Tyson Chandler

[AriesMar27]

Or better yet, let us just replace our roster with new ones.

that would be awesome... has any team in nba history ever done that? just start over with everyone in one offseason? we only won 17 games last season so the expectations are so low that it just might work.

 

[beb0p]

You continue to try to win this argument by making up ridiculous numbers. I can argue against us picking up Lebron by saying he can't help us in 15 min a game either.

You haven't been paying attention. The mins only works your way by using a less than ideal substitution pattern. I've already explained this.

Also, Hawes' mins have gone up every month since he started in Feb. From 30 in Feb to 32 in March. In April he averaged 35 mins a game if you removed the one where he injured himself.

 

[AriesMar27]

You haven't been paying attention. The mins only works your way by using a less than ideal substitution pattern. I've already explained this.

as foul and injury prone as our team is i dont see why there wouldnt be enough minutes... if bibby, bobby jackson and christie could do it i dont see why hawes, thompson and chandler cant do it as well.

 

[kingsnation]

Even if he gives us an extra 5-8 wins all by himself, we still suck.

Getting Dwight Howard would be a step in the right direction. Getting a 2-yr rental just to squeeze an extra 5-8 wins is pointless imo.

Like I said, if the plan is to possibly replace Hawes or JT with Chandler then it makes sense. But if the plan is to play Tyson 20 mins off the bench then it makes no sense.

Ok, 5-8 wins is a step in the right direction. That's how rebuilding works. You don't just pass on good players. And who's to say he's a rental?

You build a team of young talent and you ADD pieces. If your argument is that we NEED Dwight Howard, then you're never going to be happy with who we get on this team. Guess what? Getting a Tyson Chandler would greatly improve our chances of getting a Dwight Howard type of player as well.

 

[kingsnation]

You haven't been paying attention. The mins only works your way by using a less than ideal substitution pattern....

This "less than ideal sub pattern," was used by Rick Adelman in our franchise's best years.

As others have stated - Vlade/Webb/Pollard & Christie/Bibby/Bobby.

 

[NME]

There's this much argument and analysis necessary to prove that three NBA players can rotate to fill two positions? Really?

 

[beb0p]

You're right. The numbers don't show that. What they do suggest (and weakly) is that JT was more effective in shorter stints. But you're proposing that the opposite effect is there without any evidence at all. Until somebody finds quarter-by-quarter data that's not in aggregate average, we can't know for sure, but with the evidence in hand the argument does not lean your way.

Ok, so the numbers suggest your theory weakly, by your own admission. You don't know for sure. But you're sure that I'm wrong. Alright, so be it.

Or if we get a third legitimate big man. I really do think that 32 minutes apiece is a reasonable number for a 3-man bigs rotation where all three are solid. Of course if our #3 big man is plucked out of the Diogu/Brockman/KT group, I can see Thompson and Hawes averaging 36+. But since the hypothesis here is Chandler (or other solid big man) added to the rotation I think it's reasonable to suggest that Hawes' and Thompson's minutes would be down a bit from that 36 mark.

This is a managment issue, my specialty. I don't want to have a rigid system, on the contrary my intend is to have a free-flowing system where you aren't watching the mins but rather let the game dictates the substitution. And here's the thing: to develop JT and Hawes you have to let them play through mistakes. You have to keep them in there even when they're getting killed. And you have to give them consistent mins not just game to game but quarter to quarter. So they know what to expect, how to prepare, and it shifts their focus from worrying about mins to concentrating on the play. If you follow this principle, you'll find that they'll average out to about a consistent 8-10 mins a quarter. Enough time for them to get into the flow, get some rest, reflect on the mistakes, and then go out there and try again. And a by product of following this principle is that there isn't going to be an extra 32 mins for Chandler. There simply isn't.

My philosophy is that the #1 priority is to develop the young. Let the rebuild continues and see what happens. Let Hawes and JT play and see how they fare. Are we really that desperate for a big man that paying $12M a year, the health issues, and the possibility of Chandler leaving is worth the hassle? Imo, no.

 

[beb0p]

This "less than ideal sub pattern," was used by Rick Adelman in our franchise's best years.

