EPTNBA Playoffs 2013-2014 - Page 121
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
| ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On May 17 2014 02:30 Ace wrote: Magic was successful because he was not only great, but played on some of the most stacked teams in league history. Being 6'8 wasn't his biggest advantage because it didn't help him in the one place it really should - guarding smaller players. I don't agree with that second part. The biggest advantage of height is NOT being defended by shorter players. Height isn't nearly the predominant factor in guarding most 1s(and 2s). It is certainly a factor, but first and foremost you have to be able to stay in front of them and work around screens. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On May 17 2014 02:38 cLutZ wrote: It also opens passing lanes, helps finishing at the rim, forces generally slower players to guard you............. I'm interested - who was guarding Magic when he played, and how was he at finishing near the rim? I'll wait. You called Chris Paul a defensive liability due to his height when he's a vastly better defensive player than one of the GOAT PGs that has 8 inches on him. On May 17 2014 02:39 red_ wrote: I don't agree with that second part. The biggest advantage of height is NOT being defended by shorter players. Height isn't nearly the predominant factor in guarding most 1s(and 2s). It is certainly a factor, but first and foremost you have to be able to stay in front of them and work around screens. I agree that footspeed is one of the most important factors for perimeter defense. But your bolded has me confused. Are you saying Magic had an advantage being defended by SFs and SGs over PGs? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2014 00:22 RowdierBob wrote: There is some truth to it. Paul's lacking the physical capabilities of a Lebron will always mean he isn't a better player. Even if Paul is of equal or greater skill (which he just might be). Like in any elite sport, there are certain things you can't coach and it's why athletic ability is so coveted. It's why guys, rightly or wrongly, like Bogut get drafted ahead of CP3 or Thabeet ahead of Curry. History shows the bigger, more dominant athletes at their position tend to win trophies. But in the Clippers' case, CP3's athletic abilities are not close to the reasons they don't succeed more. I think it's because NBA GMs don't know what 'Expected value' means. It's also demonstrated by their long term affair with mid-range shooters.  | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On May 17 2014 02:53 Ace wrote: I'm interested - who was guarding Magic when he played, and how was he at finishing near the rim? I'll wait. You called Chris Paul a defensive liability due to his height when he's a vastly better defensive player than one of the GOAT PGs that has 8 inches on him. I agree that footspeed is one of the most important factors for perimeter defense. But your bolded has me confused. Are you saying Magic had an advantage being defended by SFs and SGs over PGs? I think the fact that your standard PG would have immense problems guarding a 6'8 Magic(or Lebron) creates immense matchup problems for the other team, because either he is guarded by someone out of position or someone who can't bother his vision or is liable to be posted up. Height is an offensive advantage before it is a defensive one(possibly excepting some of rim protecting centers who just have no offensive game, but that's their personal flaw, not a flaw of being 7 feet tall). There's a reason that guys like Dirk and KD and Lebron in the modern game are such mismatches, because they generally require a 'big' to defend them but they take the bigs outside of their comfort zone by having rangey games, or in Lebron's case being an immense threat to take them off the dribble like a guard. Remember in last year's finals when on the first play of whatever game(early in the series, maybe game 2) Splitter came out to defend Wade? He made him look like a fool, because height isn't even close to the being primary defensive tool used against a guard. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
We saw how CP3's quickness and strength bothered KD more than Barnes, who by conventional measures should be better equipped to deal with him. We've seen Dwight Howard get pushed off the block by stocky 6'8" guys, and rip bigger/slower guys apart. I don't think you can measure how "good" or "useful" a player is in isolation, without considering who they're playing against and the trends of the league. Or think about this. If you wanted to counter the 2009 Lakers, would you rather invest in a dominant big (who has to battle against Pau and Bynum) or a dominant PG (who will abuse Fisher.) We saw what happened - Dwight Howard didn't have such a fun series (49% eFG), and the Lakers slow/big defense made Aaron Brooks look like an All-star. Imagine how a healthy CP3 would've torched the Lakers that year. Alternatively, the Magic actually were pretty well equipped to deal with that type of PG and made their series tough for Rondo. | ||
|
loft
United States344 Posts
FTM clippers - 100 @70% FTM thunder - 150 @82% biggest stat that stood out to me. okc out rebounded clippers on defense by 40, but they turned the ball over 30 more times than clippers. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
