Guard glut

Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#61
#61
The_Jamal said:
Perfect post. The excuse of "Well he can go post him up!" is actually a win for the defense. Post shots for basically everyone not named Jokic and Embiid are bad shots. You want teams taking them. The priority of an NBA defense is working to shut down the elite PnR creators who either get to the rim and finish, get to the foul line, or kick out to elite open shooters. That's more or less the modern NBA offense.
Click to expand...
People are acting like coaches are going to stop running their fast-flowing pace-based perimeter offense to set up clear-out post-up plays that grind play to a halt like it's 1997 in order to "exploit Davion" as if that would somehow hurt the team's defense more than help it.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#62
#62
Rain man said:
The other thing is that you don't need Mitchell giving you 30 minutes at the 3. You probably need him giving you 8-12 so that you can run some lineups with Mitchell/Fox/Hali. But for the most part, Mitchell will be playing with Fox or Hali, not both. In the future (post-Buddy) I think you are building toward this:

PG- Fox (32) Mitchell (16)
SG- Hali (32) Mitchell (8) Davis (8)
SF- Mystery Wing (32), Mitchell (8) Davis (8)
PF- Barnes (32) Stretch 4/maybe Metu (16)
C- Holmes (32) second defensive big (16)

I list Mitchell with 8 minutes at SG and 8 at SF, because I think you will want to find time with all three guards on the court (probably closing time), but again, I think most time is two of the 3 small guards, not all 3. How good this team is depends on the ceiling of Fox, Hali, and Mitchell, and who that mystery SF is. If we can't trade Buddy, I am guessing he slots in to the 32 SF minutes, at least until we can trade for/draft that position.

But that breaks down at Fox (32), Hali (32), Mitchell (32), SF (32), Barnes (32) and Holmes (32). 6 main guys, plus three more main rotation pieces - Davis (16), Metu (16), backup C (16) - for a regular 9 man rotation.
Click to expand...
This looks correct. Depending on how Mitchell develops, maybe Hali becomes your 6th man as a more natural playmaker. But I do think the 3-guard lineup is your closing 6 minute 5-man unit while you find other spots to do it throughout the game.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#63
#63
Tetsujin said:
People are acting like coaches are going to stop running their fast-flowing pace-based perimeter offense to set up clear-out post-up plays that grind play to a halt like it's 1997 in order to "exploit Davion" as if that would somehow hurt the team's defense more than help it.
Click to expand...
One thing you're forgetting is the little known rule that once the offense calls for a post-up, that we aren't allowed to send help and Mitchell MUST defend Luka on an island in that situation. I'd actually forgotten it too, so maybe that's where some of this hesitancy comes in.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#64
#64
Rain man said:
I don’t know how accurate this list is, but it is probably a semi accurate depth chart. http://www.espn.com/nba/depth

No one is saying Mitchell is guarding Lebron, Kawhi, or George, but he could guard (or give you minutes on) most of the 2s and half of the 3s on that depth chart. I’m sure Mitchell could give you minutes on Hunter, Joe Harris, Jalen Green, Barrett, Hayward, Bojan, Okiro, Bey, Wiggins, Warren, Ingles, Ross, Powell, McDermott, Danny Green, Trent, Bogie, Buddy (if you trade him) etc.

Teams start guys at 3 that are similar to the guys I list above much more regularly than starting Kawhi, Lebron, or Luka at 3. Those guys are 4s most of the time. Those 3s I list above might be “big” but they aren’t going to take you on the post and bully you. They want to shoot and slash. Mitchell can get into their bodies and make life hard.

Ironically, people here wanted Bouknight because he could play 3. Mitchell ate his lunch. Modern 3s aren’t Scottie Pippen and Lebron. Those are 4s. Modern 3s are guys who would have profiled as 2/3 just a few years back.
Click to expand...
Hunter - No way in Hell
Joe Harris,
Jalen Green - why on SF list, even Bio says SG
Barrett - no way in Hell
Hayward - will shoot over
Bojan - will shoot over
Okiro,
Bey,
Wiggins
Warren,
Ingles,
Ross,
Powell,
McDermott,
Danny Green,
Trent - Not on the list
Bogie - Not on the list
Buddy - Not on the list

I will give 10 out of 30. Far short of half. If your point is Mitchell can guard shooting guards I’m fine with it.
 