As others have stated - Vlade/Webb/Pollard & Christie/Bibby/Bobby.

Did Vlade, Webb, and Pollard each get around 32 mins?

Did Doug, Bib, and Bobby each get around 32 mins?

Sorry, no.

In fact, your example supports me: JT/Hawes each get 30+ mins while Chandler get around 20 mins. Which is the spread for the Web/Divac/Pollard combo.

 

[Warhawk]

There's this much argument and analysis necessary to prove that three NBA players can rotate to fill two positions? Really?

Apparently. I guess some folks don't realize this arrangement is pretty normal in the NBA.

 

[beb0p]

that would be awesome... has any team in nba history ever done that? just start over with everyone in one offseason? we only won 17 games last season so the expectations are so low that it just might work.

I propose we trade our entire team for Portland's. Hey, the salary works.

 

[SacKings7]

Did Vlade, Webb, and Pollard each get around 32 mins?

Did Doug, Bib, and Bobby each get around 32 mins?

Sorry, no.

In fact, your example supports me: JT/Hawes each get 30+ mins while Chandler get around 20 mins. Which is the spread for the Web/Divac/Pollard combo.

Man, did you not read our (myself & Bricklayer) posts about there being 96 minutes available at PF and C? 30+30+20=80, which leaves 16 minutes open. Noc can play a few minutes there maybe, but Greene is not a PF. And I haven't seen Casspi play so I'm not gonna comment on him. I dunno why you refuse to think that a 3 man rotation for 2 positions is out of this world. The Lakers did it with Odom, Gasol and Bynum, with spot minutes given to Powell or whoever. Whether you want to admit it or not, most teams aren't 10 men deep

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Ok, so the numbers suggest your theory weakly, by your own admission. You don't know for sure. But you're sure that I'm wrong. Alright, so be it.

First off, it's your hypothesis, not mine. You specifically stated that NBA players (and JT in particular) are less effective in short (6 minute) stints, and you gave subjective anecdotal evidence (i.e. memory of watching games) to back up your hypothesis. Since I was not satisfied by the anecdotal evidence, I found a small amount of actual data (JT's data from last year) and I looked at the numbers. Although it's not conclusive, the data suggest the opposite of your hypothesis -- that JT was MORE effective in short stints. The caveat is that the data is broken down by quarter, not by stint, but to some extent these will positively correlate. How much of a positive correlation there is, I don't know, which is why I'm being equivocal about the results. I mean, aside from it being a small sample size (one player, one season). There's plenty of reason not to come to a firm conclusion.

You, however, looked at the data, saw that it didn't fit your hypothesis, and tried to explain away the inconsistency with an unproven conjecture about the data. I'm not saying I'm sure you're wrong, I'm saying you have presented no objective data to back up your hypothesis and the objective data that has been presented, while it is weak, suggests it is not correct. If you can't understand why I'm not currently inclined to believe your hypothesis, so be it.

And you have to give them consistent mins not just game to game but quarter to quarter.

Again, aside from your assertion, what evidence is there that this is true?

For instance, the break between the first and second quarters is only 30 seconds longer than any other TV timeout. What makes it special?

 

[beb0p]

Man, did you not read our (myself & Bricklayer) posts about there being 96 minutes available at PF and C?

Yes. But apparently you didn't read my breakdown in response.

 

[beb0p]

If you can't understand why I'm not currently inclined to believe your hypothesis, so be it.

Oh, I perfectly understood why you believe what you believe. On the other hand I don't think the reverse is true. I was merely pointing out that you believe what you believe despite the fact that you said the data is inconclusive. I'm merely pointing out that the small sample you presented does not significantly refute my point. This is not an issue that can be addressed without more data so we're just beating a dead horse here.

But if you're right that JT is more effective in 6 mins/quarter vs more PT, then shouldn't an argument be made that he is more effective as a 24 min a game player than a 30+ mins/game player? Do you believe that he plays better with 24 mins/game as opposed to say 32-35 mins a game?

Again, aside from your assertion, what evidence is there that this is true?

For instance, the break between the first and second quarters is only 30 seconds longer than any other TV timeout. What makes it special?

