Does Warriors, Phoenix, Change Thinking...

[LPKingsFan]

Just some numbers for thought:

Okur (6-11): 7.7 (10.4 per/48)
Boozer (6-9): 11.7 (14.6 per/48)

Curry (6-11): 7.0 (9.6 per/48)
Lee (6-9): 10.4 (16.7 per/48)

Ilgauskas (7-3): 7.7 (13.5 per/48)
Gooden (6-10): 8.5 (14.6 per/48)
Varejao (6-10): 6.7 (13.5 per/48)

What does that mean? I'm not going to draw many conclusions from this, but Curry and Okur may be big but aren't great rebounders. Lee and Boozer, as well as the others, pick up the slack. And Varajao is right up there with Ilgauskas and Gooden in 48s, and he'd fit right in with a smallball team.

This does, for one thing, reinforce your "taller than 7ft is worth something" hypothesis, nbrans.

 

[Entity]

Dallas won 67 games because Dirk can bring the pf out on the floor and create open lanes for Howard. Diop and Damp held off any big man with a post game. Now why did they lose to GS. They countered Dirk with guys not out of their element out on the perimeter. Diop and Damp weren't needed becaue GS had no dominant post player and post defense doesn't work well on the outside. PROBLEM with Dallas is they had nobody that could punish those small ballers on the offensive side and it ruined their offensive scheme. GS will face Yao or Boozer and they will get punished by them to the point where GS will have to make adjusments to there defense and thats when the perimeter guys make the difference. Had Dallas had that post guy on offense Dirk, Howard, and Terry would have been able to play their game.

So yes small ball can win in this league. The question is can it win you a championship. NO. A big man will always be in the playoffs waiting for you or in PHX case they have they can play both problem is do they know when and when not to. GS can't beat Cleveland, SA, Houston, Utah, Detroit oe Phoenix.

 

[Venom]

That's cute. The ad hominem attack, counselor? Kind of like calling this series a "nice little upset." I think Kerr's pretty sharp. I also don't think that he made those statements in a vacuum without having previous conversations with scouts, GMs and coaches with the same viewpoint.



LOL! TELL THAT TO DALLAS!



First, I've already said that an OFFENSIVE low post center is one antidote; the other is trying to outdo them at their own athletic game. I don't see Hibbert being close to being a dominating offensive presence that would be that antidote. Second, "smallballing" is not precisely what I have in mind. I would call it "smaller-er" balling because more emphasis is put on athleticism than height. A sit-in-the-paint unathletic shot blocker like Hibbert had his value diminished with the rules changes. It's not that I don't like him because he's tall; I don't like him because his tallness doesn't make up for his lack of athleticism with a game that has a new set of rules that helps the athletic and hurts the unathletic. Both centers on Dallas are excellent examples that sit-in-the-paint DEFENSIVE center have had their value diminished by the rules changes. THAT is something you are avoiding. Because of the rules changes in the NBA, the Mutombo's of the NBA - tall guys who sit in the paint - have had their value diminished. They are no longer as valuable as they once were. Forget about where the Warrior or Phoenix go from here. THEY'VE ALREADY PROVEN THE POINT. There is no way on God's green earth that they could have come as far as they have already without the rules changes. CASE CLOSED.

I think this is pretty accurate. Of course, athleticism being equal height should win out. But the thing with Hibbert and Ilgauskas is that you are going to need to build a team around them in order to get full value. Or, with that #10 pick we could select a player that plugs into any number of schemes.

And as you touch on, Nellie has been doing this for a while. This scheme is the same one he ran with Run TMC, both offense and defense. Nellie was notorious for using this same matchup zone and getting away with it because it never actually maintains the shape of a zone for any length of time. Defenders are always flying out towards ballhandlers and shooters, or doubling down on the post. The real difference is his level of talent and the rules changes. Imagine Timmy Hardaway in a hand-check free NBA. But these guys are all great defenders that he has now. I mean, Davis, Jackson, Richardson, Barnes, and Biedrins are all phenomenal defenders individually, and really clamp down as a unit. They are not "small-balling" so much as putting their best five on the court with a scheme that maximizes their talents, which makes sense because this is basketball.

 

[Warhawk]

3) Dallas was comatose

What? Someone snuck Muss into the Mavericks lockerroom?!?!?

 

[VF21]

So I was wrong...I can live with that. Dirk showed he had the mettle of Peja...I hope this makes you feel vindicated and inflates your superiority complex. Congrats.

Vindicated about what? I wasn't the one who made a "guarantee" and promised to eat crow if I was wrong...

Okay, let's go to the tape.

On April 30, you posted:

I guarantee Dallas wins this series.

Then, when challenged about it, you posted:

I just promise you that Dallas will win this series, if they don't then I'll eat crow.

On May 1, you posted:

The Warriors suck and will manage to lose this series, I can't wait to see it happen either.

Then, on May 2, after Dallas took a game, you quoted yourself, adding:

1 down 2 more to go...

If you're gonna put those statements out there, you're gonna have to learn to deal with the results when you're wrong.

 

[xyrin]

I must agree with Smills, because you are really trying to make a point out of it, VF.

You're acting like a child who just won a bet.