R

Rain man

Bench
#65
#65
The_Jamal said:
This looks correct. Depending on how Mitchell develops, maybe Hali becomes your 6th man as a more natural playmaker. But I do think the 3-guard lineup is your closing 6 minute 5-man unit while you find other spots to do it throughout the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah- we only played the Fox/Hali/BuddyBarnes/Holmes lineup 6-8 minutes to close and maybe if the matchup dictated mid-game. So you are hoping that Mitchell can upgrade Buddy long term and guard the guys buddy did. I like that bet.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#66
#66
sactowndog said:
Hunter - No way in Hell
Joe Harris,
Jalen Green - why on SF list, even Bio says SG
Barrett - no way in Hell
Hayward - will shoot over
Bojan - will shoot over
Okiro,
Bey,
Wiggins
Warren,
Ingles,
Ross,
Powell,
McDermott,
Danny Green,
Trent - Not on the list
Bogie - Not on the list
Buddy - Not on the list

I will give 10 out of 30. Far short of half. If your point is Mitchell can guard shooting guards I’m fine with it.
Click to expand...
He'll be guarding Trae, Melo, Kemba/Rose and Mitchell/Conley in all these situations.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#67
#67
Rain man said:
Yeah- we only played the Fox/Hali/BuddyBarnes/Holmes lineup 6-8 minutes to close and maybe if the matchup dictated mid-game. So you are hoping that Mitchell can upgrade Buddy long term and guard the guys buddy did. I like that bet.
Click to expand...
Buddy has a 6’ 9” wingspan and Mitchell has a 6’ 4” wingspan. I would be happy to take that bet. The Foodbank could use a contribution.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#68
#68
The_Jamal said:
He'll be guarding Trae, Melo, Kemba/Rose and Mitchell/Conley in all these situations.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m not the one who said he could guard small forwards. Fox and Hali aren’t guarding them either. Bogi with a 7 ft wingspan had a shot. Buddy with a 6’ 9” perhaps. Hali with a 6’ 7” wingspan and skinny build. No chance.
 
R

Rain man

Bench
#71
#71
sactowndog said:
Hunter - No way in Hell
Joe Harris,
Jalen Green - why on SF list, even Bio says SG
Barrett - no way in Hell
Hayward - will shoot over
Bojan - will shoot over
Okiro,
Bey,
Wiggins
Warren,
Ingles,
Ross,
Powell,
McDermott,
Danny Green,
Trent - Not on the list
Bogie - Not on the list
Buddy - Not on the list

I will give 10 out of 30. Far short of half. If your point is Mitchell can guard shooting guards I’m fine with it.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you Buddy, Bogie and Trent. They aren’t listed as SF on this list, though they do play it a fair bit. But I said I’d go by the list. So I’m taking Jalen Green. They are supposed to play a lot of 3 guard, and the depth chart lists him there. So that is 11.

I didn’t include bigger 3s like Batum, Anderson, Finney-Smith, Bridges, or Kuzma because they are much bigger, but those guys aren’t scoring on anyone. Maybe Hali guards Kuzma or Batum or Finney Smith just for more height, but those guys are largely non-factors on offense. If Anderson or Batum want to post you up to pick on your small lineup, I am fine with that.

And I don’t concede Barrett or Bojan. Bojan might try to shoot over Mitchell, but if Mitchell is in his grill, that is better than Buddy being on the other side of the court with Bojan wide open.

Remember, the exercise is not if Mitchell can lock the SF down. The exercise is can Mitchell give you 8-10 minutes against 3s so that you can run a 3 guard lineup to close. Or better yet, can he do it better than Buddy did last year?

Based on the above, I think there are 16-18 teams that have small enough 3s or non-offensive 3s where we can survive. Hell, we did it with Buddy and it was like the 6th best lineup in the league. I think Mitchell can do it.

Plus- at crunch times most teams go small. As example, Barnes is not our 3 in crunch time (Buddy was) and Lebron will be the 4 at crunch time, not 3. Teams go with their 5 best when it matters.
 
R

Rain man

Bench
#72
#72
sactowndog said:
I agree. I’m not the one who said he could guard small forwards. Fox and Hali aren’t guarding them either. Bogi with a 7 ft wingspan had a shot. Buddy with a 6’ 9” perhaps. Hali with a 6’ 7” wingspan and skinny build. No chance.
Click to expand...
Buddy guarded them in the 6th best lineup in the league. I’m betting on Mitchell being better. We will have to agree to disagree, because I will never agree that Buddy is a better defensive option than Mitchell in those situations.

If a lineup can work with Buddy guarding 3s, it can work (and probably better) with Mitchell.
 
rosa u podne

rosa u podne

Bench
#73
#73
Tetsujin said:
Luka is many things. A post up talent he is not. Plus absolutely no one is going to run post ups for their 6’7” lead ball handler in the year 2021 when the modern game is built on momentum and maximized spacing to create attack lanes. Jokic and Embiid don’t even play in the post.
Click to expand...
You are wrong about Jokic at least. He plays in the post whenever teams put single coverage on him.
 
rosa u podne

rosa u podne

Bench
#74
#74
The_Jamal said:
Good. Post-ups are among the worst shots in basketball you can take. Stalls the offense and there's also something called bringing the help-side defender.

