Reply With Quote
Though I will continue to read his brain farts for amusement.
Nah, ROFL was an appropriate response to your comment.
That's because he can actually keep offensive post players in front of him and block shots. When your understanding of the game comes solely from a belief in SABRmetrics applied to it then you reach stupid conclusions, such as that Bonner and Ratliff are the same caliber defensively.5 rebounds in 24 minutes is abysmal? Ratliff has nearly identical numbers on the glass and some people on this board act like he's a defensive shogun.
Anyways, if you need #s to guide you to the truth, then Foster's rebounding rate last season was 73% higher than Wilt Chamberlain Bonner's.
Good God. You are a moron. I am not going to waste any more time on you.Really? Last I checked, all McDyess does is take midrange jumpers. Basically he's Kurt Thomas 2.0. Whereas Bonner can stretch it out to the 3 and shoot it at one of the best clips in the league, or he can pump on you and drive in for a midrange shot or a running hook. McDyess is the real one-trick pony on offense, not Bonner. Bonner is a WAY better ballhandler than McDyess.
Though I will continue to read his brain farts for amusement.
Bonner is shotting the ball damn well. No way pop trades him yet
Anyways, before I forget, PER isn't a "number", it's a method which derives its "value" from...numbers. Traditional NBA statistics fail to capture that which is obvious to anyone who actually can evaluate players without the aid of limited quan ative methods. Without the check of actual common sense, then you end up reaching conclusions such as that Matt Bullard Bonner has the same impact on the game as a Tim Duncan due to their respective bull PER values.
ROFL. Now he's discovered "versatility", as in Bullard Bonner and Finley give you multiple ways to lose.
Matt Bullard Bonner is an offensive juggernaut and a defensive beast. Do not believe the lies of your eyes!
The lengths to which homers go in order to justify ty players continues to amaze me.
Of course, when you combine an excessive faith in limited quan ative methods with sheer stupidity, then you end up falling in love with Matt Bullard Bonner.
I'm with Spurstrodamus and Manu4Tres here..I don't see the big deal about Foster, he doesn't give us anything we don't already have IMO..he's a good positional defender, but not good enough to give up our expiring assets..he doesn't fill the need properly IMO..
Yes, Bonner's most significant value to the Spurs is his expiring contract. Otherwise he is an uni-dimensional scrub. I have to laugh at you knuckleheads who pretend he isn't while a big who outrebounds him markedly and who does not play soft ass defense is.
And Ratliff does not provide the minutes nor the rebounding that Foster would. To say he and Foster are the same player is incorrect.
Foster would play the same role as Ratliff which would be to play great interior defense, rebound, set efficient screens, and convert wide open scenarios when others create for him or finish garbage points after an offensive rebound. Nothing more nothing less.
Foster is a better rebounder by a slight margin, but Ratliff is much superior at defending the rim and altering shots or blocking shots rather. Therefore those two attributes cancel eachother out to an extent, except I give Ratliff the edge because McDyess and Blair provide superior rebounding already. We don't have what Ratliff physically provides in terms of defending the rim. None the less Ratliff and Foster would play the same role that I mentioned above.
Just because they may do one thing better than the other doesn't mean they would have different roles.
Not just that, but obviously Blair gives us a very good additional rebounder as well..Ratliff's defense consists of protecting the rim, while Foster's defense is more positional, and this team currently needs a rim protector..
If we're going to trade Bonner, I'd rather get a legit big man, or another guy that can defend on the perimeter..
Who are you expecting to get in return for Bonner better than Foster? If you want a "legit" big man, it will take a lot more than Bonner.
Exactly therefore it would be a dumb move. Because to get a legit big man we would have to part with either Hill or Blair. Something I wouldn't do.
Foster is not a legit big man. He's a 15 mpg filler at most. Something Ratliff/Blair/ Bonner provide already.
I know it would take more for than Bonner, we already had this discussion..there are only a few big men that we can get in general, and most of them would require giving up Hill/Blair/picks..I'm just pointing out that if we were to trade Bonner, that's what I would want in return..
Foster is a waste of trading expiring contracts..you never know what happens at the deadline..some big men could be disgruntled and ask out, somebody could get bought out and we want to save $ in a dump..many options..
Getting a perimeter player wouldn't be out of the question for a Bonner package ether, and that would be better than Foster..
Lets make a scenario here.
Let's say we go with what we have to start the season. We get close to the deadline and Blair is playing well but not playing good enough positional defense consistently to stay out of foul trouble(this is actually not a reach). We are now looking at the possibility of going into the playoffs with a rotation of Duncan/McDyess/Bonner/Ratliff. Do you then pull the trigger on a trade for Foster?
Sorry...this is just a lie. You say you have watched him but I'm seriously starting to doubt it.
I would take Foster if we don't have better options at the deadline..he's not a bad player at all, I just think we could potentially have better options at the deadline, especially on the perimeter..
As I said before, I would also take an impact perimeter player over Foster. I was just making sure that most of us were not under the ridiculous assumption that Foster is no more than a "15 mpg filler".
Last edited by benefactor; 10-25-2009 at 03:12 PM.
No. Maybe last year, but now he would be redundant. Bonner gives us unique tools for a big. Unless there is a ridiculously good deal out there (this one is NOT), then I do not see the Spurs making any deals absent a key injury to one of our studs.
So you would be comfortable going into the playoffs with a Duncan/McDyess/Ratliff/Bonner rotation?
^
We might have to be.
I hope not. I hope that Blair can play good enough positional defense to take up the extra minutes. If he can't I think making one more move on the front line will be necessary to get us over the championship hump.
I agree, but the Spurs might be stuck between a rock and a hard place depending on how the "market" shapes up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
