Reply With Quote
That would explain a lot tbh.
Thank you. I had no idea.
That would explain a lot tbh.
Heinrich can backup and play any position 1-3.
They have Teague currently playing point guard. I don't know if they believe he's the long term answer or not, but I do know they have been looking for a high profile point guard for years, and I believe with enough prodding and maybe a 1st round pick they would have taken the bait.
What position does he actually play for Atlanta?
Is it starting point guard?
Using all caps doesn't make an assertion into a fact. Much like two-man +/- numbers don't prove the relative impact of one player over the other.
Now for some actual facts.
Spurs Winning Percentage during George's tenure:
Overall: .671
w/Hill as starter: .582
w/Hill as reserve: .705
w/o Hill: .600
So much for your VERIFIABLE FACTS.
Yes they do, as Hinrich's backup. The notion that ATL would trade Smith for a 13M PG is just silly, even for you.
http://blogs.ajc.com/hawks/2011/06/2...ger-for-trade/
Trading Smith as a salary dump makes little sense (and is complicated by the $4 million trade kicker his new team would have to pay). Smith is still only 25. He’s productive, versatile, and valuable. The two years and $26 million left on his contract runs neck-and-neck with Al Horford’s new deal as the best bargain on the team.
Last edited by TJastal; 06-27-2011 at 06:54 AM.
Using all caps doesn't make an assertion into a fact. Much like two-man +/- numbers don't prove the relative impact of one player over the other.
Now for some actual facts.
Spurs Winning Percentage during George's tenure:
Overall: .671
w/Hill as starter: .582
w/Hill as reserve: .705
w/o Hill: .600
So much for your VERIFIABLE FACTS.
Mel just "shut down the Forum!"
2009-2010
Using all caps doesn't make an assertion into a fact. Much like two-man +/- numbers don't prove the relative impact of one player over the other.
Now for some actual facts.
Spurs Winning Percentage during George's tenure:
Overall: .671
w/Hill as starter: .582
w/Hill as reserve: .705
w/o Hill: .600
So much for your VERIFIABLE FACTS.
Regular Season
19-12 (Hill at PG) .613 win pct
31-19 (Parker at PG) .620 win pct
7-5(Parker-Hill together) .583 win pct
Playoffs
4-4 (Hill at PG) .500 win pct
0-2 (Parker at PG) .000 win pct
That regular season record for when Hill started includes that stretch early in November where not only Parker, but also Duncan and Manu had some minor injuries. Most of the games he started that month where without atleast 2 of the big 3, theres also the tanked season finale against Dallas...even with that though he's right up there with Parker, the difference is less than .01. When given a healthy Duncan&Manu Hill's win pct was higher than Parker's as a starter though.
His sample size his 1st and 3rd season were too small so I didnt really take the time to look through the 10-15 games combined he started those two seasons. Im sure it looks pretty similar and that the Spurs dont miss a beat when Hill started over Parker (not with Parker) though. How do any of these numbers suggest the Spurs wouldve been a disaster if they had opted to keep Hill and start him at PG alongside Manu??
selective quoting
completely ignoring the rest of the post
Who suggested that? Certainly not me.
Read the post I quoted and was replying to.
lol selective dataselective quoting
Thanks for admitting you cherry picked to confirm your bias though.
Fair enough.
It certainly could be argued that the team played better with Hill though, when you factor in the injuries and the last game that was tanked. Pretty sure the team had a higher winning pct with Hill starting when the team was completely healthy than they did with Parker starting.
The team was 49-22 with Roger Mason as a starter in 08-09 and they were 32-17 with Keith Bogans as a starter in 09-10. The team with Tim Duncan on it wins a high percentage of their games.
The point of my post was to point out the absurdity of asserting that it was a VERIFIABLE FACT that the Spurs were a better team with George as a starter. It's not.
When the Spurs were completely healthy (not including Hill and Parker themselves):
Their win pct with Hill starting was higher than their win pct with Parker starting. Thats a verifiable fact tbh. If the team wins more I dont see why its absurd to say they are a better team.
I'm not interested enough to check your numbers, I'll assume that they're true.
Even in that case, you're dealing with very small sample sizes and not controlling for any other factors. A few obvious factors that would affect the numbers:
1. Opponents quality.
2. Opponents injuries.
3. For the 2009-10 season, the portion of the season is critical. RJ, Dice, Blair, and Bogans were new to the team. Manu was coming off a long layoff and took about half the season to round into form. Then he was super-Manu for about 25 games. Are you really going to attribute the team's success to the fact that George happened to start a good number of those games?
To just look at the Tony/George winning percentages without controlling for numerous other factors really doesn't tell you very much. See above for the team's success with Mason and Bogans.
You can argue that there wouldn't be much of a fall-off with George, but you can't establish that the team was better as a verifiable fact.
So you mean we should have traded Parker instead of Hill to get... Singleton... the player the Spurs could have drafted instead of Leonard if they had wanted to, with the pick they got from trading Hill.+1
Spurs could have had this as a starting lineup this year but they blew it already.
Hill
Manu
Singleton (pick acquired via Parker trade)
Splitter (or trade acquisition big)
Duncan
As a spurs fan watching Popovich year after year make blunder after blunder it really starts to get old.
So all in all the Spurs would have the exact same team as now, except Hill instead of Parker, and you somehow think that's an improvement? You're a funny guy.
Oh, and please look up the definition of Occam's razor. You seem as clueless about that (and logic in general) as you are about basketball.
Do you have reading / comprehension problems?
I said the spurs should have used Parker to trade up in the draft to one of the several lottery teams who were willing to give up their 1st rounder + a decent player in return for Parker. Until the spurs floated Richard Jefferson into the equation of course, which quickly ended all talks.
Then easily selected Singleton (who dropped to #17 or 18 I believe), a guy who will be a better player than Leonard and a player the spurs would have been able to plug into the starting lineup quickly in Jefferson's place.
Spurs would have had a revamped starting lineup, depending on what PF/C they could have landed for Parker. No doubt they could have landed PF Jason Thompson, who is/was being shopped around the league by the kings, and fits the mold of a quality young athletic player who could have been plugged in next to Tim Duncan in the starting lineup.
These moves would have given the spurs a tremendous boost of youth and athleticism to their starting lineup IMO.
Hill
Manu
Singleton
Thompson
Duncan
Instead, now they are stuck with the french poodle, a lottery bust in Leonard, and no quality PF to help Tim Duncan.
I'm not the only one who thinks the spurs messed up.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed...2011-nba-draft
LOSERS
Spurs. It doesn’t help that so many Tony Parker-Richard Jefferson rumors swirled in the days before the draft, because now San Antonio is in an awkward position. They will go into the season with two starters who know they were being shopped, and instead of moving Parker and Jefferson, relieving some potential salary cap logjam, San Antonio dealt away cap-friendly George Hill to Indiana for their draft pick, Kawhi Leonard. But the Spurs had hoped to change the makeup of their team, and though Leonard is a promising player who was considered a potential top seven pick, the Spurs weren’t able to pull off the big deal they’d hoped.
FWIW, Jon Barry didn't like the trade either. He said George was the heir apparent to Tony at PG.
Yeah, but then again you're the mavsfan1000 of spurfans.
TJ is still bleeding?
Damn.
He'll never be able to wear white again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
