RE: Antoine (was Re: Johnson Touted As Rookie With The Most Impac t)

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

Alex, I'm just going to zero in on one comment here, because I think much of
the rest is just a question of opinion and perception. But you ask "who else
can 
you give extra shots to, that will convert them at a high percentage?" That
seems to be a pretty consistent argument for those willing to excuse
Antoine's 41 percent shooting. My point is this-subtract some of Toine's
missed shots, and any percentage above .000 is an improvement.

Look at the Lakers. Shaq and Kobe take about half of that team's shots. The
rest go to guys like Derek Fisher (.412), Rick Fox (.444), Isiah Rider
(.426), Brian Shaw (.399) and Robert Horry (.387). You also have the
respectable shooters like Ho Grant (.462) and Ron Harper (.469), but the
Celts have guys in that range also (Vitaly, Battie). The difference is Shaq
and Kobe (despite all the gunner accusations, he shoots at a .464 clip)
understand that an open shot for even a bad shooter (like Fisher, Shaw or
Horry) is better than a forced shot of their own. Like I said before, the
difference between five Walker misses and a 2-for-5 effort on open jumpers
by Bryant Stith is four points. The net effect probably is even greater
because of the decreased rebounding/fast break opportunities for the
opponent.

Shot selection is so important, yet seems to be a lost art. Pierce is
developing a good sense for good vs. bad shots (although he makes some shots
that he really shouldn't take), but Toine seems to lack this understanding
altogether. 

Do the Celtics need to improve the talent around Toine and Pierce?
Absolutely. But the team would improve, and the numbers for the supporting
players would improve, if Toine learned to pass up the bad shots in favor of
a teammate's open attempt-even if that teammate is Randy Brown or Milt
Palacio. But like I said yesterday, he's had five years to figure it out. I
don't see any reason to expect a change this year.

Mark



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Alexander Wang [mailto:awang@MIT.EDU] 
Sent:	Wednesday, September 26, 2001 5:53 PM
To:	Berry, Mark  S; Berry, Mark  S; 'celtics@igtc.com'
Subject:	RE: Antoine (was Re: Johnson Touted As Rookie With The Most
Impac t)

At 04:35 PM 9/26/01, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
>I never said Walker is the reason the team loses or that it would be
>"addition by subtraction" to get rid of him. I also never called him a
>ballhogging melonhead.

Nope. But most of the "Walker apologists" only speak up to refute 
statements like this. I don't see any of us touting him as an all-NBA 
caliber player. Sometimes we argue against trading him for Dale Davis and 
so on, or even compare him favorably with Shareef (who hasn't led his team 
to 30 wins yet despite gaudy stats and a supporting cast that looks decent 
on paper), but I don't think anybody's ever said, "We shouldn't trade him 
if SA offers Duncan."

When I read your posts, here's what I see:
1. He has an abysmal shooting percentage.
2. His three pointers, even at a high percentage, also hurt the team.
3. He doesn't get to the line much.
4. His rebounds can be disregarded because of the number of minutes he
plays.
5. His assists are meaningless.
6. He plays pathetic defense.
7. He's actually regressing too!
8. And he is what he is: he'll never "get it".
Pretty good summary, right? It seems like you're describing one of the 
worst players in the league. It seems to me like you're making up some sort 
of "Walker apologist" who loves everything about him (who are you referring 
to exactly?). Joe has stated how important he thinks Walker's assists and 
rebounds are, but honestly I think he's been balanced about his flaws. I 
feel like portrayals like the one above (as well as non-basketball ones 
about what a punk he is) are what bring out the supposed "Walker 
apologists". Believe me, I wish that he was Garnett or Duncan or a young 
Karl Malone, say, but I feel the need to defend him when he's portrayed as 
unfavorably as this. I have my doubts that he can lead us to a championship.

I have a feeling that many of his contributions are dismissed simply 
because his game is ugly, which is why many of those who watch him suspect 
that his supporters don't watch the games. I do watch many of the games, 
and his game really does look bad. Turnovers after running into multiple 
defenders, getting his shot blocked, three point semi-set shots, getting 
physically dominated by "real" power forwards. Even when he succeeds it 
looks bad; half the time it looks like he's cheating to beat his man to the 
basket. You see one ugly play of this type and it can leave a sour taste in 
your mouth for a while, but in the end it's still just one turnover or one 
missed shot. The bottom line to me is that he still draws a double team, he 
still puts up 20+ ppg for a team that desperately needs it - who else can 
you give extra shots to, that will convert them at a high percentage? - he 
still rebounds, and he does create for his teammates - not as much as Jason 
Kidd or Stockton, but better than anybody else on this team.

>One final point on Antoine: One of the favorite stats for his fans is his
>assist average-5.5, I think. Just to show how meaningless that is, the
>league's most notorious gunner-Jerry Stackhouse-nearly matched that with
>Detroit (5.1 apg). Josh O. wrote eloquently about the difference between a
>"Magic" assist and a "Michael" assist-creating something for a teammate
that
>wasn't there as opposed to dumping to an open teammate only when your own
>scoring options are exhausted. Those are the Antoine/Stackhouse assists.
And
>another reason why arguments using only stats just aren't productive. You
>have to see him to understand, and I've seen enough to know what kind of
>player Antoine is.

I think it's flawed to argue that Stackhouse's assists are meaningless 
because the average sportswriter and fan bashes Stackhouse as a 
ball-hogging loser. The coaches voted him into the All-Star game the past 
two years, and I generally find their collective opinions more credible. 
There's certainly a difference between "Magic" assists and "Michael" 
assists, but to disregard "Michael" assists as meaningless is a mistake. If 
your teammate is open because of you, and you get him the ball, and he 
scores as a result, it still helps the team even if it wasn't your original 
intention. MJ basically created the careers of guys like Paxson, BJ 
Armstrong, and Kerr, with his "meaningless MJ assists".

And how many times did Antoine feed Pierce on his post-ups (and not even 
get credit when Pierce was fouled instead)? I don't see how this is any 
different than Stockton throwing the lob to Malone after Malone has 
bludgeoned his way into great position under the basket.

Alex