Reply With Quote
You were wrong, deal with it.
And I'm not a D'Antoni fan.
And the Suns defence under D'Antoni was pretty decent considering the defensive quality of the players in those rosters.
im glad to see that stern's 1 year of college is really working, Hill must have ruined the curve in his English comp class.
You were wrong, deal with it.
And I'm not a D'Antoni fan.
And the Suns defence under D'Antoni was pretty decent considering the defensive quality of the players in those rosters.
The Italian thing was a shot in the dark. It's the internet, I could care less of I was wrong. I'm still 100% positive there's something clouding you're view of D'antoni.
You were wrong about D'antoni being fired, which makes it clear you know absolutely nothing about the situation. If you did, you would know he wasn't fired.
What's clouding my view of D'Antoni from your perspective is a lack of any particular emotion, positive or negative, towards him and his work. You simply aren't used to this kind of assessment.
Me too!! I'm actually glad D'Antoni considered him a bad rookie. Had he played him in NY, we probably wouldn't have gotten him in the trade. After he bulks up this summer, and get's a chance to work with coach Sikma, I can see his development taking a big jump next season.
Yeah, he wasn't technically fired.
Oh yes I'm quite used to the assessment you're giving of D'antoni, plenty of Suns fans I know share your opinion, and all of them are huge D'antoni apologists who say ignorant like "D'antoni was fired".
What we concluded so far is that Hill is playing in Houston the same way he played in New York (and producing at the same level) - yet, he's improved much since he left D'Antoni's tenebrous influence behind him.
Great logic.
Yeah, he wasn't technically fired.
No, he wasn't fired at all. The Suns wanted him to stay, Sarver and Kerr publicly said this, but he wanted permission to talk to other teams. He left on his own whim. Sarver's own words, "I begged him to stay".
I'm not a D'Antoni apologist, like I am not a JVG or Thibodeau hater.
I just think, like most in the coaching community, that the importance of coaches to the defensive prowess of their teams is, at this level, negligible.
It's a gimmick offensive that works to magnify specific skills. It's very good at it. However, it's a system based on instincts and chaos and isn't for everyone. Hill was never a player D'Antoni could fully utilize. I mentioned D'Antoni's failure with Kurt Thomas already. However, Hill's rookie production rate, even with bull minutes, was solid for a rookie big man. I've already shown the comparison to Horford, who was a unanimous selection to the All-Rookie team.
And yet, Hill has managed to steal a good bunch of Jeffries' minutes as Rockets.IMO Jeffries is a better player than Hill right now. Jeffries is a good-to-very good defender; Hill is a poor one.
No . Note the bolded phrase. Does experience not help development? The experience he's now gaining will only benefit him. It's not "improvement" but rather increased production. I understand that. Once again, I've been saying this since the beginning. This, however, works to improve his game and development much more so than being wasted on a bench does.Calling improvement and development to additional minutes is crazy. At most that means a player has the opportunity to show his talents. But it's not improvement and improvement isn't a necessary corollary of playing more time. Otherwise it'd be fairly easy to develop players!
Do I think Hill is a life-long Rocket? No... He may be dealt in the summer. But the point is, Adelman has given Hill the chance that D'Antoni did not, and did so in a similar context as D'Antoni was claiming. Playoff race? CHECK! Depth at the position: Scola, Hayes, Battier, Jeffries? CHECK! And yet he's proving his worth, first in limited minutes, then with significant minutes.Anyway, if Jordan Hill falls out of favour with Adelman I'll be glad to bump this thread. Prediction: it will happen to some extent. Follow-up prediction: you won't be such a big fan of Adelman when that happens. And I'm generally pretty good at predictions.
I've said all there is to say... This wasn't a thread to sing the praises of Hill. It was to call out the blatant hypocrisy of D'Antoni's comments (made yesterday) given the context of Hill on Houston, where Hill has beat out Jeffries, a player D'Antoni just had to play over him, and where he's done so on a playoff contending team.
It was to call out the incessant excuses of D'Antoni for his own failings as a coach. D'Antoni was the one who couldn't find a way to utilize the production rate of Hill that now benefits Houston.
Nobody has said anything like this. You really need to reread the differing views in this thread.
That's something I agree on. I was a fan of D'antoni leaving, I wasn't a fan of the at ude that D'antoni was the one reason the Suns weren't a good defensive team. I had a problem with the fact D'antoni didn't care if the Suns sucked at defense, the fact he sold draft picks because he didn't like using young players, and how little he used the bench. The bad defense is on Nash more than anyone.