A lot of these advantages people throw out are theoretical. We've seen Durant get bothered more by Chris Paul than Matt Barnes in this series. Tony Allen is 6'4 and bothered him more than many taller players. Looking back, we've seen centers like Howard and Yao get bothered more by the likes of Malik Rose and Udonis Haslem than by taller defenders. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On May 17 2014 02:53 Ace wrote: I'm interested - who was guarding Magic when he played, and how was he at finishing near the rim? I'll wait. You called Chris Paul a defensive liability due to his height when he's a vastly better defensive player than one of the GOAT PGs that has 8 inches on him. I agree that footspeed is one of the most important factors for perimeter defense. But your bolded has me confused. Are you saying Magic had an advantage being defended by SFs and SGs over PGs? Yes, because it is RARE to find fast bigger players, thus why they are so useful. Lets use a fun analogy to illustrate why your argument makes no sense. You say, "I can't believe that there is such an emphasis on dairy products in Tennis. Andy Murray is great and he is lactose intolerant." I say, "No way, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras, Jonnie McEnroe, and Federer chugged milk all day during tennis matches. And Borg, Agassi and Djokovic all love yogurt." You come back and say, "Aha, but Andy Murray, Lleyton Hewitt, Patrick Rafter, and Raphael Nadal never eat yogurt or drink milk. Meanwhile, Rafa Nadal eats a wheel of Sharp Cheddar every match. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif) | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On May 17 2014 00:10 cLutZ wrote: No, its not. Its a recognition that small players, even if they are ostensibly good defenders, like Chris Paul, are defensive liabilities, and also a recognition that there is a "max salary" in this league that lets you massively under pay elite players. Its also a recognition that point guard is the deepest position in the league, and that if you have a 6'4"+ ball handler like Wade, James, Kobe, George, Stephenson, Harden, etc, the "short guy" position is incredibly easy to fill cheaply with competent players when compared to a "talk guy" position. This is why, even though CP3 is the most skilled player in the league, he isn't the best. And when you account for scarcity, probably not even top 10 most valuable. Then you bring up Magic Johnson's championships here as proof, even though he's a bigger defensive liability than Chris Paul. + Show Spoiler + On May 17 2014 00:58 cLutZ wrote: Except, magic was like 6'8", and played more like lbj than any of the guys you listed. And the other three have 1 championship combined, 0 as a highly paid star. And then you switch to talking about offense but without any proof that Magic actually took advantage of any of these things. For example, forcing taller, slower players to guard Magic isn't really a big problem. He's not as quick as Paul and wouldn't be able to take advantage of a slower SG/SF guarding him in the way Paul can. + Show Spoiler + On May 17 2014 02:38 cLutZ wrote: It also opens passing lanes, helps finishing at the rim, forces generally slower players to guard you............. You're just throwing the kitchen sink at Ace without establishing any cause and effect between your later arguments and your original assertion. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
I don't want to read some of these post (they make my head hurt) but are you really arguing that, with everything equal, you rather have a smaller player on your team if you had the option? That would be dumb. Basketball is also a vertical game, so of course height plays a factor. You can't really argue against that? Even just looking at the dominant two-way players who have won the majority of the NBA championships as a measure proves it. Since an NBA team really needs (at least) two dominant two-way players to succeed (which championship teams have shown us give us the best chance to win), then the taller those stars/players are(with all things equal), the better matchups your team gets. Championship teams have historically needed either two dominant two-way wings, or just one paired with another dominant two-way center/big PF. There have been few other teams constructed in different ways that have won also, but not many revolving around a relatively-short PG for it's offensive production, whether it be scoring or assists. Tony Parker and Isaiah Thomas are the ones that come to mind (as has been discussed before), but they also had well-built teams at just the right time. Thomas had his right after the magic/bird era and just before the MJ era. And Parker could be credited to have led the Spurs in 2007, even with Duncan, but they caught a break with the abrupt end of the Shaq/Kobe era and a too-young LBJ that didn't have another dominant two-way player on his Cavs team. Not to mention that they beat the Suns (the other best team in a rather weak league that season), that was also led by a relatively-short MVP Steve Nash, to get to the finals that year. A PG is just a name of the position (I know you agree with that), so what I think the posters here are really saying is how inefficient it is, from a salary cap standpoint, to make a smaller wing(like CP3) one of your two star players in this case. When you go up against two other star players that are taller than you, collectively, then you are in trouble. Height matters in basketball, it is a fact. It is not that you can't build a championship team around a smaller PG, but why not stack the deck in your favor? And you can't say Magic being 6'8 hurt him more than it helped him, that's nonsense. He could play defense against 1-4 and play offense from 1-5..that's way more