Re: Houston, we have a problem?

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

Thanks for the feedback Josh. This certainly beats getting into a frenzy
over which #11 pick is going to save us.

Overall I can certainly understand your position. We've been through a lot
of thick and thin (mostly thin, unfortunately) with Twon so why should we
give up on him now? First off, I don't think this trade represents giving up
on Twon. I would not consider it a trade made out of frustration. I think
you get good quality for Twon in this trade and indeed I think Twon is
probably our most marketable commodity (with Pierce you'd get shortchanged
on the return contract or have to include stiffs and that detracts from his
value). Let's address some of your points

> To me, the best part of the situation the Celtics have
> is that we have a player like Houston, a solid,
> clutch, money in the bank scorer for the closing
> minutes of the game in Paul Pierce (who is much better
> now than Houston was at this stage in his career.)

I've heard something like this before and I have to say I really don't buy
the comparison between Pierce and Houston. Even if they were the same type
of player, Pierce is far younger and doesn't know how to take over a game or
finish one off. You do have to pay a price for experience, either in losing
games or in acquiring a player who can teach you, even if only by example.
That being said, I don't think that Pierce is even the same type of player
as Houston. As Joe noted, Pierce does a lot more that shoot and score. He
can rebound, block shots, really get in the paint and mix it up. And his
game improves when he mixes it up, he doesn't "drift" as much. One of the
big disappointments for me last year was the experiment to move Pierce to
SG. He's not comfortable out there, doesn't always have enough speed to
guard his men, the position doesn't maximize his skills set (it keeps him
far away from the hoop), and despite the great range he has on his shot he
doesn't seem like the type of player who can sit out there and consistently
drop 3 after 3 like a Hornacek or Reggie Miller or Houston (at least not
yet). In other words I see Pierce as a SF, not a SG. Houston on the other
hand is clearly a SG. As Joe pointed out, he doesn't do much else but score
very efficiently and defend other SGs - just what you'd expect from a 2.

> . . . . the fact that Houston is a
> finished product while Twon is a work in progress, and
> I think the trade would be a big mistake.  You can get
> a good scoring guard in the draft (DerMarr Johnson,
> Courtney Alexander, Corey Maggette, etc. etc.) but
> talents like Twon are rare indeed, which is why Pitino
> for all his fuming has never traded him.

Again, you have to gain experience of what it takes to win in one of two
ways. Either way you end up paying for it. Either you lose a lot of games
(and even this is no guarantee) or you learn from a vet who has experienced
winning (i.e. not Kenny Anderson). Unfortunately our key winning vet died
(Reggie Lewis) and then ML and Pitino combined for a one-two that
eviscerated any winning vet influence from the roster. The current problem I
see is how long do you have to wait for Walker (or Pierce or whoever you
draft) to mature to the point that Houston is at now? And in waiting so
long, with losses piling up for so long, won't the player(s) be somewhat
damaged from exposure to all the losing? I can't claim to have the answer
here, but I do think it should be a concern. We've been losing for a long
time now and we don't want to become the east coast version of the (old)
Sacramento Kings. We need to break out of the losing funk sooner, not later.

> Twon is not in fact the guy you would pick for one on
> one.  Houston is.  But Twon does all the other things
> that make winning possible (when he is playing well.)
> Houston is essentially a one-dimensional player, and I
> would rather have a Versatile player Twon or Chris
> Mullin or Tom Gugliotta than a functionary like a
> World B. Free or an Allen Houston.

I knew in the shower right after sending my last post off that I'd be
hearing that dread word "one-dimensional". When I think of one-dimensional I
usually think of someone who only has a minor skill and is a defensive
liability to boot: Joe Kleine and free throws, Steve Kerr or Trent Tucker
and 3-pointers, Shawn Bradley or Manute Bol and blocked shots.

Houston doesn't just score on 3-pointers. He doesn't just score on slashes
to the hoop. He doesn't just score off screens or one-on-one. He can score
many ways and that is why he can be so dangerous at the end of a game.
Unfortunately, he is also sometimes the second or third option right now in
NY (behind Sprewell and Ewing) and as Joe pointed out, when Houston is not
scoring he is not doing a lot of other things for you other than play
defense (something that is typically underrated). So is he one-dimensonal?
Yeah, I guess so, but that one dimension is a big part of the game. It is
also a dimension that we sorely lack. Not being the first option should not
be a problem here. And he has many ways to beat you in that "one-dimension",
unlike Twon, so maybe we could call Houston a "multifaceted scorer" ;?)

