Re: Pots

[opi@unesco.org]

Well let's agree to disagree, because I couldn't disagree with you more. :-) Battie as
a starting center? Would that be on more than a 30-win team? If that's how you'd elect
to rebuild and "learn" from Pitino's varied successes and mistakes, I'd STILL rather
go with DeClerq (so would Pitino it seems) and leave Battie (and your rookie point
guard) on the pressing unit.

At least Ringo shows he'll dish it out as much as he takes it in the paint, even if he
lacks ballast. If you've ever seen Battie (or Bradley) play with Ringo's intensity and
occasional effectiveness man-to-man against any NBA big man, that would be news to me.
Battie's is good at shot blocking and ball hawking, but guarding a big man directly is
a serious issue for him. For fun, I'd wager that you can't recall a single clear
sequence in which Battie makes a defensive stop playing straight man-to-man defense
against a post up. I can't....and I was a big Battie follower last year with nothing
but very good things to say about him on record.

See, if you make the argument that "Battie should start at power forward", people
would of course go along and hear it out (it sounds like a good plan to me, although I
don't like Fortson or Pots in the pressing unit). But the thing is you don't make this
argument. Instead you say that the Celts are better off with Battie as our starting
center. I can only hope you have some excuse like drugs (joke) or that you are just
mouthing off to pull people's leg.  It's like you are fixated on reaching some pat,
logical-sounding conclusion (we must have a tall, lanky shot blocker on the
non-pressing starting unit) even if the peg fails to fit the hole. It's like "Pitino
has a certain system" (I agree), "Battie fits that system" (I'm with you), "therefore
Battie should start at CENTER" (whoa, you lost me). There's a jump in logic, here.

After all, the second unit is the only true "Pitino-style" lineup we employ. I see
Battie being just fine as a roving shot blocker in the speed unit (our pressing
unit).  This way, TB can get basically equal minutes to Fortson and Pot while playing
on a unit where he'll be very successful (plus by all means spelling Fortson at power
forward alongside Walker and Co. when we get run on by certain speed teams). Instead,
you argue below that a Battie-type guy must start at center (along with your rookie
point guard I presume), where he really won't be able to roam much and he'll get
posted up as often as Travis Knight was (certainly a taller, quite proficient shot
blocker and better passer than Battie, although a notch below Bradley). Pitino had the
same idea in acquiring Travis (at genuinely great cost I might add) that you repeat
with your "Battie must start" obsession.

As two  irrelevant couch potato fans, presumably we can agree over a few beers to
discuss some sort of middle ground ("Battie should start at PF") but I think the
argument as presently stated is too twilight zonish to continue.  I'm telling you Ray,
neither Battie nor Fortson should be put in a position where one or the other has to
guard starting centers, unless your game plan is to emulate last season's Denver
Nuggets team.

Joe


******

Way Of The Ray wrote:

> > Subject: Re:Pots
> > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:52:10 +0200
> > From: opi@unesco.org
> <snips>
> > If Pitino hadn't pulled the trigger on the "Andre Miller" trade, where would we
> > be right now?
>
> In a lot better shape. I think you've been spending too much time with
> Otis, Opi. Imagine a starting five of Fortson, Battie, Walker, Pierce
> and
> Miller - that's better than anything the C's currently have. As already
> noted
> on this list, with the Pitino system, you need to have a shotblocker
> guarding
> the hoop. Pot doesn't offer that and neither does the other guy you want
> to see
> teamed with Pot - Fortson. Battie may, and that's why he should start
> along with
> Forston, who does provide the rebounding the C's need.
>
> As far as Pot goes, pre-rules changes and pre-addition of Fortson, he
> could
> have helped the club this year, but with the new rules, his time on the
> court
> will be mostly foul-plagued. So, he's more suited to coming off the
> bench in
> a back-up capacity to Fortson, who will also be foul-plagued. In many
> ways,
> Fortson and Pot mirror each others
> weaknesses and are somewhat redundant especially for the Pitino system.
> Putting both together on the court is not a smart thing, no matter how
> many
> Laimber-Mahorn analogies Pitino draws, because this is an entirely
> different
> system than what the Pistons used. Detroit also had the benefit of two
> great guards, one of whom was a superior defender, which lessened the
> amount
> of penetration to the hoop. As long as Kenny is around, there's always
> going to
> be opposing guards gallivanting to the hoop, increasing the need for
> shotblocking, which neither pot or Fort supply.
>
> Shawn Bradley averaged 3 blocks and 8 boards in 26 minutes last year,
> and is a
> better fit in the Pitino system than Pot.  Especially with the bulky
> Fortson
> around.
>
> The C's would have been better off trading the lottery pick to Portland
> for
> Kelvin Cato, who also fits in better with Pitino's system than Fort,
> because
> he can rebound and block shots.
> Ray