Why are some so eager to move Horford from the 5??

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Of course not but that has no relevance to the question.

---

Aren't you implying that talent at C takes a back seat to weight and standing reach?

---

I am not implying anything. I am asking a straightforward question which you are dodging.

[VarsitySlacker]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Tell me that David Robinson is the third best player of all time.

---

Of course not, but conversely are you saying a players greatness can be completely measured by stats?

---

Not at all. Allow me to say what my original post should read to you.

According to Hollinger's formula, PER, statistically David Robinson is the third greatest player of all time. Do you believe that a formula that, statistically, has David Robinson as the third greatest player of all time to be one that should really be considered an arguing point over a player's merit?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Tell me that David Robinson is the third best player of all time.

---

Of course not, but conversely are you saying a players greatness can be completely measured by stats?

---

Not at all. Allow me to say what my original post should read to you.

According to Hollinger's formula, PER, statistically David Robinson is the third greatest player of all time. Do you believe that a formula that, statistically, has David Robinson as the third greatest player of all time to be one that should really be considered an arguing point over a player's merit?

---

PER is the best single stat i have seen to measure a players production. However like all stats it can't measure a players value with 100% accuracy.

If you know of another single stat that measures production better than PER I would like to hear about it.

Here are the top 10 in PER currently.

1 LeBron James, CLE

2 Amare Stoudemire, PHO

3 Chris Paul, NOR

4 Kevin Garnett, BOS

5 Manu Ginobili, SAS

6 Tim Duncan, SAS

7 Chris Bosh,

8 Kobe Bryant,

9 Dwight Howard,

10 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL

Guess who the leading candidate for the MVP is right now.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Well, Andris Biedrins(The guy many think would come our way) has better numbers than Al right now. I havent seen many Warriors games though, so I cant tell how good or bad he really is.

Horford could definitely become a better PF than Josh Smith though, why do you feel he can not??

Also, im not advocating the trade of Smoove, maybe Marv, maybe some other players. I dont know. Plus, if Smoove can post up guys bigger than him at PF, watch how easy it is for him to post up these SFs.

---

Horford might average 15 pts and 12 rebs @ Golden St at the pace they play at. Biendrins scores almost strictly from put backs, lay ups and dunks.

As for Smoove scoring on SFs via the post up, look at what happened to him in the Cleveland game. Ira Newble virtually shut him down. The PFs have to respect Smoove's quickness, and he still gets by them at times. He also gets wide open shots at times because of that.

SFs try to get right up on Smoove and force him to put the ball on the floor. Guys like Newble, who are strong, can handle Smoove's post up game. I mean, if a guy like Travis Outlaw can easily score on Smoove, it's not a good idea to play him at SF. We're better off using him as a Diaw-like center, than as a SF.

[VarsitySlacker]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Tell me that David Robinson is the third best player of all time.

---

Of course not, but conversely are you saying a players greatness can be completely measured by stats?

---

Not at all. Allow me to say what my original post should read to you.

According to Hollinger's formula, PER, statistically David Robinson is the third greatest player of all time. Do you believe that a formula that, statistically, has David Robinson as the third greatest player of all time to be one that should really be considered an arguing point over a player's merit?

---

PER is the best single stat i have seen to measure a players production. However like all stats it can't measure a players value with 100% accuracy.

If you know of another single stat that measures production better than PER I would like to hear about it.

Here are the top 10 in PER currently.

1 LeBron James, CLE

2 Amare Stoudemire, PHO

3 Chris Paul, NOR

4 Kevin Garnett, BOS

5 Manu Ginobili, SAS

6 Tim Duncan, SAS

7 Chris Bosh,

8 Kobe Bryant,

9 Dwight Howard,

10 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL

Guess who the leading candidate for the MVP is right now.

---

I could post the PPG leaders, and you'd still have the exact same point.

My point is not that there is a perfect stat that we should all be using. Obviously, there's not. My point is that you can't pull out that stat, which was formulated by subjectivity, and say "here's why x player is not as successful as y player is"

Especially with comments like "Horford is xth among rookies in PER", not bearing to fact that if a player gets a layup and an assist in Salim Stoudamire-esque minutes, their PER is going to be heavily tainted, which is why this statement is no better than the efficiency numbers quoted.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

Especially with comments like "Horford is xth among rookies in PER", not bearing to fact that if a player gets a layup and an assist in Salim Stoudamire-esque minutes, their PER is going to be heavily tainted, which is why this statement is no better than the efficiency numbers quoted.

---

Al Horford is the most efficient rookie in the league.

That's the bottom line.

He has sour grapes by complaining that Horford has more minutes. If anything the fact that Horford can contribute so much is a POSITIVE.

And those sour grapes are negated by the fact when you look at entire league efficiency at C, Horford is 16th among guys who mostly have more minutes than him. 13/15 guys have more.

