leftwich

Quote: AJ is strictly a game manager... AJ would be better off playing a hybrid PG/SG role for us. I hope that you can see the inconsistency in these two sentences. And I agree that AJ is a game manager, so what gives you the idea he's not someone you can count on like you said earlier? That's the role of a game manager. Thinking that a veteran point guard with one of the top assist to turnover ratios in the league can't be counted on is a bizarre mindset to have.

AJ's not a PG you can count on? He has over a 4 to 1 assist to turnover ratio. If there's one thing that AJ IS, it's a PG that you can count on. But I also consider 7 points, 4 assists, and 0-1 TOs a solid game, especially when he shares ball handling duties with Joe and only plays 28 mpg. I also disagree with whoever said AJ is nothing more than a backup. I think he's a legit starting NBA PG but has been in the wrong place at the wrong time for most of his career. And aside from his 4 to 1 ratio, he's also shooting 46% from 3, 80% from the line, has a nice runner when he drives, and has quick hands on defense.

Why is JS camping out at the 3 point line when we're banging down low with a full shot clock?

And the play after I typed that we hedged (one minute, 45 seconds for anyone with dvr who wants to see what I was describing).

The pick and roll defending is Woody's fault. He has them switch men on every pick and roll, so the Blazers can choose their mismatch every time down the floor. Woody should have the guy whose man is setting the screen step in the path of the player coming off the screen (it's called "hedging"). That will force the dribbler to take an extra step or two away from the basket and give both defenders time to recover. If Woody had us hedging or doubling the ball handler instead of straight switching the Blazers couldn't dictate matchups like this.

Quote: 4. I stand by my contention that there is more than "law of averages" concepts encased in this thread, and that some mislabeling has applied, perhaps because of just plain laziness to be precise. (I might even admit to some of that on my own part, but there's plenty of blame to go around.)I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I really just think you misunderstood the law of averages. I don't think any "mislabeling has applied, perhaps of just plain laziness to be precise; nor do I stand next to you on your contention that there is more than law of averages encased in this thread."(and if you don't understand what I mean by hundred dollar words, read my last sentence that was influenced by the tone and words you used)

Quote: Second, I have a response to your assertions, but time looks to be short today. I'll do my best to get back with something tomorrow. The skinny is that this discussion at this stage seems to have become analogous to the fact that there are granny-smith apples, yellow-delicious apples, and winesap apples... that is, while not a classic case of "apples and oranges," there appears to be an occasional wrinkle in how different posters are parsing the criteria, and the conclusions may seem to be defendable, but on closer examination are not optimally and precisely relevant to the original pursuit/intent/criteria. I perceive that to be the case specific to your post. I'll have to wait and offer more later, though, if you care to check back. You're understanding of the law of averages was incorrect. You can use metaphors and hundred dollar words to try to make it more complicated than it actually is, but the way you were using the law of averages to support your argument was just plain wrong. I don't intend to sound like a jackass, but I also don't want to get in a drawn out argument over this. As for my id, I'm actually not a Marshall fan. I just thought Byron Leftwich was a badass college QB and would like to see him catch a break sometime soon in the NFL.

Sturt, I disagree with your understanding of the law of averages.Saying that we're due for something when comparing it to a 3 or 4 year draft lottery window is a simple minded view on the law of averages (it is just wrong). The law of averages just has to do with the idea that as the sample size increases, the outcome will approach the true percentage. If there were a million draft lotteries and we had about a 25% chance of getting first overall, then we would get first overall close to 250,000. If there were ten million, then the number that we'd get first overall would be closer to 25% than in the trial with 1 million. Whenever words "law of averages" and "due" are used in the same context, it is being wrongly used. Each lottery is an independent event. And no, moving back in the draft the previous year does not mean that you're any more due to get a higher pick the following year than the next team.And Exodus is right- moving one spot forward is not the same as moving one spot back. The draft lottery is set up so every team has a shot at the top 3, which means if you are a top team (lottery ball-wise) you're going to move back more frequently than you move forward. Having the most lottery balls and getting the second overall pick is lucky, because there's a better chance against it happening than there is for it happening.

Quote: I don't hate Chillz, but he was a Top 6 pick four years ago and has proven to be a draft mistake. He hasn't blown up, but he's not a bust either. Regardless, where he was drafted is irrelevant to how many minutes he should get. Quote: He is non-aggressive player who doesn't provide any type of consistent impact on this team. We disagree on what kind of impact he has on the team, but saying he's a non-aggressive player is just wrong. Quote: He is not deserving of a new contract and the minutes he has should be given to someone else. Additionally, he is injury prone. Additionally, he is injury prone? How does being injury prone add to a discussion of how many minutes he should get when he's healthy? It's irrelevant.

Lue's lack of defense at the top of the zone killed us.