If the Mavs are forced into 90's era basketball to beat Mitchell, let them lol.
Click to expand...
Actually, post-ups are high percentage plays, when skilled post player and passer attacks weaker defender. I watched enough Denver Nuggets games to know it works.
 
Last edited:
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#76
#76
Rain man said:
I’ll give you Buddy, Bogie and Trent. They aren’t listed as SF on this list, though they do play it a fair bit. But I said I’d go by the list. So I’m taking Jalen Green. They are supposed to play a lot of 3 guard, and the depth chart lists him there. So that is 11.

I didn’t include bigger 3s like Batum, Anderson, Finney-Smith, Bridges, or Kuzma because they are much bigger, but those guys aren’t scoring on anyone. Maybe Hali guards Kuzma or Batum or Finney Smith just for more height, but those guys are largely non-factors on offense. If Anderson or Batum want to post you up to pick on your small lineup, I am fine with that.

And I don’t concede Barrett or Bojan. Bojan might try to shoot over Mitchell, but if Mitchell is in his grill, that is better than Buddy being on the other side of the court with Bojan wide open.

Remember, the exercise is not if Mitchell can lock the SF down. The exercise is can Mitchell give you 8-10 minutes against 3s so that you can run a 3 guard lineup to close. Or better yet, can he do it better than Buddy did last year?

Based on the above, I think there are 16-18 teams that have small enough 3s or non-offensive 3s where we can survive. Hell, we did it with Buddy and it was like the 6th best lineup in the league. I think Mitchell can do it.

Plus- at crunch times most teams go small. As example, Barnes is not our 3 in crunch time (Buddy was) and Lebron will be the 4 at crunch time, not 3. Teams go with their 5 best when it matters.
Click to expand...
you do know Hunter is 6’ 8” with a 7’ 2” wingspan.

Barrett 6’ 7” with a 6’ 10” wingspan remote chance.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#78
#78
Rain man said:
I’ll give you Buddy, Bogie and Trent. They aren’t listed as SF on this list, though they do play it a fair bit. But I said I’d go by the list. So I’m taking Jalen Green. They are supposed to play a lot of 3 guard, and the depth chart lists him there. So that is 11.

I didn’t include bigger 3s like Batum, Anderson, Finney-Smith, Bridges, or Kuzma because they are much bigger, but those guys aren’t scoring on anyone. Maybe Hali guards Kuzma or Batum or Finney Smith just for more height, but those guys are largely non-factors on offense. If Anderson or Batum want to post you up to pick on your small lineup, I am fine with that.

And I don’t concede Barrett or Bojan. Bojan might try to shoot over Mitchell, but if Mitchell is in his grill, that is better than Buddy being on the other side of the court with Bojan wide open.

Remember, the exercise is not if Mitchell can lock the SF down. The exercise is can Mitchell give you 8-10 minutes against 3s so that you can run a 3 guard lineup to close. Or better yet, can he do it better than Buddy did last year?

Based on the above, I think there are 16-18 teams that have small enough 3s or non-offensive 3s where we can survive. Hell, we did it with Buddy and it was like the 6th best lineup in the league. I think Mitchell can do it.

Plus- at crunch times most teams go small. As example, Barnes is not our 3 in crunch time (Buddy was) and Lebron will be the 4 at crunch time, not 3. Teams go with their 5 best when it matters.
Click to expand...
btw better than Buddy does not equal competent defender. Remember we were the worst defensive team in history. Lots of room between where we are and competent defense.
 
rosa u podne

rosa u podne

Bench
#80
#80
My takes on the discussion:

1. I agree with sactowndog that trading Simmons for Fox theoretically improves the Kings. Reason: as sctDawg mentioned, a better improvement over replacement. The reason it might not work: concerns with BS attitude and character.

2. I would rather use Buddy + Marvin in trade for a good 3 + D SF and keep Fox.
 
R

Rain man

Bench
#81
#81
sactowndog said:
you do know Hunter is 6’ 8” with a 7’ 2” wingspan.

Barrett 6’ 7” with a 6’ 10” wingspan remote chance.
Click to expand...
But that’s the problem with debating you. You focus on the two guys that are in most dispute, while not acknowledging that it could work against 1/2 to 2/3 of the league, and DID work with Buddy of all people. That closing lineup, undersized and with buddy’s awful D, was excellent. Our problem was that none of our other lineups worked. So if Mitchell can fill Buddy’s role and do it better, we can still thrive with an undersized closing lineup. And if Mitchell is overall better than Buddy, and if our guys get better, we can go better in other, more traditional lineups as well.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#82
#82
Rain man said:
But that’s the problem with debating you. You focus on the two guys that are in most dispute, while not acknowledging that it could work against 1/2 to 2/3 of the league, and DID work with Buddy of all people. That closing lineup, undersized and with buddy’s awful D, was excellent. Our problem was that none of our other lineups worked. So if Mitchell can fill Buddy’s role and do it better, we can still thrive with an undersized closing lineup. And if Mitchell is overall better than Buddy, and if our guys get better, we can go better in other, more traditional lineups as well.
Click to expand...
you aren’t close to 1/3 of the list much less 2/3 of the league based on the list you provided. I’m commenting on your list!