 

[VF21]

I must agree with Smills, because you are really trying to make a point out of it, VF.

You're acting like a child who just won a bet.

I have eaten my share of crow more than once. And every single time I've done so, I've managed to do it without having to attack the other person. In this case, after the game was over, I simply teased him about the crow bit, asking him how he'd like it fixed.

He came off with the insults. I simply replied.

 

[xyrin]

This really isn't about "eating your share of the crow", and the reason why he responded was because you did "tease" him about it. And he didn't really insult you, except point out your superiority complex.

 

[VF21]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Since you weren't involved in the original discussions, however, I find it a bit disengenuous. If you want to continue, we can do so via PMs. I've said what I wanted to say to Smills91.

 

[Catalyst]

But there is no title there, there has NEVER been any title there, for Don Nelson. He can smallball until the cows come home and he will never be more than the guy who makes for a fun first round series.

Dealing in absolutes when it comes to the NBA isn't right. Your statement is a bad one all around.

Nelson has proven he's more than a, "fun first round coach." That guy can rebuild a team with the best of them. His teams are usually very competitive.

It's like the people that said Avery Johnson and Jason Williams would never win a championship if they were the starting PG on their teams.

Both guys did, later on in their careers.

The NBA changes. Players change. They get worse or better. Coaches learn new tricks and have new ideas.

There's always a chance to win it all, even when no one thinks it's possible. Just look at the Pistons from just a few short years ago.

And avoid those absolute statements, because just like Charles Barkley, they can come back to haunt you.

 

[kupman]

Even MJ didn't win without Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman.

I mean no disrespect, however, this comment has been made before about the Bulls and it confuses me. Horace and Dennis were both somewhere between 6'8" - 6'10". That seems pretty small for the defenders of the paint.

A few weeks ago I stated that the recent Pistons were an example of a team that did not win with a really big man in the paint and then someone said "what about Ben Wallace." The dude is a 6'9" center. When your center is 6'9" I think that could be considered small ball. If not, I need a clear operational definition what constitutes "small ball." Without a clear definition, these debates are confusing to me.

 

[Warhawk]

I must agree with Smills, because you are really trying to make a point out of it, VF.

You're acting like a child who just won a bet.

Uh, he REPEATEDLY made the point, she is just drawing his attention to it. Big difference. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Superman]

Uh, he REPEATEDLY made the point, she is just drawing his attention to it. Big difference. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Right.

You guarantee something and then get mad when someone picks on you for being wrong? That's pretty ridiculous. So is this whole debate.

 

[nbrans]

I mean no disrespect, however, this comment has been made before about the Bulls and it confuses me. Horace and Dennis were both somewhere between 6'8" - 6'10". That seems pretty small for the defenders of the paint.

A few weeks ago I stated that the recent Pistons were an example of a team that did not win with a really big man in the paint and then someone said "what about Ben Wallace." The dude is a 6'9" center. When your center is 6'9" I think that could be considered small ball. If not, I need a clear operational definition what constitutes "small ball." Without a clear definition, these debates are confusing to me.

Maybe Grant and Rodman weren't the most appropriate examples for this discussion. But keep in mind also that these weren't the big guys on their teams, they were just the dirty-work power forwards. The Bulls were still built like a traditional team with seven footers in the middle.

 

[Packt]

Phoenix really shouldn't be mention in this debate. They're anchored by one of the most athletic BIGS to ever play the game. Look at what the Lakers did to the Suns last year without him, and look what happened with him this year. The Suns were a quick & athletic team without Amare, but the Lakers pounded them and looked very capable of upsetting them. With Amare, it was a completely different story, and the Lakers were left completely dishearten and are now thinking of major changes. Very different from last year where they thought they could get by with only adding minor pieces.

 

[Smills91]

Uh, he REPEATEDLY made the point, she is just drawing his attention to it. Big difference. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I recall saying it ONCE in this thread and then other posters hammering me over it, and then I re-iterated it. SO I basically proclaimed it once. When did I ever get mad over it? I was wrong, admitted it and moved on.

 

[Smills91]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Since you weren't involved in the original discussions, however, I find it a bit disengenuous. If you want to continue, we can do so via PMs. I've said what I wanted to say to Smills91.

Yes you have, and while you're entitled to your opinion as well, it proves that I never insulted you, just stated a couple facts about your personality.

 

[6th]

Yes you have, and while you're entitled to your opinion as well, it proves that I never insulted you, just stated a couple facts about your personality.

Facts? No, that was opinion. Not everyone shares that opinion. And, the opinion, as written, was insulting.

 

[Jerryaki]

Not everyone shares that opinion.

word.

but now, it's still a fact, just those of us who don't believe it are wrong.

 

[Smills91]

Facts? No, that was opinion. Not everyone shares that opinion. And, the opinion, as written, was insulting.

Well if the truth is insulting then so be it.

 

[nbrans]

Yes you have, and while you're entitled to your opinion as well, it proves that I never insulted you, just stated a couple facts about your personality.

And for dessert, monsieur chooses the denial souffle.

 

[Smills91]

And for dessert, monsieur chooses the denial souffle.

Where's the insult NBrans?

 

[6th]

And for dessert, monsieur chooses the denial souffle.