valuable than being "short enough to stay in front of the opposing PG". | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On May 17 2014 04:57 Ace wrote: It takes a lot to figure out what clutz agendas usually are. He has some valid points (big players in general ARE more valuable) but ignores clear evidence of players that don't fit the narrative (Superstar PGs). The Clippers/Thunder series was decided far more by the lack of a 3rd big and terrible perimeter play more so than anything CP3 didn't do. His numbers and impact on the series are actually pretty freaking high. With the exception of the Game 5 ending I don't really see where he *seriously* screwed up, and none of it has anything do with him being the smallest player on the floor. I don't ignore superstar PGs, I just think that they are overrated, because people like you ignore that they really lack successes. I mean, I understand that If we start in the 1980, Isiah and Magic led a combined 7 championship teams. Part of my problem, is, of course, I was a baby/unborne during those years, and part of my objection is classifying Magic as a Point Guard, when you are trying to make points about today's PGs, who are all shorter than him by several inches. The next part of my problem, is that if you take the last 20, or 25 years there is no other position, besides Point Guard, that has had all of the Top 5 players at that position over 25 years not win a title. Or if you think Tony Parker is a Top 5 PG over the last 25 years, then one has, but still not as the best player on the team. So yes, Magic is not a point guard by today's definitions, and no point guard by today's definition has carried a team to a title. Chris Paul may win a title someday, maybe even next year. But that will be because Blake Griffin has ascended to be a clear Top 2-3 player in the game. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On May 17 2014 03:59 andrewlt wrote: Mark Jackson posted up all the time. He's not a tall point guard. He ended up no. 4 in all time career assists in the NBA. Magic is tall for a point guard but he's not very quick. You could guard him with a taller shooting guard and have your shorter point guard on Byron Scott. A lot of these advantages people throw out are theoretical. We've seen Durant get bothered more by Chris Paul than Matt Barnes in this series. Tony Allen is 6'4 and bothered him more than many taller players. Looking back, we've seen centers like Howard and Yao get bothered more by the likes of Malik Rose and Udonis Haslem than by taller defenders. Andre Miller is another example of a short dude who's got a post game. The Clips are pretty deep in the guard spot they just need better big rotations. A 3 man rotation of Blake/Jordan/Big Baby isn't going to cut it, especially cause Blake/DJ were in foul trouble for much of the OKC series and Jordan can't play crunch time minutes cause of his lack of FT shooting. Fix that and bring in some backup bigs and LAC is fine. Their stars are all young, their backup guard rotation is among the best in the NBA. Lack of wing depth is a small problem but getting a decent 3 and D wing player is easier than finding 1 or 2 good All Star players. The Clippers have done the hardest parts in terms of building the roster, they just need one or two small pieces to bring them over the top, your Battier equivalents and whatnot. I think the problem with Superstar PGs are not that your All-Stars at the position are overrated, it's just that by nature of the position it's going to be easiest to find a decent player at that position. There are a lot more dudes who are 6 foot than there are 7 foot, so you can get by with just a decent point guard- someone like Lawson or George Hill instead of your CP3s or Westbrooks. But really good big men are hard to find because there are just fewer really tall dudes in general, so having Blake Griffin or Dwight Howard instead of Perkins makes a lot more of a difference. The PG position is just a lot deeper than your PF/C position, so if you don't have a superstar PG you're probably going to find an average PG, whereas if you don't have a superstar big man you might be stuck with someone terrible. It's why big men like Asik and Javale McGee who show signs of potential are paid so much, because they are better than the really terrible big men who are just tall, and if you get lucky and they fulfill that potential- like DeAndre seems to be doing- then you get a huge advantage in the league. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Championship teams have historically needed either two dominant two-way wings, or just one paired with another dominant two-way center/big PF. There have been few other teams constructed in different ways that have won also, but not many revolving around a relatively-short PG for it's offensive production, whether it be scoring or assists. Tony Parker and Isaiah Thomas are the ones that come to mind (as has been discussed before), but they also had well-built teams at just the right time. Thomas had his right after the magic/bird era and just before the MJ era. And Parker could be credited to have led the Spurs in 2007, even with Duncan, but they caught a break with the abrupt end of the Shaq/Kobe era and a too-young LBJ that didn't have another dominant two-way player on his Cavs team. Not to mention that they beat the Suns (the other best team in a rather weak league that season), that was also led by a relatively-short MVP Steve Nash, to get to the finals that year. Team construction is the key here as you mentioned. I think our disagreement largely comes