Re: Role players/Bench scoring

["Rob Tisdale" <rtisdale@wws.net>]

Thomas Murphy wrote:

> LJ: 6-7 235
> Mason: 6-8 270
> Fortson: 6-7 260
> [stats from cnnsi]
>
> Although they seem to have LJ a little light, I think you get the idea:
> we've already got that "physical 3". Unfortunately, he was rotting on the
> bench during Griffin's absence in favor of Waltah, Cheaney, and Williams.
> Does Fortson possess the same skills as the other two? Well, it's hard to
> tell since we see so little of him (I heard right after the trade that he
> has a 15 ft shot but have seen no evidence of it yet), but in his defense
> Fortson is only 23 whereas LJ is 30 and Mason is 33. And doesn't Twon's
> ballhandling and shooting skills help balance out Fortson?
>
> I guess this is where the definition between a 3 and a 4 (and the fact
that
> Twon really IS a tweener) starts to play games with people's heads. I
agree
> with George that, yes, we need to play Twon on the blocks but I also don't
> believe (and apparently neither does George) that Twon can effectively
> defend or rebound against true PFs. Hence our need for a "physical 3"
(i.e.
> a short 4) to do those things.
<rest snipped>

Thomas - excellent post, which highlights a point about "positions" I think
is mostly overlooked.  Calling a guy a PF or a SF based on his size is
irrelevant when it comes to offense.  You have the player do what he is good
at based on his skills.  The definitions are more useful in regards to
defense in that you may need a certain size player to defend a given player
(ie., you can't really have a 6-7 215 "SF" who can effectively defend Karl
Malone, or a 6-11 260 "PF" who can effectively defend Pippen).

When it comes to offense, we should not worry about who is the "PF" and who
is the "SF".  If we have Vitaly, Danny, and Antoine out there, Danny is
almost certainly going to spend all of his time near the basket for
rebounding purposes, and Vitaly and Antoine will take turns in the low post
(both), high post (mostly V), and perimeter (Antoine - it is inevitable he
will be there sometimes, despite the best wishes of many on the list).  The
point, which Thomas also made, is that these three have a complementary set
of skills for offense.

Of course, some have argued that this is a poor defensive frontcourt, which
is probably true.  They are somewhat slower than you might like as a group.
However, as Thomas says, sometimes you have to go strength against strength.

Jim Mennino wrote:
"Sprewell is NY's starting 3, and LJ is their starting 4, which kind of
screws up all this in depth analysis of LJ as the prototypical "physical
3"."

Thomas may reply to Jim's reply himself, but I'd like to point out that even
though LJ doesn't play the 3 right now, he has in the past "played the 3".
And in fact, if NY ever uses a lineup of Ewing, Camby, and LJ (don't know,
haven't seen the Knicks), isn't that similar to us using V, Toine, and Danny
in that Camby would probably defend the opponents "3" while LJ defends the
"4"?  Anyway, I don't think Thomas' point was that Danny or LJ is a "3",
it's that it doesn't matter on offense, only on defense.

Rob