also we are talking about Mitchell with a 6’ 4” wingspan not Buddy with a 6’ 9” wingspan. Just because Mitchell is better than Buddy against guards does not logically translate he is better against larger wings. When your points are logically inconsistent and I point it out does not make my style a problem. Perhaps don’t be logically false.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#83
#83
rosa u podne said:
My takes on the discussion:

1. I agree with sactowndog that trading Simmons for Fox theoretically improves the Kings. Reason: as sctDawg mentioned, a better improvement over replacement. The reason it might not work: concerns with BS attitude and character.

2. I would rather use Buddy + Marvin in trade for a good 3 + D SF and keep Fox.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with either point.

I just don’t think Buddy and Marvin gets you a good 3 and D wing. BTW. For us old guys we were here before talking about Weber.
 
R

Rain man

Bench
#84
#84
sactowndog said:
you aren’t close to 1/3 of the list much less 2/3 of the league based on the list you provided. I’m commenting on your list!

also we are talking about Mitchell with a 6’ 4” wingspan not Buddy with a 6’ 9” wingspan. Just because Mitchell is better than Buddy against guards does not logically translate he is better against larger wings. When your points are logically inconsistent and I point it out does not make my style a problem. Perhaps don’t be logically false.
Click to expand...
Hah- you conceded on 10 in an earlier post (actually 11). That is the very definition of 1/3. So I’m not sure how I’m “not close” to 1/3. And then you argued with two other names, without contesting the other 7 or so names I listed. So I’m pretty darn close to 1/2 to 2/3 of the league.

And I don’t care about Buddy’s wing span. When you are always in the wrong spot your wing span is irrelevant. I’d rather have Mitchell in the right spot with a smaller wing span than Buddy’s massive wing span guarding air.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#85
#85
Rain man said:
Hah- you conceded on 10 in an earlier post (actually 11). That is the very definition of 1/3. So I’m not sure how I’m “not close” to 1/3. And then you argued with two other names, without contesting the other 7 or so names I listed. So I’m pretty darn close to 1/2 to 2/3 of the league.

And I don’t care about Buddy’s wing span. When you are always in the wrong spot your wing span is irrelevant. I’d rather have Mitchell in the right spot with a smaller wing span than Buddy’s massive wing span guarding air.
Click to expand...
yes you are correct. I give you 1/3. Watching the game and half paying attention. Why would I argue against names I already conceded??? You aren’t close to half the SF list. You provided the list and I never argued he couldn’t guard SG’s.
 
Telemachus

Telemachus

Starter
#86
#86
sactowndog said:
you aren’t close to 1/3 of the list much less 2/3 of the league based on the list you provided. I’m commenting on your list!

also we are talking about Mitchell with a 6’ 4” wingspan not Buddy with a 6’ 9” wingspan. Just because Mitchell is better than Buddy against guards does not logically translate he is better against larger wings. When your points are logically inconsistent and I point it out does not make my style a problem. Perhaps don’t be logically false.
Click to expand...
Buddy's wingspan doesn't help him play defense. He is bad no matter who he guards. Here's the thing, right now Mitchell is better defensively than Buddy no matter who he guards (don't care if they are 5'11 or 6'11). Chris Paul has been guarding players bigger than him his whole career & he is 6'0 with a 6'4 wingspan.
 
rosa u podne

rosa u podne

Bench
#87
#87
sactowndog said:
I don’t disagree with either point.

I just don’t think Buddy and Marvin gets you a good 3 and D wing. BTW. For us old guys we were here before talking about Weber.
Click to expand...
I would even give a pick for a good 3&D SF or stretch big. With a good stretch big who plays decent defense, the kings can move Barnes to 3 or/and Holmes to 4.
 
S

sactowndog

All-Star
#89
#89
Telemachus said:
Buddy's wingspan doesn't help him play defense. He is bad no matter who he guards. Here's the thing, right now Mitchell is better defensively than Buddy no matter who he guards (don't care if they are 5'11 or 6'11). Chris Paul has been guarding players bigger than him his whole career & he is 6'0 with a 6'4 wingspan.
Click to expand...
Again.
1) Buddy is not the standard if a player can credibly guard an NBA 3. It’s irrelevant to the point of whether we need a defensive 3-4 defender.

2) At no point did I say Mitchell can’t guard players bigger then him but he isn’t guarding a 6’ 8” or bigger small forward full time and neither does Chris Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.