Would Houston be a better player if he did more things? Sure, but he would
not be available for trade. Is Houston still a better SG than Twon is a PF,
despite not doing those other things? YES, because he gives you what you
need from your SG (points and D) and he does it extremely well. Twon does a
lot of things from the PF spot, but much of what he does do merely
duplicates what other players could do for us, and possibly do better. Can't
Kenny dribble and create better than Twon? Yes, but all too often Kenny is
not allowed to, either by design (the offense runs through Twon) or accident
(Twon gets the defensive rebound and dribbles up the length of the court).
So Kenny ends up getting a bit selfish when he does get his hands on the
ball. Can't Fortson rebound better than Twon? Yes, and he also throws the
best outlet pass on the team, but once again we see little of this due to
Twon's presence at PF. Finally, and most importantly, Twon doesn't give us
what we need most from the PF spot - a dominating presence on the boards and
D. (Dale Davis went to the all-star game, not Twon - that should tell us
something!)

Sorry, I didn't want to turn this into a Twon versus Houston type of thing.
They are both great players with long, successful futures ahead of them. But
right now each of their teams may be looking to upgrade at certain spots and
they are both valuable commodities, otherwise we wouldn't even consider
swapping them. One has more potential, another more polish. One has many
skills, the other does what is expected of him and does it very well. One
team doesn't have a PF to speak of but has two SGs, the other has two PFs
but only a SF masquerading at SG. Do you give up a lot in trading Twon - no
doubt about it! Do you get a proper return? I think so.

In a funny way I think some people have been mesmerized by Twon's multiple
skills the same way that some folks were mesmerized by Mercer's flawless
shooting form and air-walking elevation. We see an occassional exhibition of
those skills and think about how dynamic "X" looks, say, on the break and we
fantasize a bit (and why not, it's been a long decade for us Cs fans) about
how unstoppable "X" will be when it comes together more consistently. (Hell,
Heinsohn SAYS this every time Twon takes a PF off the dribble).

And so we end up forgetting all about the opportunity costs involved in
making "X" the focal point of the team and in playing "X" so many minutes as
well as forgetting - at least momentarily - about the flaws in "X's game"
(offensive selfishness, lack of D). We also forget that the same plays can
be made just as easily without all the extra glitz, pizzazz, air-walking and
multi-tasking if players actually play as a team. But it looks SO good, and
we've waited SOOO long, and we're sure that if we're patient and if "X" can
just put it all together that "X" can lead us to the promised land. . .
That's a huge burden to put on young players who have a lot of physical
skills but haven't demonstrated much evidence of being very well prepared to
play the pro game. It wasn't fair to Mercer and it's still not fair to
Walker. And it's not fair to ourselves, either, because it warps our
perspective, setting us up for more frustration and disappointment.

Walker's versatility is very nice, don't get me wrong.  But just as was the
case with Mercer's model shooting form or floating dunks, we shouldn't let
occasional demonstrations of incredibly gifted athletic grace, ability, and
power distract us from an honest assessment of each player's value. Their
value must be assessed not solely in terms of their potential for future
greatness (which, like the draft, is often subject to disappointment) but,
by and large, simply by how well they currently function as one member of a
five man team. In other words: how well do they do their particular job?
NOT: how good do they look doing it? NOT: how many other people's jobs can
they do in addition?  Simply, how well do they do their job?

Basketball is really not that difficult, as the Jazz have demonstrated year
in and year out for the last two decades. You develop/acquire/sign a couple
of players who are outstanding at their positions and surround them with
people who are competent at the other positions. With regard to the stars it
doesn't matter if they don't look pretty, it doesn't matter if they can't do
someone else's job - it's a team and they need to be able to do their own
job pretty darn well. That's where I feel we need to focus in assessing
players and trades - not by comparing highlight reels. Ah, but then
management would have to have a clue. . . Anyways, I've already gone on too
long. I'll be crossing my fingers during the lottery Sunday.

Best wishes all, -TomM