re: three plus three

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Jim,

Thanks for the "news flash" concerning NY's starting line-up, but I think
George and I already had that figured out. Just for your clarification, I
was NOT attempting to analyze where LJ is playing in NY's line-up (starting
line-up that is, since NY also manages to work in a couple of guys by the
name of Camby and Thomas for significant minutes). 

I would have thought that someone who pays such close attention to the
details as yourself would have noticed that I was responding to George's
observation concerning our need for a certain type of player - a "physical
3" - a categorization which he chose to illustrate by reference to
physiques such as LJ and Mason. In so doing I was picking up on the point,
as later noted by Rob, that the standard SF or PF designations can at times
be more confusing than clarifying. Indeed, I even mentioned in the original
post that one could just as easily call a "physical 3" a "short 4". What
was most interesting to me then and now is that the very type of player
that George identifies as being a desirable addition IS ALREADY ON THE
ROSTER, but that we remain blind to this because both Fortson and Twon are
categorized as "4s". This blindness continues despite the fact that Fortson
and Twon possess complimentary sets of skills.

If you actually have some relevant rather than specious objections to
George's, Rob's, or my thoughts I'd be glad to hear them (as Rob noted,
this frontcourt may be considered by some as too slow; as George noted,
what do you do against three-guard line-ups?). Or perhaps you feel such
analysis irrelevant because we are only waiting for Fortson to be worked in
slowly because of his conditioning, dyslexia, the "rules changes", etc.,
etc., etc.?

-TomM

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:44:58 PST
> From: "Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>
> Subject: three plus three
> 
> >From: "Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >George wrote:
> >
> >"The thing is that with a PF like Antoine you really need one of
> >the more physical 3's like LJ or Mason to make the lineup work"
> >
> >LJ: 6-7 235
> >
> >Although they seem to have LJ a little light, I think you get the idea: 
> >we've already got that "physical 3".
> >
> >"what do you do when you face a lineup like NY's with Sprewell at the
3?"
> >
> >I guess you go strength against strength - try and force Sprewell to
shoot 
> >the fall-away jumpshot while we pound it inside right at Spree.
> 
> 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".
> 
> Jim