Re: rationale

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- gene kirkpatrick <gk_tyler@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is my explanation of why I would trade Antoine.
>  To begin with, I don't put my experience or
> knowledge about the game above others.  I was a gym
> rat growing up.  During the Christmas holidays, I
> used to leave the back door to the girls gym
> unlocked so I could sneak into the high school every
> day and shoot.  I played through my junior year when
> my back problems cancelled what was soon to be
> inevitable.  I could shoot and I could dribble, but
> I didn't have the body to progress any further. 
> Like a lot a you, had I been 6'10" everyone would
> know my name.  Alas.  So, you can see that I'm about
> average in my own experiences with the game.

Same here Gene.  How many of us on this list think we
could play in the NBA if we were taller?  Every time I
see a 6'10'' white stiff, I curse his lazy ass and
wish I was him.  But enough about unrealistic dreams,
let's talk of an Antoine trade...not that that's
necessarily realistic.

>  
> Fast forward to last Fall when I cancelled my Direct
> TV NBA package.  I couldn't stand watching the
> Celtics any more.  What should have been nirvana had
> turned into nightmare.  I could see all 82 games,
> but most of them made me livid.  I'm too old to
> shout at my own players and coaches the way I did
> for that one year.  Some of you will remember that I
> wrote the "Walker--Pathetic" contribution to the
> list.  For the most part I regretted that short
> piece written in anger, but the content I still
> agree with.  It was after a loss to the Bulls,
> Walker was trying single-handedly to bring us back,
> throwing up shots no one could make, it was pitiful.
>  Since then, I've tried to figure it out.  How could
> someone with so many abilities fail to contribute in
> a commensurate way?
>  
> Well, it's got to be his whole psyco-basketball
> makeup.  He proved early on that he's one of the
> better rebounders in the entire league, but he has
> moved away from contributing in that way.  When he
> does stay low and rebound like he can, it's like a
> glimmer of what used to be--oh, yeah, I remember
> when he used to do that every game.  He can handle
> the ball very well for his size.  Sure, but that is
> as much a liability as an asset.  Not only does that
> lead to excessive turnovers, an array of poorly
> timed and executed shots, the exclusion of teammates
> in the "offense," but it helps turn us into a
> two-man, one-on-one or die pattern of ball
> possession.  What he can do extremely well in
> pick-up games doesn't translate into winning in the
> NBA.  He clearly has no governor on his shot
> selection--what shots or when to take them.  And
> this is after seven years in the league.  Friends,
> most of us could shoot 30% in the league.  I found
> myself hoping he would miss his first three point !
>  attempt in hopes that he would not take many more. 
> And I'm sure he practices them aplenty.  He just is
> a poor shooter.   When he gets on a roll, he scores
> quite well, and when not, he keeps on shooting; but
> a shooter still has to justify his shots and Walker
> just keeps chunking.  A true team player contributes
> where he can while getting easier shots and building
> back his stroke.  Walker just keeps firing away. 
> Further, Walker has inserted himself into the team
> mix in a way that overwhelms the coach.  Would we be
> better off had Pitino traded Walker for J. O'Neal? 
> Would we be better off by pursuing a trade for Elton
> Brand?  Like someone said recently, his versatility
> is a negative for the team.  He is so puffed up
> about his versatility that he can't contribute what
> the team needs.  It does seem to be more psychology
> than basketball ability.  He is captive to a
> self-image that is sadly beginning to crumble.  And
> I don't see him being able to change.  Somewhere in
> here, I th!
>  ink we have to choose a different future.  The past
> is what we!
>   are get
> 
> ting with Walker.  It's like the movie "Groundhog
> Day."  Every season will resemble the last until
> someone excises the cancer.  Sooner or later, this
> (team) mediocrity that breeds contempt will have to
> be dealt with.  I'm for doing it now.  Cheers, Gene
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

For the most part, Gene, I recognize and accept the
characterization of Antoine's game (as most everyone
does, btw) as being truthful.  What I argue with are
the two main points of your thesis to trade Antoine;
number one, that Antoine somehow "controls" O'Brien
and other players (some have said that any rookie
point guard will not be effective because Antoine
wouldn't let him be) in such a manner that is
detrimental to the team.  First of all, show me
substantial proof of such a claim.  You may say that
the proof is in the pudding and that all you have to
do is watch the games.  The problem with that argument
is that you don't know who is controlling
what...Antoine could be on the perimeter because he is
controlling the coach, or he could be there because
O'Brien and the matchups of that particular game
warrant such a move.  Therefore any proof of an
Antoine "mind-control" argument must come from
specific instantiations of such mind-control. 
However, such proof can only come from personal
experience and thus can only come from players,
coaches, and various other hangerons in Celticland. 
So, since (I'm assuming) none of us has such a
personal experience, I would submit that such a proof
can never be offered.  Therefore, we should stop with
this notion that Antoine secretly controls everything
that happens in Celticland.  If you want that to be
your personal opinion, fine, we all spin things in
such a manner as to make them palpable to our
constitution....just don't fool yourself into thinking
that you have the truth or that you are infallible. 
Secondly, we have the argument that Antoine, even if
presented with a new position and a new way of
playing, would not/could not change his game.  This
argument is even more shaky.  First of all, Antoine
has already changed his game at the urging of his
coach and it resulted in a playoff trip for the
Celtics (as a side note, somebody said that Paul
Pierce was responsible for getting the Celtics into
the playoffs and that Antoine was a mere
detriment....if you think that, you're discounting the
fact that Antoine basically ceded power to Paul, built
him up, and worked for his (Paul's) personal
success...factors which invariably helped the team get
into the playoffs [not to mention the actual things
done on the court]).  Thus, it is not out of the
bounds of reason to say that he could do it again. 
Secondly, we have the notion that Antoine is somehow
passively lazy--i.e. that he cherry picks the best
parts of small and power forward, but doesn't want to
do the dirty work.  Kestas, for all the good you bring
to the list, this was one instance of saying something
without any connection to reality.  The "cherry
picking", besides being easy by definition, is what
Antoine was told to be, first because it is what he
does best and second because it's "easiness" allows
Antoine to get the most out of what he is putting in,
i.e., he can conserve energy does these easy things. 
And so, if you want to take issue with such a set up
(which I would also take issue with) you don't trade
Antoine, but change to constitution of the team.  Get
more depth.  Quit using Antoine as the defacto point
guard.  Tell Antoine to play power or small forward
exclusively, with all the dirty work that each
position entails.  Give Antoine more of a break.  Say
37 minutes a game.  This is how this this situation is
resolved.

Ryan


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com