Amare is never gonna be a great defensive player, but the fact D'antoni didn't hold him accountable at all for bad D bothered me.
mogro, if all you're saying in this thread is that the impact if coaching is overrated, then sorry. I thought you were trying to argue D'antoni is some great coach.
Again? Have you seen the comparison to Josh McRoberts? It just doesn't work that way. What's so difficult to understand about this? I can get you dozens of rookies with per minute numbers similar to Al Horford/Jordan Hill who were complete scrubs.
The problem is that Hill isn't showing anything he didn't show in NY.No . Note the bolded phrase. Does experience not help development? The experience he's now gaining will only benefit him. It's not "improvement" but rather increased production. I understand that. Once again, I've been saying this since the beginning. This, however, works to improve his game and development much more so than being wasted on a bench does.
Again, you, like most fans, are vastly overrating the benefits of getting playing time to the improvement of some players. How much better do you think Petro is going to be after all the minutes he lucked into with the Nuggets this season?
That argument is... weird.I've said all there is to say... This wasn't a thread to sing the praises of Hill. It was to call out the blatant hypocrisy of D'Antoni's comments (made yesterday) given the context of Hill on Houston, where Hill has beat out Jeffries, a player D'Antoni just had to play over him, and where he's done so on a playoff contending team.
Oh well, I suppose that a Hoosiers fan is now complaining about how stupid is Adelman for playing Hill ahead of Jeffries when Jeffries had beat out Hill in NY.
LOL. What does this mean? Even you say that Hill doesn't fit D'Antoni philosophy ( I don't particularly agree, but whatever).It was to call out the incessant excuses of D'Antoni for his own failings as a coach. D'Antoni was the one who couldn't find a way to utilize the production rate of Hill that now benefits Houston.
This thread has certainly taken some weird turns.
Once again, my intent with the thread: This wasn't a thread to sing the praises of Hill. It was to call out the blatant hypocrisy of D'Antoni's comments (made yesterday) given the context of Hill on Houston, where Hill has beat out Jeffries, a player D'Antoni just had to play over him, and where he's done so on a playoff contending team.
It was to call out the incessant excuses of D'Antoni for his own failings as a coach. D'Antoni was the one who couldn't find a way to utilize the production rate of Hill that now benefits Houston.
I've been a follower of the NBA since 1988, and a religious follower since 1991. I've spent a ton of my adult life as someone who analyzed sports for fun and for a living (for 5+ years). I'm not convinced the impact of coaching is overrated. Not at all. Maybe there's expectations of a specific coach that are unreasonable, but there's a reason why the same coaches win everywhere they go, sometimes with great talent, other times with only good or average.
I think there are many things, some subtle, that a coach does or stresses that has a significant impact on the game. DoK has given a few examples related to D'Antoni already.
Jordan Hill: D'Antoni buried me on bench
Rookie Jordan Hill, the Knicks' lottery pick last year, charged that coach Mike D'Antoni held him back during his brief, forgettable stint in New York.
The 6-foot-10 Hill, who faces the Knicks today at the Garden as a Rocket, was dispatched in the Feb. 18 Tracy McGrady blockbuster trade after team president Donnie Walsh gave up on the eighth pick.
Walsh felt it was more important to open up even more salary cap space, doubting that Hill would develop into an All-Star. In essence, Walsh was admitting to a mistake with the selection.
Hill has moved past another former Knick, Jared Jeffries, in the Rockets' rotation.
"Coach D'Antoni, he relies on his veterans more than rookies," Hill told the Houston Chronicle. "He feels like his rookies need to learn more their first year so they could get everything down pat. I understood. I just wanted to wait patiently until my time was coming."
An active Hill has been a breath of fresh air in Houston. In nine games, he has averaged 5.9 points and 4.9 rebounds in 15 minutes. On Friday in Boston, Hill scored 11 points and grabbed seven boards in 27 minutes.
"My chance was here [in Houston] and I'm making the best of it," Hill said. "Fans there [in New York], they know what I can do. I just didn't have the opportunity to show it."
Hill hid his distaste for his role when he was with the Knicks. He spent most of his Knicks days on the bench, starting the season out of the rotation.
