Time for Hairston and Ian/Ratliff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

Well at least you finally passed reading comprehension.:clap

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.

---

Yet you already agreed with me that Haiston should take more threes.

My job here has been done for some time, you just haven't noticed it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draft87

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.

---

:lmao

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

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.

If you can't understand simple shot efficiency examples, and are all about cool dunks, then I'm done talkin' too ya.

---

Is the corner 3 a more efficent shot than a dunk? Yes or no answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draft87

A man's got a right to defend himself without some other jerk butting in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draft87

alright alright. I like it when there's a mediator. So I'll be the mediator in this one.

---

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

Is the corner 3 a more efficent shot than a dunk? Yes or no answer.

---

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 exstatic

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.

---

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 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.

---

Alright, you want to play this game? Yes.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Alright, you want to play this game? Yes.

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).

Are you done being made a fool of yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

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).

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?

what I don't get is bonner gets mins. and Ian doesn't?plz pop Ian is the better option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Pussy. Answer the question. Yes or no. Can you base an entire offense around the dunk?

---

No, and you can't base an offense around the 3pt shot either. So your point was.. exactly.. again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

No, and you can't base an offense around the 3pt shot either. So your point was.. exactly.. again?

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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. :rolleyes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

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.

---

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 exstatic

I've tried, but some folks ain't hearin' it. 33% isn't that high of a bar, either, for 3 point shooting.

---

Nobody's hearing it because its a flawed theory, fit for mutton-heads.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackjack

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

This would be a non-issue for the most part if he's coming off the bench for 20 minutes a game.

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.

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37

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.

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