GVC
Well-Known Member
Do you have any evidence that teams with stretch bigs perform worse on the offensive glass? If so, do you have any evidence that the negative effect on offensive rebounding is greater than the positive effect on spacing?
Is it time to release the secret offensive weapon of the Utah Jazz?
- Thread starter The Blue Elephant
- Start date
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
It's always dangerous to talk about things in extremes, Nickkk. Saying something like "a center who shoots threes will never win a championship while starting" is short-sighted, and as of the past couple years-- not even wholly accurate. Basketball isn't black and white. There isn't 'one-way' to win a championship. The Pistons won theirs with no stars. The Bulls won theirs with no elite two-way bigmen. The only thing that seems to be 'consistent' among champions is elite defense, and dependable offense both in terms of starters, and bench. Whether the PG is combo or pure, whether the wings are 3 and D or the main options-- all of these things will have variation from year to year. So it's intellectually incorrect to assume that a certain construct (based on recent history) of what a basketball team should look like, should be adhered to, and any deviation from it is bound to never win a championship.
I'm all for trying new spins. PFs that stretch the floor CERTAINLY aren't new to the game-- in fact, one in particular has arguably won championships for multiple teams from his clutch shooting (Big Shot Rob). As far as centres are concerned, well: Memo's shooting made one of the Jazz one of the best offenses in the league-- and it would be dishonest to suggest that this three-point shooting is what made him a poor defender. You've been sticking adamantly to this correlation of three-point shooting centers as poor defenders-- but your reasoning behind this correlation has been spotty.
tl dr : Just because there seems to be patterns of success in the past, doesn't mean that a) it is absolute; b) it should stop us from continuing to innovate basketball, and find new quirks that could help a team be a step ahead, bringing it closer for the ever-elusive NBA championship.
Well unless you have a solid Center in the middle of the paint and able to clean up the glass if you do miss the 3pt shot.
Dirk. Had Chandler, former DPOY.
Big Z. Had Marc Gasol, current DPOY
Rasheed Wallace. Had Ben Wallace, again, former DPOY
Another example would be the Magic when they had Dwight in the middle of the paint surrounded by 3pt shooters/stretch 4's.
tldr, but yes I agree there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Do you have any evidence that teams with stretch bigs perform worse on the offensive glass? If so, do you have any evidence that the negative effect on offensive rebounding is greater than the positive effect on spacing?
Simple yes/no questions.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
.... crickets ....
.... crickets ....
.... Dairy Queen ....
.... crickets ....
.... Dairy Queen ....
Well no, because unless you have a strong rebounding Center (mentioned above), you wouldn't be stupid enough to have another one of your bigs launching away 3's after 3's... (unless you're tanking).
Also unless you can take away the tanking effect, any stats you use to compare won't be reliable anyway.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
well then, strike that.
hotttnickkk is a diary queen
hotttnickkk is a diary queen
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
long shots. long and high-bounding rebounds.
/thread
/thread
GVC
Well-Known Member
Big Z = Zydrunas Ilgauskas. It's also worth pointing out that being a strong offensive rebounder is not what wins players DPOYs (you know, since offensive rebounds aren't defense...). Jesus.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying (contrary to what you've said throughout this thread) that, depending on personnel, it's sometimes optimal (at least potentially) to have stretch bigs?
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
di·a·ry [dahy-uh-ree]
noun, plural di·a·ries.
1.
a daily record, usually private, especially of the writer's own experiences, observations, feelings, attitudes, etc.
queen [kween]
noun
1.
A flamboyant person, usually male, always "FABULOUS"
noun, plural di·a·ries.
1.
a daily record, usually private, especially of the writer's own experiences, observations, feelings, attitudes, etc.
queen [kween]
noun
1.
A flamboyant person, usually male, always "FABULOUS"
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
jope
Well-Known Member
you arent considering the option that he could actually make the shot... if it goes in, that is better than (a miss and) an offensive rebound, and is worth 150% of the two point shot that would result from the o-reb. he doesnt need to grab o-rebs when he makes the shot... 3 pt shots and ft's are the most efficient shots in basketball. a 35% 3-pt shooter is equivalent to a 52.5% 2-pt shooter. if you have someone who can make them at a decent clip, (who knows if kanter is that guy or not -- just speculating --), then i think you have them take that shot, no question.
Please take what I've said so far in this thread in the context of the Jazz situation, because that's what this thread is all about. If Favors can develop into a Dwight/Tyson Chandler/Gasol/Ben Wallace type who takes up space and can single handedly grab rebounds in traffic effectively, then may be there is a chance that Kanter could move out beyond the 3pt line and hit a few 3's to stretch the floor.
However, as it stands, I would rather have Kanter play closer to the paint where he can gang rebound any misses together with Favors.
Also regardless of the convention, I still stand by my assertion that the best "cure" is "prevention", therefore to me an offensive rebound is the best defensive play you can make in the NBA.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Glad to help, jim.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Even though virtually all of your posts were about the value of stretch bigs IN GENERAL. Nice backpedal.
And, again, this is nonsensical. To be defense, you must be defending. If the other team doesn't have possession of the ball, you can't possibly be defending. Which team has possession of the ball prior to an offensive rebound? Further, as pointed out by jope, a made shot is ALWAYS better than an offensive rebound. A team that is unable to make shots but does well on the offensive glass, eventually loses possession to the opposing team. If their actual defense is no good, this combination is terrible all-around.
Are you just trolling?