I have not presented an argument about the time interval between quarters. I was saying you take a guy out after only 6 mins of game time and then reinsert him about 15 mins later (stoppage + game time) is not the best way to allow a guy to get into a rhythm. I think this is common sense.

Giving a player consistent mins quarter to quarter means that they don't sit for too long, you maximize their pt, and they play at a nice flow. You play a guy 12 mins a quarter and then sit him for a long time and reinsert him for another 5-6 mins is not the best way. Players never want to sit that long. Guys like consistency in mins, I think that's common sense too.

I know when I was playing I always hated it when I had to sit for a long time. One time I was subbed before half time and didn't get into the game until about the 8 min mark. You're talking about a 20 mins of doing nothing and then I had to get in and work it. My body was cold and I was completely out of sync; that's when I tore my ACL. Playing for 6 mins and then leaves the game means you're barely breaking a sweat and then you have to sit down. I don't know any player who likes that.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

But if you're right that JT is more effective in 6 mins/quarter vs more PT, then shouldn't an argument be made that he is more effective as a 24 min a game player than a 30+ mins/game player? Do you believe that he plays better with 24 mins/game as opposed to say 32-35 mins a game?

If a particular player is more effective (per minute) in 6 minutes per quarter then it would likely follow that they are more effective (per minute) with 24 minutes per game, yes. If, on the other hand, a player is more effective in 6-minute stints (as opposed to six minutes per quarter) and then loses effectiveness due to fatigue, but is able to rapidly recover from said fatigue for another stint, it's possible that the right rotation pattern could get, say, 36 minutes per game out of that player in six 6-minute stints.

Even so, assuming a player is more effective per minute as a 24 mpg player does not mean you don't want to play him 30+ mpg. If his less-effective minutes are more effective than what you would get out of your fresh bench player, you should keep playing him.

I have no particular belief about Thompson and whether he is more or less effective with 24 vs 35 minutes per game. However, if one were to look at the data, I would not be surprised to see him be more effective in higher-minute games. That would not necessarily mean that more minutes results in better play, but could just as well be a result of better play earning more minutes.

 

[AriesMar27]

I propose we trade our entire team for Portland's. Hey, the salary works.

im game....

 

[Prince_XY]

im game....

I'm not. At least, not until I've seen one more season of lackluster play - which I think won't happen again.

I want to see a whole season of Tyreke Evans first. For all you know, the guy might turn out to be the Lebron James of point guards.

Plus, we haven't really seen much of Hawes, Thompson, and Greene yet. And maybe with the addition of "supposedly" tough guys ( Nocioni, Casspi, and Brochman ) Hawes, Thompson, and Greene might suddenly turn from softies to toughies too.

And maybe....just maybe...and I'm still hoping for a BIG miracle here - Martin playing with even just a little bit of defense too.

 

[AriesMar27]

I'm not. At least, not until I've seen one more season of lackluster play - which I think won't happen again.

I want to see a whole season of Tyreke Evans first. For all you know, the guy might turn out to be the Lebron James of point guards.

Plus, we haven't really seen much of Hawes, Thompson, and Greene yet. And maybe with the addition of "supposedly" tough guys ( Nocioni, Casspi, and Brochman ) Hawes, Thompson, and Greene might suddenly turn from softies to toughies too.

And maybe....just maybe...and I'm still hoping for a BIG miracle here - Martin playing with even just a little bit of defense too.

from what ive seen evans isnt that athletic and doesnt really look like a pg... so i doubt that he would be the lebron of pg's... but lets just hope he will be a good player.

 

[beb0p]

If a particular player is more effective (per minute) in 6 minutes per quarter then it would likely follow that they are more effective (per minute) with 24 minutes per game, yes. If, on the other hand, a player is more effective in 6-minute stints (as opposed to six minutes per quarter) and then loses effectiveness due to fatigue, but is able to rapidly recover from said fatigue for another stint, it's possible that the right rotation pattern could get, say, 36 minutes per game out of that player in six 6-minute stints.

Just a quick question: how do you distribute the PT to get six 6-min stints in four 12-min quarters, with rest between each stint?

