but again, you overrate it. Give me a dunk or layup instead anyday with potential for the foul and free throws attached. Hairston (in the extremely limited minutes I saw of him) dunked the ball quite often and got easy and layups because he moves and makes cuts to the rim alot.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Hill shoots threes at roughly twice the rate you want Hairston to keep shooting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
You think 61 = 114, just as you think Hairston = Hill and a small forward = shooting guard.
I disagree. I don't think 61 = 114 and I don't think Hairston = Hill, or is even that similar as players.
I understand this is very important to you, but you just aren't very good at this. By all means continue though. It's entertaining.
Well at least you finally passed reading comprehension.:clapQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I never said they were equal as players, I said they have similar styles and you disagree with that comparison. Good for you.
They are both athletic sg/sf hybrids that play bigger than their listed height and therefore can play either position because of that. The both do most of their damage attacking the basket and have a good midrange game and play well in the transition game.
The point here is that they both are effective players even while not taking many 3 point attempts.
Again, you're relying on the refs to get you that 3rd point. One hundred percent of made 3s count for 3 points. I'm not sure what the percentage is when you get bumped while making a shot, but I guarantee you that 100% of And1s don't get called.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
If you can't understand simple shot efficiency examples, and are all about cool dunks, then I'm done talkin' too ya.
Yet you already agreed with me that Haiston should take more threes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
My job here has been done for some time, you just haven't noticed it yet.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by draft87
You've officially become entertaining.:tu
I wasn't sure which way to go with you: pretentious, condescending douchebag that could lead me to utilize the ignore function for the first time or; pretentious, condescending douchebag that thoroughly entertained me.
Now please, tell me why it is I posted what I did and the assortment of issues that lead me to do so (feel free to talk down to my level, as I know we should all be thankful that you've decided to grace us with your all-so-subtle presence here).
This is going to be awesome! :corn:
Is the corner 3 a more efficent shot than a dunk? Yes or no answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Quote:
Originally Posted by draft87
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by draft87
It's not a simple as yes/no. How many dunks actually happen in a game anyway? Maybe 6 or 7 for both teams? It's not a realistic strategy to plan for 15 dunks in a game. No one will give you that. You can sure as hell plan to shoot 15 3 pointers, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
So you finally admit that a dunk is the most efficient shot in basketball? Due to its 99.9% success rate. Would that be a fair assessment of your answer? Yes or no.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Alright, you want to play this game? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Now I have my Yes No question for you, and don't be a pussy and back out and quote my post out of context. Can you realistically base an entire offense around the dunk? Yes or no.
I'll answer your question with a question of my own - Can you realistically base an entire offense around the 3 pts shot? (Hint: NO).Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Are you done being made a fool of yet?
Pussy. Answer the question. Yes or no. Can you base an entire offense around the dunk?Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
what I don't get is bonner gets mins. and Ian doesn't?plz pop Ian is the better option
No, and you can't base an offense around the 3pt shot either. So your point was.. exactly.. again?Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Can you design an offense in the NBA that will get you 25 good looks at a dunk? If you can, there are 30 owners that will line up to pay you more than Phil Jackson makes. An offense CAN be designed to get you 25 good looks at a three pointer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
I'm not advocating shooting all 3 pointers. That would be a dumb as saying you should dunk every time. It's just not feasable. What I'm saying is that teams that shoot a LOT of 3 pointers and do it WELL win more. Period.
I don't know if anyone has posted this, but the reason for so many 3 pt shots instead of shorter shots is all part of the percentages. Hardly anyone shoots 50% or better on 2 pt. jumpers. But you'd have to do that to make a 15' jumper statistically beat a 3 pt shooter who can hit 33% of his shots. The extra point is a massive advantage for the 3 pt shot from a practical and statistical point of view.
