I''m sure Baam still thinks the Pek deal is better than Splitter's.
You're not getting this. Obviously, in cases like these, whichever they're better at is subjective, but that's a different argument. What we're talking about isn't opinion, it's fact.
They didn't "try to make Turner an SG", because he always was. In fact, the only reason he and Young were moved up a position on a full time basis, was because of Bynum's injuries. Their initial plan was to start Hawes at PF. But without Bynum, they no longer had two starting caliber bigs and five of their top seven were wings, so they did what they had to do in order to get their best talent on the floor as much as possible.
At Young's rebounding being "more than adequate for a PF". He was slightly worse than Bosh.
So they give Love 4 years and use the 5 year deal on Pek? odd
That guy's an idiot. Got into it with him after he called Sanders a much better player than Splitter. I said Splitter was a much better team defender, a much better offensive player and that Sanders was only marginally better defensively in general last season. He goes crazy and ignores the dozen stats I produce and "Chinooks" and criticizes anyone who disagrees with his wrong opinion.
Once again, you're just saying, "Young is a small-forward, and Turner is a shooting-guard," off no basis. Young has played the four primarily for each of his five years in the league. He's been working extremely hard on trying to get the range to play the three, but as I said earlier, the results aren't there. There's nothing "natural" about him playing at SF. And yes, 7.4 rebounds per 36 is adequate for a power-forward. It's not elite, but it's definitely legitimate.You're not getting this. Obviously, in cases like these, whichever they're better at is subjective, but that's a different argument. What we're talking about isn't opinion, it's fact.
They didn't "try to make Turner an SG", because he always was. In fact, the only reason he and Young were moved up a position on a full time basis, was because of Bynum's injuries. Their initial plan was to start Hawes at PF. But without Bynum, they no longer had two starting caliber bigs and five of their top seven were wings, so they did what they had to do in order to get their best talent on the floor as much as possible.
And seeing as Turner is the appropriate size and has the appropriate skills of a small-forward, I don't know why you keep thinking he's a natural two. There aren't any "facts" that support your beliefs. If we disagree, that's fine. But you have no ground to claim you're just saying facts.
Last edited by Chinook; 08-14-2013 at 05:28 PM.
What a clown, Your case lies on defensive rating. I brought up a half dozen different advanced stats that proved my point that Splitter was a better team defender and you ignore it and called me a butthole. Anyone with any since would take Splitter over a still developing Sanders.
Splitter's deal is also a front loaded deal that makes it easier to trade him down the road for other assets if needed. We payed market value for Splitter.
the Dwight Howard example showed a true defensive anchor. Don't confuse Sanders as such, yet.
I do love "T-Vag" because he is a better player. So its Splitters fault Clippers, Nuggets went down because they couldn't play elite team defense to go a long with a top 10 offense.
The Spurs, Pacers, Heat and Grizzlies were all in the top 7 best defensive teams in the NBA. Its pretty common for elite defensive teams to make it deep in the playoffs. 6 of the 8 teams that made the semi finals. were in the top 8 in defensive rating.
Entering the 2012 postseason we were 11th in defense and lost in the WCF. With Splitter in '13 we came 1 minute away for another le in the finals with a 3rd ranked defense.
Splitter played 3 games against the Lakers. You're acting as he inflated his numbers by playing against the Lakers
don't bother to respond. Its clear you don't know what you're talking about,even worse you think you do.
Lol at being one minute away from a championship thanks to Splitter when he didn't do in the Finals and couldn't stay on the floor...
Being one minute away had everything to do with the other players and proves that Splitter is expandable because he can't post smaller players to save his life.
Presti had more to do with our run than Splitter let's be real, the difference this year wasn't T-Vag, it was the Thunder being weaker (and even then the mighty Splitter couldnt help his team do as well as last year in the regular season since they finished behind a much weaker Thunder).
And Bruno said that the deal Splitter got has a significant trade kicker that doesn't make it that easy to trade him...
Regarding Pekovic, if you were to put him and T-Vag in a prison cell we know who'd make the other one his woman, now is that worth 3M a year? Probably not but it's not worth nothing either, especially in the POs.
The worse thing about that deal is that there's no team that could bid on him so I'm not sure why they gave him that much...
Young has played a lot of PF in recent years, but it was out of necessity more than anything. There's plenty of examples of players around his size, who are either sub par or non three-point shooters, who are also natural SF's (Wallace, Kirilenko, Kidd-Gilchrist, Marion, Green, Aminu, Harris, Mbah a Moute, Singleton, McGuire, etc.). Classic case of a Spurs fan being brainwashed into thinking that, because it's something the Spurs would never do, that means no one else would. And his rebound rate is a paltry 12.3%.
Turner has guard like ball handling/passing skills. Virtually all of those types (Pierce, Jackson, McGrady, Miller, etc.), no matter their size, primarily play SG until their athleticism/quickness declines to the point that it's no longer feasible.
Yeah, still no basis. For Young, you're pretty much saying, "I know he's been a power-forward his whole career, but they intended to make him a small-forward, honest." I like how your list comprises a combination of fringe players, players who were threes in the old era and are now more fours (or who have learned to shoot a little better over the years) and Mbah a Moute, who like Young has been a four much more than a three his entire career. Just because some teams put natural, but undersized, fours at small-forward doesn't mean that it's the proper order.
Young has played a lot of PF in recent years, but it was out of necessity more than anything. There's plenty of examples of players around his size, who are either sub par or non three-point shooters, who are also natural SF's (Wallace, Kirilenko, Kidd-Gilchrist, Marion, Green, Aminu, Harris, Mbah a Moute, Singleton, McGuire, etc.). Classic case of a Spurs fan being brainwashed into thinking that, because it's something the Spurs would never do, that means no one else would. And his rebound rate is a paltry 12.3%.
Turner has guard like ball handling/passing skills. Virtually all of those types (Pierce, Jackson, McGrady, Miller, etc.), no matter their size, primarily play SG until their athleticism/quickness declines to the point that it's no longer feasible.
For Turner, you're using the opposite argument (skills being more important than size). As if the term point-forward doesn't already exist to describe threes who can run an offense. Then your list of players to support your argument is flawed, as Jack and Pierce have been threes for the majority of their careers, and Miller and McGrady were threes for about half their careers, with there being no rhyme or reason to when they played at SG or SF. You just made that up.
Again, there's nothing wrong with you having a different opinion, but don't go around trying to say you have some factual high ground on this matter. You don't. In the end, the difference between the two and three is pretty much gone in today's NBA, and the distinction between the three and the four seems to be on its way out as well. Sizing up is the wrong way to go in today's NBA, I feel. There's no way Philadelphia should look at moving Turner and Young down a position as anything more than a stop gap, and one that is going to cost them games.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Thaddeus-Young-450/
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/thaddeus-young
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Evan-Turner-1115/
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/evan-turner
I'm not using any argument (again, you're apparently incapable of deciphering between things that are subjective and things that are fact), I'm just saying, generally speaking, that type of player primarily plays SG early in their career and in the cases of the four I listed, all did. Only Pierce shifted full time to SF while he was still relatively young and that was because they acquired Allen. It's clear to me you've either become a fan in recent years or didn't follow the league much outside of the Spurs until then.
Obviously, the game is more about match-ups than outdated positional designations in a lot of cases now, but again, that's a different argument, as is whether the 76ers would be better off with them at their natural positions or the positions they primarily played last season.
These past couple of pages have been a real dumbass fest.
This is getting ludicrous. All four of Jack, Miller, Pierce and McGrady started off as small-forwards a played there at least the first two years. Each one, with no exceptions. And each one returned to playing the three after playing the two for a few years. McGrady split time between the positions in his prime, and Miller played the two for a few years, but the other two have been almost exclusively threes their entire careers. You. Just. Made. It. Up. And now, you keep trying to push the same bad (or at least highly subjective) reasoning.
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Thaddeus-Young-450/
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/thaddeus-young
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Evan-Turner-1115/
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/evan-turner
I'm not using any argument (again, you're apparently incapable of deciphering between things that are subjective and things that are fact), I'm just saying, generally speaking, that type of player primarily plays SG early in their career and in the cases of the four I listed, all did. Only Pierce shifted full time to SF while he was still relatively young and that was because they acquired Allen. It's clear to me you've either become a fan in recent years or didn't follow the league much outside of the Spurs until then.
Obviously, the game is more about match-ups than outdated positional designations in a lot of cases now, but again, that's a different argument, as is whether the 76ers would be better off with them at their natural positions or the positions they primarily played last season.
I perhaps should have used the term "fringe rotation players," to describe Aminu, Singleton and McGuire, but I don't apologize for discounting them. One could easily make the argument that they are playing as poorly as they are because they are being forced to play at small-forward too much. Kirilenko and Marion have been threes most of their careers because at the time they first started player, they could get away with it. , a player like Jan Vesely could have gotten away with it back then, and he's a five in today's NBA. Marion only gets propped up by Dirk stretching the floor for him (and being an improved shooter in his own right), and Kirilenko played the four a lot last year, partially out of necessity, and partially due to the fact that his skills are best served in a big-man role.
Mbah a Moute has been a four his whole career. The only time he's played the three more, he was paired with Ilyasova (and even that was an odd change, since he played with Ilyasova before that, and Ersan was listed at the three), and he defended fours (and even fives) while the other defended threes, provided the Bucks weren't playing a team with a strong small-forward. And since Ilyasova can shoot well, the Bucks were able to play Luc at "SF" offensively. And to top it all off, Mbah a Moute was absolutely horrible at the three last year, posting his worst ORtg and DRtg.
Let's clarify something here: Saying, "These players are supposed to play this position," is subjective. Saying, "These players usually play this other position, and they don't perform as well when they aren't," is objective. Maybe you have your definitions backward? Your entire argument is based off your opinion with relatively poor support. My argument is based off the players' actually histories, their stats and their measurables. There's no question whose position should be considered stronger. If you want to believe what you believe, go on ahead. But you're really making yourself seem silly by continuing to take such as baselessly condescending tone.
TD21...
No one plays the "I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about but in reality I'm dumb as a box of Sharpie markers" role better than he does. Baam is his disciple but won't make it to much further than a poor man's version of him.
They did, only to move to SG for the majority of the remainder of their youth. I have a good idea of what you're using for reference and it's wrong.
Aminu is not a fringe rotation player. He was on and off a starter last season and is the likely starter next season. Again, whether the relative struggles of he and the other two you mentioned are in part due to playing SF, that could be true (again, that's subjective), but it's also a different argument. My point was that they primarily play SF, despite their lack of three-point shooting, which is why you can't disqualify Young.
Mbah a Moute has toggled back and forth, depending on the construction of their roster in a particular season. By your logic, because a player primarily plays a certain position for the majority of their career, it automatically means it's their natural position . . . so that means Duncan is a natural PF, because he primarily played it from '97-'06.
I'm not saying supposed to, all I'm saying is, it is their natural position. My entire argument is based off of fact, not opinion. I'm not sure why you continue to fail to see the difference.
Man... perhaps if you could explain the difference between something being a "natural position" and something being their best position, the position they're "supposed to play" or the position they usually play, I could understand where you're coming from, and we could chalk all this up to a semantic disagreement. But right now, you're literally disputing numbers with nothing but your opinion of where they "naturally" play. That has absolutely nothing to do with facts, which you've failed to list. (Someone's -- even if that person is a highly touted scout -- opinion of where the player was projected to play coming out of school is not a fact.) Claiming that it doesn't matter that most of the players who can't shoot but play the three suck at, or at least rely on stretch-fours, it is also not support.
If Young wants to have a career like Aminu's, sure, I guess I can play the three. But if he wants to be a good player, he's best served to stay as an undersized four. Turner might have the passing of a guard, but the rest of his abilities make him a forward. He'd be better served with a player like Eric Gordon (meaning a shorter two-guard) than he would with a player like Ariza (a tall small-forward) next to him. Even when Iggy was there, Turner played his best when he was able to be the small-forward. Every one of his stats got better. If Philly wants Bust Turner back, they'll put him at two-guard again.
Last edited by Chinook; 08-14-2013 at 08:20 PM.
You said it!!!
I gave you four links from the two most credible draft sites, I gave you reasons for why they played up a position last season and I gave you examples of similar players who played their natural positions . . . what more do you want?
You still can't seem to comprehend the difference between subjective and fact. Everything you've said has been subjective and despite my not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those views, you've somehow decided that I'm opposed to them and have this outdated vision of the way the game is played today.
So you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion...
Posting someone's opinion is not a fact, even if the person who gives the opinion is "credible." It doesn't matter if scouts thought they would play best at one position. Their time in the NBA didn't bear that out. Young played at the three almost none of the time over recent seasons, even when the Sixers had all their players. When he did play there early in his career, he wasn't bad offensively, but he was pretty bad defensively (giving up a PER of 19.7). Turner has been bad, bust-worthy at the two his whole career. He's been competent at the three. If the scouts didn't predict that, then that's their faults.
The facts are that they have the size to play their positions, the minutes logged (over their careers, not just last season) there to show the coaching staff agrees and the improved stats to show they perform best there. That is an objective argument.
You're whole view on "natural positions", which you've yet to clarify, leaves you open to accusations of having an antiquated view on the NBA and what the positional prototypes are. You're not being non-committal to my arguments; you're directly ignoring them by saying, "I know that they're supposed to play there, and that's that." Clarify what you mean, and perhaps I could understand why you think there are any facts that support you.
It's not just them, but how many links am I supposed to come up with? And what's the point, when I know you'll just shoot them all down anyway and pass them off as being "someone's opinion"?
The bottom line is, it's indisputable that they were drafted at those positions and so far to date, they've only not played them so that they could get their best talent on the floor. Long term, who knows how Henkie/Brown view them or if they'll even be kept? All I said from the beginning of this was that, as currently cons uted, it's a virtual lock they'll be sliding down a position, so they won't be as thin on the wings as Bruno thinks. Of course, that was before either of us realized Richardson would miss most of next season (I had thought he'd just miss the start).
I've already clarified it and I'm not bothering doing so again. Your whole reasoning for why Young "can't play the three" is complete and utter nonsense, as I proved with the list of similar players who do in fact play it, as is this notion that "because he's played more minutes at PF, that automatically means he's a natural PF", which I proved with the Duncan example.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