Chill moves without the ball better than anyone else we've got. He isn't very good at creating opportunities for himself, but he knows how to set himself up for others to create for him- whether it be a put back or a layup off of a pass. Considering we already have JJ and JS who create for themselves, I think Marvin and Chill are good compliments and trading for anyone on previous list is a bad idea.

Quote: Let's look at it my way: 1) We are around .500 just after December 2) Trading for Gasol is still a legitimate possibility 3) There's a strong possibility we dump 5"2 Tyronn Lue 4) JJ is the 2nd best SG in the league 5) Josh Smith is averaging 17&8 6) Marvin is maturing 7) I was wrong about Shelden because the Horford hype hadn't begun yet. I was completely wrong here I think my post was pretty accurate. 1.) decent prediction 2.) Maybe make a trade for Gasol isn't a prediction. 3.) he's an expiring contract (so of course he could be traded), and like number 2 you're still wrong up to this point. 4.) JJ is JJ, what's your point? 5.) JS is averaging .7 more ppg and .5 less rpg than last year. Josh is Josh, what's your point? 6.) Yes, Marvin did get a year older. 7.) You were completely wrong here.

Quote: We can still make a run at Gasol with with any combination of forwards that you choose - Smith and Horford included. There's a lot of young talent on this team, and I think the last player on this team that should be traded is a young, promising big man on the first year of his rookie contract. The biggest difference between this year's Hawks and last year's is the front court defense. I don't think you wait several years into a rebuild when your team has finally found its identity and then shake things up. Not to mention that Gasol wouldn't fit into Woody's gameplan at all, so a new head coach would likely be a must. I don't think Gasol ever became the player a lot of people envisioned he would during his first years in the league.

Quote: Let's say forget the future, let's go with the present. haha you can't be serious.

Quote: The reason we are getting outrebounded so badly is because they weren't missing anything in the first half, while we weren't making any shots. Also they were getting offensive rebounds, and we aren't getting any. There's truth to that, but 26-12 is a significant margin even after factoring in who has more defensive rebounding opportunities. It's also true that they take more 3's which result in more long rebounds. Dallas is just a really good team that's on right now.

Quote: Quote: Quote: We haven't played so bad, it's just they haven't made many mistakes. Their three point shooting is lights out. That's how I feel. I'm not liking the result but haven't seen anything to change my perception of this team. We got outrebounded 26-12. We're down 20, it's gonna show up in the box score. I don't think it's time to start tanking because we split the season series with the Mavs, and I don't think the attitude going forward to next game should be any more negative than it was coming into this one. The rest of this game could be ugly, we are playing frustrated.

Quote: We haven't played so bad, it's just they haven't made many mistakes. Their three point shooting is lights out. That's how I feel. I'm not liking the result but haven't seen anything to change my perception of this team.

That's the most negative way of saying the Hawks are hot and the Mavs are cold.

I watched that game and agree with you to a degree. I think if you have the ball with 40-45 seconds left you should definitely try to run an up-tempo possession, but you shouldn't throw up a bad shot for the sake of a 2 for 1 like Delonte West did.

Quote: IQ has went up a lot this year, not enough to be even out of the Bottom 5. We wouldn't be over .500 if we were in the bottom 5 for basketball IQ. AJ- relies on his intelligence and instincts to be competitive. He doesn't have the athleticism or the body type to be an NBA PG if it weren't for this. JJ- the reason he's a star is because he knows what he can and can't do, not because he's a freak athlete. He leads the team in assists and ppg. Chill- Has great fundamentals and knows where to be on the court. He's the only player on the team that consistently knows how to move without the ball. Horford- Will be one of the smartest big men in a few years. He's developing a sense of when to kick it out weak side. He just either needs to improve his footwork or develop a better understanding of his limitations on the offensive low block. Marvin- I think Marvin knows his role on the team. He never forces anything and feeds off of the attention defenses give JJ. I think if JJ were to go down with an injury, we'd see a much more assertive Marvin. That's 5 players that get a starter's share of minutes with relatively high IQ's. Shelden's got a high IQ as well but is limited by not having good body control. Josh Smith and Salim could stand to improve. Acie's an unknown. T Lue is a lost cause. Overall, we're not the Pistons or the Spurs, but we are definitely not bottom 5. My bottom 5 off the top of my head would be Knicks, T-Wolves, Bulls, Memphis, and Seattle.

Nope, I'm intimidated by your post count.

Quote: How hard is it for some dumb motherfuckers... The pot calls the kettle black. And thanks for that second post. Your first one wasn't clear enough.

Shell finished with a double double off the bench.

Quote: Only 5 teams have their third highest rebounder getting more rebounds than Marvin. That's a very telling stat. Sounds like Marvin's doing just fine, because you really can't expect him to out-rebound Josh or Big Al.

Quote: Zaza redeems himself!! And then shoots a stumbling midrange fade away...