Even so, assuming a player is more effective per minute as a 24 mpg player does not mean you don't want to play him 30+ mpg. If his less-effective minutes are more effective than what you would get out of your fresh bench player, you should keep playing him.

Assuming the Kings get Chandller. Who do you think is the better player currently: Chandler or JT? If you think it's Chandler then you've just argued for playing JT 24 mins/game and giving the other mins to Chandler -because in my book, Chandler is better than JT now. I'm just curious where you're going with this.

 

[Warhawk]

This conversation really is getting silly. 2 positions, 3 players to cover them (30± minutes apiece) with at least one more as a backup playing spot minutes or matchups or if a player is injured or in foul trouble. Works everywhere but here, apparently. Can we drop it? If you want to keep arguing it, fine, but is it REALLY that hard to follow?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Just a quick question: how do you distribute the PT to get six 6-min stints in four 12-min quarters, with rest between each stint?

6 on 3 off 6 on 3 off 6 on repeat in second half.

I'm just curious where you're going with this.

I'm not going anywhere with this. As Warhawk said, it's getting silly. It's already GOTTEN silly.

I believe there is no difficulty in running a three-man rotation through two positions. You believe there is a difficulty. Can we leave it at that?

 

[Section 101]

Who likes what Sam Presti is doing with the Thunder? Are they on the right track?

Who likes the risk we took with SAR?

Do you really want a guy that Presti thinks has an injury problem that is not going to go away?

 

[beb0p]

6 on 3 off 6 on 3 off 6 on repeat in second half.
I'm not going anywhere with this. As Warhawk said, it's getting silly. It's already GOTTEN silly.

I believe there is no difficulty in running a three-man rotation through two positions. You believe there is a difficulty. Can we leave it at that?

Sure. I thought we've stopped this debate a few posts above.

 

[bajaden]

Who likes what Sam Presti is doing with the Thunder? Are they on the right track?

Who likes the risk we took with SAR?

Do you really want a guy that Presti thinks has an injury problem that is not going to go away?

I guess I came in late. What risk did we take with SAR? And what guy are you talking about that Presti thinks has an injury problem?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I guess I came in late. What risk did we take with SAR? And what guy are you talking about that Presti thinks has an injury problem?

We signed Shareef after New Jersey reneged on an agreed FA deal following a physical that indicated potential problems with his knee.

Presti turned down a trade for Tyson Chandler last year at the deadline after red flags in the physical (toe, I think).

 

[AriesMar27]

I guess I came in late. What risk did we take with SAR? And what guy are you talking about that Presti thinks has an injury problem?

chandler, thats why he called off the trade for chandler during the season... but i dont see how anyone can still be arguing how to play 3 players at one position. the lakers didit with pau, bynum and odom and ended up winning a championship. the 3 players we are talking about arent nearly as good as the lakers 3 bigs... though chandler is better than bynum, kinda... no he's definitely better than bynum.

 

[beb0p]

chandler, thats why he called off the trade for chandler during the season... but i dont see how anyone can still be arguing how to play 3 players at one position. the lakers didit with pau, bynum and odom and ended up winning a championship. the 3 players we are talking about arent nearly as good as the lakers 3 bigs... though chandler is better than bynum, kinda... no he's definitely better than bynum.

People are talking about giving 30+ mins for THREE big men. Which has never been done as far as I can remember unless someone missed a lot of games.

Even the Lakers couldn't give 30+ mins for Bynum/Odom/Pau. They came close only because Bynum missed 32 games thereby giving Odom a lot of PT.

 

[kingsnation]

People are talking about giving 30+ mins for THREE big men. Which has never been done as far as I can remember unless someone missed a lot of games.

Even the Lakers couldn't give 30+ mins for Bynum/Odom/Pau. They came close only because Bynum missed 32 games thereby giving Odom a lot of PT.

Just because it's never been done, doesn't mean it can't.

 

[beb0p]

Just because it's never been done, doesn't mean it can't.

No it doesn't. But you have to consider the flip side of the coin: why wasn't it done before?

Is it because no one has ever thought of it or is it because it's just not a practical idea? I'm for the later.

 

[kingsnation]

No it doesn't. But you have to consider the flip side of the coin: why wasn't it done before?

That question can be asked of every great idea.