RE: how baker will fit in

["James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Lance Jacobson [mailto:lancejacob@attbi.com]
  Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 4:27 PM
  To: James A. Hill
  Subject: Re: how baker will fit in


  The players just aren't comparable though.  Wallace is a better-then-nice
contributing player, but you can build a team around a Pierce.  PP is no
Iverson either, I think he will be better because he will become/is a leader
which Iverson will never be.>>Jim Hill

  Wallace won his award, Pierce won his.  Finding an unselfish center who
hustles, blocks shots and leads the lead in rebounds, plus stays healthy is
invaluable.
  [James A. Hill]
  Would you trade Pierce straight up for Wallace?  Of course not.

  Does he make it to the highlight films?  No, because we're in the
video-bite generation.  Pierce is a great scorer, but there are 15 of those.
Centers who don't need the ball and do all of what Wallace does are harder
to find, and just as necessary.
  [James A. Hill]
  We disagree on the value of Wallace. You may be the in the video-bite
generation, I am not.

  You're right that you can build around Pierce.  Just add Wallace and let
him fire it up.  Look how far the Pistons got with Curry and no point guard
starting.  Walker's better than any of the other starting Pistons, plus
we've got Pierce.  Would we have beaten them without Kenny?  Don't bank on
it.

  PP is no Iverson either, I think he will be better because he will
become/is a leader which Iverson will never be.


  Purely subjective.  Allen isn't so far removed from Paul's game, and takes
it AROUND big guys instead of at them.  No comparing them off the court, but
they'll similar offensive players, IMO, and not so different as leaders.
  [James A. Hill]
  We must have different definitions of leaders.

  He has made leaps of advancement from year-to-year.  I believe he gave his
full effort this past year for the minutes he has to play and the number of
shots he has needed to take.

  Feel free to believe that.  Full effort, standing around in his Condo on
the Arc, waiting for the ball to be tossed to him.  Watch Pierce without the
ball.  It's easy.  He's standing still.  Please don't tell me that his 3pt
shot is a better percentage than a Battie dunk.  And, don't tell me that he
NEEDED to take shots, unless you are referring to a personal need.  There
have always been four other players on the court, even if he doesn't see
them.
  [James A. Hill]
  Name the other 4 players who could actually score a basket that your
talking about.  Walker can score, sure.  Who else can be counted on to
score?  Nobody.  Battie hasn't come to play in more then half the games he
even suits up for.

  When Pierce has other scorers around him, I think you will see more of
what your looking for.

  Yeah, I'm watching those stiffs he calls teammates over there in Indy.  He
can create baskets one-on-one as well as anybody, but as long as pro hoop is
5-on-5, there are better options.  Karl said that sitting Paul's group on
the floor got them back in the game last night.  Ending with 15 shots (next
guy took 11) tells me he still believes he can score at will.  Only with a
pencil.
  [James A. Hill]
  He rebounds, gets assists. His coach there thinks he's the best offensive
player on the floor. If pro hoop is 5-on-5 as you say, was sitting "Paul's
group" because of Paul's failures or did the other 4 have the fail to play
well?

  When his team is winning the game with the help of the other players, he
may not need the flashing play to carry the team.

  This is the biggest difference in our thinking.  I believe Paul's willing
to tank in order to make the heroic last shot, or bail the team in the
fourth quarter.  I'd say he's the best, but when you're on the court for 43
min or more, you're in control of the team's destiny.  I hate to say it, but
I believe most of those comeback fourth quarters that he's had are staged.
You may call it "pacing himself" or "reaching deep inside", but I watch him
loafing on both ends, sagging on defense, standing on offense.
  [James A. Hill]
  I think you are  looking to liven up a dull summer.  He puts his teammates
before himself shooting wise and he's "tanking" the game so he can make a
heroic comeback and pull his team out of a losing effort?  So should he just
score early in the game or later in the game?  I don't get what your trying
to say.  If his teammates need him to take over the game so they can win,
isn't the actual problem the teammates?

  Rogers was a good experiment in that it showed that if the team gave them
someone who could catch a pass and score and was willing to hustle then
Pierce and Walker would pass to him.

  They didn't have anyone else before.  Baker should do even better then
Rogers with his skill set.

  You're the kind of audience he craves.  You see the scoring and the flash,
ignore the dead time on the court. When I see a solid 35 minutes this
season, I'll be convinced that he's arrived.
  [James A. Hill]
  Actually, I see the winning and the respect his peers give him. You are
just ignoring that. Have OB create an actual offense and then see if he
can't participate in it.

  I wouldn't worry too much about him washing out of the league due to a
lack of effort and having to sweep buildings for a living.

  Neither would I.  It's not my problem.  He, on the other hand, may end up
alongside Dominique, "consulting"--providing he plays enough seasons.
  [James A. Hill]
  Is "consulting" for a NBA team a "negative" thing?  He should do something
more like who, JoJo, Russell, Cousey or Tommy or any of the other HOF
Celtics?

  If you really think Pierce may wash out, you see something I don't see.  I
see his number being retired to the rafters if he spends his career here....