re: three plus three

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

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

Jim,

Sorry I came across so aggressively, but I honestly thought that you were
simply playing games with me. I understand now that you just did not get
the point I was trying to get across. I apologize for jumping to
conclusions.

> >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. 

Lets start with your statement: "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 took George's point to be that we need a beefy person to play beside
Twon. My point is that if we were not so hung up on the "3" versus "4"
categorizations we might discover that we already have just such a player. 

I think we all readily concede that LJ currently plays the majority of his
minutes at the 4 in NY (although as you yourself mention, he does slide
over to the 3 from time to time). NO ONE claimed that he was playing the 3.
Nor does the logic of the argument depend upon him doing so. Let me explain
why, because this seems to be a sticking point.

LJ IS an example of a player who is a "tweener": whose combination of size
and skills place him somewhere between the classic "3" and "4". The same
can be said of Mason. Both represent one kind of tweener (Another sort of
tweener is someone who is taller but thinner, say a McCarty). Where either
Mason or LJ (or McCarty for that matter) actually "play" doesn't alter
their "tweener" status. 

I understood George to be calling our attention to these sorts of players.
As I've noted, the two players mentioned by George represent one type of
tweener - call it whatever you like, a "short 4", a "physical 3" - the name
really doesn't matter because the entire point of the analysis is to get
away from the very categories (3 versus 4) that can muddle our thinking
when dealing with these sorts of players. The fact of the matter, and I
suspect you know this, is that LJ and Mason have played extensively at both
the "3" and "4" over the course of their respective careers (remember, LJ
was originally teamed with Oakley and Ewing when he joined the Knicks).

Now, the mere fact that one of the two players mentioned is currently
slotted at the 4 in NY is accidental to the overall point as raised by
George: 1) that these types of tweeners exist (call them what you will),
and 2) some of us are of the opinion that such a tweener would represent a
good fit next to Twon. I hope you can now see why I call LJ's current slot
"accidental", indeed irrelevant, to the overall argument - because it
doesn't alter the basic facts of the case - such players DO exist and they
CAN be slotted at either 3 or 4. Where they are played depends upon factors
extraneous to the current analysis: the make-up of the roster, the coach's
philosophy, injuries, etc.

> >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?

Again, my apologies for jumping on you - I can only claim in my defense
that I've been spending too much time in the NG. OK, now as to George's
statement - I don't want to distance myself from it. Whether George said it
first or I did does not matter - the only reason I mention this is to
explain where the terminology "physical 3" came from. I don't want do
disavow it (it is as good a description as any of this type of tweener) as
much as I want to supplement it and in so doing point out the irony
implicit within such a description. Once we evaluate the players themselves
rather than their assigned categories (i.e., "both Twon and Fortson are
4s") we might see that the very type of tweener that George thought might
make a good fit with Twon is already on the team. 

> 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.

Now we actually get to a comment that focuses on relevant issues. Can Danny
be compared to LJ or Mason? This is not a question I overlooked, but one I
addressed directly, noting that LJ and Mason are much older and experienced
(30 and 33 versus 23 yrs) and hence have far more polished games than Danny
does right now. This is only to be expected. Is Danny's game so rough that
we can't allow him to gain the necessary experience by playing next to
Twon? That is something that can be debated. Do Twon's skills
(ballhandling, scoring) compensate/compliment Danny's? Again, this is
something two reasonable people can disagree about. But I am not simply
equating physique with ability. Both LJ and Mason had to learn and both
have made their share of mistakes - is it too much to accord the same
benefit to Danny? Is Fortson the only player who is not allowed to develop
his game or commit youthful errors? The logic is there IF you remain
receptive to it, but not if you simply dismiss what I have to say out of
hand because "we all know LJ plays the 4, so I'll just stop reading. . ."
 
> 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

Now to the crux of my post. The crux was this: recognizing that perhaps,
since both Twon and Danny are both tweeners (of different sorts) that their
styles of play may actually be more compatible than the current analysis of
their "positions" (i.e., "both Twon and Fortson are 4s") might lead us to
believe. That's the point. 

Please, I don't propose to solve the "Pitino dilemma" (after all, he's the
one who has created it) through word games - I would have hoped that you
could have given me more credit than that. What I was attempting to point
out is that it is precisely the "word games" (i.e., "both Twon and Fortson
are 4s") that may be preventing us from thoroughly assessing all of our
options. 

We are now hearing from Pitino that the experiment of shifting Twon to the
3 "failed". I can only conclude that by this Pitino means that Twon needs
to stay on the blocks rather than out by the 3pt line. I too have been
convinced that Twon belongs on the blocks on offense but that he remains a
liability guarding and rebounding against many PFs. Does that does make him
a 3 or a 4? Or should what we call him really matter in our analysis? 

As Rob quite clearly pointed out, one implication of my post is that a
given player's style of offense need not dictate who he guards or vice
versa. (I thought that I had made it quite obvious that I was NOT calling
for Fortson to guard the "slashing forwards" but precisely the opposite;
this should have been clear from my discussion that Twon would have to
chase Sprewell around). If Twon has problems guarding PFs, why not let
Danny? If we aren't able to run the break because we can't control our
defensive boards, why not let Danny help? And if Twon operates best down on
the blocks, why not let him? Why are these perceived as mutually exclusive
choices? - because people's thinking becomes trapped by the very categories
we use to discuss our options.

The crux of my post was to challenge the kind of unoriginal thinking that
is perpetuated by relying upon the conventional conception of the 3 and 4
slots. The truth is that neither Fortson nor Twon is an "ideal 3" or an
"ideal 4". Yet when we pigeon-hole them (i.e., "both Twon and Fortson are
4s") then we find our options are reduced to the three you mention above
(you neglected the 4th - dump Fortson). 

Allow me to second (or third or whatever) the suggestion put forward by Joe
- give Danny all the minutes that are bestowed on Waltah, Cheaney and
Williams. (I didn't mean to come down hard on Twon or Griffin - both are
valuable contributors - but they will have their off-nights too). After
all, what do we have to lose? Wouldn't it be better to find out what
Fortson can do now rather than possibly lament his loss after the fact?

Peace - TomM