Wow bold assumption there.... such a stretch to assume if a team shot 3's WELL (and just how "WELL" are you implying here nobody knows, the assumption being your shooting better than at least half the other teams in the NBA) you would win more games than not. :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
You could say that about anything really... rebounding, defensive FG%, steals, etc etc etc
As for the top 5 teams that lead the league in 3 pt attempts, those being:
Orlando
NY
Phoenix
Indiana
Houston
None of these teams except Orlando are really title contending. And you certainly CAN base an offense mostly around guys cutting to the basket and getting easy dunks/alley oops... the hawks are living proof of that.
Once again, your arguments fail to deliver.
I've tried, but some folks ain't hearin' it. 33% isn't that high of a bar, either, for 3 point shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildbill2u
Nobody's hearing it because its a flawed theory, fit for mutton-heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
How's NY doing this year? They've shot 1197 3's this year, good for 2nd in attempts.
Oh, right they suck.
Indiana? They've shot 1051, good for 4th place, so surely they must be good, right?
Oh, they suck too.
LOGIC FAIL.
fml
I'm pretty sure ex doesn't want Malik turning into a 3-point specialist. But if you've got an offense built around a dominant big and a point who lives in the paint, who also happens to be devoid of a 3-point shot of his own, you need your role players to compliment with a skill set that promotes floor-balance and spacing; I love Malik and have been following him since Oregon, but he's here to be a role-player.
He's here to compliment the likes of the Big 3+1 (having a credible 3-point shot happens to coincide with that for him to play extended minutes).
This would be a non-issue for the most part if he's coming off the bench for 20 minutes a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackjack
His game of cutting to the rim would go nicely with Manu and his knack for finding cutters with nifty passes. If Hill remains a starter (which looks plausible atm), you'd already have Roger Mason to shoot the 3-ball in that 2nd unit. Malik would fit perfectly as that clean up guy who guys will find around the rim for dump off passes.
But he might not always play with Manu and the second unit. Players who can't play alongside Duncan can't have a meaningful impact in the rotation...and any wing player that can't at the very least be a threat to drain a 3 becomes more of hindrance than a help when he is in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
As Blackjack said, on one is advocating turning Hairston into Bowen or Brent Barry. We all know that he has other skills that make him valuable. But the Spurs system is what it is and that cannot be changed. That system says that wings must be able to be a threat from behind the arc.
I just read this entire thread. I'll throw in 2 points.
1. I think the 2007 Championship was what made Pop so infatuated with veterans and unwilling to play rookies/young players. His choice of Bogans over Malik is a part of that overall trend. Ditto Ian.
2. As far as 3ptrs and how effective they are- I think they are much more effective when you're taking open shots. Not so much when they are contested. I like the PPS (points per shot) statistic because it takes into account the value of a 3ptrs vs a 2 ptr, but also taking FT's and going to the line. I think it is the best way to measure a player's offensive efficiency.
TS% is the best way of measuring all 3 of those aspects IMO..
I also agree that Hairston should shoot more 3s when he gets NBA time, my point was just that his limited attempts doesn't prove that he can't shoot 3s IMO, he's obviously more comfortable slashing..hopefully he can make them at the NBA level on a consistent basis, it would pretty much guarantee his spot here next year..
Just interested why you think ts% is better than PPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
I think the point most of us Hairston honks are trying to make is, he should've been given the opportunity to prove if he was capable of knocking down the three or not; Bogans couldn't knock down a shot to save his life to start, but Pop stuck with him and gave him the rope to find his stroke (it boggles the mind to think such an opportunity was not afforded to a guy like Malik, who happened to outplay him and brings more to the table).
I can understand why Pop played veterans like Barry and Horry because they knew the system and they had high basketball IQ's. But Bogans is learning the system just like Hairston would have. Why not give him a chance since he obviously has so much more upside..
To take the other side, the respect factor in terms of officiating is HUGE and a rookie like Hairston would never get the respect from the refs he needs to be a defensive stopper, whereas Bogans has a little reputation, and he is kind of Bowen lite, so maybe he gets taken more seriously by the joke of a ref crew that the NBA has