re: three plus three

["Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

Hi Thomas,

Not sure why you're so miffed, but let me try to respond.

>From: "Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
>
>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).

Sprewell and Houston rank 4th and 11th in the NBA in minutes per game, 
respectively.  LJ and Ewing both average around 31 minutes, and have been 
out for stretches of the season.  The great majority of Camby and Thomas' 
minutes come in backing up or filling in for those two.  There is very 
little time left over for backing up the 3, although I will concede that LJ 
has probably had minimal minutes there.  I do understand that you say this 
is not your point, but I feel it doesn't make sense to support your argument 
primarily with an example that isn't happening.

>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.

Firstly, I don't really see the point in distinguishing who said what first. 
  Not only was I not attacking you personally, as you seem to believe, but 
you implicitly support the original statement anyway by quoting it.  Why 
would you now decide to distance yourself from it?

Further, and the truly fatal flaw in your (collective) argument (not the 
idea you are supporting with it), is that Fortson plays nothing like LJ and 
Mason.  Both of those players have offensive games which are light years 
ahead of Danny's, and are simply more polished in every facet of the game.  
You want to equate physique with ability.  Just because Danny is roughly the 
same size as two guys, he should be able to do what they do (and one of the 
two isn't even really doing it much anyway)!  Sound logic.

With regard to the actual crux of your post, which I'll paraphrase as "can't 
we solve this Fortson dilemma by calling him the three and thereby allowing 
him to play alongside Antoine without needing to call Antoine a three", 
what's the point?  You want to say "Danny's not a 4, he's a physical 3, 
voila, problem solved".  But that's meaningless.  If Antoine and Fortson are 
going to play extensive minutes together, and if that is not what you are 
proposing then you really have lost me, they are going to have to guard 
lineups that have a physical forward and a scoring slashing forward like 90% 
of the league.  In that lineup it makes no sense whatsoever to have Fortson 
guard the scorer and Antoine the physical player.  My conclusion is that 
there are two ways that Fortson can sucessfully contribute to the Celtics.  
One, Antoine converts to small forward (ie. he guards the Latrell 
Sprewell's, Grant Hill's, etc. of the league).  Or, if 'Toine can't do that, 
Danny settles for a supporting role playing some center, some forward based 
on situations and matchups.  I guess the third option is get rid of Antoine, 
but I don't advocate that.

Jim
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com