[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Not All Bad

At 07:55 PM 4/4/2004, Josh Ozersky wrote: 
No doubt, but your reasoning doesn't wash, Kim.  Hunter's
misses are all around the rim;

Not true. And even if it were, see the point about defences backing off him and clogging the lane/being free to double elsewhere whenever he is on the court.

 Walter's misses (and there are
plenty of them) bounce to halfcourt.

But I'm not arguing for playing Walter. Never have, certainly never will. Be glad you don't sit next to me at games, forced to listen to me on the subject. I'm simply pointing out that there are reasons against playing Hunter that some of his biggest fans seem blind to, even as they accuse others of being blind to his virtues..

 Like the rest of Hunter's
stats, his FT percentage is wildly skewed by the smallness of
the sample.

*shrug* Sorry, but you make FT or you don't. It's one of the few stats that once you get past say 10 attempts, the numbers tend to run true to form because there are no variables affecting the shot. That's the big problem with other stats - shots made during say 60 min of garbage time really don't translate to shots made during 60 min of NBA level play, or 15 rebounds against team X with no inside play doesn't equate with 15 rebounds against team Y - so you need more numbers to even out the variables. They don't exist with FT, except possibly for the to win the game pressure ones.

 Give this guy Eric Williams' old minutes and he
will give you Eric Williams old FT percentage.

Come on Josh, you're smarter than that. It's nothing to do with what I was saying and it really doesn't work that way. Shaq gets more than EWill minutes and doesn't shoot them that well, now does he. FT are a different category of stats, not as minute dependent..

  As for the idea
that Hunter isn't being played by anybody, I don't know how that
canard got off the ground.  No NBA team ignores a player unless
they are far out of range.   As for the presence of Walter upping
our shooting percentage, that's like malt liquor raising your IQ.

See above. I am not advocating for Walter. I am simply pointing out that there are issues with playing Hunter and that no, playing him would not have quite as readily guaranteed victory as was being implied. I like Hunter. I'd play him more than Carroll is, particularly matchups like the NJ one vs Rogers. But I'm not blind to there being problems with doing so, just as there are advantages. And he has looked a bit lost his last few times out. Maybe because of inconsistent minutes or not, but the onus is on him to force the coach to leave him out there when he gets an opportunity.

we need his play, yes, and Kendrick Perkins too.

Danny himself said Perkins wouldn't see a lot more minutes this year because he was not ready. I like what I've seen from him, but I can also see that he is decidedly not up to NBA speed even as I agree that he has NBA level skills. They're not identical.

  Is there anybody
that believes that Mihm or Michael Stewart are getting the job
done?  The least I ask, from Carroll or anybody else, is that someone
at least get a chance.

Ah, Mihm doesn't qualify as one of the benighted with you? 'Cause some have put him right in the Hunter, Perkins, etc group of not enough PT... i.e. perspective has as much to do with this whole subject as reality.

The question is simple.  Plug Hunter in for Walter's minutes today,
and are we better or worse?  Do we lose, or win?

Dunno. You gain some stuff and you lose some stuff. That's not why we lost, anyway.

Kim