It wouldn't. The better question is, did we lose our worst defensive SG or are you just not paying close enough attention?
I truly do live Raja Bell but...
- Thread starter delpotro
- Start date
It wouldn't. The better question is, did we lose our worst defensive SG or are you just not paying close enough attention?
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
The team gives up more points per possession when Bell is on the floor than any other player on the team (except Evans who has not played enough). His defense is seriously overrated and he is the worst help defender of any of our wings.
What about the Golden State game where he stopped Monta? Maybe the stats are inflated because he plays with the Jefferson and Millsap, instead of Kanter and Favors? Maybe the stats are inflated because he is guarding 1st string guys only (he never plays against backups).
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Congrats. It appears that you have found an exception rather than a rule.
I'm all for playing Bell or anyone else when he is the best option against a specific player or lineup. But the problem with Bell is that he has gotten grandfathered (pun intended) into a starting spot despite his previously poor shooting and questionable defense. Now his FG% has improved to look quite impressive on paper, but that doesn't excuse him getting grandfathered originally.
Also, for an SG to score an anemic ~6 PPG (well less than 10 PP30), he sure as **** better be doing some things defensively to justify.
The fact that he plays with Jefferson and Millsap may inflate his defensive points allowed (sadly).
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Yet these same factors don't seem to be hurting Harris and Hayward nearly as much.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
The Monta Ellis Myth rears its head. Yeah, Bell played great on Ellis. That, and the 3 jumpshots he's reliably been making will continue to overshadow the absolutely nothing else he does on the floor. Meanwhile, 82games rates his opponents PER at 16.6. That's not a highly reliable statistic, but it does suggest what seems apparent between the +/- and watching teh games: Raja's D is nothing special. It helps in matchups, but it isn't anything that you HAVE to have on the floor, and certainly not if he's going to be contributing no steals, assists, rebounds, drives, free throws, the list goes on.
I still don't really see a better option to start.
I like Howard, but damn, is there a worse (or maybe I should say less willing) passer on the team? He chucks more than CJ, his are just a step or two inside the 3 point line.
I like Miles, but we really need his energy/scoring off the bench. When Watson isn't pushing the ball on the break, our 2nd unit struggles and CJ appears to be the only one capable of scoring in the half-court off his dribble penetration.
Bell is the most logical choice to start because: 1. He doesn't use any unnecessary/bad shots. 2. He moves the ball well. 3. For the most part still plays pretty decent/mistake free defense. 4. Is easily our best distance shooter.
I like Howard, but damn, is there a worse (or maybe I should say less willing) passer on the team? He chucks more than CJ, his are just a step or two inside the 3 point line.
I like Miles, but we really need his energy/scoring off the bench. When Watson isn't pushing the ball on the break, our 2nd unit struggles and CJ appears to be the only one capable of scoring in the half-court off his dribble penetration.
Bell is the most logical choice to start because: 1. He doesn't use any unnecessary/bad shots. 2. He moves the ball well. 3. For the most part still plays pretty decent/mistake free defense. 4. Is easily our best distance shooter.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
In my opinion the biggest myth is every team needs that 'fifth guy' who knows his role. Ordinarily that 'fifth guy' has to play exceptional defense and have at least one truly beneficial skill. A) Raja doesn't play exceptional defense. He's Ok. Not bad, hardly great. B) He doesn't actually have a beneficial skill. His shooting isn't so great it keeps teams honest, he's not a threat on the break, and we don't need a guy playing 27 minutes to 'keep the ball moving' if he's not actually able to get an assist.
On the flip side, I'll happily live with the inefficiency of two wings who can create offense so long as they can get rebounds and make plays. Those guys scramble defenses and make shots easier for the bigs whether they get passed to or just tip in misses. And they can then get rebounds on misses or create turnovers on the other end. Hayward, Howard, and CJ are also a million times better on the break. So why give another team an easier guy to guard who doesn't actually do anything to generate points if you don't have to?