Hill's remarks come after fellow rookie Toney Douglas was given the starting point guard job after being used little in the season's first half. Douglas has carried the club to a 3-1 record in four starts.
Walsh said before the 2009 draft that the Knicks "can't make a mistake" with their lottery pick.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knick...RG1GiFLiCc4TnO
Right out of the JVG school of thought for rookies. Better seen on the bench than heard.
The difference is talent and upside. I've given you a small sampling of how this production rate continues as minutes increase, which results in statistcs such as 11 ppg, 7 rpg and 1 bpg in 25 minutes a game.
There's nothing weird about it. D'Antoni said Hill wasn't worthy of more playing time because he couldn't beat out Jeffries, who was needed to try and make a playoff push. Yet, apart from D'Antoni, Hill has taken significant minutes away from that same Jeffries, and has done so within the same context of playoff contention.That argument is... weird.
Oh well, I suppose that a Hoosiers fan is now complaining about how stupid is Adelman for playing Hill ahead of Jeffries when Jeffries had beat out Hill in NY.
LOL. What does this mean? Even you say that Hill doesn't fit D'Antoni philosophy ( I don't particularly agree, but whatever).
It points out that D'Antoni is full of . He couldn't figure out how to utilize a production rate, so he buried the player (note the games played in December and brief demotion to the NBDL).
At this point it's pretty clear we both agree that Hill is a similar player now with Houston that he was with NY. The difference is the minutes received. You say they don't matter that much to development, while I say they do. You say his increased production with increased minutes is par for the course, I'm saying it speaks to his higher potential. I think if Hill was the incompetent D'Antoni paints him to be, then Hill wouldn't be playing right now for a team with much more to lose by playing him. D'Antoni said Hill was a bad rookie, but this is based upon very limited minutes. With increased minutes, Hill has proven to be better than what D'Antoni gave him credit for.
I don't see how this thread devolved so quickly or got so confounding.
How many minutes has Hill played in Houston? 150 or something? Again, I can give you plenty of rookies who put similar or better numbers per minute in similar situations. It doesn't even make sense to talk about the "increased minutes yet per minute production didn't decline" stuff at this point. You can make the argument about talent and upside, but in that case just drop the production per minute nonsense and, obviously, the nutty Al Horford comparison.
I can't see that D'Antoni's hypocrisy.
Coach A thinks player x is better than player Y.
Coach B, otoh, prefers player y over player x.
What's the big deal? It's not like Hill was tearing things apart when he was playing - in some moments, especially at the start of the season, he looked pretty bad. It's not like he's doing it now. Where's the hypocrisy?
I'm sure glad you're not a Rockets coach.
I also don't think Adelman is an hypocrite for playing Hill ahead of Jeffries.I'm sure glad you're not a Rockets coach.
Was Adelman wrong for not playing Hedo more in his rookie season? Does anyone remember how that season went for Turkoglu? His come out party vs the Lakers in the playoffs?
The funny thing is that there's a good chance that next season we'll be reading Rockets fans ing about Adelman not playing some random rookie and hindering his development (or some prospect like Hill or Buddinger). Or maybe a guy like Dorsey or Taylor explodes playing for another team. Heck, give Dorsey 20 minutes per game and he'll look a Jordan Hill type of player.
Dude is a stud!
The problem I think you guys are havng is that mogro here is arguing that Jordan Hill is as good in Houston as he was with the knicks, the only difference is that hill is getting more minutes, thus he is getting better stats.
But if you actually look at the number of minutes played by hill in houston and knicks, you see that in 100 less minutes, hill has already gotten the same amount of assist, almost the same points, almost the same rebounds, and etc... at a better FG% shooting clip.
Obviously you can't gauge all that on a couple of games, but the fact remains that Hill and Jeffries so far have almost played identical minutes, with Hill having 180 and jeffries having 175 minutes, but the big difference are in the production during that period, where Hill is not quite, but almost twice as productive in the same amount of minutes.
So for argument sakes. Do we say that a 30 year old jared jeffries has more upside and potential than a 23 year old, just learned to play bball, athletic Jordan Hill? Cuz if that's the case, then the stats arent' showing that, and even if we went for 20+ games, it's gna take jeffries a while to catch up with how far ahead Hill is in terms of production.
And besides have you seen jeffries play? he is horrible, heck i'd take josh mcroberts over this scrub, not playing a raw rookie, over a veteran scrub is just being a dumbass coach.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions