Reply With Quote
Gail Goodrich was just saying on NBA TV that he expects Jeff to have many starting combos, unlike Pop.
Stromile is a of an athlete, let's see if he can play "serious" in JVG style.
Oh, ok. Well in SI they said those were the starters, with Anderson and Alston at the guards. Those three could be #1 if they play those positions.
Gail Goodrich was just saying on NBA TV that he expects Jeff to have many starting combos, unlike Pop.
Stromile is a of an athlete, let's see if he can play "serious" in JVG style.
You beat me to it!I know he shivers Angel Luvs and RashoFan's timbers!
Yes, Spurs beat the Pistons, but I don't think the frontcourts just played the frontcourts and the backcourts just played the backcourts.
And, actually, I recall it taking 7 full games for the Spurs' "frontcourt" to beat the Pistons' "frontcourt." And, in that 7th game, because of foul trouble, the Spurs' "frontcourt" made their mark against the bench and makeshift frontcourt. And, Rosen didn't take into account bench play. It was the Spurs' superior depth on the bench, 3 point shooting, and ability to stay out of foul trouble in that 7th game that sealed the deal. Any frontcourt with Tim Duncan should be ranked high. I don't know why you feel the need to hype your frontcourt up more than it is.
And, was it a back-handed compliment or were you saying that the Pistons backcourt is better than the Spurs' backcourt? The backcourt did not carry the Pistons in the finals. The backcourt are the primary scorers and playmakers. That's part of their responsbility. The frontcourt of the Pistons are the last line of defense, rebounders, and complimentary scorers. I wouldn't say the backcourt carried the Pistons against the Spurs.
I don't know why you feel the need to try to prevent me from giving some props to my team, especially since they did kick your team's ass.
In addition "staying out of foul trouble" is part of playing defense. Due to his ankles, a huge adjustment to Duncan's game was getting opponents into foul trouble. You make it sound like it just happened. It didn't.
I was most definitely complimenting the Pistons backcourt. There is no doubt in my mind that they played very well, and are extremely underrated, as that article is a shining example. If Parker hadn't played such good defense against Hamilton one could make a convincing argument that they were better than Parker and Ginobili. I'd take both of those guys on my team anytime.
Not trying to prevent you from giving props to your team. It just seems you are a little bitter that some writer ranked your frontcourt fourth instead of no. 1.
I haven't re-watched game 7, but I do recall that some of those fouls against Rasheed and McDyess were pretty questionable for a 7th game of the NBA Finals. I'm not making any excuses. The Spurs more than deserved to win. But, your comment that "Didn't the number 4 frontcourt just beat the number 1 frontcourt a couple of months ago?" makes it sound like there should be no question that the Spurs' frontcourt is much better than the Pistons'. And, I think as good as Duncan is, the Pistons' frontcourt is still a little better and more balanced.
PRESEASON HOGWASH. Rosen obviously missed last year's NBA Finals, thus relying on preseason standings. It's the trend among reports. Why actually investigate issue or question, when one in theory, could create their own "truth" to the story. Because isn't the truth simply what everyone wants to believe, or so we're told.
Pistons, IMHO, have the best backcourt in the league,as much as I hate to admit it. Spurs are right behind them, and possibly could surpass them in such ranking. I find most of these ranking's to be worthy of nothing less than 1lb of dog , and a side dish cat urine. Point is I would not trade Tim, for any three player combination mentioned ahead of San Antonio. Yes, that includes Detriot. Is this arrogant, maybe, but hear me out. Rasheed is a talented player, when he wants to be. Ben is an awesome defensive specimen, but limited offensively. Tashaun is another great all-around player. But none of the mention, IMO, can be an effective leader. If I am correct, I would think Chauncy to be the leader. Tim is our leader, what good is a team full of all-stars if they have no leader, teams like Dallas, or Houston.
I think he got the top 5 right, only that Miami is inferior to the other 4.
I agree that Pistons and Pacers have as good if not better starting frontcourts than the Spurs. That's only cuz :
1) Our center spot is too weak for us to be better
2) Robert Horry doesn't figure in our starting lineup.
If you took the entire frontcourt (starters+bench) our 5 (TD, Bowen, Horry, Rasho, Nazr) make a pretty good combination.
That being the case, Pistons are an easy choice for #1 ... not surprising, since they have the best starting 5 in the league. Indiana is debatable, but there's some logic behind it.
Miami's frontcourt is totally untested. I'd put them at par with Dallas and well below Houston.
I'm not bitter, I'm just throwing a thought out there to contribute to the discussion. Considering the source, I'm actually surprised the Spurs were in the top 5.
I seem to recall "my" frontcourt winning a championship, leaving you complaining about questionable calls, which is what every single Spurs opponent does. I doubt that's a coincidence. In my opinion, there's no question that the Spurs are better in the frontcourt than Detroit, even with Duncan on two bad ankles and the starting center out. My additional opinion is that they proved it, because the backcourts were pretty even.
I AM a Spurs homer, but I don't have to be to think Bowen is better than Artest. Lots of people do. When was the last time Bowen got thrown out of a game, much less a whole season? When was the last time Bowen assaulted a fan? Bowen plays D every bit as hard as Artest, but he knows where to draw the line. And it has nothing to do with Artest's "rough background" because there isn't a background around rougher than Bowen's.
Werd. Talent doesn't mean much when you are watching the playoffs from your couch.
I seem to recall countless threads by Spurs Fan doing the exact same thing they roast opposing teams fans for: whining about the officiating. I doubt that's a coincidence as well...
no more so than Piston fan. Every team has a certain contingent that likes to blame the refs. More's the pity.I seem to recall countless threads by Spurs Fan doing the exact same thing they roast opposing teams fans for: whining about the officiating. I doubt that's a coincidence as well...
No doubt. Most fans do it at some point or another, it comes with being a fan.
I'll just say this: That had to be the most consistently inconsistent refereeing I've seen in an NBA Finals ever. The players from both teams had no idea what to expect from game to game...
I would agree with that.That had to be the most consistently inconsistent refereeing I've seen in an NBA Finals ever. The players from both teams had no idea what to expect from game to game...
I wasn't blaming the refs for the Pistons losing the Finals. The Spurs were the better team, and they deserved to win.
ObstructedView made the claim that the Spurs frontcourt beat the Pistons frontcourt last June. In his subsequent posts, he has intimated that the Spurs frontcourt to be a much better frontcourt, using the NBA finals as evidence.
My reference to game 7 and the officiating is merely to show that the Piston frontcourt pretty much held their own against the Spurs frontcourt, seeing how it took all 7 games to beat the Pistons. And, foul trouble (Ben with 5 fouls, Rasheed with 5 fouls, Dice with 4 fouls) hurt the Pistons' chances in that game 7. As such, I don't feel it's such a strong argument to say that "the Spurs beat the Pistons in the finals, therefore the Spurs frontcourt must be better than the Pistons frontcourt."
I categorically deny using officiating as an excuse to why the Pistons lost to the Spurs. That's a cop out. The Spurs were the better team. I used it to talk about the topic at hand.
And, ObstructedView, you say that the Pistons backcourt carried the Piston team and also that the "backcourts were even" therefore the Spurs frontcourt must have been better. You don't even take into consideration benchplay and coaching. The Spurs depth at all of their positions and their coaching also played a role in the Spurs winning it all. You cannot just say the backcourt were even, therefore the frontcourts must not have been even. You can't have a mutually exclusive argument when there are multiple variables coming into play.
2004 NBA FINALS
Spurs frontcourt (Duncan, Bowen, Mohammed)
34.7 points per game
22.8 rebounds per game
4.14 assists per game
3.71 blocks per game
4. 86 turnovers per game
FG%: .411
Pistons frontcourt (Wallace, Wallace, Prince)
31.7 points per game
20.8 rebounds per game
5.57 assists per game
6.0 blocks per game
3.14 turnovers per game
FG%: .449
The Spurs frontcourt were a better scoring group, which is no surprise since Tim Duncan scores so much and is the center of the offense and none of the Pistons frontcourt players is the center of the offense. Surprisingly, the Spurs had the advantage in rebounds, with a couple monster rebounding games by Timmy. The discrepencies in each category are not significant.
The other categories give a slight edge to the Pistons frontcourt in blocks, assists, fewer turnovers and field goal percentage. The FG% and blocks per game are rather significant for those categories.
If you break down the stats per player, you would also clearly identify that Tim Duncan basically carries that whole frontcourt in stats, while the Pistons frontcourt is much more balanced in all of the categories.
Now, it's nothing to take away from the greatness of Tim Duncan. We all know he's arguably the best player in the league. But, the original list is not one of "the best frontcourt players" in the league, individually. It's best frontcourts, OVERALL. The Pistons have more balance with all three starters contributing production, and I think that's why it was argued that they are the best frontcourt group in the league.
Last edited by JamStone; 10-31-2005 at 09:32 PM.
Bowen is arguably better defender than Artest
As I am more or less neutral on the Spurs/Pistons issues, I'll weigh in. If the officiating had been even halfway decent in last's year's Finals, the series never has to go back to San Antonio. Take away the Piston's moving screens, and I am hard pressed to see how they would have won a game. Obviously, they could have found a new way to score if the moving screens had been called, so we'll never know.
IMHO, Rasheed should have fouled out of nearly every game. The refs called a technical on LB in Game 6 (?) instead of giving Rasheed a trip to the locker rooms for his second. That was beyond obvious.
It was also obvious that the refs put the squeeze on Ginobli in Games 3 and 4. Possibly, this was a "makeup" for some missed calls in Games 1 and 2. Yes, Virginia; Manu got away with a couple those nights. However, the refs have put themselves in a position where someone practically has to tuck the ball under their arm before they can call travelling.
Although the Pistons got the better end of the officiating overall, I think it actually hurt them in Game 7. When the game was called more or less straight up, they didn't seem prepared to me, and they really struggled to score at times. Hamilton was visibly rattled for most of the second half.
The NBA has more conspiracy theories than any other league for these reasons. First, it is obvious that they try to extend the Finals. I have seen it too many times. Second, the refs started working with about three sets of rules: the actual written rules, the unwritten rules that apply to everyone, and the unwritten rules that apply to superstars. By now, they have zero moral authority. In contrast, baseball umpires are virtually above criticism. The action is so isolated that they are correct about 99% of the time. When they do make mistakes, no one assumes that it is for some hidden agenda, because it has the appearance of an anamoly. Basketball is extremely difficult to officiate, and there are enough mistakes to see a pattern, whether one exists or not. Since everyone knows that Jordan gets an extra step to the basket, it's no wonder it seems sinister...
Interesting points. It's nice to hear someone say that Pop is a better coach than Larry Brown. I'm not sure who you think the Spurs had coming off the bench that tipped the balance of power so drastically in their favor, though. McDyess and Hunter played pretty well for the Pistons on both ends of the floor. Barry had a couple of good games, aside from that I don't recall anyone really helping Horry. If the Spurs had Brown and Rasho in the rotation I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
The point that I was really making is that the Spurs beat the Pistons in the Finals and Duncan wasn't even remotely near 100 percent. I was also trying to work in my disgust with the lack of respect that the Pistons' guards get, but that's not the central issue to me. If the Pacers get moved up because Artesticle is on the roster, then someone should take into account that Duncan is now healthy.
EDIT: When it really comes down to it, I don't particularly care where anybody is ranked, other than for the folly of the discussion. The journey to prove people right and wrong begins tomorrow. And it couldn't come soon enough. I'm sure we all agree on that.
Last edited by Obstructed_View; 11-01-2005 at 12:16 AM.
Then the majority of NBA GM's are Spurs homers because they voted Bowen a better perimeter defender.You are obviously a Homer if you think Bowen is better than Artest, please pack your and leave...
I forgot all about the original point of this thread.
You have to go by performance. On paper, the Pacers' frontcourt is pretty strong, especially when you consider that Foster wouldn't even start on many teams. I would argue that any of the Spurs' centers would be an upgrade, with the possible exception of Rasho. (Sorry gals, Foster makes a LOT less money.) That said, Foster is mentally and physically tough; he has been able to guard Shaq pretty effectively. (Scott Pollard also does fairly well against Shaq.) In terms of performance, this group really hasn't played together much, so I can't see rating them #2, period.
On paper, the Pistons aren't much. Rasheed doesn't do enough down low and takes way too many low percentage jumpers for his position. Ben can't score; however, he does pick up a lot of slack for the other Wallace. Prince may be the best overall player on the team, but he doesn't seem to get the ball consistently enough to get started some nights. OTOH, they obviously are among the very best, based on actual performance.
Obviously, I'm preaching to the choir here, but Bowen does a lot that doesn't show up in the stat line. Bowen is probably my favorite active player, so I am biased in that regard. Bowen can completely shut down a team's best offensive player. It is difficult to measure something like that, because anyone who has played even gym class basketball knows that it affects everyone when your #1 or #2 scorer is completely out of his/her game. You are almost forcing someone else to step up and force a career game, which usually doesn't work out so good... Tim Duncan is probably the best overall PF in the league. 'Nuff said. Like most teams, the Spurs don't really have a star center. Assuming Oberto is even half as good as people seem to think, the Spurs have insanse depth at a position where virtually no one else does. I don't see how you don't rank them #1, unless you are weighing the positions differently (i.e. Miami gets more points for Shaq than SA gets for Duncan, or whatever).
Centers are definitely at a premium. When you figure that virtually every big man leaves for the NBA as soon as possible, it's hard to believe how thin the position has become at the pro level. I guess we should blame overexpansion of the league. There are only so many guys over 6'10" out there, and some day scouts and GMs will eventually figure out that they can't all play basketball, after all. The PF position has certainly gained in prominence, which has further diluted the talent pool, as the PFs get taller and taller. When I was a kid, there's no way on earth that Duncan and Garnett aren't starting centers. There is such a disparity amongst starting NBA centers that you almost have to factor that in somehow. (You have to double Shaq sometimes; I don't think Pollard or Ben Wallace get doubled much!)
For me, it's difficut to rate an entire frontcourt in the abstract, because teams don't always play by the numbers anymore. The interaction with the guards can't be isolated or ignored. You have centers that are almost entirely defensive specialists or shotblockers. How many teams have tried the point forward experiment? Blah, blah, blah...
uhh. . . I don't think that the Spurs had a superior bench than the Pistons in the sense that we only had two reliable players come off the bench as the Pistons did.
Don't get me wrong I agree that the Pistons frontcourt is better than the Spurs frontcourt, and as was mentioned earlier if Horry were in the starting line-up, it might be a little different. But don't count the bench as part of the reason the Spurs won, because our benches cancelled each other out in my eyes..
Robert Horry stole a much needed victory from the jaws of defeat. Other than that, I would agree that bench play was not a factor in the Finals. The Spurs did have the better bench, but they didn't use it much either.
The way Pop uses Ginobli clouds the issue at times. I always think of him as a starter, even when he technically does not start.
Let's take a quick look at recent history. Pistons have made Indiana players, coaches and fans miserable for the last 2 years.
And you're more or less neutral?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