from "how much offense is the PG really worth?" For me - it's worth a ton, and the best ORTG teams of all time are led by All Time level PGs. It's also a red herring to say 2 wings/wing-big combos won most of the championships in league history without going into depth *why* this is. It's no coincidence that the 04+ era saw the reduction in low post iso offense and more Pick N Roll play - the rules changed. We've also seen these same superstar PGs in Nash/CP3/Kidd lose to superior teams while putting up All Time level performances that few can match. Again - the argument for PG based failure should at least point out where these guys are failing. I'd expect some argument of the offense dropping to levels so bad the PG is just not worth spending money on. However I have yet to see any point that references the play or performance of them. I could just as easily say it's impossible to win a championship with a high usage shooting guard that's under 6'4. It doesn't tell us anything about the actual players at all. We could always go in depth on Steve Nash being a suspension and a broken face away from winning at least one title - and neither of those things reference his play on the court. A PG is just a name of the position (I know you agree with that), so what I think the posters here are really saying is how inefficient it is, from a salary cap standpoint, to make a smaller wing(like CP3) one of your two star players in this case. When you go up against two other star players that are taller than you, collectively, then you are in trouble. Height matters in basketball, it is a fact. It is not that you can't build a championship team around a smaller PG, but why not stack the deck in your favor? This would only be true if you could find an abundance of replaceable talent. Chris Paul is at worst the third best player in a sport where superstar players don't grow on trees. If you can get one, you keep him. There is no combination of players you can fit under the cap for CP3s salary and get the same production. If there is, I challenge anyone here to find it. We're talking about one of the greatest offensive peaks of All Time and above average defense, that just put up historically absurd numbers yet again and his team lost. I'm interested in where this idea of him going up against two taller players even stems from when A.) it's a 5 on 5 game and B.) the height of Durant and Westbrook didn't affect his performance at all. How is that even relevant? And you can't say Magic being 6'8 hurt him more than it helped him, that's nonsense. He could play defense against 1-4 and play offense from 1-5..that's way more valuable than being "short enough to stay in front of the opposing PG". No he could not. Magic could survive on defense for a short time if the match up was correct, but he couldn't guard 1-4. This was why Michael Cooper and Byron Scott were so valuable Also, who said Magic being 6'8 hurt him more than it helped? | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On May 17 2014 05:19 cLutZ wrote: I don't ignore superstar PGs, I just think that they are overrated, because people like you ignore that they really lack successes. I mean, I understand that If we start in the 1980, Isiah and Magic led a combined 7 championship teams. Part of my problem, is, of course, I was a baby/unborne during those years, and part of my objection is classifying Magic as a Point Guard, when you are trying to make points about today's PGs, who are all shorter than him by several inches. The next part of my problem, is that if you take the last 20, or 25 years there is no other position, besides Point Guard, that has had all of the Top 5 players at that position over 25 years not win a title. Or if you think Tony Parker is a Top 5 PG over the last 25 years, then one has, but still not as the best player on the team. So yes, Magic is not a point guard by today's definitions, and no point guard by today's definition has carried a team to a title. Chris Paul may win a title someday, maybe even next year. But that will be because Blake Griffin has ascended to be a clear Top 2-3 player in the game. And you keep missing the point entirely - why do these superstar point guards lack success? Can you actually break down what's happened in league history with these guys and give actual evidence. I've done this several times over the years here and I've yet to see some actual breakdown from you. Plenty of superstar bigs have also failed to win - in even worse fashions than these guys but I don't see you bringing them up. David Robinson, Garnett, and Malone are known for playoff production craters that none of these guys have but you'd say they are more valuable? Your second paragraph just makes no sense. Not only is that an arbitrary benchmark, but how does it no longer matter if we include Parker because he supposedly isn't the best player on the team? That's irrelevant since what you were preaching before was about the value of the player under contract. Even if Parker was a scrub, he wasn't getting paid like a superstar. Hence you just built your team with someone who contributes far more than their being paid. Now take this one step further to the obvious notions of Kidd/Nash/Paul. Magic isn't a PG by today's definition? Really? Enlighten me when it changed and where would Magic be playing today? You surely don't think Magic Johnson would be guarding SFs do you? Chris Paul could also have won a championship with Ian Mahini as his third big and Bledsoe as the 6th man with Blake playing the same. You really are talking nonsense lol. | ||
| ||