And Im sure not many are 4th option rookies with Tyronn Lue and Anthony Johnson most of the year.

[exodus]

So do you think efficiency points are a better measure than PER.

The argument started when Busboy said the Horford was the most efficient rookie. Since Horford plays more minutes than any rookie i know of other than Durant, and efficency points are based on total minutes and not per minute, it is no great feat for Horford to be leading rookies in efficiency points.

PER is a much better stat than efficiency because it is on a per minute basis. Obviously it is much more accurate assuming at least 15 minutes per game.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

The argument started when Busboy said the Horford was the most efficient rookie. Since Horford plays more minutes than any rookie i know of other than Durant, and efficency points are based on total minutes and not per minute, it is no great feat for Horford to be leading rookies in efficiency points.

PER is a much better stat than efficiency because it is on a per minute basis. Obviously it is much more accurate assuming at least 15 minutes per game.

---

PER is a stat you take seriously when players have a lot of minutes. Otherwise it can be absurdly skewed. Once again Horford having more minutes is not a NEGATIVE.

It's a postive that from day one Al Horford can start at C in the NBA.

And you continue to IGNORE the fact that he doesn't have more minutes than the other Cs being considering in the league wide efficiency stats where he is is favorably ranked especially given his circumstance.

13 of the 15 guys ahead of him have MORE MINUTES.

A rookie just outside the top 15 in efficiency in the entire NBA at his position despite being a 4th option. A rookie with PGs that aren't even decent backups. A rookie that is raw offensively with much room to grow in that department as well as a frame to put on at least 15+ pounds more weight.

And you are complaining that he can't effectively play the position despite all of those things.

Because you are acting like an old timer who thinks the game can't change

[exodus]

The reality is that we are getting badly outplayed at the point and at center.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL5.HTM

We already addressed the pg issue. We still need to do something at center.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

The reality is that we are getting badly outplayed at the point and at center.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL5.HTM

We already addressed the pg issue. We still need to do something at center.

---

Our STARTING C is not the problem.

Im sure those numbers get problematic when Pachulia enters the game.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

He is playing great there...He is playing at least AVERAGE (if not "above average") defense against other C's in the NBA, and is certainly out hustling them and is still productive on offense.

Josh Smith CANNOT play the 3 (which is what would have to happen if we traded for a 5 and moved Horf to the 4). He is at his best when he is playing PF...

Not to mention, in that scenario we only have Bibby and JJ that can actually shoot a jump shot on the floor.

Everything is just fine at all 5 starting positions right now...We just need to focus on getting a big body or two behind Horford.

Any trade that moves Smoove to the 3 is a bad one.

The only other big deal I would even consider doing would be Smoove for Biedrins and put Horford at the 4...However, I'd rather sit with what he have right now and see how it goes.

He is playing great against other PFs. Not so great against other Centers.

Check out Horford Yao? Horford Big Z? and while he wasn't immediately responsible for him, Horford Okafor.

Everybody knows that Horford is a Natural PF. When he plays that position he will do better than he does at the 5. So the real question is why is there such a push to keep him away from his best position?? Haven't we discovered that putting the Round pegs in the square Holes don't really work as well as putting the Square pegs in the square holes?

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Horford isn't a 5 and it's not fair to ask him to play every game at the 5 just because Smoove can't play the position he is better sized to play, although I dispute that he can't play the 3 because I think he can.

People are speculating about trades because of BK supposedly saying that he is working on a deal that would move Al back to the 4.

---

Of course he "can" play the 3 but the 4 is where Josh Smith is best on BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL.

Horford is only not a 5 if you are living in the last decade.

The majority of the Centers in the league aren't 7 feet 285+ pounds anymore

That's just it... You are thinking only one move when you should be thinking 5 or 6 moves... Let me help you here:

Didn't Dwight Howard just sign a longterm deal with Orlando?

For now, isn't Okafor still signed with Charlotte?

Doesn't Sheed still play in Detroit?

Heywood is still in Washington!!

The truth is BB Is that the whole league doesn't have to be lined up with 7 footers. Although, when you look at the league, you see that most playoff teams have one.

However, it's the teams that will play us in the Playoffs that matter. And for those teams, most of them have 7 footers who do well against Horf.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Show me one column written by anyone, or any post by a non-Hawks fan, who thinks Horford is best used as a full time center.

Just one.

---

Of course Horford would be a better 4 than a 5...but that doesn't mean he can't be a damn solid 5 since we already have a good 4.

JDU, did you really think about this...

You saying because our tweener forward is better suited at Pf because we have a log jam at Sf.. Horford is better off playing a position that he's not best suited for!

I wonder...do you move Karl Malone to C because you pick up AK-47 who can play PF??

[PureGreatness]

it really doesn't matter to me. if we become a more uptempo team then it really doesnt matter what position smoove, Al, or anybody play.